Debates of April 25th, 2013

Opposition Motion—Climate Change

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for my voice. I am not a smoker. This is not a smoker's voice, but I do have a cold. I will, however, fight through this cold because I am pleased to speak to the motion moved by my colleague from Halifax, who does an excellent job working on the environment, an issue that is very important to our present and especially our future. Today's motion has to do with climate change.

When we hear the Minister of Natural Resources call climate change into question, and when he is referred to as “Canada's oil minister” in The Guardian or The New York Times—both prestigious newspapers—we realize that this rhetoric is irresponsible and shows that the government lacks leadership on environmental protection.

Based on my own experience in political science, more specifically in international development, I have seen that the fight against climate change has often been referred to as the tragedy of the commons.

In matters such as these, people need to have the courage to take the first step. That is never easy to do. We are comfortable with the way we are currently using our natural resources. Change is never easy, but we must always consider the long term. Although they are often afraid to do so, the countries of the world must be prepared to show leadership in order to prevent the “tragedy of the commons” and must not wait for others to act.

We have heard this rhetoric a lot over the past 10 and even 15 years. At one point, countries like Canada and even the United States were often heard saying that the onus was on countries such as Brazil, India and China. These developing countries are currently producing large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions because of their significant growth and natural resources development. People are always trying to put the ball in someone else's court.

Today, it is important to recognize that this inaction has gone on for far too long. The motion refers to the lack of effective action of successive federal Liberal and Conservative governments. We must have the courage to act and to rise on the international stage and face the challenges related to climate change.

Let us review the history of this subject. My Liberal colleague criticized the Conservative government. We agree with those criticisms, but I do not agree that anything good has been done. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Like the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin said, the most the Liberal Party did in this regard when it was in power was to name a dog Kyoto. At the end of the day, although the government promised in 1993 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20%, this objective was not met and we even took a step backward by increasing our emissions by about 30%, if I am not mistaken.

This shows that there has been and still is a lack of leadership. The government will talk about its various programs, which have clearly not done enough to meet the challenges before us. If they had, recent reports would not be indicating that there has been an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. If these measures were effective, this would not be the case. Clearly, not enough is being done. That is why I am proud to be a part of the NDP team, which is proposing practical measures.

A few years ago, Jack Layton, our former leader, introduced a bill to put in place a real strategy to fight climate change. However, true to form, the unelected and unaccountable Senate pushed aside the bill, even though it was passed by the House of Commons, whose members are elected.

However, we know that this is a priority for Canadians. We have to wonder why the Senate did not think it was a good idea to take a step in the right direction to fight climate change. Unfortunately, we have no answer to that.

This is another fine, if not the most obvious, example in favour of abolishing the Senate, but I will save that debate for another day.

We have some very critical and overwhelming examples in Chambly—Borduas that show the effects of climate change. Members will recall the flooding in 2011.

Some people, especially people like the Minister of Natural Resources, do not believe in the impact of climate change. They tell us that climate change was not the cause.

However, a significant number of people in my riding live along the shore, around the Chambly basin or along the Richelieu River in towns like Saint-Mathias-sur-Richelieu, Saint-Basile-le-Grand, Beloeil and Otterburn Park, and the list goes on. These people say that the flooding was caused by climate change.

Moreover, homebuyers are seeing a decline in the real estate market because the river's ecosystem is changing. We are seeing physical proof at home.

The flooding in 2011 received a lot of media coverage, and people know exactly what happened. The same thing happened in Saint-Paul-de-l'Île-aux-Noix and Venise-en-Québec, in my colleague's riding, Saint-Jean. It was not a one-off. It was not an isolated incident. The impact is still being felt today.

Take, for example, La grenouille en fête, an event held by the organization Bassin en fête. A former minister in the Quebec government, Louise Beaudoin, has participated in this event, where people go diving in the Richelieu River and the rapids near Chambly. However, there has been such a change in the rapids that this event has been cancelled four times in the past eight years because the ecosystem is changing. The Quebec Lifesaving Society has said repeatedly that it is no longer safe to dive in these rapids. That adversely affects the region.

The economy is another aspect we often hear about and it is an interesting topic. La grenouille en fête is an economic and recreational tourist activity in the region. It is being adversely affected by climate change. We could also talk about the maple syrup season, which is different in some years because the temperature is rising and the seasons are mixed up. Some of my colleagues could provide similar examples I am sure.

The government often talks about the economic side of things. This morning, the Minister of the Environment said that his government is implementing measures that protect the environment and are also good for the economy.

I would say the opposite is true. In fact, chambers of commerce are awarding prizes to organizations and businesses that support a green economy and green jobs and that focus on protecting the environment.

We could talk about this all night long. I will close by saying that the NDP strategy would encourage the development of a green economy. This would protect current jobs and tackle the transition towards green energy and a green economy. It is important for the future of our country and the world.

