Debates of April 25th, 2013

Opposition Motion—Climate Change

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Acadie—Bathurst's question was so passionate and factual.

When the Conservatives talk about climate change or the environment, they spout nothing but empty words. There is always a double standard. The Conservatives say that they are making an effort, but all we see are empty gestures, nothing but a smokescreen. They have muzzled scientists. They make sure that reports from experts go unpublished. Almost all of the country's environmental assessments have been scrapped—only 1% remain—and they have yet to come up with a costed, comprehensive plan to combat climate change.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to share our government's commitment to the environment and the concrete actions we have taken to address climate change issues.

First and foremost, let me remind the House that our government recognizes the reality and the science of climate change. We recognize that climate change is a global challenge that requires a global solution.

Although Canada generates barely 2% of the world's annual greenhouse gases, we are addressing our domestic responsibility to mitigate, to reduce, those emissions. Our sector-by-sector plan to meet our Copenhagen reduction targets is measured by internationally accepted protocols and methodologies, and it is working. This government is the first Canadian government to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I want to be sure that the members opposite are clear on this. Our government, the Prime Minister's Conservative government, is the first to have reduced greenhouse gas emissions. I know that this must be difficult for my colleagues to accept, but it is the truth.

Today's debate I hope will stick to facts and to science, so let us look at the facts.

For 13 years, the previous Liberal government paid merely lip service to climate change. It signed an international treaty without due diligence, a treaty that was ineffective and unfair, and then blithely watched as Canada's greenhouse gases increased by 30%. The Liberals did not have a plan, and as they themselves reminded Canadians in the House this week, they did not get the job done.

The NDP also claims to have a plan, a plan that would see an NDP government pick the pockets of hard-working Canadians, taking $21-billion worth of their hard-earned salaries, costing jobs, hurting the economy, and increasing the cost of virtually everything. To what purpose? The fact is that this tax on everything would only result in funds going into general revenues, in the NDP fashion, for purposes of social engineering, without guaranteeing the reduction of a single megatonne of greenhouse gas emissions. That is not a plan for the environment. At the same time, the NDP wander abroad, attacking Canadian and American jobs and responsible resource development.

Our government is moving ahead with concrete action, well aware of our responsibilities at home and in the wider world and aware of the challenges Canada must face today to better position our country for tomorrow. That is why this government has put in place a sector-by-sector regulatory plan, one that is working to lower emissions and reach our targets.

Canada's 2020 target is very ambitious: 17% lower emissions in 2020 as compared to 2005 base levels. This target matches that of the United States, which is important, considering just how much our two economies are integrated.

We are aligned with the United States to maximize greenhouse gas emissions and at the same time to maintain economic competitiveness. For example, our successful alignment with the United States under the transportation sector standards means that the average greenhouse gas emissions from 2016 model year passenger automobiles and light trucks will be about 25% less than the vehicles sold in Canada just a few years ago, in 2008. By 2025, there will be 50% less fuel consumption and a further reduction to 50% of those greenhouse gas emissions.

We are now building on the existing 2011 to 2016 regulations to develop new and even more stringent standards for that 2017 to 2025 period. This is not only good news for the environment but is very good news for the pocketbooks of Canadians, proving once again that a healthy environment and a strong economy are not mutually exclusive.

We have moved together with the United States on improving standards for heavy trucks. We are continuing our efforts in this direction to achieve the responsible targets we gave ourselves under the Copenhagen accord.

In the second major emissions sector addressed, our Conservative government has taken a leadership role, working with provincial counterparts to reduce electricity emissions through a range of measures to shift away from high-emission sources of electricity to expand renewables and to reduce demand through energy efficiency.

Canada became the first major coal user in the world to ban construction of traditional technology coal units to generate electricity and to establish a performance standard for those units at the end of their economic life. These combined efforts are paying off. Greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector are now projected to decline by a third between 2005 levels and 2020 levels, despite increases in economic activity and electricity production over the period. Our colleagues on the other side of the House should again take note: Environmental protection can coexist with economic growth and with job creation.

According to a report from the International Energy Agency, while we have begun to reduce coal-fired emissions, global demand for coal-fired electricity jumped by 45% between 2000 and 2010, and it is expected to climb another 17% by 2017. As our recently posted annual emissions inventory report confirms, we are half way to achieving the overall greenhouse gas reduction targets to which we committed under the Copenhagen accord. This is a tangible accomplishment; the result of a transparent and accountable plan, something none of the parties opposite have offered in this House or to Canadians.

Even as we focus on our domestic mitigation responsibilities, Canada is fully engaged in climate change challenges abroad. At our most recent meeting of the major economies forum in Washington a couple of weeks ago, Canada and the others continued work on a new, binding climate change agreement, which we hope will include all major emitters in the developed and the developing world. We continue to aim for a new draft treaty by 2015, which would allow for ratification and the beginning of implementation by 2020—a new post-2020 international climate change agreement applicable to all parties, including all major emitting countries, as we have highlighted many times.

At the same time, the Conservative government supports its commitments under the Copenhagen accord and the accord's goal of mobilizing long-term financing for developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation and transparent action. Developed countries made good on our Copenhagen commitment to fast-start financing. Together, we have delivered $33 billion between 2010 and 2012 in mitigation and adaptation in developing countries. Canada's share, $1.2 billion in fast-start financing, is still rolling out and will for years ahead, supporting projects around the world that address, for example, clean water projects, reforestation, clean energy, food security and much more.

