37th PARLIAMENT,
2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 036
CONTENTS
Monday, December 2, 2002
|
 |
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Citizenship Act |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) |
|
|
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Kyoto Protocol |
|
|
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. John Herron |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
Mr. John Herron |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (LaSalle—Émard, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Stan Dromisky |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Stan Dromisky |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey |
|
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll |
|
|
Mr. Ted White |
|
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
|
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Statements by Members
|
|
|
World AIDS Day |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.) |
|
|
Queen's Jubilee Medal |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.) |
|
|
Anti-personnel Landmines |
|
|
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.) |
|
|
Women, Sport and Physical Activity |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.) |
|
|
Forest Industry |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hanukkah |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) |
|
|
Education System |
|
|
Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.) |
|
|
Kyoto Protocol |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry |
|
|
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.) |
|
|
World AIDS Day |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) |
|
|
Anti-personnel landmines |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC) |
|
|
National Safe Driving Week |
|
|
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.) |
|
|
Kyoto Protocol |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
International Day of Disabled Persons |
|
|
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Kyoto Protocol |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Kyoto Protocol |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Coast Guard |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Finance |
|
|
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Coast Guard |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Aboriginal Affairs |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Kyoto Protocol |
|
|
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Airline Security |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Taxation |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Firearms Registry |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Oral Question Period |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Oral Question Period |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act |
|
|
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Nault |
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.) |
|
|
Stem Cell Research |
|
|
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.) |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Inuit Community of Nunavik |
|
|
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Kyoto Protocol |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Roger Gallaway |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Roger Gallaway |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
|
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
|
|
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Steve Mahoney |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Steve Mahoney |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill |
|
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
|
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
|
|
Mr. Serge Marcil (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Serge Marcil |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Serge Marcil |
|
|
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
|
|
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Serge Cardin |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
|
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Charles Caccia |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Charles Caccia |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
|
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
|
|
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Kilgour |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Hon. David Kilgour |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan |
|
|
Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Shawn Murphy |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Shawn Murphy |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
The Speaker |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Monday, December 2, 2002
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
(1100)
[English]
Citizenship Act
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-203, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (Oath or Affirmation of Citizenship), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to this private member's bill that would, at long last I would hope, change the Canadian oath of citizenship to better reflect who Canadians are. It would change the wording of the oath to reflect the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would suggest that, more than anything else, what defines Canadians is: our respect for the rule of law, freedom of expression, equality of opportunity, democracy and basic human rights.
I would like to begin, however, by reviewing, if I may, the current oath of allegiance. When new Canadians come to this country seeking citizenship they are required to say the following words. They are:
|
|
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, according to law and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen. |
Everyone will be interested to know that the New Zealand oath of citizenship states as follows:
|
|
I... swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of New Zealand, Her heirs and successors according to the law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of New Zealand and fulfil my duties as a New Zealand citizen. So help me God. |
Members will note that there is a direct similarity between the two oaths. Indeed, they are almost exactly the same. I should say that only New Zealand and Canada have this oath which basically is derived from the British colonial period of the 18th century. The British at that time had many colonies across the world. Britain was an empire very much like the United States in the sense that it was a mercantile empire that was acquiring colonies around the world in order to develop a vast commercial enterprise, a vast world commerce.
In the middle of the 18th century, as we know, Britain went to war with New France. France at that time controlled all of what we know as Quebec and much of what we know as Nova Scotia. When Britain went to war, it was the umpteenth war. Britain had been at war with France in a struggle for the continent for many years. A terrible tragedy occurred with the Acadians at that particular time. Because the power was in Quebec and the British conquered Acadia--Nova Scotia--taking some of the forts there and establishing a presence, the British government authorities required the Acadians, who were all French speaking, just as they were in Quebec, as Quebec had been a colony of France, to take an oath of allegiance to the king. That oath of allegiance was essentially the same oath that I just recited. When the Acadians were reluctant to take that oath, one of the great tragedies of Canadian history occurred, and that was what is known as the Acadian expulsion, which actually occurred on a Sunday. The British fleet happened to be in port and it seized all the Acadian males at their churches attending mass, put them on board ship and dispersed them down the entire coastline of the United States, as well as to Louisiana. It took many years for a few of them to return. It was a terrible tragedy and, of course, it changed the complexion of Nova Scotia. I am proud to say that we still have an Acadian presence but had the British not done that, Nova Scotia today would probably be a French speaking province, very much like Quebec and much of New Brunswick.
It was that oath of allegiance that I recited earlier that was used for the dispersal of the Acadians because the Acadians could not bear to swear allegiance to the king.
(1105)
What one must understand is that the British crown in those days did not have an oath of allegiance in England. In fact it did not have an oath of allegiance, of citizenship or of naturalization until the 1980s. In England the people were all British subjects but for the colonies they had to devise this oath of allegiance to the king. People had to pledge fealty to the king as a way of guaranteeing that the people who were not British subjects, who were perhaps French speaking or perhaps living in the colonies in the Caribbean or in Australia, for example, who were all convicts, would bow to the power of the crown. It ordered them to take an oath of allegiance, which is the oath we have today.
When new Canadians come to this country and swear that oath many people have difficulty with it because some of them come from Commonwealth countries where, in their own colonial history, pledging allegiance to the Crown meant slavery. Therefore it is perhaps an oath that needs to be changed.
In the citizenship bill that is now before the House, Bill C-18, the government has revised the oath. The government did this without any consultation with Parliament. It was done following hearings by the citizenship and immigration committee in 1994-95, which universally said that Canada needed an oath that reflected Canadian values. What we have now before the House is this oath which states:
|
|
From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada. I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, to uphold our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen. |
I suggest that this new oath is not much of an improvement over the oath that is currently being used by people taking out Canadian citizenship. There are a number of things about this. Most of it is taken from the Australian oath of citizenship, which revised its oath in 1993, and it is an echo of the oath I just read.
The oath has some very obvious flaws in it. There is the redundancy of, “I pledge my loyalty and allegiance”. These are the same things. I think, more important, it is not enough simply to ask the people who are taking out Canadian citizenship to faithfully observe our laws and fulfill their duties as citizens of Canada.
I observe for members that world history is replete with examples where governments change laws so that they do not reflect basic human rights, do not respect the rule of law and deprive people of freedom of speech and equality of opportunity.
