Bill C-579 (Historical)

Reducing the effects of urban heat islands Act

An Act to reduce the effects of urban heat islands on the health of Canadians

This enactment provides that the Minister of Health must
(a) in consultation with the Minister of the Environment, the provincial ministers responsible for health and with representatives of municipalities, establish a national strategy to reduce the effects of urban heat islands; and
(b) table a report in the House of Commons on the implementation of this Act that sets out the results of the efforts to reduce the effects of urban heat islands.

Reducing the effects of urban heat islands Act

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

moved that Bill C-579, An Act to reduce the effects of urban heat islands on the health of Canadians, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to my bill, Bill C-579, An Act to reduce the effects of urban heat islands on the health of Canadians. To begin, let me explain what a heat island is.

The term “heat island” refers to an urban area that is hotter than the surrounding areas. In urban environments, the infrastructure tends to absorb large amounts of solar radiation during summer heat waves and release it in the form of heat, thus creating heat islands. In the most serious cases, temperature differences can reach 12 degrees Celsius at night.

I would like to make my colleagues aware of the public health risk that this represents. To do that I will simply tell my colleagues how I became interested in this growing problem. I will explain how health professionals in my riding, Honoré-Mercier, brought this to my attention; how we drafted the bill in response to the needs expressed by the community; how the work was done in collaboration with organizations that are already committed to finding tangible solutions in urban communities; and how for the past few months, we have been receiving a wave of support for this bill, which everyone sees as a simple, yet fundamental contribution by the federal government.

I sincerely believe that when members of the House find out about the impact of heat islands on Canadians' health, they will not hesitate to support my bill. That is what I hope.

I would like to give hon. members a bit of background. On May 7, 2011, in the days following the May 2 election, I attended an event in Pointe-de-l'Île. It was a meeting with the mayor of Rivière-des-Prairies and public health officers from the health and social services centres, better known as the CSSS. This issue spoke to me. They started talking about heat islands. I learned that Honoré-Mercier has one of the largest heat islands in Quebec during heatwaves. I want to emphasize that point.

At home in eastern Montreal, it was the worrisome number of asthmatic children that first alerted the public health authority. In searching for the cause of these health problems the health authority discovered the scope of the adverse effect of high temperatures on people who live in areas that become heat islands during heat waves. This phenomenon's adverse effect on health has an impact on all Canadians who live in cities because high temperatures increase pollution. We know that more than 80% of Canadians live in urban centres. That is reason enough to address the problem. We might also say that dealing with health problems will result in significant savings for the provinces.

We can add to that list those who live in the most densely populated urban areas, areas filled with concrete buildings and paved parking lots. It is often seniors or the poorest and least mobile individuals who cluster around local services. The most vulnerable Canadians are therefore the first to feel the negative impacts of heat islands. We are talking about seniors, children and pregnant women. Members will therefore understand my haste in asking the government to take stronger action on this issue.

I would like to give my colleagues a brief overview of the research that my team and I have done since I became aware of this issue in order to help them understand the symptoms associated with the urban heat island effect. As I said, a heat island is an urban area where the air and ground temperatures are higher than in surrounding areas. This is usually a difference of about 5°C or 6°C, but it can reach up to 12°C at its worst. If we think about a summer day in Montreal when it is 35°C, the humidity can bring this up to 37°C; an extra five degrees can therefore make a big difference.

I am thinking here about neighbourhoods where residents experience sweltering heat. Imagine the effect on their health. Heat islands occur in densely populated urban areas—as I already mentioned—and in areas where the ground is covered in concrete. The asphalt absorbs the heat and prevents any water from infiltrating the soil. It is therefore useless to water the asphalt. As I already mentioned, this promotes smog. More smog is produced because of the heat, and so, in the end, everyone is affected.

Let me now give you a specific scenario. Imagine we are in the middle of a heat wave. Your car is not working, and people are saying, on the radio, that you should go to a shopping centre, where you can cool off thanks to the air conditioning. So you end up walking to the shopping centre and you cross the parking lot, all the while pushing the baby's stroller. It is hot. You feel terrible. You finally get there, but you are tired. The baby is even more tired because he cannot express his discomfort. You finally step into the cool, comfortable shopping centre. Imagine now that you have taken off your shoes and are walking barefoot on the asphalt. How many seconds could you stand the heat without crying out?

