Debates of Oct. 25th, 2011

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on June 8, I asked the Minister of Public Safety about our soldiers' involvement in the cleanup effort following the flooding in Montérégie, more specifically in the riding of Saint-Jean.

The people of my riding were harshly affected by the flooding in the region last spring. As is the case in any natural disaster, it was a time of high stress and great concern for all those affected. In fact, the victims of this disaster are still dealing with the repercussions today.

When the Richelieu River crested and caused the flooding, I asked the minister to explain the government's reaction to this natural disaster. My question was specifically on the lack of solidarity shown by this federal government during this situation in particular, and during past natural disasters in general.

The minister said that the Canadian Forces did an outstanding job. I agree that when the Canadian Forces finally arrived, and during the very short time they were there, they did excellent work, and I am very grateful for the help they provided to the people of my riding. We appreciated their service and know-how, which are invaluable at times like these.

That is precisely why we asked the government to make people's safety its top priority, to show solidarity with the victims and to send the army as soon as possible in order to allow the people, the flood victims, to remain in the region to help with the cleanup. Our forces have the skills, training, know-how and experience needed to tackle situations like the terrible flooding that occurred in the Saint-Jean riding and across the Montérégie region last spring.

We needed the Canadian Forces to ensure that the evacuations were carried out properly and that no lives were put in danger because of the situation. I am extremely grateful to have the opportunity to represent a community that has shown that it can really come together during tough times. At the same time, it was very irresponsible of the government to ignore its obligation to ensure public safety.

I remember the minister saying that the Canadian Forces should not have to compete with the private sector. This brings a question to mind. When he said that, was the minister thinking of the safety of Canadians as a simple consumer good? Would he not agree that it is the government's duty to ensure the safety of Canadians?

He said something else that I found rather shocking. He said that helping the flood victims with their home repairs was not the Canadian Forces' role. So, the same question applies. Does the minister not believe that, in an emergency situation, making a house safe and livable is a matter of public safety?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

To begin, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the hon. member for Saint-Jean that this government stands by the people of Montérégie who were affected by the flooding and all those affected by disasters across Canada. This has been a year marked by flooding and forest fires in many provinces. Of course, the Department of National Defence remains committed to fulfilling its obligations in terms of national security and helping affected communities. That is what we did in Saint-Jean and the other communities throughout Canada, providing help to civil authorities during a particularly active season for natural disasters.

I would like to thank the hon. member for recognizing the expertise, know-how and contributions of the Canadian Forces in Saint-Jean. They were there not just once, but twice. The first time they stayed until the waters had stopped rising. The second time, a bit later in the summer, they were there during the flood, when the waters of the Saint-Jean River rose even higher.

My duty and my commitment to the hon. member and to the opposition members who are seeking an answer to this question is to remind the members of this House of the role that the Canadian Forces play during a natural disaster and of the concrete contribution they made this summer in Montérégie and elsewhere in Canada. We empathize with the people in Quebec and Manitoba who have suffered so much, as well as with those who were affected by the forest fires in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario. Although it was not hit as hard as Montérégie, New Brunswick also experienced fairly serious flooding.

It is a top priority for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces to deliver excellence at home and to ensure the safety and defence of the people of Canada when a crisis occurs. The Canadian Forces are proud to help civilian authorities by responding to a wide variety of situations that may threaten our country, in particular, natural disasters.

In the wake of a natural disaster, such as a snow or ice storm—something for which Quebec and Ontario are famous—fires or major flooding, the Canadian Forces can use their unique abilities to help the civilian authorities. When such situations occur, the Canadian Forces deploy to the affected area immediately following the catastrophe to offer their help and they stay there until their unique abilities are no longer needed. That is exactly what they did in Montérégie this summer.

The help the Canadian Forces provide depends on the nature of the request. Specialized abilities, particularly in the areas of engineering, security, transportation, aviation and logistics, may be required. The Canadian Forces can also provide support to health services, various vessels, dive teams and satellite imagery services.

