Debates of April 25th, 2013

Scope of Private Members' Bills

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I could add to this. The government House leader could not be any more wrong on what the facts are.

Let me read exactly what was moved in committee and was tabled. This is what it says:

That the Committee recommend to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces) to expand the scope of the Bill...

The motion itself is asking us to expand the scope because the government knows full well that the amendments it is proposing, which consist of a couple of pages, have absolutely nothing to do with the bill itself. The bill deals with citizenship and being able to denounce the citizenship of individuals who commit acts of war against the Canadian Forces. That is one part of the bill. The other part of the bill deals with reducing the requirement from three years to two years if people are landed immigrants and they apply for citizenship. That is it. That is all this private member's bill was meant to do.

If we read the debate that occurred at second reading in Hansard, we will see that is, in essence, all it was about. Those were the recorded words at second reading. If the government wanted to do what it is hoping to do, there is a proper course of action for it to take. The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism should be introducing his own piece of legislation. In essence, what the Conservatives are proposing to do by changing the scope, and they have admitted they want to change the scope of the bill, is throw in some issues related to terrorism.

There is not one Liberal in the House who does not feel offended and outraged by what took place. We extended our sympathies on what happened a week ago in Boston and we applauded the efforts of the RCMP and other law enforcement agencies with regard to the prevention of a potential terrorist attack here in Canada. That is not what this is about. This is about a private member's bill. The government is now seeking the consent of a majority of the members in the House to legitimately change the scope of a private member's bill. That is not in question. It is in the motion itself.

If we read the motion that I just read, it states that they want to change the scope. If we then go to the rule which the member for Toronto Centre just read, Standing Order 97.1(1) specifically states:

A standing, special or legislative committee to which a Private Member's public bill has been referred shall in every case,—

And I underline the words “shall in every case”:

—within sixty sitting days from the date of the bill's reference to the committee, either report the bill to the House with or without amendment or present to the House a report containing a recommendation not to proceed further with the bill and giving the reasons therefor or requesting a single extension of thirty sitting days to consider the bill, and giving the reasons therefor. If no bill or report is presented by the end of the sixty sitting days where no extension has been approved by the House, or by the end of the thirty sitting day extension if approved by the House, the bill shall be deemed to have been reported without amendment.

Within our own Standing Orders, it is very clear that we cannot change the scope. The government knew that in committee.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you take a look at the motion itself and review the Standing Orders, after which you will see the government has admitted that it wants to change the scope. That should kill it right there.

If we do not take some action against it, we would be allowing the government to go through the back door of a private member's bill to implement government bills when in fact the bills should be going through first reading, second reading, committee stage, third reading, and so forth, on their own merits.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is I am the mover of this motion at committee and what the discussion revolved around was acts of terrorism committed by Canadians who had dual citizenship.

I am not sure why or how the opposition, particularly, the Liberal Party of Canada, wants to use this procedural issue to somehow determine that there is a definition of what terrorism is and what it is not. It is very clear. The work we did as a committee, the effort that we put forward, in terms of the amendments and what they speak to, is clearly focused on ensuring that Canadians who are involved in terrorist acts who hold dual citizenship will lose that citizenship if they are convicted of that act.

That is what the bill is about and that is what the amendment is about.

By getting into a procedural discussion around this, I am not surprised that our House Leader has been caught off guard. He would have assumed, like all of us over here, that we are all opposed to it and, therefore, the discussion in the House, from a procedural perspective or from a concurrence perspective, would be focused on the issue of terrorism. Getting caught up in procedure does not do us any good here in the House, in terms of dealing with it. It certainly does not show well to Canadians across this country, that we are not focused on an issue that we in this House can put some resolution to.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank all hon. members for their interventions. It does sound to the Chair, at this stage, that this would not qualify as a question of privilege, as the member for Toronto Centre originally raised it, but more along the lines of a point of order about whether or not something is properly before the House. I will look into it, but it does seem like that.

I understand the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the government House leader would like to come back on this? Yes. We will hear more interventions on this matter in the next few days.

Now the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, I assume, is rising for the Thursday question.

Business of the House

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons the usual Thursday question about what is on the agenda for the rest of this week and for next week. I am anxious to hear what is on their legislative agenda.

I have been asking the government House Leader, for a number of weeks, to give Canadians some sort of hint, any kind of hint, as to whether the government has something, anything, that actually looks like a legislative plan. It is almost as if the well has run dry for the government.