I welcome questions and comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in total agreement with my colleague on the first part of his comments. We comment on the total ineffectiveness of the Kyoto protocol administered under the previous Liberal government when it proposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20%, and in fact, they went up by 30%.

Why would my colleague not acknowledge the fact that between 2005 and 2010, when the economy grew by 6.3%, our greenhouse gas emissions in Canada were reduced by 6.5% in that same period of time?

It is clear that the economic growth did not impact our greenhouse gas emissions negatively. Why would my colleague not acknowledge the truth of what has happened and the action that has been taken by this government between 2005 and now, rather than attempt to mislead the Canadian public into thinking that no action has been taken?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is easy for the current government to brag about setting records when expectations have been lowered and targets reduced by 90% since it came to power in 2006.

Aim low and you will always reach your goal. Luckily, the NDP is more ambitious in the fight against climate change and in protecting the environment.

I would simply say to my colleague that if the government's measures were effective, we would not be seeing the increase in the negative effects on the environment that we are seeing today, and the government would not be getting criticized by the international community for its irresponsible actions, such as pulling out of the Kyoto protocol.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 2012, the Arctic region ominously broke records in the loss of summer sea ice and spring snow cover and the melting of Greenland's ice sheets. Parliamentarians should be seeking answers to some vital questions. How will changes in the Canadian Arctic affect climate change globally through changing ocean circulation, decreasing reflectivity and increasing carbon release from thawing permafrost? How can the fragile Arctic environment be protected when the Arctic becomes more accessible?

The question I would like to ask my colleague is this, because the NDP is talking about adaptation. How can indigenous people, animals and plants living in the Arctic adapt to climate change?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her excellent question. I would like to address the issue of adaptation from my point of view. I am in no way a scientific expert, but I believe that the proposal being put forward is to evaluate what kind of plan could be put in place.

The problem now is that our scientific resources are being eroded—including at Environment Canada—which takes away our ability to really answer those questions.

I am not a scientist or an expert in the potential consequences, but as a legislator, I have a responsibility to work with strong scientific communities at the government's disposal. Unfortunately, the current Conservative government is gutting that community.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning has been an excellent demonstration of the current and former governments' lack of action.

Oddly enough, it reminds me of all the problems facing aboriginal communities across the country. Judging solely by the rhetoric of these two parties, you would think that they had done some incredible work and made some wonderful decisions. However, the reality is that aboriginal people are not living in beautiful bungalows with running water and their kids are not attending shiny new schools.

The same will be true when the effects of climate change hit us. They will wake up when there is no water left in the rivers.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are seeing today.

We have seen many examples of refusal to act and failure to protect the environment over the past several years.

That is my conclusion as a young MP. In my riding, the people who are most concerned about the issue and the government's failure to act are often older people who talk about their grandchildren and their children. There is a kind of domino effect, and this is not a new problem. Suggesting that this all started in 2006 would be intellectual dishonesty. This problem is anything but new. On the contrary, it has been around for a long time.

That is what we are denouncing today, and that is what the motion would address. An NDP government will address it in 2015.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

It is my pleasure to be here today to participate in this opposition day, and to share our government's progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada is in a unique position to help the world address this issue. Our nation is a leading source of energy and energy technologies. Canada's electricity supply presently is among the cleanest in the world, with more than 77% of our electricity coming from non-greenhouse gas emitting sources, including renewable energy and nuclear power. This transition to cleaner energy is supporting our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is our Conservative government that deserves credit for finally tackling some of the bigger issues around emissions reductions. We are taking a results-oriented, sector-by-sector regulatory approach that is targeting the largest emitters.

Our coal-fired electricity regulations are among the toughest in the world. This will make Canada the first nation to ban new construction of traditional coal-fired plants. The regulations also require all existing coal plants to shut down on a schedule that reflects their economic life. I am sure members are also familiar with our vehicles emissions standards that we have brought in, which will do much to improve greenhouse gas emissions as well. Also, our government has committed to introducing new regulations for the oil and gas sector, making Canada one of the few major oil-producing countries to do so.

Our energy sector has already experienced considerable success in reducing emissions. For example, the emission intensity from the production of a barrel of oil sands crude is down 26% since 1990. We know that our Conservative government has done this on this front, and we are seeing results. The economy is growing and we are keeping taxes low.

I will take a few minutes to talk about the opposition and some of those parties' positions on these issues. They have both been clear in the past that they want some variation of a carbon tax. At the natural resources committee, we talk about this often, and it starts with the issue of carbon pricing. There is an insistence from some people that carbon must be priced by someone somewhere. It is very interesting at committee when we have these discussions. When we ask witnesses if there is a real and natural developing economy around carbon, if there is a price that is naturally being set around carbon, the answer is virtually always no. It is not like beef, or going out and buying a cellphone or a car, where there are options on the market and we can pay for a product, and if we do not like it we do not have to buy it. We are told at committee that, if it is going to happen at all, the government needs to step in and price carbon. The average person really has no idea what a ton of carbon is and does not know what carbon pricing is. However, on one side there is an insistence that government must establish this.