As I said earlier, this material soaks up heat during the day, then releases it at night. Indeed, if you open a window, the air will still be warm. This adds to the continuous impact of the phenomenon. Furthermore, people living in these urban areas tend to use more air conditioning, which in turn makes the surrounding air warmer. This makes things worse for their neighbours without air conditioning. As is often the case, this vicious circle affects the most vulnerable—seniors, children, those who are sick— who cannot escape this oppressive heat and are left to suffer.

During the day, the only refuges are shopping malls, since they offer a cool environment. However, once the malls close, people return to their apartments, which are so hot that they can make people sick. It is even worse for small children or anyone with heart problems or blood pressure issues.

I truly believe that this is definitely a health issue. Montreal's public health department said that on hot days, the mortality rate was on average 20% higher for people living in heat islands.

Health Canada has found that 8,000 deaths between 1979 and 2003 were caused exclusively by exposure to high or extreme heat. In Europe, 70,000 people died during the 2003 heat wave. We all saw this on TV.

Many people suffer in silence. The symptoms are weakness; fatigue; cramps; heart failure; breathing difficulties; and aggravation of chronic, cardiovascular, neurological or renal diseases.

There are some solutions. If people who are already sick or on medication are not careful to keep themselves hydrated on hot days, they are putting their lives at risk. When I learned that most seniors living alone suffered more than they had to, since they didn't know how the environment could affect their health, I decided that this was unacceptable. People all over suffer as well.

What happens in the riding of Honoré-Mercier also goes on in Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto and many other Canadian cities. That is why I gave specific documents to some of my colleagues. I was pleased to be able to share with them information on heat islands.

I introduced this bill because I am calling on Health Canada to establish a national strategy to reduce the effects of urban heat islands, in consultation with the Minister of the Environment, provincial ministers, health representatives and municipal representatives.

I believe it is important to draw from the experiences of communities and the private industry, which have already committed to fighting the effects of heat islands by tackling the sources of the problem.

There are companies in Canada that have figured out how to make white roads. On a plane to Edmonton, I met a company president who told me that he had imported technology from Europe to do it here in Canada, which would create jobs. The best argument I can offer the House in favour of this bill is that solutions exist.

The purpose of this bill is to raise awareness among decision-makers and individuals, but it also offers hope. My hope is that this bill will help harmonize measures at the national level. Some provinces and municipalities have made a little progress, but if we all work together to solve the problem, I believe the health care savings will be huge, we will create jobs, and we will have the quality of life we deserve.

We have to carry out positive experiments in a community so that they can benefit all Canadians. Inspiring solutions exist, and all community stakeholders can get involved, including companies that are thinking more about the impact of their infrastructure on air quality, municipalities that are trying to green their urban environments and regulate the use of certain materials in building construction and renovation, provincial governments that are figuring out how to locate and measure heat islands, and, of course, organizations involved in raising public awareness and greening problematic urban areas. Everyone needs to get involved in combating the negative effects of heat islands. The federal government must do its part too.

The bill does not provide all the solutions. I propose that we go looking for those solutions together. I need the help of all the members from all parties represented in the House. I need to raise awareness. I can provide some information to help my colleagues who represent ridings dealing with the issue of heat islands. I believe that nationwide collaboration on this type of strategy would maximize the efforts of the communities fighting the harm caused by heat islands on the health of Canadians.

We need to remember one thing: other countries are looking to Canada. We can play a leadership role. Canada can be a country like those that are already addressing the issue, including Germany. Many other countries and large cities in the world have already developed strategies to prevent the problem. Germany's building code and federal nature conservation legislation require municipalities to support sustainable development and protect natural landscapes. In the United States, the federal government provides the states with financial and technical assistance to implement urban forestry plans and encourage research on the role of the canopy as a means of mitigating the effects of urban heat islands. Chicago, Illinois, is a leader in the United States for its green roofing projects. Over the past century, the temperature in Tokyo has increased five times faster than the global average. To fight the effects of urban heat islands, Tokyo requires all new buildings to cover at least 20% of the roof area with vegetation.

We have good reason to take action to protect the health of Canadians. We can do more. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Together, we can do better.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Honoré-Mercier not only for her edifying speech but also for having introduced such a pertinent bill. As we all know, environmental legislation certainly does not emanate from the other side. Thankfully, the NDP is here to ensure that future generations will be able to live in an environment as healthy as ours, or even healthier if possible.