As the hon. member knows, follow-up to these operations is a provincial responsibility. The government offers programs that share the financial burden of this second phase of public assistance through the Department of Public Safety.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am still looking for answers. I am a bit disappointed since I asked a question of the Minister of Public Safety, but it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence who replied. Everyone agrees that the Canadian Forces have done a remarkable job, but my question was about public safety.

Since Canadians have every right to expect the government to have a specific action plan to deal with disasters, I had these two questions for the Minister of Public Safety, who unfortunately is not here. What lessons were learned about public safety from these tragic events? What concrete measures will the government take, before next spring, to assure Canadians that they will never again find themselves in the same situation as the flood victims in Montérégie?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the immense, wild nature of this country cannot be controlled. Neither this government nor any other is able to prevent natural disasters in the country. However, we remain absolutely determined to ensure that one of the Canadian Forces' highest priorities is the duty to provide help to civilian authorities in the event of a natural disaster. This year, their level of commitment in that regard has broken almost every record.

In the case of operation Lotus, in Montérégie, more than 800 soldiers provided their help at the height of the operation. They repaired two major dikes, filled 224,000 bags of sand, spent more than 1,100 hours helping members of the community make checkup visits and protected more than 800 private residences.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. Your time has expired.

The hon. member for Halifax.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect the government to protect their environment. I do not know if Canadians necessarily expect the present government to protect their environment, but they want guarantees that the air, water and soil are healthy, and that future generations would not be burdened with our failure to protect the environment today. However, I do not think the present government sees environmental stewardship as a priority and I think that is a huge mistake.

As we know, a healthy and biologically diverse planet is probably the most important gift that we can give to our children and grandchildren. This includes preventing socio-economic ramifications based on inaction on climate change and the protection of the ozone. That is why recent cuts announced by the government to Environment Canada have left Canadians wondering whether the government is actually committed to improving the quality of environmental monitoring and protection in Canada, and whether or not the government truly understands the risks it is taking with our health, environment, economy and, frankly, with our national security.

The Conservatives regularly pay lip service to the idea of environmental stewardship. We see this in the throne speech and in answers during question period, but the evidence is always to the contrary.

For example, cuts to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency of 43% and the elimination of one-third of its staff fly in the face of any premise for improved environmental protection. I think the same can be said of the fact that nearly 800 positions will be eliminated from Environment Canada, and that would leave about 300 departmental staff unemployed. These workers are scientists and researchers. These cuts would severely limit the agency's ability to prepare and respond to threats to the environment.

We have heard no commitment from the government on its plans moving forward. Also, we have not heard about any analysis the government has done on what would happen with these cuts. The Minister of the Environment has said that the cuts made to the department will not affect core services. This is something he keeps saying, but he has refused to say what is a core service, or what he considers to be a core service.

Water protection programs are being cut. Programs respecting the duty to consult first nations on environmental degradation are at risk as well. These are important services that I think a lot of us would consider core services.

The minister also insists that programs will not be cut, but some of the programs that we do run in Environment Canada are staffed solely by one scientist. Therefore, if we lose that scientist, we are in fact losing an entire program.

In that vein, if we look at the cuts to Environment Canada, the government has greatly reduced the department's ability to monitor ozone science, such as the Canadian ozone science and monitoring program. The government has decided that it is time to cut funding to this kind of essential program.

This is a made in Canada solution to an international problem. We are renowned the world over for the work that we are doing in ozone. It is something that we should be celebrating, not something that we should be cutting.

Action by the government domestically has further garnered an international critique of Canada's commitments to its international partners. These ozone cuts have attracted criticism from scientists around the world.

I have the following questions to the parliamentary secretary tonight. Why does the government insist on cutting these programs, which would be cut through the elimination of staff? What proof does it have that these cuts are even needed? What would be the impacts of these cuts?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I actually share my colleague's viewpoint and I know our government does as well, in acknowledging that protecting our environment is important.

That is why we have taken concrete action on protecting Canada's environment. We are also cognizant of the fact that we need to do that within a framework of protecting Canada's fragile economic recovery.

Again, I am in agreement with the member in sharing that effective and timely environmental assessment through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is very important for our country, especially with regard to ensuring sustainable economic growth for Canada.