As Canada continues to contribute to the process under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, we are working at the same time on climate change initiatives beyond that body. Last year, we proudly participated as a founding member in the launch of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to reduce short-lived climate pollutants. As an Arctic nation, our government understands first-hand the importance of addressing short-lived climate pollutants, which have a significant impact on the rate of the Arctic ice melt.

We are delighted to have been joined by the developed and developing world to see the coalition grow, in barely a year, from 7 to now 56 partners. Not only was Canada, under this government, the first out of the gate by contributing start-up funding for the coalition, but we also delivered additional millions of dollars directly to projects in developing countries. This once again demonstrates that Canada not only has a plan and is taking action but is taking a leadership role internationally to address climate change issues right around the globe.

The Climate and Clean Air Coalition is taking action on several fronts, in areas such as the capture and utilization of methane from landfill waste sites in the developing world as well as the developed world, reducing black carbon emissions from heavy-duty diesel generation facilities in the oil and gas sector in the developing world, as well as brick production for housing in the developing world.

I believe the coalition has a bright future, and to help it achieve its goals to significantly reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants, I was pleased to announce at the Washington meeting that Canada would invest a further $10 million in the coalition and its projects. Our contribution to the CCAC was its largest to date and will help support its implementation of projects in developing countries. We hope it will signal a new phase of scaled-up action and growth in the coalition's membership, funding activities and tangible results.

I was also proud to announce a contribution of several million dollars to the Climate Technology Centre and Network, CTCN. This initiative, launched by parties to the UNFCCC, responds directly to the expressed need of developing countries for more rapid deployment of the best available technologies to help them confront the climate challenge, both to reduce their emissions and to build their resilience to climate impacts.

The Climate and Clean Air Coalition and the Climate Technology Centre and Network have the potential to make a real difference. Our Conservative government is working with the global community to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and short-lived climate pollutants, and to help the most vulnerable countries adapt to a changing climate.

As members know, our government has made a strong commitment to developing Canada's abundant natural resources while at the same time strengthening environmental protection. We have put that commitment to action by strengthening and modernizing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which was passed in this House last year, as part of the government's responsible resource development initiative.

I could not stand here this morning without underlining an important announcement that I participated in just a few short days ago right here in Ottawa with my colleague from the Government of Alberta. Almost a year ago, I had the pleasure of announcing, with Diana McQueen, Alberta's Minister of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, the joint Canada-Alberta implementation plan for oil sands monitoring to ensure the environmental integrity of Canada's oil sands.

With this monitoring plan, our two governments showed our commitment to implement a scientifically rigorous, comprehensive, integrated and transparent environmental plan. It will deliver the most scientifically credible picture of the water, air, land and biodiversity issues in the region and will ensure that this important resource is developed in an environmentally responsible manner.

The join data portal, formally launched this week, provides the public with ongoing open access to the most up-to-date scientific data collected through the joint oil sands monitoring plan and the methodology used to produce it. More importantly, it encourages informed discussions and analysis of the impacts of oil sands development.

I would invite members opposite to take a few minutes to visit the portal. They should be enlightened by the abundance of information available, and it may—one can only hope—help reshape their unscientific perspectives of a responsible resource industry. This data portal follows through on an important commitment we made to ensure that the scientific data from the monitoring activity is both transparent and accessible to all Canadians.

Even as we address climate change mitigation, we must recognize the need for adaptation to the changes that have and continue to take place. Although we see the impact of climate change right across our great country and around the world, nowhere is change more evident than in our Canadian Arctic.

Canada assumes the chair of the Arctic Council next month. The appointment of our Minister of Health to lead Canada's chairmanship reflects the importance that our government attaches to the north. The overarching themes for Canada's term will be sustainable circumpolar communities, safe Arctic shipping and responsible Arctic resource development.

Of course, Environment Canada has long had a leading role in protecting the Arctic's unique environment, and we will continue to work to balance conservation, sustainable use and economic development. As well, Environment Canada continues to be a world leader in Arctic research. Our scientists are key players in three of the six Arctic Council working groups and will be major contributors during our Arctic Council chairmanship over the next two years.

I would again remind colleagues opposite of the new federal initiative of $35 million for climate change and atmospheric research, led by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council.

In 2011, Environment Canada published close to 100 peer-reviewed articles related to the Arctic. The majority of these were the result of national and international collaborations, primarily with the United States but also with other Arctic Council member states such as Russia, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark.

The research continues to address areas of common concern such as mercury, persistent organic pollutants, ozone depletion and, of course, climate change.

Our government has a plan where none has been offered by the opposition.

Our government has a plan and is taking action. That is a recipe for success.

Canadians want a government that is protecting the environment for future generations.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there are many questions I could ask from that speech, like a question about the cognitive dissonance between the fact that the minister talks about the NDP's cap and trade plan and yet it was the same plan that was in his 2008 platform, or the twisted logic about taking credit for emissions reductions through the recession.

