Martin Shields

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the colleague mentioned a bit about communities, but he talked in broader terms.

Could he possibly give us some details of what this would mean in the communities in his riding?

[Standing Orders and Procedure, October 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the thought that the member has put into this.

One of the things about being an older guy is that I understand what you are saying about decorum in the House. What used to happen, for example, is that there were no meals in the lobbies but these were provided for all MPs in the room next door. That specific activity allowed much greater socializing amongst the MPs from all parties. They knew where the food was and they went there. It provided for much better social interaction. I believe that when we are talking about the behaviour and decorum in the House, losing that simple thing has decreased our sociability.

I appreciate what the member is talking about. When we are sitting in this style here and in committees, it does not provide for better decorum because we are set up in opposition. Improving the social function with this piece alone would be a better solution for us.

I thank the member for bringing up those points.

[Beef Industry, October 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a founding industry in my riding of Bow River and also much of western Canada, the beef sector. Today it is very integrated, but it has been part of southern Alberta for almost 150 years. However, it is not the industry of our parents. It is now an integrated industry from ranches, auction markets, feedlots, packing plants, to the store shelf. It is a very value-added industry, introducing the best quality beef in the world.

Due to the integrated nature of this industry, if one crucial part of the supply chain is knocked out, like major feedlots, there is a major ripple effect on the whole industry. The inelasticity of fuel costs in many agriculture sectors, especially feedlots and cattle transportation, will be detrimental to the survival of the Canadian added-value industry.

I hope the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food takes this issue very seriously, as Canada may lose a world-class value-added industry.

[Paris Agreement, October 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, again, we have people in the House who bring such intelligent and educated backgrounds to help us all learn about these things. That member is one of those people.

Bringing a balanced approach to how we can address this is critically important. I have always believed that a little bit of honey makes things happen a lot quicker than a big stick beating people. Through my career, I have seen a tremendous amount of innovation result when people work together and collaborate. The big stick just does not work. I would agree with the member that we need more of those positive incentives, more of that working together, more of that collaboration. We have phenomenal people in this country who can accomplish that, who will do it with the right incentives and environment.

[Paris Agreement, October 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to compliment my colleague across the floor for his strong beliefs and his work in this field and how he brings that to our committee. We have learned much about his background and his interests in this area. Indeed, we can all gain by learning from each other in the House.

It is interesting that in my part of the world, we find that the major corporations, the CEOs, the presidents, and the owners of majors will say this, yet they are also the companies that are cutting back and releasing a lot of staff. A lot of their employees no longer work. These are the people I see in my communities, where the innovation that has been mentioned has not created jobs for them. They are unemployed; they are on EI. These are the ones in my community, at the grassroots levels, from these companies, who are not seeing the benefits.

[Paris Agreement, October 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand today to speak to the Paris agreement, which was completed in December 2015.

Paris is a great city. It is known as the city of light, a city with a long and exciting history, one filled with many events that helped define global politics and power to this day. There has been a direct connection to North America in these agreements. First, there was the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1763, which is very important to the British North American colonies, which became the Canada we know today. It was important because it ceded all remaining French territory in North America to other powers, mostly Great Britain.

Then there was the Treaty of Paris in 1783, which led to the end of hostilities between the United States of America and Great Britain after the Americans were victorious in the American revolution. Then there was the Treaty of Paris of 1815, which marked the end of the Napoleonic wars in Europe for the second and final time, thankfully. Then in 1898 there was another Treaty of Paris, which when signed led to the dissolution of the remnants of the Spanish Empire and the end of the Spanish-American war. More recently, in 1973, the Paris Peace Accords occurred, which led to the end of the war in Vietnam. It seemed to take as long to decide the shape of the table to negotiate the agreement as it took to complete that accord.

That leads us to 2015, where a different kind of conference took place. That would be the Paris agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Canada had a delegation present, including the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, our party's environment critic, the hon. member for Abbotsford, as well as many other officials. The result of the conference was an agreement reached about the climate change priorities of 191 member states. This is a major agreement and it certainly could have short-, medium-, and long-term implications for Canada, indeed, the entire world.

The modern world in which we live is all about how humans can adapt to challenges that are thrown our way. That is why I believe that mitigation, adaptation, and adaptability will be the most important parts of what we discuss here in Parliament with respect to the Paris agreement.

We know that climate change has occurred and it is continuing to occur. What we decide to do about it and the approach we take to tackle these issues is what is important here today. Humans and mother nature combine to create challenges. One explosion of a major volcano and there is a huge effect on the atmosphere. We cannot control mother nature. Usually when we think we can or attempt to do so, we get a rude wake-up call.

However, we can work with the decisions human beings make on this planet. I believe there is a difference in philosophies between the parties in the House about the best way to tackle the climate change issue we face. I believe that there are a great number of adaptation techniques that are currently being applied that are helping us deal with climate change.

For example, we are on the precipice of some very advanced, clean coal technology, which may allow us to re-examine the use of clean coal in some parts of the world, including parts of Canada. I want to be clear that we are not talking about the dirty soot-spewing coal of production in the past, but a much cleaner and modern alternative. That is one example of adaptability.

Windmills are interesting and an increasing power source, but it is taking more and more coal mining to make the steel to make the blades than ever before. Where is that happening? Not in the added-value economies of Canada. That whole production process has some environmental drawbacks.

I believe that there are other power sources. We had the stuff for decades and we will now more likely to be able to focus on it. For example, what about harnessing the tidal power of the Bay of Fundy?

Being an older guy, I know the history of technical advances in Fort McMurray, for example. I first witnessed this process in 1974, and more recently, just a few years ago. Incredible technologies have changed the process since the first plant was built in 1966.

