Debates of Sept. 30th, 2014

The Environment

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to give the Conservatives an idea that might get them re-elected. Does that get their attention?

Polling shows clearly that the majority of Canadians are ready to pay more to reduce CO₂ emissions. They are ready to pay more to put a price on carbon.

One would think that the parties would pay attention to what Canadians indicate they want, but let us look at the political realities around here.

The Conservatives have no plan to reduce CO₂. They have no plan to put a price on carbon. On the contrary, they subsidize big oil and gas companies, and not even Canadian companies.

Here is an enlightening fact. Since 2009, thanks to Conservative inaction, Canada's carbon emissions have been steadily going up, not down, and that rise is expected to continue.

There are real costs to this inaction. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has estimated that without real action, climate change will cost Canada $5 billion a year just six years from now. By 2050, it predicts we will be paying between $21 billion and $43 billion each year.

The Liberals, in true Liberal fashion, say that they are ready to put a price on carbon, they just will not say what kind, or when or how.

The New Democrats, to be different than the Liberals, decided a decade ago, and I was there, that they were in favour of cap and trade. They do not really know how it works, because they do not really know much about business. However, they are for cap and trade, even though it would be bureaucratic, expensive and it would not work.

Therefore, where does that leave the Green Party?

The Green Party of Canada understands that we need to shift steadily to reduce CO₂ and foster renewable sustainable energy sources. It has to be done in an orderly manner so as not to kill the Canada goose that lays the economic eggs. However, it has to be done steadily and progressively so we can build Canadian green technologies, create Canadian jobs, remain competitive internationally and save a very nice planet.

The fix is simple: put a price on carbon. Pay a little now to avoid paying a lot more in a few short years.

We have seen it implemented very successfully in Scandinavian and European countries, and even in British Columbia. That is why the Green Party of Canada is totally in favour of a price on CO₂, under a method called “carbon fee and dividend”. People just have to Google it.

A big misconception is that people will be directly taxed from a carbon fee, which is not true. The Conservatives actively try to promote this untruth, so either they are wilfully misleading the public or they do not understand how carbon fee and dividend works.

No Canadian will be taxed under carbon fee and dividend. This fee would be applied only at the source. Producers would pass the cost on, but to alleviate the cost to consumers, the revenue collected from this fee would be given directly back to each and every Canadian on an equal per capita basis.

The benefits of carbon fee and dividend are clear, and they extend to the environment, the economy and to every Canadian.

The NDP should support it because it will reduce poverty at the same time it reduces CO₂.

The Liberals should support it because sooner or later they have to come off the fence and pick some kind of price on carbon and this is the best alternative.

The Conservatives especially should support it because it is market driven, predictable, fair, creates no new bureaucracy or increased government costs and not one penny goes to government. It might just save their hold on government in the next election.

Therefore, will the government consider carbon fee and dividend?

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

Mr. Speaker, our government's record is very clear. We have taken decisive action on the environment while protecting our economy.

Engaging in or moving forward with either a national carbon tax or a national cap-and-trade scheme would be out of step with the United States, our largest trading partner, and would compromise our economic competitiveness. It could also lead to significant regional impacts on investment and jobs in trade-exposed sectors, given the integration of the North American economy.

Instead, our government is implementing a sector-by-sector regulatory approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Regulations are being designed to respond to individual sectoral circumstances while spurring the innovation needed to decouple emissions growth from economic growth, balancing concern for both the environment and the economy.

This approach is driving real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada while ensuring that Canadian companies remain competitive and that job creation opportunities are maintained across the economy. Our government has already put in place regulations for two of the largest sources of emissions in this country: the transportation and the electricity generation sectors.

Expanding on our record at the recent climate summit in New York, the Minister of the Environment announced further regulatory action on both light- and heavy-duty vehicles. Moreover, we also announced our government's intent to regulate hydrofluorocarbons, HFCs, a group of greenhouse gases that if left unregulated would increase substantially in the next 10 to 15 years. These gases can have a warming potential up to 1,000 to 3,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

To complement these ongoing regulatory efforts, our government has also made significant investments to begin Canada's transition to a clean energy economy. These investments will further drive emissions reductions as well as support the development of the clean technology sector in Canada.

Moving forward, our government will continue to look for opportunities to take action on climate change in a manner that reduces GHG emissions while maintaining job creation and economic growth for our neighbours.

