House of Commons Hansard #240 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was environment.
Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-United Kingdom Inter-Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the bilateral visit to Northern Ireland and Westminster, London, United Kingdom, from March 16 to 24, 2012.
Rodney Weston Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in relation to a motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, December 13, 2011, on invasive species that pose a threat to the Great Lakes system. Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
I want to thank all members of the committee for their hard work and for the spirit of collegiality that was shown by all members. I also want to extend my thanks to the dedicated staff of the committee.
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 48th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The committee advises that pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met to consider an item added to the order of precedence on April 18, 2013, and it recommended that the item listed herein should not be designated non-votable and should be considered by the House.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the report is deemed adopted.
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-500, An Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (ocean watersheds).
Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to protect Labrador watersheds. Changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act mean only a handful of the millions of lakes and rivers in Canada will now be protected, none in Labrador. No rivers or lakes in Labrador will be protected, which means projects that could affect navigation and projects that could affect habitat and passage of fish can proceed without the permit that once would have been required.
Newfoundland and Labrador has more than 60% of North America's best Atlantic salmon rivers, with some rivers having annual runs of up to 30,000 fish, but that is nothing compared to the salmon runs of decades ago. Labrador's commercial salmon fishery has been shut down since the early 1990s because of low salmon returns, and now the Conservatives are going to put what is left of our salmon in further jeopardy.
The Conservative government should be ashamed of itself. Its management of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery has been a disgrace, and this is yet another slap in the face.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Andrew Cash NDP Davenport, ON
Mr. Speaker, last fall, the people in my community in Davenport awoke to the news that GE Hitachi had been operating a nuclear fuel processing plant in my riding for 50 years, and no one knew that it was there. In fact, the licence requires that GE inform the public, especially those people living right around the plant. Toronto is a very densely populated city.
Therefore, I had written a letter to the CNSC, requesting that the licence be reopened so that members of the public could have their rightful, lawful opportunity to speak to these concerns.
This petition speaks to these concerns as well.
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition on CCSVI. Canadians with MS want to know when Conservative MPs and senators learned of their government's position to kill both the House and Senate bills for CCSVI.
A decision was taken by February 6, 2012. Did Conservative senators know the position going into the Senate hearings, and if so why did no one have the courage to talk to Canadians living with MS and be honest with them? Canadians with MS should not have been given false hope for eight months.
The petitioners are calling on the minister to consult experts actively engaged in diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, to undertake phase III clinical trials on an urgent basis and to require follow-up care.
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present petitions from hundreds of residents in Guelph and surrounding areas in southwestern Ontario who are calling on Parliament to refrain from changing the Seeds Act or the Plant Breeders' Rights Act in any way that would further restrict farmers' rights or add to their costs. They ask as well that Parliament enshrine in legislation the important rights of farmers to save, reuse, select, exchange and sell their seeds.
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present this petition signed by people from my riding, Westmount—Ville-Marie, more specifically Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. The petitioners are calling on the government to reconsider its decision to close the post office located at 5751 Sherbrooke Street West in Montreal. This post office is very important to the residents of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
moved:
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.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for reading out our motion, because I think the wording is very important. That is why we are here.
We are here to reaffirm our commitment to the struggle against climate change, as well as reaffirm our commitment and belief in support of the science that supports that struggle.
Members may ask, why today? Why should we debate this issue today? The answer is that we are here today on the issue of climate change because the Minister of Natural Resources commented publicly last week in La Presse that he does not believe that people are worried about these changes to the planet. When challenged on this statement, the minister doubled down on his claims, despite zero evidence to the contrary.
It is so bad that the U.S. newspaper headlines today are actually calling this minister “the minister of oil for Canada”. This minister has been defended, remarkably, by the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment. He has been applauded by the climate change deniers in his caucus, who think nothing of the risk to our planet and the burden that their wilful blindness will leave to future generations.
According to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, a round table that the Conservatives have axed, the world has seen an increase in surface temperature of 0.78° since the mid-19th century, and in the last 60 years Canada has already seen a massive 1.3° change.
What does this mean? The 2° threshold is a dangerous tipping point for irreversible, catastrophic climate change. That is what happens if we see 2° of warming.
