The question that I asked is somewhat poignant. I will share with members that when I went back and read the text of the question, I realized that this was the last time in question period that I put a question for former minister of finance Jim Flaherty, our late and dear colleague. As much as I was very fond of Jim, as I read the answer I realized that the reason I put in a slip to pursue it in adjournment proceedings was that I did not actually get an answer.

As I say, it is poignant and bittersweet to pursue in adjournment proceedings at 12:15 a.m. the matter of the constitutionality of something that many Canadians have probably never heard of: the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, otherwise called FATCA, which is buried in Bill C-31, the current omnibus budget bill.

What this Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act does is this. We know that sometimes we call the United States “Uncle Sam”. In this instance, Canada bent over until we said “uncle”, and that is on the matter of the U.S. doing something quite extraordinary. It has passed a domestic law and insisted that the rest of the world bow down and allow a U.S. law to apply extraterritorially all around the world.

As a former U.S. citizen myself, I find it ironic. When my family first moved to Canada, it was very clear that going to Canada and becoming Canadian citizens was something to which the U.S. government said, “Okay, forget it now; you cannot come back here and pretend you are Americans. We know you are Canadian now; no coming back here”. The laws were very clear that we were not U.S. citizens anymore. That was fine with me, because I was Canadian and that was all I wanted to be.

Now that the U.S. seems to find itself a little short of money, it is almost like people going around and trying to lift up the sofa cushions and reach for loose change under the seats where they had not looked before, in case they might find some money. Maybe a more appropriate visible image is of grabbing people who have any connection to the United States by their ankles and shaking them upside down to see if any loose coins fall out of their pockets.

The reality of this is that we have, under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, acceded to the United States as if we were subject to a binding treaty with it, something called the “intergovernmental agreement”. In point of fact, the U.S. Congress has not ratified this so-called treaty, so it should not be binding on Canada at all. On top of this, we know that no less a constitutional expert than Peter Hogg has advised the Government of Canada in his letter, which I obtained through access to information, that the provisions under this act “…are discriminatory in a way that would not withstand Charter scrutiny”.

In other words, we are being forced through an omnibus procedure and into committee tomorrow at clause by clause, and unless my amendments are accepted, we will once again have passed a piece of legislation that is discriminatory, treating Canadians of different classes in different ways, which offends section 15 of the Charter. We will have done that to accede to something that is not even accepted by the United States as a treaty, because it has not ratified it.

There is a solution to this, and this solution has come from many legal experts. We should remove this from Bill C-31.

Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and the fact that she stayed here this evening to pursue this, because the hour is late.

I disagree, of course, with her interpretation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. The reality is, and the hon. member would know from having American relatives and family members, that Americans have always been taxed based on citizenship. There is nothing new here. An American citizen living outside of the United States is supposed to pay taxes in the States. That is the law and it has always been the law. Enough of my own relatives are American citizens, so I know that for a fact. To say that this changes those rules is simply incorrect.

The unfortunate part of this is that there will be some citizens who, by default or by accident of birth, will be American citizens, such as Canadians, for all intents and purposes, who happen to have been born in the states. They will have to correct their citizenship. However, dual citizens have always had a tax obligation. American citizens living in Canada who have permanent resident status have always had a tax obligation. This is not new.

One key concern was that the reporting obligations with regard to accounts in Canada would force Canadian financial institutions to report information on account holders who were new residents and U.S. citizens, including U.S. citizens who were residents or citizens of Canada, directly to the IRS, thus potentially violating Canadian privacy laws. That was a key concern. Without an agreement in place, obligations to comply with FATCA would have been unilaterally and automatically imposed on Canadian financial institutions and their clients as of July 1, 2014. As I said earlier, this would be based on the fact that they were American citizens living outside of the United States.

To directly address these and other concerns, our government signed a Canada-U.S. intergovernmental agreement, or IGA, in early February of this year. Under the intergovernmental agreement, financial institutions in Canada will not report any information directly to the IRS. Rather, relevant information on accounts held by U.S. residents and U.S. citizens will be reported to the Canada Revenue Agency.

The hon. member talked about Canadian citizens. Canadian citizens are not caught in this loop. Dual citizens will have to pay taxes in the U.S. or, properly speaking, for the hon. member’s benefit, they have to file tax returns. They may not have tax debt, they may not have to pay taxes in the states, but they do have to file returns, which they have always had to file. The CRA will then exchange the information with the IRS through the existing provisions and safeguards of the Canada-U.S. treaty, consistent with our privacy laws.

