House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was environment.

Last in Parliament June 2019, as Conservative MP for Langley—Aldergrove (B.C.)

Won his last election, in 2015, with 46% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Canada's Clean Air Act December 4th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Canada's environmental performance on air quality has lagged and there is a need for the Government of Canada to take stronger action to protect human health and the environment. The impacts of poor air quality continue to be a concern for Canadians. Smog can worsen existing heart and lung problems and contribute to thousands of premature deaths yearly. Acid rain remains a serious threat to biodiversity, the forests and fresh water ecosystems.

The levels of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in Canada are simply not acceptable. Our new government has introduced Canada's clean air act, Bill C-30, to strengthen the Government of Canada's ability to take coordinated action to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases.

Mandatory regulations will replace the voluntary approaches that have failed in the past. We will ensure the regulations are enforced and their objectives are achieved. We will focus on improving the health of Canadians and their environment. Compliance options are one of four components of our proposed regulatory approach. Emission targets and timelines, monitoring and reporting and equivalency agreements are the others.

Our government is meeting almost every day with industry and the provinces and territories to develop the regulatory framework. By spring 2007, our objective is to have finalized initial discussions on a number of important issues, including short term reduction targets, compliance and reporting options and timelines.

Regulations will set realistic emission targets that will reduce air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions across the country for the benefit of the health of Canadians and our planet.

To minimize the cost to industry of complying with regulatory requirements, the Government of Canada is considering a number of compliance options. The objective is to provide industry with the flexibility to choose the most cost effective way to meet its emission targets. These include emissions trading, offsets, opt ins and a technology investment fund.

Emissions trading would allow facilities the flexibility to meet their emission reduction target in three ways: by reducing their emissions to the level of their target; by reducing their emissions below their target then sell or bank the surplus emission reductions; or emit more than their target and buy emission reduction credits from the other entities. Emission trading does not replace regulation. It gives facilities more flexibility in how they can meet their regulatory obligations. As a result, emissions trading can reduce the cost of achieving a given target.

In an emission trading system the environmental objective is set by regulators, not by the market. The government is consulting on options surrounding an emissions trading regime. That is why the government is proposing, through sections 27, 29 and 30 of Canada's clean air act, to ensure that we can make regulations that are flexible enough to allow trading and that align our compliance regime to support the implementation of trading systems.

However, any trading system should be self-supporting and not reliant on taxpayer dollars. Our government will not purchase credits or otherwise participate in the emissions trading market.

Offsets are emission reductions that take place outside the regulated sectors or activities. They are usually verifiable projects that result in emission reductions beyond a baseline and are additional to any other regulatory requirement.

To ensure real emission reductions have taken place, Canada's new government will ensure that the requirements for monitoring and reporting emission reductions are rigorous and verifiable.

Opt ins are entities that are not covered by the regulations, but that choose to voluntarily adopt targets. Entities that exceed targets could earn and sell allowances, but would not be penalized for failing to meet the targets. Opt ins could be a vehicle for municipalities and other non-regulated entities to be a part of our clean air regulatory agenda.

Offsets and opt ins will work well within an emissions trading system. Offset emission reductions generate tradeable credits that can be sold by the offset owner to the regulated facilities, which the use of credits can then be used against their regulatory obligations.

Both offsets and opt ins broaden the scope of emissions trading to otherwise non-covered facilities. By broadening the pool of emission reduction sources, compliance cost can be further lowered. More participants also help to develop a more robust emissions trading market.

We are also considering a mechanism to credit early actions taken before targets enter into effect. One key mechanism to be considered is a means to facilitate industry compliance with the regulatory system that will be the establishment of a technology investment fund.

A technology investment fund is a compliance mechanism where a facility can pay a contribution rate per tonne of emissions to achieve compliance. The emission credits from these payments would not be tradeable or bankable. The funds generated would be used to accelerate technological development within the regulated sectors to promote long term emission reductions, particularly in the development and deployment of technologies that have the potential to achieve the greatest emission reductions.

We are committed to consultations, negotiations and collaboration to ensure that the most effective regulatory system is developed and implemented. We have and will continue to involve stakeholders throughout the development process to ensure that regulations achieve real results for Canadians, but do so in a way that minimize the cost to Canadian industry.

We will continue to work with the provinces and territories toward a single harmonized system for mandatory reporting of all emissions and related information. This system will underpin the proposed regulations. It will also respond to industrial concerns that multiple measurement methodologies and multiple reporting regimes would cause an unnecessary and costly administrative burden.

At the end of the day, our regulatory framework will be guided by what is needed to protect the health of Canadians and our environment.

Bill C-30 is a good bill. I encourage all members of the House to support it. When it goes to the legislative committee, I encourage healthy debate.

We have heard from the environment commissioner how important the environment is. To this point we have had obstruction from the Liberals. I hope that ends. I hope we now move past that. The leadership race is over for the Liberals. They have a leader, who is the former environment minister under whom emissions rose 35%. We heard a week ago that a 47% increase was their ultimate plan, then buying down those emission increases by sending billions of dollars out of Canada. The number have heard is $20 billion.

