Debates of May 23rd, 2013

Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to impugn motives on my colleagues, but anytime they hear about the oil and gas industry or farming or the forestry sector, they want to shut down debate on those issues.

That is why they tried to shut down the debate in this House earlier today. They want to go home. They do not want to talk about important things like jobs, opportunities, prosperity and hope in this country.

Incorporating by reference, the material in this bill would do exactly that. It would streamline things to ensure that there is efficiency, clarity and assurance for people who are involved in these sectors, in agriculture, the oil and gas sector and the forestry sector. These are companies, industries, small business people who depend on referencing regularly the legislation that is important to their industries.

There is a number of very important issues that are being brought forward in this bill that are entirely important with regard to these industries.

Mr. Speaker, you are an expert in this House, you have been in this place for some time and you know that this is a modern technique of incorporating by reference through regulation.

The Senate was criticized by my colleagues earlier, but I can assure the hon. members opposite that even the Senate did not shut down to go home early. It got its work done and sent us a bill, an important bill. The senators heard evidence at their committee hearings, and we will see if these members on the opposite side stick around long enough to hear witnesses on this side.

What we do hear from the witnesses the Senate heard is that it is important to move forward on this legislation. For the first time, Bill S-12 would impose a regulation requirement, a positive obligation on regulators to ensure that the reference is accessible to those people who are being regulated.

That answers the question that some of the members opposite were wondering about. They had not read the legislation, clearly. I want to assure the members opposite that there is a positive obligation on the regulators to ensure that the information is available to those who are being regulated. If it is not, then the person who is being regulated is not responsible. That is the first time in Canadian legislation that that has in fact happened.

There is a number of things that Bill S-12 would do. One of the things it would do is reduce unnecessary duplication and costs within the federal government and on some of our other levels of government, as well as, more importantly, on small business.

This is one of the things I heard about regularly as I served as a commissioner on the red tape reduction commission. We travelled from coast to coast. I hear the hon. members on the opposite side heckling again. Anytime they hear about the reduction of red tape, they are opposed to that. We know that. They have made that clear. That is why they have lost all the elections my colleague referenced earlier.

What we heard from small business owners, those people who create jobs, those who are the drivers of our economy in this nation, is “We need less duplication; we need more clarity; we need the regulations that we are required to follow to be user-friendly.” That is exactly what this bill would do.

My colleagues from the opposite side also referenced the scary notion that by incorporating our work with other jurisdictions, somehow that was going to be the end of the world.

I am a big federalist. I believe we have great provinces and territories from coast to coast. I am different from the leader of the Liberal Party, who comes to Alberta and basically says Albertans are some kind of nasty folks, and the Leader of the Opposition, who we hear continually criticizing the industries in my province.

I recognize that is not the view of my colleagues in the opposition parties. However, here on this side of the House, on the Conservative benches, we believe that every province and every territory is an important part of this country, and we trust them all. We believe we can incorporate by reference.

I was talking to John today. He is a hard-working Canadian. He is still working tonight. John Holtby was talking to me about the necessity to incorporate by reference beekeeping regulations.

He believes there needs to be more clarity when it comes to the freedom of individuals to have bee-keeping operations in communities across the country in a more homogenous way. This was something I heard directly from a constituent. He is a hard-working Canadian still working tonight and this is something he talked about.

While the opposition members are opposed to coordinating with our provinces, I am a strong federalist and I strongly trust provinces and territories across the country. I do not think they are somehow going to do something nasty to the federal government. Therefore, it is important we work together in a collaborative fashion to ensure we streamline things, provide more clarity to business owners, reduce duplication and ensure that when people are being regulated that, first and foremost, they can find those regulations, which is established in this bill, and that they be clear. That is what is established in this bill. It is something that is great news to all Canadians, specifically small business owners and people who work in other levels of government across our great nation.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have one question on the substance of Bill S-12, which is a bill to amend the Statutory Instruments Act to deal with ambulatory references and the like.