Last Thursday's agenda was far from inspiring. Less than 24 hours later, he rose in the House to tell us that the plan, already quite weak, had changed. According to the media, the changes were for purely political purposes. It is incredible to think that is even possible.

Would the government House leader tell us the plan for the week ahead and assure us that he will stick to the plan this time so we can plan ourselves and our speakers accordingly?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it was Harold Macmillan who once said, “Events, my dear friend, events”. That is the great variable.

As we know, we have had many events and we were delighted that we were able to get Bill S-7 approved by this House this past week, in response to events.

Today, we will continue with debate on the NDP's opposition day motion.

It being Victims Week, we will follow up on this week's passage of Bill S-7, the combatting terrorism act, with debate tomorrow on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, at second reading.

Insofar as the government's agenda, there is actually a very significant cornerstone to that agenda; that is, of course, our economic action plan. Earlier this week, the House adopted a ways and means motion to allow for a bill implementing measures from economic action plan 2013. Our top priority is creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity, so if a bill following on the ways and means motion were to be introduced before Wednesday, we would give that bill priority consideration for debate Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of next week.

In the interim, on Monday, we will return to the report stage debate on Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice and the support of Canada act. It is my hope that this debate will conclude on Monday so that we can have the third reading debate on that bill on Tuesday.

If we have the opportunity next week, we will continue the second reading debate of the not criminally responsible reform act. This is an important bill and I would hope that it will get to committee without delay.

The government will also give consideration to Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act at second reading; Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act at report stage and third reading; Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act at third reading; and finally, Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion--Climate Change

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last took up the question, the hon. member for Victoria had three minutes remaining for his remarks. The hon. member for Victoria.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the break occurred I was emphasizing that people are most definitely and rightly worried about the climate change crisis and the tipping point for irreversible damage to the planet that a 2^o increase could precipitate. Yet the Conservatives have been systematically dismantling environmental laws since they were elected and using their omnibus legislation to weaken environmental protection.

The Minister of Natural Resources has vilified those of us who oppose the government's position as radicals. I am proud to be among the vast majority of people in my constituency who, for example, oppose the Enbridge northern gateway project.

The Minister of the Environment has also accused unspecified Canadian charities of “money laundering” and yet has refused either to retract or apologize or to name names. As critic for national revenue, I constantly hear from environmental organizations that are charities that are wasting precious time and precious resources trying to answer these ill-founded claims. They are angry and upset with the government in this regard.

The Conservatives have gutted environmental assessment legislation, the Fisheries Act, weakened protections for endangered species, muzzled and fired scientists, de-funded critics like the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, and more. As a Canadian, I am simply ashamed. The government's actions are unacceptable and they do not represent the position of the majority of Canadians on this important topic.

Canadians understand the need to take urgent and immediate action to avoid catastrophic climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions to keep the global average temperature increase below 2° Celsius notwithstanding what the Minister of Natural Resources happens to believe.

The government passes environmental laws that look great on paper but simply refuses to make an effort to enforce them. It does not seem to understand or care about the polluter pay principle.

As an environmental lawyer and advocate, I have spent my life fighting for environmental protection. I was sent here and proudly represent the views of my constituents in Victoria. For people in my community this is not a simple story. This is a critically important story. It is one of the crises of our time to address.

The University of Victoria is at the forefront of research. It has the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, the Environmental Law Centre at the Law Faculty, and the Environmental Studies Department. We are proud of what it is contributing to this important crisis.

We understand, as Canadians from coast to coast to coast understand, that it it is time for real action to tackle climate change. The New Democratic Party is the only party with a real record of standing up for urgent and effective action on climate change. We will have the possibility to do something real about it when we become government in 2015. We will take action on climate change because we cannot afford to wait a minute longer.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today is a profoundly sad day in this House, the people's House. The NDP had an opportunity to lead a serious debate on climate change, but instead it led a political stunt meant to divide and not advance the issue. The NDP even claimed it was the only party able to address climate change. How terribly sad. Each party should be fighting for real action on climate change. That is why I founded the all-party climate change caucus and chair it.

