House of Commons Hansard #56 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was post.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Speaker, it is not just the costs that are outrageous, but also the summit agenda.
Leaders the world over, including the Secretary-General of the UN, are calling on us to make the environment and climate change priority agenda items at the G20 and G8, but the Conservatives prefer to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the views of others.
How can they justify spending so much money when they are ignoring the major issues on the international stage?
Peter Kent ConservativeMinister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)
Mr. Speaker, first, let me say that world leadership does come with some inconvenience and some cost, but Canada is proud to have assumed the presidency and to host the G8 and the G20.
We will host the G8 Muskoka summit, which will be followed historically by the G20 in Toronto.
It is a full agenda. It is an agenda that has been approved by the other participating countries, and we look forward to hosting a historic summit.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Speaker, no wonder the Conservatives do not want to talk about climate change at these meetings. They missed the mark on emissions reductions even worse than the billion-dollar G8 boondoggle.
A new Environment Canada report said that the Conservatives overestimated by 10 times the greenhouse gas reductions since they came to office. Not only that, there is zero oversight on a $1.5 billion climate change trust fund they dumped on the provinces.
Is there $1 billion anywhere that the government has under control?
Mark Warawa ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, what are the facts? The facts are that for the first time in Canada, under this government, greenhouse gas emissions have stabilized and are going down. How much are they going down? They are going down by 2.1%. What happened under the previous Liberal government? The Liberals signed Kyoto and emissions skyrocketed to 26% above their commitments.
Now the opposition is pushing the NDP's Bill C-311 publicity stunt, which would throw Canada back into recession.
They did not get it done. We are getting it done.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives unveiled their plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the national round table on the environment, the Pembina Institute, Greenpeace and the Bloc Québécois criticized them for overestimating the impact their measures would have. We now have proof of how wrong they were since the 5 million tonne reduction in emissions for 2010 is 10 times lower than the 57 million tonnes the government had announced.
Will the government admit that it never intended to have a real plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because it is in fact working for the oil companies?
Mark Warawa ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, that is not true. Canadians are proud of the balanced action that this government is taking on the economy and jobs.
In the last three years, this government has negotiated the Copenhagen accord, harmonized our environmental targets with the Obama administration, introduced tailpipe emission standards for cars and light trucks, announced emission regulations for 15 categories of heavy trucks, and I could go on and on.
Emissions are coming down under this government. We are getting it done. What do those members not understand about that?
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the fossil awards the Government of Canada won in Copenhagen, there is more evidence of the Conservatives' lack of interest in fighting climate change. In 2012, five years after the announcement of their so-called plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the plan will have had no significant impact on the increase in those emissions.
Do the Conservatives realize that their plan is just a sham, smoke and mirrors, and that it is high time that Canada came up with a real plan to meet its international commitments? Respect your international commitments.
Mark Warawa ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, speaking of smoke and mirrors, I do not know what the member is smoking.
Emissions are going down. They have gone down 2.1% already. Under the previous Liberal government, with the support of the Bloc, emissions went up. That is not what Canadians want. That is not what the climate needs. We need emissions to go down. We have a target of 17% by 2020. It is aggressive. It is in harmony with the Obama administration in the United States.
We are getting it done. What do they not understand about that?
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, having read a report on climate change, we now understand why this government is making every effort to avoid discussing climate change at the G8 and G20 summits. In 2012, according to recent federal forecasts, Canada will exceed the Kyoto target by 30%. Canada is an environmental delinquent.
When will this government, a climate change denier, recognize that by pitting the economy against the environment it is compromising Quebec's sustainable economic growth?
Mark Warawa ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, who does not believe in climate change? Maybe a party that voted against $6.7 billion in green infrastructure since 2005. Maybe a party that voted against $190 million for new funding for a clean and more sustainable environment.
This government is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is already happening. Emissions have dropped 2.1%. We have aggressive targets.
We are getting it done. I hope that member will help us.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the scientific consensus is clear. To avoid catastrophe, we must hold the increase in global temperature below two degrees, which requires a 25% to 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990. Reaching these objectives requires a co-ordinated, credible and effective plan.
To control the climate crisis, does the government intend to make the environment a priority at the G8 and G20 meetings, in order to set the stage for the Cancun summit, which is quickly approaching?
Mark Warawa ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, this government is not just making the environment a priority at an international conference, it has always been a priority. We are getting it done.
What else have we been doing? We have allocated $100 million for the next generation renewable power initiative and an additional $80 million for the eco-energy retrofit homes program.