The establishment of that is given as the usual reason that we can then establish a system of taxation based on that pricing. We have seen a variety of carbon taxation suggestions come up, particularly from the other side. We hear about things like a carbon tax, which would be a straight-up tax related to carbon, which would result in things like higher fuel prices where we would see that applied and there would be a direct impact on consumers. Often that carbon tax would go to general revenue.

There is a cap and trade system that the opposition members talk about once in a while. It would allow trading in carbon credits, usually with the goal of avoiding real reductions, so we get a lot of rhetoric around this and lots of noise but very little results. Sometimes we see these revenues also going into general revenue in the government's coffers. These have consistently failed to work. We have seen in particular the failures in Europe of their carbon trading systems. They have failed for a number of reasons. It could be dysfunction, or in some places there is corruption in that system.

The other option is a carbon levy, where there would be a levy put on a particular area of industry, which then normally would get passed on to consumers. All of these things have one thing in common and I am going to talk about that in just a few minutes.

There are three groups that stand out in support of these things. One is industry. We often seen enthusiasm in industry for carbon taxation. Industry is fine with that; it gets a scheme and taxpayers often get a bill from that.

The second group that really eyes this up and thinks it is a great idea is those big spenders, typically the left-wing governments that really want to see a rise in revenue. From the opposite side, typically those members have taken this stand because they see this is as a revenue generator. They get stars in their eyes if they can begin to tax every molecule in the universe. There is really no end to the amount that they can then tax Canadian citizens.

The third group is the environmental group. We talked at committee about this. These groups really want to apply these things, because they think they can get results. The problem is that we first need to establish an artificial market, and then we need to use taxation to change behaviour. We need to price carbon so high that we actually force people to change their behaviour. Witnesses at committee talked about the fact that to do this, we would need to make taxation so high that it would quadruple utility rates so that people would have to change their behaviour. Canadians need to ask themselves if they are ready to have these kinds of prices in their lives. I think most of them would say absolutely not. These three things have one thing in common and that is that taxpayers pay the bill, either directly or indirectly.

Our approach is different from the opposition's. The opposition wants a carbon tax. We heard about $20 billion in the NDP's last election campaign. Those members told Canadians that they were going to do that. They seem to be a little shy about that now.

In 2008, our colleagues in the Liberal Party campaigned nationwide on a carbon tax, which was completely rejected by Canadians.

Consumers really need to pay attention. We are coming back with a sector-by-sector approach. We set realistic goals for improvement and actually get results. That annoys the opposition to no end, but the reality is that it is the way we can improve the environment.

The Liberals signed on to their plan that would have omitted the world's highest emitters. They had no intention of reducing emissions. They wanted a plan that would make it sound as if they were doing something without actually having to do it. When they brought forward their carbon tax plan, as I mentioned, Canadians rejected it outright. They completely turned against it.

The NDP has not learned that lesson yet, because it proposed a $21-billion carbon tax in its last election platform. I am surprised, because in many ways, that kind of tax is really a licence to pollute. It would allow companies to pay the government and then pass that cost on to consumers, all without taking a single ounce of carbon out of the air. I guess that makes sense, perhaps, coming from the NDP. It would allow government to use tools to shut down jobs, cripple industry and slow development. Those members seem to specialize in that. In my own province, we saw the NDP's ability to do that for over 50 years. We finally rejected that and moved on, and now the province is really prospering.

Our government's plan is working. The results speak for themselves.

I want to talk a bit about the advantage of becoming energy efficient. Energy efficiency improved by 25% between 1990 and 2010. Without those efficiency gains, Canadians would have paid $32 billion more for energy in 2010 alone. Our efforts to improve energy efficiency have been widely recognized. The International Energy Agency has determined that Canada was second only to Germany, among 16 countries, in its rate of energy efficiency improvement. One would think that once in a while, the opposition might mention that. It might be willing to acknowledge that some of these things are working and that we are making progress and doing very well. In 2011, the IEA ranked Canada fifth out of 28 countries for its efforts to implement a broad spectrum of energy efficiency initiatives.

I am very proud of Canada's efforts to advance renewable energy and energy efficiency and our success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions while growing the economy. I should point out that our economy has grown. Our greenhouse gas emissions have declined. Between 2005 and 2011, our economy grew by 8% and our greenhouse gas emissions declined by almost 5%.

Canada is clearly making progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, we will continue to make improvements to our diversified energy economy and energy sector that can help drive the global economy and help build energy security, while producing energy responsibly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask my Conservative colleague a question about Canada's international reputation, which is losing much of its lustre.

