Michelle Rempel

[Business of Supply, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague mentioned one thing that is key to this entire debate, and that is real action on climate change and Canada's actual leadership, being a leader in climate change mitigation and climate change strategy.

As someone who has worked with clean energy technologies for numerous years, I find it deeply disappointing that my colleague is not recognizing Canada's role in being a leader in developing clean energy technologies which are shared around the world.

When we talk about action, we should be talking about things like the billions and billions of dollars that our country has invested both industrially and through governments to support clean energy technologies. We are a leader in this areas.

It is very disappointing that the hon. member denigrates our country's reputation by listening to things that are not action focused and only rhetoric.

My question to her is this. After our government has spent billions of dollars on clean energy tech, after we have reduced our greenhouse gas emissions, after we are known internationally as a leader, three-quarters of our electricity production is produced by forces that do not produce greenhouse gas emissions. What is real action in her mind that will not damage our economy?

[The Environment, November 29th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, Environment Canada takes monitoring of the ozone quite seriously. That is why we have such a strong track record in doing so over the last decades. We have said over and over again in the House that we will continue to monitor the ozone, and that we will continue to deliver excellent services. Environment Canada and our government are committed to that.

[The Environment, November 29th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, like my colleague opposite, I am very proud of the track record that Canada has with regard to excellence in monitoring the ozone. That is why we have repeatedly said in the House that our government, through Environment Canada, will continue to monitor the ozone.

What I am getting tired of hearing is that there has to be a trade-off between efficiency in program delivery and service delivery. That is what we hear over and over again.

With regard to the question, I will answer the same way that I have answered several times in the House. Taxpayers expect government officials to conduct the nation's business at a reasonable cost. They also expect service delivery. We know we can achieve both. This is something our government takes very seriously.

[The Environment, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is for sure. We do need to have leadership in the economy , and that is what this government stands for. We balance the economy with environmental protection. That balance is achievable, and we have a plan to achieve that.

That is why Canada has a very strong action plan that is focused on reducing our emissions by 17% of 2005 levels by 2020. That is real leadership.

[The Environment, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the colleague opposite to actually read the budget before voting against it. What is included in the budget is $252 million to support regulatory activities to address climate change and air quality. I could go through the list of the hundreds of millions of dollars that we have prudently invested to take care of Canada's environment, a record of which we are proud.

[The Environment, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about something that is cataclysmic: signing on to an international accord with no plans to implement it. That is what a Liberal government would do.

Let us talk about its record. Under the Liberal government, Canada's carbon dioxide emissions rose between 1997 and 2005. We have a plan, an action plan and it is working.

[The Environment, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, $40 million for Sustainable Development Technology Canada was included in this year's budget. Again, our government is committed to clean energy and the New Democrats keep voting against measures to support it.

[The Environment, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague opposite has acknowledged a fundamental point. We need to balance our environment and the economy and this is what we are doing. This is a principle that the opposition would gladly throw to the wind when it denigrates our oil sands sector.

Our government's sector-by-sector approach, which is being developed by a robust consultation process, is designed to meet a tangible target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, while being cognizant of Canada's economic growth. This approach is prudent and action focused and we are proud of it.

[The Environment, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, agreements that do not include major emitters like China and the United States will not work. That is why we remain committed to reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. We are making good progress through tangible action that we have taken here at home. We are proud of this record.

[The Environment, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, instead of talking about intentions, let us talk about real action with regard to climate change: $250 million to support regulatory activities to address climate change and $86 million to support clean energy regulatory reforms. New Democrats voted against this.