Debates of Feb. 14th, 2014

Northwest Territories Devolution Act

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech in support of Bill C-15, which has been a long time coming.

I too want to salute Premier Bob McLeod and the Government of the Northwest Territories. We heard from him when I was in Yellowknife with the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. We also heard from many stakeholders, including the premier, who said clearly that, “We need an efficient and effective regulatory system in the Northwest Territories that protects the public interests, allows us to manage our land and environment, and promotes responsible development”.

The member spoke about making sure that this does not just benefit corporations and resource development companies. According to the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines, resource development is the biggest employer of aboriginals in the Northwest Territories, with over 50% of the mining workforce being aboriginal.

I wonder if my colleague would agree with me that in addition to devolution, it is important that we give the Northwest Territories a regulatory regime that is modern, efficient, and effective and would allow for continued investment in the Northwest Territories. This would not only benefit the government and the people there but the aboriginal community as well.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I notice there has been quite a bit of consultation with the local chambers and the like. Again, the regulatory regime certainly is a great benefit for these people as it allows them to engage, no matter who the stakeholders are, in any particular resource development, whether it be from an environmental perspective, economic benefits, and everything else.

As an entire nation, we are now inching toward this principle when it comes to regulatory boards, and I think of our boards on the east coast of the country, whether it is the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board or the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.

There are fixes that have to be put in place, but nonetheless, I think what the member is bringing up here is that the conversations have taken place, and we have matured to a point that the regulatory matters are far better than what they used to be. There are always areas of improvement, but engaging with local stakeholders, I think, is by far the greatest thing that could be accomplished from this, and I thank the member again for his point.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his contribution to this debate.

In five years, there is going to be a review on the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

Would the member's party be in favour of transferring more authority to the Northwest Territories in this case?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, personally, I am in favour of devolving everything that regards development and everything that would regard local decision-making.

I welcome the five-year review in this particular case. Obviously, given the magnitude of the agreement, I mean, it has taken a long time to do, and there are a lot of intricacies here that need yet to be explored.

Even when legislation is passed, I agree, and it should be beyond the five years. I mean, if we think about it, a devolution process really never ends. If something arises in the future, whether it is dictated by technology or changing circumstances of the resources itself, then obviously we would have to put a mechanism in place and devolution may be required yet again in the future.

I think that is an obvious question for all of us in this House who disagree with the centralization of local decision-making, which is really never a good thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for his presentation. However, I could not help but reflect as he spoke at the beginning of his speech of when Newfoundlanders joined Confederation, which is in a lot of ways the opposite of devolution. I know a lot of friends in Newfoundland and Labrador who think that if the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans had not been put in charge of the cod stocks they might be fishing still, and I happen to agree with that.

However, in this case, in the context of devolution, which is supported by all sides of this House, we are seeing an additional piece, which makes Bill C-15 not unlike an omnibus bill. It is a completely different package of changes that would basically undo treaty negotiations.

I have cited other opinions from the Tlicho First Nation earlier in my speech today, but this started with Grand Chief Eddie Erasmus and four other chiefs voicing how they regard the changes to Bill C-15, and I quote:

…the very kind of sharp dealing and dishonourable conduct in the implementation of a modern treaty that the Supreme Court has unequivocally declared it [the federal government ] may not engage in.

I would ask my colleague for some comment.

Is it not a terrible shame to be put to a vote on something we all support, devolution, but include this unconstitutional affront to first nations?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do agree.

I think in this particular case, and in many cases, we have seen submissions here from people who find that the federal government's assault on local governance is an absolute affront. Again, I go back to the principal beneficiaries, not just of the resources but of the whole land, and whether the management of the land is looked after by those locally. In this particular case, the member mentioned Grand Chief Erasmus, who brings up some valid points.

What bothers me though is that all of this is encapsulated in one particular piece of legislation. I spoke on that, and on another part of the bill, the water management, which should also be spun into different legislation. There is a possibility of that. I realize it takes time, but it is the responsible thing to do. I agree with the member's assessment, and the assessment that many people have within the aboriginal groups, who certainly have their own issues with this.

I hope that the three parties here, the aboriginal groups, the Northwest Territories governance, as well as the Conservative government and its particular department, work this out in the near future. I do not know if it will be worked out within this legislation. However, it certainly is a shame that we do not have those extras put aside, whether they be spun off into different legislation or not.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments my colleague made, because historically, Liberal governments said that the Northwest Territories was not ready for devolution. Over the years they were in power, that was the way they looked at it.

