Michelle Rempel

[The Environment, December 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what my colleague opposite is referring to when he says that we have an appalling record when the International Institute for Sustainable Development says, and I quote:

...Canada is moving in the right direction on GHG policy.

and

...Canada's federal government is finally establishing the policy architecture to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

We are taking a leadership role. It is time that the opposition parties start acknowledging that and start being proud of the role that our country has in the international community with environmental stewardship.

[The Environment, December 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, what is in the best interests of Canadians is an approach to managing our environment that balances both economic sustainability and the environment. This is why we have a sector-by-sector approach to regulate our emissions, as well as promoting an agreement where all international players are at the table.

This is what we stand for. This is what Canadians want. It is an action focused plan.

[The Environment, December 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure where the Liberal Party's concern for our environment was when it signed on to an international agreement that only included one-third of the world's global emitters, or where it implemented policies that would be detrimental to our economy through a massive carbon tax.

What is truly shameful is that the member's party opposite does not support a plan that looks at a sector-by-sector regulatory approach that will balance our environment with economic sustainability, and our country's approach to saying that we need an agreement with everyone around the table.

[The Environment, December 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what my colleague opposite would call an economy that is a world leader in exporting intellectual property related to clean energy technology, as well as an energy sector that invests billions of dollars and has seen tangible reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. This is Canada. This is working.

Her party votes against budgetary measures to continue R and D in this area. Our electricity sector produces 75% of our electricity from non-emitting GHG sources.

The member should be proud of our country and proud of our environmental plan.

[The Environment, December 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the NDP's playbook on international relations, the energy sector and the environment. First, they lobby against Canadian jobs in the energy sector. Second, they vote against climate change budgetary measures. Third, they tell the international community to ignore our country. Fourth, they revel in awards that denigrate our country.

We have a plan that will ensure that all major emitters come to the table in an international agreement and a sector-by-sector regulatory approach. It is a plan that is working and a plan that makes sense.

[The Environment, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague opposite would have those in the international community ignore Canada, this is what she would have them pay attention to: one, an NDP carbon tax that the NDP leadership candidates have put forward; two, an international agreement that only accounts for one-third of emissions. That is not action.

We have a strong action plan at home. We are proud of it. It is working. I hope NDP members get on board.

[The Environment, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday my colleague opposite said, “I just hope the international community ignores Canada”.

Before she continues to denigrate our country, I would like to remind her of a few things. One, Canada has a world-leading clean energy technology sector. Two, there is strong action at home with our sector-by-sector regulatory approach that sees real action. Three, there is a commitment to an internationally binding agreement that has all major emitters around the table. That is real action. Shameful.

[Business of Supply, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, today we have heard the opposition talk about the Kyoto protocol, which the previous Liberal government signed on to with no plans to implement. We also heard the NDP leadership candidates over the weekend talk about implementing a carbon tax with no plans to cost it out. I was just on a television program with the NDP environment critic, in which she said that the international community should not listen to Canada, when we are in fact a world leader in our economy.

What does the member think of the opposition's non-plan to deal with greenhouse gas emissions as opposed to our tangible plan to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and does he thinks it is in the best interests of our country?

[The Environment, December 5th, 2011]

--which would devastate our economy.

We are going to sign on to international agreement that takes into consideration all major emitters to see real change.

[The Environment, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, what we will not do is take the Liberals' approach to managing our energy sector and our environment. The national energy program cost hundreds of thousands of jobs in western Canada. The Kyoto protocol did not have an implementation plan. The green shift would put a carbon tax on everything--