Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2014

Holidays Act

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to speak on behalf of the government on Bill C-597, particularly at this time when all members of the House are wearing the poppy. It is important for us to debate Remembrance Day, its role in our country, and how we should remember, both here in our nation's Parliament and at the cenotaphs scattered around the hundreds, if not thousands, of small towns and cities across the country as acts of remembrance.

I would like to thank the member for Scarborough Southwest for bringing this debate to the House today. As he knows, the government supports the intention of the bill with some amendments, which we have spoken with the member about throughout the process. I would like to thank him for sharing his personal reflections on what Remembrance Day means to his family, and indeed he showed the House that the events of a few weeks ago in this city still reverberate deeply with the nation and the members of the House.

It is interesting that we are debating Remembrance Day, a very important and solemn day for our country, but it was not Remembrance Day when it first came to Canada. In fact, in 1919, it was referred to as Armistice Day because it was the year following the important armistice to end the Great War, where the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month would be commemorated to honour the dead from that Great War and to respect the peace that was secured through the sacrifice of many. There have been 1.5 million Canadians who have heeded the call of service over our history as a nation, so it is not only a time when remembrance can be given to the fallen but respect for the service of those in the past and present can be shown.

It was Armistice Day for our young country that was honoured each November. Interestingly, which I am sure the hon. member knows from his research on the bill, for the first decade or so, it was not even formally recognized on November 11 but on the first Monday of the week in which November 11 fell. It might be interesting for members of the House to know that it was an act by a member of Parliament from British Columbia in 1931 that solidified November 11 as the day that would be marked, and changed the name from Armistice Day to Remembrance Day that we know today.

The first decade or so of remembrance for our young nation was an interesting period because within that first decade the guardians of Remembrance Day were also born. In 1925 the Royal Canadian Legion was created, bringing together a number of fraternal and service organizations with many veterans from the Great War. They came together. Then in the House the following year, 1926, an act of Parliament was granted to recognize the important role the Royal Canadian Legion played then and plays now on remembrance and care for our veterans.

To this day, there remains 1,100 veteran service officers whose core principle for the branch they serve is to serve the veteran community. I know the veteran service officer in my branch, on an individual basis, has helped over 500 veterans or their partners access benefits. Most Canadians should know that when they support the poppy drive in their towns and cities across the country, they are supporting the work of the veteran service officers because the proceeds from the poppy fund are dedicated to veteran care in the community and across the country.

I would like to thank the Legion for its important role with our veterans and for making sure that Remembrance Day happens. This week I will be at Remembrance Day services at two of the small cenotaphs in hamlets in my community. There would be no service in those small hamlet cenotaphs were it not for Branch 178 of the Royal Canadian Legion, which makes sure that every cenotaph that bears the name of a fallen soldier for Canada has a proper ceremony and mark of remembrance.

Eight years afterward, in 1939, after Remembrance Day as we now know it was brought forward by this federal House, our National War Memorial was unveiled.

It was struck two weeks ago. It was attacked for what it represents to our country. We are all still shaken by the death of Corporal Nathan Cirillo, who was an honorary guard there to show respect for the fallen who are commemorated by that memorial and by the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. There are 22 figures that adorn our National War Memorial that represent the commitment of Canada as a young nation to the Great War, and then subsequently to the wars that followed. In the days following the attacks in Ottawa, everyone in this House was touched by the Bruce MacKinnon cartoon that showed those historic figures tending to the newly fallen Corporal Cirillo.

Canadians continue to commemorate. Just this week, in Whitby, I attended Wounded Warriors Canada's opening of the Park of Reflection. The park is a memorial to the fallen from Afghanistan and to those who travelled the Highway of Heroes. It provides veterans a place of solace for their own recovery. I would like to thank Scott Maxwell and Phil Ralph of Wounded Warriors Canada for keeping these memories alive.

Corus Entertainment's Gary Maavara and Joel Watson, a lawyer from Toronto, are ensuring that broadcasters on November 11 commemorate the two minutes of silence at 11 o'clock on TV broadcasts if they are not already playing the national ceremony.

It is tremendous to see the spirit of Remembrance Day from 1931 to today. I think what my hon. colleague wants to recognize through this bill is that across the country Canadians are showing their own ways of keeping this important date as an important part of their lives and of remembering the service and sacrifice of our men and women.