My colleague mentioned the issue of land and water use and representation on the boards. One of the governments in the Northwest Territories, the Tlicho government, has indicated that it wants to stay with regional boards as opposed to going with one big board. I am wondering if he can understand the concerns of the Tlicho government and others who have raised this issue, specifically with respect to the treaty partner.

I quote from the Tlicho: “As your treaty partner, I am writing to ask that you reconsider the path Canada is currently on in relation to the MVRMA amendments”.

They talk about the fact that the government will be finding itself before the courts, given the fact that it constitutes a breach of their agreement and the honour of the crown. Does he have as much concern about that as we do?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, yes I do. I think I heard her correctly. The particular government she was talking about has significant, meaningful, decision-making in relation to Wek'èezhii for as long as this land shall last. This was one of the fundamental tenets of the constitutional compact we reached to reconcile our aboriginal titles and rights with crown sovereignty. She has a valid point.

On her other point, the Liberals started the advisory commission on the development of the Northwest Territories. That was Lester B. Pearson. On of the important subject of devolution, the governments of prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin worked for the devolution of the Yukon and Nunavut territories and started the process of devolution for the Northwest Territories. I am not quite sure which particular Liberal government she is talking about. This one was certainly involved. Perhaps she would like to clarify which Liberals she is talking about, because I do not know.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[An. hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 1:30, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from November 27, 2013, consideration of the motion that Bill C-481, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act (duty to examine), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act (duty to examine)

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to talk about Bill C-481.

I want to begin by quoting the title of a book. It is a very interesting title. It is You Can't Eat GNP.

As individuals or as households, we need to know how much money we have, how much we owe. We need to keep track of our income, our household income, our salary, and then also our household expenses. It is important to account for all these things and look forward.

If we are running a business, we need a business plan. For the business plan to make sense, it has to have honest estimates of revenues and of expenses, so that our business can survive and thrive.

This is one kind of accounting.

However, for us, money is not enough. That is the point of the title of the book, You Can't Eat GNP. We need food, we need clean water, and we need clean air to live as well.

We also need strong, caring families and strong, connected communities. We need justice and we need equality of opportunity. We need broad stakeholders in society. There are a lot of social qualities we need to survive and thrive as human beings.

My point is that sustainability is about honest accounting, in a very broad sense. Honest accounting is something we know about in good business management. It is also something that is important for good economic management, the good economic management of a country and the overall management of a country.

I want to start by giving some examples of areas where questionable accounting may not be good for the country.

The first is the idea of selling government assets to balance the budget. The problem with that is that quite often assets are very old and their value is taken to be their so-called book value, which could have been their value from 20, 30, 40, 50, or 100 years ago. Then, when the government sells these assets, it sells them for the market value, hopefully, the current value, and all of a sudden the government's accounts show a huge profit.

How do we avoid that? I think the principles of good accounting say if we want to run a business or an enterprise then we should have good accounting. The problem here is that the value of the asset that was sold was not properly accounted for and the profit that was booked was not a real profit.

It makes it very hard to manage a country if we are not dealing with real numbers that mean something.

The second example has to do with values that are important, from a social point of view.

One thing that is unfortunate is that, over the last few decades, voter turnout has been decreasing consistently. That is the long-term trend, with a few ups and downs for different elections.

I think that is dangerous for democracy. People have called that a democratic deficit. It really is a deficit because the fewer people—the citizenry of Canada—who engage in their democratic government, the more poorly they are governed. It is often said that people deserve the government they get. If most people do not engage, they will not get a good government.

Sometimes the political process discourages citizens from engaging. We have examples of what comes out of campaign battles: we have negative advertising; we have attacks between politicians, ad hominem attacks. All this results in cynicism in the country about politics, and lack of confidence in the government.

Ultimately, it means the decreasing ability for the elected government to tackle big problems. That is the social cost of the democratic deficit. Sometimes, when we are fighting political battles, we do not take into account that social cost. We do not honestly account for that social cost.

