House of Commons Hansard #89 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was justice.
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the member a chance to elaborate a bit on what he was about to end on with a flourish before the Speaker so abruptly cut him off.
Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB
Mr. Speaker, that is very generous of the member, but I think it has lost its flow. I can say that plant breeding will be improved, safety rules will be improved, and CFIA will have the opportunity to increase its powers.
It is important that CFIA has the ability to prevent or remove product that is not legal in Canada, like we do with plants and animals. I am glad that change will be made. In fact, I am surprised that it was not done in the 1950s.
We are creating amendments to nine acts, and it will help farmers, entrepreneurs, producers, and Canadians, and it will help to grow the economy, so it is all good.
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions to ask my hon. colleague, but I will stick to one. A number of changes will take place in the Plant Breeders' Rights Act itself, and there are proposed changes that I will ask him to speak to.
The Plant Breeders' Rights Act is administered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and plant breeders' rights offices as well, and provides legal protection to plant breeders for new plant varieties.
I wonder if my hon. colleague could expand a bit on some of the proposed changes in the Plant Breeders' Rights Act and how they would strengthen the act.
Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB
Mr. Speaker, the member for Brandon—Souris comes from a very agriculturally based riding and has been a farmer since the 1950s.
The proposed changes would strengthen the rights of breeders and improve accessibility to protect in a number of ways. It would extend plant breeder rights to include reproduction, import, export, conditioning, stocking for commercial purposes of propagating, in addition to the current system that already allows for the sale of propagating material and production that is intended for sale. It would allow breeders to sell a variety of plants in Canada, up to one year before applying for PBR protection, in order to test the market, advertise, or to increase stock.
One last one is that it will extend the protection period from the current 18 years to 25 years, for trees, vines, and other specified categories, and 20 years for all other crops, unless the breeder terminates them earlier.
I think that is a pretty good deal, and I thank the member for the question.
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of the agricultural growth act because this proposed legislation is good for Canada and for all Canadians.
Its aim is to provide Canada's farmers and food processors with the tools they need to drive new economic growth and to compete in the global economy. The bill also strengthens the safety of agricultural products, which is the first link in the food chain. That is good news for consumers.
Some of the acts that we propose to amend, as has been indicated by my hon. colleague from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, date back to the 1950s. They have served us well to be sure, but we are in the year 2014 now.
We need the agricultural growth act because, as has been pointed out, the act before us will modernize and streamline nine different statutes, seven of those in the area of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which is used to regulate Canada's agriculture sector, and two that are administered by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Together, these acts and their regulations are critical to the strength of our farmgate, the growth of our economy, and the safety of agricultural products. As new agricultural production techniques and new developments in science arise, the legislative tools for agriculture products must keep pace, especially since other international trading partners have innovated and modernized their approaches.
Throughout my farming career, it was modernization and research that helped move our industry forward to the point where it is today, as a world leader.
What we are doing with this act is building a more effective, innovative, and nimble legislative framework, one that reflects 21st century realities. It is vital that we get behind this proposed legislation now, as it will dovetail with recent initiatives undertaken by the CFIA.
Through its transformation agenda, the agency is both modernizing its inspection regime and supporting the modernization of its regulatory framework. This agenda has been supported by the Safe Food for Canadians Act, passed by our government in 2012.
Those initiatives are highly complementary to the proposed legislation before us. Obtaining royal assent on this act will assist the CFIA in meeting its overall goals for modernization, both in the activities that it carries out and the regulations that govern those activities.
One way that the proposed legislation will achieve this is that the agricultural growth act proposes new broader controls on the safety of Canada's agriculture products through licensing and registration of feed and fertilizer manufacturers. The act provides the ability for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to licence and register fertilizer, and animal feed operators and facilities that import or sell products across provincial and international borders. This is in addition to the current system, where feed and fertilizer products are registered by product as well.
Licensing or registering facilities and operators provides a more effective and timely approach to verify that agriculture products meet Canada's stringent safety and other standards. The approach allows for better tracking and oversight of production processes and products being produced, a more efficient system to identify issues early, and a faster response if and when a product recall is required.
Any licensing regime would require regulations before it would operate. These would be developed in thorough consultations with stakeholders, which gives Canadians an advantage in these areas. This amendment will not apply to farmers who make these products for use on their own farms. It will only apply to businesses that sell their animal feed and fertilizer products across provincial and international borders, as has been mentioned.