I refer members to the numerous European examples where citizens were obligated to obey laws that were unjust. The classic example of course is what happened in the interwar years with Germany and Italy, where people were forced to obey laws that were brought in by totalitarian governments. It is not enough to ask people to obey the laws of the land. We must tell them what the laws are that they must obey, that really do define who they are, and define the rights and freedoms of the people who are joining.
I would like to propose to the House another version of the oath. This is the version of an oath I crafted after consultation with many Canadians and as a result of many hours interviewing new Canadians on the citizenship and immigration committee. The oath I would propose states:
|
|
In pledging allegiance to Canada, I take my place among Canadians, a people united by their solemn trust to uphold these five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law. |
I would suggest that is the ultimate definition of who we are as Canadians and how we are seen as Canadians around the world. People do not see us as British. They do not see us as people who perhaps have come from Greece. They do not see us as anglophones or aboriginals. They see us as a people who are renowned for upholding those five principles.
(1110)
We had a charter of rights when there was no charter of rights in the United Kingdom. There was no charter of rights in Great Britain. We invented it. We brought it forward and it defines us as Canadians. I also have another version that properly reflects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it reads:
|
|
In pledging allegiance to Canada, I take my place among Canadians, a people united by God, whose sacred trust is to uphold these five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law. |
Now the reason that we have to have a version that makes reference to God is because it is in the charter, it is in O Canada, but also because there are those who have strong religious beliefs and do not feel that they can make a real pledge unless there is a reference to God.
On the other hand, we have many people coming from other lands who have come from places where there has been oppression in the name of religion and they want a version in which they do not have to make reference to God. Therefore, I offer in Bill C-203 the two choices.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, you will note that in the version that I present to you, there is no reference to the Queen. I would suggest that is hardly novel. In 1993 Australia revised its oath of citizenship which was very much like our current oath and the oath of New Zealand. Australia changed it. The Australian oath of citizenship is quite nice, it says:
|
|
As an Australian citizen, I affirm my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share,whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I uphold and obey. |
I think that is very nice and actually is an attempt at poetry. And when the Australians brought if forward--and it is important to remember that Australia, like Canada, is a parliamentary monarchy--they had an extensive debate about whether they should retain the monarchy. Australians said overwhelmingly that they wanted to retain the monarchy as the head of state just as we have here.
However, in 1993 Australians appreciated that they needed an oath of citizenship that reflected Australian values. It is interesting when Australian Senator Nick Bolkus spoke at that time to the Australian citizenship pledge. He said:
|
|
Citizenship proclaims and defines our Australian identity and it is appropriate that new citizens pledge loyalty first and foremost to Australia and its people. Some Australian residents have been reluctant to apply for citizenship because they found it difficult to relate to the current Oath of Allegiance. |
We heard that repeatedly during our citizenship and immigration committee hearings in 1994-95. We heard that from people who came from all over the world to Canada. Approximately 160,000 people a year pledge allegiance to Canada. People say, “Why is it the Queen? Why is it not Canada and Canadian values?”
The Australians, almost 10 years in advance of us, changed the oath to reflect Australian values. I think Canada is a greater country. Senator Bolkus also said:
|
|
As a truly multicultural society, it is proper that the Pledge of commitment be one which will be equally meaningful to all people. |
I suggest that the current oath and the oath that has been proposed by the government in Bill C-18 is not meaningful to all people. We need to change it to an oath that when people say it they know that they are becoming Canadian and they are sharing our values.
(1115)
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to contribute to the debate on Bill C-203, an act to amend the Citizenship Act regarding the oath or affirmation of citizenship. Under this bill, sponsored by the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, it is proposed the oath of citizenship be amended to reflect what it means to be a citizen of Canada.
The current oath has been in place for decades and reflects the sentiments of the time during which it was crafted. The current oath states:
|
|
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, according to law and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen. |
The government recently introduced Bill C-18, an act respecting Canadian citizenship which, if passed, is intended to modernize and update the old Citizenship Act which was enacted in 1977. Part of Bill C-18 includes a change to the oath new Canadians are expected to take at their citizenship ceremony. Under Bill C-18 the new citizenship oath would be:
|
|
From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada. I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, to uphold our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfill my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen. |
It is imperative that we recognize the importance of the oath and what it means to the thousands of new Canadians who utter it each year as they begin their lives as citizens of Canada.
This is explicitly addressed in Bill C-18, where it is specified that, generally, an oath of citizenship is to be made with solemnity and dignity during the course of a formal citizenship ceremony. At this ceremony, which is viewed as a milestone in the lives of new citizens, we are reminded that all citizens of Canada should demonstrate mutual respect and understanding, so that each citizen can contribute to the best of his or her ability in Canadian society.
While the proposed version of the oath under Bill C-18 more clearly defines some of the values Canadians hold dear, there is still room for improvement. Under Bill C-203 the oath of citizenship would be as follows:
|
|
In pledging allegiance to Canada, I take my place among Canadians, a people united by God whose sacred trust is to uphold these five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights, and the rule of law. |
For those who wish to swear their allegiance in accordance with religious convictions, the oath is changed from “a people united by their solemn trust” to “a people united by God”.
At the outset I should note that Bill C-203, which would otherwise be votable, is no longer votable due to the fact that the oath is being addressed in government Bill C-18. Therefore, the main purpose of the debate today is to speak to the proposed revisions to our oath of citizenship and to lay the groundwork for amendments to Bill C-18 which could be voted on.
I am concerned that the oath proposed under Bill C-203 is not framed in the active tense in terms of any formalized pledge. I believe that either form of pledge under Bill C-203 would be improved by the term “in pledging” being replaced with “I pledge”. A person in short transition to Canadian citizenship is thereby required to make the following statement, explicitly and without reservation: “I pledge allegiance to Canada”.
In these uncertain times, it is important that the allegiance of any Canadian citizen is to Canada. Canada has it own social, cultural and historical identity. Why not embrace moves to modernize citizenship by crafting a uniquely Canadian oath that reflects not only the values of our nation, but also the responsibilities that go along with citizenship in such a country?
In proposing a new oath under Bill C-18, some of the emphasis on the monarchy has been removed. The pledge of allegiance is to the Queen alone, rather than also to her heirs and successors.
(1120)
Under Bill C-203, the proposed oath contains no reference to the monarchy at all. Rather, new citizens would be asked to unite with other Canadians in upholding and promoting the fundamental principles by which we live and govern ourselves.
