Gary Lunn

[The Budget, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the House what is criminal about this. In 1994-95 the pine beetle infestation covered an area smaller than Parliament Hill. The Liberal government of the day in Ottawa did nothing. The NDP government in British Columbia did nothing.

Our government made a commitment of $1 billion over 10 years and, in budget 2006, we delivered on the first $200 million. We are getting the job done after the guys over there left a mess.

[Oil and Gas Industry, February 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the gas supply has been impacted by a number of fires in recent weeks.

I am pleased to report to the House that the crude unit at the large refinery at Nanticoke came back on line last night. We expect to see increased gasoline deliveries as early as Wednesday, but there are still more issues to deal with.

We are working with the industry and the provinces affected to do every thing we can to mitigate any shortages. Our government is committed to doing that and working with all the interested parties in the interest of all Canadians.

[Forest Industry, February 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we want to acknowledge and recognize the difficult times the forest industry is in, large part to measures beyond its control. We know there is a major downturn in the housing industry in the U.S.

Our government and the Minister of International Trade not only resolved the softwood lumber dispute but we have been working with the industry and all of the executives. We announced a few weeks ago $127 million which is flowing now to promote innovation and investment to address the skills and adjustment issues and expand market opportunities. These are the exact issues requested by the industry. It has control of this money. It is directing the priorities and our government is very proud to support it.

[Research and Development, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm to the House that our government is getting the job done. Our government announced our ecoenergy technology initiative where we committed an investment of $230 million into new technology to clean up our conventional energy.

Unlike the old government that only managed to get it into budgets and into announcements, I would like to quote the Commissioner of the Environment who said in her 2005 report, “When it comes to protecting the environment, bold announcements are made and then often forgotten as soon as the confetti hits the ground”. That is what she said about those guys.

[Business of Supply, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member was right when he said “we committed”. They did commit but they did not deliver. I am reading from their own budget plan of 2005: $200 million over the next five years for renewable energy. I checked up on it. They never spent a dollar. They did not get the job done.

A $200 million investment for sustainable technology for conventional energy. Guess how much money they spent? Not a dollar.

Yes, they made commitments and, yes, they gave promises but they did not get the job done.

[Business of Supply, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member is looking for what we have done. In our first year of office, let me reiterate, we have made a huge investment to increase public transit ridership. We have brought in mandatory renewable fuel content. We have brought in $2 billion of energy efficiency programs. We have brought in half a billion dollars to address nuclear liability cleanup. We have put money into parks and we have restored parks. We have put $30 million in British Columbia toward the rain forests. We put in $300 million over four years for a chemical management plan, which is something that has never been done.

All of these are very substantive and concrete results.

As for the last question, absolutely, the polluter will pay, without question. If members look at our clean air act, they will see that we have made it very clear. Early in 2007, sometime in the first session, we will be bringing in short term and medium term targets, but we want to get the targets right. We want to consult with all the sectors and--

[Business of Supply, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think what is happening here is that we have inherited an abysmal mess from the old Liberal Party. Its record on the environment was disastrous. Greenhouse gases skyrocketed under the old Liberal Party. There is no question that we have an enormous amount of heavy lifting to do on the environment because of the mess we inherited.

Even if greenhouses gases had held the line, or if they had gone up by even 5% by the time we took over the government, we would have had a fighting chance, but they went up 35%. The Liberals did nothing. In less than one year, we have committed $2 billion on energy programs that will directly reduce greenhouse gases. That money will be invested in new technology to clean up conventional energy. We will be putting clean renewable energy on the grid, more wind energy and things like tidal energy, and we are encouraging Canadians across the country to do their share as well through energy efficiency.

The Liberal government did not get the job done. We are delivering with concrete results and real action.

[Business of Supply, February 1st, 2007]

Members opposite are chuckling and laughing, but let us talk about the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Let us look at some of her reports and see how the Liberals responded.

Let me read for members from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's report of 2000. She says about the Liberal government that “it continues to have difficulty turning commitment into action”.

Members are laughing and saying that I should not read from talking points. This is not a laughing matter, I would put respectfully to the Liberals across the way who are heckling. This is from the Commissioner of the Environment. Now they are now calling her reports a joke, but we have taken them very seriously. She went on to say in 2000 that there were:

--persistent problems with the federal government's management of key issues like climate change, toxic substances and biodiversity...As a result, commitments made to Canadians were not being met.

That was in the year 2000, but let us go on to her next report. She had many volumes. I met the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development numerous times. She is an individual who was very committed. She kept trying to make concrete, positive suggestions to the old Liberal government. She wrote another report on sustainable development in 2001. What did she have to say in that report? It reads as follows:

As evidenced by the continued upward trend in Canada's emissions, the government has not succeeded in transforming its promises into results.

