Pierre Poilievre

[Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member speaks of the Liberal leader's great new found passion for the subject of climate change, but, frankly, the planet does not care about his platitudes. The planet does not care about his $40 million conferences. The planet does not care if he wears a green scarf or names his dog after the Japanese city of Kyoto. The planet cares what real action we take to confront the problems before us.

Today we have more posturing. We have Liberal members standing in the House and puffing up like blowfish to talk about how much they now care about the environment. The reality is they had the chance and they did not get the job done. In their own words, 13 years of talk, 13 years of inaction.

Canadians will not be fooled. The Liberals, from the period that the Kyoto accord was accepted in the late 1990s until the time when they left office, took no effective action. In fact, greenhouse gases were skyrocketing at the fastest rate in Canadian history at the very moment they left office, after over a year of oversight by the then minister of the environment, who is now the leader of the Liberal Party.

Let us reflect on the environment commissioner's report, someone the Liberals themselves have called a great advocate on the environment. Let us take a look from 1998 through 2006.

The 1998 reports states:

—the federal government is failing to meet its policy commitments.

The 1999 report states:

Federal departments are divided on the degree and significance of risks posed by some individual toxic substances, the interpretation and application of legislation and the nature of their respective roles and authorities. This has led to indecision, inaction and strained relations among departments.

The 2000 reports states:

—persistent problems with the federal government's management of key issues like climate change, toxic substances and biodiversity....As a result, commitments made to Canadians were not being met.

The 2001 report states:

The continued upward trend in Canada's emissions demonstrates that the government has not transformed its promises into results.

Again, the Liberals did not get the job done.

The 2002 report states the federal government's “sustainable development deficit continues to grow”.

The 2003 report states:

There is a gap between what the government said it would do and what it is actually doing.

Good intentions are not enough.

The 2005 report states:

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.

I noticed some amusement, even from our friends on the Liberal side, at the line “bold announcements are made and then often forgotten as soon as the confetti hits the ground”. I think the commissioner was bang on, on this point. Then she said, “The federal government”, referring to the Liberal government, “seems to have trouble crossing the finish line”. Forget the finish line. When this 15 year marathon was sounded, when the pistol was fired, the Liberals started sprinting in the opposite direction. Now we have to turn that direction around and come all the way back and attempt to meet these spectacularly demanding targets that were signed on to before.

No wonder Canadians booted the Liberals from office not so long ago. Now that they are in opposition, what are they doing? The Liberal leader has appointed a Kyoto skeptic as the Liberal critic on the environment. The member for Ottawa South is in fact a Kyoto skeptic and I will prove that today.

During the nine years that the member was the president of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, he allowed greenhouse gases to skyrocket. He said that when Canadians “see the costs of Kyoto, they are going to scream”. He said that the Kyoto accord would cost $40 billion a year. Those were the words of the Liberal member for Ottawa South, the high priest of hypocrisy on the environment. He said it would cost $40 billion a year to implement Kyoto and that when Canadians learned of these costs they would scream. Those were the words of the Liberal critic for the environment.

During the Liberal years, he wrote:

Canada has the second-highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the world. If we ratify the Kyoto Protocol, we will have to reduce them by 6 per cent below 1990 levels. That means reducing our emissions by 26 per cent from the current levels, because we are emitting so much more now than we were in 1990.

That is what he said of his own government's record. That is the Kyoto skeptic that the leader of the Liberal Party has chosen to speak up on the issue of the environment. I notice that he has not been speaking much lately. In fact, he has been silenced.

We are taking real action on this side of the House. We have given incentives to put more solar power, wind power, wave power and biodiesel into the energy component of our economy.

We are supporting the creation of more clean fuels such as ethanol. We are working toward using our agricultural sector as a new source of clean energy and at the same time creating new markets for our farmers.

These are real actions that will be met in conjunction with the clean air act and will lead us to achieve, in the long run, real reductions in both smog and greenhouse gas emissions. These are the kinds of real actions that the planet is asking from us. The planet is not demanding more $40 million conferences.

Canadians are asking the House of Commons to rally around the passage of the clean air act, to get something done, to achieve the job, to get real results, and that is what I am proud to be part of. That is why I am proud to be part of this government.

[Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, February 2nd, 2007]

You didn't get it done.

[Business of Supply, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there are some comments on Kyoto that were made by the Liberal environment critic himself which caused some great confusion in the House. He said, “When people see the cost of Kyoto, they are going to scream”. That was on January 1, 2003. In the Globe and Mail on January 29, 2002, he said, “If Canada does ratify Kyoto, the cost will be as much as $40 billion a year”.

He is standing in the House and voting for a motion today that he has said will cost $40 billion a year, the cost of which, he said, will make Canadians scream. Yesterday that critic was silenced and muzzled by his own party. He was not given the opportunity to raise these questions in the House of Commons, perhaps because of his past record saying that Kyoto's cost would make people scream.

Has the member received any notice from the official opposition that that member has been relieved of his duties as the environment critic since these troubling comments have been revealed, or is he still the critic and--

[Petitions, December 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on traditional marriage.

