Michelle Rempel

[The Environment, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we just had a great environment committee meeting to discuss the development of a national conservation plan. I commend her for her commitment to these issues, but there are some things I want to talk about tonight and clarify some of the points she made.

First, she talked about the concept of abdication of responsibility. In fact, in the past, during the Liberal government's tenure, greenhouse gas emissions in our country rose by almost 30% over some of the Kyoto targets. Perhaps she could answer how many megatonnes of carbon emissions the Liberal government put into the atmosphere through its inaction on climate change.

This is so important because it is the same concept, when we look at international agreements, to ensure that we have a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. When the Kyoto protocol was ratified, it included less than 30% of the major greenhouse gas emitters. Now that figure is considerably less. Maybe she could answer how many megatonnes are released into the atmosphere because major emitters like Brazil, India and China are not party to that agreement.

By contrast, our government stands for the creation of an international agreement which sees all major emitters coming to the table under international binding targets and stringent reporting mechanisms. This will ensure real action in the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions in contrast to her party's inaction in this area and unfortunate mismanagement.

The other thing I am curious to understand from her is this. She talked about the need for climate change adaptation, yet she and her party voted against our budgetary measures designed to support a transition to the climate change adaptation research into the field. She often talks in the House of Commons about the need to support scientists, yet these very fundamental budgetary measures to support research and action in this area are voted against by the Liberal Party. It is quite unfortunate.

By contrast, our government has a real action-focused plan. It is one that understands the need to both balance economic growth and environmental stewardship. We are approaching our greenhouse gas emissions targets in a very fundamental action-focused way by looking at regulations on a sector-by-sector approach.

We understand that the transportation sector is one which is a major cause of greenhouse gas emissions. We have started with regulations in that area. We are currently looking at the electricity sector, but I would note that Canada's electricity sector is one of the cleanest in the world, with over 75% of our electricity generated by non-carbon emitting sources. However, even in that we are looking at ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a regulatory approach and we are looking at other regulations in other areas as well.

We are doing this in consultation with industry groups, affected stakeholders, communities and academia because our government understands both the need for action and the need to implement it, but also to do it in such a way that it does not detrimentally impact our economy.

We are proud of this balanced approach. It is something that we are hearing from Canadians. They understand the need for jobs and economic growth and to balance that within a strong environmental stewardship plan. We feel very strongly that the sector-by-sector regulatory approach takes that action.

Therefore, in the spirit of the good discussions that we had this afternoon in the environment committee, I would ask the member to look at the real action plan that we have, to get behind it and support some of our budgetary measures in these important areas.

[Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, our government stands up for the responsible development of our oil sands. Oil sands development is expected to contribute over $2.6 trillion to the Canadian economy and create over 900,000 new jobs from coast to coast over the next 25 years. By contrast, the NDP leader erroneously claims that the oil sands are taking more money out of the Canadian economy than they are putting in.

While the oil sands are expected to create $63 billion of economic benefits in Ontario alone, the NDP leader blames Canada's oil sands for a decline in eastern manufacturing jobs even as he supports a raise in taxes on job-creating manufacturing companies. On top of this, the NDP leader suggested a carbon tax that would kill jobs and economic growth, especially in our energy sector.

This opposition to jobs and growth shows the risk the anti-trade, anti-jobs NDP presents to the Canadian standard of living.

[The Environment, March 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, our government takes ensuring environmental stewardship of this country very seriously. We can certainly commit to looking into the member's question further.

[The Environment, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, to address my colleague's comments, first of all, it is important to speak with one voice. That is not necessarily one party's voice, but it is one unified voice on something as important as climate change.

Our government feels quite strongly that the approach we are taking to global greenhouse gas reductions is an action-focused one. It is one from which we will see real results over the next few years. I certainly hope that we can work together to refine that approach, because I also have regard for the hon. member.

That said, it is important to note the following about the Kyoto protocol as it stands right now. The hon. member just stated that if we signed onto it or signed on for a second commitment period, we would see action. We would not. Major emitting countries do not have binding targets under this agreement.

Contrary to what the hon. member says, we do have as a country the legal right to withdraw from this, and we also have an obligation as a country to ensure that we have an agreement where all major emitters come to the table to see real action.

[The Environment, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to speak to my colleague opposite's questions this evening, because there are a lot of mistruths in her statement.