I would like him to comment on this as a member of Parliament. What does he think of Canada's current reputation as a country that has received countless fossil awards and been criticized around the world by international groups that oppose the government's decisions?

What does he think of his government now that it has been so harshly criticized internationally and been singled out over and over for failure to act?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Actually, Mr. Speaker, when we hear that the IEA, as I just said, determined that Canada was second only to Germany in terms of its rate of energy efficiency improvement, that is a good news story, but it is not a good news story the opposition members want to concentrate on. Often I think their real goal is to actually try to cripple the resource industry. They are not that interested in actually getting results from the environmental things they have suggested; they just want to slow down development in this country.

I find it interesting when we hear about what coal has done around the world. We have heard that from 2000 to 2010, demand for coal energy went up by 45%. The emissions from that will have gone up proportionally as well, but we never hear opposition members say that we need to do something about that internationally. We never hear them criticize the big polluters internationally. They are too busy trying to drag Canada down. When the member talks about our reputation being tarnished, I would suggest that maybe they should look around the world. Once they do, they may be very happy with a lot of the things that are happening in this country. They might be much more proud of their own nation and be able to go out and tell some of those good news stories that are so important for Canadians.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government likes to talk about its “regulatory approach to emissions”. On the face of it, without explaining it, it sounds like something that may have no cost that is then passed on to anyone. If regulatory approaches were perfect, we all would have used them a long time ago, but there are, of course, costs associated with them.

Does the member think those costs are absorbed by the sector affected by the new regulations, or are those costs ultimately passed on to the consumer?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we need to talk more about our approach, because it is a very important one and is one I am proud of. I think it is working very well.

In terms of vehicle emissions, for example, when the determination was made that we needed to do something about emissions from vehicles, we were able to coordinate with the United States. We have very similar vehicle emissions standards, and they are getting stricter all the time. We understand that it is a very effective way of dealing with emissions from vehicles.

We talked about coal-fired electrical generation. We have brought in very restrictive regulations for the coal industry, and it is going to change its ability to pollute the atmosphere. Obviously, that is making a huge difference in the Canadian environmental situation. Oil and gas regulations are coming shortly as well. Those are ways we believe are effective. They actually change emissions. The opposition's proposals do not necessarily do that. They may or may not, but what happens, particularly with left-wing governments that want a huge source of revenue, is that they start to see taxation of these environmental issues as a revenue generator for the government.

Therefore, it is far more expensive for taxpayers to have a government such as the NDP or the Liberals in power bringing in carbon taxes and applying them to everything than it is to actually go through a regulatory sector-by-sector approach to improve and actually change emissions.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the motion in front of us today has three parts, parts (a), (b) and (c).

Part (a) says that the House “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”. I think we can all agree with that statement, part (a) of this motion. In fact, it is something the government and the Prime Minister have agreed with.

I have a copy of the Copenhagen accord in front of me. It is the accord the Prime Minister signed on December 18, 2009. I just want to take two quotes from this accord, which the Prime Minister agreed to, which is the official policy of the Government of Canada. It is Canada's reputation that has been committed in this document with the Prime Minister's signature.

Article 1 says:

We underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time.

Clearly the Government of Canada acknowledges that climate is one of the greatest challenges of our time.

I would like to quote from article 2.

We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, and as documented by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius...

Clearly, the government understands and acknowledges that it is a necessity, and part of all people living on this planet, to keep the temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius.

The Prime Minister attended that Conference of the Parties, 15th session. He committed Canada and the government to the 2% target.

I think part (a) of this motion is reasonable. It is consistent with what the government has stood for and is consistent with what the Prime Minister has committed to.

Part (b) of the motion says that this House “condemn the lack of effective action by successive federal governments since 1998 to address emissions and meet our Kyoto commitments”. This is the part of the motion I cannot agree with. The reality is that from 1998 to 2005, emissions rose.

Part of part (b) is true: from 1998 to 2005, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada rose from approximately 680 megatonnes to 737 megatonnes. Clearly, during that seven-year period, greenhouse gas emissions rose. Clearly, one could say that for that particular period of time, there was a lack of effective action to reduce greenhouse gases in Canada. However, part (b) of the motion says “since 1998”, and it fails to acknowledge the actions and meaningful reductions in greenhouse gases that have taken place since the government came to power at the end of 2005.

At the end of 2005, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada were 737 megatonnes. At the end of 2011, the most recent year for which data is available for the UN reporting system, greenhouse gas emissions were 702 megatonnes.

From the end of 2005, when the government took power, to the end of 2011, over that six-year period, greenhouse gases dropped in Canada. They fell. They decreased, from 737 megatonnes to 702 megatonnes.

Part (b) of the motion is not consistent with that reality. These numbers were pulled from the “National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada”, which the Canadian government submits to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This submission was made fairly recently for the period of 1990 to 2011. It is available on the government's Environment Canada website for the public and for members to see.

