Twitter
FacebookMay
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- MPlibMay 16, 2012 11:05 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, Canada signed the UN Declaration on Nutrition, which says access to adequate and safe food is a right. Despite this, 40% of Toronto's students go to school hungry and Canada remains the only developed country without a national nutrition program. Hungry children may stop growing; they cannot learn; they may be undereducated; and, later in life, they may not reach their full potential.
Eating breakfast boosts behaviour, grades and graduation rates, while curbing sick days and suspensions. We must ensure that every child gets a healthy start each morning to help enhance their learning opportunities in school and their personal health.
The Ontario Public School Boards' Association is asking the Canadian School Boards Association to lobby the federal government for a nutrition program. Let us end child hunger in Canada. As Buzz Aldrin says, if we can conquer space, we can conquer child hunger.
- MPlibMay 15, 2012 9:15 pm | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Chair, I would remind the minister that his own Prime Minister has promised a price on carbon by 2016-2018, $65 per tonne.
The question I asked was, were there any disruptions in service at the World Ozone and UV Data Centre, yes or no.
- MPlibMay 15, 2012 9:10 pm | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Chair, the minister does not understand. We are concerned about a 2°C average global temperature. That is associated with dangerous climate change.
We believe in evidence and science on this side of the House. It turns out that ozonesonde measurements have not only ceased at the Centre for Atmospheric Research Experiments in Egbert, Ontario; they have also stopped at Environment Canada's research station at Bratt's Lake near Regina, Saskatchewan. This is downwind from the oil sands and, presumably, would have been part of the minister's plan for oil sands monitoring. Where else will ozonesonde launches that monitor ozone pollution be cut?
- MPlibMay 15, 2012 9:05 pm | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Chair, yet again the minister did not answer my question. How many of the scientists, many of them Nobel prize winning scientists, are going to be funded? Has the adaptation impacts research group closed?
- MPlibMay 11, 2012 10:35 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for raising student nutrition in the House.
Child hunger is a major issue in Canada. That is why we need a pan-Canadian nutrition strategy. We remain one of the few industrialized countries without a national breakfast program.
Physical inactivity is also a major public health issue in Canada. Only 9% of boys and only 4% of girls meet the Canada physical guidelines. There is a real disconnect between the government's articulation of the importance of the childhood inactivity crisis and its leadership and investment.
We need a comprehensive pan-Canadian strategy to promote physical activity. We need to commit to that strategy, and we need the investments. Stakeholders across the country have been calling for that.
- MPlibMay 11, 2012 10:05 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Madam Speaker, while the parliamentary secretary claims that the government is looking after the most vulnerable, in some parts of our country families eat only one meal a day instead of three and, more often than we would like to admit, some family members eat while others go hungry. When this happens, children may stop growing and they may be too hungry to learn. When they are older, they may be undereducated and unable to work to their full potential. No family should face such choices in Canada, not in a country of such enormous wealth.
We signed the World Declaration on Nutrition and it is up to us to ensure the promise. Children do not want excuses. They just want food to fill their tummies. We need a pan-Canadian nutrition program in this country.
- MPlibMay 11, 2012 9:10 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, this petition is regarding CCSVI.
Yesterday marked the two year anniversary since I first asked for an emergency debate on CCSVI in the House. In two years, 800 Canadians died of multiple sclerosis. It is also two years since the member for St. Paul's and myself began asking for a registry and clinical trials for CCSVI. The government eventually committed to both but, unfortunately, neither has begun.
I remember all those we have lost and their families.
The petitioners call upon the Minister of Health to consult experts actively engaged in the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI to undertake phase III clinical trials on an urgent basis in multiple centres across Canada and to require follow-up care.
- MPlibMay 11, 2012 8:35 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, the government has been attacking the reputations of NGOs with which it disagrees.
The environment minister is quick to deflect questions about his shameful attacks by citing the work of a Senate committee on the NGO issue. Unfortunately, this Liberal-proposed study in the Senate has been blocked by Conservatives in the Senate.
Will the government commit to holding fair and thorough hearings on this very important issue? Will the environment minister appear before the Senate committee to explain his outrageous accusations against reputable Canadian charities?
- MPlibMay 11, 2012 7:10 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the speech and for mentioning MS during MS awareness month.
I have some major concerns about the budget, particularly the fact that it would destroy 50 years of environmental safeguards. The repeal of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act would affect regulatory decision making and the risk of project specific and cumulative environmental impacts. I would like to know what analysis has been undertaken to ensure the adequacy of the environmental assessment process in each province, and what are the projected costs of changes to the act for the provinces and territories?
- MPlibMay 10, 2012 11:55 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, contaminated sites put the health, safety and economic interests of Canadians at risk for generations to come. Radioactive material may pose cancer risks and one litre of gasoline can render one million litres of water undrinkable.
Does the minister understand that 13,000 sites may need to be cleaned up, that he should stop congratulating himself on a job half done and instead stand up for the environment, develop aggressive timelines and provide the necessary resources to protect Canadians?
