27 May 2009
Hon. Grant Mitchell:
Honourable senators, I want to establish on the record my support and the support of my colleagues on this side of the house for Bill C-16, the Environmental Enforcement Act. I begin my comments by congratulating my colleague on the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, Senator Neufeld, for his presentation on the bill yesterday. It was good, clear, and it summarized the bill exceptionally well. I will not reiterate what the bill does. There is no need to and nowhere that I could improve upon his presentation. His presentation is indicative of the kind of work that the Environment Committee has produced. The group has been working well together. It is a pleasure to work with Senator Angus as chair, and I believe that we have strong members on all sides and we have accomplished productive work. When this bill goes to the committee, I am sure it will be subjected to excellent analysis, but my expectation is that it should and will be passed. The bill is eminently supportable.
It is supportable for what, of course, is in the bill. The bill does the right thing in extending, enhancing and making more rigorous the penalties that can be imposed upon polluters, and it addresses a number of important and difficult issues, to some extent, in the application of penalties. For example, Bill C-16 focuses on individual executives in companies as being responsible for pollution. While that issue is difficult and controversial, the step to allow penalties in this act to be applied is important and significant.
What disturbs me, though, is what is not in this bill. There is further evidence of a pattern beginning. The bill that was brought in by our colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador, the Energy Efficiency Act, was an equally reasonable bill. This bill is reasonable. The government is reasonable as far as they go. They simply go nowhere near far enough.
In the absence of anything in addition to these bills, these bills become, in the scheme of environmental policy, quite insufficient. They are insufficient for many reasons, but in particular because they do not address the issue of climate change. There is no other evidence of other legislation or initiative that does address climate change.
This is a huge issue. It is an issue that is way past the time at which it should have been addressed aggressively, significantly and comprehensively. Many Canadians feel a profound frustration about the absence of real action on this important issue.
We recently issued a report on our trip to the North and one of the fundamental themes that I think every member of the committee felt, understood and appreciated — and that the people of the North felt and understood — was the impact that climate change is having on their way of life. You can see the roads warping. You can see serious structural problems because the permafrost is beginning to melt.
The 160,000 caribou herd is now down to 40,000 in the Tuktoyaktuk area after five years. That is climate change related, as well as rain, thunder and lightening in December. The coast is eroding because the water is rising. The water is not rising just because the ice is melting — although that contributes to it. The water is rising because the temperature of the air is hotter and it expands the water. There are serious, deep problems that this government has not taken any concrete measures to address.
There is a deadline looming. We need to be ready for Copenhagen. Far more significant than even Copenhagen, as significant as that is, is that there is action looming. That action is President Obama, the United States and a cap-and-trade system that will probably be legislated by this fall and will be implemented over the next two and a half years. Where is Canada? Where is our leadership? What is this government doing to get ahead of the economics of this action?
Alberta has a huge stake in getting this climate change issue settled because the U.S. is expressing serious reservations about buying Alberta's oil sands oil. Canada needs to provide leadership to sustain our exports in that area and many other products that could be jeopardized because of what the Americans do.
The issue of the $50 billion deficit came up today. When one looks at a government, one wonders what that government's legacy will be. What will be left for Canadians by this government when it is gone? Financially, the legacy will be almost incomprehensively bad. A $50 billion deficit has accrued in just months, and how long will it take us to extricate ourselves from that deficit? Environmentally, the legacy will be incomprehensively bad as well.
There are two opportunities to provide leadership facing this government right now. One is on the economy; the government needs to get its stimulus package working. The other is on the environment. Great leaders seek out and attack great problems. You cannot have great leadership without great challenges, and I believe we have a government and a prime minister who simply run from great challenges. He wants to control but cannot control the biggest issues; therefore, he needs to lead on the biggest issues.
Yes, I support this bill. Yes, we will see this bill pass before the end of the session. It is good for what it is. Its real weakness is that it simply does not do enough. There are great challenges to be met, and this bill simply goes no distance whatsoever toward meeting the real challenge facing this country and its environment.
Click here to read the full text of the debate.
|
