Mark Warawa

[Criminal Code, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it was the member from Surrey North's late husband, Chuck Cadman, who came from ICBC, as did I, and both of us joined the fight against auto crime. I got a chance to spend some time with Chuck Cadman here in the House.

In 2004, I introduced my private member's bill, Bill C-293, which is basically the bill that is presented today. I want to thank the hon. member for continuing the work of Chuck and I.

It was the Conservatives who voted in favour of my private member's bill at that time, but the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP all voted against it.

I want to ask the hon. member what she thinks has caused the change. Does she sense that the opposition will now support getting tough on auto crime, or will they permit this very serious crime to continue?

[Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System for North America, April 30th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, Australia is using the year 2000 as its baseline for greenhouse gas reductions, and there are indications that Japan will likely use the 2005 baseline. Europe has also announced that it will be considering using the 2005 baseline as its target starting in 2013.

This reflects certain realities. For one thing, governments have much better emissions information from more recent years. Also, we need to recognize that regardless of the baseline year used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the important thing is the results that will be achieved from the targets. We need to focus on the results.

We remain committed to reducing Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions by 20% from 2006 levels by 2020, and 60% to 70% by 2050. Those are the toughest targets in Canadian history.

In 2007, the government set out a comprehensive strategy to reach these ambitious and achievable targets in its climate change policy entitled, “Turning the Corner”. This plan included significant action to reduce greenhouse gases across all sectors of the economy, including stringent short term targets for the industrial emitters, our recently announced fuel efficiency standards for vehicles and energy efficiency standards for consumer products.

Our plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is on track. However, the economic downturn and the opportunity of working with the new United States Obama administration has required that we fine-tune our approach to tackling climate change. We are currently refining our strategy to reduce industrial greenhouse gas emissions and intend to put the regulatory framework into law in the coming year.

Unlike the opposition parties, we will ensure that our plan provides the right balance between protecting the environment and ensuring economic prosperity. We will continue to work closely with the Obama administration, as well as with our provincial and territorial governments, and our stakeholders to develop and implement a North American cap and trade system for greenhouse gases that reflects our interests.

We have made significant progress on this front. As the House knows, our Prime Minister met with President Obama in February of this year to discuss how our two countries can work together to address shared issues related to energy and the environment.

The minister has also had the opportunity to meet with senior American officials to continue to build and develop this clean energy dialogue that began with the president and the Prime Minister. This dialogue includes expanding clean energy research and development on research related to advanced biofuels, clean engines and energy efficiency. It includes developing and deploying clean energy technology, in particular carbon capture and storage technology that has the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally. The world is counting on us.

We are also building a more efficient electricity grid based on clean and renewable generation to make electricity delivery more reliable and to reduce congestion that can cause blackouts and power losses.

We are also working with the United States in other areas, such as transboundary air pollution, water quality and fuel efficiencies.

The government recently announced that we will introduce tough new regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from the auto sector. These regulations set limits on the tailpipe emissions of automobiles and they will be developed under CEPA. They will align with the mandatory national fuel efficiency standards in the United States beginning with the 2011 model year vehicles.

In addition to advancing its climate change agenda domestically and in the North American context, the government will continue to advance its climate change agenda at the international level as well.

This is a pivotal year as we work toward the United Nations climate change convention in Copenhagen in December of this year. We are committed to playing an active and constructive role to achieve a comprehensive and ambitious agreement at the international level that includes all the major emitters. That is what is missing in the plan from the Bloc and the NDP. They want to give a free pass to the major emitters. We cannot globally reduce greenhouse gas emissions without the major emitters involved.

In summary, we are working on revisions to our detailed regulatory framework to regulate industrial greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. We are also continuing to work constructively with the United States to develop a North American approach on energy and the environment to achieve a balanced and comprehensive outcome that represents real progress in addressing climate change and working proactively internationally.

We are getting it done on the environment. The Canadian government will continue its realistic and responsible approach to addressing the challenges of climate change.

[Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System for North America, April 30th, 2009]

Australia is using a 2000 baseline--

My apologies, Madam Speaker.

[Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System for North America, April 30th, 2009]

The United States has signaled that it will use 2005 as a baseline year.

[Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System for North America, April 30th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada does not support Motion No. 287.