However, I will focus on this. The minister says that the government is taking climate change seriously, but I want to talk about his own colleagues. The member for Edmonton Centre talks about the nonsense that Al Gore is spreading. Stockwell Day, former MP, talked about the benefits of global warming for his lakeside property. The Minister of State for Small Business said it is okay to be a skeptic on the main aspects of warming theory. The Minister of Natural Resources says that Canadians are not worried about two degrees of warming, and the Prime Minister himself said, “so-called 'greenhouse gas' phenomenon”.

Therefore, my question to the minister is: Does he agree with his colleagues who question the science of climate change? If he does not, will he table something today to show that the government is actually taking action? From oil and gas regulations to an adaptation plan, I think we would be happy with pretty much any sign that the government cares about climate change.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. There are several questions imbedded therein.

With regard to the Minister of Natural Resources, he has made clear on any number of occasions that he does fully accept the reality of climate change as a challenge for our country and for the world.

With regard to our plan, we began sector by sector with the transportation sector, which contributes fully 25%, a quarter, of Canada's annual emissions. We have succeeded with effective regulations there that will reach out. By 2025, cars will be consuming 50% less fuel and emitting 50% less GHG.

We then moved on to the coal-fired electricity sector. If any of the members of the opposition are charging their Volt, they should be informed that barely 11% of the energy generated in Canada today comes from the coal-fired sector, as opposed to 42% of the electricity in the United States coming from the coal-fired sector. Canada's non-emitting sectors represent fully three-quarters, 75%, of the clean energy generated here in Canada.

With regard to the oil and gas regulations, as I have told the House a number of times, that is the third major emitting sector we are addressing. We are working, and have been working since the fall of 2011, on these regulations. When they are ready to be published, they will be published.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned the oil sands monitoring program. We have many questions. Is the methodology sound? Will the data be useful? Will the data be used when making decisions? Will the data be free of industry and government influence? Will the minister allow a third party to audit to see if the data is scientifically dispensable? Finally, is the governance structure finally in place so that Canadian taxpayers are not on the hook for up to $50 million per year?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can answer my colleague very briefly: yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. That is exactly why the Canada-Alberta joint monitoring system was designed and suggested by scientists. It is a plan created by scientists and peer-reviewed by scientists and it is now being implemented. We are now at the end of the first year of implementation by scientists.

The intention of and the commitment to creating the web portal for the monitoring plan was to provide unfiltered, raw data that is achieved, some of it, in real time and that can be viewed in real time.

I again suggest that members opposite visit the web portal. It is a spectacular sight. We are creating the baseline, which scientists told us and which we appreciate, did not exist previously.

Even though the waters of the Athabasca River and its tributaries have been flowing through the oil sands, through bitumen, for millennia, which have deposited any number of chemicals into these waters, this monitoring plan will confirm, show and detect any additional pollutants that may be introduced into the water, the air, the land and the biodiversity of the region. It will allow us and industry itself to more efficiently regulate.

With regard to financing the plan, industry, as my colleague should know, has committed to pay up to $50 million for the three years of implementation, and that structure is in place.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I was appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, I was actually quite excited about it, because I feel that climate change is something Canadians know is important. It is something that it is important to me to address, so I was excited to have an opportunity to be in this portfolio.

As well, I think Canadians understand that we are a natural resource-based economy. Much of our economic growth comes from natural resources and from the energy sector. This means that there are numerous jobs across the country associated with it. It also means that there is a large amount of government revenue associated with it.

Given that Canada is a natural resource-based country, that Canadians feel that we need to have jobs and growth and that Canadians also feel that climate change is important, I am hoping the minister can explain a little bit about the approach he has taken to ensure that climate change is addressed in Canada and that we are also cognizant of the economic reality.

So far this morning, I have not heard one of my opposition colleagues talk about this context. They have not once acknowledged the fact that given where Canada is at from an economic growth perspective, we actually are world leaders in addressing climate change, but we are doing that while providing growth opportunities for Canadians.

I am hoping that the minister can enlighten us on his approach and how this principle has informed our government's environmental policy.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

The reality, Mr. Speaker, and what members of the opposition should recognize, is that the global economy is still in an extremely fragile state. However, this government is working to balance our environmental responsibilities, our stewardship with regard to the environment and our addressing, among other things, climate change, while ensuring that we do not discourage investment, do not strand investment, and do not drive investment away from our country and put Canadians' jobs at risk.

It is with that sensitivity and awareness that we approached our sector-by-sector regulatory plan. We are very careful. That is why the NDP's proposed Tinker Bell approach of fixing everything with the wave of a wand does not match the reality of the challenges we face. We have to look at the impact regulations will have on investment, jobs and the economy while, at the same time, working to achieve our domestic targets, which gives us the social licence to argue with the major emitting countries, much larger major emitting countries around the world, to step up and take action themselves.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to inform you that I took my Tinker Bell wings off years ago.

I have nine grandchildren, and I am very concerned about the environment. If the minister wants to malign the NDP, that is fine. However, Jack Layton put before this House the most comprehensive bill on the environment ever seen in the world. It was praised around the world. It passed in the House, and the unelected Senate killed it. Do not talk to us about what we know or do not know about the environment, because we do know, and we are very concerned about it.