One of the things that has caused me concern, and I would like his comment on, is whether the term “accessible” should be defined.

The bill imposes an obligation, as the member knows, on regulation-making authorities to ensure that certain documents that are incorporated by reference are accessible. However, the bill does not have a definition of “accessible”. Does my colleague think it needs to be defined so we could know what it means?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that this would be the normal meaning under the law. It is a regular legal term. It is something that is defined and has been defined throughout years of history. It is clear to those of us on this side of the House that things need to be accessible not only to bureaucrats and people with a law degree, but also to people who run small businesses. That is the definition we believe will be established throughout it.

If the hon. member has suggestions as to how we can ensure there be a more streamlined approach to regulations across the country to ensure they are accessible to small businesses, that would be welcome news on this side. So often what we hear from the opposite side is how they can become more convoluted and how we can reduce the ability of small businesses to move forward.

I am a strong proponent of ensuring that there be accessibility for small business owners, specifically as it relates to regulations. Those people who are regulated need to have access to those regulations and understand them clearly.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Peace River eventually got around Bill S-12. However, I would like to ask him a question.

I am thinking about small business as well in the context of this act. Some commentators have noted that will be difficult for people who are affected by regulations to stay on top of those regulations with the ease with which things can be incorporated by reference. There will be less scrutiny and, while things may be in legislation described as “accessible”, we have seen the Conservative government take labels off cans and say that they are now accessible on a website. We have already seen that under Bill C-38 pharmaceutical drugs will be maintained on a list as opposed to posted in the Canada Gazette for full regulation.

Is the member not just a little troubled that some of the people in business with whom he empathizes, and rightly so, could find themselves on the wrong side of a regulation about which they had much less notice because of Bill S-12?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-12 does exactly the opposite of what the member describes. In fact, the referencing of regulation happens as a normal practice within much legislation. It is a modern practice. It has been going on for years and years and it has become the regular practice.

What has not been codified within legislation is that it be accessible to those people who are regulated. Now there will be a requirement to do exactly what the hon. member is looking for, which is first and foremost, and that it be understandable so it not be written in some format that is foreign to those people who are being regulated.

I can assure members that in this bill we go to great lengths to ensure those issues that the hon. member brings to the attention of the House as they relate to small business and those people being regulated.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, Canada is a trading nation. In Canada, we have shipping companies and exporters.

One of the things that has been brought up is the question of whether international rules or standards can be used through incorporation through reference. Obviously, the answer from the speech we heard is that yes, it can. In this case, it will actually help to open up new markets for Canada's exporters.

I would like to hear, again with the highest of standards, the member's thoughts on how important it is to have a set of rules that everyone can compete by and work by safely.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that I got some criticism from the opposition members for talking about sectors in my constituency that depend on exports. We are talking about forestry, oil and gas and those industries that continue to export.

I have spoken to a number of Canadians who are concerned about these very things. John, Zach, Sean, Leigh, Semhar and Christine all told me that these types of things need to be addressed, and this legislation does just that.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am excited about this bill and excited about this piece of legislation. I am also excited to be batting cleanup tonight after tremendous speeches from my colleague from Fort McMurray—Athabasca, my colleague from Peace River and of course the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I found their speeches compelling, invigorating, intense, effective and in-depth.

I was a former history teacher, and we have heard some great speeches, some remarkable addresses. I think of Lincoln's Gettysburg address, Roosevelt's “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”, JFK's “ask not what your country can do for you” speech and Churchill's call to fight on the beaches and in the hills. Of course, I also think of our own Prime Minister and his historic apology to the first nations of Canada.

I am not saying that the speeches we heard were up to that standard, but I do think they were very memorable speeches that we can refer to in later years, because this bill is important to the future of this country. It is important to regulation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage said a lady named Semhar called him and encouraged him to get in and speak, but she called me as well and said, “This is your last chance to speak on this bill. You have to get in there.” Fortunately, I was able to capture the last spot to speak on this riveting piece of legislation, so I want to thank Semhar for her encouragement to come here to speak.