This act will also give the CFIA another tool to do its job even better, and it will align Canadian legislation with international trading partners. This will help our feed and fertilizer industries maintain their export markets, especially the United States. The feed and fertilizer industries themselves agree with us.
Clyde Graham, vice-president of the Canadian Fertilizer Institute told the Western Producer, on December 13th of last year, and I quote:
...the changes allow the CFIA to validate the quality of fertilizer.
If l'm an exporter of fertilizer, I can ask the agency to say it meets the regulatory requirements in Canada and therefore it's a good product.
There is another way the proposed legislation will help serve Canadians better. The agricultural growth act proposes to increase the maximum penalty amounts that the CFIA can issue under the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act.
Members may have heard of these administrative monetary penalties, AMPs, which are an enforcement measure used by the CFIA to encourage compliance with Canada's Health of Animals Act, the Plant Protection Act and their associated regulations among others. An AMP can be either a notice of violation with a warning or a notice of violation with a penalty. Members can think of it as kind of a ticket that can be issued by CFIA inspectors.
By increasing the maximum amounts of the AMPs, these monetary penalties continue to be an effective tool to strongly encourage compliance. The legislation proposes to increase the maximum amount of AMPs for businesses, from $2,000 to $5,000 for minor violations; for serious violations, from $10,000 to $15,000; and for very serious violations, from $15,000 up to $25,000. Upping the AMPs would give the CFIA an important tool, a tool with more teeth to do its job even better.
The agricultural growth act is yet another way to help protect Canadians. The act is written to provide for new, stronger border controls for agricultural products. Canadian Food Inspection Agency inspectors would be able to order imported shipments of feeds, fertilizers and seeds out of Canada if they did not meet legal requirements, similar to the way in which imported plants and animals may be ordered to be removed if they do not meet the legal requirements today.
The CFIA already takes action now and does seize illegal products related to animal feeds, seeds and fertilizers. The act proposes to update the way we do it.
Let me explain further.
Under the current process, the CFIA negotiates a solution where there may be court proceedings after the seizure of illegal products related to animal feeds, seeds or fertilizer. This process works, but right now, at times, Canada must pay to dispose of illegal products that are seized. Members can see how being able to order the products out of the country would be more efficient.
At the same time, the act would also give CFIA inspectors the ability to allow the importer to fix the problem in Canada if it is not a matter of safety and if they can be sure that the issue will be addressed. The proposed amendment will provide the agency with even stronger tools to fulfill its mandate to protect Canada's plant-animal resource base. This change will provide additional reassurance that imported agricultural products meet Canadian strict requirements.
For Canada's farmers, this means they can compete on a level playing field. For consumers, this is the first line of protection along our food safety chain.
Updated, streamlined and harmonized legislation would benefit Canadian farmers and industry, while supporting the Government of Canada's modernization initiatives and boosting consumer confidence.
I ask all parliamentarians to give this act their careful attention and move it forward.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, we are broadly supportive of many of the measures in the bill. We have some concerns because the proposed legislation is complicated as it attempts to balance the interests of producers and folks who develop seeds.
I welcome my friend to the House. I do not think we have had an exchange before.
The question I have is around who would have the power to change the provisions in future if the bill were enacted. One of the arguments and concerns we have is that the legislation, as it is now written, would offer an inordinate amount of discretion and power to senior level bureaucrats and the minister himself alone to change that balance between producers and those who produce seeds.
Would my friend across the way be amenable or open to the conversation at least of ensuring that if we are to make fundamental changes, Parliament is engaged in that conversation in the future as opposed to being done through regulations and some of the powers that are offered up in the bill?
This is a question about accountability. These changes can be broad and can affect our entire food system. It seems to me that would bear scrutiny. However, as the bill is designed right now, we worry and question the power balance as being too much given over to senior members of the government and to the minister in whatever government, this government or future governments.
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his welcome to Parliament.
As he has indicated, under the agricultural growth act there are a number of acts impacted. As I said earlier, there are seven under the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and two more under Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
In my comments earlier I remarked that when some of the changes that might be coming forward are dealt with, if there were future regulatory changes they would be dealt with publicly in a forum for groups, organizations, and individual farmers themselves, as well as some of the fertilizer and chemical dealers, and on the food inspection side this would be some of the processors and packers. They would be able to have input into any of those regulatory changes that would take place as a result of the changes in this bill.