Part (b) of the motion simply does not reflect reality. It is not something I can support.

What is interesting about the fact that greenhouse gas emissions have dropped from the end of 2005 to the end of 2011, the most recent year for which data is available, is that during that period of time the Canadian economy grew. Therefore, the most important thing to acknowledge about what has happened over that six- or seven-year period, since the government has come to power, is the trend line that parallelled economic growth to rising greenhouse gas emissions has been broken and we are now in a period where, with increasing economic growth, we are seeing decreases in greenhouse gas emissions.

Part (c) of the motion asks the House to call upon the government to immediately table its federal climate change adaptation plan. I would like to explain what we as a government have already done.

We have taken a sector-by-sector regulatory approach, consistent with what our largest trading partner south of the border has done. That is an incredibly important fact to acknowledge because we cannot go down one type of approach to reducing emissions while the United States goes down a different path. Our economies are far too integrated to take a disparate approach. Therefore, like the United States, we have taken a regulatory sector-by-sector approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In the last year, the government has introduced a number of significant initiatives that need to be acknowledged. The first is the electricity sector regulations, the second is the passenger car and light truck regulations and, more recently, the heavy duty vehicle regulations. I would like to highlight some of the details about those regulations because I do not think the government is getting enough credit for the actions it has taken.

The passenger car and light truck regulations that are being proposed for the 2017 and beyond model years are anticipated to reduce fuel consumption by 50% for passenger cars relative to the 2008 model year.

We have taken the same approach for the heavy duty truck regulations as we have done with passenger cars and light trucks. We expect that for the 2014 to 2018 model years, these new stringent emission regulations will achieve meaningful reductions in emissions for full-size pickups, semi-tractor truck trailers, garbage trucks and buses.

With respect to the electricity regulations that we announced last September, coal-fired electricity-generating plants account for 77% of emissions in the electrical sector and 11% of overall emissions in Canada. The regulations we have introduced will reduce, over the next 21 years, emissions from coal-fired electrical generation plants by 214 megatonnes. As well, between now and 2020 it is anticipated they will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 41 megatonnes in the next six short years from the coal-fired electrical generation sector.

These are significant regulations that are achieving meaningful reductions in greenhouse gases. Since 2005, we have seen a reduction in greenhouse gases from 737 megatonnes to 702 megatonnes, while as the economy has grown.

These regulations are not fully in effect yet. Over the next six years they will achieve even more reductions.

If members do not want to take that from me, in November of 2011 the International Institute for Sustainable Development, a well-respected independent research organization based out of Geneva which the OECD consults, said that Canada's:

—federal and provincial...actions were estimated to likely deliver about 46 per cent of the 2020 national target, or...103 million tonnes...of the 225 Mt needed.

We will do even more with the announcements already made, but clearly more action needs to be taken. The government and the Minister of the Environment has committed to that further action by indicating oil and gas regulations will come out shortly.

I cannot support the motion because it does not reflect the reality of the work that the government has done over the last six years. Climate change is a serious issue. Anthropogenic climate change is a challenge for our planet and this government is committed to taking action and has already taken action. That is not being acknowledged in this motion. For that reason, I encourage members to vote against it.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to pick apart my colleague's arguments, but I want to take a closer look at the two figures he mentioned.

He talked about 737 megatonnes in 2005 and 702 megatonnes in 2011, which is a reduction of 35 megatonnes. He also talked about a period of uninterrupted growth. I would like to remind my esteemed colleague that, during that period, we experienced the worst financial and economic crisis since the last world war. I would like to know how many of those 35 megatonnes are directly attributable to the economic slowdown and how many to measures adopted by the government. I am having a hard time telling them apart. Can my honourable colleague clarify?

I would also like to know what measures have been taken with respect to nitrous oxide in the agriculture sector?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. NDP member for his excellent question.

Of course, this is the reality: in the summer of 2009, the Canadian economy went into recession. However, after that, as a government, we recuperated all economic growth and all jobs that had been lost during the recession. More Canadians are working now than before the recession in the summer of 2009.

We have recouped all the job losses of that recession and then some. In addition, we have recouped all the economic contraction that we lost in that summer and then some. Our economy today is quite a bit bigger and job employment is quite a bit higher than prior to that recession, despite the fact that we have reduced greenhouse gases over the last six to seven years.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills the same question I asked his previous colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands with respect to the approach the government likes to talk about, the regulatory approach.

The government never mentions anywhere in there that there might be a price to pay and that the price may be paid by the consumer. It talks about regulatory approach with respect to car emissions and coal-fired generating stations.

Hopefully, we will get an answer to a very simple question. There are costs associated with taking those regulatory steps. Would he acknowledge that some of this cost will be passed on to the consumer?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the numbers in front of me to answer his question directly. However, some of the measures we have taken will help consumers in reducing their energy consumption costs.