My colleague's bill certainly fits with the environmental vision that compels us to act locally but think globally and come up with global solutions. By local, we mean within a riding, a municipality, a province and, of course, Canada.

I am apprehensive of the answer, but will Canada once again be the only OECD country without a policy on this?

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but we can still catch up. I certainly hope we will be able to do more. We will reach the same level as other countries and worry about the health of Canadians. We must always remain hopeful.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for her wonderful speech.

I lived in the riding of Honoré—Mercier for several years and so I know that heat islands cause real problems near refineries and highways.

Does my colleague think that it would be a good idea for the federal government, the provinces and the municipalities to work together to resolve this problem as set out in her bill?

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

That is precisely the purpose of the bill: for the federal government, the provinces and the municipalities to work together. This would save money and improve people's quality of life.

We all need to work together because we are all part of the same country.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members can see, this is something that is very important to me.

Can the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier tell us whether addressing the problem of heat islands would also help the provinces save money on health care?

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we already know that emergency health services are very expensive.

It costs less to make an appointment at the doctor's office, even though you might have to wait a few months to get in. However, sometimes people have to go to the emergency department to bring in a child suffering from an asthma attack or a senior who has to stay in hospital for a few days.

By addressing the root of the problem, we will certainly save money on these hospitalizations. This represents a savings for the provinces and therefore for our country. That is good economics. This is not theory. This is something tangible that will allow the municipalities, the provinces and the country to save money.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, our government's position on this is plain and simple: Bill C-579, an act to reduce the effects of urban heat islands on the health of Canadians, is not the right approach for Canada.

Indeed, our government is already taking action to help Canadians adapt to the changes in climate and mitigate health risks related to extreme heat. Our approach has been to recognize that urban communities across Canada have different priorities, characteristics, and capacities to address local health issues related to a changing climate.

We have sought to work with Canadians in ways that respect these variances and which are not prescriptive. I would like to highlight a few of these examples.

Since 2008, Health Canada has worked with federal, provincial, and municipal partners to enhance the resiliency of communities and individual Canadians to the health impacts of extreme heat. In fact, I served for many years on the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Credit Valley Conservation authority.

A key component of our initiative has been the development of heat alert and response systems in communities across the country, and raising awareness of heat health risks among individuals, health professionals, and communities. We have provided information to help communities decide when to issue heat alerts; assisted in developing messaging for vulnerable populations, such as seniors and children; and informed public health authorities and emergency management officials of measures that can be put in place to reduce heat-related illnesses and deaths in their communities.

We have been successful because we have relied on a collaborative approach across different levels of government to build capacity, not a one-size-fits-all framework, as is proposed in the bill.

Indeed the ability of this government to work with varied jurisdictions is leading towards the implementation of province-wide heat alert and response systems in Manitoba, Alberta, and Ontario. Even something as simple as addressing air pollution can help to mitigate some health impacts of extreme heat.

Health Canada officials have worked with officials from Environment Canada to roll out the air quality health index across the country. On a daily basis, I am sure many Canadians are familiar with this index. It provides Canadians with air quality forecasts and health messages that seek to provide Canadians with balanced information regarding the benefits of maintaining an active lifestyle versus the risks associated with prolonged outdoor exposure to air pollution.

Again, our approach has been to provide Canadians and communities with the tools to help them make informed decisions and take meaningful actions to reduce health risks for themselves and their families.

Our government set the Canadian ambient air quality standards, in 2013. These new health-based Canadian ambient air quality standards set the bar, so to speak, for managing the two key components of smog: fine particulate matter, and ground level ozone.

Over the last decade, under the clean air regulatory agenda, this government has enacted a series of regulations to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles. This initiative for improved air quality overall translates into reduced health risks, particularly during heat events.

Finally, allow me to highlight how we are working with Canadians to help them adapt to a changing climate. In 2010-11, Health Canada held a series of workshops, in Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Windsor, Winnipeg, and Vancouver, just to discuss how to bring health authorities and community planners together to address health and the built environment.

Research on extreme heat and air quality is being conducted across Canada to inform policy decisions at the local level. The findings are being shared at all levels of government, so that communities can develop approaches that fit their particular needs within their own timeframe.

