Linda Duncan

[Electronic Commerce Protection Act, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the member for Churchill. I have noticed in the legislation that while individual private persons who are harmed by spyware or spam have the opportunity to initiate proceedings before the commission, there is no provision in the legislation to allow the court to award costs or require the accused to pay for the costs of initiating those proceedings.

I am wondering whether the member would think that might be advantageous.

[Electronic Commerce Protection Act, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Churchill for her cogent comments on an extremely serious piece of legislation for the protection of consumers.

I have noted that despite the fact that the government is supposed to be paying serious attention, it is not actually going to be an offence in the bill. It is designated as a mere technical violation, which raises a lot of issues about whether this is being treated seriously.

I would like to ask the hon. member whether she shares my concerns with the limitations on the right to intervene. Because the bill specifically limits the right to intervene in any proceedings to only the three commissions, by nature of statutory interpretation that could be argued to exclude all other parties, including all other people who may be impacted. This goes to the earlier question about class actions. In my jurisdiction class actions are extremely narrowly defined. I think that should be looked at by the committee.

I note the commissioner may disclose information but is not required to, either on any violations they have identified or on any actions taken. There is also no certainty provided by the government. It has not tabled its enforcement strategy with its bill. Does it fully intend to charge and try all violators, or is it planning to issue mere warnings? If it does take these actions, are they going to be made public, for example, in a public registry?

[Renewable Energy, May 6th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am fully in favour of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

Based on what we have heard from the government today on this motion, I have to say that the government simply does not get it. Clean energy, clean electricity is not synonymous with renewable power. It is incumbent upon the government to understand the difference and to understand why it is important to embrace renewable energy and embrace a membership in IRENA.

I can give three simple examples of where the government just does not get it. The first is the 2009 budget. The second is the 2008 fall economic update. The third is turning the corner. If we go back and turn the corner, we will understand what happened in the fall economic update and what happened in the budget. It is the same message throughout. The government's definition of clean electricity in all three documents does not include the words renewable power anywhere. The government just does not understand what it is.

The government's definition of clean energy is “clean coal”, which no government in this nation has committed to fully. However, to its credit, the Alberta government is ahead of everyone else in the country. The Conservatives do not understand what the rest of the world is embracing and we are losing our competitive edge.

I absolutely support the motion put forward by the hon. member. It is not even enough that we join IRENA. We need to step up to the plate. It is one thing for the government to say that it cannot take action on climate change because Canada will be at an economic disadvantage but it is another thing when it says that Canada will not join IRENA and give assistance to developing nations in transfer technology and help them ensure their energy supply is clean. That would be far too consistent.

The government gave a major economic hit to renewables in the budget. Sure, money was provided previously, but a lot of it was provided through the historic NDP 2005 budget. Sure, money was previously given by the government toward renewables. In fact, the program was so popular it was oversubscribed. However, the government cut that program to the quick. There is no new money for renewables. It has slammed the door in the face of a burgeoning Canadian energy sector. It does not want renewable power in Canada. It would be perfectly happy if that whole industry were to move to the United States and all the investment came from Europe. The government does not want to build our renewable industry in Canada.

What did President Obama do in the first month that he was elected? He gave a three year extension in tax credits to wind power, solar power and other revenue producers. He gave tax credits to investors in renewable energy and grants to producers who could not benefit from the tax credits. He provided $4.5 billion in loans and grants for smart grid. Why is that significant? It is because in order to bring renewable energy on stream, smart grid is needed. The U.S. simply cannot tie in to the massive grids that we support in Canada. Money was also given to energy manufacturers as an incentive for supply renewable energy.

The Prime Minister's budget and policies are completely contrary to American policies and contrary to what we are told day after day by the hon. Minister of the Environment. Every week he tells us that he has met again with the Americans in our Canada-U.S. dialogue on energy security and climate change and says that he is in harmony. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Conservative government has refused to give its support to renewables, while President Obama is embracing the renewable sector and understands what the Europeans are saying. He also understands what the International Energy Agency is saying, which the member across the floor proudly espouses. Even that agency, which premises most of its work on fossil fuels, says that it is time to shift to investing in renewables. It says that it is time to get off the fossil fuel bandwagon if countries want to remain competitive.