I also had a call from a lawyer named Adam Church. He told me that he knew I was a teacher and might not be that familiar with this type of legislation, but he said this is going to be important. It is going to put Canada on the leading edge of regulatory processes in the world. Canada once again is going to be number one because of this legislation.

I am proud to come here and speak about this bill. I would like to thank our colleagues on the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for their thoughtful consideration of this bill and for reporting it to the House without amendment.

As the Senate committee heard during the consideration of Bill S-12, incorporation by reference has already become an important component of modern regulation. The witnesses the Senate committee heard from were supportive of the use of incorporation by reference, notably in its ambulatory form, as a way to achieve effective and responsive regulation in a fiscally responsible manner.

Our government always tries to be fiscally responsible in making sure Canada continues to be one of the best job producers in the G8. Bill S-12 is an important step toward this in many important ways. Enactment of this legislation will clarify when ambulatory incorporation by reference can be used. The bill responds to one of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations' most important concerns by confirming the basis for the use of this technique.

As well, Bill S-12 will impose for the first time in federal legislation an obligation on regulation-makers to ensure the material that the regulations incorporate by reference is accessible. We heard the colleague across the way ask for a definition of this accessibility. This is very important for the future of this nation. It is very important that we have effective regulation-making and it is very important that it be accessible.

This bill would provide regulated communities with the assurance that such material will be available to them with a reasonable—I repeat, reasonable—amount of effort on their part, cutting regulation and cutting red tape. It will at the same time provide regulators with the necessary flexibility to respond to the many types and sources of material that may be incorporated.

The approach to accessibility in Bill S-12 avoids any unnecessary duplication or costs by recognizing that much of the material that is incorporated by reference is already accessible, without the regulation-maker needing to take further steps in many cases.

Cutting red tape, reducing the regulations and reducing duplication makes things easier, quicker and more effective. For example, federal regulations often incorporate by reference provincial or territorial legislation in order to facilitate intergovernmental co-operation. Provincial and territorial legislation is already widely accessible through the Internet, and no further steps would be needed on the part of the federal regulators. To require further action would result in unnecessary costs.

Using modern technology and the Internet to help us incorporate what already exists at the provincial level is going to reduce the costs to the federal government and make things more efficient. This bill is about efficiency, about reducing red tape and about making things work more quickly and more effectively.

Similarly, standards produced by organizations operating under the auspices of the Canadian Standards Council are readily accessible from the expert bodies that write them. The government takes seriously the obligation to ensure that this material is accessible and has for that reason proposed to enshrine that obligation in this proposed legislation.

Bill S-12 also introduces provisions that make sure that a regulated person could not be subject to penalties or other sanctions in the event that the incorporated material were not accessible. It provides protection for Canadians.

As the Minister of Justice highlighted in his remarks before the Senate committee, this is a positive and important step forward. Both the obligation relating to accessibility and the corresponding protective provisions respond to concerns of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations.

It is also important for us to recognize that the mandate of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations will not be altered as a result of Bill S-12. As is the case now, the joint committee will continue to be able to review and scrutinize the manner in which incorporation by reference is used, to ensure that it falls within the scope and authority conferred by this act or a particular act that is under the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada.

There were concerns from the opposition side that somehow we would be losing our effective ability to effect regulations later on as the Government of Canada. This protects that. Scrutiny of Regulations still had jurisdiction over these regulations.