This is real action on the environment. This is leadership.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe it. The Conservatives say they want regulations. The industries do not want regulations. Most Conservatives and most countries do not believe in regulations.

Two of the most pressing problems facing Canada are the large and growing income gap and too much CO². We know that more and more Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, and the gap between rich and poor is way too large. We know that both have real economic impacts.

With carbon fee and dividend, we have a simple solution that will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Big companies like Shell and BP want a price on carbon. The Conservatives are not listening.

As well, it would go a long way to reducing poverty and providing a basic income for each and every Canadian.

In light of all these facts, in light of the proven success of carbon pricing, in light of the potential for dividends to help families make ends meet, will the Conservatives listen and take enlightened self-interest and consider carbon fee and dividend?

To repeat, it might just get them re-elected.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of our record.

We are a founding member of the climate and clean air coalition that is focused on taking immediate action to address climate change.

As a result of collective action by governments, consumers, and businesses, Canada's 2020 GHG emissions are projected to be 128 megatonnes lower, relative to a scenario with no action.

We are accomplishing all of this without a job-killing carbon tax, which would raise the price of everything.

Health

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

Mr. Speaker, just on that follow-up I can say that this is a government that receives fossil awards.

In June, I put a question to the Conservative government, which was how it could claim that Canada was a leader in maternal health if aboriginal women in this country do not have access to the support they need. I was asking because we had just learned that a maternal health program managed by first nations on 14 Manitoba reserves was going to lose all of its funding despite assessments showing the program is very effective.

Like many other Canadians, I was having a difficult time balancing the claims of the government with the evidence I was presented with. Naturally the Minister of Health replied with general statistics related to the delivery of aboriginal health care, which we know is a federal and not a provincial responsibility. However, the numbers were related to general health care and not maternal health.

It was like answering a question about car repairs with a statement of fact about the money used to purchase gasoline. That is the way the government operates and we see it time and again. What it did not do was explain how a program that was delivering results on 14 Manitoba reserves was being cut and also why.

Part of the discussion that was making things less than clear was the government commitment to maternal health overseas and the wild government claims that New Democrats somehow do not support that notion. Again, this is not only intentionally wrong in both spirit and fact, but it also leaves those communities in Manitoba struggling for answers when they felt they had managed to get it right on this front.

Let me be crystal clear. The NDP fully supports maternal health overseas. What we do not support is the government's piecemeal attempt at maternal health. It is an approach that denies funding on a political and ideological basis to organizations providing essential services to women and their children. Women in Canada need support too.

According to Statistics Canada, the infant mortality rate among first nations in Manitoba is approximately twice that of the general population. That is completely unacceptable and cutting programs that can challenge that statistic is unacceptable too.

Will the minister reverse the decision and reinstate funding for this vital maternal health program?

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House today to speak to our government's continued support for maternal and child health initiatives, including for first nations and Inuit. This year alone, our government is investing over $150 million to support healthy child development programming and services in first nations and Inuit communities.

I would also like to make one thing perfectly clear for all colleagues in the House. There have been no cuts to maternal child health programs for Manitoba first nations. Indeed, it is our Conservative government that renewed the aboriginal maternal child health program in 2010 and we are investing $23.8 million this year alone. Since 2006, our government has spent approximately $169 million under the child health program. Our overall current funding supports home visits by nurses and family visitors to almost 1,500 families in approximately 185 first nation communities.

One example of this programming is the maternal child health program, which enables home visits by nurses and family visitors for first nations women and families with young children. Through a case management approach, the needs of pregnant women and new parents are assessed. Healthy, prenatal and postnatal lifestyles are promoted and links are made to other needed community services. We are seeing significant improvements in first nation communities with this programming, such as higher proportions of first nations children being breastfed for longer than six months and increased screening for developmental milestones, prenatal risk factors and existing health conditions.

At this stage of the funding cycle, the government is well aware that all partners involved in these initiatives are anxious to receive confirmation of future funding and I would like to assure the House that the health and well-being of mothers and their children remain a priority for our government.

In addition to the maternal child health program, Health Canada invests $12.7 million per year in the Canada prenatal nutrition program for first nations and Inuit. This program focuses on pregnant women and women with infants up to 12 months of age, supporting activities related to nutrition screening, education and counselling, maternal nourishment, and breastfeeding promotion and support.