I do not see harmonization in our energy and climate change policies. On the contrary, we refuse to join IRENA. We refuse to take action on climate change. We refuse to invest in renewable power.

To my regret, the hon. member voted in favour of that budget. I am happy he has come forward with this motion. It is showing clearly that he thinks the government should be shifting in a different direction. We need to be altering this budget. We need to be putting money back into renewables, including support for lesser developed nations.

In March of this year, contrary to what we were told by the hon. Minister of the Environment, the United States moved forward in actually enacting legislation in support of renewables. Just this past month, the United Staets tabled the American clean energy and security act of 2009. That was put forward to the public for discussion before they tabled the bill. Imagine that. The Americans opened up to the U.S. public and asked what they thought of their innovation and proposed investment and regulatory measures in favour of renewables. That was tabled by the chair of the U.S. energy and commerce committee and the chair of the subcommittee on energy and environment. Clearly, their energy and environment agencies are coming together and embracing renewables.

The release of that act is laudable, for two reasons. One is the transparency of the process, the reaching out to Americans and asking what they think of the proposal. Is it going far enough? Are we going in the right direction with our climate change and energy policy?

Second, the Americans are taking legislative action. Not only are they endorsing the move toward investment and renewables, they are actually imposing legislative requirements and measures to incent renewables. That includes a legally binding renewable electricity standard requiring all retail electricity suppliers with annual sales over a million megawatts per hour to supply 25% of electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Would it not be nice if we saw our federal government doing the same?

These measures will provide cleaner air, reduced pollution and security of supply for the United States, which wants to get off its reliance on fossil fuels. We see leadership in the United States, the political will to legislate and to bring forward renewables.

A second legislative measure that was just announced by the United States is new regulations by the United States Environmental Protection Agency for ethanol. It is a renewable fuel standard requiring 20% reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases when they produce ethanol. What is Canada's response? It is incenting more use of ethanol but no requirement to reduce the greenhouse gases in production. Does that sound like harmonization in energy and climate change policy? It is far from the truth. It is completely contrary.

Where is the action by the government? Surely the government has been briefed on these measures. The Minister of the Environment has repeatedly advised the House that this government's policies are moving in tandem with the United States, that the Canada-U.S. dialogue is going well.

Where are the long-awaited, long-promised air pollution standards? Why the delay? Where are the long-awaited, long-promised legally binding rules for greenhouse gases? Why did the government strike this blow to the Canadian renewable energy sector just when it was burgeoning and could be competitive? Why is the government ignoring the advice of leading international agencies, including the International Energy Agency, and all of the leading agencies of the western world, most of which are embracing the International Renewable Energy Agency?

Will the government remove its blinders and seek briefings by knowledgeable, independent experts on the renewable energy sector? Will the government truly turn the corner and revise its budget and strategy on achieving cleaner electricity and addressing climate change to support this country's renewable energy sector?

With our economy suffering, including the fossil fuel industry, why is the government deserting this sector for the future? European investors are reported to be shifting their investments to the U.S. renewable sector. Our companies will lose out. Will the government step up to the plate and support competitiveness of Canada's renewable sector? Will it step forward and at least join IRENA and support the lesser developed nations of the world that are trying to move forward as well in addressing climate change?

[Energy Efficiency Act, May 6th, 2009]

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the intervention on my behalf. I have no problem answering the question.

From my personal perspective as the member of Parliament for Edmonton—Strathcona and for my party, we do not care what measure is taken as long as it sets the appropriate value on carbon so we actually start driving change.

This debate over cap and trade versus carbon tax has to end, and it has to end here today. Everybody worldwide has admitted that we must have the right value on carbon and we must put that in place now to drive the change as expeditiously as possible.

[Energy Efficiency Act, May 6th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the question, although it does not seem to have relevance to what I said. Today we are speaking about energy efficiency, not about reclamation. Truth be told, in fact, a very minuscule percentage of the oil sands or mine lands have been certified as reclaimed. It is an ongoing problem.