The specifics of the bill before this House are to correct a drafting oversight from the 1970s, when the Holidays Act treated Remembrance Day slightly differently from the way it treated Victoria Day and Dominion Day, now Canada Day. I am proud that it seems most members of this House will support the member for Scarborough Southwest in rectifying this oversight to ensure that as a federal holiday, Remembrance Day is treated in the same way as those other days that are important to our country.

The other item from the member's bill, as he has recognized in our discussions, is that the flag on our Peace Tower is normally lowered to half-mast on Remembrance Day as part of our act of national commemoration. In some ways, some of the spirit behind his bill is being exercised already. I am glad to see that the House will rectify this 1970s omission from the act.

What is interesting, as the member pointed out in his remarks to the House, is that across the country, six provinces and three territories also grant statutory recognition to Remembrance Day on a provincial level. Federally, it is already a statutory holiday for federal employees within the federal jurisdiction, and six provinces have extended that at the provincial level. It seems that the member is hoping that the remaining provinces might take this rectifying of the language on a federal level in recognition of the importance of Remembrance Day to our country as an opportunity to revisit their decisions on a provincial level. If that is the case, it is a good exercise.

In my time in uniform serving this country, I had the benefit of living in two different provinces where it was handled in different ways. While I was in Nova Scotia serving with 423 Squadron and 406 Squadron, that province had a provincial holiday as well, and we saw large numbers of people at the cenotaph. In Ontario it was not a provincial holiday.

There is merit, as the member recognized, to the argument that it is good to have students in school learning about this process. The Ontario legislature visited this issue in the late 1990s and decided not to proceed provincially with a statutory holiday, for the very reason that it knew students would be learning about Remembrance Day within the school.

Bill C-597 would make it clear where the federal government stands with respect to the importance of Remembrance Day to our country. It would give the provinces the opportunity to revisit whether they want to make it a statutory holiday as well.

At this time of year, if anything, I hope this legislation reminds Canadians that they need to wear a poppy. They need to get to a cenotaph. They need to make sure they remember the people who fell for our country and hold the significance of the date dear to their hearts.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-597, an act to amend the Holidays Act (Remembrance Day).

How fortunate it is that the debate takes place this week, ahead of our Remembrance Day constituency week. A week from now, most of us will be back in our ridings, gathered at cenotaphs and Legion halls, honouring the men and women, our friends and neighbours and family, who serve now and have served to protect Canada and Canadians. We live in a country built on the devotion and sacrifice of those men and women, the men and women who came before us in service to our country.

Canada may not have been born out of armed conflict or violent revolution, but the values established by the Fathers of Confederation and the men and women who lived here for centuries before them have been challenged from time to time by those who would try to impose their will and their values upon us. In those instances when the call went out, Canadians answered and were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. With them, we made a sacred covenant.

At Vimy Ridge and Juno Beach, in the Kapyong Valley and across Kandahar province, brave Canadian men and women fought for our freedom and for a world free from tyranny and oppression.

As a country, we have called on successive generations of Canadians to make great sacrifices, including accepting terrible circumstances, separated from their families and loved ones, accepting unlimited liability, and putting their futures and very lives on the line.

Many never returned. Those who did returned with wounds, visible and invisible. To them we owe a sacred obligation, an incredible debt. We owe this debt every day, though there is one day of the year in particular when Canadians stop and are more acutely aware of the depth of the profound sacrifice made by successive generations of Canadians.

The hostilities of the First World War came to an end formally at the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month, November 11, 1918, 96 years ago next week. The following year, King George V called on everyone in the Commonwealth to stop what they were doing at 11 a.m. on November 11 for two moments, not two minutes, but two moments of silence, to commemorate the Great War's armistice. Since that day, on or around the 11th, Canadians have come together to remember our fallen friends and family and to honour the courage and sacrifice of the living.

The bill brought before us by the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest would have us bring the language surrounding Remembrance Day in line with other important days governed by the Holidays Act and would move us down the road to changing how we observe the day as a country and as a people.

There may be some who are unaware of how we used to mark Remembrance Day. Following the appeal of King George V to mark November 11, a proposal was brought forward in the House of Commons to join the celebration of Armistice Day, on the Monday of the week of November 11, and Thanksgiving. While some were grateful for the long weekend, many veterans and a considerable number of Canadians found that the celebration of Thanksgiving at the same time as the sombre observance of the armistice meant that less than adequate attention was given to the memory of the 60,000 Canadians who perished in the First World War.