- MPlibMay 10, 2012 7:25 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
With respect to clinical trials for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI): (a) what was the deadline for receiving applications for clinical trials for CCSVI and has the application process closed; (b) how many applications were received, and, for each application received, (i) from what institution and country was it received, (ii) are the researchers who submitted the application practiced in the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI; (c) why was it decided that an international review panel was needed to assess applications for clinical trials; (d) what was the specific process for and who was involved in choosing the members of the international review panel; (e) who had the ultimate decision-making authority on the appointments to the international review panel; (f) has the international review panel been chosen, and, if so, (i) who is on the panel, (ii) why was each member chosen, (iii) for each member, is he or she practiced in the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI; (g) how will all potential conflicts of interest of members of the international review panel be (i) recorded, (ii) confirmed, (iii) publicly declared; (h) has the review process of applications begun, (i) is it in progress, (ii) by what date is the review expected to be finished; (i) what specific criteria have been established to review applications; (j) by what date is an announcement expected to be made regarding the chosen research team or teams; (k) what, if any, monies have been set aside for clinical trials, (i) how was the required amount of money decided, (ii) will the monies allow for an adequate number of patients to be included to demonstrate clinical efficacy at the 0.05 level of significance; (l) what timeline is being allowed for ethics approval; (m) by what date is patient accrual expected to take place; (n) by what date are clinical trials expected to commence; and (o) what is a detailed timeline of what can be expected over the next year in terms of significant dates for clinical trials, as well as any dates for meetings regarding CCSVI?
- MPlibMay 08, 2012 11:25 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the commissioner of the environment gave the Conservative government a failing grade. His report contradicts the government's unfounded claim that it will be able to meet even its weak greenhouse gas emissions targets. The commissioner said that poor planning, inadequate environmental assessment and weak regulations become expensive mistakes for future generations. Why does the government insist on gutting environmental legislation, despite the expert advice of the commissioner?
- MPlibMay 07, 2012 11:00 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I had the tremendous honour of reviewing the outstanding cadets of 700 David Hornell VC Squadron, which has been serving the youth of Etobicoke since 1960. The squadron is named after a native of Etobicoke who was one of only two RCAF airmen to be awarded the Victoria Cross in World War II.
Over 200 young people aged 12-18 years belong to this award-winning squadron. They excel in band, debating team, drill team, effective speaking and precision rifle team. In fact, they were recognized by the Air Cadet League as the top squadron in central Ontario in 2011, under the command of Major David Forster. The air cadet program develops citizenship and leadership, encourages fitness and fosters an interest in civil and military aviation.
I celebrate our extraordinary youth. Our future is brighter because of their efforts, and I am enormously proud of each and every one of them.
- MPlibMay 03, 2012 1:20 pm | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. What scares me most about this budget is that it will not affect a few years; the gutting of environmental legislation will affect our country for decades to come.
- MPlibMay 03, 2012 1:15 pm | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, I am always evidenced-based, fact-based. This was a well-researched piece of work.
I will present the evidence for the hon. member. The environment is not a Conservative priority. In 2008, the 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 industrial nations on environmental performance. In 2010, SFU ranked Canada 24th of 25 OECD nations on environmental performance. Most recently, the environmental performance index ranked Canada 102nd out of 132 countries on climate change. In 2006, the Prime Minister remarked, “Canada's environmental performance is, by most measures, the worst in the developed world. We have big problems”.
This budget should have taken action to protect the environment, not gut it.
- MPlibMay 03, 2012 1:05 pm | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, this is a profoundly sad time for Canada. The government is gutting 50 years of environmental oversight and threatening the health and safety of Canadians, our communities, our economy and our livelihoods.
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, 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 protection. Canadians should, therefore, rise up, have their voices heard and stop the Prime Minister's destruction of laws that protect the environment and the health and safety of Canadians. In fact, Maurice Strong, a prominent Canadian who spearheaded the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, just this week 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 that there was still some 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 and trying to score political points by attacking the former Liberal leader, saying that the Liberals took no action on climate change, when it knows that 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 emissions target by an astonishing 90%, walked away from Kyoto, having just repealed 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.
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 has now said it to the BBC.
Norway's former prime minister, former chair of the World Commission on Environment and Development and former director general of the World Health Organization, Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, 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”.
While the Conservative government claims 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 in fact pay attention to the government's reducing budgets at Environment Canada and 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 a secret memo.
After we vote against this kitchen sink budget, a budget that devotes 150 pages of a 400-page budget to environmental gutting, the Conservative government will stand up 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 and send them to the relevant committees for clause by clause study under public scrutiny, and end their 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 quality, waste water and partnerships for a greener economy, cuts of $3.8 million for emergency disaster response, and consolidating the unit that responds to oil spill emergencies in 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.
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 where they still 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.
While the Minister of Natural Resources complains:
...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.
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; 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 has never said what will replace it. The head of NRT does not know either, as what it does is unique. As well, we see 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. It should be able to withstand criticism. Instead of making its arguments, it is just looking to eliminate dissent.
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, water, soil and a variety of life, we steal from the endless future to serve the fleeting present.
