Debates of April 25th, 2013

Opposition Motion—Climate Change

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my colleague. The Liberal Party is where it is right now for a number of reasons. Since their new leader was elected, we have seen them getting a little closer to the Conservatives. Why not say so and tell everyone? Just yesterday, the Liberals supported Bill S-7, which violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as we will surely see in the courts before long.

There was talk about FIPA. Once again, the Liberals and Conservatives both gave their support. The same thing will happen again with this motion; the Liberals and Conservatives will be united. Therefore, it is becoming clearer and clearer for Canadians that these two parties are one and the same.

I would also like to say that there will be other elections and that they will probably have a maximum of 30 or 35 members in the next 20 years.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard this from the Liberals all morning, and now into the afternoon, that after 13 years they were just about to take off. They had it figured out. After 13 years of practice, they finally had a game plan, and it is the New Democrats' fault that the game plan never happened. It is such nonsense. Rhetoric on the environment does not get it done.

The former member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore said that in a leadership competition. He said, “We didn't get it done”. He did not say they were about to get it done. He said “We didn't get it done”. That is the truth on the Liberal record.

When we talk about the environment, it is important to talk about the three es: the economy, employment and the environment. That is what this government has done in trying to focus both on reducing greenhouse gases and also on having cleaner air, water and land. It is a focus that is working while we are also seeking to grow the economy and grow jobs.

Does the member agree that we must focus on the three es, and not one in exclusion of the others?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the member's initial comments.

Today, the Liberals are playing petty politics on this issue by accusing us of saving the Conservatives in 2005. However, in the minority governments of 2006 to 2011, how many times did the Liberals save the Conservatives? If any party here is in collusion with the Conservatives, surely it is the Liberal Party. As I just said, we saw that quite recently.

As for the three Es that my colleague just referred to, we in the NDP obviously have a very simple vision for the economy and the environment, which must be considered together. We can have an economy that respects the environment. That is what we want and that is what we are trying to promote as much as possible. We want to ensure that the economy can grow, but that it also respects the environment, to ensure a sustainable future for all Canadians and all people around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on this topic today because usually I get about 35 seconds in question period to talk about it. It is a topic that is worthy of debate in the House, not just in terms of content or validity, but also in terms of form: how our House should approach this debate and approach the policy as we go forward.

The first part of the motion talks about acknowledging the fact that climate change does have a major impact on the environment as well as on our economy, that it is happening, that this is something about which we should be concerned. I certainly agree with this part of the motion. In fact, it is actually at the core of why our government has been working on a sector-by-sector regulatory approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Perhaps to reinforce my opinion on this for the House, I would like to give a little back history on my experience with this topic. It is interesting how fate puts us in positions, over and over again, of looking at a certain issue. I remember in 1990; I was the ripe age of 10, and it was the 20th anniversary of Earth Day. I remember I was a voracious reader, and my mom gave me a book we found in the checkout line of a supermarket, which was published for the 20th anniversary of Earth Day. It talked about reducing, reusing and recycling, but it also talked about this concept called climate change. I remember even at 10 years old reading the book and being completely concerned.

I was a bit of a science geek—I am not going to lie—and I remember taking this concept even in elementary school and learning about it. This is something that all Canadians understand, that it is impactful and something my contemporaries have grown up with understanding—not just understanding but also understanding the need to act. When I entered into my professional career, I was quite blessed to work with some of the best academic researchers in the country. I have worked at two different academic institutions supporting research administration activities for folks who are not just working on the data collection and monitoring of the effects of climate change but also looking at the analysis of this data, to come up with effective policy. They are looking at ways to mitigate the effects of climate change.

I spent several years of my career at the University of Calgary. We have such a robust set of researchers looking at things like carbon sequestration and at ways to make energy extraction more efficient, production more efficient, energy usage more efficient and also, at the end of the spectrum, acknowledging the fact that the climate is changing and asking how we mitigate this impact. We have research that shows how we can mitigate the effects, whether it be in producing better soil, reforestation techniques, dealing with the rise of sea levels. All of these things have Canadian researchers at the forefront and also at the forefront of implementing.

It is interesting to have that type of a background and then now work in the environment portfolio in Parliament, which is a great privilege, but it is also a great challenge given the fact that this is something that is a very important part of our government's questions in the House.

