Debates of Nov. 29th, 2011

Colin Carrie Oshawa, ON

Madam Speaker, our government has been working very hard on the social determinants of health. The problem is that every time we bring things forward to improve the situation, the NDP constantly votes against them.

The World Conference on Social Determinants of Health in Rio was an important opportunity for member states of the World Health Organization.

It was also important for non-governmental organizations, stakeholders, academics and other UN agencies. The conference involved a discussion on strategies and action for reducing health inequities at the national and international level. It also provided a unique venue to work with Canadian and international partners to identify actions that can be taken to address the underlying environmental, social and economic conditions that affect the health and well-being of Canadians.

Dr. David Butler-Jones, Canada's Chief Public Health Officer, had the opportunity to highlight the significant steps Canada has taken in addressing social determinants.

Our government's commitment to this issue is underscored by the Minister of Health's recent announcement. Canada recognizes the complex causes of health inequalities among indigenous populations.

Canada also underscored that it will continue to work with partners to develop, test and document—

The Deputy Speaker Denise Savoie

Order. The hon. member for Halifax.

Megan Leslie Halifax, NS

Madam Speaker, the hole in the ozone over the Arctic has grown to record size. As we have heard in the House, it is now twice the size of Ontario. Reports are that it could take about four decades to repair. This hole poses major long-term health and environmental concerns related to ultraviolet rays and it represents a massive environmental, social and financial debt that will be paid forward to our children and grandchildren.

That is why it was so concerning when this summer the government announced cuts that would affect Canada's ozone programs. These programs are world-renowned. They are made-in-Canada solutions. People from around the globe rely on the information that these programs gather.

On September 23, in the House, I asked the minister about cuts to the ozone monitoring program. I specifically asked about the reports that he was getting rid of one of two measurement systems that are used to monitor two very different aspects of the ozone. On that day and in subsequent rounds of questions he responded repeatedly in the House and in the media that the cuts were to address duplications within the program. He also refused to provide any analysis for how the cuts could be carried out without actually affecting the scientific data being produced by the programs.

Incidentally, he has also refused to this date to provide Canadians with an analysis about how the government will continue to ensure a healthy biologically diverse environment and how we will pass it on to future generations despite massive cuts to Environment Canada and the Environmental Assessment Agency.

However, lo and behold, last week it was revealed that one of the minister's senior officials wrote a report to the minister in September about the ozone monitoring program that contradicted everything the minister had been saying in the House and that the she herself had said to the media only a week after writing the report.

The minister responded to the questions about these contradictions in the House by saying that the document was actually being misquoted.

That document, dated September 16, discovered through access to information requests, states specifically:

These methods measure different characteristics of the atmosphere and thus complement, but do not duplicate each other.

That is actually in this access to information request. The wording is very clear: there is no duplication within the ozone monitoring program, and yet the minister's response was to attack opposition MPs and the journalist who broke the story.

As usual, he chose to suppress the science of the matter with spin, something we are used to seeing here. However, he has continued to do so more on this issue than on any other issue it seems that he has been questioned about, including his government's climate change plan, which, according to all the data analysis, is actually failing spectacularly.

As with many of the decisions that are being made by the minister, the core of this issue is scientific capacity, because these cuts are part of a systematic attempt by the government to reduce the ability of the federal department and agencies to monitor and respond to environmental hazards. We need good science for good environmental assessments, for project planning and research and innovation. Both industry and environmentalists agree that enhanced scientific capacity is essential at the federal level.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary if the minister will come clean about the cuts to this program and actually reinstate the funding to Environment Canada to save these programs.

Michelle Rempel Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

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.

Megan Leslie Halifax, NS

Madam Speaker, that answer was very short. There is not much to say when it comes to defending what is happening with these programs.

What about efficiency and program delivery? How about the fact that we have a program that is run by one scientist and that scientist received a notice saying that he may lose his job? How about the fact that we have another program that monitors something completely different, a completely different set of data that is relied on by the international community, and is run by one scientist who also received a notice saying that his job may be on the line?