Canada has the opportunity to take a lead for the world. The minister talks about other countries not acting. Why are we not leading, because if we lead, we may save this planet. If we do not, we are going to lose the planet in 75 years.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government disagrees fundamentally with the socialist policies of the NDP. However, with regard to its stated policies on climate change, it is interesting that it makes three principal points. First is to establish binding targets. That is exactly what this government is doing. Of course, as we have made clear in this House, we reject a carbon tax.

Second is emissions standards. The NDP is basically saying, “Me too”. We are establishing emissions standards in our sector-by-sector regulatory approach.

Finally, and the NDP and my colleague referred to it, is green leadership in the world. As I said this morning, and my friend may have missed those remarks, Canada is, in fact, taking significant leadership in the world, and other countries are now coming to accept our position. I would list among those countries New Zealand and Japan, which are not taking on second commitments under Kyoto but are working with us aggressively on a new international climate change treaty that will include all major emitters.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, climate change is the most pressing environmental issue facing the planet. Climate change is real. It is happening now. It is an issue of today and not of tomorrow. Serious impacts are associated with the two degrees Celsius stabilization target, including an increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events and sea-level rise.

The World Economic Forum, or WEF, recently ranked climate change the third-biggest concern, overall, of 1,000 experts surveyed. Failure to adapt to climate change was listed as the biggest single environmental hazard facing the planet. Moreover, the WEF listed runaway climate change as its first serious x factor, an emerging concern with unknown consequences. It even raised the question of whether humans have already triggered a runaway chain reaction that is rapidly tipping earth's atmosphere into an inhospitable state.

Canada's 1998 ice storm cost $5.4 billion. The 1996 Saguenay flood cost $1.7 billion. A 2005 rain event in Toronto cost $625 million in insured losses. The now defunct National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy warned that climate change is expensive, with annual $21-billion to $43-billion adaptation costs for Canadians by 2015.

The countries most vulnerable to climate change understand that 2015, the date by which to adopt a universal climate change agreement, is already too late. The two degrees Celsius target will likely be missed. Some developed countries remain insensitive to their predicament. Some islands will likely become submerged. Their hopes for enhanced global support to aid their efforts have continually been disappointed.

At stake is the future of our children and grandchildren. In light of the financial burdens to the next generations, the impacts on Canada's agriculture, environment, fisheries, forest, water, et cetera and ultimately on Canadians and on international communities, such as Bangladesh, which might lose one-fifth of its land mass and suffer the displacement of 20 million people with a one-metre rise in sea level, it is extremely disappointing that instead of having a serious debate on what Canada should be doing to mitigate and adapt to climate change, the New Democrats have chosen to politicize a fundamentally human issue.

I am very surprised that the New Democrats would choose to attack the Liberal Party on this issue, given their party's less than stellar role in combatting climate change.

In 2005, it was the NDP's political antics that led to the fall of the Liberal government, thereby knowingly ending any chance that Canada would take real action on climate change. The Liberal government's project green would have, in fact, taken Canada 80% of the way to meeting its Kyoto targets. The Conservatives have since reduced the previous Liberal government's greenhouse gas emissions targets by an astonishing 90% and will not even meet their very weak target.

My friend and colleague for over two decades, the leader of the Green Party, blamed the NDP for putting politics ahead of the planet, risking the collapse of an urgent climate change conference in 2005 aimed at salvaging the Kyoto protocol. She begged the NDP to rethink the issue. A newspaper article stated, when the leader of the Green Party wrote her 2009 book,

“It was to no avail,” she wrote, highlighting the incident as proof that both [the NDP] and [the current Prime Minister] were willing to sacrifice the key Kyoto negotiations...

I have spent the last 25 years researching climate change, consulting for Environment Canada, serving on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, speaking around the world on climate change and its impacts, undertaking research 500 miles from the North Pole, and watching the glaciers recede and recede. I came to Ottawa to fight for real action on climate change, and I currently chair the all-party climate change caucus, which I founded. I also serve on two United Nations bodies, one regarding climate change and the second one regarding disaster preparedness.

It is, therefore, painful to say that the Liberal Party will not be supporting the NDP's motion as the motion is dishonest about my party's record on climate change. I ensure my speeches are accurate and scientifically rigorous, and that my arguments are fact-based and not hyperbole and rhetoric. The Liberal Party does agree with two of the three sections of the NDP motion, namely, that there is grave concern with the impacts of a 2° Celsius rise in global average temperature and the government should immediately table its federal climate change adaptation plan.

Let me set the record straight on the Liberal Party's action on climate change and then outline the wilfully blind position of the current Conservative government and what it should be doing to protect the future.

In 1998, Canada signed the Kyoto protocol, pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6% from 1990 levels by the commitment period ending in 2012. In 2000, the Liberal government introduced its action plan 2000 on climate change and committed $500 million on measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or GHGs.

In 2002, Canada formally ratified the Kyoto protocol. The Liberal government called it “an important milestone in Canada's contribution to addressing climate change”. The government also released “Climate Change: Achieving our Commitments Together”, which proposed a three-stage strategy to achieve GHG reduction goals through incentives, regulations, and tax measures.

In 2003, the Liberal government pledged an additional $1 billion for its climate change plan and offered incentives to consumers and industry. Total federal spending on Kyoto reached $3.7 billion. In 2004, the Liberal government issued the one-tonne challenge, which called for every Canadian to cut GHG emissions through such activities as recycling, taking public transit, and using programmable thermostats. From the early 1990s, I have been challenging my own students at the university to reduce their personal and family GHGs.

