Andy Fillmore

[Paris Agreement, October 4th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is again my honour to rise in the House to support the motion to ratify the Paris agreement signed by Canada on April 22 in New York.

As well, I am honoured to speak in support of the motion's call for support for the Vancouver declaration signed on March 3, 2016, which calls on the federal government, provinces, and territories to develop a pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change.

Since coming to this House I have spoken many times about the matter of climate change, including on the harmful impacts of climate change in my home town in the riding I represent, Halifax, Nova Scotia. I have often told my colleagues here that I view climate change as one of the most urgent and pressing matters facing this country and this Parliament.

That is why I introduced my private member's motion M-45 to this House, which addresses the growing threat of climate change by requiring GHG analyses of federally funded infrastructure.

I am grateful to all of those in this chamber who helped pass M-45 last Wednesday, and I am also extremely encouraged, not only to see that motion pass but also to see so clearly that the great majority of members in this place, more than two-thirds of those present in last Wednesday's vote, recognize the importance of taking concrete action to address climate change. It is my sincere hope that this demonstration of support for real climate action is repeated again with respect to the motion we are debating today. I believe we have no other responsible choice.

In the spring of 2016, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change issued a call to Canadians and asked for their help to shape Canada's climate change policy. In the months that followed, certain members of Parliament from across the country hosted town hall meetings in their ridings to solicit that feedback from their constituents. On June 28, more than 250 people packed a room at Dalhousie University for my own town hall meeting on climate change. The energy was intense and Haligonians were eager.

Participants at that event were split up among 10 themed groups. Halifax residents themselves identified the themes through a social media outreach from my office the week before. Sitting in groups of 10, each group was provided with a single large sheet of paper, a handful of markers, and three simple questions on their respective themes: “What are your big ideas? What do you think government should know about this? What are your top recommendations to government on this?”

In no time, the tables were demanding a second sheet of paper and then a third and in many cases a fourth piece, easily having filled their paper with their big ideas to fight climate change. From a wide variety of backgrounds, ages, experiences, and political affiliations came an extraordinary set of ideas that our government can take to tackle climate change. My team and I took everything recorded on those sheets of paper and provided them, word for word, to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and I posted them at hfxclimateaction.ca.

The citizen turnout and the passion, the high volume, and the thoughtfulness of the feedback was such a tangible demonstration of just how strongly the people of Halifax want real climate action, but not only that, but of just how much our city wants to be a leader, an ally, in what is one of the greatest challenges facing our government and our planet today.

Then again, this cannot come as much of a surprise. I have said before that Halifax finds itself on the front lines in the battle against climate change, with the rising sea levels and the extreme weather events that go with it. The impact of continuing climate change, if not addressed, will have serious implications for Halifax and for all of the communities we love across this country.

As one of Canada's primary coastal cities, Halifax faces a clear and present danger with sea level rise. It puts the quality and quantity of our drinking water at risk, and it jeopardizes Halifax's status and viability as a great Canadian port city, a key economic driver in my riding, my province, and eastern Canada.

It stands to harm marine habitats and the commercial viability of fish stocks, like salmon and cod. Transportation infrastructure will deteriorate, and increased costs for infrastructure repair and maintenance will become a larger and larger strain on public resources.

The impact of climate change is just as threatening right across Canada, where we are surrounded by more than 200,000 kilometres of coastline, where so many of our beloved cities and communities lie, and where as my colleague the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the member for the Northwest Territories have pointed out, our indigenous communities are disproportionately affected.

That is why I am speaking in favour of ratifying the Paris agreement and supporting the Vancouver declaration. I will begin with the Paris agreement.

In December of last year, as our then new Minister of Environment and Climate Change and our Canadian delegation left for Paris to participate in climate discussions, I will admit I was very nervous.

I knew our delegation was strong and exceptionally capable and absolutely committed to a positive result, but I just was not sure how successful negotiations would be because, after all, the success of the agreement depended not only on our own government but on the capacity for consensus among many nations from across the world, each with unique interests and challenges. Previous efforts had failed, and I wondered if enough had changed in the world and here at home for the Paris negotiations to reach a better result.