For example, the City of Windsor has developed urban recommendations that were submitted to their city council as part of its broader climate change adaptation strategy. The city is presently working with Health Canada on improving thermal comfort in its urban parks and playgrounds to improve healthy and active living. Similar success stories are occurring in other partner communities all across Ontario.

Results from community projects will be disseminated to stakeholders across Canada in presentations and case studies to help raise awareness and to support action at the local level.

In additions, Health Canada has in place a webinar series called “Cool Communities”, which is helping to share the results and lessons learned from community-based initiatives with a national and international audience.

Through this effort we are linking public health officials, landscape architects, planners, local, provincial and federal government employees, and academics so that they can share best practices.

Indeed, since 2007 our government has invested over $2 billion towards 1,400 green infrastructure projects across Canada through a number of targeted programs as part of building Canada and Canada's economic action plan.

Now that I have outlined the benefits and early successes of our current collaborative approach with provinces and municipalities, I would like to tell members why this government will not be supporting Bill C-579, and why we will instead continue to support ongoing collaborative efforts.

Bill C-579 would duplicate co-operative federal efforts that the government has already put in place with the provinces and municipalities to adapt changes in climate and mitigate health risks. The bill would also create jurisdictional overlaps with provinces, which could have a negative impact on current co-operative efforts under way with several municipalities. The jurisdictional overlaps created by the bill would also make the government accountable for activities over which it has no control.

The NDP simply need to realize that the solution to everything is not a new national strategy and broad spending promises. The legislation should not be wholly surprising to this House given that its genesis is from a party that is proposing a $20 billion carbon tax.

Even laying aside the lopsided approach proposed in the bill, we simply cannot support legislation that so clearly infringes on provincial, territorial and municipal jurisdictions.

Our government has already established effective programming through the clean air agenda without the need for Bill C-579. The work we are already undertaking with respect to the air quality health index allows Canadians to limit their exposure to air pollution while our health-based Canadian ambient air quality standards will improve air quality, thus reducing health risks during heat waves.

More importantly, through our heat resiliency initiative and the successful implementation of heat alert and response systems, we are creating awareness of the dangers to one's health from extreme heat events.

A 2010 report of the Office of the Auditor General highlighted the successes of the heat resiliency initiative in generating and sharing information for use. Most importantly, the audit report stated that this government is creating awareness that extreme heat is a health concern and is making that information available and understandable to Canadians.

By continuing to work with willing communities and targeting funding to address local concerns related to air quality and extreme heat, this government is taking concrete actions to protect and promote the health of Canadians.

To reiterate and to conclude, Bill C-579 is not required to protect Canadians from the health impacts associated with extreme heat.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-579, An Act to reduce the effects of urban heat islands on the health of Canadians, sponsored by my colleague from Honoré-Mercier. The purpose of the bill is to address the effects of higher temperatures on large urban areas. I too live in a large urban area, in Montreal.

This is how Bill C-579 defines “urban heat island”:

“urban heat island” means a built-up area in an urban environment in which the average air temperature is markedly greater—as much as 12 degrees Celsius hotter—than that in nearby rural areas.

As I said, my own riding of Westmount—Ville-Marie, which is heavily urbanized, is a good example of a region that is affected adversely by this phenomenon.

As the city of Montreal grew, forested areas and vegetation were cut down to create office buildings, parking lots, and residential complexes. These kinds of structures absorb heat much more readily and result in localized rises in temperature.

Heat islands are forming on the earth's surface and in the atmosphere. On hot summer days, the temperature on the outer surface of buildings, in parking lots and on roadways can often be between 27 and 50 degrees Celsius higher than the air temperature. In the evening, this accumulation of heat in urban infrastructure is released, thereby keeping the air temperature elevated. The higher temperatures of urban heat islands, particularly in the summer, can have a definite impact on the environment and the quality of life of a community.

Urban heat islands have a number of effects, including increased energy consumption, higher levels of air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, negative impacts on human health and increased discomfort, and degradation of water quality. The average number of premature deaths in Toronto due solely to extreme heat is estimated at 120. That number could be a lot higher, because mortality rates increase sharply during extremely hot summers.

High daytime temperatures can seriously compromise people's health when the mercury does not drop enough in the evening and when air pollution levels are high. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, extreme heat can cause respiratory difficulties, heat cramps and exhaustion, non-fatal heat stroke and heat-related mortality.