The goal, which I believe the member would applaud, is that Canada maintain the safest food distribution mechanism and the safest processing of anywhere in the world. In spite of the fact that there are problems once in a while, we have certainly seen that these are some of the safest measures in the world.
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to welcome the member here.
There is no doubt that we need a new act, one modernized for agriculture and the department. However, as this member has already stated here, there is a lot of Big Brother stuff in here as far as plant breeders' rights where it is a privilege now to have these seeds. Then there are a lot of penalties that would be put in place on the people who are processing food.
My question has to do with the advance payment of $400,000 to farms. As the member knows, the farms are big now and it sometimes takes $1 million to put a crop in again before harvest. A lot of farms are saying these advance payments of $400,000 are not enough and they recommend $800,000. We are hoping that when this goes to committee that amendments will be made.
Is the member saying that his party will look at some of the amendments and make changes to the amendments according to what the farm community wants at the agriculture committee?
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, the advanced payments number of $400,000 was there back in the years when I was farming as well. It has been there for a good long time. With the interest rates where they are today, the advanced payments act only a complement to the other kinds of financing that are out there today and available to the farm community.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin
Resuming debate, the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior. I would just advise the member that we will end this debate today at 6:30 p.m., so he will have about 17 or 18 minutes as opposed to his full 20 minutes.
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-18, the agriculture omnibus bill. Let me say at the outset that I am extremely disappointed that we have yet another omnibus bill. The democratic process would have been much better served had this bill been split, especially the section dealing with plant breeders' rights.
This omnibus bill would amend nine different laws. The NDP believes we must take a balanced approach to plant breeders' rights. We must protect Canadian public researchers and farmers.
Although we understand the role of intellectual property rights, to encourage innovation, we want to ensure that Canadians have access to and can benefit from our agricultural heritage. The safety measures proposed with regard to seeds, plants and animals should result in additional resources for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
It is very likely that Bill C-18 will go to committee. It is therefore important for all farmers to carefully examine its contents. Hopefully, there will be ample opportunity for them to make their voices heard.
The most contentious provisions of Bill C-18 are without a doubt those regarding the Plant Breeders' Rights Act and the implementation of UPOV '91, the international convention on plant protection. Canada is a signatory to UPOV '91 but it has not yet ratified the convention and has not yet implemented its provisions.
When I was first elected in 2006 and became agriculture critic, I began to hear about UPOV '91 from many concerned with food sovereignty, especially farmers in the National Farmers Union. In fact, it is my understanding that after a groundswell of farmer-led opposition to UPOV '91 in 2005, the Liberal government of the day let it die quietly as it became clear that farmers would be drastically restricted in their ability to save, reuse, exchange, and sell seed.
According to the NFU, before reintroducing UPOV '91 through Bill C-18, the minister had been actually actively spreading the myth and managing to convince many farmer organizations and commodity groups that saving seed is enshrined in this bill. It is obvious that UPOV '91 gives plant breeders significantly more rights and tools for royalty collection while the farmers' seed-saving right is reduced merely to privilege.
A closer look at the text of Bill C-18 reveals that, indeed, it talks about a farmer's ability to save seed. When storing that saved seed, however, the farmer needs the permission of the holder of the plant breeders' rights, which may or may not be given. Of course, the breeder has the right to charge royalties as well. Bill C-18 also empowers government to remove, restrict, or limit the farmer's seed-saving privilege by passing regulations, a process that can happen quickly and without public debate. UPOV '91 has made provisions for royalty collection after a crop has been harvested, when seed is cleaned in seed-cleaning plants, or when a crop is moved off the farm for sale at elevators and other points of transactio, in the year the crop was harvested or in any year after that.
Under Bill C-18, plant breeders' rights will not apply to private, non-commercial growers, experimental use of seed, and seed used for the purpose of breeding other plant varieties, which is also the case under our current legislation. However, plant breeders' rights do apply to newly bred varieties that are essentially derived from plant breeders' right-protected varieties, allowing plant breeders to exercise control over the results of future plant breeding.
Adopting UPOV '91 would immediately reduce the freedom and independence of Canadian farmers by making it much more difficult to save and reuse seed, forcing them to pay more for seed. It would also impinge on the autonomy of independent seed cleaners, transfer millions of dollars every year from farmers to plant breeders' rights holders, and consolidate the power and control of the world's largest agribusiness corporations over seed and, thus, over the Canadian farming and food system.
