House of Commons Hansard #125 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was environment.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Order. Members of course realize that when another member has been recognized to respond or provide comments, that member has the floor and members should keep other discussions on the low-down.
The hon. member for Etobicoke North.
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the government has repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and we have great concerns about going forward. I think everyone in the House would agree there were aspects that needed to be changed, but what no one expected was for the act to be repealed.
Bruce Hyer Independent Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member, I am concerned about Canadian sustainability. Like the hon. member, who has a wonderful track record on environmental issues, I am concerned that the Conservatives just do not seem to care about the environment. Like her, I am concerned that while the Conservatives inherited balanced budgets and significant surpluses, we now have the largest deficits in the history of Canada through mismanagement and tax rates for big banks and big oil that are less than one-half those of the United States.
Does the hon. member agree with me that there are three things under the government that are unsustainable: an unsustainable environment, an unsustainable resource management, and an unsustainable economy due to flawed ideologies and economic mismanagement?
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, there must always be a balance between the economy and the environment. While the government says the right things and claims to understand that one does not pit one against the other, unfortunately, the government's actions belie that. It is allowing the pendulum to swing too far in the direction of economic interests.
I will give an example of where the government really missed an opportunity. In the stimulus package, the government spent $3 billion on a green stimulus. Let me compare that with the United States, which spent $112 billion on a green stimulus, and China, which spent $221 billion on a green stimulus, and in the process created thousands of new jobs, jobs that Canada missed.
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I just want to confirm that the member is talking about the United States, which has a $3 trillion debt and a $1 trillion deficit. Is that the plan she is asking that we follow? I did not hear her, so could she just clarify if that is the plan she would ask us to follow?
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
That is really a matter of debate on the facts. It is not a point of order.
I think the hon. member for Etobicoke North finished answering the last question, so I will recognize the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas on questions and comments.
Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am looking for a little clarification on my last question.
I did ask specifically what the Liberal position is on the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline. I did hear consultation, but I am wondering, since the environmental legislation has been gutted, if perhaps the Liberals have changed their view on this project. Of course, we in the NDP are opposed to this pipeline.
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I was very clear. There are two points.
We are the party of evidence. We wait to hear the evidence. There is a process in place. We have to hear what will play through. Our concern is the backdating in the budget. By the time the budget passes, the pipeline could actually be approved. That is a concern.
We are the party that consults. We have two pieces: evidenced based and consultative. We listen to Canadians.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, could my colleague provide comment in regard to the government using the budget debate specific on this bill to affect the environment and the impact it will have on the environment?
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is simply outrageous to use a budget bill to gut 50 years of environmental protections in order to fast track development.
History will show that when we do not pay attention to the environment, there are problems. A good example occurred in the 1950s. There was a terrible thick sulphurous fog that occurred in London. That fog killed 4,000 people. It was linked to very high coal burning.
Our legislation is in place. It is there to protect the health and safety of Canadians.
To include that in a budget bill, to not allow public scrutiny, or clause-by-clause study in the right committee, the environment committee which has the expertise to study this, is unconscionable.
[For continuation of proceedings see part B]
[Continuation of proceedings from part A]
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Etobicoke North, and my colleague the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, for joining with me in a very extraordinary cross-parliamentary initiative, the parliamentary fitness initiative. Together we produced last week the first-ever bike day on the Hill, and yesterday was National Life Jacket and Swim Day.
Before National Health and Fitness Day on June 2, we would like to bring about a resolution in this House. In order to do so, I need to swap spots with my colleague in the order of precedence.
I would ask for unanimous support in the House for the following:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, the hon. member for Fundy Royal exchange positions with the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country in the list for consideration of private members' business so we could accomplish the cross-parliamentary objective.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to propose the motion?
Opposition Motion--Budget LegislationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. member
Agreed.
Opposition Motion--Budget LegislationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
No.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support the excellent motion moved by the hon. member for Halifax. This motion states that the budget legislation guts the environmental assessment and fisheries laws. The measures included in Bill C-38 will leave Canada’s lakes, rivers, oceans, ecosystems, and fisheries at risk.
The disastrous report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development tabled on May 8 clearly shows that the Conservatives' track record on the environment has been very consistent—it is one of bad faith, mismanagement and contempt for statistics and common sense. What is more, the Conservatives have also acted undemocratically.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs admitted this week that when the government is not happy with something, it just gets rid of it. That is what the Conservatives did with the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. They decided to abolish it because the panel of experts dared to discuss a carbon tax. The round table will soon issue a report that shows that the government's lack of action to combat greenhouse gas emissions will be very costly for Canada, much more so than if it were to try right away to establish infrastructure and rules to decrease such emissions.
Because the government seems to be incapable of costing its current reduction plan or the Kyoto plan, I imagine that it will be very interested in this report by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, unless it decides to muzzle the scientists once again, as it is so inclined to do.
This is 2012, the 21st century. The Conservatives are playing with the health and safety of Canadians. This government must immediately assume its responsibilities. Is it a question of greed, Nimbyism, incompetence, or all of the above?
Yesterday, in committee of the whole, the Minister of the Environment could not tell us which programs would be abolished by his department and what impact this would have on environmental protection. He was even unable to tell us the type of work that would be eliminated, the work of these thousands of public servants who will be let go.
