House of Commons Hansard #80 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was agencies.

Topics

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, in beginning the adjournment proceedings this evening, I turn my attention to a question that I asked numerous times. Tonight's adjournment proceedings deal with the time I asked the question of the Prime Minister, which is found in the Hansard for April 2. I had asked the Minister of the Environment as well, and part of tonight's adjournment proceedings will bring this issue up to date.

To give you maybe a spoiler alert, Mr. Speaker, you will find that I was able to get a response through the efforts of a journalist, having failed to get a better answer here in the House. I am hoping that we pick up in tonight's adjournment proceedings discussion about Canada's climate target with the advantage of the additional information brought into the picture by Aaron Wherry of Maclean's magazine.

Just to recap, on April 2, my point to the Prime Minister was that, in light of the IPCC's most recent report on the severity of the climate crisis and the clock ticking very rapidly toward a point where Canada's actions would cease to make much difference, we still have time to act, and that is what the IPCC is urging us to do, as are other nations around the world.

We now have Environment Canada's estimates of where this country will be in terms of greenhouse emissions by the year 2020 when the Prime Minister's Copenhagen target is due and, again, to underline, the Prime Minister adopted that target. Environment Canada says that by 2020 we will be nowhere near it, not even close.

I asked the Prime Minister if, given the information that we were headed toward a 100% failure rate on current commitments, the government was still committed to reaching the Copenhagen target of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. The Prime Minister's answer was on the same topic, but it did not answer the question. The Prime Minister, at the time, stated:

...as you know, the government remains committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while doing so in a way that obviously respects Canadians' jobs and protects our economy.

However, there was no reference to the Copenhagen target or whether the government or the Prime Minister regarded themselves as still committed. In questions to the Minister of the Environment, I received a similar response, not expressing any firm commitment to actually reach the target that was adopted in 2009 by the Prime Minister.

Subsequently, it was the work of a reporter, Aaron Wherry with Maclean's magazine, who, curious about my various attempts to get an answer, pursued the matter himself. He contacted the Minister of the Environment's office to ask if the government was still committed. Initially, an evasive answer was received, but, surprisingly, on his second effort, came this response from the office of the Minister of the Environment, “Absolutely, we are committed”. Again, to verify it a few days later, Mr. Wherry contacted the office of the Minister of the Environment with this question, “Does the government intend to fulfill its commitment?”, again referring to Copenhagen. The response was, “Yes”.

Now I would like to pursue with the hon. parliamentary secretary what steps are currently planned, when they will be rolled out, and when we will see a plan that would allow the Prime Minister and his administration to keep the commitment that they have now confirmed publicly to Maclean's magazine that they regard themselves as committed to. When will we see a plan to get to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020?

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Oshawa Ontario

Conservative

Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

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

Domestically, our government is implementing a sector-by-sector regulatory approach and has started by addressing emissions in two of the largest-emitting sectors of the Canadian economy, the transportation sector and the electricity sector.

In collaboration with the United States, our government has developed emissions standards for passenger automobiles and light-duty trucks as well as heavy-duty vehicles. With these regulations, it is projected that 2025 light-duty vehicles will produce 50% less greenhouse gas emissions than 2008 vehicles.

With our government's coal-fired electricity regulations, Canada became the first major coal user to ban the construction of traditional coal-fired electricity generating units. In the first 21 years, the regulations are expected to result in a cumulative reduction of about 214 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to removing roughly 2.6 million personal vehicles per year from the road over this period.

As well, our government will build on these actions by working with the provinces to reduce emissions from the oil and gas sectors while ensuring that Canadian companies remain competitive.

Our government has also made significant investments to transition Canada to a clean energy economy and advance this country's climate change objectives.

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 fuels.

Our approach is getting results.

It is estimated that as a result of the combined actions of provincial, territorial, and federal governments, consumers, and businesses, greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 will be 734 megatonnes. This is roughly 130 megatonnes lower than what we would have had under the Liberals. I make this distinction because in contrast to the Liberal climate change policy of international rhetoric followed by domestic inaction, our government's policies are achieving real results.