After years of experience with federal regulations using the technique of incorporation by reference, we know that regulators will frequently rely on both international and national standards to achieve the regulatory objectives. The Senate committee heard witnesses from the Standards Council of Canada. Ensuring that regulators can have immediate access to the best technology and the best thinking will offer the best protection for the health and safety of Canadians. Once again, we are making sure that Canadians are protected, red tape is cut, but the health and safety of Canadians is always paramount. These witnesses provided testimony that many hundreds of standards are already incorporated by the reference and that access to these standards goes a long way to ensuring that our international obligations are met. Use of this technique to incorporate international and national standards ensures that our obligations related to avoiding technical barriers to trade are satisfied, that unnecessary duplication is avoided and that regulatory alignment is promoted.

Indeed, that successful experience to date in using these materials in federal regulations would also inform the future guidance on the use of this technique.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Indeed, the member's time is up. He will have two and a half minutes when the debate resumes in the future.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

The Environment

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat ironic, or perhaps even meant, that I rise tonight at the stroke of midnight to talk about the most important issue facing our country and the planet, which the House hears so very rarely discussed, and that is the climate crisis. I rise tonight to pursue a question I asked of the Prime Minister on February 26.

There is something about the stroke of midnight that put me in mind of where we are as a human population on this planet right now. It reminded me of the doomsday clock, which is a tradition started in 1945 as a way of awakening humanity to the threat of mutually assured destruction from the insanity of the arms buildup. The doomsday clock was created as a mechanism for global awareness by a group of scientists at the University of Chicago. In recent years, the scientists have added to the question of how close the minute hand is to the moment of midnight and a global apocalypse. They have now been taking into account the climate crisis, the buildup of global greenhouse gases, and the failure of humanity to act.

That link between nuclear threat and climate was also enunciated very clearly in the first global scientific conference on the climate issue, the first one to be fully comprehensive and public, which was held in Canada in June 1988. The consensus statement of over 300 scientists there was this: “Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war”.

The clock is a little past midnight here in the chamber, but the doomsday clock set by this group of scientists has now been placed at five minutes to midnight, based on the failure to act to confront the threat of the climate crisis. No country bears that failure more shamefully, nor do its first ministers go forward and bear it, as the Minister of the Environment said, as a badge of honour that we fail. We are singled out for our contempt for multilateralism and the importance to future generations and our own kids. We are not talking seven generations out. We are talking about our own kids. We are failing them on a daily basis in this place when we let climate change go by the boards and only raise it now and then as a sort of absurd Punch and Judy show, between one side of the House claiming that the other side wants a carbon tax and the other side saying that it does not.

In relation to that five minutes to midnight, in the last few weeks, the world's scientists have reported that the global chemistry of the atmosphere has been changed to where there is now a concentration of over 400 parts per million of greenhouse gases. That is not a temporary situation. That is, in fact, a statement of concentration that will take centuries to change, because every time we emit carbon dioxide, it lasts in the atmosphere for 100 years. A statement of concentration is a statement of a new balance in the atmosphere, but one that continues to rise.

We know we must avoid 2° Celsius. To do that, back in Copenhagen in 2009, the current government took on board a target that it knew at the time was too weak to avoid 2°. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that the collectivity of Copenhagen targets was too weak to avoid 2°, yet every day in the House, if the issue comes up, we hear representatives of the Conservatives say that they are on track to reach Copenhagen targets.

As I pointed out on February 26 to the Prime Minister, Environment Canada's own figures make it very clear that by 2020, the government will have completely and totally failed to meet the weak target it set. It is not acceptable. It is time for real climate action.

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, indeed, it is the stroke of midnight. At this hour, I would like to dedicate this particular adjournment proceeding to Leigh Johnston, who, time after time, sits in the House, in the lobby, and who has a personal passion for climate change as well.

It is actually our government's policy to deal with this particularly pressing issue. Because this is such an important issue for Canadians, and indeed the global community, I find it very difficult to believe that my colleague opposite would treat this issue with such glibness as to compare our country, Canada, a great nation, to one, North Korea, that is ruled by a dictatorship. This is such an important issue that I firmly believe that we should not be comparing our country's progress on this issue, our country's international leadership, to a country that, frankly, has an abysmal record of environmental denigration.