I would like to know why the NDP took this ideological route on such a serious issue, the most pressing environmental issue facing the planet?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while I thank the hon. member for her question, I do not think my comments reflect a lack of serious debate or a lack of concern about this issue. In contrast, I think this is a matter that should engage the attention and concern of all Canadians and all parties. To suggest that this is a partisan issue, that we are using this as some sort of stunt, if I understand her properly, is very disturbing indeed. This is a matter that should engage all of our attention.

The government of the third party engaged in the Kyoto protocol at the time but did nothing to deal with it over the many years it had the opportunity to do so. Action is required, not words.

I recognize that this is only one small step to be part of the debate on this crucial topic, but to suggest that we are trying to politicize something, when all Canadians should be united, is simply false, and I reject the accusation.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's enthusiasm for the subject. However, the NDP leader travelled to Washington and campaigned and attacked Canadian jobs and Canada's national interests. There are tens of thousands of workers on both sides of the border who are counting on the Keystone XL project for jobs and economic growth. Premiers, union leaders and even NDP members support the project because of the jobs it would create for Canadians.

Why is the NDP going to other nations campaigning against jobs and economic prosperity for Canadians, at a time when we need economic recovery?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Natural Resources also went to the United States as recently as yesterday, where I am advised that he insulted one of the world's great climate scientists, which I really do not believe he had the expertise to do. I thought it disrespectful to an ally of Canada. For NASA, which is taking strong action on behalf of the world by doing world-class research on this issue, to be insulted by our Minister of Natural Resources is really quite embarrassing, and as a Canadian I find it deplorable.

As for Keystone, even the Minister of Finance has acknowledged where the jobs would go from that project. They will go predominantly to the United States. That is how the Conservatives are selling it in the United States of America.

As for pipelines, such as the Enbridge northern gateway project, I stand here on behalf of my constituents, the vast majority of whom recognize the reckless nature of this project, which the Minister of Natural Resources is supporting aggressively.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the Windsor-Detroit area, bitumen pet coke, which is a byproduct of bitumen, is now being stored next to the Detroit River on our tributary system. This is a direct product of the oil sands, and I have concerns about this.

We have asked the Minister of the Environment to engage the IJC, because the leaching of it into the Detroit River could cause significant effects. I would like my colleague's opinion on that.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of cornerstones of environmental law is that the polluter pays. It is the requirement that the people who are proponents of projects, be they governmental or private sector, internalize, to use the jargon, the costs of projects that could or do cause harm to the environment.

I would suggest that if it is clear that there needs to be an investigation, if there is a prima facie case of a problem with that product, and leaching into the natural environment is occurring, one would expect that Environment Canada officials, in conjunction with Ontario officials, where warranted, would get to the bottom of this and take the necessary steps through enforcement.

However, that is something the Conservative government is woefully inadequate at doing. It passes laws that look wonderful on paper, but where is the beef? Never does it enforce those laws.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that I will be splitting my time with the member for Durham.

Our government recognizes science as the foundation of our work to promote a clean, safe and sustainable environment for Canadians. Science plays a critical role in forming our policy decisions, in supporting the delivery of environmental services, and in helping to enforce the laws and regulations that protect Canada's environment.

Our government invests significantly in science at Environment Canada. Science activities account for the majority of the department's budget and include a wide range of research and monitoring activities. We are focused on protecting air, water and wildlife.

Environment Canada employs some of the best and the brightest minds in the field of environmental science. In fact, over half of the department's 6,800 employees work in science-related occupations. That would include chemists, hydrologists and meteorologists. With this government support, I am pleased to report that Environment Canada is one of the most productive institutions in environmental science in the world. The department publishes more than 600 peer-reviewed scientific articles every year.

This government takes climate change seriously. That is why Environment Canada is carrying out comprehensive scientific work on climate change and greenhouse gases.

I would like to share some of the details of the science Environment Canada produces in this area.

In collaboration with national and international partners, Environment Canada's climate scientists conduct research to generate new knowledge on climate change and variability. This work is an integral part of the global effort to understand the behaviour of the climate system and the human influence on climate and potential future climate change. The information generated through Environment Canada's climate science contributes not only to domestic climate change policies and decisions but also to international organizations, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Arctic Council, and the World Meteorological Organization.

For example, Environment Canada recently published important research that provides information relevant to understanding global greenhouse gas emissions in terms of the international goal of limiting global warming to below 2° centigrade. This study is an important contribution to understanding the global impact of climate change and the need to lower global emissions to limit temperature changes.