The third example is this. In the budget that was presented earlier this week, approximately $250 million was set aside for disaster relief in the future. Actually, the government has had to pay out quite a lot more than that in the past because of the floods in Alberta, so we have to ask ourselves whether the $250 million amount set aside for disaster relief is enough. Disasters will continue to happen in the future, and we know that reinsurance rates are increasing. The reason is that insurance companies have been studying very carefully the expected effects of climate change and have realized that they had better charge higher premiums because they are going to have to pay out more money in the future.

This $250 million allocated right now is only for the next five years. Where, in the government's accounting, is the cost of future disasters, the money that the government knows it is probably going to have to pay out, on average, for disaster relief? It is an amount that is increasing faster than inflation, because that is what the reinsurance premiums are doing.

If I can get a little technical, let us think about the net present value of all of those future liabilities. I do not think the government is accounting for that aspect, and that is a problem. It is a problem because if we ignore it, we will think we are getting away with not dealing with climate change, but those liabilities exist, and they will bite us or our children or grandchildren. It is important to do some honest accounting in these different areas of environmental costs, social costs, and hidden financial costs.

The previous Liberal government created the environment commissioner, who releases regular reports, which I will talk about in a second. What is important is that the Liberals put this environment commissioner in the Office of the Auditor General. This idea of properly accounting for environmental liabilities and treating them just as they would be treated in a financial audit is very important.

I will go through some things in previous environment commissioners' reports that I thought were very interesting.

The environment commissioner looked at old mines and the money that was set aside to close these mines and clean up the sites. The environment commissioner questioned whether enough money was put aside to clean them up. When the decisions were first made to operate these mines 20, 30, or 50 years ago, the cost of closing and cleaning up the mines properly was probably not included in the business plans. That accounting was not done; had it been done, the mines might have been operated differently, because the companies would have been liable.

As another example, the environment commissioner also talked about whether enough money had been set aside to deal with possible accidents, such as offshore oil spills or accidents at nuclear power plants, so honest accounting is very important.

It is very important for a government that is evaluating costs and benefits to account for all possible hidden and future liabilities. If a government did that and made an honest accounting of all the costs and benefits and looked under all the rocks, this bill would not be necessary, because whatever the government tried to do in terms of laws, regulations, taxes, and spending would have automatically been carefully accounted for.

This legislation calls for the justice minister to review all bills and regulations and anything the government tries to do from the point of view of the Federal Sustainable Development Act. If a government always tried to do the best possible honest accounting, I am sure it would always satisfy the act, but I think the point is that the government we have today does not do that. That is why my hon. colleague brought forward this private member's bill.

We have some concerns about the true cost of examining every bill and regulation. My colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood, for example, brought up the cyberbullying legislation and how that is affected by consideration of sustainable development. We have to look at the cost.

However, the Liberal Party recommends that the bill goes to committee at second reading, and I urge my fellow members of Parliament to vote for that.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of Bill C-481 at second reading, and wish to congratulate my colleague, the member for Brome—Missisquoi, for his foresight in introducing the bill.

Indeed, I am one of the members of the House who is optimistic enough to hope that we have not passed the tipping point in the damage we have done to the environment. However, even if we have not passed the apocalyptic tipping point, we have already gone so far that we have unleashed changes in our environment that will be difficult and expensive to deal with. We, as the current tenants on this planet, are already certain to leave a huge environmental debt to future generations.

Bill C-481 is an amendment to the Federal Sustainable Development Act, an act which was passed unanimously by this House in 2008. Amending that act by passing Bill C-481 would ensure that all future laws and regulations introduced by the federal minister would be in compliance with the principles of the Federal Sustainable Development Act. This would require the minister to give notice of any incompatibility to the House of Commons at the first opportunity.

The Department of Justice already has an obligations to examine all bills and regulations for conformity with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill C-481 simply adds another aspect to this process.

Unfortunately, the government has adopted a very narrow definition for protecting the environment, as we can easily see in budget 2014. This is a budget which contains no mention of climate change, let alone any significant commitment to combat this threat to our common future. Instead, the largest measure, what the government calls environmental protection, is nearly $400 million to improve highways and bridges so Canadians can drive through their national parks.

No one should mistake what I am saying. Of course, I support measures to reverse the neglect of the infrastructure in national parks. However, this hardly qualifies as environment protection or a measure to address climate change.