Thanks in no small part to our Minister of Environment and Climate Change, things had changed, and the Paris climate talks were in so many ways a terrific success. More than 190 countries signed the agreement, each agreeing to do their part to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2° Celsius above pre-industrial levels. To date, more than 60 countries have ratified the agreement, representing over half of the world's global greenhouse gas emissions. With that we have surpassed the threshold number of 55 countries required to ratify the agreement in order for it to come into effect, and with the recent ratification by the European Union, we have achieved the requirement that those who ratify it must represent 55% of global emissions. This train is on the tracks.

The agreement is now in force. The global community is forging ahead, and we must join it.

The Paris agreement is a historic one, and it is urgent that we seize its potential. We simply cannot afford to wait any longer to support its ratification and put it into force here in Canada. The climate is changing and the impacts of global warming are closer than they have ever been. I only hope it is not too late.

Our government did its part in Paris, and now we must do our part here at home by supporting the motion before us.

Now I would like to address the Vancouver declaration. In much the same way that Canada cannot act alone to curb global emissions, our federal government cannot act alone to curb our country's emissions. We must work with provincial and territorial governments, as well as with indigenous groups to collaborate on a national plan to fight climate change.

On the heels of the Paris agreement, first ministers and indigenous leaders from across the country met in Vancouver in March of this year to discuss climate change. Parties agreed that we must transition to a low-carbon economy to ensure clean, sustainable growth, and the group committed to developing collaboratively a pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change.

At the conclusion of their talks in Vancouver, parties formed into four working groups: one on carbon pricing; one on clean technology, innovation, and jobs; one on mitigation opportunities; and one on climate resilience and adaptation. The findings of these working groups will help inform the pan-Canadian framework.

I am proud to support a government that respects the need for intergovernmental collaboration on files like the environment. At the same time, our federal government has made it clear that it will take the necessary steps to meet our international obligations.

Pricing carbon pollution, for instance, is one such step, as the Prime Minister outlined yesterday. Indeed, pricing carbon pollution was one of the commitments of the Vancouver declaration agreed to by all premiers.

I believe implementing this mechanism can be done while working with provincial governments, which are already taking concrete steps to reduce emissions within their jurisdictions.

Our government is committed to ensuring each province has the flexibility to meet its individual needs, such as in my province of Nova Scotia, where we are already leading the nation of terms of GHG reductions and where we are well on our way to meeting our 2020 target of reducing emissions to 10% below 1990 levels.

Pricing carbon pollution is only one step, and I look forward to December when provinces and territories come together again to reach a pan-Canadian framework on the entirety of clean growth and climate change.

As I said earlier, we must work together to reach a solution, for none of us alone can fight climate change. No region, no country can win this war against climate change on its own; so we must unite, bound together by our common interests, our common survival, and the trust placed in us by Canadians coast to coast to coast to take meaningful action on climate change.

I believe the Paris agreement and the Vancouver declaration are the best shot we have, and so I fervently hope that the House will join me in voting in favour of the motion that is before us.

[Infrastructure, September 26th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to conclude debate on private member's Motion No. 45. I would like to begin by thanking all my colleagues from various corners of the House who have seconded the motion and all those who have weighed in and spoken on it as well. I also thank every person and organization across Canada who has shared their insight, their encouragement and their wisdom from this motion's earliest date.

In November 2015, very shortly after the federal election that sent all of us to this place, an open letter appeared in a Halifax newspaper called The Coast, addressed to me as the then new member of Parliament for Halifax, and I would like to read a few lines:

Andy...Consider this your chance to distinguish yourself as an MP who understands what climate change will mean for his own community, and who will champion policy change with the urgency the climate crisis necessitates.

As your new constituents, we find ourselves wondering how you will live up to the high expectations this community has. How will you represent us? Where will you stand when it comes to the most important questions of our generation?