Canada attracts hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world each year. These are people who choose to make Canada their home. Those who become citizens do so by choosing to embrace those principles that are the essence of Canada. It does not seem unreasonable to have those principles enunciated explicitly in the oath of citizenship.
My primary reservation concerning the proposed oath in Bill C-203 is that it does not require that a new citizen clearly acknowledge that there are responsibilities as well as rights and values associated with citizenship. Let there be no mistake. Let there be no mistake, for those who choose to settle in Canada, Canadian citizenship is a privilege. It allows freedom, democracy, security, prosperity and education, among so many other opportunities.
In addition, Canadian citizenship means more than a technical designation of nationality. It is also about responsibility. Each and every citizen, whether new to Canada or born here, has a duty to conduct himself or herself in a manner consistent with Canadian values and the concepts outlined in the proposed oath we are debating today.
The hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot has acknowledged both in committee and in debate in the House that his purpose in framing the oath in Bill C-203 is to specifically reference the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He stated earlier in debate that the five principles in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are the law above the laws of Parliament and, indeed, they are in our constitution now. He stated that he tried to capture in the five principles of the charter the ultimate law that governs being Canadian.
I will leave it to others to debate the specific charter references in the proposed oath of citizenship. There are many who still have reservations concerning the establishment and interpretation of our charter. However, irrespective of one's view of the charter, the oath proposed in Bill C-203 references well established and shared values among Canadians which may be respected in their included context here.
The hon. member stated in debate that he believes the responsibilities of being a Canadian citizen are encompassed by the term “solemn trust to uphold these five principles” in his proposed oath. It is important to spell out those responsibilities rather than let them be implied. If Bill C-203 were votable, I would be proposing that the oath be reworded to include something like the following statements.
|
|
I pledge allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty the Queen as I take my place among Canadians, a people united by five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law. I solemnly promise to respect these rights and freedoms and to uphold Canada's democratic values as I fulfill my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen. |
(1125)
I have blended the proposed oaths in Bill C-203 and Bill C-18 in the interests of incorporating the best elements of each suggestion.
I would further note that in Saskatchewan the citizenship ceremony officials take great pride in the ceremonies held to welcome new citizens. I suggest that, with their experience and expertise on the subject, such officiants may be able to contribute to the discussion of what should be included in a meaningful citizenship oath.
I would like to conclude my remarks by discussing the nature and responsibilities of citizenship as seen through the eyes of others. I recently found passages from an old banking newsletter published in 1966 that summarized nicely the spirit of citizenship in Canada. These passages are as relevant today as when first published nearly 40 years ago. I will paraphrase the thoughts as follows.
Good citizenship can be simple if Canadians will think of it as not something merely legal or intellectual, but something transcending law and reason, something deeply felt, deeply believed, dominant even in our dreams. Our citizenship stirs us to enjoy and contribute to the best sort of society yet offered to people who are advancing together in search of equality of life. This is time to read the record and find our citizenship 10 times more meaningful than it has ever been before. Having made ourselves sovereign as a nation, we must now behave intelligently as citizens. A citizen is not only an individual but a member of a family--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
I am sorry, but the hon. member's time is up. The hon. member for Mercier.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, first I would like to acknowledge the work done by my colleague from Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot. I see that he did his research, but unfortunately for us Quebeckers, he completely missed the point.
The bill states the following, and I quote:
|
|
In pledging allegiance to Canada, I take my place among Canadians, a people united by God— |
I would like to focus on “a people”. However we may view the history of Canada, there are two peoples, except when the word “Canada” refers to the St. Lawrence Valley in the history of New France.
“A people” is an affront, an attack on the heart of who we are. There are two peoples, and I would even say three, including the aboriginals, following the Dussault-Erasmus report that was so carefully shelved. After the work and effort that was put into that report, it has now been shelved.
The least the government can do—I already mentioned that the aboriginals should be recognized as a people—is to recognize Quebeckers as a people and a nation. We are a people and a nation. Any solemn declaration made before God that does not acknowledge this, that is the right to our language and our culture in general, is an affront.
(1130)
I understand the effort involved in determining the five fundamental values, but they are not enough for us because they do not take into consideration the heart of what we are.
I would like to remind everyone that Gérard Bouchard—our former leader, Lucien Bouchard's brother—wrote an article in Le Devoir today in which he responded to the criticism from those who oppose the fête des Patriotes in Quebec. This criticism came from Montreal anglophones who said that it had ethnic overtones. According to Gérard Bouchard, they missed the point completely.
It is important to remember that the movement that led to the insurrection of 1837 also included anglophones, and that Alfred Nelson was one of those who proclaimed independence in the spring of 1838. So in every sense of the word, we are a people and a nation.
Therefore, an oath of citizenship that would be pledged to “a people”, leads me to conclude, unfortunately, that my colleague from this committee with the very long name has missed the point. I'm sure his intentions are good, but he cannot not know, if he knows us even a little, that saying “a people” is an attack on us, it does not include us.
I would add that, given the circumstances in which we live, any citizen who settles in Quebec, who is a Quebecker, shares the rights of Quebeckers, of our people and our nation.
It really bothers me when I see that, on an issue as sensitive as this, we are incapable of coming together. There is recognition. It is not an ideological recognition, it is a recognition.
I have just returned from a meeting of the European Union with the Canada-Europe Committee. Countries like Belgium have one, two or three different peoples, and countries that used to be at war, are now trying to reach a compromise, foster tolerance and recognize each other.
Canada should also look to the European Union to see what it is attempting to do, instead of taking advantage of every opportunity to impose a single reality that does include us, that does not correspond to our history now or that of the future.
I am sorry to say this. I hoped to be able to say something different, because I do find the idea of these principles to be a good one. However, I say this in all honesty, the ideas presented by the member opposite struck quite a chord with me.
(1135)
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-203, and I too want to thank the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot for his contribution to the House with respect to citizenship.
It is a timely private member's initiative given the fact that after a good nine years Parliament is finally discussing seriously legislation pertaining to citizenship. As we speak, Bill C-18 is being pursued at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration with great purpose and thoughtfulness.