In 2005, the Kyoto protocol officially came into force. Within three weeks of the date, the Liberal government and Canada's carmakers reached an agreement regarding emission standards. Car companies were to produce vehicles that would cut emissions by 5.3 megatonnes by 2010 as part of Ottawa's Kyoto plan. Within two months of Kyoto coming into force, the Liberal government announced details of its Kyoto implementation plan, project green, pledging $10 billion to cut greenhouse gases by 270 megatonnes a year by 2008 to 2012. However, in 2006, with the help of the NDP, the Conservative government came to power and immediately killed project green. Independent third-party stakeholders stated that the plan would have allowed Canada to come close to meeting its Kyoto targets.

Since coming to power the Conservative government has reduced the Liberal GHG targets by an astonishing 90%, spent $9.2 billion and claims it is half way to meeting its very weak GHG targets. The Conservative government's latter claim is particularly remarkable given that as recently as the fall of 2011, the government was on track to reach only 25% of its very weak target.

Weak target or not, how did the government manage to improve its performance by an astounding 100% in just over six months? First, the government used a higher start value, a projected value, rather than actual emissions. Second, it changed the accounting rules. Third, the government took credit for someone else's hard work. The June 2012 report from the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy made it clear that action taken by the provinces and territories is really responsible for three-quarters of Canada's GHG reductions. Moreover, the round table's report echoed that of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, which showed that in 2020 Canada's emissions would be 7% above the 2005 level rather than the promised 17% below.

Fourth, the government removed any climate accountability measures through its draconian omnibus bill, Bill C-38, which repealed the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. Because of the repeal, the government will no longer have to publish the climate change plan each year, detailing the measures being taken to meet Canada's commitment. Moreover, the round table will no longer be required to assess each year's plan and offer expert feedback. In fact, the round table no longer even exists as it failed to comply with Conservative ideology. Moreover, the commissioner will no longer have to report regularly on Canada's progress in implementing its climate plan.

Because of the lack of climate accountability measures, Canadians will continue to suffer a Minister of Natural Resources who casts doubt on climate change science saying that, “People aren't as worried as they were before about global warming of 2° and scientists have recently told us that our fears on climate change are exaggerated.” Even flat earth proponents eventually came around. What will it take to convince the natural resources minister that climate change is real?

Because of the lack of climate accountability measures, Canadians will continue to suffer a government that repeats its mantra, namely, that its sector-by-sector approach to climate change is working. Sadly, the approach is just a delay tactic. The government has tackled only two sectors in six years and is yet to take action on the oil and gas sector. Perhaps instead of repeating tired lines, the government should actually review the evidence and experience first-hand what Canadians are living.

The reality is the world is getting hotter. The warmest 13 years of average global temperatures have all occurred in the 15 years since 1997. Increased global average temperatures are expected to increase droughts and floods, and other extreme weather patterns. Recent record-breaking temperatures for June 2012 are what we would expect from climate change. In fact, records for the contiguous United States that have been kept since 1895 show that July 2012 was the hottest month ever.

Whether the government accepts or minimizes the fact that record-breaking temperatures and extreme precipitation are likely changing on a global scale as a result of anthropogenic influences, many Canadians are feeling the economic impacts. In Canada, catastrophic events cost approximately $1.6 billion in 2011 and almost $1 billion in each of the two previous years. In 2012, in many regions across Canada, farmers struggled with hot, dry conditions that devastated their crops.

The Ontario provincial government asked for federal support to help farmers dealing with drought. Farmers were forced to sell their livestock at low prices because the drought had raised feed costs beyond what they could afford. Increasing evidence shows drought conditions will become the norm rather than the exception.

What needs to be done on climate change and done immediately? The NDP is calling for a climate adaptation plan and this is important. For many years, I consulted to Environment Canada's adaptation and impacts research group. Many of its members share the 2007 Nobel Prize on climate change, but it has since been dismantled by the Conservative government. The NDP fails to mention mitigation in its motion. We need both mitigation and adaptation. I will briefly describe omitted mitigation options.

We need sustainable development of our natural resources and all decisions must be based on scientific evidence, must safeguard our environment and natural habitats, and must respect the legal and historical rights of aboriginal people. The federal government must recognize that non-renewable high carbon energy sources are unsustainable. Canada must also have a plan for a transition to more sustainable energy sources and a pan-Canadian sustainable energy and economic growth strategy to succeed in the global economy and to make progress on this 2020 GHG reduction target.

The federal government should collaborate with relevant federal ministers and departments as well as with provincial, territorial, and municipal leaders in Canada to develop a pan-Canadian sustainable energy strategy.

It must also fully consult and accommodate aboriginal peoples when development projects affect their rights and traditional territories. Such a strategy should ensure fairness to all emitters and emitting sectors and regions. It should also include the creation of new markets and opportunities, and improve competitiveness for Canadian companies, particularly regarding low carbon technologies.

Both renewable energy and energy efficiency offer the promise of economic growth, job creation, energy security, and reductions in GHG emissions. The government should therefore develop an action plan to achieve identified targets for the deployment of low-impact renewable energy in Canada for the years 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050.