It is precisely because of the downturn in the oil sands that I am speaking so vociferously in favour of the government finally taking action to provide other employment opportunities in my province.

There has been 100% reliance on the oil sands filling the coffers of the federal government. The workers of Alberta deserve better attention and protection for sustainability of their employment. If we could have had a genuine major retrofit program supported by the federal government and a major program and a budget to support the development of the renewable energy sector, there could be jobs to fall back on.

The government dropped the ball. They put all the money into fossil fuels and yanked all the money out of all the alternative job creation prospects. So shame on the government.

I am the one who is standing up. The majority of people in Alberta have been asking for a pacing of the tar sands. I have never in this House said that I am opposed to the tar sands. I stand firm on the position that the tar sands should proceed within the full ambit and enforcement of strong federal and provincial environmental laws. That is simply what the people of Alberta are asking for. That is what the first nations who are impacted downstream and downwind are asking for. It is the responsibility of the government to stand up, particularly for first nations people.

Absolutely, that is why I am taking the position I am. We need to make sure that, like the United States, Europe and the Asian countries, we are moving towards a sustainable economy, which, as the International Energy Agency has said, is fossil fuel-based, but it is time to move forward with a new green energy economy.

[Energy Efficiency Act, May 6th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, of course we think there is value in the bill or we would not be voting in favour of it. That is not to say that we agree that it will have a significant effect.

Obviously it is important for everybody to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases and to cleaner air. However, the government has the power to move forward on those sources that are the major causes of the problem in climate change and in air pollution, and it continues to stall on bringing forward the regulations to put the binding standards on the industrial sector and setting the binding targets. The energy sector itself is begging the government to come forward so that it can know where it is at and so that it can enter the cap and trade system.

Yes, they are laudable. I am glad they are being passed, and I look forward to actual enforcement of the bill. However, what is more important is that we move forward an entire plan. Let us bring forward a comprehensive bill, as they are doing in the United States. Let us learn from those dialogues if we are involved in them. Let us open up the dialogue so that we can all know what is being discussed and can all learn from those lessons.

I have benefited from discussions with American scientists and American lawmakers. I think it is incumbent upon this House to be sharing those dialogues widely with everybody in Canada so that we can know what measures are possible, so that we can expect that our government will move forward and adopt those as well.

[Energy Efficiency Act, May 6th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I, too, believe that in this House we should be consistent in how we deal with all proposals that come forward, regardless which member of Parliament raises them, regardless which side of the House they are on.

One of the things that troubles me is there seems to be a denial of the value of science on the other side of the House and a denial of the fact that the world is moving at a rapid pace towards cleaner technologies. There seems to be a failure of appreciation of the fact that the world is embracing cleaner technologies. It is very important that there is equal effort in calculating not only the cost of moving forward with these cleaner technologies, but what the cost would be if we do not act expeditiously. That is what Sir Nicholas Stern is telling us very clearly.

[Energy Efficiency Act, May 6th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am rising in support of the bill. It is commendable that the government has come forward with at least part of the provisions, as one of the previous members mentioned, which were included in the much more broader-based clean energy and climate change act.

It is regrettable that the government has decided, as some of the other members have mentioned, to cherry-pick measures, when in fact we need the full sweep to come forward and expeditiously to attack not only the issue of climate change but the issue of air pollution, which the government itself several years ago identified as a serious problem and promised to come forward with a package to address it.

So yes, we need to be coming forward with measures to improve the energy efficiency of appliances that are used by householders, but it is also incumbent upon the House to recognize that the largest user of energy in this country is not the householder. It is industry.

If we are actually going to get serious about tackling climate change and air pollution in a timely fashion, which has not happened in the last 15 years, we have to move forward more expeditiously with larger measures.

Personally, I find it very disappointing that the government has decided to move forward in such a narrow fashion. We had been informed over and over again by the Minister of the Environment that he is working in a bilateral dialogue with the United States of America, moving forward on energy security and climate change measures. Yet, day after day we see measures, binding laws, tabled in the United States going much further and much faster than in this country. It leaves me very puzzled.

