House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 46% of the vote.
The Environment October 27th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking about fiscal imbalance but what we are talking about is the environment for the health of all Canadians.
We have heard from the environment commissioner that the previous Liberal government announced $6 billion and spent $1.6 billion. Obviously there are a lot of broken promises and a lot of hot air. The Liberals did absolutely nothing for 13 years and I say shame on them.
The Environment October 27th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is working with all provinces to deal with climate change, greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. We look forward to continuing to work with Quebec.
Actually, Minister Béchard has been invited to go to the next Kyoto protocol meeting in Kenya and the minister has been invited to be part of that.
Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2 October 26th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member now admits that there is the clean air act. He does admit that his party will not be supporting it and one of his reasons was that he accuses the government of not respecting Kyoto.
We do respect Kyoto and we are very much a part of Kyoto. What we have done is we have been honest with Canadians. After 13 years of Liberal mismanagement and lack of leadership, which is what the environment commissioner said, we did not meet those targets. There were $6 billion worth of announcements and $1.6 billion spent and yet emissions went up dramatically. The member across the way is defending that. He is locked in step with the Liberals who are saying that we do not respect Kyoto, which is not true.
The fact is that next month, our Minister of the Environment will be going to Kenya and she has invited Minister Béchard from Quebec to accompany her. We are involved with AP6 and G-8 plus 5. We are looking at ways of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions.
A person can say that he supports the environment but, as I said before, a tree is known by its fruit. People cannot say that they support the environment and yet oppose the government's plan to clean it up, which is a good plan.
Why will the member not permit the clean air act to go to committee, as Canadians want it to? Why is he opposing and obstructing the government's plan to clean up?
Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2 October 26th, 2006
We hear more rhetoric from the other side.
The clean air act will address pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, while the former Liberal plan, after 13 years, did nothing. We will deal with both pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. One in 12 Canadians dies from pollution related illness.
It will also deal with greenhouse gases in Canada and globally. The Liberal plan is what the member across the way is supporting in his obstruction of our bill, but in the Conservative plan, greenhouse gases are dealt with both in Canada and globally. As well, we are moving from a voluntary plan, which is the old plan that did not work, and going to mandatory. We have notice of regulations of what we have introduced. They are gazetted. This deals with every sector and industry in Canada. The member mentioned the auto sector. We will be dealing with that in part of our clean air plan.
Why is he obstructing the clean air act? That is my question for the member. He, his party and the Liberals have been on notice that they are going to oppose that bill before they have even read it. Canadians want to know why.
On Sunday night I was on a panel. The vast majority of Canadians who phoned in said that the clean air act, of which the member is apparently not aware, has to go to committee. All members are being encouraged to send it to committee for good debate. That is a good idea, but what we have seen here is obstruction.
A tree is known by its fruit. An apple tree has apples. Why is that member not supporting environmental issues? Why does he not support cleaning up the environment? Why is he against the environment? Why does he not support the clean air act going to committee where it needs to go?
Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2 October 26th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I found the comments of the member across the way thought-invoking. Most of what he shared I found dishonest or misleading. He started by speaking about waiting for the plan and saying that we do not have a plan.
That is not true. Last Thursday, a week today, seven days ago--and I believe he was in the House--Bill C-30 was tabled. Actually, if he would take the time to read the Order Paper and Notice Paper, he would see that Bill C-30 is on page 22. I encourage him to look at that. The fact is that I encourage him to read the bill, our clean air act.
He talked about the transit tax credit and said it may not work. That is his premise: that it may not work. In reality, the Bloc and the Liberals have joined together to obstruct Bill C-30, the clean air act. This is an act that will move--
Petitions October 25th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from the residents of Langley, regarding road-rail traffic issues in Langley.
The petitioners ask that the Government of Canada develop a long-range, 50 year transportation plan for the Lower Mainland, assist Langley in determining whether alternate and safe routes for bulk and container traffic that travels through Langley is warranted, provide adequate funding for road-rail separation projects, potential alternate routes and assist Langley to secure efficient, workable and affordable transportation systems that include light rail at surface levels, with growth capacity as required.
The Environment October 19th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I would like to share what the former communications director for Greenpeace and of the NDP said about the Liberals' record on the environment. He said that “in 12 years of so-called progressive Liberal governments, our emissions are rising twice as fast as the Texas oilman in the White House. Our new Prime Minister is not to blame. He did not leave Canada as the world's third worst contributor to the climate crisis. That honour fell to the Liberals. Keen observers may also remember that the Liberals' Kyoto plan, the one trashed by the environment commissioner, was criticized by 11 separate environmental groups, the Bloc and the NDP.
He is right. Today is a great day for the environment. Canada's new government has tabled a clean air act. We are the first Canadian government that is regulating and enforcing emission targets. We are also committed to achieving an absolute reduction of greenhouse gas emissions between 45% and 65% by 2050.
This is a job well done by Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment.
Mr. Speaker, the government's clean air act will be introduced on Thursday of this week. It will be part of an effective and efficient national framework. This will be key to ensuring predictability and certainty for industry while achieving long term reductions of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
The government intends to initiate action under the existing statutory authorities provided in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The hon. member has actually just moved to have the review of CEPA shelved and is now supporting going back to the Liberal plan which the Environmental Commissioner said does not work.
I encourage the hon. member to support this government and its clean air act which indeed will provide cleaner air for the health of Canadians and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley who is also my colleague on the environment committee for his questions.
I would like to comment on the $13 billion surplus. This government decided that we were going to pay down the debt because that was the promise we made. It was a good decision. It does not make everybody happy, but it was the right thing to do. We are going to be saving $650 million a year in interest that we would have had to pay, which saves a lot of money for hard-working Canadians.
Regarding the oil sands, our government recognizes that the oil sands are important to Canadians and the Canadian economy. This government also recognizes that any development in that area must take into consideration the environmental impacts. Our government is committed to providing real practical long term solutions to cleaning up our air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
This week we will be introducing the clean air act. It will cover all industrial sectors, including the oil industry. These efforts will directly reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases. A national long term regulatory strategy will give industry, the provinces, and the Canadian people, certainty and confidence.
It will also provide flexibility and the opportunity to achieve real improvements to air quality, improve the health of Canadians, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that cause climate change. Our government is working with the provinces and territories, the oil industry, first nations, environmental groups and other interested parties on this issue. Together we will find ways of reducing emissions.
Currently, this government is working with the Government of Alberta during its public consultation examining the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the oil sands to develop a vision and principles for oil sands development.
In addition, this government continues to be actively involved in the review of the environmental impact assessments for the oil sands development and the regional initiative dealing with the cumulative environmental assessments.
The Environment October 17th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, it was the commissioner who came two days prior to the minister and she said to the committee and the Canadian public that after 13 years of the previous government doing nothing, we need to work together, we need to have a clean air plan. That is what this government will do after 13 years of neglect.