- MPlibMay 03, 2012 11:50 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, budget 2012 continued its war on the environment by scrapping 50 years of protections.
The environment commissioner recently said that, “public consultation has always been a "bedrock" of environmental policy” and “there will be a significant narrowing of public participation”. He also expressed concern about changes to the Fisheries Act.
Does the government have the courage to send these changes to the environment committee to be studied instead of burying them at the finance committee?
- MPlibMay 03, 2012 9:15 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, West Coast Environmental Law says:
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. Today's budget would cut up this environmental safety net...
It further states:
A robust, sustainable economy depends on a healthy environment. The multi-billion dollar clean up costs from the Exxon Valdez and the Gulf oil spill remind us that it is citizens who pay the price when things go wrong.
Does the hon. member think that the environmental sections of this bill should be hived off, as the Liberals have called for, and sent to committee for public scrutiny in a clause-by-clause study?
- MPlibMay 03, 2012 8:30 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister about the repeal of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. Right now, the Minister of the Environment is to publish a climate change plan each year detailing measures being taken to meet Canada's commitments, including the timing and expected reductions, forecasts for emission reductions as a whole and an explanation of how any measures that were not implemented as planned will be redressed.
The independent National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy is to assess each year's plan and offer constructive expert feedback but the NRT has been eliminated. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is to report regularly on Canada's progress in implementing its climate plan and achieving its target.
Repealing the act will eliminate all of the above accountability measures and I am wondering what the minister will put in place to be accountable on Canada's international climate commitments.
- MPlibMay 03, 2012 7:05 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition regarding sickle cell disease and thalassemic disorders.
Sickle cell disease affects blood cells that carry oxygen throughout our bodies. In sickle cell disease, red blood cells harden into long slivers that block veins and arteries causing injury to blood vessels of organs, including the brain and lungs. About 10% of children develop strokes. Children with sickle cell also are extremely vulnerable to infection and have periodic health crises that cause terrible pain and difficulty breathing, and their lifespan can be reduced by about 30 years.
The petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons to adopt Bill C-221, An Act respecting a Comprehensive National Strategy for Sickle Cell Disease and Thalassemic Disorders.
- MPlibMay 02, 2012 12:15 pm | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to present this petition regarding access to healthy food, which is critically important for a child's development but is often limited for Canadian children who live in poverty. Child and youth nutrition programs are a cost-effective way to encourage the development of lifelong healthy eating habits, support Canadian farmers and food producers in the development of local markets and reduce future health care costs.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to provide national leadership and support for child and youth nutrition programs through the ministries of health and agriculture, to develop a national child and youth nutrition strategy in consultation with stakeholders across the country and to develop partnerships with farmers and food producers to stimulate economic development.
- MPlibMay 02, 2012 11:45 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, the government is tainted by the largest electoral fraud scandal in our country's history. Canadians are realizing they cannot trust the government.
The government did not have the courage to campaign on gutting environmental regulations. It did not tell Canadians it would cut legislation that puts their health and safety at risk.
Can the minister please explain why he is killing 50 years of safeguards, and does he have the conviction to hive off environmental gutting from the budget?
April
- MPlibApr 30, 2012 12:40 pm | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, we should not be playing politics with the motion regarding a tragedy that took place in Walkerton when 2,300 people fell ill.
The actual report said the contributions to that tragedy were the Conservative cutbacks of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
In stark contrast, in 2011 the Ontario environment minister, John Wilkinson, said the government is still paying heed to the lessons from the Walkerton tragedy. Wilkinson noted that Premier Dalton McGuinty's Liberals had implemented 121 recommendations from Mr. Justice Dennis O'Connor's 692-page report. Mr. Wilkinson said, “We didn't gut the resources that were there to protect people”, noting that the government has spent $30 million on the Walkerton Clean Water Centre and has trained more than 23,000 people.
- MPlibApr 30, 2012 12:35 pm | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, there absolutely is a war on the environment. Last summer the government announced that 700 positions could be cut; then we had cuts of 43% to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. The government then wanted to cut ozone monitoring. Ozone is critical to life on earth.
The questions should be: Should the government streamline upper atmosphere ozone monitoring a year after the discovery of a two million square kilometre ozone hole over the Arctic? What does streamline actually mean? It means gutting. Will the government maintain the integrity of the ozone monitoring program? Will it maintain Canadian contributions to the global observing system for climate in support of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change?
Another area where the government is cutting is water. Water is essential to our health, sustaining our ecosystems and growing our economy. On World Water Day the government gave .7% of what is needed to clean up the Great Lakes.
- MPlibApr 30, 2012 10:45 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, in May 2000, 2,300 people fell ill after E. coli bacteria contaminated the water supply of Walkerton, Ontario. Sweeping Conservative cutbacks to the Ontario Ministry of Environment contributed to the tragedy, the most serious case of water contamination in Canadian history.
For a first example of the impact of the cutbacks, the Conservative government discontinued laboratory testing services for municipalities in 1996 and failed to put in place a regulation making the reporting of contamination mandatory. Had the government done this, hundreds of illnesses would have been prevented.