There are some additional measures in the budget which move us in a positive direction to the environment, such as a small expansion of the tax support for clean energy generation, and $500 million for implementation of the Species at Risk Act. It is my hope that a portion of this allocation for the Species at Risk Act would be used to implement a recovery strategy for the southern resident killer whale. This is a strategy that I called for in Motion No. 460 last fall, and we have yet to hear a word from the government about implementing that. In fact, on Vancouver Island, we are still waiting for action to protect this iconic species, more than 10 years after they were listed as endangered.

It is not just in the budget where we see the Conservative government ignoring the principles of the Federal Sustainable Development Act, which I remind the House was passed unanimously in 2008. Let me turn to the question of water as an example.

In the alternative federal budget 2014 called “Striking a Better Balance”, produced by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, there is an excellent chapter devoted to what is happening to what should be our most precious resource: water.

What would a sustainable development approach to water entail? We would, of course, need a national water policy that would entrench the principles of water as a human right and as a public trust. Instead, we have no national policy on water at all. Then we would need comprehensive strategies and plans for protecting water resources, mechanisms to monitor and assess the implementation of those plans, and accountability mechanisms to ensure that water is actually protected. All of these are missing in Canada.

If we had Bill C-481 in place, the gap in the performance of the government when it comes to water would be made explicit. Bill C-481 would force us to evaluate things in the current budget, such as government support for expanding offshore drilling in the Arctic, or government support for pipeline projects in terms of sustainable development. These are tests that it would surely fail.

Returning to the alternative federal budget for a moment, we can see some of the things that could have been in the budget, and proposals which would pass the sustainability evaluation test. The alternative federal budget calls for establishing a national framework for water protection and recommends some urgent projects necessary for halting the decline in the quality of our water resources and beginning the process of restoration.

It calls for strong measures to protect our groundwater. Our attention to groundwater protection has been woeful, especially considering that one-third of Canadians depend on groundwater for their drinking water. We lack even the thorough mapping of our groundwater resources that is necessary before we can tackle this program. We urgently need legislation to prohibit the extraction of groundwater in quantities that exceed the recharge rate. We need legislation to establish the principle of local users first, and to ban the bulk exports of water resources. All of these are measures that could have been included in what the government likes to call its “action plan for 2014”.

Another proposal would take action to turn Canada away from its dependence on fossil fuels. It not only contributes to climate change, but it also has a severe impact on our water quality, particularly in the ecosystems downstream from the tar sands.

Of course, if we cast our thoughts back to the Conservative omnibus budget of 2012, we would recall the wholesale withdrawal of the Conservative government from freshwater protection, with a narrowing of habitat protection to only those waters that support commercial fishing. How could anyone argue that it would have survived the scrutiny proposed by Bill C-481?

I have spent some time discussing the government's failures to protect our precious water resources. I have done so not just because of its urgency, but because the bill we are debating today, proposed by the member for Brome—Missisquoi, would provide a practical way of moving forward and making sure that all future governments work toward a more sustainable future.

It will be interesting to see how the Conservative government ultimately decides to respond to this bill, given that all parties previously supported the Federal Sustainable Development Act. I would think, therefore, that members on the opposite side would also be willing to support Bill C-481.

I know that my time is short today, and I could give many more examples of the Conservative government's failures to adhere to the principles in the Federal Sustainable Development Act, but I want to come back to some concluding principles that we need to honour here in the House.

One of these has to do with Canada's international trade. A lot of damage has been done at the international level not only by our failure to be leaders but also by our being awarded the fossil of the day award for opposition to progress on international environmental accords. Good environment protections are needed to improve Canada's international trade relationships and to help fix this damage to our international reputation.

The Federal Sustainable Development Act, which was, again, unanimously agreed to, said that sustainable development is a principle that must be at the heart of government decision-making. However, we have a Conservative government that has been in power now since 2006 and which discards those sustainability principles every time it gets the chance to.

The government tries to argue that we have to choose between a healthy economy and good jobs and a clean, sustainable environment. In fact, we cannot have one without the other. We know from all of the economic studies that investments in clean, renewable energy, dollar for capital dollar, create far more jobs than our continuing over-investment in fossil fuel industries do. Not only that, investments in renewable energy create jobs in every community in Canada, not just in the few privileged communities that sit on top of resources.

Once again, if we return to that principle of sustainable development, it is not just environmental sustainability we are talking about, it is economic sustainability. If we are to pursue a sustainable future, we have to create jobs in communities all across the country.

