May 18th
- MP
ndpFri 10:15 am | British Columbia, Vancouver KingswayMadam Speaker, we have asked the Conservative government to make an apology in the House of Commons. It refused.
When the NDP forms the government in 2015, what would an NDP government do with respect to this issue, if and when it is in power?
- MP
ndpFri 10:15 am | British Columbia, VictoriaIs that agreed?
- MP
libFri 9:45 am | Quebec, BourassaMadam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
I find it rather sad today that people in the House are trying to make political hay by pointing fingers at certain political parties.
We know that recognition by the House of Commons, by Parliament, is important. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that. Why is it important today to pass a motion and to have the House of Commons recognize this incident?
- MP
conFri 7:55 am | Alberta, Edmonton—Sherwood ParkMr. Speaker, I look back and see that the apology has been made by the Prime Minister on behalf of the government. It was made with very much respect and in front of thousands of people. Many people I speak to are very proud of the fact that their government has apologized. He is the first Prime Minister to do so.
It is time to move on. It is time to educate others about what happened in that incident. We have provided funding for a museum, for online projects, for books and for a monument.
I can only think that the NDP is bringing this up now as a political ploy. It is unfortunate that it would bring such an emotional issue up as a matter of politics.
The apology has been made, with respect, in front of thousands of people.
- MP
conFri 7:55 am | Ontario, Simcoe NorthOrder. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but time is limited. We need to give some time to the Minister of State to respond.
The hon. Minister of State.
- MPconFri 7:50 am | Alberta, Edmonton—Sherwood Park
Mr. Speaker, I find it a little rich for a Liberal member to stand and ask for an apology. First, the apology has already been made, with a great deal of respect, in front of thousands of people. It is a little rich for the Liberal Party to even talk about this when for the 13 years it was government it had an opportunity, over two prime ministers, to make this apology, and it chose not to.
It was this government and this Prime Minister who, very respectfully, in front of thousands of people, officially apologized for the Komagata Maru incident. I am proud of the fact that I am part of the first government to apologize for this incident.
- MPconFri 7:50 am | Ontario, Simcoe North
Order, please. I am sure there are other members who wish to pose questions. The time is limited.
The hon. Minister of State.
- MPconFri 7:35 am | Alberta, Edmonton—Sherwood Park
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Prime Minister's apology on behalf of the Government of Canada for the Komagata Maru incident of 1914.
[Member spoke in Punjabi]
- MP
conFri 7:15 am | Ontario, PeterboroughMr. Speaker, as you would know, Canada does not have a perfect record when it comes to our tolerance and acceptance of cultures.
In fact, we made many mistakes as a young country. As a member of my father's family, I am a member of the Italian community, immigrants to this country who were here during a dark period. During the Second World War we interned Italian Canadians and other Canadians. These were not foreign citizens, they were Canadian citizens who were interned.
More than 20 years ago, then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney apologized. What was missing from the Italian community, as we had this debate just a couple of years ago, was not the apology. The apology was made, as it was in this case, by our Prime Minister. I am proud that our Prime Minister sought to do that. What was missing for some members of the Italian community was not the apology but the acceptance of that apology.
Canada has expressed its sorrow for what occurred. Why does the member feel that the acceptance has not been given?
May 16th
- MPconMay 16, 2012 2:00 pm | Ontario, Simcoe North
That is really a matter of debate on the facts. It is not a point of order.
I think the hon. member for Etobicoke North finished answering the last question, so I will recognize the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas on questions and comments.
- MP
libMay 16, 2012 2:00 pm | Ontario, Etobicoke NorthMr. Speaker, there must always be a balance between the economy and the environment. While the government says the right things and claims to understand that one does not pit one against the other, unfortunately, the government's actions belie that. It is allowing the pendulum to swing too far in the direction of economic interests.
I will give an example of where the government really missed an opportunity. In the stimulus package, the government spent $3 billion on a green stimulus. Let me compare that with the United States, which spent $112 billion on a green stimulus, and China, which spent $221 billion on a green stimulus, and in the process created thousands of new jobs, jobs that Canada missed.
- MP
conMay 16, 2012 2:00 pm | Ontario, Oak Ridges—MarkhamMr. Speaker, on a point of order, I just want to confirm that the member is talking about the United States, which has a $3 trillion debt and a $1 trillion deficit. Is that the plan she is asking that we follow? I did not hear her, so if she could just clarify if that is the plan she would ask us to follow.
- MP
ndpMay 16, 2012 1:55 pm | Ontario, Thunder Bay—Superior NorthMr. Speaker, like the hon. member, I am concerned about Canadian sustainability. Like the hon. member, who has a wonderful track record on environmental issues, I am concerned that the Conservatives just do not seem to care about the environment. Like her, I am concerned that while the Conservatives inherited balanced budgets and significant surpluses, we now have the largest deficits in the history of Canada through mismanagement and tax rates for big banks and big oil that are less than one-half those of the United States.
Does the hon. member agree with me that there are three things under the government that are unsustainable: an unsustainable environment, an unsustainable resource management, and an unsustainable economy due to flawed ideologies and economic mismanagement?
- MPconMay 16, 2012 1:55 pm | Ontario, Simcoe North
Order. Members of course realize that when another member has been recognized to respond or provide comments, that member has the floor and members should keep other discussions on the low-down.
The hon. member for Etobicoke North.
- MPlibMay 16, 2012 1:55 pm | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, as a scientist who consulted to Environment Canada, who served on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who was picked by my government to do so, I am very proud to stand and talk to my party's record. We signed Kyoto. We took action. We had a plan. It was called project green. That plan would have got us 80% of the way to meeting our Kyoto targets.
The Conservative government killed that plan. It has since reduced its emissions targets by an astonishing 90% and it can get us only a third of the way to meeting its very weak target. As for the Conservatives' “success” on water, this is a government that is contributing 0.7% of what is required to clean up the Great Lakes and it did so, a real slap on the face, on World Water Day.
- MPconMay 16, 2012 1:50 pm | Ontario, Oak Ridges—Markham
Mr. Speaker, I am quite glad the hon. member had an opportunity to speak, because she helps reinforce for Canadians just why the Liberals are in such a small position in the House of Commons now.
The real reason is that the Liberals always talk a great game but never actually accomplish anything. They actually admitted that they never had a plan to implement Kyoto. They admitted that they did not get the job done.
On this side of the House, on a chemical management plan, we did it; the Great Lakes cleanup, we did it; on Copenhagen, we are doing it; the acid rain treaty, we did it; the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund, we did it; $1 billion to secure our national heritage across this country, we did it; the expansion of our national parks, we did it.
On every single issue when it comes to actually taking care of the environment, there is a big difference between this side and the Liberals. We say what we are going to do and we do it. The Liberals say what they want to do because they think it will gain some votes, and then they never actually accomplish it.
Is the member not embarrassed to stand in the House today and pretend that she and her party have ever cared about the environment?
- MP
conMay 16, 2012 1:35 pm | Saskatchewan, Saskatoon—HumboldtMr. Speaker, the Canadian Light Source, a very high-tech, large project physics development centre is in Saskatoon. It is an excellent example of R and D. I have personally gone to bat for it to make sure it gets funding. Among other things such as pharmaceuticals and other research, it does environmental and natural resource research for mining companies to help them develop. We see that R and D, supported by this government, is integrated with natural resources in high-tech, urban areas.