I would also like to note that under the intergovernmental agreement, the IRS will provide the CRA with information on certain accounts of Canadian residents held at U.S. financial institutions, so we have some reciprocity.

This is an extremely complex intergovernmental agreement and treaty. It covers a lot of issues. However, the bottom line is that no one will be taxed who has not already taxed.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I must disagree with my hon. colleague. There are many tax law experts, including Professor Allison Christians, who holds the Stikeman Chair in Tax Law at McGill University. This applies to what is described as U.S. persons. It casts a very wide net. It could well include Canadian citizens who are not dual citizens. It could include the children of former U.S. citizens. It casts a wide net and it reports on the private information of Canadians without their knowledge through to the IRS, and it is not sufficiently reciprocal.

The findings of many legal experts who have testified at the finance committee make it clear that this document is neither reciprocal, nor of advantage to Canada, nor required under international law because the U.S. has not even ratified the IGA. We also know from Professor Peter Hogg, Canada’s leading constitutional law expert, that it will contravene the charter if it ever goes to the Supreme Court of Canada. It must be pulled out of the bill.

Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, again, I respect the hon. member’s passion for this subject, but passion cannot be mistaken for facts.

The facts are that any American citizen living outside the United States has a tax obligation to the IRS. They have always had that, because the United States is one of two countries in the world where tax is based on citizenship. We can argue that that is right or wrong, but that is American tax law and American policy, and it has always been American policy.

We have to find a way to accommodate that without the United States being intrusive in Canada’s laws and tax regime. We have been able to do that, and so have a number of other G7 countries and another 36 countries around the world.

Whether or not we agree with this policy is immaterial. The fact is we have to find a way to comply with it without being overly intrusive to Canadian citizenship.

The post Adjournment Proceedings – Canada US Relations appeared first on Elizabeth May.

In the time that I have, I would like to go over this in terms of what the issue is in a nutshell, and proceed to ask what further safety steps the current administration is considering. Because, as the Minister of Transport has said in a number of the news stories, it is clear that rail safety is not assured even by moving to remove the DOT-111 railcars off the tracks. It is going to be a phased-in process. That is one issue of concern that I know some parties have spoken to. There is the concern that 5,000 railcars will be taken off initially, but another 65,000 will be removed over a period of three years. As we know, phasing out these cars is complicated by the fact that replacement cars are not being manufactured quickly enough to replace the most dangerous cars. We know we have the shipment of hazardous goods through Canadian communities and that it is a cause for concern.

I have noted that in the media coverage of the decision taken by the Minister of Transport to remove the DOT-111 cars there is also going to be an examination and risk assessment of the routes which are being used and ensuring that as much as possible is being done for rail safety.

So in line with what we know is taking place, I have a couple of questions that I would like to pursue this evening in our adjournment proceedings. Again, I am so pleased that we are moving to get rid of the DOT-111 cars because the Transportation Safety Boards in both Canada and the U.S. have said that these cars are unsafe for the shipment of hazardous goods. Canada has taken action ahead of the United States, and that is to be commended.

However, this issue remains, and I wonder if the hon. parliamentary secretary will be able to share this with the House. What other steps are being taken? Is the federal government now prepared to find a system of advance notification for prior informed consent for any communities that are located along rail lines that are carrying hazardous goods where they would like to have advance notification? We all know the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic happened with no notice whatsoever to the community that anything hazardous was being shipped through it. I think it is fairly clear from the investigations that perhaps even the shipper did not know how dangerous the unconventional Bakken crude would be.

I would also like to know if the federal government is considering following the lead of the U.S. rail safety improvement act a few years ago that instituted something called “positive train control” systems to ensure that an operator in a control room would know whether the brakes were working and whether all systems on the train were on track through sophisticated software on board the trains.

I would also like to know whether we are prepared to say that some goods are simply too hazardous to be shipped by rail.

Those are the questions to proceed tonight, but again, I am extremely pleased that my question on February 24 took place when we had no action and that tonight, April 28, we have seen substantial action.

Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the hon. member opposite for her intervention in this proceeding tonight.

As was noted, there have been a number of actions taken by this government with respect to rail safety. I have been on the transport committee since 2007, prior to my appointment as a parliamentary secretary last year, and a number of important safety remedies have been undertaken.

I recall back then that an independent rail advisory panel was struck to make recommendations to the minister and the government at the time. A number of those recommendations, in fact almost all of them, have been fully implemented.