The federal government should also develop an action plan to achieve energy efficiency targets for the same decades. The European Union is now on track to deliver a 15% energy saving below business-as-usual by 2020.

To address climate change effectively, we also need a strategy for sustainable transportation in Canada that sets targets for the coming decades and an action plan for phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies in order to achieve the G20 goal of a medium-term phase-out.

The government should develop an action plan and milestones for increasing energy literacy and research, development and deployment of low carbon technology in Canada. It should work in partnership with the provinces, territories, municipalities, labour organizations, industry sectors, aboriginal peoples, and others to develop a clean energy employment transition strategy.

The stakes are enormous. Leading countries are creating a new energy future and investing billions to be at the front of the curve in the new green economy. While the government invested only $3 billion in green stimulus spending, Germany invested $14 billion; the United States, $112 billion; and China, $221 billion in green infrastructure, and in the process created thousands of new green jobs.

Instead of reverting to 1950s thinking of development at any cost, the government should be mapping the best way forward to a prosperous, energy-secure, and healthy future. The government must understand that it is a choice between being a producer and a consumer in the old economy and being a leader in the new economy. It is a choice between decline and prosperity.

Finally, the government must stop embarrassing Canadians on the world stage. Canada's withdrawal from Kyoto sparked outrage in the global community. A spokesman for France's foreign ministry called the move “bad news for the fight against climate change”. Tuvalu's lead negotiator said, “For a vulnerable country like Tuvalu, it’s an act of sabotage on our future…Withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol is a reckless and totally irresponsible act.”

Try as the government might, through cutting climate programs and research, and muzzling its scientists, the science of climate change simply will not go away, nor will the recognition of the economic impacts of warming and the growing chorus of countries taking action to combat climate change and gain competitive advantage by transitioning to the green economy.

The NDP and the Conservative government must stop polarizing the climate change discussion and resorting to ideological extremes during debate on the issue. Sadly, while climate change is speeding up, Canada continues to slide backwards on the issue. The Conservative government's only response is to greenwash its deplorable record on the environment.

Canadians deserve better, and our children and grandchildren deserve better, and should not be held hostage to the government's short-sightedness, skepticism, and stonewalling on the greatest challenge facing our planet.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are debating climate change in the House today.

I noticed the first part of the motion that the NDP raised acknowledges the fact that there is a grave concern about the impacts of climate change. I think we actually agree on this. I think there is some consensus on both sides of the House on this.

My question to my colleague is with regard to the last part of the motion, about the lack of effective action by successive federal governments. Now, I am of the opinion that our federal government has done something. We have regulated various sectors that are very carbon intensive with regard to emissions. We have put millions of dollars of funding in.

I know my colleagues have a plan. Their approach involves developing a method that would actually increase general revenues for the government. I am not here to argue about that right now.

The Liberal government had 13 years to do something about climate change. During that time emissions rose by 30%. So, looking at the middle part of this motion, I am wondering if my colleague will acknowledge this by voting in favour of the motion, if she will talk about whether or not the Liberal Party actually has the credibility to talk about climate change given this rise in emissions, and if she would just rather say that hope, good feelings, and wishes are the best way to approach climate change.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear. Our party will be voting against the motion. While we do agree that 2° Celsius represents a grave concern, we cannot agree with the dishonest second part of the NDP motion.

I will repeat. Within three weeks of the Kyoto protocol coming into force, the Liberal government reached an agreement with Canada's carmakers. Within two months of Kyoto coming into force, the Liberal government announced details of its Kyoto implementation plan, project green, pledging $10 billion to cut greenhouse gases by 270 megatonnes a year.

However, in 2006, with the help of the NDP, the Conservative government came to power and immediately killed project green, which would have got us 80% of the way of meeting our Kyoto targets. Sadly, the Conservative government has reduced those targets by an astonishing 90% and claims it can get us 50% of the way there by simply changing the accounting rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask my colleague a question. She seems to want to rewrite history today by saying it is the NDP's fault that the Conservatives came to power in 2006.

How many times did the Liberals support the Conservatives, saving them when they were a minority government? It is their fault that the Conservatives have been in power for eight years now, and it is their fault if they stay in power. If she wants to rewrite history, I will tell her exactly what has happened over the past few years.

I would also like to ask her a question. I was astounded to hear it said that the Liberals took action, because we know, and we have said it over and over again, that emissions increased by 30% when they were in power.

Can she tell us how they can possibly say that they support reducing greenhouse gas emissions when they did the opposite when they were in power?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we took action within three weeks and two months of the Kyoto protocol coming into force. Sadly, the NDP worked with the Conservatives to bring down the Liberal government and kill project green.

I am not going to continue on this, because I would actually like to put a real path forward, as I have been doing for the last 25 years of my life.

The government should table a comprehensive climate change plan and commit to attaining the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals that are supported internationally by contributing its fair share to fill the megatonne gap. That is the shortfall between existing mitigation commitments and the emission reductions necessary to prevent serious climate change.

More stringent actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions cannot be postponed much longer; otherwise, the opportunity to keep the average global temperature rise below 2° Celsius is in danger and, as I have mentioned, serious impacts are associated with that limit, including extreme weather events and a rise in sea level. Most scientists are concerned that we are actually on the way to 3° and 3.5° Celsius. As I mentioned during my discussion, the World Economic Forum considers climate change one of the most serious threats and is even asking questions about runaway climate change.