If we look at the first part of the motion, I think everyone in the House would agree on it. The second part of the motion is where I have some questions and concerns from my colleagues in a variety of different areas. First of all, I should spend a little bit of time talking about the fact that if we look at effective action by successive federal governments since 1998, we should be concerned. The reality is that the Liberal government had 13 years to address this problem. Whenever I am on panels with my colleague—and I understand her concern—she talks about agreements like Kyoto being an effective symbol, or hope and good feelings. They did nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I find it incredibly rich for them to stand in the House and claim to have any credibility whatsoever on this issue.

The Liberals absolutely refuse to acknowledge that their action over the years resulted in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions; a 30% increase in greenhouse gas emissions. For anyone watching today, I have no idea why this is not being discussed as one of the key credibility planks of the Liberal Party. With a 30% rise in greenhouse gas emissions, for my colleague here to stand up today and talk about Canada's policy on greenhouse gas emissions being this or that because the NDP brought down the Liberal government, I do not know how that even enters this debate. How does that enter this debate?

This is a very serious issue, and where my concern about this part of the motion comes into play. Why are we politicizing this issue to that type of rhetoric? That is just absurd. I think that this issue deserves a higher level of debate for all six of us who are in the House today enjoying this topic.

My colleagues have talked about this issue and its impact on our children. I hope that somehow we can prevent this debate from dissolving into that type of rhetoric and talk about what we can do to actually affect this issue.

In the last two years, I have spent a lot of time with the media. I have talked so much about what we have been doing as a government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I hope to do that from a position of authenticity because it is something that I care about. Therefore, I refuse to participate in that type of debate.

What I want to talk about today is the third point in this motion. I cannot support the motion because I refuse to buy in to the fact that our government has not done anything on this issue, which is patently false. To contrast our record with that of the Liberal government, the most recent emissions trends report that was just published, and available to anybody on the Environment Canada website, once again shows something that the Liberals were not even close to achieving, which is decoupling the growth of greenhouse gas emissions with economic growth.

What does that mean for the average person watching this at home today? It is means that our economy has continued to grow. We have seen growth in the natural resource sector, energy sector, and manufacturing sector. These are all sectors that are so vital to our economy that continue to have revenue produced for our government and jobs created for people in this country. They continue to grow, but our greenhouse gas emission growth has decreased. That is the first time in Canadian history this has happened. This is something we should be celebrating.

Therefore, when my colleagues rise in the House here and talk about Canada's international reputation on the world stage, I do not know how can they rise and talk about fossil awards when this is a fact. We have seen a decrease in the growth of greenhouse gas emissions while our economy grew. This is something we should celebrate.

Is there more to be done? Yes, of course there is. This is why we have been continuing on our path to assess each of the major sectors that emit greenhouse gas emissions and ask this fundamental policy question: How can we reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in a tangible way without impacting the lives of everyday Canadians?

This is the policy question that we should be asking this House and not talking about how the NDP brought down the Liberal government. Come on. How can the member stand here with any level of credibility?

Today we are here to talk about policy and practice. In that practice, our regulatory approach has done several things.

First, it is difficult to put into place a regulatory framework that does not impact the economy. That is why we have devoted time, rigour, and diligence to do economic modelling to show that we are not affecting consumer pricing. We have been rigorous in ensuring that any regulations that we put in place will actually achieve a result. We are not signing on to something because of a photo-op. This is hard work.

We have also made sure that we are tackling areas that other policy-makers around the world are not tackling, like the coal-fired electricity sector. Anyone in this House should be able to acknowledge that is one of the major sources of emissions around the world.

From this record, from the fact that we have put regulations in place in each of these areas, we have now been able to say, through measuring greenhouse gas emissions in a transparent way, that we are now over halfway to reaching our Copenhagen targets, and I will talk about those targets for a minute.

Under the previous government, we signed on to an international agreement, and I am sure the intent was good, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally. However, here is the rub, it did not include binding targets and it did not include all major emitters.

For us to say that we, as a country, should accept an agreement that does not have binding targets on major emitters, such as China, Brazil, the United States, and India, is something that we should be concerned about. We cannot ignore that fact in this House, that that agreement will not reduce greenhouse gases in these major emitting countries. That is why our country has said, “No, this is not good enough.”