The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities did an important review as well, and many of its recommendations were put into place.

Bill S-4 came forward with a number of important amendments, among them, everything from mandating that a company executive be appointed specifically for safety at the company, the requirement for environmental management plans, and whistle-blower protection. A number of important measures came out of that as well.

A number of important steps have been taken in light of Lac-Mégantic as well, and important new directives from the minister regarding the proper testing and classification of dangerous goods.

An important consultation took place between the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that resulted in an important information-sharing protocol that establishes a registry of designated first responders in communities, who will be contacted with respect to historic information about the types of shipments that will be passing through communities, and the additional requirement that if there is any market change in that regard, that there would be a more immediate notification to the people on that registry of what is passing through their community.

That was important obviously for the ability of first responders and communities across the country to begin planning what resources they need for what typically would come through their communities, and what types of exercises they need to do in modelling response.

A number of additional consultations resulted in directions as well. The requirement now is for environmental response action plans for very flammable, dangerous goods, things like aviation fuel, ethanol, crude—things that were not there before, and a task force that would come, bringing together first responders and municipal officials to talk about that response and how we do that.

As the member alluded, important steps were taken on DOT-111s, the immediate banning of the worst offenders and the phase-out of retrofit over three years for the remaining ones.

I should also note that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has also been asked by the minister to look into a number of additional measures in all modes. The rail aspect of that will be wrapping up in about another two weeks and interim findings will be coming in a report on that particular segment.

There has been testimony regarding positive train control, which is a broad term for a number of different possible automatic braking features that could be done. The question of advance notification has been raised in the questioning, and the committee has not come to a decision on that or a recommendation to the minister, but I invite the member opposite to stay tuned to what the committee is doing in terms of its important work.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged to know that positive train control is being examined and could be brought in.

We have a lot of hazardous goods moving on rails, and I think over the years we have seen cutbacks in the number of crew. I remember that when a number of significant derailments in Canada were analyzed forensically afterwards, had there not been such cutbacks, for instance having rail crew travelling in a caboose to know what was going on, there would not have been a derailment.

I see my hon. colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona in the chamber. I may misspeak the name of the lake near where her cottage was.

Linda Duncan: Lake Wabamun.

Elizabeth May: At Lake Wabamun, there was a significant derailment, where it appeared that there was a lack of train crew on board.

It was clear that we have seen real problems in rail safety before Lac-Mégantic, although nothing has ever been as devastating.

I encourage the current Minister of Transport and congratulate her. I do not think we say often enough in this place when something good has been done. I thank her and congratulate her. I look forward to working with her for greater rail safety.

Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I know that the minister will be pleased to hear the commendation. In light of the announcements last week as well, we know that there have been positive things that have been said from important stakeholder groups in this regard. The president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Claude Dauphin, has spoken very highly of it. He said:

The NDP’s transport critic, on the issue of the three-year phase-out, said, “The three-year period is the best thing that can be done”.

The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs has also said very commendable things about this.

It has been a consultative approach that has resulted in very concrete steps to improve public safety. Again, the standing committee on transport is very involved in this. There will be interim findings in June, with a final report and recommendations by the end of the year. I encourage members to see what is going on in that particular committee. If they have suggestions, of course, let us know. If there is more that we can do and it is reasonable, believe me, we will be making those recommendations.

The post Adjournment Proceedings (Rail Transportation) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The stories in the media were deeply disturbing. We heard about the Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg, for example. These were Department of Fisheries and Oceans libraries in particular that attracted a certain amount of media attention, and certainly public outrage and scientists expressing concern.

The shutting down of these libraries was explained on government websites as having to do with the digitalization of material so that we could enter a modern age and not have to rely on papers and books and documents and so on, but could instead go online and look things up. That did not excite a lot of protest.

It was not until the actual physical dismantling of these libraries occurred that the libraries of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans were shrunk across Canada and, essentially, according to eyewitness reports, materials from collections were taken to dumpsters and people who had books out on loan were not asked to return them but just held onto them. People who were concerned with the loss of Department of Fisheries and Oceans materials showed up at, say, the Freshwater Institute and helped themselves either to salvage the materials or to benefit from the fact these were available for free.

Someone I know quite well who works with a Manitoba NGO called Manitoba Wildlands saw a private contractor, who does a lot of work for Manitoba Hydro, help himself to large volumes of material that had been put together on behalf of the people of Canada, paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, and then taken into private hands as the libraries were essentially looted before being dismantled.