Over the last two years, as I have stood here in the House of Commons and have tried to promote a positive debate on this, the one thing I have found over and over again is that the hyperbole coming from the opposition ranks has been exceptionally disappointing.

Canada is a place where we have increased the amount of protected lands by 50% since our government came to office. Environment Canada scientists have shown a decoupling of the growth of greenhouse emissions and the growth of the economy. In fact, it has been through our government's efforts that we have seen a reduction in the growth of greenhouse gas emissions while our economy has continued to grow. To be so disrespectful to our country's record, to call our country North Korea, I find disrespectful to the environmental debate in whole.

I have been long looking forward to these particular adjournment proceedings, because when we look at North Korea's environmental record, internationally renowned scientists have said: “...the landscape is just basically dead. It's a difficult condition to live in, to survive”. That is Dutch soil scientist Joris van der Kamp. Another said: “They don't have trees to hold soil. When it rains, the soil washes into the river, landslides occur and rivers flood. It triggers a really serious disaster”.

Why can we not have appropriate debate in this place? This is a place where we should respect one another. To compare our country to North Korea just debases the value of the debate we have in this House.

Through our government's efforts, we are reducing greenhouse gases through regulations in the light-duty passenger vehicle sector, which will see a reduction and cost savings for Canadians, and banning outright traditional coal-fired electricity production. This is the first international leadership that has been shown in this area. This is something we should stand and be proud of as Canadians. Rather, we have hyperbole. We compare our country to North Korea. I will not stand for that. My constituents will not stand for that.

I certainly hope my colleague opposite will value this debate, will value the issue of climate change enough to have appropriate debate in here and ask me about how we can measure greenhouse emission reductions and ensure that we have economic growth.

I certainly hope from her that we will see this appropriate debate rather than hyperbole in the future.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am astonished that the parliamentary secretary thinks that the consensus statement of the world's scientists gathered in Canada, at a conference opened by former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, constitutes hyperbole.

When we look at the statements from our Minister of Natural Resources recently, when he said that “an end to the use of fossil fuels would have dire, if not catastrophic, global economic and social consequences”, we have to wonder if he has looked at any of the science or understands it at all.

He quotes often from the International Energy Agency, in fact in that same paragraph I just cited, but never quotes this. I ask the parliamentary secretary if she would say this is hyperbole. The same report cited over and over again by the Minister of Natural Resources claiming to say that fuels will be used well into the future states:

No more than one-third of proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050 if the world is to achieve the 2°C goal.

That is her government's target: to avoid 2°C.

The global experts and the International Energy Agency say, clearly, that two-thirds of all known reserves have to stay in the ground. That is not hyperbole. That is fact.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite did not retract her statement comparing Canada to North Korea. That is wrong and disrespectful of the debate on climate change in our country.

In fact, Canada is the first country to outright ban traditional coal-fired electricity generation. This is something of which we should be proud.

We have introduced regulations on passenger vehicles, which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a tangible way.

Our government is working with the oil and gas sector to ensure we have regulations that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in that sector while ensuring that this key economic driver of our country continues to grow and ensure that we have jobs for all Canadians.

I have not once heard her talk about the need to balance economic growth with environmental stewardship. I for one feel that this is something we can achieve as Canadians.

We can respect the climate change debate and ensure we transition to a low-carbon economy, but we should be having that debate and not be comparing our country to North Korea.

Agriculture

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to follow up on a question I raised on May 10 regarding the dismissal of 100 or so workers at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, including many lab employees. According to the most recent union data, 700 employees at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada received work force adjustment notices, meaning that they were told that their services may no longer be required.

Most of the job cuts are at the science and technology branch and the market and industry services branch. Notice was given to 79 scientists, 29 engineers and 14 biologists. Clearly, these cuts will have a significant impact on the department's scientific work. As the union president said, these cuts threaten our international competitiveness and directly impact one of Canada's key economic activities: food production.