We are not going to just take a PR ploy, we are going to take the hard stand and make a tough decision to push forward with an agreement that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with pushing forward an agreement that will actually see results across the world? That is what our government has stood for.

We are well on our way to meeting our targets under that agreement, the first step, the Copenhagen targets. Meaningful action and meaningful results, that has been the record of this government.

Let us talk about the other half of the equation, which is the economy. I am very concerned that throughout the debate today on the opposition side of the House, I have not heard one ounce of acknowledgement about the major sectors of our economy. I have not heard anyone talk about the fact that the natural resource sector employs hundreds of thousands of people across this country, or the energy sector, or the manufacturing sector.

We have not talked about the economy once today. Why have we not talked about that? It is because somehow this is just a forgotten concept in dealing with environmental policy, when we should be talking about the intersection point. The environment and the economy are hand in hand. We cannot have one without the other. However, how can we forget the fact that Canada's economy is based on these different industries? We cannot forget that point.

Over the last two years, as I have sat here, as I have answered question after question in the House of Commons, I hear my colleagues arguing against these sectors, arguing against jobs, and flat out rejecting proposals rather than talking about how to make these environmentally sustainable or even backing up one step and saying that maybe they are environmentally sustainable.

Has that intersection point been reached? No. They do not talk about that here. They talk about killing jobs, environment, or economy, and that is not right. That is not fair. That is not what this debate should be about.

I am going to take the time to talk about that today. Representing an Alberta riding, I think it is absolutely shameful that members from both sides of this House have come into my province and talked about the energy sector being a disease on the economy.

When we are looking at regulating sectors, we need to make sure that we as a government are not impeding investment, that we are creating a situation of certainty, that we are making sure that when we put these regulations in place, they achieve what they set out to do, to have an actual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions while ensuring that that industry continues to thrive.

My colleagues will talk about a transition to a non-carbon based economy, which is something that is laudable and we should be talking about. However, the reality is we are in a carbon based economy, so why are we not acknowledging that we can have a policy debate about how to make those resources more efficient and more effective?

That is exactly what industry has been doing. However, industry has been doing that in partnership with government. Our government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in research and development to partner with industry on these specific policy questions. We are starting to see the results.

Let us look at the oil sands as an example. The per barrel emissions of that industry have been reduced by 30% since technology started to be adopted in the 1990s to address this problem. I believe that one of the major downstream producers has a site called the Kearl project, which is going to see oil sands oil be produced with relatively the same emissions output as other types of oil.

This is the Canadian way. We understand. We respect the environment. We can also meet the challenge of respecting the environment through innovation while growing our economy. That is what this party is about.

Why can we not talk about that intersection point? Why do we always have to talk about dismal failure, or how Canada is the laughing stock of the world? That is not right. It denigrates this country. It denigrates the tens of thousands of people who work in these sectors, who put their time and effort into researching and trying to address policy changes. It ignores the fundamental fact that Canada is not North Korea, as opposed to what one of my colleague so gleefully pronounced in the media. We are a world leader in environmental stewardship.

I want to talk a little about our record with regard to adaptation, which is the third component of the motion today. I am quite proud of the track record that we put in place, both at home and internationally, to deal with climate change adaptation.

First, I would like to point to the fast start financing fund that our government has committed to through various international agreements to address climate change adaptation and mitigation internationally. I have not heard recently any discussion of the fact that Canada has contributed over $1.2 billion to international groups to address these challenges through meaningful, impactful, on the ground programming, such as programs to deal with deforestation, to help farmers make their soil more arable, and to deal with cleaner energy projects. These are actual, tangible, on the ground projects to deal with the impact of climate change. This is what our government has invested in heavily over three years.

However, we are not just sitting back on our heels here at home. We are actively pushing forward to address this challenge. I saw first-hand some of the research that was going on, from both a policy and a technology perspective, to deal with the effects of changing climate. That has come under our government's watch. There is $35 million for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council to deal specifically with the effects of climate change.

Some other programs with regard to adaptation that our government has funded have focused on four themed areas: science to inform adaptation and decision-making, human health and well-being, the northern aboriginal communities, and economic competitiveness. If my colleagues, instead of writing this motion, had actually looked into these theme areas, they would have seen that we put $29.8 million into Environment Canada's climate change prediction and scenarios program. I think they voted against that. There is $16.6 million for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans aquatic climate change and adaptation services programs. There is $2.4 million for Parks Canada's understanding climate-driven ecological change in the north program. There are all sorts of programs that we have invested tens of millions of dollars in that are on the ground and being implemented right now to deal with climate change mitigation and adaptation.