Those stories prompted my interest. I had certainly been concerned. I knew that the libraries for the Canadian Forest Service had been dismantled. I knew from a retired forester at the time who was concerned that books were disappearing from a library in Victoria. People were very worried about this.

It occurred to me, as I heard of these accumulated stories of libraries being dismantled that this could not be legal. This was material put together for the people of Canada and paid for by the people of Canada.

So I did some research, and the question I asked in the House dealt with the fact that under the Library and Archives of Canada Act there is a specific set of procedures that must be followed. If the materials count as public records, which could certainly have applied to the material in DFO libraries, for instance raw data and things that are not published in multiple copies, those cannot be destroyed without the written consent of the Librarian and Archivist of Canada. Regarding documents that are called “publications”, with multiple copies, the act is very clear: even if the material is surplus to need, the Library and Archivist must take care and control of that material and dispense with it carefully.

As a matter of fact, the more I looked into it I saw that not only was the Library and Archives Act of Canada being violated in the way these materials were being dealt with, so was the Surplus Crown Assets Act.

I called the current acting Librarian and Archivist of Canada and he let me know by phone that he had not provided a single written consent to the destruction of records. So if there were any records destroyed, that was illegal. And in terms of the care and control of materials, the eyewitness reports suggest that the care and control of materials was simply ignored on the assumption that the government of the day had the power to do away with the documentary heritage of this country. That is what the act calls it, “the documentary heritage”.

I maintain it is illegal. I would like a straight answer from the government.

Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here this evening. It has been a little while since I have been here for a late show.

I want to be very clear. What the member opposite has stated is absolutely false. It is concerning to me because, to the credit of public servants across the country, they take great care of all the documents that are made available not only to those of us in the House of Commons but also to the Canadian public.

The original materials have been and will be preserved, to answer one of the questions the member opposite had.

As for duplicate materials, some may be made available to the public; others have been disposed of in an environmentally conscious manner, as has been outlined previously in this place.

Information that was available in a library continues to be available online. This is a digital age. We are delighted that the archives and the libraries across the country have been able to digitize many materials so that we have those available to Canadians. And these are actually more accessible to Canadians.

Having grown up in northern Canada, coming to a national archive or to a library in a large central location was something that was unheard of to me. In Fort McMurray, Alberta, there are now these great things called “computers”, and I can look up anything online anywhere in the country, which is fabulous.

So I am delighted that we now have more Canadians and more individuals who have access to this information and in a responsible way, while ensuring that we are taking care of taxpayer dollars.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I am happy as well to see my friend the hon. minister back at the late show. Unfortunately, I am not satisfied with the answer received yet again tonight.

Let me just, for the edification of the chamber, read section 16 of the Library and Archives of Canada Act which states:

It is not “may”, but “shall” mandatorily.

There is no evidence based on the eyewitness accounts of the destruction of these libraries that there was any inventory properly taken. Now many of the materials, by the way, coincidentally, have been shipped to the Institute for Ocean Sciences, which is in my riding on West Saanich Road, but they are not yet available. They are still sort of in sarcophagi.

We do not know what was destroyed. There is a mandatory duty on every government to protect the documentary heritage of Canadians. In this case it was not done.

Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the accusations are false. Original documents have and will be preserved.

The post Adjournment Proceedings – Library and Archives Canada appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On December 5, I asked my question of the Prime Minister. This was coincidentally the same day the Prime Minister created his own special task force and asked Mr. Doug Eyford to prepare a report on forging partnerships and building relationships with first nations in relation to proposed west coast energy projects.

When that report came out, it made it very clear what everybody already knew. The Supreme Court of Canada had made it abundantly clear that the federal government, provincial governments and corporations dealing with first nations rights and territories have a strong constitutionally protected requirement to fully consult in a meaningful way with first nations before participating in resource development on their land.

Mr. Eyford’s report contained four points. He urged the Prime Minister to build trust, foster inclusion, advance reconciliation and then take action.

What I raised with the Prime Minister was the distressing case of what took place on Elsipogtog First Nation, a Mi’kmaq community near Rexton, New Brunswick. The first nation community was dealing with an energy proposal, the non-conventional issue of hydraulic fracking. The community of Elsipogtog was widely supported by people in New Brunswick and adjacent communities, who were also concerned and did not want fracking. They were concerned about their groundwater.

