Bryon Wilfert

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, for the record, the government supports the amendment.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that at all. This amendment would block Canada out of this market based emissions trading system. That is one of the fundamental tenets of the protocol. It is one of the fundamental things that we have said. Other countries are doing the same thing.

If there are members of the House who hold a different view, and that seems to be the case, because they do not want Canada to fulfill its international obligations and they do not want Canada to be part of this, then they can vote for that amendment. We have said that we will do as much as we can in cooperation with industries in Canada to deal with our emissions problem.

However, if we need to be part of that international system, this amendment would block us. I would not want to be in that situation. I cannot foretell the future any more than that member can.

We clearly do not support this amendment because it is not good for Canada. It is not good for the environment and it would not respect, in my view, the international obligations that the House and the government have signed on to.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am not really clear. I am disappointed in this member because I have a lot of respect for him and I do not understand.

The member should know that the climate change plan released by the government on April 13 is the most aggressive plan in the G-7. We have a plan to deal with the issue of climate change but not climate change alone. We are not an island. We have to work with other countries.

The seven most polluted cities in the world are in China. Does the member somehow feel that those emissions are going to stay there and will not drift over here? I know that in the city of Toronto we are now getting particles from the Sahara desert.

This is not where walls are put up. Clearly, this is a problem. If we can assist and if Canadian companies have an opportunity to help reduce these emissions in China, India or anywhere else to help people breath better and to reduce emissions around the world, then I think that is a good idea.

I am not clear on what moneys the member is talking about. Clearly, Canadian technology is going to be used to further this. There is a real demand in the world for Canadian technology, whether it is in Japan, China, India or the Philippines. Whether it is dealing with polluted waters in Bangkok or air pollution issues in Seoul, Korea, the fact is that we have the technology.

It goes back to the premise that if we do not believe in climate change, we will think of all sorts of bogeymen to say why we should not do it. On the one hand, we have a very aggressive plan. The opposition does not want us to do some of the things that make that plan operable. It is good for Canadians and it is good for citizens of the world.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, for a member who was part of a government that left us a $42.5 billion deficit, I do not think we need to take any lessons on how to invest and spend money.

Specifically, we are the government that has had eight balanced budgets or better and the only G-7 state paying off the national debt. Therefore, when it comes to money, I would suggest that is a topic the member may want to debate with me at another time.

On this particular issue, let us get it clear. Our first priority is to reduce emissions in Canada. However the member should know, if he has read the Kyoto protocol and understands it, that this is a global treaty. Canada fought hard to have a market based emissions trading system and in fact if the amendment were to go forth it would block Canada out of an international trading system. That makes absolutely no sense.

I agree with my colleague from Yukon. This is an issue that transcends borders. Although our primary concern is in Canada, the issue is that Canadian companies, which are leaders in the areas of clean air, clean water and of dealing with issues that affect all countries, will have the opportunity to work abroad. All our partners in the Kyoto protocol system are buying international credits. I therefore am not quite sure what the member does not understand.

Our priority is Canada. However, if in fact they cannot all be met within Canada, we will be able to deal with it in the trading system internationally. In terms of the actual emissions, they must be verifiable and they must be real. There is no hot air from Russia, no hot air from the Conservatives and no hot air from anyone. We are not buying hot air. They must be verifiable and they must conform to Kyoto. In other words, those have to be real reductions, which is what we have said all along.

I am not quite sure why these amendments were put forth because we are simply doing what all the other countries are doing in terms of the treaty. We are saying that it is a global problem and if it is a global problem we need to have the global instruments and, in this case, we obviously are prepared to act domestically. If there is a need internationally we will have that opportunity. We will not cut ourselves off while other countries will have that opportunity.

On the one hand the party opposite complains that it does not believe in Kyoto, that it does not even believe in climate change and that it does not believe there is a real problem and if there is it will not give us the tools to deal with the problem. It then will say that we could not solve the problem but it will because it did not give us all the options.

I do not think any good general goes into any battle and precludes certain options. We are very clear Kyoto compliant in terms of those emissions. This is something that Canadian companies support because companies in the green technology field, of which Canada is a leader, will have an opportunity. Why would we want to freeze out Canadian companies in the international system? Why would we not want to do that? Why would we not support that?