For a second example, Conservative cuts to the Ministry of the Environment made the ministry less capable of identifying and dealing with problems at Walkerton's water utility. The ministry's inspections program should have detected the improper treatment and monitoring practices and ensured that those practices were corrected.
In January 2002, Premier Mike Harris accepted responsibility for the shortcomings of the Conservative government. He said:
I am truly sorry for the pain and suffering you have experienced.
I, as premier, must ultimately accept responsibility for any shortcomings of the Government of Ontario.
I deeply regret any factors leading to the events of May 2000 that were the responsibility of the Government of Ontario....
History teaches hard lessons, reminding us that prevention is the best line of defence and that worst-case scenarios do happen.
In examining past disasters such as when the Exxon Valdez struck Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound in 1989 and when the Deepwater Horizon exploded in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, causing the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, we see that key decisions were frequently made without assessing the risks, and sufficient prevention measures were not always taken. When extreme cases did occur, responses were often delayed and opportunities to reduce damage were lost. Most recently, the lesson to prepare for worst-case scenarios was repeated with the double disaster of the east Japan earthquake and tsunami in 2011.
It has been said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Unfortunately, economic action plan 2012, or the inaction plan for the environment, and Bill C-38, the budget implementation bill, show a complete failure to learn from the past, namely that past cuts to the environment have resulted in dire consequences and that worst-case scenarios do occur.
Instead, the budget implementation bill continues the Conservative government's war on the environment. An astonishing 150 pages of the 400-plus-page budget are focused on streamlining or gutting environmental oversight. The government is absolutely trying to avoid public scrutiny by jamming such major changes into Bill C-38, thereby avoiding specific study of the changes at individual parliamentary committees. Critics have called it an affront to democracy. As a result, on Friday I called upon the government to hive off changes to environmental protection and then send them to the relevant committee for a thorough clause-by-clause study.
Bill C-38 is an attack on our best means of defence, namely environmental protection monitoring and emergency response. The budget severely cuts Environment Canada, reduces our number of scientists, eliminates the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the independent think tank with a direct mandate from Parliament, silences the government's critics and guts environmental legislation.
Environment Canada will lose 200 positions. Last summer, the government announced cuts of 700 positions and a 43% cut to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Key research and monitoring initiatives, which sample air pollution, industrial emissions, water quality, waste water et cetera, and partnerships for a greener economy will be cut $7.5 million.
It is important that parliamentarians have the opportunity to do due diligence and to identify all areas of scientific research and partnerships to be cut and to see how each identified cut is projected to impact decision-making and the development of public policy.
Critics of the government are being silenced through changes to the Canada Revenue Agency and attempts to seize control of the university research agenda. Critics are also being silenced through exclusion of concerned groups and citizens from the environmental review process for pipelines.
Bill C-38 effectively dismantles Canada's environmental laws as we know them, by the repeal of the Kyoto Implementation Act and the wholesale repeal of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and its replacement with a new law that allows the federal government to avoid environmental reviews of many potentially harmful projects and to do less-comprehensive reviews where they still occur. What are the impacts of the repeal of CEAA on regulatory decision-making and the risk of project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts? What is the adequacy of the environmental assessment process in each province and territory and the impacts of industrial projects that cross provincial borders? The weakening of several environmental laws including species at risk in water and near elimination of fish habitat protection in the Fisheries Act puts species from coast to coast to coast at increased risk of habitat loss and population decline. The authority of the federal cabinet to approve new pipeline projects is now above the National Energy Board.
Astoundingly, as the government guts environmental legislation to fast-track development of major projects such as the Northern Gateway Pipeline and to allow oil tankers in northern British Columbia waters, it is cutting $3.8 million from emergency disaster response and consolidating the unit that responds to oil spill emergencies in central Canada, namely Gatineau and Montreal. Key questions regarding the government's preparation for and ability to respond to environmental emergencies should include how many positions in the unit will be slashed; how consolidating the unit in Quebec will impact operations and the predicted response time to travel from the new location to the oil spill; whether the unit will have the financial and technical resources necessary to respond to oil spill emergencies, including those emergencies involving diluted bitumen on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and along the proposed route of the Northern Gateway Pipeline project; and what action the government has undertaken regarding risk assessment and worst-case scenarios related to the navigation of oil tankers and potential diluted bitumen oil spills.
With independent science squashed, environmental legislation gutted and critics silenced, what stands in the way of environmental disaster? The government must stop its war on the environment, science and indeed anyone who threatens to stand in its way of fast-tracking development. Canada needs robust environmental legislation to protect ecosystems, the health and safety of Canadians, the communities in which we live, the economy and our livelihoods.
I will finish by saying that I spent years of my career undertaking disaster prevention, response and recovery, helping organizations across North America prepare for extreme events resulting from climate change and preparing for pandemics, as well as designing the full disaster preparedness program for the university. The United Nations development program has recently asked me to be on the steering committee for international parliamentarians regarding disaster reduction.