The one thing that really troubles me is the way that we are making law and policy today in Canada. Back in the mid-1980s, when we first came forward with one of the major environmental statutes in this country's history, the first Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the government showed leadership. That was a Conservative government under Prime Minister Mulroney. It showed leadership and actually provide a white paper on exactly what that federal environmental statute would say and consulted extensively with industry, the public, municipalities and provincial governments.

Now we have moved into a mode where we simply come forward with measures that catch people off guard, or put in a reactive mode. This is not the way that I would prefer that we develop law and policy at the federal level.

It is for this very reason that I ran for office. I have undertaken with my constituents that I will try to enter into a constructive discourse with the government of the day on moving forward on these important agendas.

So yes, I applaud the government for moving forward with essentially a bill that came from the Senate and I look forward to the government actually tabling measures itself.

We have been promised that we would get new air pollution measures, particularly ones for the big industrial sectors, the very sources that are polluting the air, for example, the coal-fired industry. The Minister of the Environment mentioned to us last week that he is planning to come down heavy on the coal-fired industry in Canada.

I have to ask the government this. By what power? The main power that the federal government has to actually make our electricity cleaner in this country is environmental law. Therefore, I ask the government, where are those long promised laws to reduce and control pollution from the main dirty energy sources and from the energy guzzlers?

The tar sands are another example that consume vast amounts of our resources of clean gas that could be used to heat our homes. Where are the measures that were long promised to come forward?

I am presuming that in the United States-Canada dialogue that has been ongoing for some months, the public and Canada's energy sector so far as I am aware have been excluded. It is just like the security and prosperity agenda where the public was excluded. Let us open up this dialogue with the United States. We should not have to go to access to information, or go to our own federal counterpart and American counterparts to find out about their innovations.

The United States has brought forward and tabled a discussion draft of its law so that the public, industry, municipalities, states and so forth that are impacted have time well in advance to provide input and make sure that the law makes sense.

One of the critical laws that was tabled is the American clean energy and security act of 2009, a very ambitious and comprehensive reform for U.S. climate and energy policy. That law, which I would presume the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources are well briefed on, has specific provisions, binding laws, which establish energy efficiency resource standards and impose energy efficiency requirements on electricity distributors that must reduce by 2020 15% of their energy use.

These are the kinds of measures that I would have anticipated the government would have come forward with. We have already seen our European trade partners moving forward with these kinds of measures. We have seen that the Americans have already tabled provisions similar to the provisions that we are debating today. Yes, they are moving toward making more appliances energy efficient but with a much longer, more comprehensive list of appliances. Why are we doing this in such a limited way?

As I mentioned in my previous question, I am wondering why we are not moving forward more expeditiously with a national building code. It is good that the government has decided to put some limited funds into moving forward the retrofit program. It is very sad that the government has not at least, as has the United States, committed to retrofit all of its own buildings. Information was provided to me by the government about a month ago that out of the more than 20,000 buildings the government has control over, only 10 of those buildings are in the process of being retrofitted.

Yes, maybe it is laudable that we are doing this one small measure, but why are we nickel-and-diming improvement in energy efficiency? Why are we nickel-and-diming the protection of Canadians' health and environment? Why is the government not bringing forward a comprehensive package, long awaited, to address air pollution?

There has been a round table going on in Canada for the last two years that was initiated by the energy sector and environmental organizations, not the government, that were desperate to move forward co-operatively on an agenda to actually clean up our industry and make it more efficient and cleaner running. To this day, that report sits gathering dust. There has been no action by the government.

Let us bring forward that initiative which the energy sector and public interests groups have agreed on. Let us bring it forward in binding legislation before the House. I welcome the opportunity to support that initiative. I welcome the opportunity to support our clean energy sector in Canada.

We have a government that is bringing forward this minuscule measure, when it has cut entirely out of its budget any support to the renewable energy sector. At the same time, in Europe and the United States there is a massive infusion of dollars in support so that they are becoming competitive. We are now learning that European investors are going to the United States and investing in its renewable energy sector while ours is languishing.