Internationally, Canada is playing a constructive role in the United Nations negotiations toward a fair and effective new post-2020 climate change agreement.

At the latest UN climate change conference in Warsaw, Canada demonstrated leadership in helping to achieve a breakthrough in an important initiative to help developing countries reduce deforestation and forest degradation, which account for nearly 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada is also taking a leadership role on a number of collaborative international initiatives outside of the United Nations to combat climate change.

For instance, our government is taking meaningful actions to address short-lived climate change pollutants such as black carbon and methane through active engagement on the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, of which Canada is a founding member, and through its current chairmanship of the Arctic Council. Owing to their short lifespan, reducing these types of pollutants can achieve more immediate climate benefits, particularly in the north.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether to laugh or cry. I thought we had made some progress with the responses that were given to the reporter for Maclean's magazine and that we would be agreeing upon the fact that the Conservative government is committed to the Copenhagen targets.

The hon. parliamentary secretary is a lovely person and I do not take any of this personally, but unfortunately the notes given to him are all rhetoric about doing something about greenhouse gases and doing nothing toward reaching the Copenhagen target.

The parliamentary secretary has just confirmed that by 2020, Canada's emissions will be at 734 megatonnes. That is exactly three megatonnes below where they were in 2005. His own government's commitment, the Prime Minister's commitment, was to reduce them by 130 megatonnes below 737 megatonnes. In other words, three megatonnes is an abysmal failure and a total abdication of any commitment to meet the target.

We need a plan to reach the target, not a lot of rhetoric blaming the Liberals.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, the evidence speaks for itself. Our government's actions have resulted in a constant decline in emissions intensity and emissions per capita. Both of these trends clearly demonstrate that our sector-by-sector approach is achieving real results in terms of reducing greenhouse gases while fostering economic growth.

We can compare that to the Liberal approach. The Liberal approach toward reducing greenhouse gases was to sign the Kyoto agreement and then name a dog Kyoto. That is about it.

Our approach is getting results, and we are committed to that.

Canada-U.S. RelationsAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rose in this chamber to ask a question about the Windsor–Detroit international crossing that is being built, in particular the $250 million that is required for the U.S. plaza.

This crossing is very important, as this area contributes to about 35% of all American trade that goes into the United States on a daily basis. We have old, antiquated structures. Hence, we are trying to build a brand new project, which the NDP supports entirely. However, we are calling for greater accountability.

The problem is that the Canadian government has had to come to the table significantly, and all of us have been supporting that. In fact, in a 2010 budget, there was a $550-million commitment by the government to pay for the border crossing so the U.S. did not have to come up with the funds.

The problem is that the U.S. has not committed a single nickel to this project, and right now it has failed to provide $250 million in its most recent budget. Canada would have to come up with that money, based upon the agreement that we signed. The agreement on the border crossing has a clause in it. Section 4 states, in part:

Except to the extent that the US Federal Agencies agree to be responsible for the design, construction, finance and maintenance of the US Federal Plaza, the Crossing Authority shall be responsible for the design, construction, finance and maintenance of the US Federal Plaza, subject to agreement with the appropriate US Federal Agencies, in compliance with Applicable Laws, pursuant to US Federal Plaza Public–Private Agreement(s) with Concessionaire(s) procured by the Crossing Authority.

We are playing poker with our cards facing the other way. We have put ourselves in a situation where at the end of the day we have to pay for that or the whole project could collapse. We have spent billions of dollars with regard to a roadway to the project, and that is a problem.

The government claimed that it has never been done before, but the Conservatives are wrong again on this. They are wrong on their file. We did some research. We found that with regard to the customs booths on the U.S. side of the Blue Water Bridge, according to an official from Blue Water Bridge Canada, the $1.7 million that was awarded by the authority to its American counterpart for the construction of customs booths was a grant without any terms of repayment. To put that in perspective, we put $1.7 million into the U.S. for customs booths when at the same time the Blue Water Bridge annually only brings in $1.4 million in profit. It is going to be a long time for us to recover that.