Finally, in the wake of disasters, people often wonder whether there was a way to protect both people and property from such devastating losses. The answer is a resounding “yes, by taking action to prevent future damage before a problem occurs”. In order to prevent another tragedy, the government must ensure that Environment Canada's programs and scientists are fully funded to support scientific excellence in prevention, monitoring and emergency response and hive off the environmental protection sections from Bill C-38 and allow public scrutiny of the bill through clause-by-clause study at the appropriate committee.
- MPlibApr 30, 2012 10:30 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, air pollution is a major environmental risk to human health. By reducing air pollution levels, we can help reduce the burden of disease from respiratory infections, heart disease and lung cancer. The lower the levels of air pollution in a city, the better the respiratory and cardiovascular health the population will be in.
Exposure to air pollutants is largely beyond the control of individuals and requires public authorities at the national, regional and even international levels. Does the hon. member think that the government should be making cuts to air pollution?
- MPlibApr 27, 2012 10:20 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his compassionate speech.
I would like to address two issues that increase the risk of elder abuse: namely poverty and health issues, particularly limited functional capacity. I am absolutely against raising the age of OAS eligibility and find that unnecessary change is reprehensible. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it clear that the economy is strong and that this is a false crisis. Senior poverty could increase by one-third with the government's changes.
The second issue is health. The World Health Organization's report, Dementia: A Public Health Priority, and the Alzheimer Society of Canada's Rising Tide report are wake-up calls for us to develop a national plan for dementia. Today in Canada, one person is diagnosed with dementia every five minutes. There is a terrible human cost and the economic cost is $15 billion. In 30 years, we are looking at a person being diagnosed once every two minutes and the cost to be $153 billion.
Five of the G7 countries have nationwide plans. Why is Canada lagging behind?
- MPlibApr 27, 2012 9:00 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition regarding CCSVI. While the government lags 60 other countries in treatment for CCSVI, it does allow people with MS to take Genelia and Tysabri.
Health Canada is now reviewing Genelia after it was linked to 11 deaths outside Canada. The new recommendations are that it should not be given to patients with a history of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.
Tysabri was fast-tracked by the government despite the fact that it was known to cause the fatal brain infection PML. As of April 2012, there have been 232 cases of PML worldwide, and 49 have died.
The petitioners call upon the Minister of Health to consult experts actively engaged in the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI, to undertake phase III clinical trials on an urgent basis in multiple centres across Canada and to require follow-up care.
- MPlibApr 27, 2012 8:50 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, astonishingly, the Minister of Natural Resources is proud of legislation that will gut environmental protection.
Could the Minister of the Environment explain how slashing 200 positions from Environment Canada, cutting research and monitoring initiatives in air pollution and water quality, and cutting the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency by 43% is protecting the environment? Is he ashamed?
- MPlibApr 26, 2012 1:45 pm | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, I am always factual. I always depend upon the evidence. I have stuck to the evidence from the OECD, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and some of our top university professors, who all say there is no crisis in this country. Let me give members some more evidence.
The well-respected Don Drummond, a former senior federal finance department official who is now advising the Ontario government, has said Ottawa will have to give Canadians “a hell of a lot of notice” before changing the eligibility year for OAS. He suggested a 20-year time period, if not 25 years. He said:
If you’re 47 years old today, your life cycle of earnings is kind of set right now by what you’ve already done. It’s not giving you a heck of a lot of time.
That is evidence.
This is about our future, our children and our grandchildren. The government is changing the rules.
- MPlibApr 26, 2012 1:35 pm | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.
I have the privilege of representing a wonderful riding, the riding of Etobicoke North, the community where I was born and raised. We are proudly one of the most multicultural ridings in the country and I invite everyone to experience our diversity, gifts and richness. Sadly, we also have our challenges. Recent statistics show that almost 20% of our residents are not yet citizens. Our families face family reunification challenges and language and job barriers. Almost 25% of our families are headed by single parents who work two and three jobs just to put food on the table. Almost 20% of our riding is engaged in manufacturing, the second highest percentage for the entire country.
I am sharing this because we need real investment in our families and in our community, particularly during tough economic times. What we do not need are broken promises.
The Prime Minister campaigned in the last election, saying that Conservatives would not cut the rate of increase to transfers for health care, education and pensions, and that was job number one. It is time for the Prime Minister to practice what he preaches and demonstrate to Canadians that he is committed to protecting their pensions.
Since being elected, no other issue, a move that would cost our seniors tens of thousands of dollars in support and impose additional financial burdens on the provinces, has caused such outrage in my community. Single moms ask how the Prime Minister can do this, that he promised not to touch pensions. They have children and have to work. How will they pay for their children's education? They have no money to put away for retirement. What will happen to them?
Humber College students are saying that once they graduate they will have no job, that it is not fair. They ask how the government came up with the number, that is just arbitrary. They ask why they are being treated differently by their country. Grandparents come in wanting to know why their grandchildren are being targeted by the Government of Canada.