This is why Canada is working to implement the Copenhagen accord and the Cancun agreement. Countries that have signed on to them are responsible for more than 85% of greenhouse gas emissions. It is under our government that we have seen actual decreases in greenhouse gas emissions, the first government in Canadian history to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

If we were to meet the Kyoto targets, which were, as the Liberal member for Kings—Hants said in the past, written on the back of a napkin, Canadians would have had to either remove every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or perhaps close down the entire farming and agricultural sector and cut heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada.

If we were to have done that, what would the cost of this irresponsible action have been? I can say that part of the cost would have been $14 billion from Canadian taxpayers transferred to other countries. That would be the equivalent of about $1,600 from every Canadian family, with zero impact on global emissions or the environment. If we add to this the figure of the $21-billion carbon tax the NDP would like to impose, we can readily see that it would cripple Canadian businesses and kill Canadian jobs.

If we had followed that ideological pursuit, had we followed this deeply flawed agenda, at a time when China is completing a new 600-megawatt coal-powered plant every eight days, Canada might have committed economic hara-kiri. We might have sabotaged our entire economy, and we would have had absolutely no impact on global emissions.

We have to be responsible in the actions we take. I am very proud that under this Prime Minister and this Minister of the Environment, we are making real progress toward our target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020, through a sector-by-sector approach aligned with the U.S., where appropriate. I probably should remind members that actually, Canada's entire economy, and we are an industrial nation, only amounts to about 2% of global emissions.

The NDP likes to cast aspersions but ignores the reality that work being done by Environment Canada's scientists is leading the way in helping us understand the current and potential future impact of climate change across Canada so that we have the information necessary to support adaptation, planning and decision-making.

In line with this government's commitment to climate change science, budget 2011 included $29 million over five years for Environment Canada's climate change prediction and scenarios program. A further $35 million over five years is for the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada to support the climate change and atmospheric research led by Canadian universities.

Environment Canada also conducts scientific monitoring and reporting on greenhouse gas concentrations and emissions in Canada. The department maintains a network of stations across Canada that monitor greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Environment Canada also annually produces a national inventory on greenhouse gas sources and sinks in Canada as part of our commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Notably, the most recent national inventory report showed that we continue to achieve success in delinking greenhouse gas emissions and economic growth. That is again the first time in Canadian history we have seen that. We saw, during a previous government's 13 years, that greenhouse gas emissions actually increased by 30%, but since 2005, Canadian greenhouse gas emissions have decreased by 4.8%, nearly 5%, while the economy has grown by 8.4%. That shows us that it is possible for us to reduce our greenhouse gas emission contributions in the world. We are a small emitter, even though we are an industrial nation. We are a small country with only 34 million people compared to the population of the world. Even at that, our economy can grow, and as a responsible member of the international community, we can reduce our emissions.

Environment Canada's environmental science activities are growing significantly. One such example is environmental monitoring in the oil sands region. There are significant scientific developments happening in that area that I would like to share with the House.

Earlier this week, in collaboration with the Province of Alberta, our Conservative government launched the joint Canada-Alberta implementation plan for oil sands monitoring to ensure the environmental integrity of Canada's oil sands. The implementation plan outlines the path forward to enhance the monitoring of water, air, land and biodiversity in the oil sands. It is designed to provide an improved understanding of the long-term, cumulative effects of oil sands development through sampling more sites for more substances more frequently.

The government is committed to ensuring that the data from the new monitoring program and the methods on which it is based will be transparent. Supported by the necessary quality assurance, it will be made publicly available to allow independent scientific assessments and evaluations. Fulfilling this commitment, the Canada-Alberta oil sands environmental monitoring information portal will provide access to information related to the joint Canada-Alberta implementation plan for oil sands monitoring. It will include maps of the monitoring regions, details of the monitoring sites, the most up-to-date data collected by scientists in the field and scientific analysis and interpretation of the data and results.

As more data becomes available in the coming months, the portal will evolve with new updates and features and will become more comprehensive. As it grows, the environmental monitoring data and information available in the portal will enable concerned parties to conduct their own analyses and draw their own conclusions.