We are not spending money abroad. I really think the member has to rethink what it is he is asking because in this case it would not comply with the others. It does not assist Canadian companies and it certainly does not help on the issue of climate change globally.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I guess we need to start with the premise that the member does not believe in climate change because if he did he would know that this is an international based system. It is part of what all the signatories to the Kyoto protocol have supported and it will support Canadian technology abroad.

If the member really believes in supporting green Canadian technology he would obviously support this. He would support reducing emissions in China, in India or anywhere else.

How can the member stand in his place and suggest that somehow this will only be for emissions in Canada, when climate change is a global issue not just a Canadian issue? Does he not understand the role that Canadian companies would play in this global effort to reduce emissions?

[National Parks, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today during Canadian Environment Week, I congratulate the Minister of the Environment for acting to enhance the ecological health of our system of national parks.

Canada's national parks are places of natural beauty, symbols of our heritage and identity. By protecting and celebrating this natural heritage, we provide tangible environmental, economic and cultural benefits for ourselves and for generations to come. We ensure that representative examples of Canada's unique ecosystems and biodiversity survive for all time.

Proper stewardship of Canada's national parks is fundamental to our sustainable environment. It provides Canadians with enjoyment, educational opportunities and a sense of environmental stewardship. By acting to improve the ecological health of Canada's national parks, the minister has set an example for others to follow.

[Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear. The government supports and continues to support tax reductions. We had the largest personal income tax cuts in Canadian history of $100 billion over five years. I heard a member over there earlier talk about 10 years, but it is five years.

Bill C-43 includes tax cuts for small and medium business. If the member's party votes against Bill C-48, then those reductions will not be there. On the corporate side, the member well knows that he will have an opportunity after this evening to continue to support the government when legislation is introduced on the corporate tax side.

If the member wants to support tax cuts generally, he has to vote for both Bill C-43 and Bill C-48. If the opportunity arises, he will be able to deal with the corporate issue.

[Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the party across the way originally supported the budget. I assume at that time the hon. member supported more money for the environment, which is in Bill C-43 and Bill C-48. I assume at the time the member across the way supported more money for affordable housing. I assume he supported assistance for Canadians in terms of affordable housing, which was very important. We announced that. It is an enhancement within a strong fiscal framework. I am surprised that the member's party would say that it would support Bill C-43 tonight, but not to enhancing it, making something even better.

We said from the beginning in the House that the government was prepared to work with other parties to ensure that we had good government for Canadians. We worked with the NDP and now have a budget which Canadians support even more so because it is fiscally responsible and is a good investment.

If the hon. member is going to stand up tonight and say that he supports the environment so he will vote for Bill C-43, then I applaud him. However I presume the member is then going to stand up on Bill C-48 and say that he cannot support it because it has another $900 million for public transit, for wind power, et cetera. The member cannot have it both ways. He cannot support one part of the budget but not the other part, because obviously the government would fall.

I hope the member will reflect and realize that if he really supports these good investments, he will have to support them across the board. We are committed both in terms of small and medium tax cuts, which is in Bill C-43. The minister has made it very clear in the legislation dealing with corporate taxes.

[Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 19th, 2005]

In the G-7 and in the world. We have a plan for Canadians to deal with the issue of climate change.

There are some in the House, unfortunately, who do not believe the ice age occurred and they do not believe that climate change is a problem. We on this side are realistic. We know there is a problem. We know that Canada must take an active leadership role. This country and the Minister of the Environment are doing that.

Bill C-48 proposes a further $900 million for further environmental measures focusing primarily on public transit and a low income energy retrofit program. This investment builds on the government's continued focus on the environment, including the measures contained in budget 2005, which is the greenest budget in Canadian history.

Who could vote against the greenest budget in Canadian history? If members really believe in climate change, if they really believe that the environment is important to Canadians, they will make a difference tonight when they vote for Bill C-48. And if they do not, any rhetoric I hear on that side is simply that.

In the budget there is $1 billion over five years for the clean fund, the climate fund. This is very important. It will encourage cost-effective projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is very important. We have the fiscal instruments to move forward on climate change.

There is $250 million in the budget to create a partnership fund for projects that are best achieved through cooperation between the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments. We will work in partnership. Again, who could argue against working in partnership?

In the budget there is $225 million over five years to quadruple the number of homes retrofitted under the EnerGuide for houses retrofit incentive program.