It is not just my community. Canadians from coast to coast to coast are outraged and demand that the government take its hands off their pensions. Results of a poll for Global News indicated that 74% opposed reforming old age security and an astounding 81% of women were against the idea of raising the age of eligibility. Another survey showed 70% of Canadians felt that our country's social programs and seniors' benefits were not overly generous and 68% disagreed with increasing the retirement age.
Since the government is refusing to listen to the voices of Canadians, perhaps it will listen to a recent poll by CARP, which regularly asks its members how they would vote if an election were held tomorrow. The day after the Prime Minister's speech about pensions, support for the government dropped 10%.
I want to be very clear. The government raising the age of eligibility from 65 to 67 years of age is not necessary and it is not needed to maintain the sustainability of the old age pension. Let me explain.
Experts from the OECD, leading universities and the government itself have all said that our OAS program does not face major challenges and there is no pressing need for change.
Moreover, Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that the OAS is sustainable beyond the year 2082. Payments today cost 2.4% of our national GDP. When the baby boomers max out in 2031, that percentage will climb to 3.1%, but then drop off again. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's findings show, contrary to what the government has been saying, that there is no coming OAS crisis.
It has been said, “They're trying to create an artificial crisis when the figures clearly show the pension system is sustainable. I think the government lacks credibility”.
The reality is that Canada's pension system is in far better shape than the European's and there is no need to raise the retirement age. Edward Whitehouse who researches pension policy on behalf of the OECD and the World Bank found, “The analysis suggests that Canada does not face major challenges of financial sustainability with its public pension schemes”, and “there is no pressing financial or fiscal need to increase pensions in the foreseeable future”.
Thomas Klassen, a York University political professor, who co-authored a 2010 report on Canada's pension system, said:
I haven’t heard any academic argue that there’s a crisis with OAS, which is why I was surprised...when the Prime Minister seemed to say there was a crisis...I think there’s got to be a lot more evidence that there’s a problem, and I don’t see that evidence.
Kevin Milligan, a University of British Columbia economics professor, is also of the view that there is no OAS crisis.
The House of Commons finance committee studied the pension issue in 2010. Mr. Whitehouse appeared as a witness and discussed his research. He said:
—Canada's pension system is looking good on the measures of adequacy. It is also looking good on measures of financial sustainability....Canada does not face the same financial sustainability problems as many other OECD member countries do, particularly in Europe and among the east Asian countries, Japan and Korea, whose populations are aging most rapidly.
At the end of its study, the committee's final report did not recommend raising the age of eligibility for OAS or reducing benefits.
In stark contrast to this evidence, the Prime Minister continues to repeat that Canada's aging population threatens social programs. Specifically he has said:
—everybody understands that there are demographic realities that do threaten the viability of these programs over the longer term. We will ensure that these programs are funded and viable for the future generations that will need them.
Yet again, research and evidence is being overshadowed. This is part of a growing theme with the government. Instead of listening to non-partisan experts, the government will do everything to shut down the facts that contradict ideology. The truth is that the Conservatives are trying to balance their books on the backs of Canadians and to pay for their extreme ideological agenda.
Professor Klassen said that he suspects the federal government has concluded that reducing OAS costs is an easy way to save money over the longer term because it can be done without negotiation with public sector unions.
Canadian workers have paid taxes their entire careers, expecting that these benefits will be available to them when they turn 65. Raising the age for OAS will mean that some seniors will have to stay longer in the workforce, whether they are physically up to it or not. More than half of old age pensions go out to seniors earning less than $25,000 a year. Seniors poverty rates could rise by one-third. That is just not right, not in a successful country like Canada.
Expert evidence is that OAS will not cause the federal budget to crash. Instead of pushing through something during this session of Parliament, the government should publish a white paper that lays out a problem that needs to be solved, along with a range of possible solutions that Canadians can consider.
My constituents in Etobicoke North want real options for improving their pension outlook for the next several decades. Only people who depend on OAS to stay out of poverty will have to put off retiring. Higher income earners, those whose OAS is already clawed back through their taxes will not be affected. I wonder if the government members really think this is a fair and equitable solution.
I am absolutely opposed to the idea of raising the OAS eligibility and find the unnecessary changes reprehensible. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it clear that the economy is strong and that this is a false crisis. Canadian voters were misled since the Conservatives never mentioned they would make cuts in the last election campaign.
- MPlibApr 25, 2012 12:15 pm | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition regarding CCSVI.
The petitioners understand that the government will fund a trial but question the non-announcement announcement. Who was the research team? Why phase I-II when three FDA phase II studies are under way in the U.S., the U.K. wants robust clinical trials, 30,000 procedures have been undertaken in 60 countries, three safety studies involving over 1,000 patients have been done and leading North American physicians and researchers are pushing for phase II-III studies?
The petitioners call upon the Minister of Health to consult experts actively engaged in the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI to undertake phase III clinical trials on an urgent basis in multiple centres across Canada and to require follow-up care.
- MPlibApr 25, 2012 11:40 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, budget 2012 is Canada's environmental inaction plan. The government has gutted environmental regulations, put our waters and fisheries at risk and muzzled non-partisan scientists whose work contradicts the flawed ideology of the government. Instead of evidence-based decision making, cabinet will use ideology to overrule the National Energy Board.