This is another sector that could help us out when we are losing jobs from the fossil fuel industry that is shutting down in my own province because of the crashing economy, when in fact we could have another sector move in that would make us more energy efficient, provide cleaner energy, and help us move forward and show leadership worldwide.

Yes, I support this bill, but I am very saddened that it is such a small measure. I encourage the government from the depth of my heart to please listen to what the citizens of Canada are saying. Poll after poll is saying that Canadians desperately want their governments to support initiatives, provide incentives and move forward, so that they can access to cleaner electricity and energy. We want to do our part in addressing climate change and making sure that our children and grandchildren are going to have a healthier future, and not have to rely on the fossil fuel industry.

[Energy Efficiency Act, May 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the government is interested in taking baby steps on energy efficiency but why are we not tackling the larger source of energy guzzlers, our industries? Why is the government not also tabling a bill similar to this one? In fact, why are we not making available to the public the kinds of proposals the government is thinking about making, which is what the U.S. government has just done in tabling its energy efficiency act requiring energy efficient standards across the board?

Why is the government not tabling a revised building code so that we do not tinker with old houses but will have better standards for all newly built buildings?

[Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, May 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I rise also in support of Bill C-3. The expansions of the ambit of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act are welcome and long overdue, but I would also like to speak to what we need in tandem with this measure, what is missing and where we need the current government to commit.

We need concerted action in a number of frameworks. It is not simply me who is standing up and saying this. We are hearing this from the other Arctic nations. We are hearing this from scientists who have just gone through two years of intensified polar research and are identifying a lot of critical actions that need to be taken by the government in tandem with other Arctic nations and to get the support of other nations around the world for those who border on the Arctic and are at risk.

We need concerted action to expand exponentially Canadian investment in polar research. At a time when the scientists have told us that they are just beginning their research and are making absolutely groundbreaking discoveries about the value of the Arctic to the world, the funding has ended.

This is a time when we should be stepping up to the plate. Canada should be taking the leadership. We have lands that border right across the Arctic. We are laying claim to the interests in being able to benefit from the resources that the Arctic can provide us. It is incumbent upon us to stand up in the international arena and say that we need all the nations, not only those bordering the Arctic but worldwide, to put resources in, to match any funding that we put in, to research further what the impacts might be once the Arctic melts, sadly, and as activities begin to step forward in oil and gas extraction, mineral extraction, and simply, shipping across the Arctic.

We hear from even the Canadian polar researchers that the Arctic ecosystem is at severe risk. It is extremely sensitive. It is already suffering the effects of climate change. There are already unbelievable changes occurring to the Arctic, not just the Arctic ice shelf breaking off but new areas that we were previously unaware of.

For example, the Arctic scientists are discovering freshwater lakes that are created when the ice melts and moves towards the land. It has created lakes we did not know about before, and there is a rich diversity of biota in those lakes that we have only begun to study. Similar to the tropical rainforests to which we turn for solutions in terms of major cancer research, and so forth, it may well be that the biota of the Arctic is even more important, which is all the more reason for us to intensify our research and send more researchers up to the north to document this knowledge.

We also need to seek the advice of the polar scientists in developing our policies on northern development and negotiation strategies at international tables. It is absolutely incumbent upon us in this country that we base any determinations on the future of the Arctic on science, and that has been sadly lacking. We need to be intensifying that money. It is not enough to simply do the research; we need to turn to those very scientists to advise us on what kinds of measures need to be taken. These include deliberations on climate change, resource extraction, water resources and wildlife.

Dr. Warwick Vincent, a renowned polar researcher from Canada, gave a presentation on the Hill about a month ago, and much to everybody's surprise, revealed information that nobody knew previously about the Arctic, such as the freshwater lakes that we previously did not even know existed. We did not know how they were created. He is crying for support from parliamentarians to continue the research, to continue to give the support so that Canada can benefit from that information and he can continue to work in tandem with researchers from around the world.

This is not a time to be pulling out the Canadian researchers, to be shutting down those research programs or stations. This is a time to be working in tandem with scientists around the world so that we can show leadership.