In conclusion, we have asked basic questions in a letter to the minister. They include the following: What are the anticipated repayment dates? How much does Canada stand to profit from this loan? What will be the interest rates? Are there penalties for late payments? Who would be penalized? We are asking for whether there are going to be delays.

All we are asking for is accountability. Canadians deserve transparency when it comes to their money. What type of planning and financial management systems have been employed to see if their model is actually going to work?

Canada-U.S. RelationsAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

Essex Ontario

Conservative

Jeff Watson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today. I want to note that the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North will be up for a question very shortly and I hope he takes the opportunity to apologize on the record at his first opportunity for the smear that he perpetrated against Conservative members from our New Brunswick caucus.

To the question at hand, the House will know that a new international crossing between Windsor and Detroit is an absolute necessity. Our trade relationship is expanding. We are focused as a government on building long-term prosperity and economic growth. With our trade deal with the European Union there are opportunities for the United States through Canada to benefit from that. It will only expand the use of that type of a facility.

The construction of the project will create between 10,000 to 15,000 construction jobs. Canadian and U.S. steel side by side, Canadian and U.S. workers side by side will build this bridge that will secure prosperity. Of course for those of us in Windsor and Essex County we know how important it is, how critical it is for long-term business investment that the border no longer be unpredictable or a cost of delay for businesses such that they locate their investment on the U.S. side of the border instead of right in Windsor and Essex County. This is very critical.

There is only one party that actually not only says it supports this project, but that when the time comes to actually stand and be counted on this measure, stands continually to vote for the legislation that is necessary, that stands and votes for the funding allocations that are necessary. In fact, there really is only one party that is on the job on this file and that is the Conservative Party and this Conservative government.

I note when the member opposite had a chance to vote on budget 2006 with all that funding for the borders and gateway crossing point, said no to it. That is what his vote said, not mine, I voted in favour of that.

When we made a significant down payment on what is now the Rt. Hon. Herb Gray Parkway in budget 2007, the member voted against it. We voted for it.

The funding to purchase the Canadian plaza lands, the member voted against it. We actually voted for it.

When it came to the inter-country agreement that was signed in 2012 right in the shadow of that agreement between Canada and Michigan, the Bridge To Strengthen Trade Act, one member was in Guatemala at the time. The rest of us were here voting. His colleagues voted against it. We actually voted in favour of it and that is to insulate this from any frivolous lawsuit by anyone seeking to delay this particular project.

Of course, economic action plan 2014 allots $631 million, putting muscle behind the commitment to accelerate this project forward. How did the member vote? He voted against it, even in the face of so many benefits for the Windsor Essex region.

That inter-country agreement obviously not only was historic, but it was between the governments of Canada and Michigan. Obviously, in an agreement we could not obligate the government of the United States to a financial commitment in the language of the document. That is why it was written the way it was, subject to an agreement by the U.S. government to pay for the inspections plaza.

I note after the minister visited March 25 with the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, reading from The Windsor Star, Secretary Jeh Johnson said this is something they are actively working on. He went on to say:

The Canadian government and state of Michigan have done a remarkable job supporting the region. It's up to us as the federal government to do our part, as well.

And they expect to do so. We are getting the job done, unlike the member opposite.

Canada-U.S. RelationsAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I find that rich from the member. I was actually in Guatemala at the request of the Governor General and the member was not at the meeting for Jeh Johnson that just took place. I was at that meeting.

The member has also voted against border money and border budgets in the past as well as other investments. People do not understand this and see it as a childish game that is being played.

I would also point out that the member supported the DRTP, another private border project. He actually brought in members and pranced them around to see the project at the expense of trying to create a public partnership being this process right now. He was very much against that.

Today, the minister at the Canada-U.S. border trade alliance conference mentioned they are looking at the possibility of putting all the customs plaza on the Canadian side. That could have significant consequences for Ojibway Shores that we are trying to protect. The member has been very quiet about that. He promised to get back to the community and never has done that.

Therefore, when it comes to accountability, the New Democrats have been there since day one, since the year 2000, pushing this issue. Conservatives have not been here.

