Karen Redman

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will vote against this motion.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting against the motion.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting against the motion.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting no.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting no.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting no.

[Canada's Clean Air Act, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for engaging in this discourse and I want to tell him that Kyoto was a first step, and the Montreal meeting that I was talking about which happened a year ago was what came after Kyoto. We do have to have meaningful targets. I know that he is very engaged in what he thinks is this regulatory regime that he proposes this clean air act has, but I would point out to him that all of those abilities currently exist under the CEPA legislation which we brought in, in 1999.

I was parliamentary secretary to the minister of the environment during the era that we ratified Kyoto and it got much discussion. I would like to point out to him that global warming and greenhouse gas emissions do not buy a visa when they cross an international geopolitical boundary and it is absolutely essential that we do this in a concerted effort with all of the countries in the UN.

I would also like to point out to my hon. friend that it was his government that cancelled the $338 million flow of revenue that was going to go to Ontario to help it close down its coal-fired electricity plants. It is his government that is contributing to bad habits instead of looking forward with concrete targets that kick in well before 2050, which is its plan, and empowers Canadians and other levels of government to make sure that good environmental policy is good economical policy. To turn our backs on international obligations such as Kyoto is merely making us an embarrassment to the international community and is very regressive.

Canadians get climate change and they are more than willing to participate.

[Canada's Clean Air Act, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to have the opportunity to rise and debate this minority government's proposed clean air act.

Canadians want a healthy, cleaner environment. We all share the responsibility to move toward a more sustainable environment. Corporations, households, governments and individuals all have a role to play in combating global warming.

Canada's economic and environmental futures are entwined. There are challenges as well as opportunities in addressing climate change.

I had been hoping that the Conservative government would present an aggressive plan to combat global climate change. I am sadly disappointed with the clean air act that we see before us today.

The minority Conservative government's clean air act is a step backward for Canada's response to the global climate change crisis. The proposed legislation contains no immediate targets. It does not give the federal government any more power than it already has to fight global warming and air pollution.

Since the arrival of this Conservative minority government, we have seen Canada fall far behind. We have gone from being a leader of international efforts to fight climate change to our current status, that of an international embarrassment.

We have a Minister of the Environment who has no interest in participating in an international response to climate change. We have a minority government that slashes effective energy reduction initiatives. The government proposes legislation that simply does nothing to address climate change.

The findings of the Stern report in the United Kingdom suggests that immediate, coordinated international action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is in the best economic interest of the global society.

The Royal Bank's former chief economist has warned that the world faces a crisis on par with the two world wars and the Great Depression if greenhouse gas emissions are not radically reduced in the next 10 to 15 years. I would point out that if we do the math that is before 2050 as the government's plan would have us look at.

The previous Liberal government had it right on the environment. For Canada to regain credibility in the environmental portfolio, we must start meeting our Kyoto targets and commit to medium and long term emission reductions.

I was proud to be part of the Liberal government when Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol. Canada has a responsibility to live up to its undertakings to the international community on how we as an international player respond to climate change. Our actions on the environment are our legacy for future generations. Good climate change policy will contribute to a better quality of life and better health for Canadians for today and future generations.

Canadians overwhelmingly support actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, they expect all sectors of our economy, governments, industry and consumers, to take an active part in that process.

As well as finding support across the global community, the Kyoto protocol has the support of over 70% of Canadians. These 70% of Canadians get global warming and climate change, but not the Conservative government.

Climate change represents the worst ecological threat that humanity faces. Climate change is a global problem. As a global problem, international responses are the only way to address it effectively.

We can think of many examples of the impact of climate change. Winters are growing milder, summers are getting hotter and more severe, there is water where before there used to be ice, and in our far north the permafrost is thawing and releasing methane gas into the atmosphere, accelerating climate change south.

As weather patterns change, farmers are forced to re-evaluate what they can successfully grow and harvest. Storms, forest fires and infestations are already testing our capacity to respond and recover.

In December 2005 Canada, led by our hon. leader of the official opposition, hosted the historic United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal. At that meeting, over 180 countries created the Montreal action plan on climate change.

With Canadian leadership, this conference decided to launch a dialogue on long term cooperative action to address climate change by enhancing the implementation of the Kyoto protocol and of the convention. This was a major victory for the global community.

National governments would now have forums in which to exchange experiences, analyze strategic approaches, and to free our imaginations to find further innovative solutions to this challenge.

Kyoto takes the first step in engaging Canada's efforts to become more efficient and sustainable. Kyoto represents the only international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to reverse climate change. The proposed clean air act ignores our Kyoto commitments.

The defining clause of climate change is human activity. It is how we produce and use energy. Our economies and our societies cannot sustain our current patterns of consumption. Climate change demands action. That action is not found in this proposed clean air act.

Smog and climate change are two separate problems. The Conservative government suggests that this legislation, the clean air act, focuses on clean air. However, Canada's clean air strategy 2000 already exists through an umbrella environmental legislation called the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, that was passed in 1999 by the Liberals.

The Conservatives also say that their plan will talk about bringing in new environmental regulations. Under CEPA, there already exists the flexibility to introduce the required regulations.

The proposed clean air act does not take any action to combat climate change caused by greenhouse gases. We cannot cut corners when it comes to the air that we breathe. Canadians are ready, willing and able to work toward a greener world.

In my constituency, and right across the Waterloo region, the EnerGuide program for houses was extremely successful. It was administered by the residential energy efficiency project. The EnerGuide program led to 2,400 tonnes of CO₂ reductions annually, with an estimated $700,000 in energy savings every year for participating homeowners, and a further $3 million to $5 million in local spending on building materials and labour; all of this for $535,000 in federal grants to a program for those who participated in the Waterloo region.

This legislation does nothing to engage Canadians in environmental action and it does nothing to engage Canada in the international efforts to respond to climate change.

This piece of legislation is being referred to a legislative committee before second reading. I can only hope that it takes a transformative change during this committee process because it falls woefully short and is inadequate to what Canadians expect of their government, and what the international community expects of Canada.

[Status of Women, November 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this week the Liberal women's caucus released “The Pink Book”. This groundbreaking policy document addresses several issues that impact women and discusses the challenges that they face in their daily lives. It focuses on modern, forward thinking approaches to these issues.

We in politics, on this side of the House at least, often say that more women are needed in the House, but when Canadian women hear the foreign affairs minister continue to make degrading remarks that go unpunished, do we blame them for simply saying no thanks?

[Minister of Foreign Affairs, November 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is becoming an international embarrassment at the hands of the Conservative government and it is small wonder. Once again, the foreign affairs minister has shown that he does not know the meaning of diplomacy.

First, he insinuated that a female member of the House was his dog. Several of us heard him. Last night he went further and claimed on television “when you sleep with dogs, you get fleas”. We all know what he was getting at.

When will the foreign affairs minister stop embarrassing all Canadians with this offensive behaviour?