Marc Garneau

[BUSINESS OF SUPPLY, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Chair, my next question deals with the fact that there are premiers in the country who are taking some initiatives. I speak about the Premier of Alberta, in particular, who is trying to work with the other provinces and has made trips to visit other premiers from other provinces and has advocated the idea of a Canadian national energy strategy, working collectively in the interests of Canada and the Council of the Federation.

I would like to ask the minister whether he believes in the concept of a national energy strategy. If he does, what action does he plan to take?

[BUSINESS OF SUPPLY, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Chair, the government likes to talk about its sector-by-sector approach, and it has indeed brought in a couple of initiatives, one dealing with car exhaust emissions and the other dealing with coal-fired generating stations. The big one, because it is the one that is most susceptible to our not being able to reach our 2020 targets is, of course, the sector dealing with oil and gas. We have been waiting for a long time for this one, and it is really the elephant in the tent.

Can the government tell us on what date the government will introduce its long-delayed oil and gas regulations under its sector-by-sector approach? Is there funding from the minister's department involved in the implementation of the regulations?

[BUSINESS OF SUPPLY, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Chair, that was a non-answer.

Let me say that I have also witnessed a first this evening. This is the first time the Conservatives have actually acknowledged that it is a team effort. They did not tell us how much the provinces have contributed, but up until now, for the past number of years, they have made it sound as if it has been only through their efforts that the actual numbers have been reduced. I am not even talking about the slowdown in the economy. It is the first time there has been some kind of recognition that the provinces are also playing a role in this.

Let me go on to my next question. Canada has the opportunity to be a world leader. The Conservative government claims that it is a world leader in renewable energy. Why is it that the government is missing the opportunity, with its staggering $328 million in cuts to clean energy funding? For example, there is $162 million cut from the clean energy fund and $60 million cut from the ecoENERGY for biofuels fund. There is $59 million cut from the grant for Sustainable Development Technology Canada for next generation biofuels.

How is it that the government is able to go down to the United States and to Europe and say that it is taking all sorts of responsible actions, when it is cutting the programs that are intended to develop the clean energy sources we need to have in this country?

[BUSINESS OF SUPPLY, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I do not think I am going to get an answer about how we are halfway to our 2020 targets, but let me ask another question. Can the minister tell us what share of the progress that has been made is due to the provinces, as distinct from federal government action?

[BUSINESS OF SUPPLY, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I think the minister said this time that it “will bring us” halfway, which is different from saying that they are halfway. We should be able to see right now, if the government claims that it is halfway, that it knows that we are at or below 670 megatonnes now. Can he give me a straight answer, please?

[BUSINESS OF SUPPLY, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I thank the minister for that answer. The last time we had available figures for Canada's production of greenhouse gases was in 2011. It says so on the sites, and that number was 702 megatonnes. Now, if we are halfway toward our 2020 targets, we should be in the area of about 670 megatonnes at this time. That is how the math works out.

Does the minister know where we are now? I would like to understand that, because he and the Minister of the Environment have not stopped making claims that they are halfway to the target set for 2020, which is 17% under the 2005 target. How does the minister know that they are there, and can he tell us what the levels are now? It should be around 670, or less, if he is actually telling Canadians the right answer.

[BUSINESS OF SUPPLY, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Chair, as an aside, it probably would not be a bad idea if the minister did avail himself of some of that training, but I digress.

Let me point out that the minister recently answered a letter written by 12 scientists, and I want to quote from it. In his answer, he said:

Domestically, we have taken action to reduce our GHG emissions and estimate that, as a result of collective action to date, we are already halfway towards closing the gap between the original projections for 2020 and where we need to be to meet our 17 per cent Copenhagen Accord target.

It is not the first time he has said it. He has said it many, many times, as has the Minister of the Environment. To begin with, what is the target, in megatonnes, for 2020 the government has set itself?

[BUSINESS OF SUPPLY, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Liberal Party and to ask the Minister of Natural Resources some questions this evening. My focus will be primarily on asking questions.

Being the Minister of Natural Resources is a challenging task. Not only does the minister have to oversee the development of Canada's natural resources, but because natural resources can have consequences when they are developed, he must also show that he has a keen understanding of the consequences that can occur if these resources are not developed in a sustainable manner.

I have to admit that in recent weeks, on his trips to the United States and Europe, he has certainly raised eyebrows with respect to the things he has said with regard to climate change, raising questions about whether he really understands the subject very clearly. I am going to be asking him some questions about that, but first I want to get back to a question my colleague from the NDP tried to ask him three times, unsuccessfully. It concerned the fact that there is on MERX a request for services for a contract of up to half a million dollars. If I may quote from it, it says that “NRCan will acquire the required media relations training for the Minister and senior NRCan officials”. It is understandable that my colleague got confused, because it does actually say “the Minister”.

I would like to ask the minister whether his intention is to avail himself of any of that half a million dollars to do some media training.

[Criminal Code, May 10th, 2013]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-510, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief).

Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to present my bill, which was previously supported by all parties at second reading but which died on the order paper when the last election was called. I am also pleased to have the bill seconded by my colleague from St. Paul's.

The proposed bill would modify section 430 of the Criminal Code and more specifically subsection 4.1 dealing with mischief caused to property. Previously subsection 4.1 dealt with mischief or vandalism to a building or structure primarily used for religious worship, “including a church, mosque, synagogue or temple”, or an object associated with religious worship and located on the property of the institution in question providing the mischief was motivated “by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin”.

The bill I am presenting would broaden the applicability of subsection 4.1 to include property used exclusively or principally by the same groups, such as an educational institution, including a school, daycare centre, college or university. It will also include property such as a community centre, playground, arena, sports centre or any institution with an administrative social, cultural, educational or sports function that is used by those same groups.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that this bill will be unanimously approved by all parties. I look forward to debating it at second reading.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Employment, May 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about 411,000 young Canadians out of work and 173,000 who have just given up.

We learned that 19,000 fewer students were working this month than last month. Every time we see another ad for the economic action plan on TV, it means 30 fewer jobs for our young students. That is one job per second of partisan advertising.

How can this government imagine that partisan advertising is more important than jobs for our young people?