Jim Prentice

[Points of Order, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that I hold her in the highest regard. In fact, she and I have spent a great deal of time together on airplanes flying to international conferences. The hon. member knows that I have often sought out her opinion on matters related to the environment, so I do not think it could be said that I do not hold her in complete respect.

In the question the hon. member asked immediately preceding mine, the member began by saying—and one would have to check the record—either that she was disturbed or confused, or that Canadians were disturbed and confused.

I simply responded with the observation that I could not comment on whether or not the member was disturbed, but that she was confused with respect to the policy basis of the question. I was simply referring to the comments the member used.

I note that most of the clamour in the House really came from the Liberals, who seem to have a different interpretation of the word “disturbed”. That perhaps reflects some of their history, which I regard as disturbing as well.

[The Environment, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say if the hon. member is disturbed but she certainly is confused. I would remind her that in excess of 83% of the Canadian electorate does not want to see her party running the Government of Canada.

We will continue to do what we are doing at the international level. We will, in a constructive way, continue to pursue an international treaty. We will continue to pursue continental policies with our major trading partners on the continent. We will continue as well to develop domestic policies that are integrated with both an international and a domestic framework.

[The Environment, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the essential challenge at Copenhagen is to arrive at an international treaty that will put an international framework in place. The issue at Copenhagen is not Canada's domestic plan. It is how we will replace Kyoto with a new agreement at Copenhagen, an international agreement to which the United States, China, India, Brazil and the other major emerging economies are prepared to agree. That is the challenge at hand and that is why we have been meeting over the course of the last year.

We have tough negotiators at the table. These are tough negotiations, among the most difficult our country has ever been involved in. We will search out a solution that is in Canada's best interests, unlike the previous government.

[The Environment, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada aspires to see an agreement in Copenhagen, which is why I was in Copenhagen last week as one of 20 ministers drawn together by the chair of the Copenhagen process to try to lend form and substance to what will happen at the convention. This morning I met with representatives from the European Union, the Government of Spain and the Government of Sweden.

We will continue to be a constructive player at the table. We will, however, search out something that is superior to Kyoto and that suits our industrial needs, our climate and our geography as Canadians.

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the proposed Mealy Mountains national park, in response to (a), meetings of the Steering Committee were held in Happy Valley–Goose Bay on March 21, 2002, April 18, 2002, April 30, 2003, September 29 and 30, 2005, February 2, 2006, March 9, 2006, May 10 and11, 2006, April 8, 2008, and May 6, 2008.

In response to (b), with respect to the size of the proposed park, the two governments are reviewing the recommendations of the steering committee including a recommendation on the park boundary, and following this review the size of the proposed park can be determined.

In response to (c), the outstanding issues that remain to be settled are: the proposed park boundary; the approach to the management of traditional land use activities by Labradorians; other issues that may be raised in negotiation of the required agreements or in consultations with aboriginal organizations.

In response to (d), with respect to dealing with these outstanding issues, the Government of Canada will: work with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reach a joint decision on the proposed park boundary for the purposes of negotiating the land transfer agreement; develop an approach to the management of traditional activities by Labradorians, including a review of the recommendation by the steering committee, as part of the work to negotiate a land transfer agreement; establish a national park reserve, pending the resolution of outstanding aboriginal claims.

In response to (e), the next steps in the park establishment process are: continue to work with Newfoundland and Labrador to respond to the recommendations of the steering committee; begin negotiation of a federal-provincial land transfer agreement, the timing of which is subject to negotiation by the parties; begin negotiation of impact and benefits agreements pursuant to land claim agreements, the timing of which is subject to negotiation by the parties; continued consultations with aboriginal groups.

In response to (f), since 2006-07, the annual expenditures for this project have been: 2006-07, $251,773; 2007-08, $218,286; 2008-09, $263,500; 2009-10, $126.422. Note that the figure for 2009-10 includes expenditures to October 22, 2009, and funds that have been committed but not yet spent.

[The Environment, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member needs to get his facts straight.

We signed a clean energy dialogue with the United States shortly after President Obama came to office. We have made considerable progress under that dialogue. One of the three areas that we specifically targeted is carbon capture and storage. There are some investments of a historic size that are being made in Canada at this point in time. We have also had discussions at the Copenhagen table with the Chinese relative to carbon capture and storage.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of braying on the other side but this is something those members need to know about. There is no country in the world on a per capita basis that is investing more money in carbon capture and storage than Canada.

[The Environment, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I just returned from Copenhagen as one of twenty ministers who was invited by the chair of the Copenhagen process to try to lend form and substance to what is going on at Copenhagen. We are a constructive player. We will try to get to an international agreement.

I am not going to stand in this chamber and take lectures from the Liberals on Kyoto and on Copenhagen and climate change, because they did nothing. They signed the Kyoto protocol which was ill suited to this country, to our geography and our climate. It would undermine our industrial bases. They are in favour of a carbon tax. No one knows where they stand on Bill C-311. They vote for it; they disavow it. They call it a tiddlywinks bill, and they still vote for it.

[The Environment, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the House who not to expect anything from, and that is the Liberal Party.

That is the party that signed Kyoto and then declined to implement it. It is the party that took an NDP bill and voted for it. The Liberals stood in this House and voted for an NDP bill and then called it a publicity stunt. It is the party that signed an agreement with its coalition partners for a North American approach and then tried to graft on European standards. It is a party that campaigned on a carbon tax, disavowed it, and then its members voted for it at their convention.

Where do the Liberals stand?

[The Environment, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, our plan is clear. We are going to have Canadian domestic policies harmonized on a continental basis, integrated within an international framework, which we are currently at the table negotiating at Copenhagen.

I will tell the House one thing this government will never do. We will never do what the former Liberal government did, supported by the Bloc, which was to fly over to an international conference, pull out of the air a target on the way, agree to an emission target that was ill-suited to our geography, to our climate or to the nature of our industrial bases. That will never happen under this government.

[The Environment, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is saying is incorrect. Our plan is simple. It is a national plan with North American harmonization within an international framework.

For example, we have a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020. We have invested in clean energy. We have also invested in green technologies, such as carbon storage. The Bloc should support our efforts, because we have also proposed an integrated North American emissions trading system.