An assessment rendered from the 2010 urban heat island summit in Toronto, which was attended by local decision-makers, heat researchers and industry representatives, concluded that the issue could not be tackled by a single measure or by a single municipal department. This is why it is important to have federal government leadership.

The bill has several objectives.

First, the Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment must establish a national strategy to reduce the effects of urban heat islands that includes the following elements: (a) create a public awareness campaign on air quality and heat islands; (b) develop an inventory, prioritizing heat islands; (c) develop action plans that must address: (i) the management of urban biodiversity; (ii) the promotion of community green projects; (iii) the protection of natural areas; (iv) the establishment of greening areas to be developed; and (v) the promotion of public transit and sustainable transportation.

Within 90 days of this act coming into force, the minister must convene a national conference establishing this strategy.

This bill focuses on the health and safety of Canadians, as well as the health of the environment. It aims to make the Canadian government a world leader by urging it to work with the provinces, territories, municipalities and specialists to come up with an action plan.

I know it might seem terrible for this government to have to work in partnership with the provinces and scientists, or to have to play a leadership role when it comes to the environment, but one can always hope that the government might actually change its position on something.

Many municipalities have begun tackling the problem of heat islands, but their efforts have been scattered and are not nearly substantial enough to produce real results. Some measures taken involve increasing the amount of vegetation and the number of trees, creating more parks, building green rooftops and rooftop gardens, installing cool roofs and using cool pavement.

Luckily, there are potential solutions that can help mitigate the effects of urban heat islands.

As Dorothy Maguire, a Ph.D student in natural resources sciences at McGill University in my riding, wrote in a recent article:

...researchers have found that the effects of heat islands can be reduced through innovative urban planning and design that increases the amount of urban green space! Vegetation in the city cools surface temperatures by increasing the amount of heat reflected back into the atmosphere (called the albedo effect). The same way that we sweat to cool our bodies, vegetation reflects sunlight and releases water into the atmosphere to cool the city down. Trees also provide shade, reducing the exposure of heat-absorbing surfaces to sunlight and giving us city-dwellers a cool place to relax. We need to encourage strategies to reduce the urban heat island effect in Montreal, like developing green roofs, preserving existing natural areas and reforesting degraded ones.

Measures similar to those proposed in this bill were implemented in the early 2000s and have been quite successful. There is no doubt that the phenomenon of urban heat islands is a problem in urban centres. The targeted interventions set out in the bill should help improve public health, environmental quality and energy efficiency in urban areas, as well as in surrounding suburbs and rural areas.

We need to deal with this issue, which affects environmental health, in order to help our society move toward more sustainable and effective solutions.

Studies have all shown the same thing: the presence of urban heat islands has harmful effects. For example, they negatively affect water quality, increase atmospheric pollution, increase heat stress and create an environment that is conducive to the spread of vector-borne diseases.

As I mentioned earlier, there are many documented examples that show how effective green projects are in reducing the effects of urban heat islands, increasing energy efficiency and improving public health and general environmental conditions in cities.

This is an important bill that focuses on both the environment and health, two issues that are important to me and my constituents.

I would like to thank the member for introducing this bill, and I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-579, introduced by my colleague and friend, the excellent NDP member for Honoré-Mercier.

Her bill would reduce the harmful effects of urban heat islands on the health of Canadians. The environment is an issue that I have been particularly interested in since I was elected in 2011. I work with a number of local organizations that promote and protect the environment, including the Conseil régional de l'environnement de Laval and the Association pour la protection du boisé Sainte-Dorothée. I find the issue of heat islands to be very worrisome, and as parliamentarians, we have to tackle this issue as quickly as possible for the good of the people.

Let us begin with a definition of a heat island. According to Health Canada a heat island is an urban area that is hotter than nearby areas. Depending on the population density, the temperature can vary by up to 12°C from one neighbourhood to the next. These heat islands are directly caused by human activity in urban areas, whether it is urbanization, transportation, the pollution it causes, or the lack of vegetation. There is no doubt that heat islands have a direct effect on the health of Canadians.

Montreal's public health authority noted that on hot days, the mortality rate was 20% higher than average for people who live in heat islands. It goes without saying that heat islands affect the health of Canadians because of higher temperatures, which create heat waves and increase air pollution.