That is not what Canadians want. They want a government that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and cleans up the air that we breathe. Bill C-30does that. It gives Canadians what they want.

I encourage every member in the House to support Bill C-30, and I am open to questions.

Canada's Clean Air Act December 4th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about dry cleaning solutions and engine cleaners. All these pollutants will affect the quality of the air we breathe, both indoors and outdoors. If she has read the clean air act, then she is aware that we are the first government in Canada to provide not voluntary measures but regulations to the clean air act that would require clean air both indoors and outdoors and with greenhouse gas emissions.

The members asks for regulations in that way and that is exactly what the clean air act does. It addresses greenhouse gas emissions, the air quality we breathe and the water. If the clean air act, Bill C-30, would provide regulations to deal with what she has asked, why would she not support the clean air act? It does not seem to make sense. On one hand she asks for these regulations to be provided, which the clean air act does, then she says she does not support it.

Also, she is not correct when she says it will not be until 2010. She has heard announced many times, providing she has listened while in the House, that it will be in the spring of 2007, just a few months away, not 2010.

I encourage her to read the act and answer this question. Why would she not support the bill that provides exactly what she has asked for?

Canada's Clean Air Act December 4th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I find the comments made by the hon. member across hopelessly inaccurate.

The member said that the government was delaying real caps until 2050. That is the long term range. The real caps, the short term caps, will be announced at the beginning of 2007. That is only a couple of months away.

I encourage the member to read the clean air act. He obviously has not read the bill. He does not know what he is talking about. He talked about the 2010 targets. The report, and he probably has not read that either, says it is 47% above. Right now it is 35% above Kyoto targets. The Liberals left a legacy of inaction and did absolutely nothing.

Why will he not support a clean air act that will provide action on greenhouse gas emission and pollutants?

Main Estimates, 2006-07 November 28th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, the member stood up on a number of points of order asking the Minister of Natural Resources to stay on topic. We just heard the hon. member across the way speak on everything except about his dog. I do not know if he even has a dog. So, I am going to ask him a question about what he was talking about.

He talked a lot about the environment which is very important to me. For 13 years he was an active part of the Liberal government. In fact, he even spoke out against his government's position on Kyoto. He said that the Liberals would never meet the target. For 13 years they had an opportunity to do something on the environment and they did absolutely nothing. They wasted $1.6 billion. The emissions have climbed 35%. In the report that was just released on where we are going to go on Kyoto, it is 47%. That is where their target would have taken us.

I am going to ask the hon. member to stand and maybe he can report to this House why the Liberal government was such a dismal failure on the environmental file? Maybe he would honestly tell this House why the Liberals did such a poor job and why they are trying to obstruct this government with our clean air act? He did not support that either, so he needs to answer these questions in the House.

Main Estimates, 2006-07 November 28th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his hard work and contributions to the clean air act . As the House knows, it is Environment Canada and the environment minister who creates the policy but it is the Minister of Natural Resources who actually implements the programs.

The previous government made $6 billion worth of announcements and spent $1.6 billion. There was a huge gap between what was announced and what was actually spent. The minister shared with us that by spending that $1.6 billion, the Liberals ended up with emission rates going through the roof. They did absolutely nothing.

The minister has been here for a long time and I was wondering if he knows why the Liberals do absolutely nothing but make a lot of bluster. Has he ever seen them actually do anything? Why would they want to cut environmental programs?

The Environment November 27th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely wrong. The government is totally committed to the Kyoto protocol.

The problem is, after 13 years of Liberal inaction, we had a target that would have taken us 47% above the Kyoto target and sent $20 billion out of Canada.

Why would the members of the Bloc support that philosophy? It makes absolutely no sense. Either they do not know what they are talking about or they really do not support environmental issues.

The Environment November 27th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is hopelessly wrong.

The environment minister stayed in Kenya for an extra couple of days and a MOU on conservation was signed with the Kenya government.

This government has a great reputation on the international stage. It is the Liberal Party that shamed Canada on the environmental issues because for 13 years it did absolutely nothing. We now have a report that it wants to increase the emissions by 47%.

This government is taking action on environmental issues.

The Environment November 27th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, actually the environment minister had very good meetings with her international counterparts and they were establishing a workshop that will be held within weeks. The EU, U.K. and United States will all be participating in discussions on carbon trading.

This government takes climate change seriously. The party that has zero credibility on environmental issues is the Liberal Party. For 13 years the Liberals did absolutely nothing and were a total embarrassment in Kenya.

The Environment November 24th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the government takes climate change, global warming and air pollution very seriously.

The Liberal plan was to do nothing for 13 years, which is shameful. The former environment minister said the following:

I will be part of Kyoto, but I will say to the world I don't think I will make it.

No wonder we have a mess. The member who said that is actually one of the people running for the leadership of the Liberal Party. It is shameful.

The Environment November 24th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I agree that those who are trying to sabotage the plan to deal with greenhouse gases should be condemned. It is the Bloc members and the Liberals who should be condemned.

This party is a party of action. We have tabled the clean air act and those parties want to stop Canada from moving forward on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

They need to stop their sabotage. They need to get on side with reducing greenhouse gas emissions.