The Public Health Agency of Canada also administers the community action program for children, providing funding to community-based groups to develop and deliver prevention and early intervention programs focusing on vulnerable children from birth to six years of age and for their families.

The government also supports a number of other programs and services related to maternal and child health for first nations and Inuit, including the aboriginal head start on reserve program, which provides $49 million annually to nurture the healthy growth and development of children from birth to six years of age in first nation communities by meeting their emotional, social, health, nutritional, cultural, and psychological needs.

The brighter futures program supports the well-being of children and families through a community development approach. Activities can include mental health counselling, youth activity programming, culture camps, and school breakfast programs.

There is also the fetal alcohol spectrum disorder program, which provides approximately $40 million to support first nations and Inuit communities to educate and raise awareness about the impacts of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Activities include developing mentoring programs to stop or reduce alcohol use during pregnancy, facilitating access to earlier diagnoses, and building capacity among front-line staff.

Finally, there is the children's oral health initiative, which provides over $5 million annually to promote good oral health initiatives.

In closing, our government recognizes that improving the health of first nations and Inuit is a shared undertaking among federal, provincial and territorial governments.

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

That is quite interesting, Mr. Speaker, because on one hand, she says there are not cuts and then, on the other hand, she says people are anxiously waiting to hear about the funding.

Again, there is a dismantling of the strengthening families maternal child health program that we see happening. This is a regional service of Canada's first nations maternal health program and was developed with the support of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. The program is a key contributor to the health, safety and well-being of 14 Manitoba first nation communities. It oversees the development and coordination of programs, including the growing great kids curriculum, home visits and a peer support component, all of which improve the lives of women, children and families.

All of that will be lost. Having the government tell us about other programs that may or may not replace them does not explain why the government is choosing to cut a program that has been working very well.

Again, will the government do the right thing and reinstate funding for this vital maternal health program so that it can go past 2015? Will it give these communities an answer?

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

Mr. Speaker, my well-meaning colleague is jumping the gun. There have been no cuts to maternal child health programs for Manitoba first nations.

Through budget 2010, our government announced a five-year funding cycle for this program. At this stage of the funding cycle, our government is demonstrating good stewardship in reviewing all the evidence and outcomes from these investments.

We continue to invest in programs and services that support first nations and Inuit communities, including maternal and child health programs. This year alone, our government is investing over $150 million to support healthy child development programming and services for first nations and Inuit communities. This includes $23.8 million for the maternal child health program and $12.7 million for the first nations and Inuit component of the Canada prenatal nutrition program.

These programs and services support first nations and Inuit healthy pregnancies, healthy births, and healthy child development.

Natural Resources

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in adjournment proceedings to pursue a question I asked on June 19, before the House adjourned for the summer recess. I am pleased that the question I raised then allows me to return to an issue of fundamental importance to my constituents.

I hold nine separate town hall meetings twice a year in my riding. At the last series of town halls, as one would expect, the question of the threat of supertankers loaded with bitumen and diluent, the threat of twin pipelines from northern Alberta to Kitimat, and the other project, the one that would expand pipelines to Vancouver for more bitumen diluent coming out of Vancouver harbour, were top of mind for my constituents.

In any case, the question I asked of the Prime Minister on June 19 was whether the Prime Minister would be prepared to force the Enbridge project down our throats if the Province of British Columbia continued to oppose it.

There is a constellation of opposition to the Enbridge project, the risky twinned pipeline from Kitimat to Alberta bringing a toxic fossil fuel condensate called diluent to be stirred into a solid called bitumen to bring it out the other side, and two different sets of tankers, one set bringing diluent and leaving and another collecting diluent mixed with bitumen and leaving offshore. The entire scheme poses unacceptable risks to British Columbia.

When I speak of the constellation of opposition, it really cannot be called a protest. We are talking about the Province of British Columbia itself. Minister of the Environment Mary Polak immediately, on the NEB decision and the cabinet of this country approving the project, said, “No way. Our conditions still are not met”.

However, that is not the only opposition. There is the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, and of course, first nations and the majority of British Columbia residents.

When I asked the question about forcing the project down our throats, I was thinking specifically of the fact that this particular Prime Minister signed a rather famous letter in 2001, generally referred to as the Alberta firewall letter. At the time, the Prime Minister was president of the National Citizens Coalition, and he signed it as the top signatory, immediately followed by Tom Flanagan and others from Alberta.