At not one sitting have I heard any of my colleagues acknowledge the fact that they exist or that they voted against them. Instead, I hear about how the Liberal Party somehow did not reach its greenhouse gas emissions target because of the NDP in the last election. I just do not get how that math adds up.

Do we have more to do? Sure we do, but this is why in our economic action plan 2013 we have continued to invest at record levels in our tri-council granting agencies, which are dealing with many of these issues. We have also continued to invest in other science-based capacity. A great example I always get the chance to mention is SDTC, which is a federal organization that invests in clean energy and helps to not only develop but also deploy these technologies into market. It has a phenomenal track record of doing so.

Moreover, there is something I encourage all my colleagues to look at and that is the fact that Natural Resources Canada has established an adaptation platform as part of the enhancing competitiveness in a changing climate program. To date, this platform's 200 working group participants have collaborated to identify activities that advance adaptations in several activities, such as coastal management, measuring progress, and economics.

I wonder how the 200 people in this working group feel about the debate in the House today, which has completely ignored the fact that it has been under our government's watch that we have seen this program come to be and continue to put its policy initiatives into practice?

We talk about “for the good of our children” and “how we approach this debate in the future”. I implore all of my colleagues to tone down the rhetoric, to talk about the fact that we can look at the intersection of the environment and the economy, and to actually acknowledge the fact that our government has done some meaningful work here. We can surely talk about the best way to proceed in the future, but not in the manner that is here. Also, I certainly do not support any sort of activity that would impede the economy of our country, that would add to government revenues, such as a carbon tax.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will let the Liberals and the Conservatives squabble about their respective records, because it seems to be a case of “my dad is stronger than yours”.

What really stood out for me was that the parliamentary secretary said that the Kyoto protocol is just symbolic, and that is why Canada withdrew. If she is implying that that we would not solve the problem even if all the signatories achieved their targets, I agree with that.

However, the problem of climate change has to be tackled at home and abroad. We withdrew from the protocol on the grounds that not all emitters were on board. We need to understand the differences between the countries that were directly responsible for this situation and those that will be responsible for carrying on. We cannot say that everyone should do the same thing at the same time. There have to be negotiations.

Had Canada been a real leader, I think that, after it withdrew, a number of countries would have followed suit and withdrawn from the Kyoto protocol at the same time because that was the right thing to do. We are the only country that withdrew from the Kyoto protocol, and that attitude does not encourage people to work together.

Perhaps reconsidering our international stature in the approach to the problem is in order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I should correct several inaccuracies in my colleague's statement.

First of all, it was my colleague opposite in the Liberal Party who called Kyoto an important symbol. It was the Liberals signed on to it.

Second, even Kyoto has withdrawn from Kyoto. Several other countries have withdrawn from the agreement, and let us talk about why. They have withdrawn first of all because the agreement was flawed to begin with.

What we need is an international agreement that includes all major emitters. We should strive to be a leader in trying to achieve this type of agreement, and that is what we have been doing through successive talks in this area. We are also putting our money where our mouth is by investing in the fast-start financing program. We are also taking strong action here at home.

The fact remains that we have seen a reduction in the growth of greenhouse gas emissions while our economy continues to grow, and that is true international leadership.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is all about trust. The question really comes down to whether we can trust the Conservative government to do the right thing when it comes to promoting sustainable development.

A couple of years ago the opposition was saying that we have a problem in the oil sands in that the oil sands were polluting the Athabasca watershed. For many months members of the government said that if there was bitumen in the Athabasca River, it was from natural causes.

Then Dr. David Schindler did some research, and we launched a study at the environment committee to look into the problem. Two years later, the government was forced to do a 180° turn. This leads us to believe that the government needs to be pushed up against the wall before it will acknowledge there is a problem with sustainable development and act on it.

Could my colleague tell me why we should trust the government to do the right thing? Anything it does, it does begrudgingly.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us speak of trust. “Just trust me. Wait, we did not get the job done, but just trust us. We will try to do that in the future.”