Canada-U.S. RelationsAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Conservative

Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would only point out that a customs plaza or toll plaza should be located on the Canadian side. As a basis of the inter-country agreement, we are the ones who are going to be repaid for that. It only makes absolute sense. However, it is the inspection plaza that is the one that has not been accounted for in terms of the funding. We heard from Secretary Jeh Johnson, as a direct result of a March 25 meeting with the Minister of Transport. He is actively working on this file.

The member can say what he will, but let us look at the record. I am happy to put my voting record against that member's voting record any particular day on this matter. It is his voting record that is a shame. The Governor General asks the only member who left the House that day to go on a trip to Guatemala. So be it, but I was here supporting that measure.

This government is going to get that job done in spite of the New Democrats because it is important. It is the number one infrastructure priority according to the Prime Minister, and we are going to get it done.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Green

Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Mr. Speaker, rarely have I had the opportunity to stand in this place and celebrate a victory for reason and science under this regressive government, but that is exactly what I have the honour of doing here tonight.

Just over a month ago, with its interim, life-support agreement set to expire at midnight that day, I stood here and asked if the Conservatives were again attempting to finish off the Experimental Lakes Area.

Operating since the late 1960s, the chain of 58 lakes in northwestern Ontario that make up the ELA has been responsible for breakthrough science on acid rain, eutrophication, mercury contamination and climate change. It has deepened our understanding of the impacts of human activity on freshwater ecosystems and the boreal forest.

Well, I am relieved to report that it is still alive, albeit needing intensive care for quite a while yet.

The people of northwestern Ontario, along with the rest of Canada and the world, will continue to benefit from the science done at this remarkable facility. It has been saved by the efforts of scientists from around the world, citizens from across Canada, the minority Government of Ontario and the superhuman efforts of one special young scientist.

Dr. Diane Orihel has led this charge from the beginning. She deserves immense credit and respect for keeping the ELA alive.

Dr. Orihel's work stands as a testament to what one informed, passionate and determined person can achieve. All Canadians who believe in science owe her a debt of gratitude.

As she wrote in The Globe and Mail, on April 1:

This is potentially an exciting new chapter in the history of the ELA. Inhibited by years of abuse and neglect under successive federal governments, the ELA could finally realize its great potential.

However, it should never have come to this. We are grateful to the IISD for taking over operations at ELA.

Since those Conservatives came to hold 100% of the power in 2011, with only 39% of the vote, literally thousands of science jobs have been eliminated, with thousands more pending on the chopping block.

The cuts to scientific programs and research facilities are too long to list tonight, although the blog called, “The Canadian War on Science: A Long, Unexaggerated, Devastating Chronological Indictment”, has done a great job of bearing witness.

When that administration is finally run out of Ottawa in 18 months, we will begin the job of fixing the mess the Conservatives have left behind: environmental laws will have to be rewritten, the power of the PMO reined in, and a balanced and sustainable 21st century economy created.

Scientific evidence, consultation with Canadians and respect for science must be brought back into policy-making.The Conservative's most lasting legacy may well be the destruction of federal scientific capacity. Respected publications like The Economist, The New York Times, and Nature are all criticizing our administration for muzzling, cutting and outright eliminating what were once world-leading science programs.

It could take a generation to recruit, train, hire and otherwise reacquire the scientific expertise that the current Conservative administration has so foolishly discarded, and this is a tragedy.

When economic competitiveness in the 21st century depends on leading the way with scientific and technological expertise, how will those Conservative members explain to their constituents and to all Canadians why and how this administration has set Canada's scientific and economic competitiveness back a full generation?

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

Oshawa Ontario

Conservative

Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to hear that member, when he got on his feet, actually do what my colleague from Essex asked him to do, and that is apologize for what he said about our New Brunswick members. The Green Party talks about how we treat each other, but when it comes to an opportunity to actually make it right, I guess playing politics is more important.

However, I am happy to answer his question factually.