The Royal Canadian Legion, after its formation in 1925, petitioned Parliament to have Armistice Day observed exclusively on November 11. It was six more years before a bill was brought before the House of Commons to do just that, and at the same time, the name was changed from Armistice Day to Remembrance Day.

The first Remembrance Day, as we know it, was celebrated in 1931, and ever since, it has been celebrated at the National War Memorial and cenotaphs across the country as a solemn day to commemorate not just the dead and injured from the First World War but those from the Second World War, Korea, and Afghanistan and from peacekeeping missions in the Suez Canal, the Golan Heights, the Balkans, and Haiti.

How we celebrate Remembrance Day across the country is not consistent. Some provinces and territories, as has been mentioned, notably British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Yukon territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut mark November 11 as a paid statutory holiday. Federal public servants also are given the day off with pay. Other provinces such as Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, which incidentally make up more than half of the Canadian population, do not mark November 11 as a paid statutory holiday. Everywhere and every one marks the day in one way or another. Most often businesses are closed at least until noon or 1 p.m., so that Canadians have an opportunity to make it to one of the many ceremonies being held.

The intention of the bill before us was clearly to make the treatment of Remembrance Day as a holiday more uniform. By asking for it to be observed much like Canada Day, it was clear the sponsor hoped to make it a statutory holiday so that all Canadians would have an opportunity to attend a ceremony and reflect on the importance of the day. Unfortunately, as it is written, the bill would not accomplish those particular goals.

While the bill would change the language of the Holidays Act to make Remembrance Day a legal holiday, the term “legal holiday” has no special status in law. The administration of holidays in Canada is accomplished through various pieces of legislation at both the federal and provincial levels, as was noted earlier, which include but are not limited to the Canada Labour Code, the federal Interpretation Act, the Excise Act, and the like.

I admire the intent of the bill as I admire any opportunity we have to make the observance of Remembrance Day more special and more accessible to Canadians. Whether we are ready for the day to be celebrated as a statutory holiday, again, is a different matter across the country. Veterans groups with whom I have spoken have some reservations. On the one hand they support any effort to increase awareness and elevate the importance of Remembrance Day to Canadians. However, as was mentioned, there are concerns with the side effects of a statutory holiday. A day off work and school might not lead to more Canadians attending ceremonies, rather they would just take the day off. Kids likely learn more while at Remembrance Day ceremonies at school, and on those rare occasions where the date would fall on a Sunday, giving a Monday off would seem out of the spirit of observance.

What the bill does accomplish is to lay the groundwork for a greater conversation about how we celebrate Remembrance Day. What greater time than this year, after the events of two weeks ago, when Corporal Nathan Cirillo was senselessly slain at Canada's National War Memorial and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent was killed outside of where he worked, to consider how we celebrate?

There are no longer any generations of Canadians untouched by war or conflict. More and more people make their way to ceremonies. Perhaps it is time to discuss how we might make it easier for Canadians to do so. What greater time than the 100th anniversary of the start of the First World War to give ample consideration to how we commemorate our Canadian Armed Forces and veterans, and how we observe our sacred obligation to them?

We agree with the member for Scarborough Southwest on possible amendments respecting protocol and the flying of Canada's flag at half mast.

I proudly support the bill because I believe it is the start of a much greater conversation.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Durham and from Guelph for their impassioned speeches on this issue. I also want to thank the member for Durham and all members of the House who have served Canada faithfully in its various times of need. I do not believe it is recognized enough just how many people have donned Canada's uniforms and have then become members of the House to provide the unique perspectives necessary for all other members to enact good judgments when we deal with our Canadian Forces and veterans.

I also want to thank them for their comments this evening about the differences in remembrance. The member for Guelph is quite right. I would have absolutely loved to bring that uniformity to Remembrance Day in order to have it celebrated all across the country in the same kind of way. However, the way our country is made up, the separation of powers and jurisdictions between the provinces and the federal government prevent that. I am happy that a conversation has started, as the member for Guelph pointed out.

I am not a a great believer in fate. However, the bill was originally supposed to be debated in the spring. Then because of budgets, different bills that came forward and procedures, everything was delayed to the point that it would be debated right before this Remembrance Day. Particularly given the context of the last few weeks, it has every member of the House thinking a lot more about our veterans and the commitment that the men and women in uniform make to our country. It is therefore fitting that it should take place on this day.