That is what a former Liberal Party leader said about the party's track record with respect to climate change. I cannot remember which leader because there have been so many. We saw a 30% increase in gas emissions, but the Liberals asked us to trust them and said they will do better next time. Contrast that with the fact that our government has seen a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions while our economy continues to grow.

Just trust us to work with western Canada, but let us forget about that little thing called the national energy program. Just trust us. We are going to stand up for western Canada, but our members just said in the natural resource committee that Alberta MPs do not have a right to be here.

Sure. “Just trust us.”

Let us talk about trust. Let us talk about being pushed up against the wall. It speaks for itself.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague about some of the deliberately misguided environmental activism when it comes to the oil sands and the question of pipelines. Does she think it is really about pipelines, or does she think the real intention of people who are against pipelines is to strangle the development of the oil sands and all the economic benefits it brings to Canada?

Could the member also comment on the fact that those products are going to move, one way or another, because the world is demanding them and the Canadian economy is demanding it? From an environmental aspect, what is the difference between moving a product by pipeline and moving it by trucks and trains and so on?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. First, I think with regard to the question around energy infrastructure, Canadians are concerned, and they want to ensure that Canada has the most rigorous environmental safety standards possible with regard to its build-out, its monitoring and, even later down the road, its abandonment. That is why our focus, especially in budget 2012, has been to increase safety standard inspections for pipelines and to put in place a safer tanker traffic regime.

With regard to the second part of my colleague's question, I think the statistic in Canada for energy liquids transported by pipeline is something like a 99.99% containment rate. Obviously we want to make sure it gets to 100%. That is why we have put in place a very rigorous system to both assess the environmental impacts of any energy infrastructure and also to monitor it once it is operational.

What we have not talked about today and what people fail to recognize is that we can have market access for energy products so that we are not price-takers are get fair market value for our energy resources, but we can do that in the context of having environmental safety. That is what our government's goal has been.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the declarations of intent by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. However, just as one swallow does not a summer make, one declaration does not a commitment make.

In Montreal, we clearly heard the Minister of Natural Resources say that he does not believe in environmental problems or global warming. Paradoxically, at the same time, he said that the government would be building pipelines in Quebec. Credibility is a major problem, as it is for the Liberals. They said that they support the environment, but after losing the election, the Liberal prime minister's chief of staff said that the environmental debate was just for show, that they did not believe in it, and that they got political mileage out of it.

The Conservatives have a somewhat similar problem. They say something, contradict it and then think that we should believe them. Which is it? Will you set real standards to protect the environment or not?

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

Mr. Speaker, the sector-by-sector regulatory approach that our government has undertaken in the last several years has been designed to do just that. It has been to look at the emissions profiles of the major emitting sources in the country. Examples include passenger vehicles and the coal-fired electricity sectors, and now of course we are working on regulations for the oil and gas sector as well.

What we have been trying to do through that initiative is ensure real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, which we have seen through our modelling, but we are also doing it in a way that does not unduly impact the Canadian consumer. For example, our light-duty passenger vehicle regulations are designed to save Canadians money through increased fuel efficiency over the years.

To finish up on my colleague's questions about energy infrastructure, any energy infrastructure that we put in place in this country must comply with very rigorous standards for environmental assessment and monitoring on the back end. That is why our government has put in place the responsible resource development policy package in budget 2012, and we will continue to adhere to those standards.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Victoria.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion today. In particular I want to thank my colleague, the member for Halifax, for her tremendous work on this very important file and on the issues we are addressing today.

Today I want to talk about facts, about science-based evidence, rather than convenient ideals. The Minister of Natural Resources suggests that people are not as worried about climate change anymore. Well, I and all of my New Democrat colleagues are worried, and yes, Canadians are worried about climate change. We are worried about it because we inform ourselves of facts, and reputable scientists and scientific research firms concede that two-thirds of the existing known fossil fuel reserves must remain in the ground to prevent average global warming of more than 2° Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

The 2° threshold is a dangerous tipping point. Beyond it, we cause irreversible damage to our planet's ecosystems, yet Canada's emissions continue to rise despite Conservative claims. In 2011, Canada's emissions rose to 702 million tonnes, moving us even further away from our 2020 target of 607 megatonnes. Even worse, Environment Canada's most recent projections show our emissions will continue to go in the wrong direction unless we bring forward policies that are very much stronger.

