Is this administration, under the Prime Minister, committed to the pledge he made in Copenhagen?

Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, our sector-by-sector regulatory approach is working. It is part of our government’s commitment to protecting the environment while keeping the Canadian economy strong.

Thanks to our actions, carbon emissions will go down by close to 130 megatonnes from what they would have been under the Liberals. This is equivalent to shutting down 37 coal-fired electricity generation plants, and we are accomplishing this without the Liberal and NDP’s $20 billion job-killing carbon tax, which would raise the price of everything.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I am so gratified to have a follow-up question, because this repeated nonsense about bringing down emissions by 130 megatonnes over what they would have been in some imaginary universe is not helpful.

The Prime Minister’s pledge in Copenhagen was straightforward. It was 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. Environment Canada’s data now says levels will be virtually unchanged from 2005 levels in 2020.

The question is simple. Does this administration have any intention of keeping its promise?

Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of what our government’s action has accomplished. Since 2006, our government has invested significant funds in more efficient technologies, better infrastructure and adaptation, and clean energy. We have taken action on two of the largest sources of emissions in this country, the transportation and electricity sectors. In fact, in the first 21 years of our coal regulations, we expect a cumulative reduction in greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to removing 2.6 million vehicles per year from the road.

We hope that the opposition gets on side with these.

The post Oral Questions (The Environment) 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 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.