The protests that led to arrests were against SWN, a Houston-based company, that wanted to do hydraulic fracking and seismic testing. This testing was supported by the New Brunswick premier but not by the people of New Brunswick and not by the Mi’kmaq people. Exploration testing was to be done without consultation with Elsipogtog and Mi’kmaq first nations in contravention of numerous court decisions, most notably the Marshall decision, which dealt specifically with Mi’kmaq first nations’ rights. This first nation has unceded territory. No treaty could possibly be produced that would allow what has been going on in New Brunswick with the pressure for hydraulic fracking on first nations territory.

I will quote my question to the Prime Minister:

The Prime Minister responded by saying he understood his obligations and in fact had just received the report to which I referred moments ago from Mr. Eyford.

I remain deeply concerned about this incident as a representative of British Columbia and the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands. There is a tremendous amount of anxiety about what could be coming if there should be, God forbid, a pipeline approved over first nations’ territories where British Columbians and first nations do not want it.

If the example of what has taken place at Elsipogtog were to be played out in British Columbia, I would be deeply concerned. There was neither consultation nor was there an attempt to build trust, good relationships or reconciliation. Instead there were the violent RCMP arrests on what had been up to that moment a non-violent protest. We need an explanation.

The post Adjournment Proceedings – Natural Resources appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On December 5, I asked my question of the Prime Minister. This was coincidentally the same day the Prime Minister created his own special task force and asked Mr. Doug Eyford to prepare a report on forging partnerships and building relationships with first nations in relation to proposed west coast energy projects.

When that report came out, it made it very clear what everybody already knew. The Supreme Court of Canada had made it abundantly clear that the federal government, provincial governments and corporations dealing with first nations rights and territories have a strong constitutionally protected requirement to fully consult in a meaningful way with first nations before participating in resource development on their land.

Mr. Eyford’s report contained four points. He urged the Prime Minister to build trust, foster inclusion, advance reconciliation and then take action.

What I raised with the Prime Minister was the distressing case of what took place on Elsipogtog First Nation, a Mi’kmaq community near Rexton, New Brunswick. The first nation community was dealing with an energy proposal, the non-conventional issue of hydraulic fracking. The community of Elsipogtog was widely supported by people in New Brunswick and adjacent communities, who were also concerned and did not want fracking. They were concerned about their groundwater.

The protests that led to arrests were against SWN, a Houston-based company, that wanted to do hydraulic fracking and seismic testing. This testing was supported by the New Brunswick premier but not by the people of New Brunswick and not by the Mi’kmaq people. Exploration testing was to be done without consultation with Elsipogtog and Mi’kmaq first nations in contravention of numerous court decisions, most notably the Marshall decision, which dealt specifically with Mi’kmaq first nations’ rights. This first nation has unceded territory. No treaty could possibly be produced that would allow what has been going on in New Brunswick with the pressure for hydraulic fracking on first nations territory.

I will quote my question to the Prime Minister:

The Prime Minister responded by saying he understood his obligations and in fact had just received the report to which I referred moments ago from Mr. Eyford.

I remain deeply concerned about this incident as a representative of British Columbia and the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands. There is a tremendous amount of anxiety about what could be coming if there should be, God forbid, a pipeline approved over first nations’ territories where British Columbians and first nations do not want it.

If the example of what has taken place at Elsipogtog were to be played out in British Columbia, I would be deeply concerned. There was neither consultation nor was there an attempt to build trust, good relationships or reconciliation. Instead there were the violent RCMP arrests on what had been up to that moment a non-violent protest. We need an explanation.

Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is aware that fracking is mostly under provincial jurisdiction. However, I am happy to say that our government always strives to meet its constitutional obligations.

Aboriginal consultations are a key part of our responsible resource development initiatives. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain how our government is working to strengthen aboriginal involvement in Canada’s resource sectors.

Canada’s resource industries already employ some 32,000 aboriginal people, more than any other sector of our economy. This level of employment will only increase as we see more and more projects come forward. Indeed, over $650 billion worth of projects have been proposed, the majority of which are near or on aboriginal lands. These projects could have an enormously positive impact on the prosperity of aboriginal communities.

The member opposite has been clear in her opposition to resource development. I hope the member opposite will excuse me if we follow a different path.

Our government wants to ensure that we develop our resources responsibly to create jobs while ensuring that the environment is protected. Our government’s plan for responsible resource development is improving Canada’s regulatory system by reducing red tape and modernizing processes, while strengthening environmental protection and enhancing consultations with aboriginal peoples.