Canadians are all in this together, regardless of where they come from. Our industries are interlinked.
- MPlibMay 16, 2012 1:35 pm | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, last night I was honoured to participate in the committee of the whole regarding the environment. It was extremely unfortunate, however, that the minister kept telling parliamentarians that he did not have answers. Sometimes he simply refused to answer, even though his officials were sitting right in front of him with the information.
For example, the minister failed to answer my questions on the cost of liabilities that would arise under the new environmental assessment process, how the government compares it to the cost of liabilities under the old assessment process and whether he would table said analysis.
He failed to answer how many of the 10 ozonesonde stations would be supported under the new budget. This matters because ozone is critical life on earth and it protects us from the sun's harmful radiation.
He failed to specify what is in the budget to address the concerns of the environment commissioner.
He failed to answer whether there were any disruptions in service at the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre.
He failed to list the organizations he has accused of money laundering. These were only a few of my questions that he failed or refused to answer.
Let me provide some facts about the Conservative government's repeated failing grades on the environment. The 2008 climate change performance index ranked Canada 56th of 57 countries in terms of tackling emissions. In 2009, The Conference Board of Canada ranked Canada 15th of 17 wealthy industrialized nations on environmental performance. In 2010, Simon Fraser University ranked Canada 24th of 25 OECD nations on environmental performance. Most recently, Columbia and Yale's environmental performance index ranked Canada 102nd of 132 countries on climate change.
This profoundly sad time for the environment under the Conservatives continues. The government is now gutting 50 years of environmental oversight and threatening the health and safety of Canadians, our communities, our economy, our livelihoods and our future generations.
We need to be very clear that when the government came to power it inherited a legacy of balanced budgets but soon plunged us into deficit before the recession ever hit. It is absolutely negligent and shameful that the government would gut environmental safeguards to fast-track development rather than promote sustainable development that meets the needs of today without compromising those of the future. The government did not campaign in the last election on gutting environmental protections.
Canadians should therefore rise up, have their voices heard and stop the destruction of laws that protect the environment and health and safety of Canadians.
Maurice Strong, a prominent Canadian who spearheaded the Rio earth summit in 1992, has urged people who are concerned about the future of the environment to do an end run around the federal government. He urged grassroots groups to mobilize and make full use of social media, saying there was still time to bring the pressure of people power.
Instead of understanding the gravity of the situation and standing up for the environment, the Conservative government returns to tired talking points, trying to score political points by attacking the former Liberal leader, saying that the Liberals took no action on climate change when it knows this is absolutely false. The Liberals implemented project green, which would have taken us 80% of the way to meeting our Kyoto targets. The Conservatives killed project green, reduced our greenhouse gas emission targets by an astonishing 90%, spent over $9 billion of taxpayers' hard-earned money and achieved little, walked away from Kyoto, are in the process of repealing the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, and continue to ignore the fact that failing to take action on climate change will cost Canadians $21 billion to $43 billion annually by 2050.
Last week the environment commissioner reported what we have known for a very long time, that the government is not on track to make its 2020 emissions targets. Environment Canada's own forecast shows that in 2020 Canada's emissions will be 7% above 2005 levels, not the promised 17% below.
The so-called law and order government has yet again violated the rule of law. According to the environment commissioner, the federal government did not comply with the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act passed by Parliament in 2007. Does the minister think it is okay to break the law, and going forward, what accountability measures would he put in place to ensure transparency when reporting greenhouse gas emissions to Canadians?
Maurice Strong says that the government may be totally negative when it comes to being a constructive force in mitigating climate change. For example, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment continues to rail against Kyoto. Is she aware, however, that her own minister has, for the second time, said that Kyoto was a good idea in its time? He first said it to The Huffington Post and he has now said it to the BBC.
Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Norway's former prime minister and the former chair of the World Commission on Environment and Development and former director general of the World Health Organization, recently said that Canada was moving backward on the issue of climate change and warned Canada not to be naive on the issue. She recently told delegates in Canada that despite the weaknesses of the Kyoto protocol, the world could not afford to push it aside without an alternative, as emissions are continually rising.
When questioned about the link between human activity and climate change, she said, “Politicians and others that question the science, that's not the right thing to do. We have to base ourselves on evidence.”
When will the minister deliver the plans and regulations for the six remaining sectors, and particularly for one of the most important sectors, the oil and gas industry, as the oil sands are the fastest-growing source of emissions in Canada?
Last night I asked the minister how many of Environment Canada's climate impacts adaptation group, many of them Nobel prize-winning scientists, would be supported to undertake adaptation work for Canada, as the cost of adaptation will, once again, be $21 billion to $43 billion annually by 2050. I was asked to repeat the question.
On asking the question a third time, I received the ridiculous answer that the adaptation research group is, like climate change, an evolving organization.
While the Conservatives claim a balanced approach to protecting the environment and promoting economic growth, when has the parliamentary secretary or the minister actually ever stood up for the environment? Was it through cuts to Environment Canada, cuts to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, or cuts to ozone monitoring?
The list of cuts goes on and on.
Canadians should not be fooled by mere snippets of environmental protection but should pay attention to the government's budget reductions to Environment Canada and to other investments on environmental protection and research by hundreds of millions of dollars, while maintaining several tax incentives for the oil and gas sector that the Minister of Finance's department recommended eliminating in his secret memo.
After we vote against this kitchen sink budget, a budget that devotes 150 of its 425 pages to environmental gutting, the Conservative government will stand and say that the opposition voted against some good things for the environment. However, the government gives us absolutely no choice, as we simply cannot vote for the wholesale destruction of environmental legislation and 50 years of safeguards.
If the parliamentary secretary, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources really believe that Bill C-38, the kitchen sink bill, is good for the environment, they should have the courage to hive off the sections on environmental protection, send them to the relevant committees for clause-by-clause study under public scrutiny and end the affront to democracy.
I have a list of cuts to Environment Canada and just some of the changes on the environment to be found in Bill C-38.
There are cuts of 200 positions at Environment Canada.
Last summer the government announced cuts of 700 positions and a 43% cut to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
There are cuts to research and monitoring initiatives, air pollution, industrial emissions, water equality, waste water and partnerships for a greener economy. There are cuts of $3.8 million for emergency disaster response.
As well, the government is consolidating the unit that responds to oil spill emergencies to central Canada, namely Gatineau and Montreal, far from where emergencies, including those involving diluted bitumen, might occur on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and along the proposed route of the northern gateway pipeline project.
What are the numbers and percentages of the slashes to the new central Canada unit that will have to respond to oil spill emergencies? When will the minister table the scientific analysis that backs up his claims that there will be no negative impact?
Last week Environment Canada released its report on plans and priorities, signed by the minister. I will quote from the report:
Skills: Due to transition alignment challenges, the Department risks being unable to stay current with advances in science and technology. In addition...knowledge required to support programs and internal services could pose difficulties...