Could the minister stand and explain why he is willing to risk the health, safety and in many cases the livelihood of Canadians?
- MPlibApr 23, 2012 11:50 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, for decades, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the National Energy Board have been arm's-length organizations that use consultation and science to ensure a balanced approach to energy projects, the environment and the health and safety of Canadians. Now Canada's environmental system is in shambles and cabinet will get the final say over decisions made by the NEB.
Would the minister explain why political expediency is more important than science and the health and safety of Canadians?
- MPlibApr 23, 2012 9:55 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about safety in a well-known case. Mr. X worked as a police officer in Mexico and investigated drug cartels and the murders of women. Due to his work, he received death threats. Several officers in his unit were killed. He believed he was next and he fled to Canada. His refugee claim failed, as the judge believed that there was adequate protection in Mexico for those who are targeted by organized crime. However, was it safe for Mr. X?
Bill C-31 would attempt to limit the number of refugees who seek protection in Canada by designating some countries as safe. The minister would have the sole authority to designate these countries. Does the hon. member believe there is a reliable and objective means of distinguishing between safe and unsafe countries when it comes to human rights protection? If so, could he describe it, please?
- MPlibApr 23, 2012 9:15 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his maiden speech.
In some countries, many human rights violations remain undocumented or poorly documented. They may occur in isolated areas beyond the reach of human rights groups, journalists and others. Indigenous groups or racial minorities who represent a small percentage of the population may face serious abuses which are under-reported.
For cultural reasons, victims may be reluctant or even unwilling to report the violations. This may be true for women and girls. They may face stereotypes and taboos which make them fearful of speaking out about gender-based violence, discrimination and other human rights concerns.
Does the hon. member think that the patterns of human rights abuse can and do often change quickly, and that conditions may in fact deteriorate more quickly than the process of government designation could accommodate and respond to, as happened in Kenya in 2008?
- MPlibApr 05, 2012 7:40 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague and friend for a terrific speech and for the history.
Transport Canada is responsible for the transport of dangerous products, including by rail. The Environment Commissioner has reported that Transport Canada has not designed and implemented the management practices needed to effectively monitor compliance with the act. Key elements that are missing are a national risk-based regulatory inspection plan and necessary guidance for inspectors. In many instances the nature and extent of the inspections carried out are not documented.
There is little indication that the department has followed up on identified instances of non-compliance to ensure problems are corrected. Transport Canada is not adequately reviewing and approving the emergency response assistance plans. In fact, nearly half of the plans submitted have been given only an interim approval, some for five and ten years.
I am wondering what my hon. colleague thinks about this and what can be done.
- MPlibApr 04, 2012 2:00 pm | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, the cuts to the environment are negligent and reprehensible as they destroy 50 years of safeguards. The budget eliminates the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. It was originally established to advise the Prime Minister but it regularly produced reports that challenged the environmental policies of the government, particularly around climate change. The budget also commits $8 million over the next two years to help the Canada Revenue Agency target registered charities that the government believes are overly political.
I wonder if the hon. member thinks that the national round table is being silenced to eliminate dissent, and that charities, which are environmental critics, are being targeted.
- MPlibApr 04, 2012 12:00 pm | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, the environment minister could not name a single organization that could replace the national round table. Here are a few: the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Science and the National Science Advisor, eliminated by Conservatives; Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans, cut to the bone; environmental advocates, targeted.
With legislation gutted and critics silenced, what is to stand in the way of environmental disaster?
- MPlibApr 02, 2012 3:35 pm | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals had a plan that could have got us 80% of the way to meeting Kyoto. The government ended that plan. It has now reduced the targets by 90% and it can only get us 25% of its target.
For many of the world's poorest countries, climate change is not an academic debate but a pressing reality faced every day. Malawi, where most people live in rural areas and earn less than $1,000 a year, is most susceptible to droughts, which will become more frequent and intense. Vietnam is most threatened by rising sea levels. Up to 16% of its land area, 35% of its people and 35% of its gross domestic product could be hard hit.
We must refocus the climate change debate on humanity, human rights, climate justice and the personal rather than the anonymous, faceless, other.
Will the government see or will it wilfully ignore the world's poorest nations which are disproportionately affected by climate change?
- MPlibApr 02, 2012 3:30 pm | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, last December 7 I asked the government why it was failing our country and the world by abdicating global leadership on the world's most pressing environmental issue, climate change.
The first response received was an attack on the Liberal Party for signing on to Kyoto. However, the Minister of the Environment told the Huffington Post that Kyoto was a good idea for its time. How can it be a good idea and also considered a blunder? Obviously, it cannot. Kyoto was indeed a good idea in its time, and the rest of the world thinks it remains a good idea. Only the government thinks otherwise.
Then there was a second attack for not supporting a sector-by-sector approach to climate change. While the parliamentary secretary continues, in her words, to implore me to get on board with her government's sector-by-sector approach, let me be very clear: there is no climate change plan, just final stages of writing new regulations for coal-fired electricity and mere beginning consultations with the oil sands, cement, gas and steel industries.