The Minister of Natural Resources keeps quoting the International Energy Agency. When he quotes the IEA and quotes the scenario, he is actually quoting 6° of warming.
What does that mean? The 6° scenario, as set out by the International Energy Agency, takes the planet beyond any reasonable expectation of survival. That is the scenario this minister is quoting. In addition, he does not actually think there is anything to worry about. I disagree with him.
My colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry also disagrees. I would love to be able to share my time with her so that she could point out the fallacy in the minister's logic.
During this debate, we should prepare ourselves for an onslaught of greenwashing from the government side today. They are going to take credit for the success of provincial emissions reductions. They are going to celebrate the fact that they are on track to miss their climate change targets by 50%. They are going to miss them, and these targets are actually woefully inadequate.
The Conservatives are going to claim that they are responsible for stabilizing emissions in Canada, but they are contradicted by the most recent annual greenhouse gas emissions inventory, which was released earlier this month.
They are going to ignore the fact that they foolishly cancelled the wildly successful ecoEnergy home retrofit program, despite the incredible promise that this program held for long-term job creation, for reductions in emissions and for making life more affordable for all Canadians. I guess that program was just a little too successful for them.
The Conservatives will also allege that they understand and prioritize sustainable development, even though they have gutted environmental assessments in this country so that 99% of assessments will no longer happen. It is almost impossible to wrap our heads around.
They have decimated the protection of our fisheries. We no longer protect fish habitat in Canada. This is fish habitat, and our fisheries are worth multiple billions of dollars a year.
The Conservatives have eradicated protections for our lakes and our rivers, jeopardizing the livelihoods and recreation and first nations traditions of Canadians across the country.
The Conservatives' record on climate change is abysmal. They have repeatedly embarrassed Canada on the international stage by causing confusion during climate change negotiations, pulling out of the Kyoto protocol—Canada was the only country to do so—and pulling out of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, another international first. They slashed renowned programs on ozone and fresh water that were being used around the world. We have become the pariahs of international climate negotiations. The Conservatives have lowered Canadian emission reduction targets by 90% since they came to power in 2006.
To say they do not have the will to tackle climate change would be a huge understatement. They ignore the fact that climate change does not recognize borders, that it is a global problem and that it affects the health of all human beings, as well as the food security and national security of all countries.
The Conservatives are being irresponsible by allowing Canada to fall behind on the diplomatic scene and in terms of commercial and economic development. The delay in transitioning to a greener economy is making Canada less globally competitive. We are not taking advantage of the opportunities afforded by green solutions and technologies, whether in the area of manufacturing, research, innovation or trade.
Instead, the government has taken the inefficient and ineffective sector-by-sector regulatory approach to emissions regulations, although it is grossly delayed at the same time in actually regulating sectors like the oil and gas sector. This sector is the fastest-growing source of emissions in Canada. Keep in mind that the Conservatives promised those regulations on oil and gas. They said they would actually be in place in December 2009. It is 2013.
The Conservatives claim that their approach to emissions reductions is not costing Canadians. We all know that is ridiculous because the cost of regulations is always carried on to the consumer. The issue is that the Conservatives refuse to be upfront about the costs of their sector-by-sector approach on Canadians as well as the cost of their delay to regulate and the cost of their unambitious emissions targets.
It is cheaper to tackle climate change than it is to just allow it to happen. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy predicted that the cost of climate change in Canada alone would be $5 billion per year by 2020; 2020 is the same year that we are missing those inadequate targets by 50%. It also predicted that this would cost us as much as $43 billion a year by 2050. We have to act.
Today, we are calling on the government to table its climate change plan. That is all we want. We want to see what its plan is. I do not have a high expectation that it will, despite the fact that the government committed in 2007 to develop this kind of a policy framework and despite the fact that it actually agreed with the 2010 recommendations of the Environment Commissioner's fall report. It has failed. For good reason in chapter 3 of his report with respect to the need for adaptation measures in Canada, the Environment Commissioner wrote:
Government reports have demonstrated that climate change affects all regions of the country and a wide range of economic sectors. These impacts and the need to adapt to them touch on virtually all federal government portfolios, with significant implications for policies and programs related to Canadians’ health and the country’s industry, infrastructure, and ecosystems....The health of Canadians and Canada’s natural environment, communities, and economy are vulnerable to the impacts of a changing climate. Some of these impacts are already occurring from coast to coast. They are most evident in Canada’s North where, for example, the thawing of permafrost as a result of temperature increases is affecting the stability of roads, buildings, pipelines, and other infrastructure.