Environment Canada is a science-based department. The above passage suggests the government is doing Environment Canada serious damage. The minister has previously misled Canadians by saying there would be no compromise of programs.
Given the recognition that there is a problem at Environment Canada, I would like to know what new funds the Minister of the Environment has specifically allocated to bring his department up to date with advances in science and technology in order to protect the environment, the health and safety of Canadians, and evidence-based decision making.
The government has repealed the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. It has repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which allows the federal government to avoid environmental reviews of many potentially harmful projects and to do less comprehensive reviews when they do occur.
Canada's environment commissioner says that the changes are among the most significant policy development in 30 or 40 years and that there will be a significant narrowing of public participation.
The Minister of Natural Resources complains:
Unfortunately, our inefficient, duplicative and unpredictable regulatory system is an impediment. It is complex, slow-moving and wasteful. It subjects major projects to unpredictable and potentially endless delays.
but Premier Jean Charest says:
In Quebec, we've very well mastered the ability of doing joint assessments.... I have learned, through my experiences, that trying to short circuit to reduce the process will only make it longer, and it is better to have a rigorous, solid process. It gives a better outcome, and for those who are promoting projects, it will give them more predictability than if not.
There are more changes: the weakening of several environmental laws, including species at risk and water; the near-elimination of fish habitat in the Fisheries Act, putting species from coast to coast to coast at increased risk of habitat flaws and population decline; placing the authority of the federal cabinet to approve new pipeline projects above the National Energy Board; and the elimination of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the independent think tank with a direct mandate from Parliament.
The Minister of the Environment has never said what will replace it, despite my asking twice in Parliament. The head of NRT does not know either, as what it does is unique.
This week the Minister of Foreign Affairs said the closure of the round table had more to do with the content of the research itself, namely promotion of a carbon tax as a means of addressing climate change. He said:
Why should taxpayers have to pay for more than 10 reports promoting a carbon tax, something which the people of Canada have repeatedly rejected?
The Minister of Foreign Affairs confirms what we have known for a very long time, namely that the government puts ideology above evidence.
The NRT issued economic and science-based reports, which did not agree with Conservative ideology. The national round table has been a well-respected, unbiased, independent organization for over two decades. It was started by the Mulroney government, our present Governor General was its founding chair and the government should know how important it is.
The foreign minister's remarks two days ago had nothing to do with the carbon tax—after all, the Prime Minister himself has promised a price on carbon of $65 per tonne by 2016 to 2018—but were the government's attempt to change the channel, as it was coming under harsh criticism for gutting environmental protection. It was also the government's attempt to silence its critics. The government is practising 1940s-style McCarthyism: shut down any independent voice, and bully and intimidate those who cannot be shut down.
We are also seeing the silencing of government critics through changes to the Canada Revenue Agency and the attempts to seize control of the university research agenda. The government should be able to stand on its own merits and should be able to withstand criticism, but instead of making its arguments, it is just looking to eliminate dissent.
The criticism of Bill C-38 is extensive. For example, the Ottawa Citizen reports, under the heading “Something's fishy with Bill C-38...”:
There was no need for great chunks of legislation to be retrofitted into a 420-page omnibus budget bill that looks to have been intended to confound every effort by the House of Commons to scrutinize its contents intelligently.
Under the heading “Omnibus bill threatens fish...”, The Vancouver Sun reported:
A new front in the battle against the federal government's omnibus budget bill opened up Monday when B.C. Conservative Party leader John Cummins sent a letter to [the] Prime Minister...warning of major threats to fishing communities and the environment if major Fisheries Act amendments are passed.
For decades, Canadians have depended on the federal government to safeguard our families and nature from pollution, toxic contamination and other environmental problems through a safety net of environmental laws. This bill shreds this environmental safety net to fast-track development at the expense of all Canadians.
Instead the government could have implemented my Motions Nos. 322, 323 and 325, which focused on Canada's commitment to sustainable development, recognizing that it was not a choice between saving the economy and the environment and therefore working with the provinces, territories and stakeholders to develop a green economy strategy and a national sustainable energy strategy to build the jobs of the future for our communities and for Canada.
When we compromise the air, the water, the soil, the variety of life, we steal from the endless future to serve the fleeting present.
- MP
conMay 16, 2012 1:30 pm | Ontario, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—WestdaleMr. Speaker, my question is on research and development and the importance of that in the future economy. McMaster University and McMaster Innovation Park are in my riding. They have sent letters to the government heralding the budget. We have had many discussions and workshops around the importance of research, development and venture capital to get rid of the gap between the research lab and the shop floor to create tomorrow's jobs.
Is that really important in Saskatchewan like it is in Ontario?
- MPndpMay 16, 2012 1:30 pm | Ontario, Thunder Bay—Superior North
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that resources are important to communities across Canada but I disagree about how we are developing them.
Before 2000, Canada made progress in moving away from being hewers of wood, drawers of water, and miners and exporters of raw bitumen and crude oil. Yesterday's Globe and Mail had some interesting statistics about how the clock has been turned back and how the economy is reverting back to a raw materials industry. In 1999, manufactured goods constituted almost 60% of all exports out of Canada. In 2011, unprocessed and semi-processed resources constituted two-thirds of total exports, the highest in decades.
Do we not really need a new, or maybe it is renewed, industrial strategy which would constitute more than tax cuts to banks and big oil companies, hasty so-called free trade agreements and irresponsible resource exploitation?
- MPconMay 16, 2012 1:30 pm | Saskatchewan, Saskatoon—Humboldt
Mr. Speaker, I will respond to my hon. colleague's question in two respects.
The first thing I would note is, yes, we could lower the percentage of our natural resource exports. We would do that by cutting the prices. I do not know why any government would encourage its citizens to lower the price for the goods that they are selling. That does not make sense. One of the reasons that the percentage of raw materials has gone up in our trade is because their value has gone up. More money is flowing into Canada for the same barrel of oil and for the same tonne of potash.
The second thing I would note, which I am sure my hon. colleague understands coming from this region, is that the natural resources industry is a high-tech industry. Drilling for oil or developing a new mine needs vast amounts of engineering intellectual capital, be it with computer science design, mine design or various other technologies.
- MPconMay 16, 2012 1:20 pm | Saskatchewan, Saskatoon—Humboldt
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleagues who have debated and engaged in this today. I particularly appreciated my close colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, for his remarks.
I welcome this opportunity to speak about our government's plan for responsible resource development. I do that not just as a member of Parliament who represents a region of Saskatchewan, both urban and rural, which depends heavily on resource development, but as someone who has worked in these industries over the years.
As have many Canadians, I paid my way through university by planting trees in our forestry sector, a good physical job that paid well, rewarded initiative and paid not per hour but per tree, something which many university students could appreciate. At the end of the day, the harder we worked, the more effort we put in, the more we appreciated our university education. That university education allowed me to become a geophysicist, someone who got to practise in northern Quebec, in Nunavut, in Yukon, in the Northwest Territories, in Manitoba and in my beloved home province of Saskatchewan. Therefore, I had the privilege of understanding, not just in the theoretical or the abstract but actually very practical to my own bottom line, the bottom line of my constituents and my personal life, the value of natural resources to us as a country.
