Michelle Rempel

[February 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that leads me to wonder why my colleague opposite continues to vote against budgetary measures which support research and development. We are looking at our research and development system. We are asking how we can be more competitive internationally. However, that is also saying that we are competitive here at home. We have many things that we are working on here and can be proud of. Certainly in Alberta, we can look at some of the technologies that are coming out of academic institutions which have a direct impact on environmental cleanup systems.

My colleague opposite has asked the international community, on a national television program, to ignore our country. Instead of doing that, I would ask her to get on board with the things, like our oil sands monitoring framework and budgetary support for environmental systems.

[February 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about a mystery. I will try to clear up the mystery. I will refer to the environment committee testimony which happened before we broke in late December.

We discussed the ozone monitoring program. The minister and I stood in the House numerous times and talked about the fact that this capacity will be maintained. The assistant deputy minister of the science and technology branch, Dr. Karen Dodds, said:

There are no reductions to the monitoring, to the results, that Environment Canada needs to provide to meet our obligations to Canadians. How we provide those results is something that we're having discussions inside about to best use the dollars available to us.

I would like to read another quote from Dr. Dodds to emphasize this. She said:

Environment Canada will continue to monitor the ozone in the upper atmosphere, also known as the stratospheric ozone, in order for Canada to meet its obligations for the surveillance of ozone and the chemical composition of the atmosphere.

I think that is pretty clear. It re-emphasizes points that we have made repeatedly in the House.

I would like to take the opportunity to talk about my colleague's comment about being blinded to reality. That is very much part of her talking points, which would see the decimation of our energy sector in our country. We as a government do have a plan to ensure monitoring of our environment. I would like to draw her attention to the oil sands monitoring framework that was announced last week. The commissioner of the environment noted in committee that this was an ambitious and significant plan. It was developed by an arm's length panel. We are taking real leadership to have that monitoring in place.

I want to draw her attention to the fact that when she lobbies against our jobs in the energy sector, in spite of the fact that we have a robust and bold plan to deal with things like climate change, it hurts her constituents as well. The very programs that she talks about sustaining in Environment Canada, government, and social programs, depend on revenue from important industrial sectors, such as the energy sector. Therefore, it boggles my mind that she just refuses to admit that we can do it.

Our government is developing a plan which would see ensuring both the sustainable development of the wealth of natural resources that we have in our country, and ensuring environmental stewardship. We have done that. This is evidenced by our sector-to-sector regulatory approach. This is evidenced by the millions of dollars that we have put into environmental protection, that I note she has voted against, and the clean energy sector that is emerging in the country.

I ask her to think a bit about her talking points and think about the future of the country before entering into this rhetoric.

[February 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleague opposite to put into her talking points the fact that her party did not support this year's budgetary measures to address climate change and climate change adaptation. In fact, we had almost $870 million over two years for Canada's clean air agenda.

I would ask the member to support our sector by sector regulatory approach which is designed to achieve real results and ensure that environmental stewardship is balanced with economic growth.

[February 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, when answering the question put by the member in the House originally, I think it is important to note her party's track record with regard to climate change. I appreciate her background and her interest in the area. Because of that, I want to remind the member of the policy context at which I look.

First, when her party signed on to Kyoto, the agreement did not include all major emitters. In fact, it only included about 30% of emissions across the world. Therefore, this is not all major emitters. This is not a plan to see real reductions of global greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, when the Liberals signed on to it, they had no plan to implement it. They entered into an agreement that was not effective, with no plan to implement it. Then, under their tenure, greenhouse gas emissions rose substantively. In fact, it was about 27% to 33%.

In 2008 the Liberals came up with a plan, a carbon tax, a tax on everything, which would affect Canadian families and affect our economy in a major way. Then to re-emphasize the point of failure of their party in this issue, their former leader said that they did not get it done when it came to climate change.

Therefore, had the government validated or accredited the Liberal Party, we would not have been speaking as one voice as a country. Our country, our government believes that in order to see real action in global greenhouse gas reductions, we need to have a global agreement which includes all major emitters, not one that only includes 11% or 12%, one that includes major emitting countries right now.

We are proud of this approach and we look forward to continuing the good work that we started in Copenhagen, Cancun and now in Durban.

[February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, while my colleague has the message of doom, I have one of hope, and that is the fact that our government is moving forward with a comprehensive, robust plan to address greenhouse gas emissions in this country, including a sector-by-sector regulatory approach and taking an international leadership stance in saying that we need an agreement where all major emitters come to the table and commit to binding targets so that we can move forward in a comprehensive global fashion.