Yet, the Minister of Natural Resources thinks that we are radicals for wanting to talk about climate change and the costs of environmental degradation. I think we are radically practical. Throughout the day we will hear the NDP plan to address climate change because we do have a plan that includes a price on carbon, includes adopting our climate change accountability act. We will hear from members of my caucus talk about these measures that the NDP supports. It is only the NDP that can be trusted to tackle climate change because it is at the core of who we are as social democrats. I am proud to stand here today with my colleagues to reaffirm that commitment.
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Halifax why the motion is calling on the government to table only an adaptation plan.
Are we giving up? I do not think we should be. Should we not be asking for its mitigation plans to minimize the effects of climate change?
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, that is a legitimate question, absolutely. I do not think that any of us on this side of the House have given up. Unfortunately, I do think that on the other side they have given up.
To answer his question directly, I sit on the environment committee, I sit on panels where we debate the environment, on television and on radio, and I sit here in the House and ask questions about climate. I am so sick of the Conservatives saying their sector-by-sector approach is working, as they list all of the reasons why it is working that they actually cannot take credit for, such as the fact that it is the provinces that are actually reducing our emissions, such as the fact that we had a recession that accounts for some of emissions reductions. I am pretty tired of those answers, so I am looking for a bit of something new. I would like to see what their adaptation plan is and I would like them to actually table a climate change plan.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate the hon. member for Halifax. Her speech got to the heart of the matter, which is how incapable this government is of managing climate change and taking effective action to prevent global warming and its effects.
The government is always bragging about defending the sovereignty of northern Canada. Yet, we know that climate change will affect the Arctic and northern Canada in particular.
I would like the hon. member for Halifax to tell the House what the real impact of the Conservative government's inaction is on northern Canada's ecosystems and habitats.
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his own commitment to doing whatever he can in this struggle against climate change.
In the north, we have incredible things happening. The ecosystems are changing dramatically. Species are moving north. Invasive species are moving north. People do not even know how to deal with these new species that are overtaking some of the species that are already there and upsetting that delicate balance.
Another thing I want to add is that, yesterday, the U.S. President Barack Obama's national security adviser actually said that climate change is one of the greatest security risks that we have. I think that is important when it comes to things like floods and famine.
However, if we look at the north, what is going to happen when we do not have that polar ice cap any more? The north is going to be opened up. While I am sure the Conservatives see this as a good thing, when it comes to resource extraction or when it comes to access to the north, this would have extreme security implications and extreme sovereignty implications that we are not talking about. We have no plan for what to do, in this case. We are not talking with other countries around the world about what the foreign affairs implications would be or what the international security implications would be. It is such a huge issue for the north that it seems like we cannot encapsulate it in one issue.
Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to comment on the economic importance of taking effective action.
There is a business called La patate du Gouin on a logging road in my region. The owner does not have a university degree, but he figured out that he was burning $50,000 worth of diesel every year to produce his electricity. He converted to solar energy and it works very well. This was not the decision of an idealist or an environmental fanatic; it was an economic decision made by someone who wanted to make his business more profitable.
I would like the hon. member to comment on that.
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, I love those local examples. I hope that everybody gets up to share those success stories from our local communities.
In Nova Scotia, the cost of energy efficiency on our electricity system is 3¢ a kilowatt hour. The cost of not doing energy efficiency is 12¢ a kilowatt hour. It makes good economic sense to take action on the environment. I love hearing those examples.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House to support the motion moved by the hon. member for Halifax on Canada's recognition of the need to make an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and manage climate change, which has very far-reaching repercussions.