In my own riding, I am particularly inspired by the T’Sou-ke First Nation. I have talked about it several times in the House. When it comes to sustainable development, the T’Sou-ke First Nation is setting a shining example for all Canadians. It held a retreat of the whole communities, where leadership was provided by the elders. They said, “Let us become the first solar first nation in the country. Let us move off the grid. We lived for thousands of years without the electricity grid, so let us move off it”.

Today, the T’Sou-ke First Nation is independent of the power grid. It generates its own power, both through solar panels on the roof of its first nations office and through something else that is very interesting: the T’Sou-ke First Nation trained its young people to become solar installers, and now it has solar hot water. I believe that it is installed in every house on the reserve, with one or two at the end that are missing. Now, it also has a trained workforce that can go out and work in other communities to help them become less dependent on non-renewable energies.

Let me conclude by saying that what we need to do, as suggested in Bill C-481, is ensure that our decisions are informed by sustainable development. We must make sure that we do not create environmental and financial burdens for future generations.

The Conservative government's record on environmental issues is clearly one of failure. When it comes time to choose, Canadians will see that only the New Democrats can be trusted to stand up for Canada's environment, now and for future generations.

Constable David Dennie

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a brief moment to pay tribute to Constable David Dennie, who died in a tragic motor vehicle accident yesterday in Blind River while off duty.

Constable Dennie, from the Blind River detachment, served for 12 years with the OPP in Blind River and previous to this was with the Elliot Lake Police Force.

I am certain all members join me in sending our deepest sympathy to his wife Sylveste, his two young sons, his extended family, his colleagues, and the communities of Blind River and Elliot Lake as they mourn his loss.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-481, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act (duty to examine), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act (duty to examine)

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for allowing me to make that brief statement and will now address Bill C-481 which stands in the name of my colleague, the member for Brome—Missisquoi.

Last summer's flood of the Bow River in southern Alberta was emblematic of the kinds of challenges that we are now facing more often. In addition to urban flooding, we are facing problems with extreme weather events with increasing frequency, and the costs are piling up. We have more intense heat waves and increased drought, especially in western Canada, and forest fires are increasing in number and severity too. Canada is truly feeling the effects of climate change, and the increase in our average annual temperature of 1.3° Celsius over the last 60 years is greater than what is being felt in many parts of the world.

We also know much more about the negative elements of climate change, and that is the price we are paying for the way we have developed modern industrial and post-industrial countries. It is the product of “develop now, pay later” practices.

To a degree that can be an excuse for our actions in the past, when we were not so aware of the effects of human activity on the environment, ecosystem, and weather patterns, but now, with the benefit of scientific observation and analysis, we know better. In fact, now we can view past developments and pinpoint the practices that were not sustainable. With that knowledge, we can also work toward developing our economy in a way that is sustainable and does not merely continue to pass on the negative costs to future generations.

We know that is what most Canadians desire. No one wants to leave a debt behind for their children and grandchildren, but in many ways that is what we are still doing. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you, like most of us who have been elected, have had the privilege of visiting children in elementary schools. I am also certain that very few of us will have heard concerns from these young people about many of the things that we busy ourselves with in Parliament, save for a few select issues.

The leading concern of school-age children from the schools that I visit is indeed the environment, and the concerns of these young Canadians are actually very well founded. True, they learn about the environment and ecosystems in junior grades, and there is quite a bit of awareness messaging aimed at individuals, but they hear about it from the people in their lives as well. We also have to recognize the effect of Earth Day; a lot of schools have activities around Earth Day. It could be as simple as passing by an area that has been bulldozed for development and hearing a parent tell how they caught tadpoles there when they were young, or how a creek that is obviously polluted used to be good for fishing 30 years ago.

We see a lot of that. Manitoulin Streams is a prime example of rehabilitating the streams in that area.

The point is that our young people have concerns about the environment that are well founded, and they have expectations of us to act in the best way possible to ensure that degradation stops and their futures are not compromised.

We might consider those high expectations, but it is reasonable to assume that a country as privileged as Canada would expect its legislators to have developed safeguards to ensure that future development is more sustainable and that government initiatives and policies would be guided by those safeguards. It is a reasonable assumption, and the good news is that it is correct: we have the Federal Sustainable Development Act, which was passed unanimously by Parliament during the current government's first term,

However, there is bad news as well, which is that what we have in place is not performing in the way it was intended to. It is actually toothless.