If we go millions of years back in history, we could find ourselves in the Mesozoic era where dinosaurs ran free across the earth. No, I am not a dinosaur. I was not there. The poor dinosaurs could not adapt as well, as we know. Their species became extinct. In fact, not to digress, but the heartland of Canada's dinosaur deposits were discovered over 100 years ago in my constituency, in the UNESCO World Heritage Dinosaur Provincial Park.

The dinosaurs are gone and we humans have to innovate to make sure that we survive the climate change challenges we face. I think the House sees that we are making great strides in terms of technology and expertise right here in our own backyards, right here in Canada. If we are looking at places where we can use money to leverage expertise and resources, I believe the best place we can spend that money would be right here in Canada.

We have the expertise. There are many highly educated, motivated, and innovative citizens. On the issue of climate change, we could really lead the world in developing new climate change mitigation and adaptation technologies and strategies. If the government plans on spending money, let us do it here so we can give Canada a boost, and then lead the rest of the world.

The environmental issues my constituents and all Canadians face would be best tackled by people in their communities. It is my desire that the Paris agreement confirm the ability of our communities, constituencies, and regions to make decisions about how to adapt and mitigate the effects of climate change. Municipalities have been leading the way for many years.

Industries, such as agriculture in my riding, have developed techniques that reduce the carbon footprint. There are innovative businesses in communities right across the country that are ready to be part of the solution. CCR Technologies, from Brooks, in my riding, is an innovative business. It is a great example of local companies making a difference in the world, and recently at Boundary Dam in Saskatchewan. It is working on some very interesting projects we have heard about.

The right approach is to support Canadian industries, domestic companies that are working on innovative clean technology solutions that can be world class.

With this in mind, our party will support the first part of the motion, which agrees with the spirit of the Paris agreement. What we do have an issue with is the second part of the motion, which relates to the Vancouver declaration. It is problematic. I have concerns when the federal government uses its powers to encroach upon the rights of the provinces to deliver their own climate change plan. It is very important for legislators and decision-makers from all levels of government to respect each other's jurisdictions. Our party has some concerns with respect to interfering with provincial affairs. That is one of the reasons that our side is proposing an amendment to the second part of today's Liberal motion.

We do indeed support a strategy to deal with climate change. We believe it is important for all Canadians to have a stake in the solution and that a broad, science-based, market-based solution to climate change strikes the right balance for any strategy. Adding more to the tax burden of tapped-out Canadians is an approach we cannot support, which is one of the reasons we are offering an amendment.

Another issue I have some concerns with is applying a one-size-fits-all solution that would potentially meddle in provincial affairs and put some provincial governments in an impossible situation. It could also unfairly affect certain parts of Canada.

I have some specific concerns about how supporting the Vancouver declaration could impact northern and Arctic communities. This is one of the reasons why many of the northern territories legislators came out firmly against a one-size-fits-all approach. They are watching the sea ice and permafrost conditions up close and first-hand.

It is critical that we strike the right balance. We believe that a strong economy, along with robust environmental policies, is the correct course of action. We also believe that these two concepts are by no means mutually exclusive, but can go hand in hand.

Unfortunately, we have forgotten some of the tried, tested, cultural, and science-based climate mitigation strategies that do not require billions of dollars when practised effectively. I speak of some of the wetland and boreal forest conservation that can be very beneficial to ecosystems and the environment.

Last week, for instance, I met with the Ducks Unlimited people. They were talking about a lot of excellent conservation projects that they work on across Canada. I have visited some of those in my own constituency. People often forget that a major part of Ducks Unlimited's mandate is conservation and the members of Ducks Unlimited, at least in my area, tend to be ranchers and other land users. These people are experts at conservation by design. They have a vested interest in making sure that conservation is always a top priority in their daily activities.

Indigenous people from the Prairies understood the value of forest fires in the regeneration of a varieties of plants and ecosystems. In recent years, national parks have begun to replicate this understood cultural and environmentally positive practice with controlled burns in parks.

Too much of the debate is centred around the desire to spend a lot of taxpayers' money on projects that do not deliver any benefit but are more or less feel-good projects. I would much favour environmental strategies that focus on tangible results, such as funding conservation priorities and by working with organizations like Ducks Unlimited to achieve our common goals.

We are happy to support the first part of the Liberal motion and offer an amendment to the second part.

[Paris Agreement, October 4th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I work with the member on the environmental committee, and appreciate the input and intelligent discussion he brings to our committee. He brought up some excellent points on this today.

Yesterday, he was involved in the discussion on the economics of elasticity and inelasticity. As I understand from my economics courses of many decades ago, there are industries that do become inelastic and die. Therefore, do you believe that in this process there are those whose elasticity can make a difference, but there may also be industries that die because of the circumstances of inelasticity?

[Paris Agreement, October 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the statement by the member. I am sure he is also aware that the Premier of Alberta, who has been brought up many times today, has said that unless Alberta gets a pipeline to tide water, it will not sign on to this agreement; they are done.

[Paris Agreement, October 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the presentation and the member's scientific knowledge of it.

Could the member go back one more time and explain the relationship between the temperature rising and what we need to do with the carbon footprint? It was an excellent point and I think it needs to be restated.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 23rd, 2016]

With regard to each Minister’s office, including costs paid out of the Minister’s office budget or other government funds, from November 3, 2015, to April 22, 2016: what was the total cost spent on (i) wine, spirits, beer and other alcohol, (ii) bottled water, (iii) soft drinks, (iv) potato chips, nuts and other snacks. (v) coffee, cream, non-dairy creamer, sugar and related supplies, (vi) food, other than food included above?