I hope the member shares our view that we are also responsible for ensuring that we are wise stewards of taxpayers' dollars. With specific regard to her question around the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, which was the content of the question put to the House on the order paper, any suggestion that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is being cut by 43% is highly misleading.

As the member opposite may remember, the president of the CEAA, Ms. Elaine Feldman, appeared at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on October 25, 2011. Referring to the 43% difference in funding reported by CEAA, Ms. Feldman said, “These are not cuts”.

To continue dealing in fact-based information, in 2007 under the cabinet directive on improving the performance of the regulatory system for major resource projects, CEAA took on additional responsibilities for environmental assessment and aboriginal consultations.

To meet these responsibilities, the agency was allocated $11 million per year for five years. An additional $2.3 million per year has been provided for aboriginal consultations associated with review panels. Five years have now nearly passed and these funds are due to sunset at the end of fiscal year 2010-11.

The 43% difference my colleague referred in funding at issue here are in fact sunsetting funds. These are term defined funds due to sunset at the end of this fiscal year. For that reason, the agency has projected a decrease in the agency's budget if the sunsetting funds are not renewed.

Just to be clear to the House and to answer my colleague's question, a decision regarding whether or not to renew these sunsetting funds has not been made yet. The agency's funding has not been cut.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her comments and her answer.

When it comes to the cuts, something that is sunsetted and not renewed is a cut. We have had no indication that money will be renewed. The agency has actually prepared contingency budgets for not having that money. As far as I am concerned, that is a cut.

As the member knows, we heard from Paul Cassidy today at committee. He is a regulatory affairs lawyer who specializes in environmental assessments. He talked about the fact that this is going to be something that will be very difficult for the agency to manage.

In this day and age when we have things like the unimpeded or unmanaged expansion of the oil sands, for example, there are more and more reasons why we actually need to do environmental assessments. We need to look at things like cumulative effects. We need to do a good job of this.

In fact, I think they are cuts. I want to know from the department what its analysis is of how these cuts will impact the agency.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again, the money provided to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency through budget 2007 was provided to be cognizant of the fact that we needed to have increased capacity for certain programs that were coming up.

These programs were time limited and that is why the sunsetting funds were put into place. That is also why we are reviewing them. Many different programs across government have sunsetting clauses because we are responsible to review these programs, to be wise stewards of taxpayers' dollars.

Just to clarify, I disagree with my colleague's stance that this is a cut because we have not made a decision on whether or not to review this funding. We are doing our job as government to review the efficacy of this and whether or not we need continued funding.

Just to be perfectly clear, the 43% is not a cut because it was part of a natural sunsetting clause. We are in the process of reviewing that right now.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, this is actually the second consecutive night that I have had the opportunity to participate in the adjournment proceedings. I am pleased to see my colleague from the veterans affairs committee, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, here for the second night in a row as well.

Last night, I perhaps made an error using my four minutes to pose four questions because I did not get answers to any of them. So I posed them again in my one minute segment and still did not get answers.

I am going to try it a little differently tonight. I am not going to need the four minutes. I have a straightforward question.

Will the parliamentary secretary confirm that she intends to vote on Thursday at committee to kill public hearings on the budget cuts at Veterans Affairs, and explain to veterans and Canadians why?

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister could not have been clearer in answering the question about whether or not veterans' benefits would be cut. The expert witnesses we heard today at committee could not have been clearer on whether or not veterans' benefits would be cut. So I will add my voice to answer the question for the member for Charlottetown and let me say it very simply and very clearly. There will be no cuts to veterans' benefits.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I believe perhaps the parliamentary secretary has misunderstood my question. My question was whether she intends to vote on Thursday at committee to kill the public hearings on the budget cuts at Veterans Affairs.

I understand her position. I understand the party line that veterans' benefits are not being cut. The fact is that the Department of Veterans Affairs is going to spend less money this year than last. Its budget has been cut. I understand the party line to be that veterans' benefits will not be cut, but the budget at Veterans Affairs is being cut. There are hearings going on into the matter. Is she going to kill them?

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me try one more time in French.

There will be no reduction in the benefits provided to veterans.

There are no cuts to veterans' benefits.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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 6:39 p.m.)