I certainly look forward to the time in committee and the debate if the bill passes second reading. That is really where we will bring in potentially the provinces, the Royal Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations to really have that conversation about what we can do, how we can do more and how we can do better. There is always room for improvement.

I would like to thank every member of the House for coming together in support of the bill. It is a tremendous thing to see because some days I am sure many members question the effectiveness of the things we do, whether we can reach compromises and seek that common ground rather than let things divide us. Today is certainly one of those days where every member has come together to show how there is more that brings us together rather than divides us. I look forward to the vote on Wednesday evening.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 5, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

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

The Environment

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to talk about the environment once again. As everyone knows, we had the honour of receiving Mr. Hollande, the President of France, in this House. One of the most important things he talked about was the fight against climate change. We know that the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has released its fifth report. Hundreds of scientists have talked about the need for urgent action. Unfortunately, the Conservatives prefer to sit back and do nothing, with the 2015 Copenhagen summit only a year away.

I would like to revisit the important issue of the federal environmental assessment process. I recently asked the Minister of the Environment a question about this important issue, which the Conservatives often ignore. I asked my question on October 7 of this year, the same day that the Commissioner of the Environment, Ms. Gelfand, released her report.

Let me provide some background. I pointed out that many industrial sites that are likely to be major polluters have undergone no environmental assessment whatsoever. You heard me correctly: some sites that are likely to be major polluters have undergone no federal environmental assessment. It really makes you wonder about the Conservative government's attitude, as it deliberately fails to assess certain projects in order to please industry.

I also asked questions about the criteria for performing environmental assessments, in order to more effectively apply the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Unfortunately, we did not obtain a definitive answer from the government.

The environment commissioner mentioned this government's gross negligence in that regard. Why are some projects assessed and others not? The criteria for choosing these projects lack clarity and precision. In fact, Canadians do not even know what they are. They are arbitrary criteria. This is ridiculous when we are talking about an issue as important as the environmental assessment of major projects.

My question for the Minister of the Environment was as follows: Either way, will the government heed the recommendations made by the environment commissioner and commit to greater transparency and clarity when it comes to identifying projects to be assessed? The government's response was very disappointing.

Let us back up for a moment. We know that the Conservative government's decision to completely gut and destroy the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act dates back to 2012. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development since 2011, and I have seen the mess that this has caused. Since that time, we know that major projects such as in situ oil sands development projects, have not been assessed even though they are critical projects and there are a growing number of them. In fact, most new oil sands projects are in situ projects,

I would therefore like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment why projects as important as in situ and hydraulic fracturing projects, for example, are not subject to an environmental assessment.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond to the question posed by the hon. member for Drummond regarding the commissioner's recommendations on the implementation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012.

In keeping with the objectives of responsible resource development, the modernized federal environmental assessment process focuses on major projects under federal jurisdiction with the greatest potential to cause harm to the environment.

A key element of this environmental assessment regime is a regulation that enumerates the types of projects most likely to generate significant effects. However, projects not listed in the regulation can nevertheless be reviewed for environmental effects. Let me give members two examples.

First, the Minister of the Environment has the authority to require an environmental assessment of an otherwise non-designated project, taking into account the adverse effects or the public concerns about these effects. Second, if a proposed project is on federal land, the responsible authority must examine the project to determine the likelihood of a significant adverse environmental effect. I would also emphasize that all projects will continue to be subject to a wide range of federal and provincial environment-related regulatory and permitting requirements.

This government is focusing federal resources on the assessment of major projects that pose a risk to the environment, the public and aboriginal peoples.

In order to ensure that attention is focused on areas of greatest risk so that mitigation measures can be proposed, the environmental assessment regime outlined in the legislation includes a screening process. This applies only to proposed projects under the purview of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. The screening process does not apply to projects such as pipelines or nuclear facilities assessed by the National Energy Board or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

A screening decision is made to determine if an environmental assessment is required. If there are no potential effects to areas of federal jurisdiction, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency may decide that the project does not require a federal environmental assessment. The screening decision is based upon comments from public and aboriginal groups, relevant scientific information provided by the proponent, and expert advice from federal departments.

Last, I would like to finish by saying that the federal environmental review process and how it is triggered is really very transparent. It is a process that we are proud to have established. We will consider all suggestions on how to improve the process, for the environment is of great importance to this government and for all Canadians.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to transparency, the Commissioner of the Environment does not agree with the criteria used to choose the projects to be assessed. That is what she said in her report.