As well, if Canada adopts UPOV '91, farmers will not be allowed to save, store, or clean seed for replanting without the express permission of the PBR holder. If granted, such permission is dependent on the government adopting, on a crop-by-crop basis, an exemption called the farmer's privilege, which may be time limited and would likely entail payment of royalties to the PBR holder.
Companies would have a cascading right, allowing them to demand payment of end-point royalties on the whole crop, including each cut of hay on foraged crops, instead of just on newly purchased seed or when the company has been unable to collect adequate royalties on seed alone. Companies would be entitled to royalties for at least 20 years on each variety for which they hold PBRs, up from the current 18 years under Canada's UPOV '78 regime.
Seed cleaners would require permission from PBR holders to clean seed, which, if granted, may be subject to conditions such as payment of fees to the PBR holder. Mills and processors that buy crops would require assurance that the farmer-seller has paid PBR royalties to avoid the risk of litigation by the PBR holder.
Farmer's privilege to save a small amount of seed from designated crops may be granted by governments through legislation, but this privilege could be rendered useless, because seed companies would be able to restrict seed cleaning and storage.
What are the long-term implications for Canadian agriculture if UPOV '91 is adopted? According to the analysis by the National Farmers Union, some of the likely changes include:
...higher per-acre cost of production due to higher seed prices;
lower margins because end-use royalties will reduce potential gross income at sale;
fewer and larger farms because reduced profitability will drive larger scales of production;
loss of independent seed cleaning businesses as farmers are forced to buy seed directly from PBR holders or their licensees instead of cleaning a portion of their harvested crops for use as seed;
increased litigation within the value chain as PBR holders seek to maximize royalty revenues; ...
Having said all of this, the obvious question is what is the alternative if we do not adopt UPOV '91? Pending the adoption of a truly farmer-friendly seed law, we could maintain Canada's current UPOV '78 plant breeders' rights regime, which balances the interests of the public, the farmers, and the plant breeders.
We could restore funding to public plant breeding. Canada's public plant breeders are internationally respected and have contributed greatly to Canadian agriculture. For example, nearly all of our wheat varieties have been developed by AAFC in collaboration with several Canadian universities. None of these varieties would have been part of Canadian agriculture without the government's long-term support for public breeding.
We could take plant breeding to variety level. The federal government has stopped funding public plant breeding beyond the development of germplasm, which must then be sold to private breeders to develop varieties for commercialization. The new varieties so developed are privately owned and subject to plant breeders’ rights.
Farmers, whose check-off dollars support this research, would pay yet again through the increased royalties that would be granted under UPOV ’91. This system of private interests benefiting twice, first by using public research funding and then by collecting royalties on seed and production, is unjust and against the public interest.
We could also protect farmers from expensive court litigation regarding plant variety and patent disputes.
Finally, I would like to say that we, as parliamentarians, need to look very carefully before rejecting a system that has worked well for farmers. I would once again like to thank the National Farmers Union for their efforts in analyzing what is at stake here with Bill C-18. It is my hope that all farmers and farming organizations will give this research careful consideration prior to making a final decision on this bill.
Five years ago I toured Canada to see what Canadians had to say about a national food policy. These consultations gave civil society groups, agricultural organizations and ordinary citizens the opportunity to express their concerns about vulnerabilities within the existing food production system.
I visited more than 28 communities on this tour. All across the country, participants almost unanimously agreed that Canada should protect its food security and food sovereignty.
They feel that Canada should develop a comprehensive food policy so that every Canadian can have access to healthy food, so that local producers can maintain their agricultural operations and so that we can protect the agriculture sector for future generations.
Participants also proposed that the federal government support local producers by enforcing mandatory local procurement for state institutions and that it encourage other governments to do the same.
What this implies is that Canadians, especially farmers, need to have more control over their food supply. This ability to control a country's food supply is the fundamental principle of food sovereignty. Since we are a trading nation, our goal has to be to somehow find what I call a delicate balance between trade and food sovereignty. As was pointed out to me during my food for thought tour, and as many Canadians are saying today, the balance is quickly tipping away from our ability to have control over our food supply. Bill C-18 is just another step in this direction. If we concentrate the power in the hands of multinational corporations, we as a nation become vulnerable and lose the ability to feed ourselves.
I have taken a lot of criticism from the other side when I have questioned the benefits of our so-called free trade agreements. I have often said that many of our fruit and vegetable producers have been put out of business because of the free trade agreement with the United States and NAFTA. Prior to these agreements, we had in-season tariffs that protected our farmers. Now they have to compete with a free flow of produce into Canada that is often dumped at below the cost of production.