Today's debate centres on the biggest environmental and economic crisis of all time. In response to this crisis, each of us can act according to his or her own conscience or we can ignore the facts, as the Conservatives are doing. Unfortunately, this government chose the second option. The government has the right to make that choice, but this will affect the entire population, since we will all have to live with the consequences of this irresponsible decision.
The planet's temperature is rising. This is an undeniable reality that is hitting Canada hard. Since 1948, the average annual temperature in Canada has risen by 1.3oC, a rate of warming that is much higher than in most other parts of the world. Heavy precipitation and flooding has increased in most Canadian cities. In Quebec alone, the compensation paid by insurance companies as a result of storms and flooding has increased by 25% since 2001.
The most dramatic effects are being seen in our country's north. The permafrost—a subsurface layer of frozen Arctic soil that affects how sound buildings are—is thawing, glaciers are melting, sea ice is shrinking, and habitat loss is affecting marine mammals and polar bears. As a result of those events, there is less fresh water and the habitats of many species, including caribou, migrating birds and fish, are in decline. Then there is the impact on the health, diet and day-to-day lives of the Inuit and those living in the far north.
The southern part of our country is also affected. Researchers with the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, have noted an increased number of heat waves in every major Canadian city as well as more droughts, particularly in the west, Canada's bread basket. There have also been more forest fires.
Instead of recognizing that reality, the Conservative government prefers to ignore it and pull out of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. That is shameful. Agriculture is being hit very hard, and weather patterns are more unstable. Long periods of drought are followed by torrential downpours or hail storms.
Last summer, in my riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry, a storm wreaked havoc on farmers' fields, destroying cabbage, carrots, cucumbers, corn and onions. The hail was as big as golf balls. Insurance cannot handle those types of situations. Moreover, the lack of water is affecting productivity, and that will only get worse as time goes on.
Climate change is also leading to a proliferation of parasites, which is reducing yields for our farmers. The number of family farms has declined by 8,000 under the Conservatives, just since 2007.
The effects are being felt across the country. However, that is nothing compared to what our lives will be like if temperatures rise by two degrees Celsius. If the global climate warms by more than two degrees, the consequences will be even more serious and the effects will be irreversible. As part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which our country signed, the international community committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to prevent us from going over the two-degree threshold.
The vast majority of governments recognize the validity of the scientific climate data—data from the IPCC, which is made up of the world's best scientists, and from the World Bank and the International Energy Agency. According to one of the International Energy Agency's latest reports, we can expect to see a 20% increase in CO2 emissions by 2035. That is just 20 years away.
Why is this two-degree threshold so important? Most experts believe that if we go beyond that threshold, the consequences will be very serious and probably irreversible.
For example, waterfront areas will be flooded. The Canadian prairies, our bread basket, will see droughts that are twice as bad. Polar ice and glaciers will disappear. Lakes and oceans will be more acidic and water levels in lakes will drop. There will be fewer marine species because of the acidity in the lakes. We can expect to see an increase in respiratory and infectious diseases and an increase in mortality as a result of extreme heat.
To avoid going beyond that two-degree threshold, the entire world must work together. This will require developed countries, like Canada, and emerging countries to work together. Unfortunately, that is not at all what is happening, because of Canada's backwards attitude. Today, our government is blaming China and other developing countries for their greenhouse gas emissions. It is telling them that if they do not do anything, neither will we.
However, although it is true that China is now the largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, we must also acknowledge that China invests the most in renewable energies. Industrialized countries like Canada cannot back out of their obligations. That is completely irresponsible and reckless.
How can this government preach to others when it has reneged on all of its international commitments? It withdrew from the Kyoto protocol. What message is Canada sending to other nations, to countries that have made commitments and honoured them? We have a historic responsibility. Industrialized nations pursued development without considering its impact on climate, and now we have to show leadership. Unfortunately, this government continues to deny the facts.
For example, the Minister of Natural Resources recently said:
People are not as worried as they were before about global warming of two degrees. ...Scientists have recently told us that our fears [about climate change] are exaggerated.