On March 31, 2014, the Government of Canada announced that a new operator for the Experimental Lakes Area had been secured. I am pleased to say that the Government of Canada has finalized agreements with the new operator of the ELA, the International Institute for Sustainable Development, as well as with the Province of Ontario. These agreements mean that the federal government has fulfilled its commitment to ensure that research at the Experimental Lakes Area can continue under a new operator.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada had been leading the negotiations with the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the Province of Ontario since the spring of 2013. Parties committed to reaching final agreements by March 31, 2014, and we have met that commitment.

The Government of Canada has signed four agreements in total, and these agreements address a variety of topics.

We have reached two agreements with Ontario. The first agreement establishes that the main research site at the ELA is in a safe and clean condition for return to Ontario. Over the fall, Fisheries and Oceans Canada undertook a variety of remediation activities to ensure that the site was in good condition.

The second agreement with Ontario describes Fisheries and Oceans' plan to remediate the surrounding land and the watersheds. The Government of Canada will undertake remediation activities to clean up remnants of past scientific activity. These cleanup activities will include removing unneeded wooden platforms from lakes and removing boardwalks and docks that are in poor condition and are not required by the new operator. In addition, the agreement with Ontario describes the lake monitoring required to demonstrate that lakes have recovered from past scientific experiments. While the lakes do not require active remediation, the Government of Canada will be responsible for monitoring their continuing recovery.

The Government of Canada's agreement with the International Institute for Sustainable Development includes several elements that ensure that the institute is well positioned to begin operating the research facility and the scientific research program. For example, the agreement includes funding for $1 million over four years for the institute to maintain the long-term environmental data sets.

The agreement also includes the transfer of moveable assets formerly used to operate the ELA research facility and the scientific research program.

The agreement describes the lake recovery monitoring program the institute will conduct on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Finally, all three parties signed a scientific data-sharing agreement. Through this agreement, Fisheries and Oceans Canada will make available all of its ELA scientific data for the new operator. This scientific data set is unparalleled and includes lake ecosystem data collected over the past 45 years.

Our government will also be introducing the ELA research activities regulation very shortly. Once finalized, this regulation will authorize the new operator to continue making deposits, for scientific research purposes, at the Experimental Lakes Area.

Our government has always said that we were committed to finding a new operator for the Experimental Lakes Area. The International Institute for Sustainable Development is well suited to operate the ELA and has the capacity, expertise, and international reputation to take on this important job.

The agreements and regulation I have described will ensure the effective and efficient transition to the new operator. We wish them well in that endeavour.

While the International Institute for Sustainable Development embarks on its new science program at the ELA, Fisheries and Oceans Canada will continue its diverse freshwater research program in other locations across the country.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Green

Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Mr. Speaker, to reiterate what we have just heard, the Conservatives claim to have been working hard to preserve the Experimental Lakes Area, when nothing could be further from the truth. People from across Canada, and especially in the Kenora riding, know very well that the Conservative efforts to kill off the ELA ran into a solid wall of public and scientific opposition. They are now attempting to spin to do damage control.

Saving the ELA will go down as one of the few times in the life of the government that science and reason actually prevailed, despite this administration's best, or perhaps we should say worst, efforts.

Very soon, a new government will work to restore the damage done by this administration and will recognize that building a sustainable 21st century economy depends on the innovation and expertise that begins with science. Then, hopefully, we will resume having policies based upon facts and real science rather than policies based on blind faith in trickle-down, pseudo-economic theories.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, science is about facts. I have just reiterated the facts of this situation for the member, and unfortunately, he cannot take yes for an answer. The reality is that the Government of Canada led negotiations to secure a new operator for the ELA, and we are pleased that the International Institute for Sustainable Development will continue the work of the ELA.

Over the past year, we have worked in close collaboration with the Province of Ontario and International Institute for Sustainable Development to ensure that the ELA site is in good condition and that the new operator is well positioned to begin operations. As we move forward, the Government of Canada will continue to invest in freshwater science across the country.

The Fisheries and Oceans' freshwater science program is an active and diverse program. Departmental scientists conduct cutting edge research in lakes and rivers across our great nation. The Government of Canada will continue to make wise investments in priority science areas that directly support conservation and fisheries management.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

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

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