As my colleague mentioned, we are taking action. Douglas Eyford, Canada’s special federal representative on west coast energy infrastructure, recently provided the government with recommendations that will support greater aboriginal participation in resource development. The themes of the Eyford report–trust, inclusion, and reconciliation–can guide all parties in building further the relationships that will underpin responsible resource development and the participation of aboriginal peoples. The report by the special federal representative is a solid basis for sustained engagement with west coast aboriginal people. It recognizes an opportunity for aboriginal communities to realize long-term benefits and to be partners in west coast energy development.

Our government has been, and currently is, engaging and will continue to engage with aboriginal communities on concrete ways to move forward on the recommendations in the report.

The Eyford report builds upon previous initiatives taken by our government to support aboriginal participation in the resource sectors. For example, in 2012 the federal budget provided more than $690 million for skills development, education, and infrastructure. In addition, our plan for responsible resource development includes a commitment to ensure that consultations with aboriginal peoples on natural resources projects are more consistent, accountable, meaningful, and timely.

The plan includes, first, the integration of consultations with aboriginal peoples into the new environmental assessment and regulatory processes; second, the provision of $13.6 million over two years to support aboriginal consultations on projects; third, the designation of a lead department or agency as a single crown consultation coordinator for each major project review; fourth, negotiation with provincial and territorial governments to better align government processes and improve the involvement of aboriginal peoples; and fifth, the promotion of positive and long-term relationships with aboriginal communities to facilitate greater participation of aboriginal peoples in the direct and indirect benefits of new resource projects.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I did reference Mr. Eyford’s report. However, it is clear from the events in Elsipogtog that it has certainly come too late for that relationship. There has been no consultation advanced.

While it is true that fracking is a provincial responsibility, the federal environment commissioner, in his fall 2012 report, found that for the parts that are federal, such as tracking toxic chemicals used in fracking, Environment Canada did not even have a full list of those chemicals used, and it always remains a federal fiduciary responsibility to ensure that first nations’ rights are not being infringed upon through resource development.

As for the question of going forward in British Columbia and my opposition to resource development, I do not oppose resource development. I oppose the reckless, untrammelled rapid development of oil sands for the sole purpose of shipping out raw product. If the bitumen were being processed in Alberta, I think our discussions would be very different. However, all pipeline proposals are for raw bitumen mixed with a diluent that has to be purchased from Saudi Arabia.

Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, as our government has stated repeatedly, we will ensure that aboriginal consultations fully meet our duty to consult and are open and meaningful. We will continue meeting with first nations groups to strengthen the ongoing dialogue between the federal government and first nations.

Resource projects give aboriginal communities the potential to turn the high cost of isolation into a huge advantage of proximity. In fact, most mines and exploration properties in Canada are located within 200 kilometres of an aboriginal community. There are 400,000 aboriginal youth under the age of 15, representing a major wave of potential new entrants into the labour market, and over the next 10 years it is expected that Canada’s resource sectors will need to hire thousands of workers.

The scale of economic activity is enormous and it is estimated that there is a potential of $650 billion worth of major resource projects in Canada in the next decade. Such development would create thousands of new jobs. Right now, the resource industries make up about one-fifth of our national economy, creating and supporting more than 1.8 million jobs across our great country. In addition to the good jobs they provide, the resource industries generate over $30 billion in royalties and tax revenues, funds that support schools, hospitals, and other vital services for all Canadians, including aboriginal communities.

The post Adjournment Proceedings – Natural Resources appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The Speaker and other members here may be familiar with my own activities. I participated in COP 19. This was the 19th Conference of the Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. These meetings have been going on, as the name suggests, for 19 years of annual meetings to develop mechanisms to meet the commitments. All governments around the world, literally over 190 countries, are committed under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to avoid levels of greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere. The term used in the convention is to avoid levels that become dangerous and to avoid human cause. The convention language is “anthropogenic climate change” at a level that becomes dangerous.

The scientific community was organized by United Nations agencies, such as the World Meteorological Organization, and UNEP, into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to advise policy-makers, because the term “dangerous” is one without an absolute definition. One could say it is dangerous now. It is certainly dangerous if one were in shantytowns in the Philippines when Typhoon Haiyan hit. It is certainly dangerous if one were on the east coast of the United States when Hurricane Sandy hit.