The petition which calls upon the government to reflect the accurate definition of the word “marriage” as being a relationship between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others while retaining similar civil benefits for same sex couples.

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to address the House and question the member with regard to the immigration committee's report and the concurrence motion therein.

The government has moved swiftly to set up a secretariat to help with the recognition of foreign credentials: people who come to Canada well trained, well educated, and ready to put their skills to work to build on the Canadian dream. They are held up because oftentimes their credentials are not recognized here on Canadian soil.

The government is moving swiftly to set up a secretariat that will help lead to the recognition of those credentials, so that Canadian immigrants can live out the Canadian dream and contribute in a maximum way to the Canadian quality of life.

Does the member support the initiatives of the government to enhance the recognition of foreign credentials and to build on the opportunities that immigrants in this country are provided?

[Canada's Clean Air Act, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member will agree that this government inherited a massive environmental mess from the previous Liberal government. The new Liberal leader was a failed environment minister under whose government greenhouse gases skyrocketed by 35%. That is twice as much as occurred in the United States under George Bush during exactly the same period.

We inherited this massive increase in greenhouse gases from the newly elected leader of the Liberal Party. In fact, greenhouse gases hit their peak under his leadership. He is a failed environment minister and now we as a government have inherited the challenge of reversing the massive trend of increased greenhouse gases that we inherited from the previous Liberal government.

We are doing the best that we can with the clean air act. It is not going to be easy because of the mess that we inherited from the new Liberal leader. However, I want to thank the leader of the NDP for his ongoing commitment to reduce greenhouse gases and to work with the clean air act in order to achieve both a reduction in those gases and a reduction in smog. I thank the member and invite him to share more of his suggestions on how that can be done.

[The Québécois, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we have watched the Bloc take three different and contradictory positions. Bloc members first said they defend provincial jurisdictions, but at the same time, they gave Ottawa the power to define what Quebeckers are and to determine whether they form a nation. They gave this House that power. We therefore moved a motion to define Quebec as a nation, which upset the Bloc. It was against recognizing Quebec as a nation and was going to vote against this motion. However, the next day, it changed its tune again—for the third time—and said that it would vote in favour of defining Quebec as a nation and for a united Canada.

We now see that the Bloc has completely lost its raison d'être. It is completely pointless.

Can the minister tell us why Quebeckers should keep this party alive? Why should the Bloc Québécois exist?

[George Blackburn, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, humbled, saddened and honoured, to speak of George Blackburn, a retired World War II veteran, artillery officer, Military Cross winner, dedicated public servant, reporter, author, director, and loving husband, father, grandfather and even great-grandfather. This great Canadian passed away peacefully in his 90th year last week right here in Ottawa.

Mr. Blackburn was born in the town of Wales, Ontario, a village cleared to make way for the St. Lawrence Seaway. The project was commemorated in one of his musical plays, A Day to Remember.

He was best known publicly for his World War II book trilogy, The Guns of Normandy, which brought him the 1996 Ottawa Citizen Book of the Year Award.

He will be remembered. We extend to him all the honour of this House. May God bless his soul.

[Federal Accountability Act, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc member mentioned the goal of expanding access to information and transparency in government and that his party supports the right of farmers to have access to information on the monopoly that controls all sales and marketing of western grain, wheat and barley.

Earlier on, when the member for Malpeque said that this was somehow unusual, he did not mention that virtually every crown corporation in this country will be covered by access to information after the passage of the accountability act. For example, Canada Post will be covered by access to information, as will numerous other corporations that must compete internationally. CBC, VIA Rail and BDC, which is a bank for small businesses, all these organizations will be covered by access to information, which means that they will need to compete internationally and across this country with access to information.

There is no reason why the Wheat Board cannot do the same thing. It is a federally mandated wheat monopoly. If it is controlled by farmers, then farmers ought to have the right to know what is going on in that organization.

What is the member for Malpeque hiding? What is he worried might be unearthed if farmers are given the right to file access to information requests?

There are organizations across the country that are subject to access to information. Just because we are adding CBC and Canada Post to access to information does not mean we are attacking them. It is a method of accountability and openness that is being spread right across this government as a result of the accountability act.

If the Liberal Party wants to oppose it, why will it not tell us exactly what it is that it is trying to hide from Canadian farmers?

[Federal Accountability Act, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that member will note as well that we have appointed a judge who is the head of the Laurier Club, which is the fundraising arm of the Liberal Party. That was a non-partisan decision of the government because we believed that particular individual was capable of sitting on the bench and doing the job.

We, on this side, make decisions regardless of partisan label. We have appointed people of all different partisan backgrounds and some who have no partisan affiliation whatsoever. We are cleaning up by behaviour that which the law will eventually clean up in statutory acts.

I would encourage the member to support us in swiftly passing the accountability act, which includes a new ban on political patronage, put in by the NDP, granted, but it is a new public appointments commission put forward by the member for Winnipeg Centre. It is now in the act, but it will only come into effect when we have passed the accountability act, so I encourage that member to join with us to do that as swiftly as possible.