Our government's top priority has always been to support jobs and growth and to sustain the Canadian economy. Since we introduced the economic action plan to respond to the global recession, Canada has recovered all of the jobs lost during the recession. In fact, in less than three years since 2009, employment has increased by more than three-quarters of a million, achieving the strongest job growth among the G7 countries, and our natural resource sector is a large part of that extraordinary job growth.
The natural resources sectors have supported the development of communities large and small throughout our nation and they have helped us to build a quality of life that is second to none in the world. Today, Canada's natural resource sector employs 760,000 Canadians. Furthermore, the resources sectors also generate billions of dollars worth of tax revenues and royalties annually to help pay for government programs and services for Canadians. We can see this future wealth being capitalized and becoming a reality now.
Over the next decade, Canada could have as many as 500 new projects and $500 billion in investments in energy and mining sectors alone. I will give just one basic example of how this can affect our country.
In my constituency a potash mine is being developed. When it is developed, as looks very likely to happen, it will be the world's largest potash mine. This project in and of itself is worth over $10 billion.
We see that resource development is not just isolated in Canada to Fort McMurray, to the oil sands, to the region up north. This is something that affects all Canadians. The development of this mine does not just boost economic activity in the riding of Saskatoon—Humboldt in the city of Saskatoon. Much of the engineering for this project is being done in Ontario and Quebec, employing highly skilled engineers in the service industry in eastern Canada. With these projects creating an estimated 700,000 jobs across Canada, they will continue to increase our country's economic prosperity.
However, we have seen, via the leader of the party, the NDP disagrees. Its leader said that the natural resources were a disease that would destroy the manufacturing sector. In the NDP's world, all of economic growth is a zero-sum game. Good high-paying jobs are all at the expense of the east. Instead of embracing economic growth, the leader of the NDP has chosen to pit one region of the country against another.
To be perfectly fair, that is not completely accurate because natural resources are an integral part of the entire Canadian economy and when people begin to attack natural resources as damaging other parts of the Canadian economy and other regions of the economy, they attack natural resources industries all across the country. I think of the diamond mines in the Northwest Territories and in Ontario, oil production off the east coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think of the Plan Nord going forward in northern Quebec. When they attack natural resources, they attack northern Quebec, Newfoundland, the Northwest Territories, the entirety of the prairie regions and in effect they attack one of the largest economic growth engines of Canada for all 10 provinces.
As has been stated earlier, economic growth in one region, the west, does not disadvantage another region, eastern Canada. It is quite the opposite. The economic growth of the west requires manufactured products of all types, from machinery to pipelines to construction material.
Hundreds of companies in the east are benefiting in a large way from resource development, not just in the west, but in Canada in its entirety. Just listen to what Jayson Meyers, CEO and president of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, said about resource development:
In total, CME estimates that energy and resource companies invested more than $85 billion in major capital projects in 2011, and is expecting investments to double over the next three years.... These investments in major capital projects will drive new business for Canadian manufacturers in a variety of sectors ranging from equipment, structural steel, and metal fabricating to construction materials and parts suppliers. They will provide opportunities for engineering and construction companies, processing and environmental technology companies, and services ranging from accommodation, food, environmental, and resource services, through to land management, trucking, and distribution as well.
Far from destroying our manufacturing sector, our resource sector is helping to provide jobs to the manufacturing sector.
Canadians understand full well what the government is trying to achieve here. They understand the massive economic potential of our resources. They also know that when it comes to resource development and the environment, it is not an either/or situation. Canadians realize that it is possible to have both. We can responsibly develop Canada's resources and protect the environment as we modernize the regulatory system. In fact, a recent public opinion survey from the chamber of commerce showed 65% of the people asked agreed that it is possible to increase energy production while protecting the environment. This is very true.
With responsible resource development, we will not only maintain Canada's world-class environmental protection programs, we also intend to strengthen them. This would be achieved by focusing federal environmental assessment efforts on major projects that can have adverse effects on the environment.
Let me add a personal note here. I have worked in mining resource exploration. The people of Canada need to know that companies themselves take a very tough line on environmental standards.
When I did exploration in the north, we actually left behind less of an ecological imprint than most of the tour organizers and tourists who were going through northern Canada. Mining exploration was less of an impact than canoe trips and people going through the north. That is not to say that they were causing a major negative ecological impact on northern Canada. It just shows how absolutely serious we were. We picked up everything we put down. Absolutely everything that flew in, flew out. We were very strict on environmental standards.
Our government will take steps to strengthen compliance and introduce stronger enforcement tools. We will do this in several ways: by introducing new, enforceable environmental assessment decisions that ensure project proponents comply with required environmental protection measures; by introducing new penalties for contraventions of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; by authorizing the use of administrative monetary penalties for violations of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the National Energy Board Act. We will also strengthen compliance by making conditions attached to the Fisheries Act authorizations enforceable.
These are not the actions of a government that is scared to stand up for the environment, but a government that cares greatly about the environment and understands that the environment and natural resources work together.
I spent much of my career before arriving in Parliament travelling across Canada seeing how our natural resources create jobs and prosperity in every region of the country.
Canadians from coast to coast realize how important resource sectors are to their communities, livelihood and well-being. The natural resources industry is our endowment. It is a high-tech industry. It is something we need to unleash, this resource potential, to create jobs, not just in western Canada, not just in northern Canada, not just in eastern Canada, but in Canada in its entirety. There is vast potential for all regions of our country to benefit from the responsible development of our resources.
I entirely reject the NDP premise that what is good for one part of the country is bad for the rest. All of Canada can prosper as a united, free country.
- MPconMay 16, 2012 1:15 pm | Ontario, Simcoe North
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest, Employment; the hon. member for Québec, Veterans Affairs; the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, Citizenship and Immigration.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.
- MP
conMay 16, 2012 1:15 pm | Saskatchewan, Cypress Hills—GrasslandsMr. Speaker, this is very typical of the Liberal Party. It did nothing for 13 years and allowed the backlog to grow from 500,000 to 600,000 to 700,000 to 800,000 to 840,000. We were elected and we tried to straighten out the system. Now he says that we should not have done that. Had Liberals been in power, by now that backlog would be 1.5 million and the wait list would not be 8 years but probably 12 to 14 years. How does that serve immigrants?
- MP
conMay 16, 2012 1:15 pm | Alberta, Calgary SoutheastMr. Speaker, a few moments ago the member for Winnipeg North characterized as heartless and cruel the efforts to finally move toward a fast immigration system which will allow us to admit qualified applicants for immigration within a matter of months rather than years, ensuring they have better employment prospects and get higher incomes, better linking newcomers to our labour market.
Would the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands not agree with me that if anything was cruel, it was the former Liberal government's incompetent mismanagement of our immigration system, which left to this government in 2006 a backlog of nearly one million people waiting for up to eight years to immigrate to Canada? Would he not agree with me that was an example of terrible neglect of the immigration system on the part of the previous Liberal government?
- MPconMay 16, 2012 1:05 pm | Saskatchewan, Cypress Hills—Grasslands
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.