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

Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me that the Liberal Party continues to confuse press conferences with action. It is very clear that the Liberals can cite the number of press conferences they had while they were in government. They can probably even tell us what types of finger foods were served at these press conferences, but that is not action.

It still shocks me that the Liberals stand in this place and indicate that somehow political parties have conspired to put them where they are in this House. The Canadian people determined the position they should hold in this House, in part because of the Liberals' lack of action on the environment and climate change and also in part because project green, for the Canadian people, refers to the sponsorship scandal and 40 million missing dollars.

I have listened to the member talk about climate change and the need to act. This is the first government to actually reduce climate change, and this while we have seen economic growth in this country. She talked about CAFE standards; we have in fact increased CAFE standards significantly for fleet fuel economies.

I would like to know from the member if she will acknowledge that the government has worked in partnership with the provinces and provided funding to the provinces. We have worked with industries. We are bringing in real change. We are, in fact, bringing in reductions of greenhouse gases in Canada while other countries continue to increase them.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has gutted environmental legislation over the last 50 years, legislation that is key to protecting the health and safety of Canadians. The Conservative government killed the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. The Conservative government repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, repealed the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act and walked away from the Kyoto protocol to international criticism. The government is taking credit on climate change, yet the national round table says the provinces have done 75% of the work.

I would like to put forward real ideas on how to fight climate change. I have many motions on this fact. For example, we need to initiate discussions with the provinces, territories, municipalities, labour organizations, industry sectors, first nations and others to develop a green economy strategy for Canada with goals for 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030, and in developing this strategy, we need to ensure that we include skills development, training programs, certification courses and policies for the transition to a green economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is staggering to see a party claim to be anti-pollution champions, when all we ever got was empty rhetoric.

Naming your dog Kyoto is the only Kyoto-related thing you ever did.

Will you stop talking and start taking action?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I remind the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin to address comments through the Chair and not at other members of Parliament directly.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party had project green. Ten billion dollars would have taken us 80% of the way to meeting our Kyoto targets.

We would like the government to recognize that not maintaining the average global temperature rise at less than 2° Celsius places us in serious danger. We need a comprehensive climate change plan. We need a green economy strategy. We need a pan-Canadian sustainable energy strategy.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Chambly—Borduas, who is a fine member.

I would like to introduce this motion that I will, of course, be supporting.

We are asking:

That this House: (a) agree with many Canadians and the International Energy Agency that there is grave concern with the impacts of a 2 degree rise in global average temperatures; (b) condemn the lack of effective action by successive federal governments since 1998 to address emissions and meet our Kyoto commitments; and (c) call on the government to immediately table its federal climate change adaptation plan.

I want to add some of my personal experiences relevant to this motion before I get into spelling out what I would call government inaction and then expand on the New Democrats' position in terms of what we would like to see happen on climate change.

I got my start in terms of taking action when I swam the length of the Fraser River in 1995. It was a 1,400-kilometre swim. I did that both in 1995 and in 2000 to draw attention to the issues threatening the health of the Fraser River.

The Fraser River is known as one of the greatest salmon rivers in the world, but it is under threat. It is on the B.C. endangered rivers list. It is threatened in many different ways, but certainly climate change is one of the biggest threats to the health of the river and to the salmon that make the river so majestic. The Fraser River is known for its cultural, historic, environmental and economic values, but climate change threatens all of that.

I could speak quite a bit about the ten years of swims that I did to draw attention to the threats facing our environment on the west coast, but I want to move to my experience as an elected official.

Soon after those swims, I was asked to get involved to change public policy and speak out at the local level. I was a city councillor in the City of Coquitlam for seven years, from 2002 to 2009. In those early days Coquitlam was certainly very aware of the impacts of climate change and was trying to do its share as a municipality to make a difference in dealing with climate change, even at a local level. The city implemented many initiatives to try to mitigate the damage caused by climate change on the municipality of Coquitlam.

I was also a representative on the board for Metro Vancouver, and I want to talk about a specific motion I brought forward that I feel dealt with climate change, which was to move to zero waste. In fact, I was the director who put forward the motion calling on the region to move to zero waste. That is an ambitious target, but it has moved us from a 55% waste diversion up to what is now 75% diversion rate. Of course, the region is ideally looking to moving to 100% diversion, or zero waste, and recycling all the material it produces.

This is a part of defining what I have been involved with in terms of action on climate change and the environment and also to point out that there are many ways one can take action. The critical thing is the will to change and to outline how important it is to make change. This is where I have to turn to the Conservative federal government's inaction on this file.

In fact, it is an embarrassment that in this day and age we have a government minister who is accused of being a climate change denier. It is out there, people are talking about it, and it is unfortunate. Canadians from coast to coast to coast understand the urgency of the climate crisis. It seems that it is just the Conservatives who are out of step with Canadians and our closest allies when they refuse to take action.

I held town hall meetings just recently. This year I heard from many constituents who were very concerned with the government's refusal to act on climate change. They spoke out to me. They brought it up. They identified it in New Westminster, in Coquitlam and in Port Moody when I held town hall meetings in each of those communities. Even on the phone, when I talked to thousands of people, climate change was brought up. Certainly, health care was identified as the number one priority, but climate change was up among the top priorities on which they wanted to see the federal government take action. They pointed out that the Conservative government, in their opinion, was not taking action and they were very alarmed.