It does not seem as though the parliamentary secretary will ask his government to implement the recommendations in the report, which is very disappointing, since they said they were accepting them.

Furthermore, there was an informative article this weekend in Le Devoir regarding the National Energy Board and the public's participation in evaluating major projects; referring to the energy east pipeline project, the article claimed that the National Energy Board will ignore the impact of oil. It went on to say:

The National Energy Board (NEB) is clear: there is no need to assess or even address the topic of climate change...

That is unbelievable. While Mr. Hollande himself lectured the Conservatives about taking the lead on climate change, the energy east pipeline project will not even undergo an environmental assessment with respect to climate change. No one will even be consulted. That is disappointing.

I hope that the government will reconsider and take greenhouse gases into account when assessing major projects.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, where recommendations are made on how to improve the environmental assessment process, this government will listen.

We received the recent commissioner's report, and in response to it, I am pleased to say that additional information on project screening and designation will be made available on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's website.

I will conclude by saying that Canada has a robust, transparent and comprehensive environmental assessment regime. If the member opposite believes that there are many projects under the federal jurisdiction that need an assessment but have failed to receive one, I would ask him to name a few.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this evening's adjournment proceedings to pursue a question I asked of the Prime Minister on June 3.

To refresh the memories of members, that was the day when President Barack Obama announced an ambitious climate plan, using his executive powers to ensure that greenhouse gases in the United States would fall in absolute terms. The U.S. climate target is too weak. By 2020, when the Copenhagen target falls due for what Barack Obama promised, the U.S. will be slightly below its 1990 emission levels.

I hope my presentation tonight will not be too technical or have too many numbers for people to follow. The key point here is that President Obama's climate target, taken in Copenhagen in 2009, exactly tracks with Canada's in terms of the numbers used. Both Canada and the U.S. pledged to reduce greenhouse gases by 17% below 2005 levels, and do that by 2020.

Both Mr. Obama and our Prime Minister were in Copenhagen at the same time and took on this target. However, the effect is different. It happens that in 2005, the base year for this Copenhagen pledge, Canada's emissions were abnormally high. Therefore, going 17% below had the effect of being the second time that the current Prime Minister weakened our target. First, abandoning the Kyoto pledge for 6% below 1990 levels by 2012, and weakening it again when he changed from a 2006 base year to a 2005 base year.

The net effect of all this is that Barack Obama's pledge is too weak for sure. It only gets the U.S. to a bit below 1990 levels by 2020. Canada's Copenhagen pledge is even weaker, leaving us above 1990 levels at 2020 were we to keep our commitment.

However, it is abundantly clear from the Environment Canada website, from the report of the Canada's environmental commissioner that Canada simply has no hope whatsoever of coming near the weak target we pledged.

Contrast that with what we heard earlier in this chamber today. The President of France stood here, and all members stood and applauded as he pledged that his country and the European Union would move to 40% below 1990 levels.

The 1990 figure is important to remember. It is the baseline for all other countries around the world, except when Canada went rogue and picked 2006 as a base year. We created the space for the U.S. to weaken its targets as well.

Here we have it. My original question to the Prime Minister was premised with the notion that we were playing a climate change shell game. Indeed, we are.

Here is the bottom line. The atmosphere is not the least bit interested in negotiating with humanity. The IPCC is really clear. We have to move to an aggressive phase-out within which even if the current government were going to meet the Copenhagen target, it would not be close to doing what is required to preserve the world for our kids. We have to be serious minded about this.

The nonsense that goes on in the House, the shell games about 130 megatonnes less than it would have been under the Liberals, which is just absolutely absurd, the ridiculous notion that we have plan when we do not must stop. Let us talk seriously about the position Canada will take next month in Lima.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to addressing the challenge of climate change and has followed through on that commitment with concrete action, both internationally and domestically.

Internationally, Canada continues to work with its global partners to address climate change. Canada is an active and constructive participant in the ongoing climate change discussions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. At the same time, Canada is taking a leadership role on a number of international climate change initiatives outside the United Nations. For instance, our government is working with international partners through its chairmanship of the Arctic Council and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short Lived Climate Pollutants, such as black carbon and methane. This work is especially important for Canada, as short-lived climate pollutants significantly impact our north.

Domestically, our government is implementing a sector-by-sector regulatory approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining economic competitiveness. It has started with the transportation and electricity sectors, two of the largest-emitting sectors of the Canadian economy.