I am extremely proud of the world-class science produced by Environment Canada. This government is confident that the Environment Canada science is robust and is focused on the issues that matter most to Canadians.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend referenced research, the Arctic Council and the record of research in Canada. He also spoke of adaptation planning in his remarks. I would like to ask him if he agrees with his natural resources minister colleague that “people aren't as worried as they were before about global warming of two degrees. Scientists have recently told us that our fears...are exaggerated”. Does he agree with those comments that we can afford to wait and depend on adaptation?

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned. They are certainly concerned about climate change. In terms of the 2° warming, we have to look carefully at the data and there is reason for some debate. We thought spring had arrived a couple of months ago and it has not. We are seeing climate variability for sure. We are seeing instability and that is typical when climate is changing, as it has changed in the past. We go through periods of instability. We are seeing later springs and winters are not quite as cold. We have a very cold spring, for example. As we experience climate change, we are seeing all kinds of variabilities.

When we deal with complex models, multiple variables and incomplete data, our understanding of these processes will be advanced as more data becomes available.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend and I disagree on the science part. The government cuts climate science, research and programs and it muzzles its scientists. The government even cut the climate impacts adaptation research group, many members of which share the 2007 Nobel Prize for climate change.

The Global Legislators Organisation released its third climate legislation study, the most comprehensive audit of climate legislation in the world's major developed and emerging economies. The report showed substantial legislative progress in 18 of the 33 study countries, flagship legislation in 31 countries and limited development in 14. For the first time ever, however, it reported negative progress for one country, Canada, which regressed following the Conservative government's decision to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol.

I would like to know what my hon. colleague's government will do about the crucial megatonne grab.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if I heard the member correctly, the review that she referred to was of legislative progress in various countries, and that would be legislative progress to achieve certain objectives.

In terms of science, we have to remember that Canada's contribution to global emissions is in the range of 2%. Canada is taking responsible action to reduce our emissions. We are also a partner with our international allies and other responsible nations in advancing things that will help with greenhouse gas emissions. We are working, for example, on short-lived climate pollutants, encouraging the 100 or so nations that have not yet done so to make mitigation commitments and deal with the short-lived climate pollutants. There are very many cost-effective, readily available options for addressing SLCPs, like preventing black carbon emissions from diesel engines, residential cookstoves and brick kilns, harnessing methane from landfills as a source of energy and new technologies to avoid the use of HFCs.

Therefore, Canada is a partner in encouraging the other nations that have not been able to participate to find a way to reduce the things that cause the worst pollution and we are very proud to be a partner in advancing those issues.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for sharing his time with me.

I am very pleased to address one of the most important issues facing our country. I am extremely proud of the work our government has done to address climate change, both in Canada and internationally.

Climate change is a global challenge that first and foremost needs a global solution. I am also pleased to say that our government is the first Canadian government to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This reduction, 4.8% lower emissions when compared to 2005, is significant and should be recognized as such, particularly because our economy has grown by 8.4% over the same period. This reduction is significant because a generation from now, Canadians will look back and see that it was our Prime Minister and our Minister of the Environment who ushered in a new era of pragmatic and effective greenhouse gas reduction.

This reduction will not satisfy our critics here today. I know first hand of the passion the member for Halifax has for the environment and for climate change in particular. I can respect that passion, but I am here to remind her today that what is critical for Canadians, and indeed the world, is to have a climate change strategy that is balanced. Any plan must be effective and achievable and the important balance to strike is to lower emissions, like our government has done since 2005, without disrupting our economy.

We have to work collaboratively with Canadian employers and Canadians themselves to achieve meaningful targets. We cannot be tempted to foist unachievable and potentially disruptive policies from Ottawa on employers across the country at a time when employment is tenuous in Canada and when families are worried of a job loss for mom or dad.

While the NDP have well-intentioned but incredibly naive plans with respect to climate change, I must also highlight the sorry track record of the Liberal Party with respect to this file. Although the last Liberal government liked to talk an incredibly good game with respect to climate change and the Kyoto protocol, the reality is that government did absolutely nothing to address greenhouse gas emissions, nothing.

The Liberal critic continues the strategy of talking a very good game. She claims her speech in the House today was well researched and free of hyperbole. She spoke with conviction about Liberal plans, strategies, one-tonne challenges, signings and announcements, but the reality is that nothing serious was done to lower emissions by the Liberal government. On the contrary, the Liberals talked as if they were doing something, they appeared very attentive to the issue and even named pets after Kyoto, but after we pushed aside the window dressing, their true record was on display. The record shows that the Liberal Party led Canada through one of the largest period of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

I saw a new Liberal commercial for the Liberal leader and he said that he had been working hard in recent months to earn trust. I would invite him to also study hard, to study the record of his party when it comes to climate change. Studying the record on climate change would make a good lesson at Degrassi High or any school in Canada on the meaning of the term hypocrisy.