Fortunately, we are debating a private member's bill that has the potential to increase the strength of the Federal Sustainable Development Act so that it would become a more useful tool, instead of its current status, which is somewhere between a notion and half-hearted practice.

In fact, all Bill C-481 would do is elevate a commitment from the status of an intention to that of a guiding principle. Much of what is needed is already in place. We already have the legislation that would be supercharged by this bill. There is already a process in place that sees the Minister of Justice reviewing any legislation for compatibility with the Charter of Rights.

What is missing is the political will to include the cost of our environment and ecosystems in our economic considerations. It is the product of looking at our economy as limited to monetary elements, which is wishful thinking at best and seems to be a mindset that is entrenched on the government benches.

Consider the response of the parliamentary secretary to this bill. What is his objection? It is that it would cost too much and would amount to red tape. That is a simplified argument that hides the fact that the people who would pay the most are the ones who are reaping huge and unmitigated profits in the oil and gas sector. That is the primary and almost singular concern of the Conservative government. It is clear from the way the government has entirely dismantled our environmental regulatory system, to that sector's advantage; the way it has muzzled the scientists who might warn of us of any dangers that would flow from unabated development; the way it views environmentalists as radicals; and the way it subsidizes big oil and gas while dismissing the concerns of the majority of Canadians.

Bill C-481 is, as has been stated, a very simple and elegant piece of legislation. It would take advantage of the fact that the Minister of Justice already reviews each piece of legislation to ensure that it meets the requirements of the Charter of Rights. It would merely add the lens of sustainable development to that review. Yes, it would cost money, but it would save money in the long term. However, saving money over generations is not politically attractive, especially for a government and political party that engages in full-time campaigning. For the Conservatives, long-term initiatives and future generations have little to no value.

We know that the Conservatives are against the companies that would benefit from resource extraction paying for the costs of cleanup and restoration. To do so would apparently grind our economy to a halt. Where is the vision for the day when the oil and gas reserves are depleted? What do they plan for the inevitable moment when the profits stop flowing and all we are left with is a mess to clean up? Do they expect to abandon as dead the regions that have been exploited?

Those are the choices the Conservatives are happy to leave to our children and their children. That is the cost of maximizing profits now without considering the environment as a huge part of our economy. I am reminded of the Cree prophecy that is absolutely appropriate for this discussion:

Only after the last tree has been cut down
Only after the last river has been poisoned
Only after the last fish has been caught
Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten

As parliamentarians, we are faced with a choice: do what is convenient, or challenge ourselves to roll up our sleeves and begin to plan for a future that is not compromised by inaction. Will we tell the corporate executives and financial institutions that we can no longer pursue temporary prosperity that is mortgaged on the backs of future generations, or will we take the easy route and maintain the status quo?

I have grandchildren, two beautiful boys, Kade and Kian, who deserve a bright future, just like every child in Canada and all future generations. If I were to accept that we cannot afford to pursue true sustainable development, I would be turning my back on them, and I cannot do that.

I have never been afraid of a little hard work or of paying my fair share. Most people I know feel and act much the same, which is why it is only reasonable to ask the same of our government. Yet the Conservative government and the Liberal government that preceded it have never told corporate Canada that it must also do the hard work.

I will not question the motives of business. It has one job, and that is to make money. It is the government's responsibility to say what will be allowed in that pursuit. For those who would object to that statement, I ask them to consider our laws that prohibit anyone from going into business to sell narcotics. The same sensibilities that allow us to place the greater good of the public ahead of any entrepreneurial efforts on that front can also, and I would argue must also, be used to frame what the acceptable methods of resource use will be.

While the government may like to argue that this is already the case, that we already have sustainable development legislation and an environmental regulatory framework, it cannot deny that it has moved Canada backwards on that front.

Our regulations are weakened. Reviews are limited by timelines that benefit development and limit the capacity for thorough study. The Federal Sustainable Development Act cannot be a notion only. The intention of the act must be matched with action and have the tools we need to make that happen for our future generations.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given the contemporary nature of the issue before us, that is, the compliance of statutory instruments with the principles of the Federal Sustainable Development Act, I think it is essential to highlight the fact that the concept of sustainable development is sometimes ambiguous and flexible.

