House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 30% of the vote.
The Environment February 2nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, is in Paris today. Of course, we all recognize that climate change exists. We have often said this and my colleague reiterated that fact.
There is no denying the determination shown by the scientific community and I must assure my hon. colleague that action is being taken. In fact, just a few weeks ago, we announced nearly $2 billion in investments, specifically targeted at precise and concrete action.
Aerospace Industry February 2nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has been sounding like a broken record ever since it first came here. They accuse us of being traitors and doormats for the industry, yet the only people getting in Quebec's way and interfering with its progress are the members of the Bloc Québécois. Once again, I must say that if, at the very least, they participated actively in developing their communities, that would mean something. But that is not what they do. Every time a Quebec company has a chance to demonstrate its ability to participate in the world market, the Bloc steps in to quell their ambitions. Doormats indeed.
Aerospace Industry February 2nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I am always flabbergasted by this kind of talk. To try to do something about the mystery of Quebec City, their solution was to parachute someone from Montreal into that riding.
With regard to the question, it is a little bit ridiculous to have the Bloc Québécois dictate economic development strategies for Canada. Its separation project is the most serious threat to the Canadian economy.
Aerospace Industry February 2nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, we will make no such admissions since they are not true.
The facts are as follows. Colleagues on this side of the House, whether they are members or ministers, continue to serve the interests of Quebec.
With regard to this matter, we are confident that in Canada, and especially in Quebec, the aerospace industry will earn its stripes, but that will depend on the maturity of this industry and its ability to do the job.
The Environment February 2nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the only mockery in this House is that engendered by my hon. colleague's friends, the members of the previous government.
Our colleague, the Minister of the Environment, recognizes and accepts the efforts that have been made. That is why he is in Paris today. He is meeting with people and he will read the report. These things have to be done and I invite our colleagues to work together with us to decrease greenhouse gases.
The Environment February 2nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague just said a number of things, and one is that we are doing nothing. Well, nothing is when something has not been done. I think we could very well look at the inaction of the opposition.
In the past month we have invested over $2 billion in various initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases. As far as the issue of climate change is concerned, this is a real file and we intend to address it and get things done.
The Environment February 2nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, obviously this is an issue that the former government tried to tackle and it did it in an unsuccessful way.
We are very pleased to see that action is being taken. Maybe it might be worthwhile to remind hon. colleagues in this House that “We didn't get it done”, said the hon. member a couple of months ago.
Business of Supply February 1st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that my colleague has made a good point in raising that, but he has omitted to tell us that this government committed $1.3 billion to help support transit in the country.
On the one hand, yes, we are giving tax credits so that Canadians can use that and support the transit system, but on the other hand, we have given $1.3 billion. In my home province, $312 million has been given to the provincial government so that it can support the nine transit corporations in the province of Quebec with their projects in terms of building a better infrastructure.
Is the member asking me whether or not we are consequential with what we are doing? The answer is yes, because we are working on both levels.
Business of Supply February 1st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I remember when I sat as a town councillor going to Winnipeg to plead the case alongside my other colleagues from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to have the former government support and sustain the transfer of gas tax money to municipalities so that we could support public transit, act on not only the demand side but also in order to be able to do it and increase the offer.
Those are two elements that my hon. colleague should remember. He should know it full well because he did exercise this task within the previous government. He should also know that congestion is a major problem. He should also know that when we talk about greenhouse gases we are also talking about air pollutants. He should also know that he should be giving his support, like the Canadian Medical Association, to Bill C-30 that helps reduce greenhouse gases. That is what he should be doing and not systematically saying--
“Take it or leave it”, “we fight climate change or we do nothing”. We have seen where doing nothing has gotten us. It has embarrassed Canada on the international stage. It was the previous government, led by Paul Martin, that created that situation.
Business of Supply February 1st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today to this motion and to highlight the efforts of Canada's new government to undertake and deliver real environmental improvements through targeted infrastructure investments.
I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Louis-Hébert. I will outline for Canadians and parliamentary colleagues how this government is delivering true environmental benefits across Canada through its targeted infrastructure spending efforts.
I will also highlight how the government is working extensively with partners at the provincial and municipal level to focus our efforts on infrastructure priorities. These priorities include improvements to Canada's water supply and improvements to mass transit that are paying immediate dividends in improving the quality of life.
However, first, I think it is important to provide some background on Canada's infrastructure needs. The former government did not focus its resources on closing the infrastructure gap and that has resulted in significant challenges and pressures on this country's infrastructure.