Provinces with significant climate policies in place, such as Quebec and Nova Scotia, are also seeing a gradual decline in their emissions. More work is needed to build on these successes, but they are encouraging nonetheless. It works.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development reported in his fall 2010 report that although the federal government acknowledged 20 years ago that climate change would have significant long-term impacts ranging from severe storms to droughts, the federal government still lacks an overarching federal strategy that identifies clear, concrete action.

At the Doha climate change talks in December of 2012, the UN Secretary-General stated:

From the United States to India, from Ukraine to Brazil, drought decimated essential global crops. ...tens of millions of people endured another year of vulnerability, at the mercy of the slightest climate shock. No one is immune to climate change—rich or poor. It is an existential challenge for the whole human race—our way of life, our plans for the future.

Multi-billion-dollar disasters are becoming more common around the world. Munich Re, a global reinsurance company, reported that in 2011 worldwide economic losses from natural catastrophes were a record $378 billion. In the Northwest Territories, the Mackenzie River ice road crossing has seen delays in the average opening date of about three weeks since 1996.

The list goes on. These are facts. They are not convenient ideals to excuse continued tax breaks for big polluters. They are not convenient ideals so that we can avoid talking about something we do not want to talk about.

Unlike the Conservatives and the Liberals before them, New Democrats are committed to addressing climate change. We accept it as a fact and we have a plan to take urgent and immediate action to avoid catastrophic climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to keep the global average temperature increase below a maximum of 2° Celsius.

We will put a price on carbon and establish hard emission caps for large industrial emitters. We will enact the climate change accountability act, which would put in legislation a framework for achieving the national target of 80% below 1990 emission levels by 2050. We will establish a permanent federal energy-efficient retrofit program to reduce residential energy use, cut GHG emissions, create jobs and save Canadians money.

We will establish effective programs to help communities deal with the impacts of climate change in Canada. We will fulfill our international climate obligations. We will cut more than $1.3 billion in annual subsidies to fossil fuel industries. We will restart federal investment in renewable energy; and we will create a green jobs fund to support just employment transition to the new economy; and we will reinvest to give Canadian green tech researchers and developers a leading edge in the global market.

We cannot saddle future generations with the health problems caused by the pollution of our air, water and soil, or the insecurity of a planet affected by floods, food shortages, population displacement and border disputes. Science shows climate change is already causing many of these problems, and Canada is and will be affected.

Environment Canada and the minister himself admit that current actions by the Conservative government would only get Canada half the way to our already weakened target for greenhouse gas emissions. That target falls far short of the reductions Canada has committed to making to avoid catastrophic climate change. Canadians are united in concern about the impacts of climate change, and they support the development of renewable energy projects, including wind, geothermal, solar power and energy-efficient technologies, as well as long-term investment in public transit.

The current government claims to want to make Canada a clean energy superpower but has in fact cut funding for climate change. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, in his 2010 report, chastised the Conservative government, and the Liberal government before it, on its failure to develop a national plan to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Yet the current government has failed to act in the face of mounting evidence and increasing concern from municipalities and the provinces and territories.

Let it be known that the Liberals' track record is no better. Although they signed and ratified the Kyoto protocol, they did absolutely nothing to try to reduce our emissions until it was too late. In 1993, the Liberals promised to reduce greenhouse gases by 20% by 2005. They instead allowed them to increase by over 30%. In 2005, the United Nations reported that Canada's pollution increased more than any other signatory to the Kyoto protocol. The federal environment commissioner said that even if the measures contained in the Liberal government's 2005 plan had been fully implemented, it is difficult to say whether the projected emission reductions would have been enough to meet their own Kyoto obligations. Quite simply, their plan was not up to the task of meeting the Kyoto obligations.

Finally, and perhaps more tragically, on October 8, 2009, Liberal and Conservative MPs formed a coalition in this House to defeat a motion by the New Democrats to return Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act, to the House for a vote prior to the Copenhagen climate conference that December. The NDP bill would have committed Canada to science-based greenhouse gas reduction targets and worked to hold the government publicly accountable for action on this issue.

We can do better. We can have a greener Canada and a prosperous economy. We can fulfill our environmental obligations. We can be wise investors and we can be responsible global citizens. We can leave to our children and grandchildren an environment, a Canada and a world of which we are proud.

