Dick Harris

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

We are back in the 1930s. Pat, tell her this is 2010.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, while the member attempts to convince Canadians that the numbers he is using are comparative to the actual cost of putting on an exercise like a G20 or a G8, in fact, he is not comparing apples to apples. The conferences that he mentioned are in no way comparable to what we are planning and what other countries have done, where it cost them $1 billion or $1.5 billion, as well, the number in Japan that I just finished reporting again for about the fourth time in the House today. Why is it that the Liberal members refuse to acknowledge that is an actual real number for a conference exactly like what we are planning in Canada? It cost $1 billion in Japan to put that on. It cost $1 billion in Canada to put that on.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member knows full well that he cannot use those kinds of words when describing things that the government is saying or has said. Calling this government a liar or accusing this government of telling lies is simply not acceptable in this Parliament. He knows that. He has been around here for 17 years, as I have.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal opposition members like to throw around numbers in the range of $20 million, $30 million, $40 million that they know are not realistic.

There are people in the security business who actually know what it costs to put on a conference like this. They know that the conference in London or Pittsburgh did not cost $30 million or $40 million in total. It was up around $1 billion. They have made several comments over the last few days that if we compare apples to apples, that is, if we take all of the security costs into consideration when putting a number to the cost of a G8 or G20 conference, we would come within the same range as what this government is prepared to spend to host these two conferences in Canada.

As a matter of fact, within the last few days $1.5 billion was the figure that came out as being spent for the last conference in Hokkaido, Japan. It was not $20 million, $30 million or $40 million. It was $1.5 billion, which represents the total cost of putting on that conference.

The numbers the Liberals are throwing around represent only a small portion of the actual cost. They know it, but it sounds better for them to say it in the way that they are. They are not being completely honest when it comes to the actual cost.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member has asked questions of why not do this or why not do that and has made some suggestions. I am certainly not a securities expert nor, probably, is anyone in the House, including the member. However, there are some very good security experts in the country from whom this government takes advice.

We have taken the advice that the locations chosen, as any location in the country, will bring some security problems that have to be addressed. They have made some estimates on what those costs would be. They have advised the government on security measures to keep our participants safe. They have given us all of this information. These costs are based on sound experience from experts in the security field.

It is great to speculate about things, but when the member speculates without taking the time to get the facts, then I think she does herself a huge disservice.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming very clear in this debate that there are people who are, in fact, security experts, who prefer to deal with factual information, and there are those, particularly the member for Ajax—Pickering, who think that they are security experts. Facts never get in the way of their telling their story.

I think the member for Edmonton—St. Albert has clearly articulated that when we are talking about this particular issue, to be factual, we should be talking about apples to apples rather than about apples to oranges. We should be using numbers that are realistic to use in comparisons.

I would like to ask the member for Edmonton—St. Albert if he is aware that--I just came in, and I do not know if this has come up--the cost of putting on the G8 recently, which I think was in Hokkaido, was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1.5 billion, which is, in fact, much more than the total cost of the two events we are putting on in Canada. Do I have the correct number?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Chair, could I ask the minister to expand on how these sorts of measures will benefit the forest industry and ensure a successful sector for the future?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I would like to take a moment to congratulate the minister for the superb leadership he has given to this important portfolio and the most explanatory response to questions about the estimates that he has given tonight. I am sure the people of Canada appreciate that, as we do in the House.

I would be remiss if I did not say of the deputy minister and her departmental officials that we are all very proud of the great job they have done in the management of their department and in support for the minister.

I would like to take this opportunity to provide to the House a perspective on some of the challenges that the forest sector has and is facing and on the actions that our government is taking to help create a more sustainable and competitive sector for the future.

The Canadian pulp and paper industry is going through a period of major reconstruction. Challenges in recent years include the declining demand for newsprint, the high Canadian dollar, and increased competition from low-cost producers. The negative effects of these have been further intensified by the recent global recession.

While these challenges still exist, there is a great potential for new opportunities to drive the Canadian forest sector towards a renewed, more sustainable and competitive future.

The Government of Canada recognizes this under the leadership of our Prime Minister and our Minister of Natural Resources. We recognize this and that is why we are making well-targeted, quality investments that will improve energy efficiency and promote market diversification by developing new renewable energy products and processes, all of which will create significant economic and environmental benefits.