We have seen dangerous individual accelerated events packing more power because of the warmer ocean waters, because of the strange weather patterns we are experiencing, with oscillations of the jet streams, which are becoming slower and more permanent. They are creating periods of extreme high pressure and low pressure sitting on parts of the world much longer than when we had the jet streams moving pretty quickly and moving at mid-latitudes in horizontal fashion.

We have seen significant, dangerous impacts. If one is in a low-lying island state, one might say it is dangerous now. The scientific community has advised, and the world community, including the Prime Minister, accepted the warning, that we must ensure that whatever else we do, we do not allow global average temperatures to increase 2° Celsius above where it was before the industrial revolution. In other words, that is before anthropogenic gases began to build up.

Two degrees may not sound like a lot, but it is well into the danger zone. If we do not avoid 2° Celsius, we are not talking about another political target that gets missed. We are talking about irrevocable changes, changes we will not be able to remedy down the road. Therefore, it is essential that we address the climate crisis and are meaningfully engaged as a country, which we are not right now.

My question for the Prime Minister, which he did not address at all, is whether he is prepared to accept the invitation of the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, who, in the wake of Typhoon Haiyan, announced a special leaders summit to take place September 24, 2014, in the days ahead of the UN General Assembly, when many world leaders will be there anyway. This is to be a “solutions summit”, in the words of the Secretary-General.

World leaders are invited to show up and bring forward solutions and to create some political momentum, because we are coming to a new deadline. After the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen conference, the UN, through the Conference of the Parties, through all the nations involved in the process, including Canada, have accepted that by COP 21, in 2015, we will have a global binding treaty engaging all nations, developed and developing, and that treaty will be sufficient to avoid 2° Celsius.

We have a very serious disconnect between the pace of the negotiations and the pace of climate change in the atmosphere. We have very little time. I wish the Prime Minister had addressed my question. Perhaps the hon. member across could tell us if the Prime Minister of Canada will be attending the leaders’ climate summit.

Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments from my fellow Nova Scotian across the way.

Canada remains committed to its climate change targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and our action and leadership demonstrate this. Canada’s latest emissions trends report projects that as a result of existing measures and actions from all levels of government, consumers, and businesses, Canada’s GHG emissions in 2020 will be 734 megatons.

This means we have reduced emissions by 128 megatons compared to where Canada’s emissions were projected to be in 2020 if no measures were taken to reduce emissions since 2005.

Canada has continued to demonstrate leadership on the international stage as well. Representing less than 2% of the global emissions of greenhouse gases, Canada understands the importance for any international climate change agreement to include the participation of and action from all major emitters.

That is why, at COP 19 in Warsaw, we continued to push for such an agreement, and the outcome from Warsaw firmly solidified that position.

Canada’s leadership was also instrumental in achieving a breakthrough in Warsaw on an important initiative to help developing countries reduce deforestation and forest degradation, which account for nearly 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

I would like to highlight that in addition to the negotiations at COP 19, Canada participated in important meetings, including the High Level Assembly of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition. Being a top donor for the coalition, Canada’s contribution has been significant and is leading to practical actions being implemented to achieve near-term emissions reduction.

Canadians should also be proud to know that this leadership is being recognized on the world stage. In fact, while the minister was in Warsaw, she heard from a number of representatives from other countries who thanked and praised Canada for its environmental record. This record includes a systemic sector-by-sector regulatory approach to address greenhouse gas emissions.

So far the federal government has contributed to reducing Canada’s emissions through stringent regulations for the transportation and electricity sectors, two of the largest sources of emissions in Canada.

As a result of our action to date, Canada has strengthened its position as a world leader in clean electricity generation by becoming the first major coal user to ban future construction of traditional coal-fired electricity generation units. In 2025, passenger vehicles and light trucks will emit about half as many greenhouse gas emissions as 2008 models, and greenhouse gas emissions from 2018 model year heavy-duty vehicles will be reduced by up to 23%.

Our collective actions are achieving success. Between 2005 and 2011, Canadian GHG emissions have decreased by 4.8%, while the economy has grown by 8.4%. Moreover, per capita emissions are at an historic low of 20.4 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per person, their lowest level since tracking began in 1990.

Our government will continue to show strong leadership on this file.

The post Adjournment Proceedings – the Environment appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The issue before us is critical. There is no point in minimizing it. Tonight we are talking about the single greatest threat to our children having a livable world and to us having a future.

The talks that will begin on Monday, November 11, in Warsaw, Poland, is the 19th time that parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change will have met to try to advance the agenda. No one can claim, at this point, that we have even come close to addressing the severity of the crisis. It grows year to year.