In the transportation sector, the Government of Canada continues to collaborate with the United States to develop standards for regulating greenhouse gases produced by passenger automobiles and light trucks and heavy duty vehicles.

Recently, at the September climate summit, the Government of Canada announced the final regulations for 2017-2025 model year light duty vehicles as well as its intent to move forward with further regulations for heavy duty vehicles for the post-2018 model years. As a result of these actions, 2025 model year passenger vehicles and light trucks will emit about half as many greenhouse gas emissions as 2008 models. Greenhouse gas emissions from the 2018 model year heavy duty vehicles will be reduced by up to 23%.

In the electricity generation sector, Canada already has one of the cleanest systems in the world, with 77% of its electricity supplied emitting no greenhouse gases. In 2012 our government introduced a tough new regulatory performance standard for coal-fired electricity generation that makes Canada the first major coal user to ban construction of traditional coal-fired electricity generation units. These regulations will help contribute to reductions of 46% in this sector over 2005 levels by 2030.

At the climate summit in New York, Canada also announced its intent to regulate hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs. These regulations will align with the regulations recently proposed by the U.S. and will apply to HFCs in bulk and to certain manufactured products containing HFCs.

Our approach is generating results. It is estimated that as a result of the combined actions of all levels of government, businesses, and consumers, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 will be 734 megatonnes. This is 128 megatonnes lower than where our emissions would have been in 2020 if no action had been taken since 2005. As we know, no action was taken by the Liberals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish that the parliamentary secretary had taken my hint that it really was not impressive in this debate to repeat the nonsense that we were going to be 130 megatonnes lower than a “business as usual” target and then take credit for all the things the provinces have done to avoid that.

He has confirmed that by 2020 we will be at 734 megatonnes. Let me repeat that. It will be 734 megatonnes by 2020. Here is a little reminder. In 2005, our emissions were 737 megatonnes. That represents a three megatonne drop. We do not have to be really good at math to know that 17% of 737 is not three. It is an easy bit of math.

Let me just finish off with this point. The parliamentary secretary's remarks about what we do internationally would have been completely accurate if he had changed one syllable. He said that we have been an active and constructive player. Change the “con” to a “de”. We have been an active and destructive player. I have been at all of the climate negotiations globally. I watch our delegation block progress and create obstacles.

We have to stop being on the wrong side of this issue, and we have to stop now.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government's sector-by-sector regulatory approach is enhanced by complementary measures that will help reduce emissions over the longer term, facilitating Canada's transition to a low-carbon economy. Since 2006, our government has invested over $10 billion in green infrastructure, energy efficiency, the development of clean energy technologies, and the production of cleaner energy and fossil fuels.

Health

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask my question today to give the government a chance to update the House on a particular treatment for Ebola, and that is the monoclonal antibody treatment.

By contrast to vaccines, monoclonal antibodies would be something given to somebody who has already contracted Ebola. If there are a small number of people who might contract Ebola, the monoclonal antibody treatment would be used. If there were a large number of people who might get Ebola, they would be vaccinated beforehand.

The reason this point is relevant for Canada is that the Public Health Agency of Canada owns a number of lines of antibodies. These lines were developed in Canada. There are different ways to produce these antibodies, but one of the ways is in mammalian cells, particularly Chinese hamster ovary cells. A cell line is needed, and these antibodies are produced from these mammalian cells. Our National Research Council of Canada owns such a cell line, so it makes sense to combine these two, and there are companies in Canada that can do that to produce antibodies.

Is this treatment perhaps pie in the sky and just speculative? Let us consider that the Gates Foundation in the United States and a large company, Amgen, have committed people and resources in collaboration with a third company, Mapp Biopharmaceutical, to produce monoclonal antibodies against the Ebola virus in these Chinese hamster ovary cell lines. If it is good enough for them, why could we not use the results of research in Canada to give a boost to manufacturing in biotechnology in Canada and at the same time produce a domestic supply of a treatment for Ebola that would be applicable when a small number of people are at risk of getting it?

That is the background of this treatment.

The question is twofold. What, if any, progress has been made in kick-starting this particular manufacture of an Ebola treatment in Canada, since the question was asked a couple of weeks ago in question period? Second, does the government agree that this is a good opportunity to take the fruits of Canadian basic research by the Public Health Agency of Canada and the National Research Council, which owns the right cell line, combine them in Canada, and kick-start one particular aspect of biotech manufacturing in Canada?

