Mr. Speaker, the third petition concerns the cuts to the CBC/Radio-Canada, which have gotten a strong reaction from many residents of Drummond. They are calling for stable and adequate funding for CBC/Radio-Canada.
House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2021, with 11% of the vote.
Petitions October 29th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, the third petition concerns the cuts to the CBC/Radio-Canada, which have gotten a strong reaction from many residents of Drummond. They are calling for stable and adequate funding for CBC/Radio-Canada.
Petitions October 29th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, the second petition seeks to save Canada Post. We heard questions about this today in the House of Commons. It is a very hot topic in my riding as well.
Petitions October 29th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions that my constituents in Drummond sent to me this summer. They worked very hard.
The first petition concerns their desire to establish an energy efficiency program for owners of houses, buildings, shops, and businesses that would support job creation and the environment.
Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act October 28th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague, who gave an excellent speech and demonstrated that she is very knowledgeable about this issue.
A Department of Foreign Affairs document indicates that Canada dragged its feet on signing trade agreements with countries of strategic interest. While the Conservative government was wasting time negotiating less important agreements, it neglected agreements that are of great value to the Canadian economy and create jobs in Canada. This incompetence on the part of the Conservatives is deplorable.
I am wondering what my colleague thinks of this document, which shows the Conservative government's shortcomings when it comes to negotiating free trade agreements.
Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act October 28th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his remarks.
I would like to know why the Conservatives did nothing when they received the document from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development showing that Canada took too long to sign trade agreements with strategic markets because it wasted resources and energy negotiating agreements with governments of smaller countries just because they were friends and allies, instead of signing agreements with countries like this one that would really have benefited Canada and its people.
Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act October 28th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech.
A certain document prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development shows that Canada dragged its feet on signing trade agreements with important markets that are of strategic interest to Canada.
In fact, the government allegedly wasted many resources and a great deal of time negotiating agreements with far-right governments, small Latin American countries and other countries that are of no strategic interest to Canada but are friends of the Conservative government. Unfortunately this has not helped our economic development or our trade.
Could my colleague comment on this document from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development?
Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act October 23rd, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I recognize the work that my hon. colleague tried to do when she was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment.
Unfortunately, when she was in that role in 2012, massive cuts were made to the budget of Parks Canada. This resulted in the loss of a third of the scientific staff complement, the very people who enable us to properly assess ecological integrity and create parks that will best improve wildlife conservation and respect our convention on ecological biodiversity.
This park is a good start, but it is not the park the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the general public were hoping for. Indeed, we were together at the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development when we worked on the national conservation plan. Nonetheless, we must now enforce it and we are way behind. Only 10% of land is protected, while the target is 17% by 2020, which is fast approaching.
The NDP will form the government before then, which will improve things.
Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act October 23rd, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question.
It is the same as what is happening with the Rouge national park. The Conservative government simply wants to do what it wants. It disregards consultations and ignores the concerns that have been raised about preserving ecological integrity.
My colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River will be in committee to make sure that the Conservatives listen to reason, and I hope that they will be able to understand how important this issue is.
This bill on the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve is just as important. The public was calling for the biggest among the three proposed plans, but unfortunately what came out was the smallest plan that offered the least value in term of conservation.
Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act October 23rd, 2014
Mr. Speaker, to begin, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, who is doing excellent work on the Rouge national urban park. That bill will soon be before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I am eager to work with her on the committee because I know she is doing excellent work on that file. She has consulted organizations and stakeholders about the park. Unfortunately, the Rouge park also has some problems, which I mentioned during a speech I gave recently.
I want to focus on the fact that Canada signed the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. That is an important thing to remember because we have obligations. In 2013, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said this:
Canada’s targets under the United Nations’ Convention on Biological Diversity are key to conserving biodiversity.... Achieving them will require a concerted effort from many players, from governments to businesses to individual Canadians.
The commissioner's report stated that the government needs to do much more than it is currently doing. As I said earlier in one of my answers, the target is 17% by 2020, and we are just at 10%.
This is not just about protecting land. This is about protecting land of significant ecological value because of its biological diversity. As I said, the national conservation plan is very important, and the NDP is very proud to have worked on the plan together with the other parties. What we have to do now is implement the national conservation plan, and we have to do it fast.