This government is also attempting to work actively and constructively with all of our international partners. The Prime Minister and the minister have consistently built solid and professional relationships with our trading partners on environmental issues. This stands in sharp contrast with the NDP, which is only too happy to travel to the United States to use Washington as a bully pulpit to attack its own country. Sadly, the New Democrats do not even seem to realize that this undermines their very credibility as a party that wants to lead Canada.

To be effective, an international climate change agreement must involve meaningful commitments by all major emitters. Countries involved in the ongoing negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have now moved beyond the Kyoto protocol toward a new and comprehensive international climate change agreement that will include significant action to reduce greenhouse emissions by all the world's major economies.

Canada is part of this international movement. Under the 2009 Copenhagen accord, Canada made a solid commitment to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 17% from 2005 levels. The commitment set a goal of reaching these reductions by 2020. We stand by this commitment and are taking a sector-by-sector regulatory approach to reducing emissions, with a goal to meet this target.

Our approach also works with Canadian employers to help sectors achieve their targets, while providing that important balance to ensure our economy keeps moving forward and the men and women from across our country keep their jobs in these challenging economic times.

Our government has already expressed our intention to continue this work with our international partners in establishing a new post-2020 climate change agreement that would more effectively serve to meet global climate change goals. This is not to say that international action cannot take place until a new agreement is established. Indeed, Canada has been actively collaborating with international partners outside the United Nations' process for effective action that can be implemented now.

The Prime Minister and his ministers travel around the world to work collaboratively and effectively with our global community, while NDP politicians travel the world only to find new ways and new locations to score political points, weaken our reputation and denigrate Canadian employers.

We need only look back a few weeks to see Canadian leadership and collaboration in this regard. At the major economies forum, Canada took a leadership role to address short-lived climate pollutants. These include methane, hydrofluorocarbons and black carbon. It is estimated that these pollutants, whose lifetime in the atmosphere is shorter than long-lived gases like carbon dioxide, will contribute significantly to global warming in the coming decades. These short-lived climate pollutants are of particular concern to Arctic countries like Canada because they may be responsible for the more rapid warming we are currently experiencing in the far north, notably due to the effect of black carbon deposited on snow and ice.

Another long-standing initiative in this area is the global methane initiative. This March, Canada hosted the Methane Expo 2013 in Vancouver, an international meeting and technology forum. Addressing methane emissions can result in a range of benefits, including air quality, human health and sustainable development.

Canada has also been working to address these pollutants within the Arctic Council as a founding member and lead partner in the Climate and Clean Air Coalition established in early 2012. We have been very encouraged to see the coalition grow from 7 to over 56 partners. Canada was the first out of the gate on this critical initiative by donating $3 million to the coalition. The Minister of the Environment just announced this month that Canada would contribute a further $10 million.

In meeting and exceeding the joint developed country goal under the Copenhagen accord to mobilize fast-start financing in the period from 2010 to 2012, Canada and other industrialized countries have provided funding of over $33 billion to help strengthen the capacity of developing countries that are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and contribute to global mitigation efforts. I would like to talk to some of these countries that we have been helping directly.

In Haiti, $4.5 million of fast-start financing helped build climate resilience through rehabilitating 253 kilometres of shoreline, planting 500,000 trees and the construction of nearly 15 kilometres of irrigation corridors.

In Lesotho, $1.2 million went to support an 18-month feasibility study for the development of two potential wind power projects with the combined potential of 900 megawatts.

In Honduras, $5 million in Canadian support is unlocking up to $50 million to allow a local bank to provide affordable financing for renewable energy and energy-efficiency improvements at small and medium-sized businesses.

The track record of this government is clear. We are working in reducing emissions at home and are taking a major role internationally to help developing countries address climate change impacts and grow sustainably. Our plan is balanced, collaborative and effective, both at home and abroad. Canadian employers can find solace in the fact that our government will work collaboratively with them, industry by industry, to reach achievable goals without disrupting our economy and potentially putting Canadians in a position of unemployment.