In its report, “The Farm Crisis and the Cattle Sector: Toward a New Analysis and New Solutions”, the National Farmers Union has made a correlation between the drop in cattle prices at the time of the report and the implementation of the Canada–U.S. free trade agreement in 1989. Since then we have seen our exports drop due to BSE and trade initiatives. Now we are being hit by U.S. country-of-origin labelling, or COOL.
Many people who took part in my cross-Canada consultations questioned the wisdom of including agriculture in free trade agreements. Let us look at our supply managed sector. It is a system that works, receives no government subsidies, and provides Canadians with excellent milk, eggs, and poultry products. It works because we do not allow the free flow of these goods into our country. Now with the proposed Canada–Europe trade agreement, or CETA, this farmer-run system is under threat. Canada will allow an additional 17,000 tons of artisan cheese from Europe, which will hit our cheese producers hard, especially those in Quebec. Now there is talk, of course, of government subsidies to help these farmers. The whole thing does not make any sense at all. Our cheese producers will now be competing with farmers from the E.U. who are being propped up by government tax dollars. There is pressure to further erode our efficient supply managed system as we prepare to sign on to the trans-Pacific partnership agreement, a further loss of control.
Many of us stood in this House as we tried to convince the Conservatives not to dismantle the farmer-operated Canadian Wheat Board. With a stroke of a pen, and no vote from farmers, the CWB lost its single-desk capacity to sell wheat and barley. There is some justification to say that the current backlog and crisis in the rail industry could be an indirect result of the change in roles of the CWB, which used to coordinate rail shipments of grains under the single-desk system. What we saw over the winter was a lack of coordination and railway companies not responding to the needs of farmers.
This gradual loss of food sovereignty extends to the whole area of genetic modification. For example, if the GMO Arctic apple is planted in B.C., it will contaminate non-GMO varieties, and farmers will lose their markets. If GMO alfalfa is released into the environment in Ontario, it will also contaminate and cripple, especially the organic industry.
In British Columbia we are fortunate to have the agricultural land reserve, introduced by the provincial NDP government in 1973. No succeeding provincial government has tampered with this protection of our arable land, which is less than 5% of our total land surface, until now that is.
The current B.C. Liberal government is leading a core review which could result in land being taken out of the ALR for development purposes. The current B.C. agriculture minister, Norm Letnick, to his credit, has opened the consultation and I thank him for this. I know that the provincial NDP agriculture critic, Nicholas Simons, as well as MLAs Katrine Conroy and Michelle Mungall in my riding also have been very vocal in their support of the ALR.
We only have to look at the recent drought in California to see the effect this has on us. If this is a trend in the future due to climate change, it is imperative that we put more land into production rather than taking it out.
One of the largest broccoli producers in Ontario once told me that he only made money when there was a drought in Florida. It appears there will be more droughts, which means we need to put more land into production. I was told that the city of Toronto only had enough food supply for three days.
What role could the federal government be playing to ensure that our food supply is based on conservancy? I leave my hon. colleagues in suspense because I will tell them the answer the next time I have a chance.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin
The hon. member will have 3 minutes and 30 seconds when debate on this bill resumes.
The House resumed from May 15 consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin
It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion relating to the business of supply.
Call in the members.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Mr. Speaker, two of the biggest problems in the world are increasing global climate disasters and growing gaps of income. The right energy policies could help solve both of those things, but Canada has no national energy strategy, or any real job strategy, other than the temporary foreign worker program.
Meanwhile, communist China is eating our lunch on green technologies and green jobs.
By refusing binding greenhouse gas targets, Red China has successfully trapped our Conservatives, all while Red China's national bank is pouring capital into sustainable future energy technologies like solar and wind. China is the world leader in clean energy investment. It set aside $54 billion last year for the sector, dwarfing Canada's paltry contributions.
Endlessly pumping oil is not even doing our economy that much good in the short term. It is becoming clear that over half of all of the oil and gas reserves in the ground will have to stay in the ground as monstrous stranded assets.
Let us look at some of the facts of life under the current government since it took power in 2006. Unemployment is up by 9%, and youth employment is far worse than that. Real economic growth per capita is the lowest since the Great Depression, and personal debt and the national debt are both up by over 25%.
As a businessperson myself, I find it fascinating that the party that claims to be the party of free markets, instead picks winners and losers, mostly losers in the longer run.