We have made it very clear that we are committed to working with the United States to develop a coordinated approach, an approach that will advance our respective environmental and energy objectives and renew the North American economy at the same time.

Given the great and deep integration of our economies, it is critical that we get it right and that we get it right the first time. Those are the words of my good friend, Mike Holmes, and a good friend of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. That is the message we all need: to get it right the first time.

We also have made it clear that the Canadian government is committed to science-based goals to set realistic and achievable targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, as well as regionally and globally.

However, the use of 1990 as a baseline for absolute targets, as proposed in Motion No. 287, does not make sense for Canada. We saw Canada's greenhouse gas emissions actually increase for 13 dark years under the previous Liberal government. It is no wonder that the Leader of the Opposition said that with regrets to the environment, “we made a mess of it; we didn't t get it done”.

Our commitment to reducing Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 uses 2006 as a baseline year.

Canada is not alone in using a more recent baseline year.

[The Environment, April 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware of the clean energy dialogue that is ongoing between our Prime Minister and President Obama in the United States. We are getting it done on the environment, but the big questions are, why did the NDP oppose $1 billion for green infrastructure, why did it oppose $300 million for eco-energy retrofits, why did it oppose $1 billion for infrastructure on carbon capture and storage, and does it support the job-killing carbon tax of the Liberal leader?

[The Environment, April 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for asking a question about what this government is doing about the environment.

Earlier this year, the Prime Minister and President Obama met to establish the Canada-U.S. clean energy dialogue, which will help set Canada on the path to reduce our emissions by an absolute 20% by 2020. Those are the toughest targets in Canadian history and one of the toughest in the world.

Why does that member not support getting tough on the environment?

[April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government's plan is a 20% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, and that is the toughest target in Canadian history and a major change from what happened for 13 long, dark years under the Liberals.

My colleague provided some quotes. Here is an interesting quote: “I think our party has got into a mess on the environment”. That comment was made by the leader of the Liberal Party. He also said, “We didn't get it done”. Now he is saying that “Canadians are ready for tough measures, including a controversial carbon tax”.

Would my colleague stand up right now and say no to that job killing carbon tax? It is not what Canadians want. It is not good for the environment. It is this government that stands up for a cleaner environment. Why does she support the carbon tax?

[April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised, from the sound of her comments, that she does not support Canadians using public transit.

In budget 2006, the Government of Canada announced that it wanted to encourage people to use public transit. We clearly stated that the public transit tax credit was there and that it was intended to help low income Canadian families, as well as pensioners, students and other Canadians who regularly use public transit.

It was and still is the government's view that public transit eases traffic congestion and improves the environment. As we indicated in our climate change plan for the purposes of the Kyoto protocol implementation act for 2007, there are many factors that affect transit ridership, including fuel prices, parking costs and service levels.

Discussions with experts indicate that there is no direct manner of capturing the greenhouse gas reductions resulting from the tax credit. The environmental impact from the program was based on estimates using the best methodology and the information that was available.

Environment Canada, Finance Canada and Transport Canada undertook a critical review of the 2007 estimate and developed a more appropriate methodology for the 2008 plan. It should be noted that the national round table on the environment and the economy, in its review of the 2007 plan, highlighted the need to revise the methodology for estimating emission reductions from the tax credit.

Though the new estimate of greenhouse gas emission reductions are lower than originally thought, the results of the program have been beneficial. Greenhouse gas emission reductions are only one of the several benefits provided by the increased public transit usage. To the extent that car ridership decreases, Canadians are also exposed to fewer atmospheric pollutants, such as particulate matter.

The transit tax credit, together with other initiatives undertaken by our government to support public transit, help to ensure the availability and affordability of this important service to many Canadians who cannot afford the alternatives. We continue to believe that the public transit tax credit is beneficial.

Finally, I would like to note that the public transit tax credit cannot be seen as a measure working in isolation. It is part of a package of policies that are intended to move Canada in the direction of lower greenhouse gas emissions.

[April 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is well aware of the impacts of climate change. That is why we are committed to taking action. By establishing the regional adaptation collaboratives, we can more effectively take coordinated and sustained action to reduce our vulnerability to climate change by advancing adaptation planning and decision making.

Working with President Obama to establish a clean energy dialogue, we will also be working closely with provincial and territorial governments and stakeholders to develop a coherent national climate change and energy security strategy.