In Halifax, we have always demanded environmental leadership from our elected representatives. In many ways, we are a city of environmentalists, and what choice do we have? As one of Canada's leading coastal cities, the impact of climate change and associated sea level change in Halifax is near and frightening. Every day, the threat inches closer and closer to our shores. As the member of Parliament for Halifax, I am called to act on behalf of my constituents.

I introduced Motion No. 45 to the House because I believed at that moment in time, at the edge of what could be catastrophic climate change, and on the threshold of a $120-billion investment in infrastructure that would transform our nation, we could no longer afford to make decisions without fully understanding and considering their environmental implications.

As I have said before, I am a city planner of 25 years. I know that the way we build our communities, the kind of infrastructure we deploy will in large measure determine whether we win or lose in this battle against climate change.

Infrastructure is a key determinant of greenhouse gas emissions. If we choose poorly, without the proper data and well defined guiding principles, we risk funding infrastructure projects that lock in for years the very emissions that we must reduce and eliminate.

For that reason, we must consider whether the infrastructure investments we make today might have future risks that outweigh their short-term benefits. Therefore, logically, environmental impact must be a key consideration in the rollout of this historic infrastructure investment.

That is why my motion, Motion No. 45, would achieve this. More specific, if passed as amended, Motion No. 45 will require greenhouse gas emissions analyses to be included in applications for federally funded infrastructure projects. Further, it will, where appropriate, require government to give funding priority to projects which help us achieve our emissions reduction goals.

So as not to disadvantage small projects for which a greenhouse gas analysis would be unduly burdensome or where the project's environmental impact would be obviously negligible, Motion No. 45 would allow for responsible discretion by government to set an appropriate threshold, below which GHG analysis would not be required.

To bring action to Motion No. 45, the motion also calls for the development of an implementation plan. I know our government will work closely with provinces and municipalities, including my friends and colleagues at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, with whom I have consulted on this motion and with whom I will continue, to develop a sensible and fair framework which supports the efforts that communities across Canada are already undertaking to combat climate change.

I would like to invite colleagues one final time to support Motion No. 45 when it comes to a vote later this week. I hope I have been able to convey its merits and indeed its necessity, not only to my home city of Halifax but to our beloved communities from coast to coast to coast in Canada, which I have visited. I have seen first-hand the harmful impacts of climate change, sea level rise, and extreme weather events. They are real and they are happening now.

This week, by passing Motion No. 45, our Parliament can take a leadership role in decisive, meaningful action in the fight against climate change. In so doing, we will protect our environment for the next ones in this place: our children and our children's children. I believe we have no other responsible choice.

[Committees of the House, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, entitled “Declaration of Health Emergency by First Nations Communities in Northern Ontario”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Sickboy Podcast, May 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize three young men in my riding of Halifax who are using comedy to break down the stigma of being sick. Jeremie Saunders, Taylor MacGillivary, and Brian Stever are the creators and hosts of Sickboy Podcast. The three best friends host comedic and insightful conversations with guests living with illnesses like cancer, PTSD, anorexia, lupus, and others. The idea came to them when they observed the unusual and often uncomfortable way people react around illness.

Jeremie lives with cystic fibrosis and is working to take his positive outlook to the podcast's audience. Sickboy Podcast made the best of 2015 list on iTunes, and most recently it captured the attention of Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield, who appeared on the podcast just last week. We can all tune into Sickboy Podcast on iTunes or on its website.

Jeremie, Taylor, and Brian have done great work. They make Halifax proud.

[Committees of the House, May 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, entitled “Main Estimates 2016-17: Vote 1 under Canadian High Arctic Research Station and Votes 1, 5, 10 and L15 under Indian Affairs and Northern Development”.

[Infrastructure, May 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I consent.

[Infrastructure, May 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the question and the history, which is very interesting.

Embedded in the motion is this idea that there would be some prioritization of infrastructure projects that help to achieve our country's greenhouse gas reduction goals. A motion like this is going to have to have an implementation plan and that is the kind of detail that would be sorted out in the implementation plan.