I appreciate the suggestion by the member for renewing our oath of citizenship to make it more meaningful in what it means to be a Canadian and the values of Canadian citizenship. I appreciate the suggestions that our oath should somehow capture those fundamental values of being a Canadian, including equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law. Those are fundamental values for Canadian citizenship and I respect his commitment to include those words in the oath. However I am not so sure that it is an initiative that I can support at this time. I will listen very carefully to the debate, consider the proposition and include the reflections of members in our deliberations on Bill C-18.
I speak today not giving enthusiastic support to this initiative simply because there are so many aspects to citizenship that we have to deal with as a Parliament that are not captured in the issue of the words around the oath.
We as a Parliament have to deal with a fundamental neglect in this area with respect to the way in which the Government of Canada has enveloped the notion of citizenship and what it has done to encourage good citizenship. I would suggest that on a number of fronts the government has done the antithesis of what is required to encourage civic participation and to ensure that both the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship are taken into account.
There is absolutely no question that Canadian citizenship is the highest right we, as a democratic nation, can confer upon those living within our borders. These rights and responsibilities define the egalitarian and democratic values that we all hold, and the member reflects those values in his private member's bill.
We all agree that no one has legal or political rights extending beyond citizenship and we affirm many times a citizen's right to vote and run for office are fundamental democratic rights. We have to ask today the following questions.
First, what have we as a nation done to redress serious grievances in terms of our first nations? That point was made previously. On that front our record is deplorable. We have not conferred upon our aboriginal citizens, first nations, Metis and Inuit communities the rights of citizenship. We have denied consistently the ability of those original peoples of Canada to enjoy the full rights of citizenship, particularly those rights enunciated in this motion about equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law.
I would suggest that, before we get down to fiddling with the words and changing the oath of citizenship, we look at the basics.
First, I would recommend that as a Parliament we finally address the fundamental issue of what it means to be a Canadian and what is the value of citizenship.
Second, I think we have many historical grievances that have yet to be addressed by the Government of Canada pertaining directly to citizenship. For example, we have yet to deal, as a Parliament and as a nation, with correcting the injustices that occurred as the result of the Chinese immigrant head tax and the Chinese exclusion act. That is issue is still before Canada and before Parliament.
(1140)
I suggest also that as a Parliament we have not dealt with the matter of redress for Ukrainian people who were interned during World War I. Valiant efforts have been made to have this matter addressed by Parliament but to date the Government of Canada has chosen not to, so with respect to our multicultural mosaic there are many shortcomings that have to be addressed if we are truly serious about citizenship.
My third point has to do with the fact that as we speak, as we try to deal with the citizenship oath, the government is not prepared to stand up strongly and firmly against the United States, which has chosen to treat many of our citizens as second class. As we confront the issues of citizenship today, we must confront the matters of racial profiling and the fact that the United States of America has made subjective and unilateral decisions pertaining to which Canadian citizens are above suspicion and which shall be fingerprinted, interviewed and questioned even though they are citizens.
Relating to that, I suggest that it is very difficult to deal with a citizenship oath when the Government of Canada is proceeding with policies that run contrary to the notion of citizenship. I think, for example, of the safe third country being negotiated outside Parliament. Even though the immigration committee has had a chance to give some reflections on the regulations pertaining to this deal, the fact of the matter is that the minister and the government are proceeding full bore ahead without consulting Parliament and without considering what this means in terms of our fundamental views about citizenship and our treatment of refugees contrary to our traditions of compassion and a humanitarian approach.
I also think about some of the changes made in the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which make our whole notion of citizenship questionable. The fact that individuals can be denied citizenship without due process certainly runs counter to everything the member is suggesting in Bill C-203. The rule of law seems to have gone out the window on many fronts when it comes to citizenship.
My fourth point is that when it comes to creating a sense of civic participation and the need for citizens to be involved in our political life, in the electoral process and in all aspects of society in this country, it is very hard to persuade and encourage them to take that process seriously when the government negates decisions made by this Parliament that have been agreed to sometimes on a unanimous basis. When the government makes promises and breaks them it fails to live up to the expectations of the electorate. It is very hard to persuade people to be involved in civic politics and take citizenship seriously when their own government seems to break faith each and every time. We can imagine what new Canadians must think when they hear about a Parliament that passes a motion on a unanimous basis to ensure that we treat people with disabilities with respect and that they have the services they need, and the government of the day turns around and says it has to think it through more carefully.
If one wants to practise good citizenship, one has to be a good example. We must be able to always say that not only is citizenship important out there in terms of classes leading up to an individual actually becoming a citizen, but it must be something that we live and breathe each and every day. It clearly means that we as the Parliament of Canada must ensure that the government practises what it preaches and that we translate that into the statutes, programs and regulations of the land. This comes down to the fundamental concept of saying what one means, doing what one says and being consistent at all times.
The member makes a good contribution in Bill C-203, but I urge him to go back to his government and address all of these issues that deny citizenship and do not allow this country to live up to its high standards with respect to welcoming newcomers, redressing past grievances and leading by example.
(1145)
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I too congratulate the member for Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot for his sincerity and certainly his passion, not only in bringing forward this piece of private member's legislation but also for his interest in and his passion about the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I am not a member, but I do know of his input into that committee. I know that is certainly agreed to by most members of the House, both government and opposition, so I thank the member.
I am not going to lecture the member, as perhaps has been done just recently with respect to Bill C-18 and other legislation and perhaps on some other deficiencies of the government. If that were the case, I would stand here for hours to lecture this member on the deficiencies of his government, but I would like to deal with the issue at hand, which is that of the oath of allegiance.
Before I get to the oath and to this resolution specifically, I do know that it is a non-votable item. I do know, from sitting on a committee that deals with private members' business, that there will be an opportunity to have votable items come forward in the future. Each member will have that opportunity, so perhaps this member may well wish to again bring forward a similar type of resolution or bill at a later date when it would be votable. I personally wish it were votable, but since it is not we will go from there.
I have had the opportunity of taking part, as have most members of the House, in citizenship courts in this country. I must say that the opportunity to attend is the most moving experience that I as a member of Parliament have had. To see citizens of other communities, cultures and countries coming forward, making applications to become citizens of our great country, giving up passports and citizenship in other countries and embracing the democratic rights of Canada is one of the most moving experiences that I have had. I have to say that after quite a number of these ceremonies, I too went through the process and reaffirmed my Canadian citizenship simply because I felt so strongly about it. In fact, I did take the oath of allegiance that currently is in the Citizenship Act.