This is also the time to stand up for the Arctic environment and northern communities. We need to put those interests at the forefront, not just petroleum corporations' right to develop, not just the right of Canadian interests in oil and gas development and mineral extraction in the Arctic, but to make sure that any development that occurs in the future is actually for the benefit of Canada, particularly for the northern communities.

We need to provide leadership at the international level at the UN climate change tables. Climate change is one of the critical reasons we need to step up to the plate and speed up our research and our negotiations with countries around the world on protecting the Arctic and making sure that there is a regime in place to protect the Arctic and prevent any kind of unfortunate impacts. The last two successive governments, the current government, has simply dragged its heels on this issue.

For heaven's sake, let us not embrace the fact that the Arctic is melting and say that is great news because we can expand oil and gas extraction. Let us do our best to slow that down until we can make sure that kind of development is done in a safe way that benefits Canada and does not simply leave us with a huge liability to try to clean up the mess left behind not just by other countries' mineral extraction and oil and gas activity, but unfortunately, possibly our own mess, if we are not ready to address those impacts.

We need to take a stronger stand in the Arctic Council. It was formed in 1996. Eight Arctic nations signed the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. Where is Canada in taking the forefront and the leadership? It is our Arctic on which there is an impact. It is our Arctic that we wish to claim.

We need to pay more attention and put more resources into our position at those tables. We need to be sending ministers to those tables. We need to be sending the Prime Minister of Canada to those tables and declaring that we care about the Arctic; the Arctic is ours.

We need the other countries around the world to step up to the plate and take joint action with us. We want to proceed in a co-operative way.

Given our limited capacity now in the Arctic, there is no way that Canada is going to be able to address the kinds of activities that are speeding along as the Arctic melts. We are going to have to work co-operatively with other nations. We are going to have to share from their resources, their icebreakers, and share in their research knowledge. This is a time to show co-operation, not competitiveness.

I know full well about the Arctic Council, and I know about the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. When I was the assistant deputy of resources for the Yukon government, I had the privilege to participate in that strategy on behalf of the Yukon government at the science table, not just in terms of scientific discoveries but to make sure that those discoveries moved into law and policy so that we would have a binding, clear framework for the northern governments and for the federal government and to make sure that all those levels of governments were included in any strategies at those international tables. It is incumbent upon us to take a stronger stand at that table.

Surely we should be raising the issue of the Arctic at the U.S.-Canada energy security and climate change table. Perhaps we are, but we do not know for sure because it is a secret table. We have had no report from the government about whether there are joint co-operative ventures on protecting the Arctic and making sure that North American interests are protected against other nations as we move forward and as we benefit from those resources.

We also do not know whether at those tables with respect to security in energy development there are joint discussions about co-operation between the United States of America and Canada to make sure that we gear up to have the proper equipment and staffing, and so forth, to actually protect and have surveillance in the Arctic. It would be worthwhile to have the ministers come back to the House and tell us whether the Arctic issue is at the table in those bilateral discussions.

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation was created quite some years back. This commission created a council of environment ministers, which includes the United States of America, Canada and Mexico. Why not use this commission and the council of ministers to further the dialogue about ensuring the environmental security of our Arctic? Surely we could initiate some projects through joint funding.

Why are we not showing leadership in advocating for an Arctic treaty? Canada is fully participating in the Antarctic treaty. It seems absurd that we are not championing the cause for a similar treaty for our own Arctic. So I would encourage the government to step up to the plate and be at the front of the line, pushing for an Arctic treaty. It can do nothing but benefit Canada's interests.

It is all the more critical for the Arctic because of the sensitivity of the Arctic environment, but also because, unlike the Antarctic, the Arctic is populated—with Canadians. So it is all the more important that we make sure that we have a treaty of nations around the Arctic and that we ensure that the provisions of that treaty put at the forefront the interests of Canadians and Canada's northern environment.

Are we raising these issues in our law of the sea and our MARPOL discussions? Are we making sure that the tankers that are going to be coming through the Arctic have improved standards, that the hulls can withstand the Arctic ice and that there is capacity for spill cleanup, that the spill response recovery funds are large enough to respond to the disasters that could occur in the Arctic and how complicated it will be to actually address spills?