There is $200 million over five years to further stimulate the use of wind power. We talk about alternate energy sources. Again, here is an opportunity for members to stand in their places tonight and vote for it.

I could go on highlighting how important Bill C-48 is, but I know hon. members and all Canadians know it is important. Tonight we will demonstrate that leadership.

[Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on Bill C-48, particularly given the fact that the government has had eight balanced budgets or better. Canada is the only G-7 state paying off its national debt. We have been able to do that because of good fiscal management. That is what has characterized the government and its ability to invest in the social priorities of Canadians.

Clearly the budget Bill C-48 is important in terms of ensuring that the social foundations which are key to Canada's identity are enhanced. They are enhanced in Bill C-48. This is a natural extension of the initiatives the government has pursued over the last few years. It is clear that the priorities of Canadians are to ensure that we have affordable housing, post-secondary education, a good environment and foreign aid. That is what the budget in particular and the bill deal with.

We are investing in a way that ensures we do not in any way affect the financial gains that we have made as a nation over the years. We will never go back into a deficit. That has been a commitment of the government. At the same time, it is because we have managed well that we are able to make these important investments for Canadian families, cities and communities. That is extremely important in terms of the fiscal foundation.

The government is committed to spending $4.6 billion on these investments which will be financed through fiscal reserves that are in excess of $2 billion in 2005-06 and in 2006-07. A guarantee of $4 billion over these two years will be committed to pay down the national debt. This is extremely important. We are the envy of the western world. We are the envy of those whose major concern is how to deal with balancing the books. In our case, we have the ability not only to pay down the debt but also to make these important investments.

One of the areas is affordable housing. The bill proposes $1.6 billion for affordable housing. It is very important to note that this is not tied to matching funds from the provinces. It also includes aboriginal housing. This builds on government investments totalling $2 billion in the homeless and affordable housing over recent years.

In 1999 the government launched the three year national homelessness initiative. A key element of this was the supporting communities partnership initiative which provided $305 million for local community groups to offer support services and facilities for the homeless.

Budget 2003 provided a three year extension of that initiative at $135 million. Furthermore, budget 2001 announced $680 million over five years for the affordable housing initiative to help stimulate the creation of more affordable units. Bilateral cost sharing agreements were subsequently signed with all 13 jurisdictions in Canada. A top-up of $320 million over five years was announced in budget 2003, bringing the total federal investment in affordable housing to $1 billion over six years.

The government continued to do more in budget 2003. It announced a three year renewal of the government's housing renovation programs at a cost of $128 million a year.

In addition, the government currently spends $1.9 billion per year in support of existing social housing units. Who could be against that? It is an investment for Canadians. Clearly when members look at themselves in the mirror, they will realize that this is important for Canadians as a foundation. Social housing has played an important role in Canada. I cannot believe anyone would contemplate voting against it.

The bill also provides $1.5 billion to increase accessibility to post-secondary education. We have heard a lot in the House about the needs of students. Although the Government of Canada does not deal with the issue of tuition, it can, and in the bill does, assist students who come out of university having acquired significant debts, particularly low income families. As well there is training money to supplement labour market agreements.

Since balancing the budget, the government has provided significant new funding in support of post-secondary education through increased transfer support to provinces and territories and increased direct support to students and universities. We are ensuring that future generations will be able to come out of university in much better financial shape. I cannot believe that anyone in the House would not support assistance for students.

The government continues to transfer support for post-secondary education through the Canada social transfer, a block transfer to provinces and territories. Each province and territory is responsible for allocating federal support according to its respective priorities within that jurisdiction regarding post-secondary education and other social programs.

Overall, the Canada social transfer will provide $15.5 billion in 2005-06 and more than $8 billion in legislated cash levels and $7 billion in tax points. In addition, the Government of Canada provides about $5 billion annually in direct support for post-secondary education, and among other things, helps families save for their children's education.

When we look at that, we really wonder how anyone could not support that kind of assistance for students anywhere in this country. I would be really surprised to see any member stand up and have the audacity to say that he or she cannot support students. Why would members not support students? Why would they not be investing in our future?

When it comes to the environment, the government has been a leader. The Minister of the Environment, along with the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Industry, unveiled the most aggressive climate change plan in the G-7.