Between 1973 and 2003, nearly 8,000 people died in Canada alone because of heat waves, and many of these deaths occurred in heat islands. Therefore, this is a problem that we must tackle as parliamentarians, not just because it is a public health issue, but also because it is a wake up call about the disastrous consequences of the environmental decisions, or rather non-decisions, by successive Liberal and Conservative governments over the years.

Although we have been aware of the existence and effects of heat islands for many years, no government—Liberal or Conservative—has bothered to address this issue. No national strategy has been put in place to reduce the effects of heat islands on the health of Canadians. The provincial, municipal and federal governments are not working together on this issue. We need some leadership here, as we do on many other issues. The NDP is the party that is showing leadership by addressing the urgent problems facing our society.

I am proud of the leadership my colleague from Honoré-Mercier has shown on this crucial issue. I am also proud of the leadership shown by our leader, the leader of the official opposition and future Prime Minister of Canada, who has put environmental protection ahead of lobby groups' interests throughout his career. That is the kind of leadership Canadians deserve. As a result of this same leadership, we were able to hear from a number of experts on wetlands and urban agriculture when I was on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. They told us about the dangers of deforestation in urban areas and the negative effects of wetland destruction.

I want to take this opportunity to say hello to Guy Garand and Marie-Christine Bellemare from the Conseil régional de l'environnement in my riding of Laval—Les Îles. They came to testify in committee to explain the direct causal links between wetland destruction in my region and the creation of heat islands.

Heat is not the only consequence of heat islands. The effects can come in many forms, including higher smog levels in major urban centres and lower air quality, which can create breeding grounds for bacteria, mites and mould. These effects also increase demand for energy to cool indoor air and increase demand for and consumption of drinking water.

We must act now because Canadians' health is at stake. Our children, grandchildren and seniors are among those most affected by heat islands.

The Conservative government has washed its hands of the whole thing. It eliminated energy efficiency programs. It has done nothing to help major Canadian cities that have this problem share knowledge and take coordinated action. It is leaving municipalities to their own devices yet again. It has never taken action or implemented any kind of strategy to tackle this problem.

The NDP does not pass the buck and hope that problems will magically solve themselves. The health of Canadians is a priority, and we want the current government to support Health Canada in its mission to reduce the harmful effects of heat islands. We want to support the provinces and municipalities in their efforts to locate and assess the hottest urban areas. We want to facilitate information sharing among the provinces and municipalities. We want to raise public awareness about the pressing problem of heat islands.

We also believe that it is the federal government's role to support the work of organizations that are offering tangible, low-cost solutions for dealing with or reducing the effects of heat islands. One solution is planting trees, which also improves Canadians' quality of life.

The federal government has an obligation to show leadership and coordinate all these efforts. The NDP is asking for leadership on this bill, among other things.

I can already hear the members opposite saying that it will cost too much and that our heads are in the clouds. That is not true. According to a 2013 study by the Université de Sherbrooke, planting trees provides a return on investment that is 5.8 times higher than the cost of the trees themselves. The University of California, Berkeley, demonstrated that developing a strategy to counter the effects of heat islands reduces energy consumption by 3% to 5%. That is in addition to the money saved on emergency and health care services and on the cost of hospital stays when communities effectively address the problem of heat islands.

To conclude, the bill introduced by the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier clearly shows that the successive Liberal and Conservative governments were faced with this challenge and, as usual, did nothing.

Canadians will be able to count on real leadership by electing an NDP government in 2015.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the debate on the bill so far and I could not agree more with the position detailed earlier today by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. Bill C-579 is simply not the right approach for Canadians. Indeed, our government is already taking action to help Canadians adapt to changes in climate and mitigate health risks related to extreme heat. Our approach has been to recognize that urban communities across Canada have different priorities, characteristics and capacities to address local health issues related to a changing climate.

I would like to focus my speech on our government's activities working with other orders of government on this issue of extreme heat, rather than acceding to NDP calls for yet another national strategy. I intend to complement the picture painted by the parliamentary secretary and provide members of the House with further assurance that the government takes the protection of Canadians' health and the environment very seriously, but at the same time, recognizes that the solution to every issue is not a new national strategy.

The bill before us today would require the Minister of Health to consult with the Minister of the Environment, provincial ministers responsible for health, and representatives of municipalities on the issue it speaks to. Within 90 days of the coming into force of the bill, the Minister of Health would also have to convene a national conference aimed at implementing a work plan designed to achieve the objectives of the strategy.