These are important times and our government has taken important steps to ensure we address the reduction of greenhouse gases.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's discourse just now, and I find it surprising that he is saying his government is the one that has taken the most action. One of the reasons greenhouse gas emissions are actually dropping in this country is that economic activity is dropping. He should not be laying claim to any kind of plan on this, unless he is saying that it was the government's plan to reduce economic activity in this country. He has no claim to fame on this.

I am also surprised to hear him talk about how the government is helping to install wind farms worldwide to help with greenhouse gas emissions when in Canada it is actually reducing the amount of support it is giving.

Why not show me how he is going to support the wind farms in my riding, how we are going to increase development of those wind farms, instead of starting studies in Ontario on whether the sounds that wind farms make could possibly have negative health effects on individuals, studies that have been performed numerous times by our international partners and numerous times in Quebec as well.

The studies are already in. The results are in. We know what the results are. Why do we not actively support the wind power industry in this country instead of just giving lip service to wind farms in other countries?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to my colleague's first question, the NDP likes to mock the reductions we have experienced in Canada. They are significant and meaningful reductions, almost 5% since 2005, and they happened while the economy has been growing. All members of the House would like to see the economy grow faster, and our government is committed to that. Our economic action plan is committed to that. We have been able to grow the economy while also reducing greenhouse gases. Our sector-by-sector industry consultation will help us achieve our goals in the future.

As per the member's statements on wind, it is the provincial Liberal government in Ontario that has essentially put a moratorium on local communities deciding. Canada is working with our international partners, and if those international partners want to invest in wind and we can help that through fast-track financing, we have done that.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to know that while the Conservative government deployed Canadian diplomats to lobby Fortune 500 companies in the United States to counter a global warming campaign, 2011 proved to be the year of weather extremes in the states. In fact, 14 extreme weather events caused losses of $1 billion U.S. each. The worst tornado outbreak in history hit the southern states, with April recording a staggering 753 tornadoes and beating the previous record by a startling 39%. The Conservative government continues to fail in meeting international climate change commitments, setting science-based emission reduction targets, developing incentives for low carbon technologies and putting in place adaptation measures necessary to respond to the risks of climate change.

I will ask again: What does his government plan to do to close the megatonne gap?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member from the Liberal Party for her question and her well-researched and thoughtful remarks today. The Liberal Party's record is disastrous post-Kyoto, and in many ways she cannot take much of the blame because she was not in the House, but most of the other members were part of that government.

I would remind Canadians that the Liberal Party signed the Kyoto accord and then did nothing. There were announcements, consultations and one-tonne challenges. The reality is that greenhouse gas emissions went up and there was no meaningful consultation. The Liberal Party did not work collaboratively with industry, as our government is doing. The Liberals talked a good game on greenhouse gas reductions while doing nothing.

Our government is committed to the balance I spoke of in my remarks. That balance is having meaningful, achievable and helpful targets, while also making sure we do not cause more unemployment in this country. It is a balanced approach that is working—a 4.8% reduction, the first of any government in Canadian history—and we are going to build upon that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and share my time today with the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. I appreciate this opportunity to speak to this issue.

I will start with a couple of points. The first is to commend the member for Halifax. She is known in this place as someone who is a reasoned, responsible member of Parliament who is very balanced in her approach to politics and also to her file. This is not being partisan in terms of this motion, as has been charged by the Liberals.

I will not spend much time on this, but it is important to acknowledge. When I arrived here in 2002 there was a lot of talk about Kyoto and the actual legislation and moving forward in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, and nothing got done. Very little happened, and I understand why the Liberals are sensitive to this. I can appreciate that, but it cannot erase what took place in this chamber, in this House, in this country and what happened to our reputation across the world. That is just what took place.

The motion by the member for Halifax is very reasoned, responsible and key to the future of this country.

I will start with an environmental success story, just to show some of the challenges we have. I had a meeting today with Lafarge, one of the largest construction cement consortiums in this country. It has international standards on pushing back greenhouse gas emissions across the globe. It is looking at 33% per tonne of cement compared to 1990 levels, 50% moving to non-fossil fuels in cement plants by 2020, including biomass, and also 20% of concrete containing reused or recycled materials. Those are just some examples of the direction in which Lafarge is moving. That is one of the reasons why, when we look at industrial strategies, we need incentives and rewards for those companies that actually perform that way and also have employment that is socially responsible.