In 2012, 150 members of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada received a work force adjustment notice. Last year, nine experimental farms in Canada had to shut down because of the Conservatives' irrational budget cuts.

One particular example comes to mind, and that is the disastrous closure of the experimental farm in Frelighsburg, Quebec. That institution had been in existence for more than 40 years. It worked on important research on plant diseases, insects and genetic improvement of apple trees.

This example shows that, contrary to what the Conservatives claim, cutting funding for science does have repercussions. In the case of the Frelighsburg farm, permanent jobs and a number of student jobs were eliminated, but most importantly, we lost 40 years of scientific data and we are compromising the future of an important agricultural sector. The Conservatives do not understand this.

These massive cuts began in 2012, and it is now obvious that scientists are being targeted. A simple calculation is proof enough. The government announced that it would eliminate a total of 19,200 positions, or 7% of public service jobs. When the cuts were announced, the Professional Institute of the Public Service represented 17,000 scientists. Of these, 11% received layoff notices. As we can see, scientific positions are overrepresented in the layoffs. It is obvious that the Conservative government is using the cuts as an excuse to get rid of researchers.

We know that these ideological cuts to science stem from the Conservatives' sheer ignorance of and contempt for research. I would just like to share an anecdote that perfectly illustrates this contempt.

Last week, the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec was visiting the Quebec Metallurgy Centre and said: “Instead of funding researchers who discover nothing, I prefer to fund discoverers.” That is ridiculous.

According to the minister's logic, were Agriculture and Agri-food Canada scientists let go because they discover nothing? Do NRC researchers doing basic research not deserve funding because their research does not have immediate industrial applications? The minister's logic is ridiculous.

I am waiting for this government's response. When will this government admit that its short-term vision is compromising our future?

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

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of working with some of the top academic researchers in this country for the better part of my career. Working in the field of research administration, if there is one thing I can tell members personally it is the effect that our government's commitment to science and technology funding has had on the academic community across Canada.

The one thing that my colleague opposite did not mention tonight was the level of funding for tri-council research that has occurred during our government's mandate. If she had done any research whatsoever, she would have looked into the last six years' budgets and seen that year over year the amount of money we have put into tri-council research has increased over time.

What does this mean? This means that funding for basic research, not only in science and engineering or in the health sciences through CIHR but also in science and social sciences, has increased over time. This means that this particular research can be translated into commercializable technologies. It can also be translated into social policy, and it can be translated into training highly qualified personnel for the jobs Canada needs to have in the future.

Not only are we funding research through tri-council agencies, but we are also funding research through the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Not once in my colleague's speech did she acknowledge that the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which does a wonderful job of providing Canada's academic researchers with basic research infrastructure funding, also ensures that Canada's researchers have the bricks and mortar funding they need to ensure that their research programs continue long into the future.

It has been under our government's tenure that we have seen increases in all of these agencies. What is the NDP's record on these funding increases? The New Democrats voted against this time after time.

When my colleague the Minister of State for Science and Technology stands up in this House time after time to remind my colleague opposite that the one thing she needs to do to continue the excellent track record of our government's funding for basic research is to vote in favour of our government's budget, what does she do? She stands up and does not even talk about any of the funding we have put into these research agencies. Not one agency did she talk about tonight. She did not talk about any of the research outcomes that happen at the research infrastructure within her city, within McGill University.

I have a great colleague with whom I used to work, who is the now the vice-president of research at McGill University and who understands the impact of tri-council funding on her institution's research administration. I wish my colleague opposite would take five minutes to look at our federal budget year after year to see these funding increases before she speaks out against this excellent track record that our government has for basic research funding. Between the CIHR, SSHRC, NSERC and CFI, our government has a wonderful track record of supporting basic research, supporting research that translates into commercial outcomes and supporting research that translates into social policy. I certainly hope that for once she will actually get on board.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, her answer is in no way relevant to my question, but I will let it pass, since I am sure she was not really listening to what I was saying anyway.