I say that because it was not so much the oath of allegiance itself, but certainly the indication or the understanding of what it meant to be a Canadian and to have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms at my disposal as a Canadian citizen. I was very pleased to be able to do that as an individual. I believe that we as a country would be much better off if all our citizens, each and every one of us who take for granted our citizenship in this great country, not only went and observed the citizenship court, but after seeing that had the opportunity and the ability to exercise this oath of allegiance or reconfirm our oath of allegiance to this great country.
The oath, as we recognize, goes back to previous legislation. As a matter of fact, it is worth noting that before 1947 all citizens of Canada were British subjects, a common status shared by all citizens of the British Commonwealth. Any person in Canada applying to become a British subject accepted without question the oath of allegiance and references to the sovereign Crown. After the end of World War II, immigration to Canada increased dramatically, mainly from the British Isles and continental Europe. Of course during this period the Canadian Citizenship Act had come into force.
Unexpectedly, many new residents applying for Canadian citizenship have over the years expressed their concern when it came to the point of swearing the oath of allegiance. British subjects from other parts of the Commonwealth expressed surprise at being required to subscribe to the oath of allegiance. They believed that they already had given allegiance to the Crown and expressed their concern that they were required to take an oath of allegiance to the head of another country. Commencing in 1967, the government announced its intention of introducing revised citizenship legislation.
(1150)
Among other things the legislators noted that the phrasing of the citizenship oath was a point of difficulty with some citizenship applicants. Following interdepartmental legal discussions with the Department of Justice and the Privy Council Office, the title in principle was accepted, together with the proposal that the new oath clearly indicate, to avoid further misunderstanding, that Her Majesty, by title, is the Queen of Canada, hence the 1977 oath for affirmation of citizenship.
We would think that after three tries the government would finally get citizenship and immigration right. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Hon. members may remember Bill C-63 and Bill C-16, which are no longer on the Order Paper and were put off. They have now been replaced by Bill C-18, which, I am told, not having been to committee, has its own difficulties, its own flaws and its own deficiencies.
The reason I mention it is that those flaws and deficiencies can now be corrected in committee if the government and the committee on citizenship and immigration are prepared to take open, honest direction, not only from members of the opposition but from members of the government.
I would ask the member who has tabled the bill, this change of oath, to go back to that committee and not only ask for, but perhaps even insist, that his changes to the oath be incorporated in Bill C-18 and also that other flaws and deficiencies of Bill C-18 be amended in committee so that it comes forward as a much better citizenship act for this country and for the people it is administrating.
We as citizens of this country should stand each day and be very thankful for the rights and privileges that we are given as Canadian citizens. I accept the fact that the member certainly believes very strongly in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I, as a Canadian and a part of the House, congratulate him for bringing this forward. Excuse me for my voice, as I do have a bit of a cold, and otherwise I could go on for a longer time and probably more passionately as well. If nothing else, the member has allowed us to stand and think about what our citizenship means to us. That in itself is worth everything that the member has done.
Mr. Speaker, thank you very much to the member and to the House for allowing me to speak.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will start by thanking my colleague from Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, first, for the work he has put behind this private member's initiative, but more so for the thought behind the initiative.
In his proposal he has put forward two different versions, which pleases me very much personally and I know a lot of Canadians. The one version, where he makes reference to God, makes me very happy. In the other version, appreciating the diversity of our country, he does not make reference to God.
Without going into the historical aspect of it, because most members have covered that, and for the purpose of saving time, I too find great pleasure when I attend citizenship courts and see the many different people willingly coming forward and wanting to become part of the country, not just by saying that they want to live here but by taking oaths and becoming citizens of Canada and, I stress, of Canada.
I have also heard, as many members indicated today, including the member moving the bill, why they are not pledging allegiance to Canada, as we do in reverse. I too bring that message from citizenship courts that I attend in the greater Toronto area.
As most members here are very experienced parliamentarians, they know that in today's changing and trying times no legislation ever written is perfect. It is written with good intent and good thought and along the way, as time and circumstances change, we make amendments.
I remember growing up as a young boy when we sang God Save the Queen every day at school. Even today, according to the circumstances, I get goose bumps when I sing that song. I look forward to those opportunities. At the Remembrance Day services, for example, in Scarborough it is part of our activity, and I am very pleased for that.
We also did not have a flag some years back and today we have the maple leaf. We made those changes. God knows, maybe 10 or 20 years down the road we will possibly make some other changes according to how our country changes.
I came with a thought to talk to Bill C-203 but as the debate unfolded I guess I was provoked a little by the Bloc Quebecois member who referred to the European Union. Let us look at the European Union. When the president of the European commission, Mr. Prodi, first took office he said that within the confederation called the European Union the Italians would never stop being Italian, the Portuguese would never stop being Portuguese, the French would never stop being French and the Greeks would never stop being Greeks. It does not take their identities away because they fall under the European Union.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Don't forget the Dutch.
Mr. John Cannis: The Dutch as well, and the Brits.
She also said something that kind of irked me a bit when she said “we as a people, as a nation”. During the referendum of 1995 we went out and spoke to the nation. Let us look around the room. The member, who is moving the bill and whose ancestors are from Great Britain, is not here to diminish the honour and respect he has for his ancestors. If anything, he is building the country that he now calls home, this beautiful country called Canada, this beacon of hope to the world and this diversity that makes up Canada today, which is really where our strength lies.
When the member talks about a people and a nation, I want to remind her that when our ancestors came to this country they came to build it and share in it, which is what we are doing. Whether they went to Ontario, Quebec or British Columbia, her ancestors and my ancestors came to Canada to build and unite, not to separate.
I know my time is closing and as much as I want to refer to others, I want to at this stage, although I know I might be out of line, but because I feel so passionately about this I would like to seek unanimous consent to have the bill made votable.
(1155)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot has five minutes to conclude the debate.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I may say that a one hour debate on a subject such as this is so little. There were many other members who wanted to speak.
I would like to make one very important point in answer to the member for Mercier.
[Translation]
The most important point of all is in response to the hon. member for Mercier, to whom I would say that the key words of the oath that I propose are that we are united as Canadians by the five great principles of the charter, which are as follows, and I quote:
|
|
—equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law. |
Whether you are a Canadian from Quebec, an Acadian, someone living in Alberta, or are of Greek, English or French ancestry, we are all Canadians; we are a people united by the five principles contained in the charter. We are Canadians.