Let us identify the record of the Conservatives. They have been systematically dismantling environmental laws since they were elected, using omnibus legislation to weaken environmental protections. When I held my town hall meetings, the residents were very concerned about the undemocratic use of omnibus legislation. Attacking environmental legislation, using budget bills, was something they found to be very disingenuous.

The Minister of Natural Resources has vilified those who oppose the government's position, calling them "radicals". This is divisive and unnecessary and it is, in fact, appalling that the minister would come out and label people radicals. These are people who work, sometimes their entire life, or continue to passionately try to make change, on climate change.

This is not the way forward. It is not a healthy way to address such a serious topic. We need everyone working together, trying to make change. This is a huge issue and challenge that we are facing as Canadians.

The Minister of the Environment has even accused unspecified Canadian charities of money laundering and has refused to either retract, apologize or name names. This, I find, is very disingenuous. If the minister knows something, he should specifically cite those examples where this is the case, not put out fear and turn people away. Again, I have talked to many organizations or representatives of organizations trying to make change on climate change and the environment, and they are feeling the heat of these kinds of comments, this divisive language and these attacks on their work.

The Prime Minister and the Conservative government have made Canada a global laggard on climate change and green investment. The Conservatives have reduced Canada's national greenhouse gas emissions targets by 90% since taking power in 2006. They pulled out of the Kyoto accord just recently and pulled Canada out of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. Meanwhile, they have given billions of dollars in annual tax breaks for fossil fuel companies and they have failed to monitor or regulate their emissions.

Conservative inaction on climate change is costing Canada jobs. The U.S. has again delayed approval for the Keystone XL project due to further climate change analysis. The European Union has plans to put a carbon penalty on Canada's unconventional oil and gas products because they have higher emissions than traditional fossil fuels. These decisions are the result of a Canadian government's failure and inaction. Despite promises to have the oil and gas regulations in place by 2010, there are still no regulations.

Budget cuts to environmental protections include gutting the Fisheries Act, weakening protections for endangered species, muzzling and firing scientists and defunding critics like the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

Let us not forget that it has been over six months since Justice Cohen released his landmark report on the sustainability of Fraser River sockeye. The government has not said one word about whether it will implement Justice Cohen's 75 recommendations. Again, I talked about the Fraser River, one of the key rivers in British Columbia, which is a Canadian national heritage river. Here are a series of recommendations that the government spent $26 million on and they have not said a word after half a year.

This is abysmal and it is not the record I support, but I am glad we have put forward this motion and I am happy to support it.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to discuss the motion of the opposition. Under part (b), it condemns the lack of effective action by successive federal governments since 1998 to address emissions and meet our Kyoto commitments. If the opposition were informed as to what actions our government has taken, it would know that since 2005, when the economy grew by 6.3%, greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 48 megatonnes, or a 6.5% reduction. Why would our colleagues opposite not inform Canadians of the truth of the action that this government has taken in the last six years?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will say two things. In an interview with the editorial board of La Presse this month, the Minister of Natural Resources said: “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”. This is unbelievable.

The member opposite wants me to answer a question about action on climate change. Certainly, I know the government and its members were very instrumental in trying to bring down the climate change accountability act that we put forward, which would spell out a national plan. In fact, the New Democrats recognize that Canada must take urgent and immediate action to avoid catastrophic climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions keep global average temperature increases below a maximum of 2° Celsius. As other speakers have pointed out, we are heading dangerously close to that. Some experts even say that we are heading above that. This would be catastrophic, not just for the environment but for the economy.

We need political will. We need, and what Canadians will believe, the government to make that commitment. Canadians who I hear from do not believe the government has made that commitment.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, climate has a profound impact on our lives. Climate and weather effect the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink. Climate variables such as heat, humidity and precipitation can effect the spread of infectious diseases and the emergence of new pathogens. A Canadian Medical Association report in 2008 said that air pollution would lead to 620,000 doctor's office visits, 92,000 emergency department visits and 11,000 hospital admissions.

Since the NDP is suggesting the government put forth an adaptation plan, which is very important, I wonder what the NDP would recommend to protect the health of Canadians from climate change and what adaptation strategies it would recommend.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked a good question. That is why we need a national plan. The New Democrats spelled out, under the climate change accountability act, the things we would like to see put in place on a national scale.

In terms of adaptability, there are many things. We definitely need to continue to have the input from our world leading research centres, whether it is the ELA, or many other scientists and universities across the country getting that input to tell us how we could best meet those targets and best adapt for a changing climate. Whether it is in the west, the north, the east, central Canada or across the Prairies, there are so many things that could be done to adapt.

We are going to have to adapt to a changing climate. Also, can we also put in place mitigating factors from a federal government perspective, working with the provinces, the territories, first nations, industry, environmental organizations and the communities to make those necessary changes to tackle this enormous problem? We cannot continue to put that off, which the government is doing, relying on just small measures. Some have been good, and there needs to be acknowledgement for those measures, but not enough has been done to tackle such an enormous problem. We need to see real commitment and real action.