The Department of the Environment has estimated that the average Canadian driver of a 2025 vehicle will save about $900 a year in annual fuel costs, compared with driving today's new vehicles.

The regulations we have introduced will achieve meaningful reductions in greenhouse gases, the corollary of which are meaningful reductions in energy consumption. Helping households with reductions in energy consumption is good because it is something that will allow them to manage their tight budgets and help them with the rising costs of fuel and energy.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherbrooke.

We have had a bit of debate about who is responsible. In reality, the responsibility for the development of the fossil fuel industry in our country lies with the Liberals. It was a Chrétien government, along with Ralph Klein, that set up the deal on the oil sands. That favourable tax deal and the lack of proper regulation drove the development of this industry, which is causing us extreme problems right now in our presence on the world stage and our greenhouse gas emissions. There is culpability on the part of both of these governments since 1995, dealing with the oil and gas industry.

I come from the north. We know about climate change. Environment Canada's temperature data for the Mackenzie Valley since 1951 has shown average temperature increases of 2.5° Celsius. For Inuvik, this data shows an annual increase of 3.1°. The average winter temperature increases are even greater. Inuvik has seen an increase of 5.8° Celsius over that period of time. Norman Wells and Yellowknife have seen average increases of 3.9° Celsius. We understand about climate change.

We understand the impact, whether it is on our forests, or on our permafrost, where in some cases we have lost 40% of it, or on the ice melt in the Arctic, of the changing conditions on our climate, the increased temperature causing those effects. The Mackenzie River spring melt and ice-free dates have advanced by about 20 days in the last century.

On September 26, 2012, our environment critic and I tried to have the House conduct an emergency debate on the rapidly decreasing amount of summer Arctic ice. Why did we do that? Because that summer, Canadians were experiencing, not just the north but the rest of Canada, the impacts of climate change. Why was that? Because things were changing and changing rapidly. Before we reach 2° Celsius, we will be impacted tremendously by climate change.

The United States had the highest August temperature since 1885 and droughts throughout the country. What caused that? A report by Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University and Stephen Vavrus of the University of Wisconsin showed that the extreme weather was directly related to the loss of Arctic summer ice cover. Arctic summer ice cover has dropped precipitously in the last decade, and it was at its lowest level last summer. It is 50% below what it was in 1979. It is adding heat to the ocean and the atmosphere to redirect the jet stream, the fast-moving, high altitude river of air that steers weather systems across the northern hemisphere.

The studies show that jet stream is behaving differently. It is becoming slower, with bigger troughs and ridges. This is causing major impacts to our climate. This is causing greater large-scale climate events like the storm, Sandy, that hit the New York coast.

I will not go into the details of why this is happening. Members can look on the website. They can find those details for themselves. This is an issue for all Canadians.

The changing jet stream is the main culprit behind the extreme weather events that we see, so we know we will continue to see those major and extreme weather events moving forward. We need to understand how to deal with that in Canada.

I will take a step back now and talk about how we should be dealing with it in the north. It is clear the Conservatives and the Liberals before failed completely to deal with northern Canada and effectively with climate change, to help northerners reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and make their communities more sustainable.

Instead, governments looked on the north as a resource extraction area. That goes for both those governments. They both considered the north to be of prime importance. Instead of the north improving its situation, it will add to the world problem of climate change.

The other path that should be taken in the north is northern sustainability. Sustainability is a word thrown around to cover a variety of situations, from large industrial projects that support local employment and business to the allowable yield of wild animals for human consumption. As a long-time northerner, I would see sustainability defined as the ability to maintain a modest lifestyle that can be enhanced and made prosperous with the addition of carefully managed medium-term resource development projects. I want something that gives me confidence that my grandchildren will have a prosperous future. We need to look at how to change the north's reliance on fossil fuels.

Southern Canada has been in a bit of an artificial envelope because people use natural gas to heat their homes. The price of natural gas has not gone up in 10 years. In northern Canada, where people heat their homes with fuel oil, the increase in the last decade has been 400%. Considering the amount of heating required in the north, it is a big problem, a big problem that is not being solved, yet it is an issue that the government could deal with. It could work with the people in the north. Northerners are trying to make a difference there. The Government of the Northwest Territories has been very successful in converting many of its buildings to biomass. It has come out with a solar energy strategy. These are things that can help people in the north, but where is the federal government on this? It is not there yet.

Obsolete thinking about energy as an exportable, non-renewable resource has taken Canada out of step from where it should be. It is more involved in increasing greenhouse gas emissions in this global environment than simply within Canada. That is where see the failure of the Conservative government right now.

What have been the actions of the Conservative government over the last year in terms of influencing the world on climate change?

It has stepped out of the UN committee dealing with desertification, one of the serious issues that is going to be in front of us with climate change.

It has refused to deal in the House with the serious issues facing our weather systems.