I have some news for the members of the NDP. Our government is already working with provincial and municipal governments and actively supporting initiatives aimed at addressing the effects of extreme heat. In fact, we work with different levels of government all the time.

Some of these initiatives are focused on reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, both of which can contribute to extreme heat. Perhaps more importantly, our government has recently announced that it will be stepping up its efforts to conserve our environment. Indeed, the Prime Minister recently announced a national conservation plan that includes a long-term vision for conservation in Canada. New investments of $252 million over five years will be directed by the government to conserve Canada's lands and waters, enhance biodiversity, restore degraded ecosystems, protect recovering species and promote Canadians' connection to nature.

Our government has also committed to work toward the creation of a national urban park in the Toronto area. The Rouge Park is set to become Canada's first national urban park under the stewardship of Parks Canada. The creation of the park will also offer nearly 20% of the country's population the opportunity to connect with nature close to home.

The government also promotes community green projects that help mitigate extreme heat. Environment Canada's eco-action community funding program has provided financial support to community-based, non-profit organizations for projects that will protect, rehabilitate or enhance the natural environment. Since 2011, over 100 eco-action projects related to nature, clean air, clean water and climate change have been put in place throughout the provinces and our territories.

Some examples of projects funded include the Treekeepers initiative, which aims to increase the tree canopy in Vancouver, reducing energy use, providing habitat for species, and improving local air quality. Another will create a 400-square-metre green roof and green walls in the Lachine area of Montreal. Eco-action also funds projects that promote the vegetation of empty lots, the installation of native shrubs and trees, and the use of alternative transportation. All of these projects speak to our government's commitment to the environment and reducing the effects of extreme heat.

Health Canada also has a webinar series called “Cool Communities”, which is sharing the results and lessons learned from community-based initiatives with a national and international audience. Through this series we are linking public health officials, landscape architects, planners, local, provincial and federal government employees, and academics so they can share best practices.

Since 2007, our government has invested over $2 billion toward 1,400 green infrastructure projects across Canada through a number of targeted programs, as part of Building Canada and Canada's economic action plan.

The government's approach to the protection of biodiversity and promotion of green spaces in urban areas through initiatives such as the national conservation plan, the Rouge National Park, and the eco-action funding program has the merit of building on existing co-operative work with provinces and municipalities.

In addition to urban conservation initiatives, our government is taking action to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, both of which can contribute to urban heat island effects.

Through the clean air regulatory agenda, our government is reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants that threaten the health of Canadians. They degrade the environment, they contribute to smog, and ultimately they adversely affect the economy. The government regulates smog-forming emissions from on-road vehicles; off-road compression ignition engines, such as those found in tractors; off-road spark ignition engines, such as those found in lawn mowers; off-road recreational vehicles; and marine spark ignition engines.

In addition to air pollutant regulations, our government is also implementing a sector-by-sector regulatory approach by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in collaboration with provinces, territories, and stakeholders.

In 2010, the government released regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger cars and light trucks for model years 2011 to 2016.

In 2012, we introduced proposed amendments to also regulate model years 2017 and beyond.

Last year, we produced regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from on-road heavy-duty vehicles, such as buses and dump trucks. In 2012, our government also put in place regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the coal-fired electricity sector. With these regulations, Canada became the first major coal user to ban the construction of traditional coal-fired electricity generating units.

The facts are clear for all of us to see. Our government is already taking decisive action in working with provinces, territories, and municipalities to combat the effects of extreme heat and protect our environment. Only the NDP could view the concrete actions that the parliamentary secretary and I have referenced here today as insufficient save for one thing: the branding of yet another “national strategy”.

All that is missing from this legislation is a rehash of the NDP's commitment to impose a $21 billion carbon tax on Canadians. It is not enough for them that our government is working with communities in a respectful and constructive manner, not at all. According to New Democrats, we need to raise taxes on Canadian families and roll out national strategy after national strategy, and it will be these grand socialist schemes that will save Canadians from every ill.

This bill is not needed, it is not wanted, and it will do no more to protect our environment than our government is already doing.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Trois-Rivières has eight minutes remaining.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I mean no offence, but hearing that my time has been cut short comes as bad news; however, I will try to make the best of a bad situation.