The fact is that since we became government the national parks system has increased by 30%. That is huge.
We are committed to a clean environment.
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, Conservative confusion reigns over our mission in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister will not come clean on Canada's role in Afghanistan after the full withdrawal post-2011. His parliamentary secretaries and some Liberals are calling for an extension, instead of finding a path to stability and peace.
I will ask a very simple question. What is the government's plan post-2011 in Afghanistan?
Peter Kent ConservativeMinister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)
Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no confusion on this side of the House about our position in Afghanistan. We have made it eminently clear that this government will respect the parliamentary resolution of 2008 and cease our military mission to Afghanistan in 2011. It will become a civilian and a development mission.
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, without a plan, confusion will continue to reign. What we heard is no plan for the future.
The government should support negotiations and reconciliation in Afghanistan, and the neighbourhood. The government should be there to ensure those commitments are solid. We have not heard those commitments. There have been no dollars put on the table and no serious commitments.
We need to have a debate in this House of Commons on what is going to happen post-2011. We need to clear up the confusion.
Will the government join us in asking for all parliamentarians to have a debate in this House on Afghanistan post-2011?
Peter Kent ConservativeMinister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)
Mr. Speaker, let me very clear. For the past several months, despite foot dragging by members of the Afghan committee, we have been putting forward motions to consider the post-2011 mission in Afghanistan. We urge opposition members of the committee to participate and to forward their suggestions to Parliament.
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I did not know Parliament was a suggestion box.
The lack of commitment to peace and human rights is not limited just to Afghanistan. We learned today the Conservatives have cut funding for human rights and protection of civilians under the global peace and security fund from $1.1 million down to a paltry $30,000.
Why is the current government cutting support for peace and human rights at a time when it is so fundamentally needed?
Peter Kent ConservativeMinister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)
Mr. Speaker, once again, my colleague has his facts wrong. I come back again to his suggestion that members of the Afghan committee should accept the motion put by the government to consider exactly and to discuss and debate the post-2011 mission, and to forward those suggestions to the government.
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Mr. Speaker, the people of Toronto are known for their hospitality, but the current government has taken advantage of the goodwill of Torontonians. By refusing to commit to paying for protest-related property damage, the federal government is acting more like an unruly house guest than a responsible senior government.
Why can the government find $1 billion to ensure its G8 and G20 photo op goes off smoothly, but cannot find the money to protect the businesses and ratepayers of Toronto from property damage?
Dave MacKenzie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, in fact, this government is taking its responsibilities seriously. That is why we do have the security that is in place in the city of Toronto to host this summit.
I think if the member was watching the press, she would see the police forces that are going to be involved in that were actively out yesterday, indicating to the public just what is going to happen in the city of Toronto.
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Mr. Speaker, residents and businesses in the city of Toronto are facing significant costs because of the G20 summit. Despite its out-of-control summit spending, the current government has refused to fairly compensate the people of Toronto, again, for things such as lost tourism revenue, city staff time, and property damage.
Does Toronto have to start building gazebos on Front Street, or steamboats to nowhere, to get fair treatment from the Conservative government?
Peter Kent ConservativeMinister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)
Mr. Speaker, as this House has been informed a number of time of times in recent weeks, the Government of Canada will in fact consider any costs associated with loss of business during the G20 summit.
At the same time, the expenses which will cover security precautions during the G20 summit are intended to prevent the damage which the hon. member anticipates.
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, they can deny it all they want, but Canadians are not blind. They see what the Conservatives are up to and they are outraged.
Let the Conservatives explain why they are asking taxpayers to pay $100,000 for a gazebo located 100 km from the site.
Why are they paying $400,000 for a 1910 steamboat that will not even be in the water during the summit?
Why are they wasting Canadians' money?
Tony Clement ConservativeMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, the opposition Liberals seem to have steamboats on their minds.
The fact of the matter is, and let me state this for the record without fear of contradiction, that the steamboat is not being restored as the result of any G8 funding whatsoever.
They are wrong. Their research is wrong. They do not know what they are talking about. That is why they are in the opposition.
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, $400,000 for a steamboat in the riding of the ShamWow minister is scandalous but there is worse: $275,000 in public money for washrooms and a stage located 20 km from the meeting site.
That will be a long walk to get to the washrooms. Everyone will miss the official photo this time.
Except for the Prime Minister's director of communications who can hide out there to avoid the bailiffs, who is going to use these washrooms?