She talked about this government's so-called support for basic research. I can only surmise that she was not aware of her government's recent revamping of the National Research Council. Perhaps she should do her homework before speaking on the subject in the House. As usual, this government's decisions are not based either on science or on facts.

Did the government carry out an impact study before sending 700 workforce adjustment notices to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada employees? What impact will these cuts have on economic activity in the agri-food industry? Can he assure us that the food Canadians eat will be safe? The answer to all of these questions is no, because no studies were done.

This is how the government typically does its job. There were no studies, and the cuts will have a tremendous impact on everybody, but the government does not care.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about examples of program funding, I am not sure my colleague opposite could stand up and name one research program that is managed by the NRC right now. I am not sure she could talk about any of the increases to funding that our government has provided to the National Research Council under our government's mandate. I am not sure she could talk about any of the commercialized technologies we have seen through the NRC's funding mandate under our government.

I am sure what she could talk about, though, is the fact that time and again her personal voting record has been against research funding, which we have put to the NRC, to SSHRC, to CIHR and to NSERC. I would love to continue this debate with her, specifically about research programs at McGill University, which I am sure I as a Calgary MP could speak to far better than she right now. Not one research program did she admit voting against in our budget.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada's future depends on its ability use its natural resources responsibly.

Our country has one of the biggest fresh water supplies on the planet, and our biodiversity is the envy of many people abroad. Nature allows us to feed ourselves, breathe clean air and create sustainable jobs. However, if we waste these resources by depleting and polluting them, we will be jeopardizing our long-term economic development.

Yet, unfortunately, that is what is happening because of the way that the Conservatives treat nature. Just over 100 years ago, James Harkin, the commissioner of the Dominion Parks Branch, created what was to become Canada's network of national parks. The objective was and still is to protect and present our natural and cultural heritage. Parks Canada's mandate is also to protect the ecological integrity of the parks for current and future generations.

According to the Parks Canada Agency's most recent report on plans and priorities, eight national parks have one ecological integrity indicator rated as poor and six parks are showing a declining trend. The number of species at risk in heritage places has increased from 141 to 222 since 2004. Development projects in the subsoil of some wildlife areas could affect wildlife. Climate change increases the risk of degradation of our biodiversity, and the Conservatives are still not taking action to reduce the effects of climate change.

Studies show that our biodiversity is declining. Canada now needs parks more than ever to protect its ecological integrity and future economic development. Many witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to tell us about the conservation of terrestrial and wetland habitats. All of them said that making cuts to science and public awareness campaigns decreases our ability to protect nature and properly manage all these protected areas. These areas should be set aside to encourage biodiversity in order to preserve and restore ecosystems.

However, that is not what this government is doing. The Conservatives are making promises they do not want to keep. The government promised to meet the Aichi targets by protecting 17% of the country's land area and 10% of the country's marine area. The reality is that the government protects only 10% of our land area and 1% of our waters. Protection does not seem to mean much to this government.

Protecting means managing responsibly in order to be able to enjoy nature in the future. That is not what is happening. The Conservatives have made drastic cuts to our national parks, without any regard for the consequences.

Last year, $29 million was cut and 600 biologist and interpreter jobs were lost. It is not surprising that the number of visitors to the parks is declining. It has declined by 20% in just 15 years. What is the government doing to improve the situation? It keeps making cuts to the parks. It is also increasing entrance fees.

The minister says that we have to choose between parks and health transfers to the provinces. That does not make any sense. To preserve the parks, why not make smarter choices and make cuts to the Senate? It is corrupt and full of people who are unelected and unaccountable.