The Arctic Council has worked for years to put climate change as the main item on its agenda. What is the new minister, who is taking over the chairmanship, talking about for the Arctic Council? She is saying we should talk about resource development. She is saying we should move this international body away from dealing with the impacts of climate change and more toward exploitive behaviour.

We have disengaged from Kyoto. We have given up on major agreements that can drive the rest of the world to join us in improving greenhouse gas emissions. We need to work together in this world. This is not a problem that can be solved in Canada by improving our efficiency or setting regulations for Canadians; this is a problem that has to be dealt with around the world.

Now the President of the United States is geared up for climate change. What major effort is Canada putting into the United States right now? We are trying to sell oil that has a large greenhouse gas profile attached to it. We are pushing it very hard in the United States. Where are we working with the United States on the issues surrounding greenhouse gas emissions? Where are we trying to deal with the President, who said that is going to be one of his major priorities?

We are religiously promoting the sale of fossil fuels. That is what the government is doing. That is its direction. That is the intensity of its efforts in the international field. How does that fit with dealing with the crisis that is coming with the change in climate? How is the government being responsible? It is not.

The government needs to understand that climate change is not a situation that we can gradually improve in the future: climate change is here today. The government should deal with it and get on it.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Western Arctic spoke about the importance of climate change in the north and the realities there. We heard the member for Welland talk about Canada acknowledging that climate change is a significant priority for our government and an issue for the rest of the country.

The question I have for the member for Western Arctic is this. He spoke about the Arctic Council and the role that our government will play in the Arctic Council. The minister has made it clear that climate change is a priority and that there will be discussions on the Arctic Council. Does the member still stand behind his criticism that it was the right decision for our government to put a minister from the Arctic and for the Arctic as chair of the Arctic Council? Instead, the position of the member for Western Arctic is that the chair should have come from the foreign affairs department or be a member from outside that area.

Does the member still stand behind the criticism that it was a wrong decision for Canada to appoint an aboriginal woman as chair of the Arctic Council, where we can get to the root of these issues that he seems to think are so important?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the member for Western Arctic, I would just like to remind all hon. members that the questions they ask need to be relevant to the matter that is before the House and possibly to the comments made during a speech by an hon. member.

With that, the hon. member for Western Arctic.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the Arctic is the major changing area in the world right now. The Arctic is changing in a significant and very important fashion. We need international co-operation at the highest level in order to set the terms and conditions for dealing with the changes that are occurring there.

If we do not take those actions or if we use the Arctic Council to promote domestic issues and do a show and tell on how well we are doing in our north, that is going to put us two years behind on the job that has to be done in the Arctic. Those were the comments that I have made about the government's efforts in the Arctic. We need to keep on the international agenda, meaning that we need to deal with climate change, we need to deal with the opening of the Arctic Ocean in terms of international co-operation, and we need to deal with the fisheries. Those are issues that can only be handled at the international level.

The Arctic Council is the sole body that we have in the world to deal with those issues. That is why it is so important right now for the focus of the Arctic Council to remain on the global issues, the issues that will determine the future of this rapidly changing body of water.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that never ceases to amaze me is the attitude of the New Democrats in having no shame. They do not realize what they have actually done.

In what they are proposing in this motion, where we agree is on the value of the Kyoto accord. This is something the Liberals initiated back in the late nineties. Then there was a huge commitment of more than $10 billion. That was probably the single greatest investment in dealing with the important issue of a warming world.

What did the NDP do back then? On the single greatest initiative, it voted with the Conservative government, which ultimately killed the Kyoto accord.

My question to the member is this: does the NDP have any regret over the role it played in killing the Kyoto commitment that Canada made to the world back in 2005? Does it have any regret whatsoever?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, in 2005, the people spoke. I know that is what happened. I know that when the Liberals were starting their election campaign, they were ahead in the polls. They had an opportunity to remain in government, but they fumbled it terribly. They are sitting there trying to blame that on us. They are trying to blame their terrible election campaign in 2005 on the NDP. What is the world coming to?

Let us get the facts straight on this. The Liberals made their bed and they have to lie in it. That is what happened.

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

Mr. Speaker, today there is no denying it: the situation is critical. This is not the time to celebrate, and the time for empty rhetoric is over. We have heard many facts today. I think that in the days and years to come, it will be time to take action.

Here on this side of the House, no one is denying the importance, the extreme importance, of this issue. No one is denying the facts about what is happening around the globe. The planet is suffering from the actions of human beings and the actions of several governments, including the Conservative government, that have not been at the forefront of international action.

Some members of the government do not even believe in climate change; they do not believe it exists. The Minister of Natural Resources is even denying the significance of a two-degree temperature increase. At least on this side of the House, we care about these issues and know how serious they are.

I do not know if people know how old I am, but I hope to still be here in 80 years and I hope to see my 100th birthday. As a young person, this issue makes me think carefully about the decisions we make today and the long-term repercussions they will have.