As Canadians, we believe in the principles contained in the charter. It is that simple. Therein lies our strength, therein lies our tolerance, and therein lies our pride. All the world understands this.
(1200)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. Since the motion was not selected as a votable item, this item is now dropped from the Order Paper.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Kyoto Protocol
The House resumed from November 29 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment and the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter some comments on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to today's debate. It is probably appropriate for us to shape this debate in a current context in terms of a lot of the speculation by other members of Parliament on this particular issue.
I must say that I was completely taken aback and shocked by the revisionist words of the former finance minister, the current member for the riding of LaSalle—Émard, concerning the Kyoto protocol itself.
At the Liberal Party convention in the province of Quebec over the weekend, he mused about the fact that the federal government was completely ill-prepared to address Canada's climate change obligations.
I find it very difficult to understand why the member for LaSalle—Émard would proclaim himself to be the promoter of technological innovation when he alone, as the finance minister, had the ability to initiate tax incentives in those very sectors that he spoke about over the course of the weekend. The member for LaSalle—Émard is the person most responsible for Canada's ill-preparedness. Those incentives he spoke about are initiatives that could have been put into place as early as 1998.
Mr. Speaker, you may be quite familiar with those incentives through the course of the debate that you had and in particular in the citations from the member for Red Deer.
We have always promoted what we call a no regret strategy, a program that would be based on tax incentives for renewable sources of energy and investments in energy efficiencies. The Tories have always promoted consumer tax incentives to foster the growth of blended fuels, such as ethanol, a world loan guarantee program for the retrofit of buildings, and those kinds of investments into energy efficiency. These are all tax measures that could have been in place for the last five years. Canada could have actually moved forward in developing a progressive climate change strategy in advance.
Mr. Speaker, you may also be aware of the fact that in 2005, as part of the Kyoto agreement, Canada is to provide the international community with demonstrative evidence that our climate change strategy is in fact on track and that emissions targets under the Kyoto protocol will in fact be achieved by 2008 and 2012. These incentives that I just spoke about and that the revisionist former finance minister spoke about last weekend needed to be in place for the last five years in order for us to hit that first benchmark.
The member for LaSalle—Émard clearly had an opportunity to actually have these no regret initiatives in place. He was in charge of the tax code. He neglected to actually put these initiatives in place. It is his fault that we are in a situation right now where parliamentarians are going to be asked to blindly ratify an accord that we are not equipped to do.
Canada is the number one emitter of greenhouse gases on a per capita basis in the industrialized world. We have a moral obligation to pull our weight for a progressive country like Canada to have a progressive climate change strategy. However I want to illustrate how ill-prepared our country was benchmarked against other developed nations.
Sweden, for instance, told its European Union partners that it had concerns about the Kyoto target that the EU was proceeding toward on the basis that it had a cold climate with a large land mass relative to a small population, with an export driven and energy intensive economy. Sweden has similar characteristics to Canada, I might add. Sweden told the EU that it would accept a target similar to what the EU was pursuing but in fact it is only 20% of the reductions that the rest of the EU is doing.
Canada is Sweden too. We have accepted some of the most arduous targets that the industrialized world could ever expect a modern industrialized country to actually accept. As I have said, we need to have a progressive climate change strategy but it has to be doable. First and foremost, we cannot implement an accord of this nature without the active participation of the provinces.
I think it might be helpful for us to take a moment to reflect from an historic perspective on how we arrived here.
(1205)
I am a very proud member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. I am proud of our environmental legacy and our active record on environment, from establishing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to our world leadership on eliminating ozone depleting gases to, above all, the accord we negotiated on behalf of Canada with the United States on the acid rain protocol which resulted in a 50% reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions in power generating plants. That is tangible evidence that a consensus can be reached with the provinces. In contrast we have complete acrimony at the provincial level at this moment.
In 1988 the eighteenth prime minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney, brought the international community together on the issue pertaining to greenhouse gases.
In 1992 the Brian Mulroney government helped shape world leadership at the earth summit in Rio de Janeiro. Two conventions came out of that summit. The first initiative was for the signatories to develop legislation to protect the biodiversity in their jurisdiction.
Today Canada is still without endangered species legislation, over a decade since we were in Rio. In 10 years the government has failed to honour the first convention with respect to protecting endangered species legislation and has allowed that law to die three times on the Order Paper. We may be close to seeing a law passed in the Senate, a mediocre law I might add, on that initiative.
The second initiative in 1992 was a convention to develop a climate change strategy.
Our party might have been downsized a little the following year. However for the last nine years the Liberal Party of Canada has been the Government of Canada. For nine years, under the former finance minister and under this Prime Minister, we have not had any significant initiative brought forth to develop a climate change strategy. That is incredibly appalling.
The first initiative that ever took place, which related to climate change, occurred when the provinces finally got together and met in Regina on November 12, 1997. That led toward the Kyoto debate. At that time the provinces knew, before Canada went to Kyoto, that they had to have a consensus position pertaining to climate change. The provinces agreed to stabilization to 1990 levels of greenhouse gases by essentially 2010.
The very next morning the then minister of natural resources, the current Minister of Public Works, said that might be our position. The government broke faith with the provinces the very next day. That is a very sad illustration about how ill-prepared the government has been with respect to developing its climate change strategy.
When representatives came back from Kyoto, an immense amount of acrimony existed among the provinces. The premiers met at 24 Sussex Drive for dinner in late December or the front end of January to at least cool the water pertaining to this issue.
I want to cite one particular comment made by our former leader, the right hon. Jean J. Charest, with respect to the acrimony that existed between the federal government and the provinces pertaining to its deliberations after the Kyoto protocol. I quote from the December 12, 1997, Globe and Mail, in which Mr. Charest stated at that time:
|
|
I can't see how they will make this agreement happen without the active engagement of provincial governments, but now they've irritated them to the point where it's going to be very difficult. |
He went on to say that the government had poisoned the well in terms of relations to the provinces. He also said that there was no evidence that Ottawa had the means to implement the accord under the new commitment without the active participation of the provinces. Nothing has changed since that initiative.
Since 1997, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has always said that we need to have a no regret strategy, an incentive based program, to get the progress going and not to worry about the targets and time lines initially but to see if we can get close to the Kyoto target. Instead, we have had a public relations program over the last number of weeks to try to fool Canadians that the Government of Canada has been working in a very collaborative manner.