I will not be party to the government's negligence on climate change, nor to a delay tactic. Moreover, I will not ignore the plight of the countries most vulnerable to climate change: Bangladesh, the Maldives, Sudan, et cetera.
I have recently returned from speaking at an international climate conference in Bangladesh for parliamentarians from over 20 countries. I have since been asked to be on the steering committee for a new international network, Parliamentarians for Climate Justice. Just last week, the United Nations Development Programme asked if I would attend the first meeting for the advisory group of parliamentarians for disaster risk reduction.
In Bangladesh rising sea levels threaten farmland and water supply, despite the fact that its population of 160 million emits less greenhouse gas than Manhattan. In the future, a one-metre sea level rise will submerge one-fifth of the land mass and displace 20 million people. Most distressingly, children on the streets of Bangladesh talk about the taste of climate change. It is salty, they explain, because salt water is already inundating water supplies.
Perhaps the parliamentary secretary might share whether she has ever visited Bangladesh or any other of the countries most vulnerable to climate change to see first-hand what they are experiencing—for example, threatened energy, food, health, livelihoods, water and total human security.
At our last late show the parliamentary secretary made the accusation that while I often talk of supporting scientists and the need for climate adaptation, the Liberal Party voted against the government's budget. The Liberal Party did vote against the past budget because it had major flaws, as does this budget.
To be clear, I take every opportunity in this House to defend science and scientists. We need scientific excellence. We need to ensure that Environment Canada's programs and scientists are fully funded, to develop a scientific integrity policy, to protect the department's scientific findings from being altered, distorted or suppressed. In fact, my Motion No. 321 asked for all these items. Will the parliamentary secretary support it?
When it comes to climate adaptation, I had the privilege of consulting to the adaptation and impacts research group, AIRG, at Environment Canada on the human health impacts of climate change and adaptation. I also served on the intergovernmental panel on climate change for two reports. AIRG undertook internationally renowned research, and many of its scientists shared in the 2007 Nobel Prize on climate change.
It is the government that is slashing the budget of Environment Canada and shutting down adaptation and impacts research.
- MPlibApr 02, 2012 12:10 pm | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition regarding CCSVI. Thirty thousand treatments have been undertaken in 60 countries, while Canada has failed to begin clinical trials. The U.S. is already undertaking three FDA approved clinical trials. The U.K. encourages robust clinical trials, with outcomes that include clinical and quality of life outcomes.
The petitioners therefore call upon the Minister of Health to consult experts actively engaged in the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI to undertake phase III clinical trials on an urgent basis in multiple centres across Canada and to require follow-up care.
- MPlibApr 02, 2012 11:55 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of the Environment said, of the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy:
It was created before the Internet, when there were few such sources of domestic, independent research and analysis on sustainable development. That is simply no longer the case. There are now any number of organizations and university based services that provide those services.
Very well. Could the minister name these organizations and services?
- MPlibApr 02, 2012 11:50 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, the government has eliminated the Canadian Environmental Network and the national round table, muzzled scientists, gutted Environment Canada and eliminated the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences. Now it aims to quash dissent from environmental charities and seize control of the research agenda at universities.
Does the Prime Minister think that it is appropriate in a democracy to eliminate the accountability that independent science brings and to silence dissent?
March
- MPlibMar 30, 2012 8:35 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a sad day for Canada. The government delivered the inaction plan for the environment.
The government severely cut the budget to Environment Canada, cancelled the national round table, took aim at its critics, gutted environmental legislation which protects the health and safety of Canadians and has continually muzzled government scientists.
Why the war on the environment, the destruction of 50 years of safeguards and the failure to understand sustainable development?
- MPlibMar 30, 2012 8:00 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, March was national Brain Awareness Month. The brain is the body's most critical organ and if it does not work properly, every aspect of life is compromised.
In Canada 5.5 million people live with a chronic neurological condition. Most of these conditions are progressive and degenerative, with no known cause or cure. While therapies exist for some conditions, in most cases there is no way to stop or even slow progression.
As the Canadian population ages, the impact of brain disease, disorders and injuries will be staggering. Within the next 20 years, neurological conditions will become the leading cause of death and disability in Canada.
We need a national brain strategy in Canada, including income security measures for those with chronic neurological conditions, support for caregivers, laws to prevent genetic discrimination and education programs for the Canadian public and front-line health workers.
- MPlibMar 29, 2012 7:05 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition regarding CCSVI.
The petitioners want to know why the government continues to ignore the evidence from over 30,000 CCSVI procedures, scientific studies from nine CCSVI conferences and returning Canadian MS patients. They want to know why the government continues to ignore leading physicians and researchers in North America, Drs. Haacke, Hubbard, McDonald, Sclafani and Siskin? The UK encourages robust clinical trials that include quality of life outcomes.
The petitioners call on the Minister of Health to consult experts actively engaged in the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI to undertake phase III clinical trials on an urgent basis at multiple centres across Canada and to require follow-up care.
1 2 3 4 5 6
follow