House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2025, with 59% of the vote.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Madam Speaker, let us talk about the green economy, because again I have heard nothing from my colleague on her plan for the green economy. I would ask her to look at the auditor general's report in Ontario that just reported how private sector jobs were lost at the expense of green energy jobs that were created by an ill-fated government program, whereas our government is saying we are making real investment, in lockstep with industry, into sustainable development technology. We are seeing the emergence of a clean energy sector in our country. These are real investments. These are real green jobs.
I beg her to look at the evidence and say that we are world leaders in environmental protection. We have a green economy emerging. I refuse to believe that we cannot balance economic growth with environmental sustainability. That is what we are doing in our country with our policy.
She talked about a nation building enterprise. What is not a nation building enterprise is continuing to denigrate our energy sector and our country's environmental track record.
Madam Speaker, I will begin by correcting my colleague opposite. We refer to the abundant natural resources in our country, to which she is referring, as the oil sands, not the tar sands. I encourage her to talk to the hundreds of thousands of people who are employed in this energy sector and do not believe in denigrating our country and our energy sector. I also encourage her to speak to her constituents, who are the beneficiaries of social programs and supported by Canada's energy sector. Those are two points for her to follow up on.
I am most interested in the core of her question that she originally posed in the House when she referred to a strategy that hurts everyone. I am here tonight with a small glimmer of hope that she just might think about when she continues to denigrate our energy sector and our country and not recognize that we are world leaders in environmental protection and clean energy production in Canada.
Let us talk about that. The NDP has been advocating that our country stay part of the Kyoto protocol. When our country signed onto the Kyoto protocol, it only included 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions. . It did not include large global emitters. Now it only includes less than 13%. Clearly, this is not an agreement that will see real action in global greenhouse gas reductions. I find it quite disappointing that my colleague opposite continues to support an agreement without looking at what our government is saying. We are saying that we want to see real action in greenhouse gas reductions and that is why we need to continue on the good work that is happening in Copenhagen and Cancun and have a global agreement where all major emitters come to the table.
It kind of shocked me. I was speaking with my colleague opposite on a television program in late December and she suggested that China was a benchmark to be held up with regard to some of its comments at Durban about staying on in the Kyoto protocol. We believe we need to enter into a new agreement that has all major emitting countries committing to binding targets. The Kyoto protocol's second commitment period would not see that happen. I am quite proud of our government's stance in saying that we need an agreement where emissions are managed and monitored, as our country does right now.
The other thing that alarms me is I continually hear rhetoric from my colleague opposite, the environment critic and the NDP party in general about our country not being a world leader in our energy sector and in our environmental protection programs. With regard to domestic action at home, we have entered into a very bold sector-by-sector regulatory approach that will see real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to meet a target of 17% reductions from 2005 levels by 2020. This is real action. New Democrats continually oppose this. What is even worse, is that they have no plan. All we hear is rhetoric. We never hear a plan from them. We hear some vague things about a green economy, et cetera, but they do not have plans. They talk about jobs in a green economy and yet they vote against our budgetary measures that support investment in the development of clean energy technology and climate change adaptation.
I am very tired, as a proud Canadian, hearing our energy sector denigrated and hearing the opposition parties talk about awards that would denigrate our country's name.
Tonight I would ask my colleague opposite to stop spouting her party's talking points over and over again. Her environment critic lobbied against 500,000 Canadian jobs in the U.S. I would encourage her, for once, to support our government's action-focused plan with regard to environmental protection so that we can move forward and see some action done.