Whereas, when we have the current government providing continued corporate tax cuts for the oil and petroleum industry, continued allowances for them to tap into the capital reduction loss account and continued ability to actually get subsidies at a time when we are in a deficit, it is irresponsible. We are borrowing money right now for corporate tax cuts, on the backs of our kids, for an industry that is wildly successful and also damaging to other industries and also is a polluter. It is a result. We have this industry, and we need to wrestle with the consequences of what has taken place. We need to decide where we are going at this point in time and whether corporate tax cuts rewarding this type of activity are appropriate. There should be penalties, and at the same time we should be ensuring we are going to be sustainable.

I can bring up a case. People may not realize that the oil sands industry can be closer to home than they think. I can talk from experience on that. Currently in Windsor and Essex County bitumen that is processed in a Marathon plant in Detroit, from the oil sands, is now petroleum coke that is being stored on the Detroit River. There has not been enough investigation with regard to this material, and the research is still out there, but it was enough that in the port of Los Angeles a $7.5 million barn was built after years of political wrangling and environmental challenges and also reassuring the public, because this material is highly toxic if it gets into the air or the water. Unfortunately, Canadians have rented property from the Ambassador Bridge, a private institution on the American river, and we have petroleum coke at a number of different locations. One of the most significant is about four stories high and about two and a half blocks long. It is so significant that it has become a landmark, and it is right next to the Detroit River. Thankfully for the residents of Windsor, we have to worry about only the air particulate at the moment, because our intake for our municipal water system is upstream. It is not so lucky for people from Amherstburg or farther down the Great Lakes system. It is not so lucky there.

However, the reality is that we now have to deal with a haphazard approach to using this material. The interesting thing about the bitumen that is processed into petroleum coke is that it is later used in coal-burning facilities for energy. It has been described as the dirtiest of the dirtiest of fuels, but this byproduct is not often calculated in greenhouse gas emissions because it is a byproduct.

As well, this will be an interesting factor in the pipeline development. I have been to Washington and heard from American politicians on different sides, and some of them do not want the pipeline built. One person in particular told me that he is concerned about getting this byproduct into Texas and having it shipped to China where it could be used as a cheap energy source to undercut American manufacturing. I do not know how successful he will be, but he is going to try to prevent this project from going forward and is raising this issue in the halls of Washington. This is one of the things that could result from the Keystone project.

The other scenario is that this petcoke could go to many Michigan or other coal-power plants across the United States to be used. Right now it is produced in the Marathon plant in Michigan, but it could be used in others as well. In fact, they tried to bring in a ship to move some of the petcoke off the shores because it is stored temporarily, or maybe it was for another customer, but they had problems doing so.

According to the Detroit Marathon refinery material safety data sheets for petroleum coke, the appropriate storage and handling procedures are as follows:

Store in properly closed containers that are appropriately labeled and in a cool well-ventilated area. Do not expose to heat, open flames, strong oxidizers or other sources of ignition.

We have this material piled on the water.

This is important to the debate here because I have asked the Minister of the Environment to invoke the IJC. I commissioned an independent paper from the Library of Parliament on Canadian and American laws that relate to runoff and airborne substances that could potentially harm human health, and the report showed that our laws are not very strong at all in protecting Canadians, particularly from this substance because it is a newer substance. However, the risk is potentially there because we see this product dumped on the shore. Obviously, when the wind blows, it could result, and is likely resulting, in that product getting into the water system.

The minister has yet to respond to the IJC, and I am perplexed by that. The Great Lakes system is one of the most important things for our environment and economy for the future. Everywhere else in the world, they would be pleased to have this type of treasure, especially as we approach climate change and we have issues related to water systems and supply management. The fact is that this has already been debated in terms of the diversion of water from the Great Lakes system even when the water levels are the lowest in many years, which the Conservative government denied at first despite the Michigan army of engineers showing the evidence.

I want to conclude by noting that this issue and the minister's lack of attention toward this file shows a disregard. At the very least, we should be erring on the side of caution.

We have fought hard in this region, and for many years we have had a blog on the Great Lakes system. We have had invasive species and serious industrialization effects on plants in that area. However, we could actually have improvements, and we have been working for improvements.

Therefore, let us err on the side of caution. Let us get the IJC involved. We have to remember that what is happening in Alberta is affecting every single community across this country.