Actually, according to a study by Transport Canada, the economic cost of traffic congestion in Canada’s large urban centres is estimated at about $3.7 billion a year—close to $1.7 billion alone in the greater Toronto area.
This calculation does not include the financial impact on our health and our quality of life. Transportation is one of the largest sources of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, and this sector will play a major role in our efforts to improve air quality for all Canadians.
As we know, today’s economy requires major movements of goods and people, and this has impacts on the environment such as air and water pollution.
These environmental impacts are transformed into real social and economic costs, and have an impact on Canadians’ health and quality of life.
Growth in trade and the continued dominance of just in time delivery models in the freight sector are also leading to significant increases in activity. Overall, freight movement is expected to increase by an incredible 60% between 1990 and 2020, with the largest growth in the aviation and trucking sector.
From 1995 to 2003, the freight moved by truck measured by tonne-kilometres increased by 63%. What do those numbers mean? They mean major air pollutants from transportation activities including carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and volatile organic compounds have been increasing, leading to the formation of ever increasing amounts of smog.
Transportation has been linked to 81% of Canada's total carbon monoxide emissions and to 60% of Canada's total nitrogen oxide emissions. Transportation is also the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Total transportation related greenhouse gas emissions increased by 20% between 1990 and 2003.
Approximately two-thirds of these transportation related greenhouse gas emissions occur in urban areas. Smog has been linked to numerous health related problems including cardiovascular ailments and respiratory diseases, notably increased asthma rates particularly among children.
I will try to give you an idea of what this represents in costs for Canadians. The Asthma Society of Canada estimates that more than $12 billion is spent annually on asthma care and treatment. Close to 12% of Canadian children suffer from asthma and every year nearly 150,000 Canadians go to emergency rooms because of an asthma attack.
Is reducing traffic congestion the only solution to the problem? Unfortunately not, but reducing traffic congestion by promoting the use of mass transit will improve our living conditions in the long term. And if that means that fewer Canadian children will suffer from asthma, it will be even better.
To this end, we have presented measures to encourage the use of mass transit, while investing in the growth of mass transit programs.
As the government, we believe that we should provide the necessary means to ensure that Canadians use mass transit more. So we have, for example, dedicated $1.3 billion to mass transit in order to relieve congestion in our urban centres, reduce carbon dioxide emissions and improve the quality of life in our cities—$900 million in a trust for mass transit infrastructure, and $400 million in the form of agreements with the provinces and territories.
When I was chairman of a transit corporation, I was able to see not only how important public transit is in a growing community but also how urgent it is to provide stable, foreseeable funding for it. When we talk about transportation, however, we must not think solely in terms of big money and big projects.
For a lot of people, going to work or other places and then getting home is an everyday concern and accounts for a significant share of their personal budget. It has been calculated, for example, that in 2003 a Canadian household spent an average of $8,353 on transportation—less than on housing, but more than on food.
That is why the new government is giving public transit users a federal tax credit to cover the cost of their monthly transit pass.
This investing in helping Canadians with the cost of bus passes is a tangible effort to provide them relief from the burden of transit costs. Our priority is clear. We will help Canadians by helping the Canadian economy, and we will help the Canadian economy by investing in environmental improvements that enhance the lives of Canadians. This vicious circle has at its core the recognition that this is a joint effort and the federal government must partner with and support other levels of government.
As well, all of the infrastructure programs announced by the new government include environmental objectives, such as reducing greenhouse gases and improving water and air quality.
As this government's first budget and economic update and forecast make clear, we are committed to long term investments in infrastructure. We are developing an infrastructure plan now.
In developing this plan, we consulted the provinces, territories and municipalities and a number of stakeholders about the most effective way to use our investments in infrastructure to promote a more competitive and productive economy, improve the quality of life in Canadian communities, make concrete improvements to the environment, ensure transparency and be accountable to Canadians.
In the near future, and with a view to the commitment we have made to restore the fiscal balance in Canada, we will be announcing how we intend to cooperate with our partners to ensure that Canadians benefit from the money allocated to infrastructure. We have already made concrete investments in improving the environment. Members will certainly understand if I offer them a few examples from my own province to illustrate the approach being taken across Canada.
For example, we are investing up to $36.5 million in the St. Charles River water remediation project , near Quebec City. This initiative will involve the construction of retention ponds, among other things. We are investing up to $58.5 million to upgrade the Atwater water treatment plants in the Montreal region to standard. Throughout Quebec, from Lac-au-Sable to Magog to Chelsea and Rawdon, money is being invested to improve and remediate water quality.
I could also talk about the effort being made in respect of the gasoline tax, but I will leave it to my hon. colleagues to ask me questions about that.