I want to thank the member for Halifax for the opportunity to set the record straight about our government's plan for responsible resource development. As members have heard from countless witnesses at the natural resources committee, our current regulatory system is a patchwork of overlap, duplication and unpredictable delays.
When our government announced economic action plan 2012, we promised to try to untangle the complex web of rules and procedures with a review of major resource projects in Canada. We know that all Canadians will benefit if our natural resources are developed reasonably, responsibly and efficiently.
Over the next decade, more than 500 major resource projects worth $500 billion are expected to come online. These projects will create literally hundreds of thousands of good highly skilled jobs and will generate economic growth right across this country.
Canada's natural resource sector already directly employs more than 750,000 Canadians. Mining and energy account for more than 10% of Canada's $1.5 trillion economy and more than 40% of our exports. It is clear that we need to do more to tap into the tremendous appetite for resources in the world's dynamic emerging economies, resources that we have in abundance.
We need to find new ways to prevent the long delays in reviewing major projects that kill potential jobs and stall economic growth, putting those valuable investments at risk. That is what our plan for responsible resource development actually does.
Our plan would make project reviews more predictable and timely. It would reduce unnecessary duplication and regulatory burden. It would strengthen environmental protection and it would enhance consultations with aboriginal peoples.
This legislation has already received broad support from a wide cross-section of business, government and labour leaders across the land. They are welcoming this government's leadership on regulatory reform.
I realize that members of the no development party across the way may not listen to what I have to say, but I wonder if they will listen to some other folks. I wonder if they will listen to the unions who speak on behalf of Canadian workers.
Christopher Smillie from Canada's building trades union, which represents 200,000 trade workers in our energy sector, said:
--we support changes to the system to facilitate large projects....
What we do not support is a 12-year or 15-year regulatory dance that impedes economic development and employment for our members.
By the way, he also said, “The NDP would be very bad for workers and the entire Canadian economy”.
How about the manufacturers and exporters? Jayson Myers, the president and CEO of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters said:
Greater predictability and a more timely review process will encourage business investment - an important driver of economic growth at a time when governments and consumers face major spending constraints.
I wonder if the party opposite will listen to Canadian municipalities. Berry Vrbanovic, president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, is on record as saying:
We are encouraged by the government's commitment to reduce duplication between federal and provincial regulations, especially in the case of smaller community projects.
Will the party opposite listen to those who are working to develop the ring of fire in northern Ontario which will bring a great potential for jobs and economic opportunities to that region? William Boor of Cliffs Natural Resources, one of the main players in the ring of fire, told our committee:
One of the main things I'd like to dispel is the concept that longer equals more rigorous or more thorough.
Will the no development party listen to aboriginal Canadians? John Cheechoo from the ITK said that if the process were “a lot more streamlined, it would still reflect and respect those land claim agreements. I don't see any problem with it being done that way.”
Will those members listen to clean energy associations such as the Canadian Hydropower Association? Its president said:
We need to eliminate regulatory duplication, encourage the substitution of provincial processes over federal processes where possible, improve coordination among federal agencies, and establish functional timelines for assessments.
Maybe those members will listen to Ronald Coombes, the president of White Tiger Mining Corporation, who said:
--we want to thank [the Prime Minister] and both the federal and provincial governments of Canada for committing to working with first nations and for recognizing that the resource sector and national interests should not be held captive to long-overdue legislative changes.
My guess is that members of the no development party are not listening. If they were listening, they would know that Canadians strongly back our government's plan to streamline the review process for major economic projects. Canadians understand that we do not have to choose between the environment and economic development. It is not an either/or proposal.
The NDP is putting forward a false choice and a misleading argument, and Canadians know that. A new poll conducted by Ipsos Reid showed that two-thirds of Canadians believe it is possible to develop our economy while respecting the environment. That is what responsible resource development does. In the words of Alberta Premier Alison Redford, “it sends an important signal in terms of the fact that we can have both economic development and environmental sustainability”.
In the words of Alberta Premier Alison Redford, “it sends an important signal in terms of the fact that we can have both economic development and environmental sustainability”.
Canadians understand that the need for regulatory reform is long overdue. Every year the regulatory roster is filling up with thousands of small projects, even things such as expanding a maple syrup operation or the construction of a building where blueberries will be washed, that are required to undergo an environmental assessment.
In my own riding, when the RCMP musical ride came to Fort Walsh, it was required to do an environmental assessment on the parade grounds in front the fort before it allowed the ride to proceed.
Too often, investors and Canadians have to jump through endless hoops of rules and procedures for approval of any projects. That tangle of red tape is putting billions of dollars of investment and tens of thousands of potential jobs at risk.
We need to refocus our efforts on reviewing major projects that may actually pose a risk to the environment. Our plan will ensure that time and energy is spent where it can make the most difference, where it can do the most good for Canadians.
Canadians know that our government not only maintains Canada's world-class environmental protection programs, but we will strengthen them. Make no mistake, more timely reviews will not mean easier reviews.
Our government will continue to have a rigorous environmental review process. For example, we will be providing enforcement of environmental assessment conditions under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. We will be strengthening environmental safeguards, including pipeline and tanker safety. We will be authorizing new monetary penalties for violations of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the National Energy Board Act.
In short, we will ensure that we will continue to have a rigorous environmental process that will serve Canadians well in the years ahead. Canadians know that we must make the most of our abundant natural resources and the opportunities found in the global markets.
That takes me to comments that were made last week by the Leader of the Opposition when he talked about Dutch disease, when he criticized the thriving industries, particularly in western Canada, saying that they were destroying the economy across the country. We all know that is foolishness. The premiers of Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan all addressed that issue.
It is unfortunate that the opposition leader did not then apologize for the comments he made. He decided he would raise the ante up one more step, and today he addressed it again. It is unfortunate. It seems that the NDP just does not understand that its policies will do nothing but cost Canadians their jobs.
I want to read what he said today about Dutch disease. He said, “The Dutch disease is setting in Canada. We are losing hundreds of thousands of good-paying manufacturing jobs because we're not internalizing environmental costs”. That does not mean much to the average Canadian until it is actually defined. When he says “internalizing environmental costs”, he is talking about a carbon tax. Canadians need to know that.
We know the NDP supports a carbon tax. We know that is what he means, but he will not just come out and say it. We need to understand, from testimony we have heard at the natural resources committee, that if a carbon tax is applied across the country, it will have to be so high that it will impact the life of every Canadian.
That is what the NDP's intent is in saying that we need to internalize environmental costs. The NDP is saying that we need a carbon tax, and we need to set that carbon tax so high that Canadians will have to pay the price until they change their behaviour.
Canadians need to understand that this is in fact what the NDP means when it talks about user pay.
Our government is committed to responsible resource development. We have brought forward a responsible plan in the budget. The NDP should support it. It has used a lot of cliches and exaggerated arguments and illustrations to try to scare Canadians. It needs to do better than that. It should join with us in protecting the economy and the environment and moving ahead, creating jobs, a stronger economy and prosperity for Canadians.
- MP
ndpMay 16, 2012 12:45 pm | Nova Scotia, HalifaxMr. Speaker, my colleague opposite was correct in saying that this bill is being studied more than any other budget bill. That is correct because budget bills used to only be 30 pages. This bill is over 400 pages. It is almost 430 pages. With an extra 400 pieces of dense legislation, it warrants a full and thorough examination.