The one consolation I have after this bad news is the fact that, as the Quebec caucus chair, I have had the good fortune of visiting many regions of my province. Every time, I have noticed that the bond of trust between the people and the New Democratic Party is always strong when it comes to the environment. This is no doubt directly related to the fact that our leader, the member for Outremont, not all that long ago, was probably one of the best environment ministers that Quebec has ever had.

It therefore comes as no surprise that most of the environmental measures proposed in this Parliament are introduced by NDP members, like the bill introduced this afternoon by my colleague from Honoré-Mercier. The bill introduces legislative provisions to develop a national strategy. If there is one expression we have been hearing a lot over the past year, it is just that: “national strategy”. We hear it so much these days because Canada has never been more disorganized than it is now, ever since the Conservatives came to power. We are probably seen as the laggards or as a laughing stock, take your pick. Among the OECD countries, we are always pulling up the rear and rarely a model. This is definitely true when it comes to the environment, and especially regarding protection measures against heat islands or, what would be even better, measures to eliminate them.

What exactly do we mean when we talk about heat islands? As Camus said, “to call things by incorrect names is to add to the world’s misery”. I will take just a few moments for those who are watching and might not be familiar with the reality we are talking about to explain what we mean by heat island. It is an urban area where the average temperature is higher than that in nearby areas. It is a simple definition that makes it fairly easy to understand the concept. In rural areas, heat islands do not really exist.

Two factors contribute to the temperature rise: (1) urban density, in other words the number of inhabitants per square foot and the number of urban facilities; and (2) urbanism itself. I am drawing the attention of my colleagues to these two key factors to point out that it is human activity that essentially creates heat islands.

Montreal's public health branch released a devastating report on the adverse effects of these heat islands. During the dog days of summer, for example, the branch claims that the death rate is 20%, not 2% or 0.2%, higher than average among people living in heat islands. Of course, that is not all. As you can imagine, heat islands are quite often found in the poorer neighbourhoods of urban areas. These are people who often do not have access to air conditioning, or groups of people who are more sensitive to these climate conditions, such as people with a history of heart disease or seniors. There is a statistic there that needs to be taken into account, even though the numbers are not the only things that matter.

I am running out of time, so I will skip some very interesting statistics and talk about my own riding. These statistics will probably come up in the second hour. The population of Trois-Rivières is 134,000 to 135,000. It is neither a megacity nor a metropolis. There has been a significant amount of urban development, and the city must now deal with heat islands. It is tackling this issue head-on. My riding is not immune to this phenomenon. The temperature in heat islands can be 5 to 10 degrees higher than in the surrounding areas. A study conducted by the Conseil régional de l'environnement de la Mauricie identified the main heat islands in the region.

The city immediately planted about 100 trees in some of the larger heat islands, on boulevard des Récollets, between boulevard des Forges and boulevard Laviolette, and also in the area between the Salon de jeux and boulevard des Forges. These street names probably mean nothing to my colleagues, but the people watching know exactly what I am talking about.

We put down asphalt and say that it is a good thing, but I think those days are gone. Not only do we want projects to be green, but we want them to be sustainable and consist of more than just some grass. The City of Trois-Rivières plans to bring in bylaws so that it will be more difficult for developers to put wall-to-wall asphalt in their development plans.

Organizations in my riding such as Fondation Trois-Rivières pour un développement durable are educating young people about the importance of vegetation in urban areas. The ultimate goal of these initiatives is to urge the people of Trois-Rivières to incorporate sustainable development into their way of life.

Nevertheless, not everything can be done at the local level. I certainly commend the municipal council for all of the measures it is taking. However, Health Canada also has a responsibility to take a leadership role in improving public health for Canadians. Despite their efforts, community organizations and municipal and provincial authorities do not have the means necessary to effectively combat the spread of heat islands. That is why my colleague's bill is so important.

It will be especially difficult to address this issue since by 2051, at least one in four Canadians will be 65 or older, which increases the proportion of people exposed to this risk. It is therefore urgent to pass such a bill. There is work to be done once a bill is passed before heat islands can be eradicated.

This bill offers a way out of the suffocating atmosphere that has developed under the Conservatives. There are many ways to take action when it comes to the environment. It is extremely urgent that we study this bill in committee, since public health knows no political boundaries.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 2:16 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:16 p.m.)