New Democrats condemn the lack of effective action by successive federal Conservative and Liberal governments since 1998 to address emissions and meet our Kyoto commitments, and we call on the current government to immediately table its federal climate change adaptation plan.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this revisionist history by the NDP is as egregious today as it was in 2005. The Kyoto accord became effective in 2005 when 50% of emitters had signed that agreement, and Russia was the last to sign in 2005. Immediately, the Liberal Party implemented project green, $10 billion to fight climate change. What did they do? They voted with the Conservatives to take down the government in 2005.

Shame on you. If you could bring that moment back to revive that Kyoto accord, would you do it? Would you—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the member for Newton—North Delta, I remind all hon. members to address their comments and questions to the Chair rather than their colleagues.

The hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, methinks, in my humble opinion, that my respected colleague from the third party protesteth a little bit too passionately and maybe a little bit too defensively. Maybe during this debate, some raw nerves have been touched, and the Liberals have been forced to look in the mirror and look at the record they have left our children and our grandchildren when it comes to the environment.

These are the facts. Nobody made them up. The fact is that greenhouse gas emissions actually increased during the Liberals' watch. The fact is that they failed to live up to the quotas they set themselves.

Then they try to redirect and change the channel and talk about governments having being brought down. Maybe they should take a look at their track record in government and wonder why Canadians put them in that corner.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about the Liberal Party's comments earlier today, that the NDP pulled it out of office and therefore there was no effective climate change policy, even though emissions rose by 30% under their federal government's track record.

I wonder if my colleague feels that is an effective way to deal with climate change or if this is just another way to put Baby in the corner.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague across the aisle for her question, and I would also like to say how much I enjoyed her speech today. I thought that during her speech, she made some very coherent points. I did not agree with all of them, but there was coherency.

On the other hand, I would like to remind the Liberal Party and my colleagues over there that the reason they are sitting in that corner over there is not because of anything the NDP did. They are sitting there because of their actions and their failure to represent Canadians and because they lost the trust of the Canadian people.

I would remind them that they were in government not for a year, not for two years, not for three years, but for thirteen long years. During that time, they were still at that learning stage. They had not got ready for action.

Are they trying to convince us now that all their actions and good policies were going to happen in the 14th year? As a teacher, I do not believe that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Before we resume debate, I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

April 25, 2013

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 25th day of April, 2013, at 12:45pm.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wallace

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act—Chapter 9.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to an extremely important motion brought forward by my superb colleague, the member of Parliament for Halifax, our NDP opposition critic on the environment.

The motion in the House asks that three things be done: first, that this House agree with many Canadians and with the International Energy Agency that there is a grave concern with the impact of the 2°C rise in global average temperatures; second, that this House condemn the lack of effective action by successive federal governments since 1998 to address emissions and meet our Kyoto commitments; and third, to call on the government to immediately table its climate change adaptation plan.

It is almost trite to observe that climate change is the single most important environmental issue of our time. Canadians know that; people in Victoria know that. Personally, I have dedicated my professional life to environmental protection, because I understand that if we do not ensure an ecologically sustainable future for the next generation, we are condemning it to no future at all.

Unfortunately, members in this House of the Conservative government are locked in a dangerous pattern of climate change denial. They have embarrassed Canadians on the world stage, doing incredible damage to our international reputation, pulling Canada out of major treaties like the Kyoto protocol and, most recently and shamefully, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification.

I am immensely proud to be part of a New Democratic opposition that has fought and will keep fighting for urgent, international, science-based action on greenhouse gases to avert catastrophic climate change and to advocate for national plans to mitigate and adapt to climate impacts. I am also proud to be part of an official opposition, because the NDP has a real chance to come to power and actually take real action on these crucial issues.

Canadians from coast to coast to coast understand the urgency of this issue. It is just this Conservative government that is out of step. It is out of step with Canadians and with our closest allies internationally. It refuses to take meaningful action. The climate change crisis is now. There is no time for Conservative stalling. Canadians understand the need to wake up.

I am calling on all members of this House who seem stuck in some kind of uninformed stupor of climate change denial. They must wake up and support this motion. Climate change is real. Denying it will not make it go away. The time to act is now.

