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?