I know I cannot ask him a question, but if I had the opportunity to, I would ask why, if this bill is being adequately studied, is assisted human reproduction in this bill, is the Auditor General in this bill and why are changes to CSIS in this bill.
- MPconMay 16, 2012 12:40 pm | Saskatchewan, Cypress Hills—Grasslands
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this issue.
I am disappointed in my colleague opposite. I did not expect her to resort to every exaggeration and cliché in the book to try to make her argument and then to resort to name-calling at the end in order to try to convince people that the NDP is somehow on track here. Our government is all about innovation, stewardship and sustainable development.
I want to challenge the member on her comments about the examination of this bill, because it seems to me there is a full examination. This bill is being debated more than any budget bill in the last 20 years.
Her own party spent either 11 or 13 hours hogging debate when we initially introduced the bill. The NDP members did not want to allow the Liberals to speak to it, and NDP members certainly had lots of time and opportunity to make their point at that time.
We continue to debate. Today the official opposition has dedicated a day to this debate. It is going to committee and then to a subcommittee as well, so this bill is getting lots of discussion. I just wonder why the NDP is so locked into its ideological position that the members cannot even admit that we are taking a lot of time to review this bill and do a good job of discussing it.
- MPndpMay 16, 2012 12:35 pm | Nova Scotia, Halifax
moved:
That, in the opinion of the House, the Budget legislation guts the environmental assessment and fisheries laws, leaving Canada’s lakes, rivers, oceans, ecosystems, and fisheries at risk while unfairly downloading federal environmental responsibilities and their associated costs to the provinces, territories, and future generations.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.
My colleagues and I are hearing every day from Canadians who are rallying against the Conservative government's decision to table a Trojan Horse budget bill that contains measures that will do irreversible harm to our environment. It will affect the health, livelihood and future of Canadians, and it will leave an unacceptable and unequal burden on generations to come.
Canadians know intuitively that this cowardly attempt to avoid real debate on such significant legislation is undemocratic. It is another example of the government's penchant for avoiding accountability and scrutiny while it placates its industry bigwig buddies at the expense of the best interests of our communities.
There will not be sufficient public oversight or consultation on the bill. Communities that are relying on the very protections that are being gutted are being silenced. It is happening because the government knows that if Canadians were given the opportunity to examine this legislation fully, as they should be allowed to do in a democratic nation, they would reject the proposed changes because they recklessly gut environmental protection in this country.
New Democrats know and understand the importance of public participation in a democracy. That is why the NDP is holding a series of hearings in Ottawa and across the country that will allow experts and the public to engage in the policy areas of Bill C-38, such as the anti-environment provisions, in a meaningful way, which the government is trying to avoid.
The latest attempt by the government to hide from the public is yet another blot on the Conservative government's environmental record. From muzzling scientists, to withdrawing from international protocols that included mandatory greenhouse gas emission audits, to killing independent research bodies like the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and cancelling funding for environmental groups like the Canadian Environmental Network, the government shows time and time again that its number one policy is to stifle as much information and evidence as it can because that evidence flies in the face of the Conservative agenda.
The Conservatives keep forgetting one key thing and that is that Canadians from coast to coast to coast see these actions for what they really are: blindly partisan, incredibly short-sighted and devoid of any evidentiary framework or base.
One of the worst themes of Bill C-38 is the total lack of clarity and understanding on what impact these changes will have on the environmental protections we do have. For me, that is what makes this Trojan Horse bill so alarming. Canadians cannot be sure what the government is actually forcing upon this country.
We see in many different places where this legislation aims to give unparalleled discretion and powers to government and ministers, allowing them to override the best interests of Canadians in affected communities without really defining the scope of powers or important tests that would determine, for example, who could participate in a hearing.
Decisions will be made in the absence of an accountable framework. Make no mistake, these decisions of the future will be politicized and they will be partisan. This again flies in the face of good environmental stewardship.
I would like to talk about some of the proposed changes in the bill. In some of the cases we do not know what the outcome will be. We can see how the legislation is being changed, but we do not know what the impacts will be in the long run. That is all the more reason that we need to have a fulsome debate in the House and at committee on all aspects of the bill.
The entire Environmental Assessment Act is going to be replaced, and it is based on recommendations coming from the environment committee. That might sound like a positive thing, except that the review was the result of a very flawed legislative review at committee. It failed to meet any acceptable standard for a study of such an important piece of legislation.
I would like to talk about a couple of the changes to CEAA that are being proposed.
The bill would limit who could testify at environmental assessment hearings. It would limit that discussion to affected parties. Who is an affected party? Is it someone who lives in a place where a pipeline is going through the backyard? Is it someone who is five kilometres away or twenty kilometres away, or fifty kilometres? Think about Fukushima. How far away did that actually impact? Would people in that radius be able to participate?
What if people fish, but they fish very far downstream from a spawning bed, and there is an action taking place on a spawning bed? Are they an affected party if they live in southern Manitoba and the spawning bed is in northern Manitoba? Where do we draw the lines here? How do we know who gets to participate? What if they are scientists based out of Vancouver and they have good information about what could happen in northern British Columbia, or perhaps even in another province? Are they considered to be an affected party?
It is absolutely not clear what is being done here in limiting who can testify and who can participate. I am very worried that we are not going to get the good information that we need from the experts and from people on the ground who actually are directly affected, whether or not the government wants to believe they are.
This bill would also allow the federal cabinet to approve a project, even if the reviewing body has determined that there would be adverse environmental effects. In other words, if an arm's-length, non-partisan body says that a project should not go ahead—or yes, it should go ahead, but maybe with these changes—ultimately it is the cabinet that gets to make the decisions about whether that project goes ahead.
We also have a shift of moving from list versus trigger. This is a technical aspect of the bill, but right now an environmental assessment can be triggered because, for example, a navigable waterway is crossed or migratory birds may be impacted. We would switch to a list of what is included and what is not in an environmental assessment.
On its face, this might sound like a good idea, but we heard very good testimony at committee that asked this question: if lists are what is in and what is out, what do we do with projects that we cannot even conceive of right now? For example, if the list had been drawn up 50 years ago, would oil sands exploration have been on that list? Probably not. Do we think there should be environmental assessments of oil sands exploration? Yes.
This change would really limit what gets assessed and how the assessments are done, and it would not follow the evidence that we heard at committee, which is very unfortunate.
I will touch lightly on the fisheries provisions, and I am sure my colleague will also touch on them.
One really important aspect is that under the Fisheries Act provisions, we would change the focus from impacts on fish habitat to impacts causing “serious harm to fish”. What is “serious harm”? Well, let us imagine that a fish is maimed, deformed or has its growth stunted. Maybe its habitat is even destroyed. Maybe a future generation of fish is destroyed. As long as that fish is not killed, it seems it is okay under this legislation. That is absolutely impossible for me to wrap my head around, and it flies in the face of testimony we are hearing from people on the ground, who say that we need to protect fish habitat if we are going to protect the next generation of fish.