I will take this opportunity to make one thing clear. There are projects in this country, like roads, bridges, and such, that are critically important to the prosperity and even the safety and health of our communities. This motion is not saying no to funding those, but that we should understand what the carbon profile is, what the GHG profile is. We should account for those. How else can we responsibly try to achieve our GHG reduction goals that we have committed to internationally?

Further, there is also a low threshold for municipalities that may be proposing small projects of inconsequential carbon load, particularly small municipalities that may not have the resources to conduct a full-blown analysis on the carbon profile.

[Infrastructure, May 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, this kind of motion is nothing new for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, nor for provincial governments or municipalities. Ten years ago the then Liberal government created the integrated community sustainability plan program, which linked gas tax funding for municipalities with the requirement that municipalities create an integrated sustainability plan, referred to in many cities, including my own, as a regional plan, sometimes for 20 years and sometimes for 30 years. Those went away for awhile and unfortunately now Canada is lagging behind in the climate change fight.

These groups that we are discussing, the FCM and local communities, are very familiar with this kind of approach of accounting for carbon and I believe are looking forward to this. Over the course of the summer, I will be getting those recommendations.

[Infrastructure, May 5th, 2016]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that: (a) before making decisions on infrastructure funding proposals, where federal funding exceeds $500 000, an analysis of their impact on greenhouse gas emissions is considered; and (b) where appropriate, funding priority be given to proposals which help to mitigate the impacts of climate change.

Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct honour to rise in the chamber today to introduce my private member's Motion No. 45. I would like to begin by thanking my seconder, the hon. member for Pontiac, and all my other hon. colleagues in all corners of the House who have agreed to sign on and second this motion.

As one of Canada's primary coastal cities, my riding of Halifax stands on the front line in the battle against climate change. The impact of greenhouse gas emissions if not curbed will have serious repercussions for Halifax, for Nova Scotia, and all of the communities that we so love.

A decade ago, the three orders of government and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities jointly funded a study called “Climate Smart”, a climate risk management strategy for Halifax that painted a very sobering picture of my city if climate change was not addressed.

Here is some of what that picture looks like.

Halifax's status and viability as a great Canadian port city, a key economic driver in my riding, my province, and in Eastern Canada, will be put at risk as changes in ice patterns jeopardize year-round shipping to Halifax through the Northwest Passage. Our port infrastructure will be damaged, at times irreversibly. Our local economy, and therefore the national economy, will suffer. Sea level rise will threaten the quality and quantity of our drinking water. The existing strain on our health care system will intensify as injuries from extreme weather events increase in number, and high humidity leads to higher frequency of respiratory ailments like asthma and allergies.

Climate change will harm marine habitat as well, and by extension the commercial viability of some of our most critical fish stocks, like salmon and cod. This is in a province where the fishery accounts for 10% of our GDP.

Transportation infrastructure found mostly along the coast will quickly deteriorate, and increased costs for road and rail maintenance will become a larger and larger strain on public resources.

This is the potential story of climate change in Halifax. However, the implications of uncurbed greenhouse gas emissions are equally dire right across Canada, where we are surrounded by more than 200,000 kilometres of coastline and where many upon many communities and cities lie.

The impacts do not stop at our borders. In January of this year, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, a federal department roughly the equivalent of our own Department of Infrastructure and Communities, announced grants totalling $1 billion in 13 states to help communities in dire need address climate change. One of those grants is for something new, but also something we are going to be hearing of more and more in the months and years ahead. It is a grant to pay for the resettlement of the United States' first climate refugees from the inundated shores of Louisiana. We are not talking about some far-off land. We are talking about government funded relocation of climate refugees right here on this land mass that we share with the United States.

Of this, The New York Times wrote earlier this week:

Around the globe, governments are confronting the reality that as human-caused climate change warms the planet, rising sea levels, stronger storms, increased flooding, harsher droughts and dwindling freshwater supplies could drive the world’s most vulnerable people from their homes.

Just last week, Sally Jewell, the U.S. secretary of the Interior and former Mobil Oil executive said, while visiting Ottawa, “ ...the changes are underway and they are very rapid. We will have climate refugees”.