Frankly, that is utterly ridiculous, and that is not all. The Minister of Natural Resources also dismissed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's criticism of the Keystone pipeline proposal. As recently as this morning, he flatly rejected all criticisms and continued to say that Canada's efforts were sufficient. Then there is Canada's Minister of the Environment, who also failed to act. He has still not regulated the oil and gas sector, the sector that emits the most greenhouse gases and is the most polluting in Canada.
It turns out that Canada will miss its greenhouse gas reduction targets by 50%. That is serious. That number comes from reports by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and the Commissioner of the Environment.
This will cost us dearly. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy says that if nothing is done, climate change will cost $5 billion per year by 2020. Weather-related disasters, lack of investment in new technologies and job losses in sectors affected by global warming, such as agriculture, fisheries, water, forestry and more will cost us $5 billion. We, the taxpayers, will have to pay for that. Climate change gives us an opportunity to invest in knowledge, green technology and sustainable development and to create jobs. That is the smart thing to do. When will the government listen to reason? Perhaps it never will.
The Conservative government must stop blindly forging ahead. It must stop denying the facts and act now, because we are already beginning to feel the effects of climate change. The Minister of Natural Resources insists that there is no need for urgent action. That is irresponsible. Our greenhouse gas emissions have risen to 702 million tonnes, which is 1 million tonnes more than in 2011, and we are getting farther away from the 2020 emissions reduction target of 607 million tonnes.
I repeat, the Commissioner of the Environment and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy say that the government will in no way be able to meet its targets. However, the Conservatives would rather withdraw from the Kyoto protocol, make cuts to scientific programs and accuse NGOs of money laundering and being formidable terrorists. They have also eliminated 99% of the country's environmental assessments. Who are the radicals here? What is wrong with this picture?
On the other hand, the NDP proposes taking very real steps immediately. Let me give you an overview. First of all, the NDP proposes putting a price on carbon. That would enable us to take a step toward honouring our international commitments.
Among other things, we asked to have accountability legislation enacted, to have the eco-energy program reinstated, to have the oil subsidies of $1.3 billion a year cancelled and to have that money reinvested in renewable energy.
I hope that the motion moved by my colleague from Halifax will find unanimous support and that we can then move forward in the fight against climate change.
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to comment on the remarks made by the member for Halifax, who mentioned during her speech that the NDP was the only political party that could fight climate change.
I find that a little unfortunate because all the political parties, which have never denied that climate change is a very serious problem, can and must work together to fight climate change.
Does my colleague really agree with what the member for Halifax said?
Maybe she did not exactly mean that the NDP is the only party that struggles against climate change.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. Liberal colleague. I know he is committed to the environment and sustainable development.
We can say with confidence that the other parties have made no effort, given that the Liberal Party was in power for a very long time and it did absolutely nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Furthermore, a 2005 UN report said that pollution had increased in Canada, and in fact, pollution increased by 30% on the Liberals' watch. The Liberals like to talk the talk, but they cannot seem to walk the walk.
It is therefore a little hard to believe that any party other than the NDP really wants to make an effort, when we know, for instance, that the Conservatives slammed a NASA scientist who said that there is still work to be done to reduce the effects of climate change. The Minister of Natural Resources said that he should be ashamed of what he said. If I were the minister, I would be completely ashamed of taking this kind of position and defending such a statement.
The Conservatives are doing absolutely nothing to contribute to international co-operation, given that they have pulled out of every international agreement meant to fight climate change. Even in Canada, we still do not have any regulations in the most polluting sector. This is serious.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, I thank our hon. colleague for her speech.
The Liberals are suggesting that they did a great deal for the environment. However, as our hon. NDP colleague pointed out, pollution increased by 30% during the 13 years they were in power. The Liberals like to talk the talk, but they never walk the walk.
I see the Conservative minister gesturing at me. Today we are having a nice, democratic debate in the House of Commons. The Conservatives say they really care about the environment and our future generations, but is it not strange that not one Conservative member has stood up to ask a question or give an opinion, when Parliament is the place to do so? Are the Conservatives going to stay silent all day? All we are getting today is a nice speech from the environment minister, even though a region like Le Goulet could soon disappear under the sea. It is quite clear that the Conservatives do not care all that much about Canada's environment after all.
Opposition Motion—Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry has 40 seconds left.