I will first talk about how proponents of the extractive industry have misappropriated the concept of sustainable development. A decade ago, this concept emerged and became popular in universities and law schools. I remember studying it 11 or 12 years ago. It was promising, even then. I remember doing an assignment on Syncrude. Corporate social responsibility was also part of this concept, and there were many implications.

Since I come from a region where resources are being extracted all over the place, I can say that this concept has been misappropriated as a validation tool. Often, industry players will say that they work in sustainable development, just to give a degree of integrity to their actions or at least to add the appearance of respectability to their operations.

For the record, and to support my analysis, I would like to point out that, under this bill, sustainable development is a principle according to which a policy meets the needs of the present generation without compromising future generations. It is based on three pillars: the environment, society, and, to a lesser degree, the economy.

I did tamper with that a little. The economy was second on the list, but I decided to put it last and add “to a lesser degree”. The factors, then, are the environment, society—because without humans, there is no economy; there is nothing at all—and, to a lesser degree, the economy.

The stated objective of the legislation before us would make sustainable development central to all federal public policies in order to make Canada greener and more prosperous. However, it is essential that we avoid any undue appearance of integrity imparted by extractive industry players' habitual use of the concept.

I said “habitual” because it has become a reflex. People who propose resource extraction initiatives will always try to stick a “sustainable development” label on their proposal. It is practically the norm; we see it all the time.

As for certification bodies—I am thinking back to my own schooling—about 10 years ago, there was the ISO 14001 standard, which had to do with corporate social responsibility, and it always looked really good. I think that ISO standards are still used for certification. A company would display the banner and it looked good. However, there were enforcement measures and checks to make sure that the company displaying the banner met the standards set by the ISO certification body.

We are trying to do something similar in this case with sustainable development. However, as far as I know, there is no body that ensures that a given company or industry is applying the principles of sustainable development to the letter. This is a flexible concept, and it is too often seen as a type of certification. It is sometimes used as a trademark, for example, in the economic action plan.

There are people using the concept of sustainable development as a trademark and a type of certification. That is absolutely disgusting, since the public, environmental groups, as well as environmental and social stakeholders are increasingly wary and skeptical about the use of this concept, which was once noble but has lost its sheen over the years. This concept has become devoid of meaning and has lost a lot of its flexibility and prestige.

For the purposes of this bill, it is important that the Government of Canada support the principle whereby sustainable development is based on the need to make decisions while taking all environmental, social and, where appropriate, economic factors into account. Once again, I deliberately put the economic aspect last, but I am a little biased. I think Canadians, and my colleagues here, can detect that I am somewhat biased, because the economic aspect predominates all too often in our speeches and in the public policies that are brought forward. The economic aspect often takes precedence over other considerations, which will, in the end, lead to our demise as a nation and as a species. I wanted to point that out. We will not delve too deeply into philosophy this afternoon, but we can see that the economy without human beings and without some return and proper redistribution will lead us to our own demise.

The current Federal Sustainable Development Act is not really effective because of the government's lack of political will. There is currently a law that applies to federally regulated situations. However, given the fact that the economy and development outweigh other social and environmental considerations, we have seen very little interest in that. I even wonder why we still have an office and a commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. I submit that to you. However, this is indicative of the rather pronounced tendency of this government to promote economic growth ahead of other considerations that are nevertheless essential.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, a position created by the Federal Sustainable Development Act, notes that that the efforts to integrate the sustainable development strategy are incomplete. Our own Commissioner, here in Canada, has informed us that the application of these measures and of the specific principles of sustainable development is not enough. Bill C-481 would address that deficiency. That is why I felt it was imperative that I rise today, especially in view of the reality of my own riding, Manicouagan, where there is extensive natural resource extraction every day.

Bill C-481 would make it possible to strengthen the Federal Sustainable Development Act by ensuring that the House of Commons is advised of whether a bill does or does not comply with the federal sustainable development strategy implemented under the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

I really like the idea of “the House of Commons is advised”, because until recently, there have been very few notifications to the House of Commons and the general public on environmental issues—anything to do with navigable waters, for example—and any measures and initiatives that have been amended or implemented. I think the same is true today, since environmental assessments have simply been ignored. As a result, no one ends up being notified. That is really reprehensible, given the major impact this can have.

I submit this humbly and I hope you all have a good weekend.