I am hoping that the parliamentary secretary will provide the House with some good news. There is no criticism of the government here. It is a decision about whether funding this manufacturing in Canada would be a good use of resources. It is something that has occurred in the United States, as I said, with the Gates Foundation and Amgen working on exactly what I am talking about today.

My simple question to the parliamentary secretary is whether the Government of Canada has taken any steps since a couple of weeks ago to get this manufacturing going.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for this very important question, and I stand this evening in the House to speak to our government's continued efforts to address the Ebola outbreak.

Canada remains at the forefront of the international response to the Ebola outbreak. We are ready to respond if a case arrives in Canada. We are ready with our hospitals that have infection control systems and procedures in place to limit the spread of infection, protect health care workers, and provide the best care possible for patients.

Research on such a virus can only be done in a high-containment laboratory. The Public Health Agency of Canada's national microbiology laboratory is the only lab with the required capabilities in Canada. It is from this facility, through a cutting-edge and innovative special pathogen research program, that the VSV-EBOV vaccine for Ebola was developed. I am proud to say that it was a Canadian discovery, one that was the result of 15 years of work, and one that required ongoing support from the Government of Canada.

In addition to the VSV-EBOV vaccine, Canada has had a major role in the development and testing of the ZMapp Ebola treatment. This post-exposure treatment has shown promising results when tested on non-human primates. The treatment uses a unique regimen of multiple doses of antibodies, designed and engineered to find, attach, and effectively coat the Ebola virus, preventing the virus from reproducing and multiplying in the body. It has had no side effects to date.

It is believed that the ZMapp treatment was directly responsible for saving the lives of some front-line workers who became infected with the Ebola virus in West Africa. This is an important example of work being done in the Government of Canada laboratories that has led to the saving of lives. It is a proud moment for all Canadians.

Our government reiterated its commitment to this important work today through the Minister of Health's announcement this afternoon of an additional $23.5 million for further research and development of Ebola vaccines and treatments.

Canada can stand proud as an international leader in the field of infectious disease research. However, this work was not done in isolation.

Discoveries of this magnitude rely on co-operation among government departments, private sector investments and, in particular, international partnerships.

In seeking such partnerships with private companies, in the case of our experimental Ebola vaccine, for example, it is important to highlight that Canada has maintained 100% of our intellectual property rights. The Government of Canada's main objective in developing this vaccine is and has always been the public good.

The vaccine has been tested in animal models, such as mice, guinea pigs, and non-human primates. Testing in animals has demonstrated protection during pre-exposure, and significantly less protection when administered post-exposure.

Phase I clinical trials have now started and are important to assessing the overall safety of the vaccine in humans and determining the appropriate dosage. The trials were launched on October 13 at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, in Silver Spring, Maryland. Canada has supplied 20 vials of the experimental vaccine for use in these trials. The next step will be to proceed to phase II and phase III trials in West Africa, in early 2015.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for staying here during adjournment proceedings to respond to my question. However, I do not think that her response has addressed the question I am asking.

We know about the work and funding for vaccines. However, the antibody treatment is a different treatment. I am asking whether the government is going to fund some sort of work in Canada to manufacture the monoclonal antibodies for Ebola.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fight against Ebola is a complex matter. That is why our government has announced an additional $23.5 million for further research and development of Ebola vaccines and treatments this afternoon.

As members are aware, we cannot do it alone. We are working with our international partners, including the World Health Organization, the United States, and the United Kingdom, and with multiple private sector entities and regulatory authorities, to accelerate clinical trials and fast-track steps for mass production of the vaccine for possible use in the current West Africa outbreak.

In this spirit, Canada has donated 800 vials of its experimental vaccine to the World Health Organization to support the response to the outbreak. The World Health Organization, in consultation with partners, including health authorities from the affected countries, will guide and facilitate the distribution and use of the vaccine.

As an active and engaged international partner, this government is fully committed to supporting the international efforts to combat the Ebola virus disease.

Here at home, we continue to ensure that Canada is well prepared for a possible case of Ebola. Protecting the health of Canadians is our greatest priority.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:14 p.m.)

ADDRESS

of

His Excellency François Hollande

President of the French Republic

to both Houses of Parliament

in the

House of Commons Chamber,

Ottawa

on Monday, November 3, 2014

His Excellency François Hollande was welcomed by the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, by the Honourable Noël Kinsella, Speaker of the Senate, and by the Honourable Andrew Scheer, Speaker of the House of Commons.