What is most important in the Arctic is that we prevent spills, so we need to be taking action now to make sure that any development that occurs in the Arctic prevents impacts. After the fact will be too late.

We need to have expanded measures to protect the interests of the Arctic communities. We need to make sure that in terms of any kind of development that occurs in the Arctic, whether it is simply shipping traffic or whether it is oil and gas or mineral extraction, we think first and foremost of the impact on the harvest rights of the northern communities and to ensure that those communities are secure and that they are given a benefit and direct interest in any development.

We need to push for stronger standards and enforcement for tanker traffic and other vessels. As I mentioned, we need to make sure that we have spill prevention. After the fact will be too late. We need to learn from the Exxon Valdez spill, but for heaven's sake, we need to learn from the Wabamun Lake spill of bunker C oil. We cannot address the impacts once these kinds of spills occur; there is just no way of knowing.

I experienced that first-hand with the bunker C's oil spill in Wabamun Lake, and to this day, scientists have no idea what the fate of that oil spill is and the long-term impact on that freshwater lake. All the more so for the Arctic, an extremely fragile environment, what are we putting in place to make sure that we can respond to those spills? We do not even have the naval complement or the coast guard complement right now to address those spills, and neither does the U.S., so we need to be stepping up to the plate really quickly.

We are told by the scientists weekly that the ice is melting far faster than previously forecast. Are we putting the appropriate resources into making sure that we are ready for that? Do we have the readiness for security of the Arctic? Do we have the ships? Do we have the crews trained? Do we have all the impacts assessed and the appropriate responses? As the member for Yukon mentioned, do we have the search and rescue capacity? Certainly not at this point in time. We have very small populations up there and very little ship and crew capacity.

We are extremely vulnerable in the Arctic, and who is more vulnerable than the very communities that live in the Arctic. They have small, dispersed populations. They have minimal capacity for emergency response, even less capacity than we had in the Exxon Valdez and the Wabamun Lake spills. They have a very limited capacity for evacuation in the event of a major disaster.

I am told the naval capacity is extremely limited. There has been no Canadian navy icebreaker in the Arctic since the 1950s. There is no current capacity to enter the Arctic waters' significant ice cover. The majority of the Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers are near their end of life. We cannot rely on U.S. support, because it is in the same state as we are in terms of shortage of equipment.

Naval analysts are raising serious security issues for this development in the Arctic. They are saying there is very little ability worldwide across the Arctic for spill response and that we face serious problems with shipping security. We have no way to deal with an incident where we have nuclear devices or some other kind of explosive device coming across the Arctic, landing in our lands in the Arctic and then heading down across Canada by rail or air. Right now, there is no strategy that we are aware of.

I want to close my remarks by mentioning prescient comments by renowned author and journalist Alanna Mitchell, who gave a presentation to the parliamentary international conservation caucus just a week ago. She has issued a new book, called Sea Sick: The Global Ocean in Crisis. What she has presented to those who were fortunate enough to hear her is a real wake-up call, that while we are trying to get our government to actually address climate change, we have a far greater crisis occurring in our oceans. Apparently, if we lose the land base, the life in the oceans can continue; but if we lose the life in the oceans, the land base will cease to exist. So it is time for us to be putting a lot more resources into paying attention to the fate of the oceans, particularly the Arctic Ocean, which is extremely sensitive.

I will close my comments today with a comment from the internationally renowned author and journalist, Ed Struzik, who is published widely on the Arctic and has recently published a book on the fate of the Arctic under climate change. He states:

In the not-too-distant future, the forces of climate change are going to transform this icy world into a new economic frontier. The end of the Arctic will be the beginning of a new chapter in history. The Age of the New Arctic remains to be written.

I would say to the government, to its credit, introduce these new provisions, extend the ambit of the scope of the Government of Canada to protect the Arctic environment from impacts, but, for heaven's sake, please table with us the government's compliance strategy and how it will actually enforce this expanded law with what is coming to us in the Arctic.