The minister does not understand what these programs do. He does not understand that they do different things. He does not understand that they are all very much needed. This is not about efficiency in program delivery. This is about shutting down science.

When is the minister going to own up to the fact that that is what he is trying to do here?

Michelle Rempel Calgary Centre-North, AB

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.

Lawrence MacAulay Cardigan, PE

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in my place this evening and say a few words on behalf of the people I represent. I represent the riding of Cardigan in eastern Prince Edward Island. It contains a lot of farmers, fishermen, small business and tourism. Fisheries is a major issue in my area.

I recall my first term as a member of Parliament and touring through the federal riding of Cardigan and viewing the wharves. I remember in particular going to Savage Harbour and looking at the breakwater that is called the black wall. At that time it would have taken less than $200,000 to repair the wall, but I could not convince the government that it should be done. When the Liberals finally became government, it cost over $2 million to repair that wall. Wharf repair is like taking care of one's home, buildings, vehicle, or anything else. It is an ongoing issue.

I also remember going down to Graham's Pond and looking at the facing of the wharf that was being torn off. I tried to convince the government at that time that it needed to be repaired. Everybody in the fishing industry knows what happens when the face goes off. The ice gets in behind and pushes the wharf to pieces. In fact, the plant there was about to go into the water.

Then I looked at North Lake and Naufrage, and all the dredging that needed to be done there. The propellors on boats would be harmed on the way in because there was not enough dollars.

We put the harbour authorities in place after we were elected to government. That was a concern of mine when it happened. The fishermen decided that it was part of their responsibility, but it was understood that the Government of Canada would supply the proper funding. The harbour authority would provide a small amount of funding, but it would work with the federal government in order to ensure that the wharves were kept in proper order.

On October 17 I received an internal memo that indicated that ocean management projects, science services, aquaculture, and other important programs were being slashed by DFO.

At one time back then there was just about $100 million in small craft harbour funding available to repair wharves. Today, $57 million is available to repair small craft harbours. I hope that my good friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will go back to the government and indicate what a serious issue this is. He knows very well that we are looking at close containment and the open net concept for raising salmon. We need the scientific dollars. We need to know what is going on with close containment and what is going on in the open net concept. I hope that the parliamentary secretary can indicate what specific areas are going to be cut.

The government is going to change the fishing licence service to an automated service. A lot of things happen in the fishery. If somebody cannot take out a boat and has to shift, then how is that person going to arrange those things? How is the government going to avoid hurting people who do not have the Internet? I hope the parliamentary secretary will be able to respond.

Lawrence MacAulay Cardigan, PE

Madam Speaker, I appreciate it, but I am disappointed with what my hon. friend had to say.

I am pleased the minister travelled to talk to fishermen. I know they are realigning. I wonder if the minister happened to mention, when he was travelling and talking to fishermen, that he would cut the budget for small craft harbours from close to $100 million to $57 million. I would be very surprised with the people whom I represent. I live among fishermen who understand what needs to be done, what it takes to keep harbours in shape.

I hope my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, will go back and tell the minister and the government that it is just unacceptable if they cut the budget from $100 million. In fact, they are cutting the budget in half.

In his final comments I would like if he would indicate if that $57 million is the wharf in Pangnirtung at Nunavut. We support that wharf, but is that money coming out of the budget now, or is it new money, as we were told by the government a couple of years ago?

Randy Kamp Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC

Madam Speaker, I would be more sympathetic to my colleague and his concerns if he had not been part of the government that throughout the 1990s and even as late as 2005 made much greater arbitrary cuts than we will ever see on this side the House.

With respect to small craft harbours, he knows that the budget has not been changed for that. He should know that in 2008 we put $45 million into the divestiture program. Then through the economic action plan, we put $200 million into projects across the country to allow us to catch up from the condition that we found the harbours in when we inherited them from the Liberal government. That $200 million is a lot of money even by Liberal standards.

The Deputy Speaker Denise Savoie

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:47 p.m.)