Mr. Speaker, our government's position on this is plain and simple: Bill C-579, an act to reduce the effects of urban heat islands on the health of Canadians, is not the right approach for Canada.
Indeed, our government is already taking action to help Canadians adapt to the changes in climate and mitigate health risks related to extreme heat. Our approach has been to recognize that urban communities across Canada have different priorities, characteristics, and capacities to address local health issues related to a changing climate.
We have sought to work with Canadians in ways that respect these variances and which are not prescriptive. I would like to highlight a few of these examples.
Since 2008, Health Canada has worked with federal, provincial, and municipal partners to enhance the resiliency of communities and individual Canadians to the health impacts of extreme heat. In fact, I served for many years on the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Credit Valley Conservation authority.
A key component of our initiative has been the development of heat alert and response systems in communities across the country, and raising awareness of heat health risks among individuals, health professionals, and communities. We have provided information to help communities decide when to issue heat alerts; assisted in developing messaging for vulnerable populations, such as seniors and children; and informed public health authorities and emergency management officials of measures that can be put in place to reduce heat-related illnesses and deaths in their communities.
We have been successful because we have relied on a collaborative approach across different levels of government to build capacity, not a one-size-fits-all framework, as is proposed in the bill.
Indeed the ability of this government to work with varied jurisdictions is leading towards the implementation of province-wide heat alert and response systems in Manitoba, Alberta, and Ontario. Even something as simple as addressing air pollution can help to mitigate some health impacts of extreme heat.
Health Canada officials have worked with officials from Environment Canada to roll out the air quality health index across the country. On a daily basis, I am sure many Canadians are familiar with this index. It provides Canadians with air quality forecasts and health messages that seek to provide Canadians with balanced information regarding the benefits of maintaining an active lifestyle versus the risks associated with prolonged outdoor exposure to air pollution.
Again, our approach has been to provide Canadians and communities with the tools to help them make informed decisions and take meaningful actions to reduce health risks for themselves and their families.
Our government set the Canadian ambient air quality standards, in 2013. These new health-based Canadian ambient air quality standards set the bar, so to speak, for managing the two key components of smog: fine particulate matter, and ground level ozone.
Over the last decade, under the clean air regulatory agenda, this government has enacted a series of regulations to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles. This initiative for improved air quality overall translates into reduced health risks, particularly during heat events.
Finally, allow me to highlight how we are working with Canadians to help them adapt to a changing climate. In 2010-11, Health Canada held a series of workshops, in Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Windsor, Winnipeg, and Vancouver, just to discuss how to bring health authorities and community planners together to address health and the built environment.
Research on extreme heat and air quality is being conducted across Canada to inform policy decisions at the local level. The findings are being shared at all levels of government, so that communities can develop approaches that fit their particular needs within their own timeframe.
For example, the City of Windsor has developed urban recommendations that were submitted to their city council as part of its broader climate change adaptation strategy. The city is presently working with Health Canada on improving thermal comfort in its urban parks and playgrounds to improve healthy and active living. Similar success stories are occurring in other partner communities all across Ontario.
Results from community projects will be disseminated to stakeholders across Canada in presentations and case studies to help raise awareness and to support action at the local level.
In additions, Health Canada has in place a webinar series called “Cool Communities”, which is helping to share the results and lessons learned from community-based initiatives with a national and international audience.
Through this effort we are linking public health officials, landscape architects, planners, local, provincial and federal government employees, and academics so that they can share best practices.
Indeed, since 2007 our government has invested over $2 billion towards 1,400 green infrastructure projects across Canada through a number of targeted programs as part of building Canada and Canada's economic action plan.
Now that I have outlined the benefits and early successes of our current collaborative approach with provinces and municipalities, I would like to tell members why this government will not be supporting Bill C-579, and why we will instead continue to support ongoing collaborative efforts.
Bill C-579 would duplicate co-operative federal efforts that the government has already put in place with the provinces and municipalities to adapt changes in climate and mitigate health risks. The bill would also create jurisdictional overlaps with provinces, which could have a negative impact on current co-operative efforts under way with several municipalities. The jurisdictional overlaps created by the bill would also make the government accountable for activities over which it has no control.
The NDP simply need to realize that the solution to everything is not a new national strategy and broad spending promises. The legislation should not be wholly surprising to this House given that its genesis is from a party that is proposing a $20 billion carbon tax.
Even laying aside the lopsided approach proposed in the bill, we simply cannot support legislation that so clearly infringes on provincial, territorial and municipal jurisdictions.
Our government has already established effective programming through the clean air agenda without the need for Bill C-579. The work we are already undertaking with respect to the air quality health index allows Canadians to limit their exposure to air pollution while our health-based Canadian ambient air quality standards will improve air quality, thus reducing health risks during heat waves.
More importantly, through our heat resiliency initiative and the successful implementation of heat alert and response systems, we are creating awareness of the dangers to one's health from extreme heat events.
A 2010 report of the Office of the Auditor General highlighted the successes of the heat resiliency initiative in generating and sharing information for use. Most importantly, the audit report stated that this government is creating awareness that extreme heat is a health concern and is making that information available and understandable to Canadians.
By continuing to work with willing communities and targeting funding to address local concerns related to air quality and extreme heat, this government is taking concrete actions to protect and promote the health of Canadians.
To reiterate and to conclude, Bill C-579 is not required to protect Canadians from the health impacts associated with extreme heat.