First, I will address her question with regard to the composition of the delegation leading into Durban. Our government has been quite clear in our approach to priorities, that we have a strong mandate to ensure that our economy continues to thrive and that we see job growth in this country. From that, I think in the lead-up to Durban, we felt it was very important for our government to speak with one voice at Durban, because of the varying positions that would be in violation of, or in a dichotomy with, that initial principle.

When we look at the NDP, they actually have worked against the interest of the country by going to the United States and lobbying against our jobs in the energy sector. The Liberals have a track record of complete inaction when it comes to climate change. The former Liberal government signed on to Kyoto with no plan to implement it. We also saw greenhouse gas emissions rise under its tenure. My colleague opposite's party has been varied in its policy stance on how to approach environmental stewardship while balancing the need for economic growth.

By contrast our government has been very clear. We have said that we need to ensure that we take real action with regard to greenhouse gas emission reduction, but we also need to do that in a pragmatic way to ensure that our economy retains a competitive advantage.

That said, we felt it was very important to have our country speak with one united voice at Durban, including a recognition of the fact that we are taking strong action here at home domestically. We are leaders. The International Institute for Sustainable Development said in a recent report that our government's policy is a good start. We are making actual progress with our sector by sector regulatory approach. We have seen regulations come into place in the transportation sector. We are now looking at the coal-fired sector. We have plans for other sector reductions and regulations as well.

Thus, number one, we have had a strong domestic approach.

Number two, our government has said that the Kyoto protocol is not something we should just be standing still on with regard to an international approach to greenhouse gas emission reductions. We need to see all major emitters come to the table.

My colleague opposite has to acknowledge that the Kyoto protocol now includes less than 20% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions at present. Therefore, we need a new agreement. We need to have all of these countries come to the table and sign on to an agreement with binding targets.

We did not feel that the opposition parties had that stance. As such, because we are proud of the approach we are taking and because we want to see real action, our government was proud to go to Durban and take that message forward.

With regard to some of the other questions the member asked, we do have a very clear position. We have been very transparent. We withdrew from the Kyoto protocol because it does not work. The international community needs a new agreement to see real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Therefore, we will continue on the good work that was started in Copenhagen and continued in Cancun and in Durban this year toward that new agreement, but we will also continue with our pragmatic, balanced action-focused approach, a sector by sector regulatory approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while ensuring that our economy is not competitively disadvantaged while we do that.

[The Environment, February 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the previous comments of my colleague opposite with regard to a green energy strategy and point out some shortcomings of a Liberal colleague of hers in the Ontario government. The premier of that government implemented a green energy strategy, which the auditor general of that province noted would see electricity prices potentially rising in that province by up to 41% and significant job losses in the private sector due to that increase.

That is why it is so important for us to have balance and pragmatism and action in our environmental policy. It is not about inaction. It is not about making grand promises and signing on to grand international accords with no plan to implement them. It is not about simply maligning our economy and our economic growth in certain sectors of our economy.

We have a strong sector by sector regulatory approach. We are focused on jobs and the economy, and we taking strong international leadership in asking for an agreement that all major emitters will sign on to.

[The Environment, February 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by addressing the question of my colleague opposite by quoting something from the International Institute for Sustainable Development. A report by this agency noted that “Canada is moving in the right direction on GHG policy...” and is “establishing the policy architecture to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”.

This is evidence of a real plan that is working. Finally, after years of inaction on climate change by Liberal governments, to the point where the previous Liberal party leader even said that his government had not got the job done when it came to climate change policy, we are seeing a balanced and strong approach put forward by this government. Balance means balancing economic growth with environmental stewardship and approaching the problem of climate change in a balanced, pragmatic, action-focused way.

Our approach is two-fold. First, we need to take domestic action at home, and we are doing that. We have a sector by sector regulatory approach by which we are seeking to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in some of the most intensive emission sectors. We are working together with partners in those sectors to make sure that those regulations are smart, implementable and workable and do not harm our economy.

This is real action. This is action at home. We are seeing a clean energy sector developing here in Canada, one that we can be proud of. We have a strong environmental regulatory framework here at home. These are things that our country can be proud of because we are a leader in this area.

The second prong of the approach, to deal with my colleague's question on the Kyoto protocol, is acknowledging that this framework does not have all major emitters sitting around the table and agreeing to binding targets. As the Kyoto protocol stands right now, a very low percentage of emissions are covered by that agreement.

