House of Commons photo

Track David

Your Say

Elsewhere

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word is report.

Liberal MP for Ottawa South (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2021, with 49% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Business of Supply February 1st, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I intend to share my time this afternoon with the hon. member for Halifax West.

Clearly, today in the House we, as parliamentarians, are confronted by the 21st century challenge: climate change.

I am proud to have been elected to keep the government accountable on the environment and to defend the Kyoto treaty. It is one of the things I ran on and it is one of the reasons I ran at all.

I have had the great privilege, over the last 20 years, of working in the area of environment and energy and I am very privileged now to have been named by the official Leader of the Opposition as the environment critic and, in a sense, I have come full circle.

I have been asking the government for a full year now a simple question: Will it table its plan to fight climate change? I have asked that question repeatedly and I have yet to receive an answer. Unless the government can show Canadians otherwise, now 12 months into a term, there is only one reasonable conclusion for Canadians to draw: there is no plan. The government is making it up as it goes along. It is, as I like to say, jumping from ice flow to ice flow, announcing programs, handing out cheques and organizing photo ops.

However, worse than that, it is now clear, after questioning yesterday, when 18 times in a row the Prime Minister was asked to clarify his views on climate change, which he campaigned against for 10 full years before becoming Prime Minister, including as Leader of the Opposition, whether his views were correct then or whether his views are correct now, and he refused, in every instance, to answer the question. It is now clear that it is worse than the fact that there is no plan. There is no vision from the government and no vision from the Prime Minister.

The Conservative platform almost did not mention the environment, except for a made in Canada plan. This, while the Minister of the Environment flies off today to Paris to do damage control at the intergovernmental panel on climate change meeting. I suppose in France he will be finding his made in Canada plan.

The federal government did not mention environment in its recent economic update. It was barely mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. The made in Canada plan right here in Ottawa was a euphemism for taking Canada out of the Kyoto treaty, something that has been the project of the Prime Minister's for a long time.

Canadians are asking what the made in Canada plan included. They want some details. As I said, it was not in the Speech from the Throne.

In late February, the former minister of the environment told The Globe and Mail, “There is an action plan that we are going to move on very quickly”. February became March and then April. The Conservatives introduced a budget that froze or cut every major climate change initiative that our government had put in place, to the tune of $5.6 billion. Bureaucrats were told to take every reference to Kyoto off every government website, including our archives.

By October, environmental groups were beginning to think nothing would happen. The former minister said, “All targets, whether short, medium or long term, will be consulted with industry, provinces and territories”. Meanwhile, our party was pointing out that there was no need for new legislation. Every legislative power that the government needs is at its disposal under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. All the government needs is conviction, vision and political will.

Senior officials were sent to deliberately undermine Kyoto, while we, as a nation state, were chairing the international talks. Now we see a second Minister of the Environment in the young government, given that the first minister had taken too many bullets already for the Prime Minister and the PMO.

Environment itself is not one of the top five priorities. It was not in the Speech from the Throne. It was slashed from the budget and was not in the fiscal update. Now we have a so-called clean air act. Knowing full well that it does not need any more legislative authority than that which it already possesses, the government creates a smokescreen, smoke and mirrors, photo ops.

We had draft regulations in place. We had negotiated these and had achieved targets with the large final emitters before we were defeated. The so-called clean air act was met with condemnation from every quarter in the country.

A new Minister of the Environment has been appointed and now he is re-gifting core Liberal programs. First, he brings back rebates for renovations that make homes energy efficient but he leaves out the part of the program that makes it affordable for low income Canadians, particularly our seniors, when it is the wish of all parliamentarians that seniors can reside in their homes independently and with dignity as they grow old in, usually, their older homes.

Low income Canadians spend 13% of their income on energy, compared with 4% paid by average households. Low income Canadians are being left out in the cold.

Second, a year later the minister also brings back funding for wind power and renewable energy, having first spuriously stated that it was wasteful spending and that it was not achieving its targets. This is cloak and dagger, behind the scenes, media manipulation where the minister disgracefully resurrects and re-gifts the programs which he had described only weeks earlier as wasteful spending.

Why were these programs ever cut? If Canadians believe the government when it described the programs as wasteful spending, then why were these programs brought back exactly as is?

Third, the government has come back to the table on clean energy technology but the year of uncertainty has had a damaging effect on young Canadian companies. Investors know which party did not make the environment one of its top five priorities and they are not flocking back to put their money in solid Canadian technologies that they were investing in 18 months ago which need a real federal commitment to turn the corner and take off worldwide. Our green industries are being left out in the cold.

Yesterday, our party held the Prime Minister to account for his radical anti-Kyoto campaign when he was leader of the opposition. In that letter he said that Kyoto was a “dangerous and destructive scheme”. He went on to say “we will do everything we can to stop Kyoto”, including, apparently, a taxpayer subsidized and disgraceful PR blitz against a proven environmental leader, the Leader of the Opposition.

I do not think Canadians buy that the Prime Minister or the government has turned over a new leaf. Just days before Christmas, in the foyer of this building, he was still talking about so-called greenhouse gases. Before that, he was saying that we must redirect federal spending aimed at fulfilling the terms of the increasingly irrelevant Kyoto protocol. He clearly believed that the Liberal government was acting to fight climate change because he was so fiercely opposed to it.