Since 2006, the Government of Canada has allocated over $10 billion, I repeat that, $10 billion to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and protect our environment by investing in green infrastructure, energy efficiency, clean energy technologies, and the production of energy products that pollute less.

Most recently, the 2010 budget provides $100 million to help support the commercialization of market-ready technologies in the forest sector to create a world-class industry able to compete in tomorrow's bioeconomy.

Let me talk for a moment about the pulp and paper green transformation program. The Canadian pulp and paper sector has made great strides in reducing its environmental footprint.

This effort must continue. This is why our government has established the pulp and paper green transformation program.

Under this program, Canadian pulp mills that produce black liquor are eligible to access up to $1 billion to undertake capital investments that improve the energy efficiency of their facilities, their capacity to generate renewable bioenergy, and their overall environmental performance.

The program will also generate new investments in pulp and paper mills throughout the country, making them greener, more sustainable and more competitive, and positioning them at the forefront of the bioeconomy.

These are monumental steps that this government has taken in the last three or four years, steps that the previous Liberal government had no idea to take in the 13 years it was in power. I congratulate our Prime Minister and this government for that foresight.

I would like to cite some examples among the 24 pulp and paper companies in Canada that have received funding under this program. One is Celgar in the Kootenays of British Columbia. The Government of Canada is investing $40 million in the Celgar pulp mill, one of Canada's largest and most modern pulp mills, in Castlegar, British Columbia. This investment will allow the mill to generate clean, green energy from forest biomass.

It will also enable the mill to take advantage of waste heat, increase the production of steam from wood waste, and increase capacity to generate bioenergy, something we all strive for. With these improvements in place, the mill will generate enough renewable electricity to meet its own needs and supply some energy to the B.C. grid by late 2010.

Another pulp mill taking advantage of this program is Domtar. Our government is investing $57 million in two capital projects at Domtar Corporation in Kamloops, British Columbia. The projects will allow the mill to acquire new equipment and modify existing equipment in order to increase its capacity to produce renewable energy and reduce particulate emissions. With this investment, Domtar will improve its environmental performance and contribute to a more sustainable pulp and paper industry in Canada.

Another pulp company in British Columbia is Howe Sound Pulp and Paper. A $6 million investment by the Government of Canada will allow Howe Sound Pulp and Paper to invest in a series of upgrades to its evaporator to redirect more steam for the production of electricity. By increasing its renewable energy production, the mill is reducing its reliance on natural gas, which will lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

The upgrades are also expected to produce in excess of 8,200 megawatt hours of electrical power, enough energy to power 800 homes a year, which the mill can sell to B.C. Hydro. This is a well-planned development.

This is only the beginning. The federal government has received over 40 applications from companies that want to launch projects in all parts of Canada, right from coast to coast to coast. A number of new announcements will take place in the next few months.

This is a government with a vision of cleaning up the environment, reducing greenhouse gases, and this is just one of the programs that is making huge steps toward that goal.

If I might add at this time, I am going to share my time with the members for Tobique—Mactaquac and Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

In conclusion, by supporting the Canadian pulp and paper sector in its ability to become more energy efficient and generate renewable bioenergy, this Conservative government is also helping to save jobs and enhance our capacity to take advantage of future market opportunities.

This Conservative government is proud to be a partner with companies that are at the forefront of the green transformation taking place throughout the pulp and paper industry.

I think it is just the most obvious thing that these represent significant investments by this government, billions of dollars by this government in a short, four-year period, when the previous Liberal government had 13 years to tune into the greening of our world and bioenergy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They chose not to get involved in a program like this. In fact, the Liberals chose to increase greenhouse gas emissions. They chose to do nothing and let the greenhouse gas emissions increase. That is a shameful example of environmental stewardship.

What this Conservative government has done in just the last four years under our Prime Minister and this minister has been significant investment.

I would like to ask the minister who has led us down this path to bioenergy and greener transformation to expand on how these—

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2010]

Madam Chair, this government believes in the potential of all regions of the country. Hamilton, Ontario has been hit very hard by the economic downturn. During these times, the manufacturing and auto industries have been very tough.

Could the minister give an example of what this government is doing to help hard hit regions like Hamilton, Ontario?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2010]

Madam Chair, it is clear that the Major Project Management Office has been a major step forward in approving the regulatory process for major resource projects but I am sure the minister would agree that much more needs to be done.

Could the minister indicate whether and what future improvements are being proposed?