To bring it back home, we are told that a 2° Celsius increase in global mean temperature could mean that Nova Scotia becomes an island. That is the same 2° the Paris climate accord sets out to limit us to. Just imagine the costs to government of having to extend a lifeline to the island of Nova Scotia.

We can avoid those terrible human and financial costs, but we need to act now to protect our environment, to protect our communities, and to build a resilient Canada that is prepared to adapt to the climate change that is already well under way.

I come to this House from a 20-year career as city planner. It is a career that has been dedicated to building livable, sustainable and resilient communities, in various urban, suburban and rural locales across Canada and in the northeastern U.S., but primarily, and for the past 11 years, in my home town of Halifax.

I am proud to have been a co-founder, and founding vice president, of a national organization called the Council for Canadian Urbanism. The Council for Canadian Urbanism, or CanU, was created 10 years ago by city planners, urban designers, and architects from public, private and academic practice across Canada. In 2013, in a historic moment, these community builders from across the country met in Halifax to ratify and sign the Charter for Canadian Urbanism, a copy of which hangs proudly in my office both here and at home in Halifax.

The charter is instructive in many ways for the members of the House, and today I would like to read this relevant excerpt:

Canada’s cities and communities urgently require more progressive and creative approaches in order to become more successful, sustainable, creative, livable, healthy and resilient. Implementing a better Canadian Urbanism is key to addressing our most critical challenges, including climate change, ecological integrity, economic health and global competitiveness, energy resiliency, affordability and homelessness, public health, and social inclusiveness.

It is clear that the way we build our communities, the kind of infrastructure we deploy, and how we make infrastructure funding decisions will, in large measure, determine how we face climate change and whether we win or lose the battle against it.

That brings me to my private member's motion, Motion No. 45.

Quite simply, Motion No. 45 proposes that greenhouse gas emission analyses be undertaken for infrastructure projects seeking federal funding, and where appropriate, prioritize this funding for those that mitigate the impacts of climate change.

If passed, I believe the positive impacts of Motion No. 45 will be profound and numerous, and I would like to use my time today to talk about just four of them.

First is the way in which it would increase government's capacity to make evidence-based decisions. Canadians expect us to ensure decisions are based on science, facts, and evidence, as written in the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. To this end, we must increase data-collection capacity, a directive in the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities. Motion No. 45 would further both of those goals.

The scientific evidence makes it clear: we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By having important data on GHG profiles of infrastructure proposals, as Motion No. 45 would require, our government would have the science, the facts, and the evidence to make better-informed decisions when making infrastructure-funding choices. That is a win for evidence-based decision-making, and that is a win for the environment.

Second is the way in which Motion No. 45 would help grow a strong economy while protecting the environment. Since the start of this 42nd Parliament and the Speech from the Throne, our government has recognized that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. We cannot have one without the other. Protecting the environment and growing the economy are not incompatible goals. In fact, our future success demands that we do both.

Because infrastructure spending represents a critical piece of our government's plan to grow the economy, we must ensure that the environmental impact of projects is a key consideration in the rollout of this historic investment program. The onus is on us here in this chamber to heed the call for environmentally responsible infrastructure spending, not only because it is the best hope of adapting to and combatting climate change, but also because projects with lower greenhouse gas emissions are more cost-efficient. They make use of renewable resources, and with current technologies moving away from carbon-based energy, they will last longer into the future.

In contrast, infrastructure projects with high greenhouse gas emissions and a lack of climate change resiliency further increase the many costs we know to be associated with the impacts of climate change.

Our investment in infrastructure is an investment in the future. By investing in a way that also contributes to mitigating and adapting to climate change, we have the ability to significantly amplify the outcomes of that tremendous investment. Simply put, when we invest taxpayer dollars intentionally and intelligently, we enhance our longevity and resilience, and this is not just environmental resilience, but it is economic resilience too. It helps to build an economy that works for the future, and that is what Canadians want.