I will remind the government that allowing the degradation of our environment has long-term economic costs. The budget bill is not good financial management.The budget bill is not responsible governing. It is, plain and simple, an attack on our environment by a government that lacks the maturity or the common sense to see the long-term risks that it is engaging in.
How will my colleagues opposite explain to their constituents, their friends and their families why they are choosing to reject a path of innovation, environmental stewardship, sustainable development and intergenerational equity? I wonder how they will answer that question to their constituents, their families and their friends.
This legislation would be bad for our air, our water and our soil, and it is bad for humans and animals alike. I ask all members of this place to support our motion today in its denunciation of the government's environmental proposals.
May 15th
- MPconMay 15, 2012 10:25 pm | Ontario, Simcoe North
This House stands adjourned until later today at 2:00 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:28 a.m.)
- MPconMay 15, 2012 10:15 pm | Ontario, Simcoe North
That will conclude the round. We have just one more round to go. It will be the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. However, I should point out to hon. members that there is about eight minutes remaining in the time allocated for this evening's debate.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.
- MP
conMay 15, 2012 10:15 pm | Ontario, ThornhillFirst, Mr. Chair, the term that I used was a figure of speech. I could have used greenwashing. I could have used whitewashing and, as I have said in this House, I could have used shell game or three card monte, which is also an offence under the Canadian Criminal Code. However, these are only offences if criminal proceeds are involved.
It is a figure of speech. I am delighted that it caught the attention of those charities that may have been compromising their status. I am glad if it has caught the attention of the opposition and I am glad it has caught the attention of the Canadian public. I would hope that those charitable organization, which do have the benefit of charitable status, will conform with CRA regulation.
With regard to my early Christmas present, our government, since coming to power in 2006, had stated quite clearly that the Kyoto protocol was one of the largest single mistakes made by the previous Liberal government with any thought or consideration or due diligence. It was my honour to represent Canada, both at the Durban conference in December and upon the--
- MP
ndpMay 15, 2012 10:15 pm | British Columbia, Burnaby—New WestminsterMr. Chair, we simply need to ask the minister even understands the definition of money laundering. That, of course, is a criminal activity. What he has said tonight is that he has no proof of any criminal activity from these environmental charities.
I would like to move on to the issue of the minister's statement on January 12 in Calgary when he described the decision to withdraw from Kyoto as “an early Christmas present” to himself. Could he please explain what he meant by that?
- MPconMay 15, 2012 10:10 pm | Ontario, Thornhill
Mr. Chair, again, and I will try to be very clear for my colleague's benefit, the media protocol is public.
Journalists of one sort or another, whether scientific journalists or general news journalists, contact the department when they see an item, a paper or a statement that they would like to address. The communications department of Environment Canada, as in other government departments and in most private sector companies, processes the request. In 99% of the cases it enables the interview to take place.
With regard to the two incidents referenced by my friend, the circumstances simply did not work out to enable those interviews at that specific time.
- MPndpMay 15, 2012 10:10 pm | British Columbia, Burnaby—New Westminster
Mr. Chair, again, will the protocol be made public? That is the question.
Let us look at two issues. Scientist David Tarasick and his ozone layer research published in the journal, Nature, and the scientific team publishing in the Journal of Geophysical Research, were not allowed to do the interviews that were requested by the media. Was the minister's office involved in that decision? Again, will the media protocol be made public?
- MPconMay 15, 2012 10:05 pm | Ontario, Thornhill
Mr. Chair, first, to correct my colleague, of those 1,050 instances, the vast majority were very small and were contained by local or provincial agencies.
With regard to the legislation before us and the possible development of major projects, in budget 2012 we provided $35.7 million, for example, over two years to further strengthen Canada's tanker regime, again depending upon projects and tanker routes as they would be approved.
With regard to major pipeline projects, there has been provision for far greater inspection and oversight of any new completed project.
- MPndpMay 15, 2012 10:05 pm | British Columbia, Burnaby—New Westminster
Mr. Chair, he did not answer my question, which asked if they have calculated the probable increase in environmental incidents.
I will not give the minister another chance to obfuscate. However, if he does have the response, I hope that he will gave it.
As we know, the B.C. environment minister was very surprised about the closure of the environmental emergencies program in British Columbia and the B.C. spill response centre. Were any consultations at all done with the Government of British Columbia before the B.C. spill response centre was closed?
- MPconMay 15, 2012 10:00 pm | Ontario, Simcoe North
That will bring that round to a close.
Now we will go to the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.
- MPconMay 15, 2012 10:00 pm | Ontario, Thornhill
Mr. Chair, I can give my colleague an approximate number. The total number of events, spills or releases of pollutants was approximately 1,500.
Here is the exact number. In 2010-11, there were 1,050 pollution incidents to which Environment Canada provided technical support. Of these events, though, Environment Canada personnel attended only approximately 10%.
I remind my colleague that Environment Canada staffers are not first responders. They very seldom attend unless there is a compelling reason, either in the magnitude of the event or in the scientific complexity, that requires their on-location presence.
- MP
conMay 15, 2012 10:00 pm | Manitoba, Selkirk—InterlakeMr. Chair, in the last Parliament, when I was the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment, I was proud of the work that we undertook in studying the oil sands. We looked at the amount of work that was taking place in monitoring the oil sands and the possible contamination of the Athabasca River and surrounding area and the impact on downstream communities. I am quite concerned about some of the comments that have been made by the leader of the NDP over the last week or so.
What is the parliamentary secretary's take on the comments made by the leader of the NDP, calling the oil sands a disease that was going to hurt Ontario and eastern Canada.
- MPndpMay 15, 2012 10:00 pm | British Columbia, Burnaby—New Westminster
Mr. Chair, what that shows is that on average, every 72 hours the environmental emergencies program was responding to an environmental emergency. So much for it being a rare occurrence. I think it is very good to have that exposed.
I would like to come to the issue of the probable increase in environmental incidents that would require a response from the emergency environmental program if the northern gateway pipeline project is approved.
Has the department calculated the probable increase in environmental incidents that the EEP would be called to?
- MPconMay 15, 2012 9:55 pm | Manitoba, Selkirk—Interlake
Mr. Chair, the parliamentary secretary mentioned Lake Winnipeg and its south basin is in my riding of Selkirk—Interlake. This has been one initiative that I have been so pleased was undertaken by our government.
Over the past four years, Environment Canada has invested $18 million in research to look at things like nutrient loads and ways to control agricultural run-off and to monitor and improve municipal waste water treatment right through the entire basin. The basin consists of four provinces and four U.S. states. It has been incredible to have the participation of stakeholders throughout the Lake Winnipeg basin. They have contributed to the knowledge and the reduction of nutrient loads going into Lake Winnipeg.
I, my kids and my family love to swim in Lake Winnipeg. We have some beautiful beaches in the south basin and the last thing we want to see is algae blooms. The last thing we want to see is having high E. coli counts and beach closures because of these nutrient loads that occur from time to time. We need to work closely with stakeholders to reduce those nutrients.