(1210)
To illustrate how wrong-handed the federal government has been in building consensus with the provinces, I will read from a letter on November 27 from the Premier of Newfoundland, Roger Grimes. He said:
|
|
The necessity of addressing climate change and our willingness to participate is not at issue. What is at issue is the divisive and deliberate manner in which the federal government has chosen to address climate change without full participation of the provinces and territories. |
He went on to say:
|
|
Canada needs a plan that is based on the full and cooperative consultation with all jurisdictions--something that has not taken place to date. |
Our leader, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, wrote to the Prime Minister last January and wanted to know what the federal government's intentions were with respect to ratification. The Prime Minister wrote back to the right hon. member on February 26. He said:
|
|
We have been working closely with the provinces and territories on climate change, both at the official and ministerial levels, and are collaborating with them on the analysis of these policy options. |
That was penned by the Prime Minister of Canada. Why is the Premier of Newfoundland now saying that the federal government has had a deliberately divisive approach with respect to building a provincial consensus? Why are only two provinces out of the eight on board with the earlier ratification? He claimed that they were working closely with the provinces at that time? Clearly the Prime Minister's Office was not genuine with the right hon. member in these remarks.
It raises the very issue as to why we are having a vote on the Kyoto protocol? The parliamentary secretary of public works stated that this vote was not binding on the government. Then why have the vote?
I will explain why? The vote is about camouflage. It is to hide the fact that the government has no plan to implement the Kyoto protocol. It is meant to camouflage the statement that there is some form of a consensus in the country. In other words, the Parliament of Canada has spoken for early ratification of Kyoto to hide the fact that there is no provincial consensus.
I was embarrassed by the remarks made by the Minister of the Environment pertaining his working relationship with the provinces over the protocol itself. He said:
|
|
Have we agreed on everything? No, we have not. Is that so surprising?...I am hard pressed to remember many occasions when there has been unanimity of all 14 jurisdictions in the country on major issues which involved costs: constitutional reform, no; health care, no; and on this most complex of issues [or any other issue]. |
I can cite some particular examples where we built a consensus with the provinces. First is the environmental issue on acid rain. The Progressive Conservative Party painstakingly earned the support of every provincial and territorial jurisdiction on a bilateral basis with the result that we have an acid rain protocol where we now have a 50% reduction in SO2 emissions from power generating plants. On environmental issues, we can do it.
Also, on trade and tax issues, we had the active participation of the provincial governments as well. That is another example of work done by the Conservative Party of Canada. We treated the provinces with respect. We saw them as partners. We knew we could not implement accords of this nature without the active participation of the provinces.
Another example is constitutional issues. I make no apology for our party's efforts regarding the constitution. Not once but twice the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada had the unanimity of the provinces leading up to the Meech Lake accord. Therefore, if we look at Meech Lake, free trade and acid rain, we can build a consensus with the provinces if we want.
(1215)
This do nothing government has done what it does very well: nothing. For the last five years it has not tried to bring the provincial partners together to develop the progressive climate change strategy this country categorically needs.
I call this the camouflage debate. We will vote in Parliament to say that Parliament has spoken for early ratification, purely to camouflage the fact that the Government of Canada has no consensus with the provinces and to camouflage the fact that it still does not have an active plan.
Therefore I do not want to support an accord or a vote and play the Prime Minister's game in this regard. I do not support the blind ratification of anything, especially internationally binding agreements.
I will be very interested to hear what the former finance minister has to say on this file. I am extremely curious. I know that members of the House will ask him the following questions. If we should be investing in innovative technologies with respect to renewable sources of energy and if we want to foster growth in that sector, why did the former finance minister not use the tax code in an aggressive way to foster the use of renewable sources of energy? Why did the former finance minister not use the tax code with respect to any kind of investments of energy efficiency, such as the retrofit of buildings? Why did the former finance minister not choose to lower the excise tax on blended fuels to foster the use of blended fuels and ethanol?
That was exclusively under his purview and now we will see complete revisionism from an individual whom I call Canada's best Olympic fence sitter on just about any issue. This will be his personal best in terms of how many times he has changed his position on this issue.
Many members of the government side are saying one thing on the one hand and are going back home to their constituents and saying another thing. We know that the Minister of Health has said that she has trepidations about ratification and would not support ratification without a plan. She will have a vote. There is no plan, so one should conclude what her vote would be.
I also remember the Minister of Natural Resources making a similar comment. Above all he told the provinces that there was no time line, that we were not rushing into anything whatsoever.
We know as fact that there is no need to have ratification of this agreement at this point. We still have time to earn a consensus with the provinces. The accord does not come into place before 2003. Why is the federal government not meeting with the provinces on a first minister level and hammering out a consensus?
I have notes from provincial premiers. I quoted the Premier of Newfoundland who said he was amenable to sitting down at the table. The fact that the federal government has demonstrated disdain for working with the provinces is a particular case in point as to why there are trepidations about going forward.
I believe the role of the opposition is not just to critique. We need to propose solutions as well.
I would like to quote from our platform of November 2000. “We would foster tax incentives for renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency investments”. Tories like tax cuts and the former finance minister had an opportunity to use that initiative.
We go on to say, “We would like to foster the use of ethanol and other blended fuels by lowering the excise tax” which is another example of what the former Minister of Finance could have done.
“We would also like to have a loan guarantee program to encourage energy efficient retrofits”. A similar initiative has been proposed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. This is another example of where municipal and provincial governments are way ahead of the federal government. This government has done nothing over the last five years.
We also said that a Progressive Conservative government would lead by example in purchasing green power. There are a myriad of examples such Vision Quest, a very progressive company that produces wind power. Green power can be purchased in Calgary. The federal government has followed up on that initiative since then. Maybe some of its researchers have been perusing the odd Progressive Conservative platform on occasion.
(1220)
We would also introduce provincial tax treatment in the centres for renewable sources of energy to encourage consumer and industry buy-in of clean sources of fuel and renewable clean energy.
We would also like to conclude sector by sector agreements with industry to set targets to reduce emissions, to work with industry. We have always said that we need to reward industry for early action. In fact, we even asked questions on November 2, 1999.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see where the Conservative Party of Canada stands on the Kyoto protocol. Prior to the member's discussion, we were unsure exactly where the Conservative Party stood and now it has come four-square against it.