The third impact of Motion No. 45 is the way in which the motion would foster environmental consciousness in government. If passed, my private member's motion would contribute to a government that keeps environmental costs and consequences in mind for all decisions. That is a government that recognizes infrastructure spending decisions can no longer be made based solely on a short-term bottom line.

Projects must not only be shovel-ready, but they must be shovel-appropriate. For that reason, we must consider whether the infrastructure investments we are making today might have future risks that outweigh their immediate benefits.

It was only this past January that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Natural Resources announced a set of five interim principles for major projects designed to restore trust in the environmental assessment process. Among these principles was a commitment to assess the direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions of major projects.

These interim principles represent a return of a government that takes climate change seriously, and Motion No. 45 is a natural complement to and accelerator of this effort.

The fourth positive impact of Motion No. 45, and the last that I will address today, is the way in which the motion would assist us in fulfilling our international commitments.

It was only recently that the Prime Minister signed the Paris climate agreement thereby agreeing to take domestic measures as soon as possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to keep the global temperature from rising more than 2°C.

To contribute to this effort and regain Canada's environmental credibility in the world, we must consider the environmental impacts of our government's historic infrastructure spending program. This is both an opportunity and a responsibility when it comes to our international standing and the global response to climate change.

In the same way that greenhouse gas emissions transcend the boundaries of the places where they originate, so too would the benefits of greener infrastructure. If we prioritize greenhouse gas reductions in our infrastructure spending, the positive benefits of that extend across the country, from our bustling urban centres to our beautiful rural communities to our beloved national parks, and yes, even beyond our country's borders. Motion No. 45 would position Canada to be an active and respected global partner in the worldwide fight against climate change.

At the outset of my remarks today, I painted a bleak picture of my riding of Halifax, a picture of what could happen to my beloved city if meaningful action is not taken to reduce GHGs. But there is another possibility. It is a future for Halifax where air and water are clean, where we consciously mitigate against climate change with every decision we make, where the infrastructure we build is resilient against climate change and sea level rise, where we live in healthy, walkable, and vibrant communities, and where looking after the environment is the surest way to ensure sustainable economic prosperity. That is the future I am working for as the member of Parliament for Halifax, for my community, and for all Canadian communities.

I must applaud the environmental organizations in my city for their work calling on government to address climate change, organizations like the Ecology Action Centre, the Dalhousie University Sustainability Office, the Citizens' Climate Lobby, NSPIRG working groups, the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition, and Sierra Club Atlantic, to name just a few, as well as numerous clean tech and green tech entrepreneurs in Halifax like CarbonCure, Green Power Labs, LightSail Energy, SabrTech, and Scotian WindFields Inc. There are so many more. I am very proud to heed the call today of those climate leaders.

I am so proud of this government and this cabinet for putting a stake in the ground to say that Canada is back as a global climate change champion. The work of the Prime Minister and many others in Paris and around the world has made us proud, but moreover, they have provided hope for the future for our children and for our children's children, and that has made us grateful.

Some might worry that the environmental assessment process like the one I propose is too ambitious, but I ask them to remember that there was once a time when Canada's environmental assessment process was rigorous and respected. In the decade since then we have lost time but it is not too late to make up for lost ground. It is more important now than ever before to take decisive and meaningful action to combat climate change. My motion represents that opportunity.

If agreed to, Motion No. 45 would send a clear message to Canadians that the government is committed to building a Canada they can be proud of and one that they will feel confident leaving to their children.

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his words, particularly the comments around infrastructure. As a city planner in suburban, rural, and urban areas for some 25 years, I understand well the importance of credible investment in infrastructure.

The truth is that our government has inherited a shocking situation of deferred maintenance and investment in infrastructure over 10 years that has left a ticking time bomb of deferred financial and human health and safety liability for the government to now deal with.

One of the things I am most proud of in the government's budget is the historic infrastructure investment. Far from putting our children and grandchildren into debt to pay for this investment, we are investing in their future and, in the long term, making life much better for them. I wonder if the hon. member would agree that this is in fact the time to be making enormous investments in Canadian infrastructure after a very long drought.