The science is undeniable. The effects of climate change are already being felt all over the world. The 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998. Between 2001 and 2010, global temperatures averaged almost .5°C above the average from 1961 to 1990 and were the highest ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrumental climate records.

Here in Canada, temperatures have increased by 1.3°C since 1948. We know that ocean acidification is picking up pace, threatening entire marine ecosystems such as those in my part of the world in the Pacific Ocean. Disastrous weather events are increasing in frequency around the globe. The obvious economic impacts are devastating.

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy suggested that the economic impact on Canada alone could reach $5 billion a year by 2020 and between $21 billion and $43 billion a year by 2050. Sadly, the government simply abolished the round table. The round table took climate change seriously. It tried to find real solutions. It was not part of the Conservative agenda, so I guess it had to go.

PricewaterhouseCoopers, in a 2012 report entitled “Too Late for Two Degrees?”, stated that business leaders have been asking for clarity and political action on climate change. It warned that one thing is clear: Businesses, governments and communities across the world have to start planning for a warming world, not just by 2°C, but 4°C or even 6°C.

Yet in an interview in La Presse with the editorial board, the Minister of Natural Resources actually said, “people aren't as worried as they were before about global warming of two degrees...scientists have recently told us that our fears (on climate change) are exaggerated”.

He also said that he was unaware of a recent International Energy Agency warning that two-thirds of the existing known fossil fuel reserves must remain in the ground to prevent average global warming of more than 2° Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

This is coming from the Minister of Natural Resources. It is simply unacceptable. Unfortunately, it is what we have come to expect from the Conservative government, which is intent on ignorance in the face of a problem, while governments around the world are preparing for the reality of climate change.

Following the devastation of Hurricane Sandy after New York City experienced its worst storm surges in reported history, the Governor of New York state and Mayor Bloomberg of New York City said that they needed to prepare for and respond to the reality of climate change-related disasters. By contrast, the Minister of Natural Resources would say, “Don't worry. Be happy”. That is just not acceptable. Canadians get that this is a crisis. Every day I get asked why the Conservatives castigate our job-killing $20 billion tax on climate or whatever. Shallow and false rhetoric will not help us have the adult conversations we need to address this crisis.

Climate change experts said Hurricane Sandy provided a first glimpse of the kind of challenges our coastal communities would face as sea levels rose and extreme weather events became more frequent. In Canada, a one metre sea level rise would inundate more than 15,000 hectares of industrial and residential land, more than 4,600 hectares of farmland and the Vancouver International Airport could be affected. The bill to repair the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy is estimated to be over $42 billion and Hurricane Katrina over $100 billion. Contrary to what the Minister of Natural Resources would have us believe, the 2° Celsius threshold is a dangerous tipping point for irreversible damage to our planet's ecosystem.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I must interrupt the member for Victoria at this time. He will have three minutes remaining in his speech when we return to this matter following question period.

Employment Insurance

[Claude Patry, Bloc, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, April 2, protestors heeded the call from Mouvement action chômage, ASTUCE, unions affiliated with the CSN and the FTQ, and the Quebec public service union for a funeral procession through the streets of Alma.

They came to my constituency office with flowers and a coffin to mark the death of the board of referees and umpires.

There is good reason for the unemployed in my region to be grieving. The social security tribunal, based in Ottawa, will be handling all claims now. Hearings in the regions, where complainants could attend in person, will disappear bit by bit.

The protestors' message was clear: if the government thinks it can quash opposition to its reform by doing away with the board of referees and umpires, it will soon realize that advocacy groups for the unemployed are alive and well and will do everything they can to defend the rights of the unemployed. They will always have my support.

National Volunteer Week

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that National Volunteer Week is in full swing. Back home, the theme of this week is “Everywhere for everyone”.

During this National Volunteer Week, I would like to thank the volunteers who dedicate their time and energy to improving our communities. Each one of them plays a crucial role and helps to build a stronger Canada.

Yesterday evening, at the Laurier Saint-Flavien Lions hall, Lotbinière honoured two individuals during the 20th volunteer recognition gala.

I would like to sincerely thank Réjeanne Boutin and Christophe Pilote, who were given the 2013 Volunteer of the Year award for their outstanding dedication and commitment as volunteers.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate all those who choose to help others who really need help, to make their daily lives better.

Together, we can continue to be “Everywhere for everyone”.