The $18 million through Environment Canada and targeted through research within the department and also working along with academics throughout the basin have provided a significant benefit long term. Part of the Lake Winnipeg basin initiative also consisted of the Lake Winnipeg stewardship fund and that component was almost $4 million in funding provided to community stakeholder groups that did different types of projects. One that was particularly successful, and is still running to this day, was the one that was undertaken by the Lake Winnipeg south basin mayors and reeves. They introduced a lake-friendly program to label products that were lake friendly, essentially that they were low in phosphates and nitrates and that they were safe to use if they ever ended up in the lake through the watershed.
In watching the debate earlier today, I understand there were a number of members who already spoke to the benefits of protecting Lake Winnipeg since it acted as the reservoir for the entire southern Prairies and the northern great plains of the United States.
The parliamentary secretary is extremely familiar with Lake Winnipeg. Could she speak of her experience and her ideas and suggestions on how this program has worked and how it may continue into the future?
- MPconMay 15, 2012 9:45 pm | Ontario, Thornhill
Mr. Chair, yes I could.
My colleague is quite right, schedule 2 does allow the government to add to the environmental effects which are listed in section 5. Only effects within federal jurisdiction are relevant. The law could evolve and at some point in the future we might have other areas that would constitute federal jurisdiction.
- MPndpMay 15, 2012 9:45 pm | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Chair, what does the minister think our sustainable practice is in the oil sands?
- MPconMay 15, 2012 9:45 pm | Manitoba, Selkirk—Interlake
Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to rise this evening. Actually, this is my third time in the past week that I am here at this late hour speaking to Canadians about issues that are important to them. Indeed, as the former chair of the Standing Committee on the Environment, it is great to be able to speak to the House about the important work being undertaken by the government, work that has a real impact on the health of all Canadians and the environment in which we live.
As everyone knows, Environment Canada is a regulatory department. As one of the federal government's most active regulators, Environment Canada has wide-ranging regulatory powers. In fact, the department is responsible for more than a dozen statutes and 80 regulations in a number of areas, including controlling the level of toxic substances in commercial products and protecting migratory birds and species at risk.
Although Environment Canada's strong regulatory performance goes uncontested given these realities, it is necessary for the department to aim for progressively higher levels of regulatory excellence. Changes to the regulatory processes will be a key component in enabling the department to achieve its goals for all Canadians. To this end, the department's next steps in improving regulatory measures involves streamlining and increasing the efficiency and transparency of its regulatory processes so they can be more efficient and effective.
While these are significant aims, there are broader, practical considerations as well, especially given the impact that environmental rules and standards have on our economy. We have to uphold these high standards at the same time as we ensure Canadian businesses hold their own in an intensely competitive global marketplace.
Given the key role that first-class environmental regulations play in a well-functioning economy, it is easy to understand why striving for regulatory excellence is so important. The commitment to regulatory excellence is perhaps best demonstrated through the internationally recognized chemicals management plan. Launched in 2006 as a combined effort of Environment Canada and Health Canada, the chemicals management plan has elevated Canada to the position of world leader in addressing threats to the safety and security of Canadians for new and existing chemical substances.
Many of the chemicals reviewed under the chemicals management plan are pervasive in the everyday lives of Canadians. They range from chemicals used in various industrial sectors, including fuels, energy, pulp and paper, household products, children's toys and in food. Bisphenol A is a well-known example. Here is a case where a comprehensive series of measures have been put in place starting with banning its use in baby bottles. This was followed by controls to limit the release of industrial effluents to water and the implementation to research and monitoring programs to determine if further action is required. In addition, the chemicals management plan is a predictable science-based regime that provides regulatory certainty for business.
Canada is also using its research and monitoring data together with our regulatory experience to provide international leadership in chemicals management. For example, last summer, Canada hosted the International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant in Halifax. That brought together several hundred researchers from around the world and showcased the results of Canada's work in this field. In particular, this science has identified that over 95% of mercury, a potent neurotoxin that is particularly harmful to pregnant women and children, is coming from other countries and accumulating in Canada's north.
Canada's science is informing UN negotiations for a mercury treaty aimed toward limiting atmospheric emissions from these countries and, thus, protecting Canadians and our environment. It is also informing the international community on the progress that has been made in managing persistent organic pollutants, such as PCBs.
Together, over the past five years, Environment Canada and Health Canada have made great strides in a wide range of chemical risk assessments, regulatory activities, monitoring and research. That work must and will proceed.
In 2011, the government announced $500 million over five years to ensure the significant work on chemicals, which we began back in 2006, continues at full speed. We have made solid progress under the chemicals management plan in addressing a significant portion of the chemicals that are believed to be in commerce and that have been identified as having potential risks to human health or the environment. We have now worked through the assessment of about 1,100 chemicals on that list and will tackle close to 1,500 over the next five years. We will also ensure that new harmful chemicals do not enter the Canadian market.
The chemicals management plan exemplifies many of the hallmarks of a world-class regulatory system. It is a transparent regulatory program that provides for stakeholder participation and is responsive to the growing body of new science in this field. Last year, for example, stakeholders asked for reconsideration of one of our regulatory decisions on the basis of new science. A board of review was established composed of a panel of experts in this area and they examined new information, including studies carried out by Environment Canada. The board found that the substance did not pose a danger to the environment and, as such, the department was able to conclude that the substance was not toxic and regulatory control measures were not required.
Another strength of the chemicals management plan is the government's ongoing commitment to consult and share information with stakeholders and the public at key stages throughout the regulatory process.
Since 2006, about $400 million have been spent by Environment Canada and Health Canada to ensure that the health of Canadians and their environment is protected, which is a key priority. We are determined to ensure that existing chemicals used in our homes, businesses and public spaces are properly managed and that the risks to Canadians are minimized. We are equally determined to keep close tabs on any and all new chemicals that enter the market.
There is no question that protecting the health of Canadians and their environment is a key priority. This priority is clearly reflected through the funding of the next phases of the chemical management plan.
Moving forward, I am confident that Environment Canada and the entire department will continue to regulate in a manner that is evidence-based, efficient, effective, transparent and adaptable, firmly establishing itself as a world-class regulator.
I have a couple of questions for the parliamentary secretary.
First, how can the government say that it is a world leader in chemicals management when Canadians and the environment are still exposed to harmful chemicals?
- MPndpMay 15, 2012 9:40 pm | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Chair, can the minister even confirm that there will be money spent on public consultation this coming year?
- MPconMay 15, 2012 9:35 pm | Ontario, Simcoe North
I appreciate members' patience on this issue. It is correct that members should do their very best to try to make the responses equally timed to the length of the question. I appreciate that some of these questions can compel a more fulsome response, and I would seek the minister's and other respondents' co-operation in doing their best in terms of keeping the responses short.
The hon. Minister of the Environment.
- MPndpMay 15, 2012 9:35 pm | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I asked a simple question and it was very short. I would expect that the minister would follow the timelines as were set out at the beginning of committee of the whole.
- MPconMay 15, 2012 9:30 pm | Ontario, Simcoe North
Is there unanimous consent of the House for the hon. member to split her time?
- MP
May 15, 2012 9:30 pm | Ontario, Beaches—East YorkMr. Chair, could the minister tell us, would the government ever impose a carbon tax on Canadians?
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 45 Next »