Unfortunately, the bills we have seen recently do not truly address what we call ecological integrity, which, I should point out, is part of the Canada National Parks Act. It is very important to remember that we have this problem and that we also have a problem when it comes to actual implementation, be it for the Sable Island park, the Rouge park proposal, or now, the Nááts’ihch’oh park. MPs have raised concerns, but so have the experts, of course.
I would like to go back to something. Of course we are supporting the bill because we are in favour of creating parks. There were a large number of consultations, and we understand that this park is largely a proper response. For years, there were consultations and studies on this. However, we are concerned about the Conservative government's attitude toward parks. Cuts to Parks Canada in the 2012 budget resulted in the elimination of one-third of scientific positions. Clearly, it could be difficult to enforce regulations governing conservation and the development of new parks when one-third of the scientific capacity was cut with one fell swoop in 2012.
As well, we want to give Canadians the opportunity to go to national parks; however, the season has been shortened, services have been reduced in the parks, and fees have been increased. The Conservatives' approach is somewhat odd.
However, according to a report published by the Canadian Parks Council in 2011, Canadian parks support more than 64,000 full-time jobs and generate $2.9 billion in employment income as well as $337 million in revenue for the government.
This shows the importance of national parks and why we need to stop pitting nature against economic development. On the contrary, the environment and the development of new parks will spur economic development, as was mentioned in the report published in 2011 by the Canadian Parks Council.
I mentioned this earlier, but I will say it again: the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development said that budget cuts at Parks Canada are adversely affecting the integrity of the parks and the environment. Cuts definitely do not help.
This brings me to Bill S-5, the Nááts'ihch'oh national park reserve act. We are disappointed about some aspects of the bill, but we are happy to support it nonetheless, because at least we are adding to the number of national parks.
The bill followed consultations revealing that the public overwhelmingly supported creating a park that is bigger than the one we have now, but the Conservatives ignored that fact. They ignored public opinion and decided to protect only the smallest of the three possible zones. They failed to include some very important wildlife areas, which is really disappointing. We are afraid that the park is not big enough, especially because the vital breeding areas for caribou and some of the headwaters of the Nahanni River are not protected. Those are some of our concerns regarding the creation of this park.
I would like to share a quote from Alison Woodley, the parks program national director for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. During the Senate committee's review of Bill S-5, she said:
Unfortunately, I have to comment today that the park boundary proposed in Bill S-5 will not achieve this conservation goal because it leaves out much of the important habitat for woodland caribou, including critical calving and breeding grounds, as well as for grizzly bears and Dall's sheep. It leaves out a significant part of the Little Nahanni River, which is a major tributary of the South Nahanni River and includes some of the most important habitat in the area. Bill S-5 falls far short of being a significant conservation achievement.
Ms. Woodley specializes in parks and conservation projects.
Earlier I said that this was unfortunate, because it is a good idea and the consultation was done. Unfortunately, the result was a disappointing bill, and it will not help Canada achieve the Aichi targets in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity that we need to meet. We committed to this convention and we signed it. The Conservative government needs to be much more proactive and needs to take more significant action.
I can say that when the NDP takes power in 2015, we will be much more proactive about creating parks, and we will ensure that everything will be based on solid science. We will not cut the number of scientists by one-third. On the contrary, we will invest in science to create new parks and comply with the convention. When we create a new park, we will ensure that it will protect critical habitats and important rivers as much as possible.
Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act October 23rd, 2014
Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave me a good answer in saying that the boundaries of the park have really been poorly drawn.
Let me quote Alison Woodley, the national director of the parks program for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. She was present when the bill was before the Senate committee:
Unfortunately, I have to comment today that the park boundary proposed in Bill S-5 will not achieve this conservation goal because it leaves out much of the important habitat for woodland caribou, including critical calving and breeding grounds, as well as for grizzly bears and Dall's sheep. It leaves out a significant part of the Little Nahanni River, which is a major tributary of the South Nahanni River and includes some of the most important habitat in the area.
We support the creation of new parks and we are pleased to see this new park. However, why are the Conservatives not giving more consideration to the recommendations of experts to ensure the ecological integrity and proper protection of parks? It is not true that protecting parks will harm the economy, quite the contrary. I will let my colleague answer the following question: what could be done to make the the Conservative government realize that park creation is also good for the economy?