Canada was once a country that contributed to the forward progress of the community of nations when assembled in these negotiations. We contributed enormously back in the late eighties and early nineties. In 1992, Canada was the first industrialized country, in fact the first country in the world, to both sign and ratify the convention that still gathers nations of the world together, as we will see next week in Warsaw, Poland.

The advice from the scientific community has largely been ignored throughout the world. Those countries that have taken on targets have largely met them. I point to the European Union, which has largely met its Kyoto targets.

We know from the advice of scientists that we are running perilously close to something that can only be called a point of no return. It is a place where greenhouse gases build to such a level in the atmosphere that we will be unable as a human society, as a civilization, to arrest the threat of what scientists refer to now as runaway global warming, with the heating of the planet releasing, on its own, new sources of heating of the planet, and so on, in what are called positive feedback loops.

On Monday I put it to the Minister of the Environment that I will be attending the COP 19 negotiations in Poland. As far as I know, I am the only member of Parliament attending, other than the Minister of the Environment. There certainly is no longer the traditional practice of Canada engaging and involving opposition members of Parliament in government delegations. However, that is a minor point compared to the threat.

The Prime Minister of this country attended the Conference of the Parties that took place in Copenhagen in 2009 at COP 15 and took on extremely weak targets. I think it must be said that collectively the targets taken on in the Copenhagen accord are not sufficient to avoid part of that accord, which is to avoid a two-degree global average temperature increase against the levels that existed before the industrialized revolution.

For Canada, that means we must reduce our emissions to 607 megatonnes by 2020. The most recent report from Environment Canada states that we are farther from the target in 2013 than we were in 2012, and instead of 607 megatonnes we will be at 734 megatonnes. That is a clear failure of leadership and of programs. It is a complete condemnation of the so-called sector by sector approach advanced by this administration.

At the same time in Copenhagen, the Prime Minister committed to advancing funds to a $100-billion-a-year fund for global climate assistance to developing countries to both reduce their emissions and to adapt.

As my time and the planet’s time run out, will this administration and the Prime Minister keep their word and deliver greenhouse gas reductions and assistance to the developing world?

Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leader of the Green Party for her kind words. I am looking forward to working with her.

I want her to know that our government is committed to achieving Canada’s targets, and our record speaks for itself. We will continue to take action with our sector-by-sector approach that has been achieving real results while fostering economic growth.

We are proceeding to systematically address all major sources of greenhouse gas emissions. So far our government has contributed to reducing Canada’s emissions through stringent regulations for the transportation and the electricity sectors, two of the largest sources of emissions in Canada.

I would like to now take a moment to highlight some of the great achievements we have made so far.

First, Canada has strengthened its position as a world leader in clean energy production by becoming the first major coal user to ban future construction of traditional coal-fired electricity-generating units.

Second, and coming from Oshawa, I am proud to say that the 2025 passenger vehicles and light trucks will emit about half as many greenhouse gases as the 2008 models.

Third, greenhouse gas emissions from 2018 model year heavy-duty vehicles will be reduced by up to 23%.

Let me reiterate: our government’s collective actions are achieving real results, and thanks to our actions, carbon emissions will go down close to 130 megatonnes from what they would have been under the Liberals.

This is a reduction equivalent to the elimination of 37 coal-fired electricity plants. We are accomplishing this without the NDP’s carbon tax which, as members know, would raise the price of everything.

Between 2005 and 2011, greenhouse gas emissions have decreased by 4.8%. This is really important: emissions have decreased by 4.8%, while the economy has grown 8.4% and per capita emissions are at a historic low.

In addition to doing our part through the United Nations, we are also actively involved in forums such as the Arctic Council, the Montreal protocol, and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to develop practical and collaborative initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and short-lived climate pollutants.

To address the second part of the member’s question, I will point out that Canada has strong international commitments to support developing country mitigation and adaptation efforts. Our Conservative government, in partnership with other developed countries, has fully delivered on its first fast-start financing commitment, which provided $30 billion over the three-year period of 2010 to 2012. In fact, we exceeded the commitment by providing $33 billion.

As we can clearly see, the figures speak for themselves. Our government has committed to the largest-ever contribution to support international efforts to address climate change, a contribution that has supported mitigation and adaptation efforts in over 60 developing countries.

We remain committed to working with other countries to address climate change.

The post Adjournment Proceedings – the Environment appeared first on Elizabeth May.