I am so proud of this government and where we are going on this file.

[February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite made a comment about the government's abdication of leadership on climate change. As a young Canadian who sits here now as a government member, I am shocked that my colleague would list weather events and talk about all of these things when her party, when it was in government, patently failed the Canadian people with its failure in leadership on climate change.

In the original question she put to the House, she asked about a real plan to manage climate change, which is the subject of this adjournment proceeding. I would not consider a real plan to do things like signing on to the Kyoto protocol which, at the time, only included 30% of global greenhouse gas emitters. How can we have a global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions when we do not have an agreement on which all major emitters sign on to binding targets?

Failure number one. After the Liberal government signed on to the Kyoto protocol, it had no plan to implement it. In fact, during its tenure, greenhouse gas emissions increased between 27% and 33% over the Kyoto targets, an inconvenient truth to be sure. In fact, Canada's CO₂ emissions rose between 1997 and 2005. That was abdication of leadership to be sure.

In 2008, the Liberals came up with a plan to talk about climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. They said that they wanted to implement a carbon tax, a tax on everything, which would fail Canadians in a major way by increasing prices and we could not really be sure about the results that would produce. This is the type of action we see from the Liberal Party.

Nine years of inaction later, the former Liberal leader summed up the Liberal's record on climate change by saying, “We did not get it done”. I would like to contrast that with our government's leadership with regard to climate change.

First, we have taken a strong, bold, sector-by-sector regulatory approach that will see real reduction in greenhouse gas emissions looking at targeted sectors, including transportation, which we have already looked at. We are looking at the coal fire sector right now. We will be seeing reductions in greenhouses gases by 17% of 2005 levels by 2020. This is real action.

We have invested millions of dollars into climate change research and adaptation. These are investments that my colleague has voted against. We had over $870 million over two years in our clean air agenda, $252 million to support regulatory activities to address climate change and air quality and $86 million to support clean energy regulatory action. Those were budgetary measures to see real action.

Moreover, now that we are seeing progress, we are seeing this plan work, including the oil sands monitoring network that my colleague talked about.

We heard from the International Institute for Sustainable Development. In a recent report, it noted that Canada was moving in the right direction on greenhouse gas policy and was establishing the policy architecture to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Finally we have a government is that doing something for greenhouse gas emissions and it is doing that by balancing the need for economic growth with environmental stewardship. This is a plan we can be proud of.

[Financial System Review Act, February 3rd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite started his speech by quoting a socialist, which I thought was very telling. The policy of the party opposite would see us contract our economic growth. Those members want to raise taxes on job-creating companies and raise taxes for families. They want to kill jobs in our energy sector. Moreover, they refuse to support any budgetary measures which would promote jobs and economic growth.

Why is my colleague opposite an advocate for socialist, growth stifling policy when our government is working hard to strengthen our country's world-class banking system through this bill in a time of economic fragility?

[Financial System Review Act, February 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague talk about the bill because it recognizes the fact that Canada does have one of the soundest banking systems in the world. This has been recognized by the World Economic Forum for four years in a row.

What we often hear from our colleagues opposite is that they want to raise taxes on job-creating companies. Our government has implemented a low tax plan to create jobs and economic growth, but also to ensure that we have a sound financial system. I am hoping my colleague opposite could tell us a bit more about how the bill enhances the work our government has done to ensure a sound financial system.

[The Environment, February 3rd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, when we talk about homework my colleague opposite should stop lobbying against the Canadian energy sector.

What we are about to announce today, and I do not want to steal the minister's thunder, is a credible monitoring system where we will be working in lockstep with the provinces and with industry to come up with a world-class monitoring system. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said this “holds the promise of establishing a credible, robust and publicly accessible monitoring system for measuring environmental conditions and changes in environmental quality levels, as well as determining the source of changes”.

We have a real plan with a real focus. The member should get on board.

[The Environment, February 3rd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague opposite continues to lobby against 500,000 jobs in Canada's energy sector, we are taking real action to protect the sustainable development of Canada's natural resources.

I would like to remind my colleague opposite of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's testimony on this very subject in committee. He said, “What I would say is there is now an ambitious plan, a significantly important plan for the federal government to put in place a monitoring system”.

Instead of her empty rhetoric and talking points, the member should get on board.