If the minister himself cannot give us the answers, who else in this government can? Yesterday, we grilled the Minister of the Environment for four hours without obtaining concise, concrete and clear answers. That is rather disturbing, especially since the people want answers. Canadians want to be consulted, but everything about this government makes it impossible.
Why is this government refusing to do anything tangible about this? Examples, statistics, science all point to how serious this is. We have to act now. All the experts agree on that. Even the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said so a number of times on Tuesday.
This government has responded by introducing a 431-page omnibus bill that is being decried by every environmental organization and even by former Conservative MPs who were responsible for some of the files. We have a 431-page bill that has a devastating effect on our cultural heritage, among other things.
The Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development and experts will not even get the chance to take a critical look at these changes. This is an insult to Canadians and to democracy. It almost feels like we are living in a dictatorship.
Although I could go on about the countless irresponsible and reckless aspects of this bill, I will focus on those concerning the environment, which is the subject of today's motion. Unfortunately, the only thing this government is trying to do is to destroy the environment and destroy progress. Soon it will destroy the economy with all of its destructive measures.
Instead of gutting all of our environmental protection measures and erasing all the progress that has been made over the past few decades—including with regard to the fisheries and the environmental assessments that have taken years to set up—this government should be showing leadership and enhancing environmental protection measures because we are running out of time. There are deadlines to be met.
Even the Commissioner of the Environment said last week that given the Conservatives' efforts or lack thereof, he doubted that the very minimal targets set by this government will be met at the rate we are going today. Is that any way to build a 21st century country? Is that any way to stimulate the economy and boost innovation in the private sector? This is truly quite alarming.
I can think of many positive examples. Consider Germany, for instance, where stricter environmental regulations have led to the growth of the renewable energy sector and helped create thousands of jobs, making the country a world leader in the area of sustainable development. The situation there is much more positive than it is here in Canada right now. Canada has become the black sheep at international conferences on the environment. And Canada ranks third among OECD countries that are the world's worst polluters per capita, right behind Australia and the United States. Congratulations to the Government of Canada.
As the commissioner's report clearly demonstrates, the government needs to stop its archaic way of seeing things. The Conservatives need to wake up. The preventive measures suggested by environmental groups, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and a number of experts will not cost anything; in fact, they will save money.
The initial cost of implementing environmental regulations quickly generates savings if we consider the short- and long-term social benefits, as good managers should. We do not have to look far to find a good example of this. The White House's Office of Management and Budget compared the costs and benefits of environmental protection. The United States, our closest neighbour, which the Conservatives so frequently turn to as a policy model, found that the combined cost of all U.S. federal air and water protection regulations is approximately $26 billion per year, yet they save up to $533 billion because of a lower incidence of smog-related respiratory diseases and fewer problems associated with contaminated sites.
It is clear that Canadians' health and safety is closely related to environmental factors such as the quality of the air we breathe, the impact of global warming on food security, the safety of the food we eat and water quality, to name but a few.
The Conservative budget is a perfect illustration of that party's vision, or I should say, lack of vision. In fact, it shows the short-sighted and irresponsible vision of a government that would rather give in to pressure from its friends in the oil lobbies than protect our natural heritage and the health of future generations.
Once again, this government is showing just how willing it is to circumvent democracy and science to concentrate power in the hands of cabinet. The government is grouping measures that fall under the jurisdiction of a dozen committees into a single bill to ensure that these measures will be examined by as few experts as possible.
This week, when the government invoked closure for the 21st time on a bill jam-packed with as many measures as possible, Canadians were denied a fair and thorough debate on issues that will affect their health, their safety and their environment. The government is on a witch hunt, and environmental groups are the target. This is reminiscent of 1950s McCarthyism.
Canadians want the government to prioritize sustainable, responsible development, but this budget undermines—nay, eliminates—all of the environmental safeguards that protect our coasts, our rivers, our wildlife and our food.
Unfortunately, this government puts economic interests, particularly those of large foreign oil companies, before the health of Canadians, long-term energy security, and the protection of Canada's natural heritage.
By eliminating the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, arbitrarily shortening environmental assessments and scaling back experts' and scientists' role in the process, the Conservative government is clearly showing that the environment is not a priority. In fact, the government is showing that the environment is no longer even on its radar.
The Conservatives even have the audacity to believe that cabinet has more expertise to make decisions about major pipeline projects than scientists and experts do. Let us not forget that the Conservatives' estimate for the purchase of the F-35s was out by $10 billion and they responded by saying, “Oops. Sorry.” What will happen if a Northern Gateway spill destroys the magnificent coast of British Columbia near Kitimat, pollutes the drinking water of several hundred first nations communities and threatens the health of our most beautiful forest? Is the government just going to again say, “Oops. Sorry.”?
For all these reasons, I support the motion. The budget is an absolute affront to democracy, and Canadians deserve much better. They deserve principles of responsible and sustainable development to make this budget viable.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Opposition Motion--Budget LegislationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Opposition Motion--Budget LegislationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Yea.
Opposition Motion--Budget LegislationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Nay.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
In my opinion the nays have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Call in the members.
The House resumed from May 9 consideration of Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (incarceration), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