The IMF reports that Canadian government subsidies to oil are a whopping $34 billion each and every year. We Canadians are addicted to oil. Raised on the car culture, I am a bit guilty myself.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin
Order, please.
Could I ask all members who are not part of this debate, and that is almost all of you, to please move outside the chamber? I am having a hard time hearing the member as well.
Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The IMF reports that Canadian government subsidies to oil are a whopping $34 billion each and every year. We Canadians are addicted to oil. Raised on the car culture, I am a bit guilty myself. We have built a huge and wealthy, but unsustainable western economy, built upon cars and oil.
What kind of technologies should we be switching to? Wind? Solar? Tidal? Geothermal? Mass transit? Electric vehicles? Super-insulated homes and businesses? Super-efficient TVs, computers, washers, driers, furnaces, and light bulbs? It should be all of the above, and more.
Currently over 60% of Canada's electricity comes from hydroelectric power, and that could be doubled. Canada captures just 1% of the green tech market, worth $1 trillion globally. With the right investment, Canada could increase its share of the clean tech market to $60 billion by 2020.
How do we free the awesome power of the marketplace to discourage CO2?
Four out of five of our national party leaders acknowledge the need to price carbon.
The Prime Minister has refused to price carbon and has instead promised regulations, which never arrive. The NDP is stuck on carbon cap and trade, which is expensive, bureaucratic, complicated, and ineffective, truly a job killer. The NDP does not really understand business, large or small. The leader of the Liberals has sometimes called for a price on carbon to justify his supporting the XL pipeline. There are no details, of course, and likely no real commitment.
The simple answer is carbon fee and dividend, supported by the leader of the Green Party.
My question is, do the Conservatives really believe in letting the market decide? Will they consider carbon fee and dividend, which could solve the CO2 problem in a predictable and effective way?
Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to protecting the environment, while keeping the Canadian economy strong.
We have made significant investments to assist Canada's transition to a clean energy economy and have been achieving real results.
I am surprised to hear the member opposite cite China's energy policy as a model for Canada to follow. Let us look at some of the facts.
In terms of China's energy consumption, 91% is currently coming from carbon-emitting sources and 69% of that is from coal. Less than 8% of China's energy is currently being generated from renewable sources.
Let us compare that to Canada and what our government has been achieving.
First, Canada is a global leader in the generation of clean and renewable energy. We are the world's third-largest producer of hydroelectricity, and more than three-quarters of the electricity we generate produces no greenhouse gas emissions.
Since 2006, our government has invested more than $10 billion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build a more sustainable environment. This includes investment in green infrastructure, energy efficiency, clean energy technologies and the production of cleaner fuels. We are also the first major coal user to ban construction of traditional coal-fired electricity generation units.
The first 21 years of our new coal regulations are expected to result in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 214 megatons. This is equivalent of removing roughly 2.6 million personal vehicles from the road per year.
In addition, since 2008, Canada experienced a 24% growth in clean energy investment, ranking it eighth in the world and Canada ranks fifth worldwide in green investment intensity; that is clean energy investment per dollar of GDP.
Our record speaks for itself, and it is safe to say that we will not be taking any lessons from China or the member opposite.
Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member failed to mention that those coal bans do not come into effect until 2015. They also allow new plants; they just tinker with it a bit.
Again, the solution to economic and conservation issues is carbon fee and dividend.
Carbon fee and dividend almost does it all. It prices carbon fairly and scientifically, uses only free market forces to foster CO2 reductions, costs virtually nothing to administer, benefits lower income Canadians and, what should appeal to that side, no money goes to the government at all.
NASA genius James Hansen supports the Citizens Climate Lobby on carbon fee and dividend. So does venture capitalist, Tom Rand, brilliant author of the book, Waking the Frog, with great ideas on how we can reduce CO2 and create jobs and wealth.
By the way, tomorrow night Mr. Rand is speaking at 5:00 p.m. at the University of Ottawa.
With a national energy strategy, with carbon fee and dividend at its centrepiece, Canada could reach our economic potential in the new and growing green economy.
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the leadership role that Canada is taking.
Canada is currently active in the international negotiations for a post-2020 climate change agreement under the United Nations framework convention on climate change. The negotiations have established a clear timetable and process for all countries to develop post-2020 mitigation commitments well in advance of the December 2015 Paris meeting where a new climate change agreement will be concluded.
Canada supports a new agreement that is fair and ambitious, while applicable to all major emitters, including China.