What they wrote Premier Klein was this:

It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction.

This was the essence of my question. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources who answered it at the time evaded this fundamental question of federal-provincial jurisdiction and conflict. What many British Columbians want to ask the Prime Minister and his cabinet is how far they will go to push a project that British Columbians have rejected.

Since the time I asked that question, we have had a substantial development, with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Tsilhqot’in case. I may be the first member of Parliament to speak to that here on the very last day of September, because the decision came down in the summer. What a phenomenal decision. What a clear statement that first nations' title is what it is: it is title. It is not just a matter of consultation. It is actually a matter of first nations having the right to say, “No, we will not allow our land to be destroyed”.

Under the circumstances, when will the current government admit that the Enbridge project it has approved will never be built?

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

Mr. Speaker, our decision is based on the conclusions of an independent science-based review panel. After carefully reviewing the independent regulator's recommendation on the northern gateway project, the government accepted the recommendation to impose 209 conditions to ensure that this project meets the highest safety standards. The panel heard from nearly 1,500 participants in 21 communities and reviewed 175,000 pages of evidence prior to making its recommendation.

This is another step in the process. It will now be up to the proponent to demonstrate to the regulator and Canadians how it will meet those over 200 conditions. It will also have to apply for regulatory permits and authorizations from federal, provincial, and municipal governments.

Finally, consultations with first nations communities are required under many of the conditions as part of the process for regulatory authorizations and permits. It also must fulfill its commitment to engage with first nations and communities along the route.

It is clear that the proponent has much work to do. As a government, we have promised Canadians that projects will only move forward if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. That is the guiding principle for our plan for responsible resource development.

We have introduced a suite of measures to enhance pipeline and marine safety. Whether we are transporting energy by rail, tanker, or pipeline, our safety systems are world class. The safety record of federally regulated crude pipelines is indeed 99.999%, and our government is taking action to improve our record even further. Our overall goal is to prevent incidents from occurring at all.

In the unlikely event that an incident does occur, we must have robust and transparent emergency preparedness and response plans. We have backed this up with enhanced liability regimes to show industry that we are protecting the environment and that we are doing it very seriously.

We also recognize that aboriginal peoples must be full partners in everything we do, from ensuring the safety of our pipeline system to protecting our marine environment from incidents and sharing in the benefits of developing our resources.

In his report, Douglas Eyford made a number of recommendations to build a better relationship with aboriginal peoples. He said:

Canada must take decisive steps to build trust with Aboriginal Canadians, to foster their inclusion into the economy, and to advance the reconciliation of Aboriginal people...in Canadian society.

Our government agrees. We are moving forward with a suite of activities to enable aboriginal peoples to fully participate in the development and operation of our energy infrastructure projects, including our tanker and pipeline safety systems.

With the participation of first nations and our commitment to world-class pipeline safety systems, we are confident that Canada can capture the tremendous economic promise before it. We can diversify our energy markets and ensure prosperity for all Canadians for generations to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health has stayed late here tonight to speak to this matter, but I do think that when Standing Order 37 was written, it was ever contemplated that the minister or parliamentary secretary brought forward to respond to a question would carry other portfolios.

I have worked so positively with the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health that I am sorry to see her here tonight, forced to read notes from another parliamentary secretary with a different portfolio. Her talents are better spent on health.

As it is, I will briefly respond that the key question I continue to pursue in adjournment proceedings is one of respect for provincial jurisdiction and for the federal government finding a way to not push forward. This so-called independent review actually lacks any analytical review of the evidence before it, and it failed utterly to put forward the economic case on which it rested its decision.

In this case, the emperor has no clothes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the member opposite seek to pigeonhole a colleague. I would have expected something a little more generous from her.

However, allow me to return to the debate before us and to speak specifically to energy supply.

Few countries in the world have the enormous potential that Canada holds. It is the world's fifth-largest producer of oil and gas and the fifth-largest producer of natural gas. Canada is fortunate to have abundant oil and gas resources, but to reach its full potential, it needs more than supply: it needs to diversify its markets.

We have been clear that projects will move ahead only if they are safe for Canadians and safe for our environment.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:50 p.m.)