I will ask my question. With everything that is going on right now, I think Canadians would be glad to get rid of a costly and useless institution in favour of reinvesting in the parks. Does the minister agree?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think at this particular time of night, my colleague would be interested to know that she supports a leader who, during his time as environment minister, actually decreased his department's budget substantively. One of the first things that he did as environment minister was brag. He went out and said, "Take my ministry, for example. When I arrived, I immediately cut my own budget by 8%". It was actually in the Chomedey News, Laval, on May 5, 2005. This is the NDP's track record on the environment. It is one that my colleague opposite supports.

Here is the other thing that she does not understand. She does not understand the basic principle that we can ensure environmental protection in the country with economic growth. Time after time, I have heard her colleagues talk about how we need to shut down wholesale sectors of our economy in order to ensure environmental protection. I fundamentally believe that this presumption is false.

Specifically with regard to our government's track record on parks, it is one that I am so very proud to stand in the House of Commons and support. In fact, it has been under our government's tenure that we have seen nearly 150,000 square kilometres added to the protection of our national parks sector. This is an incredible amount of protected space that it has been our government's privilege to take leadership on and protect.

One of the accomplishments that our government has seen with regard to its protection of national parks is the World Wildlife Federation's international award, its Gift to the Earth award. It is one of the highest accolades that it can award, which goes to conservation work of outstanding merit. It recognized our government through its work in Parks Canada.

Additionally, the Royal Canadian Geographical Society awarded Parks Canada its gold medal, its highest honour, for our government's leadership role in the expansion and preservation of Nááts’ihch’oh National Park. It is a great honour for me to congratulate Parks Canada and its staff for the work that it does to maintain our national park system.

Year over year, since our government came to office, not only have we increased the amount of parkland that is protected in Canada, we have also increased the budget year over year. There has been an increase, but the difference between our government and the NDP is that, first of all, they continue to vote against any sort of measures that we take to increase Canada's national parks.

I certainly hope that with Bill S-15, the bill to create Sable Island, my colleague opposite will support it in the House.

She also speaks about the need to protect habitats. Through our government's efforts, through the national areas conservation plan, a quarter of a billion dollars have already been invested to create easements for the NCC and other organizations, such as Ducks Unlimited Canada, which we are proud to partner with. We have seen habitat conservation measures taking place and land protected.

This is pure rhetoric.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague opposite that using rhetoric to avoid the issue or distract people from the issue will not help protect our parks, much like making investments does not create long-term jobs.

I would remind her that her Minister of the Environment recently won a fossil award.

Why not invest in our future instead of wasting money on advertising campaigns filled with lies or spreading propaganda to try to enhance the Conservatives' image?

The government spent $500,000 on training to brainwash scientists so they could then brainwash the public.

The Conservatives want to sell pipeline and oil sands projects without any real environmental assessments, which they did away with in Bill C-38.

This government also plans to spend another $16 million on advertising in the coming year to try to enhance its image. Why?

Why not spend that money where it is needed? Why not spend that money on parks or measures to stimulate the economy? Why not invest the money in environmental technology or in sustainable infrastructure? That is how you look after the economy and the environment.

I will repeat the question to my colleague. What is this government's priority? Its own image or the well-being of Canadians? Does it care more about statistics or about looking at studies and facts to ensure it is making positive changes?

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

Mr. Speaker, the track record of my opposition colleague's leader is in fact that he, as environment minister, reduced his budget by 8%. I did not hear one acknowledgement of that fact in her speech and in her support for him as leader.

She stood up in the House of Commons and talked about a spurious award that our country has received, a fossil award, when in fact our county has reduced its greenhouse emissions growth. It has increased the amount of protected spaces in our parks areas. What she should be talking about is the WWF award and the Royal Geographic Society award that I spoke about.

Not once did she acknowledge the positive things, through positive environmental groups, that our country has been awarded because of our commitment to ensuring that we have protected space. The track record of the NDP is to stand here and denigrate our country instead of talking about the positive things that we have done and the positive investments that we have made. For that reason, I do not support any of her comments.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order adopted Wednesday, May 22, 2013, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:32 a.m.)