In order for us to see real reductions on a global basis, we need to have the Chinas, Indias and Brazils of the world signing on to an agreement and requires them to be transparent in their reporting on greenhouse gas emissions. This is what we have been seeking to achieve in our talks in Copenhagen, Cancun, and this year at Durban.

With that two-pronged approach, taking international leadership and adopting a stance that we need something more functional than the Kyoto protocol, we will damage our economy and can take strong leadership at home.

Contrast that to the previous Liberal government where greenhouse gas emissions rose during its tenure.

My colleague opposite talks about our having no plan. The closest thing we have seen to any sort of plan from the Liberal government in recent years has been a carbon tax, which was resoundingly rejected by the Canadian electorate in 2008.

Our government's approach is balanced. It seeks real action, and it is one that we are proud of.

[The Environment, February 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, earlier my colleague brought up the year 2005 and her government. In 2005, the Commissioner of the Environment said, with regard to the Liberal government's inaction regarding the environment:

When it comes to protecting the environment, bold announcements are made and then often forgotten as soon as the confetti hits the ground. The federal government seems to have trouble crossing the finish line.

Again, I implore her to move past her party's inaction in this area and to work with us and our balanced, pragmatic approach that would see us go forward as an international negotiating partner to get an agreement with all major emitters signed onto it with binding targets. The Kyoto protocol does not do that. She should look past her determination in calling the Kyoto protocol an important symbol. We need to have more than a symbol: we need real action. That is what our government is doing with our sector-by-sector regulatory approach.

I really hope to work with her constructively on this, rather than just hear continued rhetoric.

[The Environment, February 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for her question and her response because we do agree on one thing, that we do need to have action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in this country because we want to see action on climate change. Our government fully supports that.

However, I would like to review her version of history when looking at the Kyoto protocol.

The fact remains that when the Kyoto protocol was ratified, it did not include all major emitters. In fact, it only covered less than 30% of major emissions in the world at that time. That does not lead toward a real reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for the purpose of dealing with climate change. That is why our government has a pragmatic approach and is saying that we need to have all major emitters come to the table now, especially since the Kyoto protocol in its present format targets considerably smaller reductions in global emissions. Therefore, we are working toward getting an agreement where all major emitters come to the table. We have seen progress happen in Copenhagen, Cancun, and now in Durban. We are proud of that approach because we are working toward an agreement that would see all major emitters come to the table. That is very important.

Looking at history, again my colleague opposite is supporting an agreement that does not have all major emitters around the table. Her former leader actually said that her party did not get the job done when it came to dealing with climate change. Under her party's watch, our country's greenhouse gas emissions actually rose considerably, about 30% I believe, from 1997 onward. What shocks me is that for someone who is so committed to this issue, she cannot accept the fact that we now have a practical target aligned with other major economies, one that would not disadvantage our economy, and that we are making real progress.

I talk often about our sector-by-sector regulatory approach. It is a really important plan. We have looked at the coal-fired power generation sector and have proposed regulations on the table for that. We have dealt with the transportation sector so far, and we have other sectors to come, but we are doing that in consultation with important groups that affect the economy because we believe in balance. We want to see real action, which the member's government did not achieve. It did not achieve that. The only thing it has done recently is to have put forward a plan for a carbon tax in its 2008 election platform, which was overwhelmingly rejected by the Canadian electorate.

Now we have a plan to see real reductions. I believe the International Institute for Sustainable Development said that we are on the right track with our policy in this area. It is a balanced approach and we continue to look forward.

I just want to quote a Globe and Mail article from this week that talked about the fact that the World Wildlife Fund had commissioned a report by the firm Cleantech Group, which now rates Canada as seventh in the world for creating green technology firms.

We have this wonderful sector in our country where we have both industry and new jobs being created around clean technology. It is very exciting. Therefore, to say that we are not world leaders is false. Our government has a plan to see real action with reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. This is something that I hope my colleague and I can work forward toward implementing because it is about balance and about seeing real action.

[Natural Resources, February 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his understanding of the importance of the over 500,000 jobs in this country and what that means for social programs, what that means for having Canada as a world leader in the global economy.

Our government is committed to the sustainable development of our resource sector and ensuring that we have a robust environmental protection plan in a time of economic growth. Our government is committed to making the investments necessary to grow trade in the Asia-Pacific countries. We will, unlike our colleagues opposite, stand up for our energy sector.