We must not spend the next two years thinking about making a decision and see whether it will get a party elected or whether it will be good for winning an election. Instead, decisions must be made in the interest of all generations, particularly the younger generation.

I am sure that many people have children or know young people. We know how important it is to work to ensure that our planet is still in good shape for the people who will still be here when we are gone. That is why I think that today's topic is extremely important.

I am therefore pleased to speak, particularly on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke who I have been representing in the House of Commons for nearly two years now. It is only natural that I talk about my riding in all of my speeches. However, an issue like the one in today's motion knows no borders. It is truly a global issue that will have an impact on all of the earth's inhabitants.

In my opinion, the House is debating a very worthwhile motion, which I would like to read. The motion makes three main points. It was moved by the hon. member for Halifax who is also the environment critic. She does excellent work. Here is the motion:

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.

The members on this side of the House know that action must be taken. That is the purpose of this motion being debated today. This motion serves to try to wake up the Conservative government, which seems to be currently ignoring this issue. The Conservatives seem to think that all is well, that everything is rosy, and that their actions will resolve everything.

Over the past few years, the government has won fossil awards. It has received the attention of international groups that severely criticized its actions. The Conservatives seem to be living in a bubble, unaware of what is being said about them. Anyone who dares to criticize the government is treated as though they are a radical and basically a terrorist who wants to attack the government.

The Conservatives are the only ones in Canada who believe that there is an easy solution to all this, that there is no need to intervene and that small measures here and there will solve the general problem.

They have also gone ahead with deregulation. This is not a lack of action, but action that goes in the wrong direction. They have taken action, but the measures taken, especially with regard to deregulation, are not the right ones. I am thinking primarily of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which was completely overhauled. The people of Sherbrooke are being told that, with this law, the Rivière Saint-François is no longer protected. Thus, projects that go under or over the river, such as a pipeline or electrical lines, will no longer have to be approved by anyone. A number of projects could go ahead which could have direct consequences for navigation and possibly the environment.

Getting back to the minister. He denies that there is a problem with respect to a two degree rise in global average temperatures. I often ask myself which scientist he has been talking to. Is he referring to those who are systematically muzzled or those who work for the oil companies and promote the oil sands operations?

The minister has selective hearing. When scientists dare contradict him, he muzzles them outright and does not consider their scientific data. When other data suits his agenda, then he is very happy with it. Unfortunately, the data comes from just a few people, who are often linked to very powerful lobbies that have specific interests in a number of areas.

The minister adds insult to injury by saying that he is not aware of a recent warning by the International Energy Agency that two-thirds of known fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground to ensure that global average temperatures do not climb by more than two degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial temperatures.

The fact remains that climate change is a reality. It is an issue that we must take seriously. For far too long, the Conservatives and the Liberals have done nothing to reduce greenhouse gases. What is worse, we were the first to withdraw from Kyoto and, just a little while ago, we were the first to withdraw from the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification.

That brings me to the Liberals. As I was saying, they are hypocrites, if I may say that in the House. They talk the talk, but they are all talk and no action, as we say. The Liberals like to talk and say that they are on top of this issue and that it is important to them, yet when they had the chance, they did not take any meaningful action to resolve this problem that has been around for a very long time, long before the Conservatives took power.

Today, the Liberals are claiming to want to protect the planet and our environment, but not once did they do anything when they had the chance. This is unacceptable, and today's motion reflects the fact that there have not been any meaningful measures from successive federal governments since 1998. I must point out that the Conservatives are not the only ones who have failed to act and who continue to ignore the problem, since the Liberals did the same thing and will likely continue to do so, as they have always done.

I see that my time is running out, so I will conclude by saying that I hope we never have to debate this again. I hope this motion will wake the government up and inspire it to act. I also hope that future parliaments will not have to discuss this subject, since action will have been taken and the issue will have been resolved once and for all, to make the planet a good place to live for future generations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you have noticed, but I have noticed that in the last little while, ever since the Liberal Party has gotten a new leader, the New Democrats seem to want to incorporate into their speaking notes and questions an issue also attacking the Liberals. Maybe it is because they are somewhat nervous, realizing that they might be heading more toward their traditional position here in the House. However, we will not take anything for granted.

Nor will we take any lessons from the New Democrats in terms of issues related to the environment because at the end of the day they will have to justify why they voted with and supported the Conservative Party, which ultimately led to the collapse and withdrawal of the Kyoto services.

My question for the member is again one of a similar nature. Does the member have any regrets?

When the New Democrats' new leader was elected, one of his first statements was that we out west were a Dutch disease. I am from western Canada; I realize the benefits of our natural resources. Yet we have the leader of the New Democratic Party who seems to be anti-western in his comments, and he wants to shut down our natural resources industry. Is the NDP answer to climate control to shut down provinces like Alberta and the natural resources sector, which add so much to all of our—