Another member of cabinet with us here today, the Minister of Public Safety, mocked the science of climate change just a few short months ago.

Business of Supply February 1st, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I will shift gears from the hyperbole and to a certain extent the histrionics and move to some substantive questions for the member. I will like to ask the member a couple of pointed questions.

If in fact the NDP and its leader were so firmly committed to immediate action, why did they not work with the Liberal Party and the official leader of the opposition at the time to compel the minority government to regulate greenhouse gases under the Canadian Environment Protection Act, all powers of which the new government possesses? In fact, as a reminder for Canadians, our government actually amended the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, against the wishes of the Conservative Party, the new minority government, to include greenhouse gases as toxic substances under the Canadian Environment Protection Act.

Could he help us understand that?

Second, I put four pointed questions to the parliamentary secretary for the environment awhile ago. He was incapable of or refused to answer any of the four. He made a statement, which was quite astonishing, that it was the first government in the world to move to regulate greenhouse gases. Could the member help us understand what the European Union has been doing for 12 years?

Business of Supply February 1st, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on some of the comments made by the parliamentary secretary in his speech and pose a couple of pointed questions in a timely fashion.

First, could the parliamentary secretary let the House and Canadians know what the status of European Union regulations is on regulating large final emitters? He claims that his government is the only government to have done so or to have projected to do so.

Second, could he tell us how much the international emissions trading system will be worth when it is fully operational under the Kyoto protocol?

Third, will the government introduce a cap and trade system or not to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction targets?

Fourth, could he help Canadians understand why his government's own officials in Environment Canada and Finance Canada recommended to the government that it not bring in a tax deductible transit pass because the economics simply were not there to justify it?

Business of Supply February 1st, 2007

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to participate in this debate. I want to commend our leader of the official opposition for an extraordinary speech in which he has laid bare for Canadians the actual conduct of the new minority government. I want to pick up on a few of the points made by the Minister of the Environment.

Chiefly, I would like to go to the theme of misrepresentation. The minister has misrepresented yet again, as Ronald Reagan used to say, “here he goes again”. There they go again. The Conservatives misrepresentation game is something that Canadians are catching onto, and I would recommend that the Minister of the Environment get a new writer. For example, let me quote from the commissioner of the environment's report of 2006. She writes:

Even if the measures contained in the previous government's 2005 plan had been fully implemented, it is difficult to say whether the projected emission reductions would have been enough to meet our Kyoto obligations.

The minister should give the full quote and not misrepresent the facts to Canadians.

He speaks about regulating through CEPA. He talks about us, as a government, not having regulated through CEPA. Is the minister aware of the fact that the Kyoto protocol became international law in 2005?

Another question for the minister is this. Is it true the minister is flying to France tomorrow to find his made in Canada solution?

I have another question for the minister. The Prime Minister was asked 18 times in a row yesterday if he was misleading Canadians over the past 10 years, or was he misleading Canadians on his new-found position on climate change.

Business of Supply February 1st, 2007

A made in Canada solution?

Points of Order January 31st, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister of the Environment for his extensive detailed research into my background. I thank him very much.

I would remind him on this point of order that the kind of conduct he is pursuing is conduct unbecoming of a Minister of the Environment. He should understand that Canadians are watching; his constituents and my constituents are watching. This does not advance the cause of climate change one iota. In fact, what the Minister of the Environment should do is prevail upon his boss, the Prime Minister, to answer the question.

Points of Order January 31st, 2007

Mr. Speaker, during question period the Prime Minister was asked 18 times whether he was misleading Canadians then or misleading them now on climate change. In answering those questions the Minister of the Environment continued misleading the House of Commons and Canadians by taking out of context comments I have made in the past as a professional. This is precisely the kind of conduct that Canadians have come to count on from the new government.

I would ask the Minister of the Environment to table the documents. I would ask all Canadians to understand these comments were taken out of context.

I would ask the Prime Minister again to answer the question as to whether he was misleading Canadians then or whether he is misleading them now.

The Environment January 29th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, it looks as though the Minister of Natural Resources is trying to rebuild his image. However, Canadians will remember that it is this same minister who abolished the EnerGuide program and who is now proposing a watered down version. It is this same minister who also abolished the incentives to produce wind energy and who is now coming up with a weaker version of the program.

When will the minister stop being arrogant and admit that he was wrong to abolish all these programs last spring?

The Environment January 29th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been demanding action from the government over here for at least a year. It is now clear that the Prime Minister did not have the political will to do anything. He was even prepared to sacrifice his first Minister of the Environment to disguise his own failures. It is pathetic.

Thanks to the former Liberal government, the new Minister of the Environment has every tool he could conceivably want at his disposal to fight climate change. Will the minister act now and not wait for a so-called clean air act and declare greenhouse gases to be toxic and strictly cap all of these emissions in Canada immediately?

RCMP Commissioner December 8th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, the commissioner's original testimony did not hold water and each witness who came to the committee subsequently poked more holes in it. The commissioner and the committee knew there were problems, but what Canadians are concerned about is why the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety did not.

Does the Prime Minister, a practising information czar, really expect Canadians to believe he knew nothing of this matter until Monday of this week? How is it that this one particular file slipped through his iron grip, and why is he now desperately distancing himself from it?