It has been an active sitting of the Saskatchewan legislature for Battlefords MLA Herb Cox so far in 2016.
Cox has been kept busy fending off one opposition attack after another related to his cabinet portfolio, the environment ministry.
One issue raised during the June 16 Question Period regarded drainage and flooding. Opposition critic Cathy Sproule raised the issue of illegal drainage complaints and that exchange is recorded in Hansard.
Ms. Sproule: —… On October 5th, 2010, the Water Security Agency’s investigation in this case revealed that the complainant’s neighbour’s ditches were constructed without the WSA’s [Water Security Agency] approval. The ditches were illegal. What did they do? They insisted on following through with both the informal and formal complaint-handling process before, some 26 months later, finally ordering these illegal works to be fixed. Are you kidding me? Twenty-six months? What is this government doing to ensure that other farmers don’t have to wait 26 months for action?
The Speaker: —I recognize the Minister of Environment.
Hon. Mr. Cox: —Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And you know, at the outset I’d certainly like to apologize for the time that it did take to get this decision resolved, these drainage problems resolved. But at the time that this was occurring, I think everyone knows we had a huge water problem on that side of the province. We had a lot of rain that year. And we certainly thank the Ombudsman for the recommendations that were made. And this is not the level of service that we want to provide from water security agencies.
But since that time we have passed our new drainage regulations, last September 1st, last year. And that’s why we introduced them, was to take care of some of these complaint processes. We’ve streamlined them. We’ve made them a lot more risk-based type things. And that is how we’re going to streamline that. And the new approach to that drainage is going to definitely affect and address the time that it took to handle these complaints.
Sproule went on to raise the issue of water levels rising in the Quill Lakes area.
Ms. Sproule: —… Mr. Speaker, in the last 10 years, water levels in the Quill Lakes have risen by almost 7 metres. People living there are fed up. The lakes have flooded 29,000 acres of their farm land and 56,000 acres of pasture land…
Last summer the minister announced his solution to the problem, but quickly, and to his credit, pulled his flood plan to fix the problem. But the issue remains a major concern for the people of the Quill Lakes region. Plan A was soundly rejected last summer. Now what is Plan B? To the minister: when can the people of the Quill Lakes region expect you to finally take some meaningful action and address this very serious problem? What’s the plan?
The Speaker: —I recognize the Minister of Environment.
Hon. Mr. Cox: —Again, Mr. Speaker, thank you for that question. And the Quill Lakes problem is certainly a very complex problem and we’re aware of that. And we did do extensive work, studies, and looked at the situation that the member opposite alluded to, the Kutawagan project, but after consultation and hearing reports from some 500 people, 74 per cent of which were opposed to that project for various reasons, we decided not to proceed with it.
What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is we are very active out there looking at various alternatives that we can undertake to solve this problem. We’re looking at such things as closing some illegal drainage works. As I mentioned in my previous question, we did pass new drainage regulations last fall. This is giving us an opportunity to take a look, and we’ve identified the 100 top illegal drainage works in that area. We’re looking at closing them. We’re looking at reservoir storage. We’re looking at all sorts of things, and I would be happy to mention more of them next.
On June 20, an extensive debate fired up in the legislature on the issue of renewable energy, with opposition leader Trent Wotherspoon and then Sproule each roasting Premier Brad Wall and accusing the government of not having a climate change plan. Things got so heated that Cox was dragged into the debate over his remarks in committee.
Hon. Mr. Wall: —… Mr. Speaker, it’s up to the NDP to explain why the Finance critic approved in principle further consideration of the Leap Manifesto as she did. It’s up to the Leader of the Opposition to explain how the head of the person on their renewal process signed the Leap Manifesto that would shut down coal, shut down oil, shut down any pipelines, shut down potash, Mr. Speaker. That’s why there’s that number over there, in part, and that’s why there’s more over on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: —I recognize the member from Saskatoon Nutana.
Ms. Sproule: —This is coming from, Mr. Speaker, this is coming from a Premier who uses unicorns and pixie dust to raise the level of debate…
But last week I asked the Minister of the Environment about this very topic. I asked him to describe their climate change plan. He said, “the plan is there. It’s under review and it’s constantly under review and is I guess ... Call it a living document. Call it whatever you would like ..."
So I tried a simpler question. Is there a plan written down or is it just in the minister’s head? He said, as I said, it’s there but it’s constantly under review. Mr. Speaker, eventually the minister said, “We’ve got a long ways to go. But until we can formulate some of this stuff, I don’t think we can know how we’re going to get there.”
Mr. Speaker, this has been the so-called plan for several years. Can the minister explain why, even after consulting at length with his officials, he was unable to provide me with anything? Nothing in writing, nothing on paper. One of the key actions in the ministry’s ’15-16 plan is to advance their “climate change strategy.” Mr. Speaker, how can you advance something that doesn’t exist?
The Speaker: —I recognize the Premier.
Hon. Mr. Wall: —Mr. Speaker, the government took over from an NDP government that truly had no plans for climate change. Mr. Speaker, our emissions were increasing exponentially. Moreover, moreover, Mr. Speaker, they refused to make the required investments in technology to keep coal as part of the picture.
Mr. Speaker, since the election in 2007, members on this side of the House have made the largest per capita public sector investment in fighting climate change in Canada. Mr. Speaker, that sounds like it might be part of a plan to me. Sounds like it might be part of a long-term plan to actually deal with the fact that as we’re sitting here now, 4000 megatonnes of CO2 will be burned in China. We on this side of the House for a number of years have said, we need to fix our own problem but also contribute to the global problem.
In addition to that, we’ve already announced — and we announced it ahead of the election — that we’re going to move to 50 per cent renewables by 2030. Sounds like it’s part of the plan, Mr. Speaker.…
The exchange continued.
Ms. Sproule: — … Also, allow me to remind the Premier that their target is a 20 per cent reduction by 2020. But what the minister told me at committee was this: this is something that we have just started on in the last couple months. Now this was an ambitious goal in the first place, but now we find out that after announcing it in 2009, they’ve only worked on it in the last couple of months. It’s strains credulity, Mr. Speaker.
How can other provinces and the rest of the world take Saskatchewan seriously if he can’t even tell us — either one of them — where the plan is? In fact in the last seven years, the Sask Party has used climate change as a place to hide money, $20 million in fact unused in the last seven years on what has been budgeted for climate change. This is one of the only programs where money is consistently returned back to the Sask Party government coffers. Will the minister or the Premier admit there’s no plan and that you know you’ll fail miserably on reducing greenhouse gasses by 20 per cent by 2020?
The Speaker: —I recognize the Minister of Environment.
Hon. Mr. Cox: —Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We certainly do have a climate change plan here in this province and we are seeing results from it. We’re seeing a decrease . . . The intensity of greenhouse gasses has only risen by 12 per cent, but at the same time our GDP [gross domestic product] has risen by 24 per cent, a very substantial raise, contrasted sharply to what it was before under that NDP government — 70 per cent increase while the economy was stagnating and people were leaving this province.
We are building the world’s first and largest commercial carbon capture plant in Boundary dam 3. We’ve talked about that before. We are focused on technological solutions that can have an effect, not only here in Saskatchewan, not only in Canada, but globally with 2,400 coal-fired plants being built over the next several years. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this type of technology can do a lot more to curb GHG [greenhouse gas] gases than can a carbon tax.