Those are the words of the environment commissioner. I know that Liberal members do not like to hear this. They had a chance. Not only did they have a chance to show leadership, which they failed, but they had a lot of people telling them they were failing, getting an F, and not getting the job done. That was in 2001.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development wrote another report in 2002, desperate to get action and desperate to see some progress on this file. What was her first sentence? She stated that the federal government's “sustainable development deficit continues to grow”. That was according to Johanne Gélinas, Canada's Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

These are the actual documents I am reading from. This is the record. This not the opinion of a partisan. This is not the opinion of the Conservative Party. This is the opinion of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. These are all documents of Parliament.

In 2004, she went on to write another report, in which she asked:

Why is progress so slow?...I am left to conclude that the reasons are lack of leadership, lack of priority, and lack of will.

Year after year, the environment commissioner was begging the old Liberal government for action. She was pleading with the Liberals. Their record was abysmal. Greenhouse gases in this country skyrocketed under their leadership.

They signed an international agreement, the Kyoto protocol, and then did nothing. The Liberals signed this protocol in 1997, 10 years ago, saying that in the next 15 years we would reduce greenhouse gases by 6%. That is what they said. They had to reduce greenhouse gases by roughly 1% a year.

Those greenhouse gas levels have skyrocketed year after year. They are 35% above the targets, so how does anyone with any credibility have the gall to come in sporting a green ribbon and thinking that suddenly they actually believe in the environment? The Liberals had 13 years to deliver results and all they want to engage in is partisan criticism, while our government is committed to delivering actual results.

The last audit of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, which came out shortly after we took office, again focused on the previous government's record. The results were the same. She stated that:

--funding was complex, leading to confusing targets. We found five Treasury Board decisions that authorized funds for the program and which did not clearly describe emission reduction results expected for this money....

There were no results, yet the Liberals want to stand up in question period and actually have people believe they are serious about this.

How can any Canadian take anyone from the Liberal Party seriously when the Liberals sat in power for 13 long years? The new leader of the Liberal Party was at the cabinet table for 10 years. He ended up at the cabinet table as the environment minister and his results were zero. He did not get the job done.

[Business of Supply, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on debate today and I am happy to talk about the environment.

First, everyone should be aware of the enormous opportunities for Canadians in this country. We are blessed with an enormous amount of natural resources. We have the second largest oil reserves of any country in the world. We have the largest amount of uranium. We produce an enormous amount of natural gas. We are one of the largest producers of hydroelectricity in the world.

With these opportunities also come responsibilities. It is our responsibility as a government to ensure that we look after all of these resources. They are the backbone of the Canadian economy, which is very important to our quality of life. We also need to put the economy in balance with the environment while ensuring that we have our energy security. That is why, in one year, our first year in office, our government came out with very decisive, focused leadership that is going to deliver concrete results.

Early in our term of office, we brought in new funding and new tax incentives to increase public transit ridership. We committed to increasing, for the first time in this country, to a 5% average for biofuels on fuels right across the country. It is good for the environment to ensure that we have this average. The biofuel industry is taking off. We will be there to support it.

One of my first actions as Minister of Natural Resources was to announce over half a billion dollars to clean up some of the nuclear legacy liabilities at Chalk River that have been there for decades, something on which the previous government refused to show leadership. It would not make the commitment on something that was urgent. It was one of our first actions.

Of course our government took a very bold approach to bringing in Canada's clean air act. When we move past all the partisanship and actually read the act, we can see what it will deliver. It is the first time that any government in Canadian history has undertaken to regulate every single sector, the oil and gas sector, the automotive sector, the industrial sector, and to reduce not only greenhouses gases but also pollutants that create smog and have a direct impact on our health. The previous government refused to do this. The previous government never mentioned it.

We also heard my colleague from Nova Scotia, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, make a very significant commitment to clean up the Sydney tar ponds.

Our government is taking concrete action that will deliver results.We want to engage all members of Parliament in this House to work with us.

I know that the new leader of the Liberal Party wants to pretend he is a great environmentalist. I noted yesterday that he and his entire caucus showed up in the House of Commons wearing green ribbons. Putting on green ribbons does not make us environmentalists. Putting on a green ribbon will not reduce greenhouse gases; it is going to take concrete action.

The previous old Liberal government had 13 years in office. In their dying days in office, the Liberals actually started to suggest that they cared about the environment. By that time, not only did the old Liberal government lose the confidence of the House, it went on to lose the confidence of the Canadian people because of a lack of leadership and a lack of action. We have done more in one year than the old Liberal government even came close to.

[Energy Strategy, January 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the provinces are looking at expanding the electricity connections across the country.

I can inform the House that the Council of Energy Ministers right now is looking at this very issue and I am very confident we can make progress on this file.

It is also important that we put clean energy on the grid, which is why this government, in its first year, committed $2 billion to provide clean energy, to put 4,000 megawatts of clean energy on the grid after the old Liberal government, which claims to be holier than thou, did nothing for 13 years. Putting on a green ribbon does not reduce greenhouse gases. It takes action--