The hon. member mentioned the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I should remind him that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities took a vote among its members and said yes to the ratification of Kyoto.
We know that Kyoto is not perfect. We know that probably when the Liberals or the House ratify it, nothing will be done the following day. We are quite certain of that. We fear that the Liberals will ratify it just to meet their superficial obligations worldwide and then will do absolutely nothing about it.
I would like the hon. member for Fundy—Royal to stand in his place and reiterate the fact that it is the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that said yes to the Kyoto protocol and yes to innovations that he talked about. It is not just Kyoto; there are many other things we could do to promote environmental concerns within the country. I would like him to elaborate on that.
Mr. John Herron:
Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party position has always been consistent, honest and measured. I do not think any member of the NDP wants to provide an opportunity to the federal government to ratify an accord which it has no intention of ever implementing.
I do not know why the NDP wants to support the Prime Minister in the disingenuous ratification of the Kyoto accord. An accord of this nature cannot be implemented without the active participation of the provinces. We knew that on acid rain. It is the exact same toolkit we will need to implement the Kyoto accord.
We do not support the ratification of this accord without the active participation of the provinces. We do not support the ratification of the accord without Canadians knowing what behavioural expectations their national government has for them on a day to day basis.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, speaking of inconsistent and disingenuous positions being taken, I know that we are all waiting with bated breath to hear from the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard. An article today, which I would call an exposé, called “The evolution of a parliamentarian”, outlines in great detail the positions that were taken by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard while in opposition.
We should always be mindful and this is a perfect example of why members in the opposition should watch their words: because they come back to haunt them, they come back to bite them. When these red book reversals are done, when these genuine, Olympian somersaults happen on very specific issues, they come back. When we talk about the record, it is going to be very important, very telling, to see.
My hon. friend from Fundy—Royal in New Brunswick did a terrific job in setting out in detail the Conservative Party's position which would be implemented if our party were in government. It would be implemented in the same way that we implemented free trade, in the same way that we implemented a deficit reduction tax, in the same way we treated our military with respect, unlike the present government and unlike the positions the Liberals took while in opposition.
My hon. colleague from Fundy—Royal has been consistent and specific on issues. What does he think will happen today when the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard stands with or against his government and should Canadians view that as being consistent or as being hypocritical?
(1225)
Mr. John Herron:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a quote into Hansard from March 13, 1991 in terms of what the then environment critic, the member for LaSalle—Émard, stated with respect to making sure we knew what positions we were taking when we headed to the Rio earth summit. He said:
|
|
The true question is when will this government understand that Canadians do not want to faced with a fait accompli by a government that is hiding its true agenda under a mound of public relations flackery. |
That is a litmus test as to why there are so many multiple positions coming from the former finance minister on Kyoto. All members of the House will want to know how he can proclaim himself to be the promoter of technological innovation when he alone had the capacity to initiate tax incentives in the very sectors he speaks about.
He is the person who is the most responsible for Canada's ill-preparedness with respect to our climate change strategy. He had the tax code under his purview. He could have brought in tax incentives for renewable sources of energy and for investments in energy efficiency.
We have always said that we needed to have similar tax base incentives for the growth of blended fuels and lowering the excise tax. It was under the former finance minister's purview to go down that track.
Now we are going to hear a completely revisionist speech with respect to why we should be investing in innovation and conservation, as if he just walked into the House for the first time today. I have no idea where he was over those eight years as finance minister, from one year after Rio. I do not know where he has been for the last five years since Kyoto. I very much look forward to the immense revisionism we are going to hear in his speech. He is going to be another born again environmentalist, just as he is going to be another born again defender of the democratic deficit.
I might add that I still have a bit of a sore spot in that my private member's motion to allow students to deduct student debt from their income tax upon graduation was lost in a vote, 109 to 103. It was the then finance minister who sent a note out to caucus asking Liberal members not to support the motion, even though 13 principled Liberals did. He is a revisionist with respect to the environment and democratic deficit. I look forward to his speech which will have an immense amount of revisionism.
Hon. Paul Martin (LaSalle—Émard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan.
[Translation]
The process that has given rise to the Kyoto protocol began at the Earth Summit, which I attended, in Rio de Janeiro in November 1992. In spite of its flaws, Kyoto is an important step along the way to a better environment. Furthermore, I believe international challenges require international solutions. Therefore I will support the resolution.
(1230)
[English]
That being said, I do have problems with how the process around Canada's intended ratification has unfolded. Canadians deserve to know that in order to meet our Kyoto commitments as a nation, we will have to introduce fundamental changes in the way we manage our economy and in the way we live our lives.
Furthermore, it is important to recognize that the nature of the debate in Canada's federation must change. The old dynamic of Ottawa and the provinces pitted against each other has no place in the great national challenge that lies ahead of us. Thus, we must begin to think anew and act together.
It is in this context that I would address the issue that will now be of the greatest importance: the development of the plan that follows Canada's ratification. Let me set out certain principles that I believe will be key to that plan.
First, we need to maintain a strong and growing economy. Furthermore, there must be equitable cost sharing. We must not allow our implementation plan to damage segments of our industrial base or to disadvantage certain provinces or regions.
We have been down this road in the past and we cannot allow history to repeat itself. Western Canada should never again have to endure made in Ottawa discrimination. Atlantic Canada should not have its dreams of new economic opportunity put on hold just as they are about to be realized.
Second, we must maintain a climate of investment certainty. We cannot allow our efforts on emissions reduction to become a decade-long game of Russian roulette where industry is never quite certain what the government might do next. We need to cap the exposure of Canadian business on a sector by sector basis and ensure that we do not handcuff the ability of our companies to grow and to create jobs.
Third, we must reject outright the purchase of hot air credits from abroad. Canadian dollars are better invested in meaningful emissions reduction technologies here in Canada.
[Translation]
We must remember that the Kyoto targets cannot be our end game. The year 2012 is but a signpost to a world of inevitable change. Energy consumption in developing countries such as China, India and Brazil is growing at unprecedented rates.
Their emissions will inundate our planet's atmosphere in a matter of generations if they are not provided with the technological means to reduce them.
So, the fundamental question is how the world will meet this challenge , and in this context, how Canada will turn itself into the most energy efficient, technologically advanced economy among nations.
The answer, no doubt, will be found in clean energies, green infrastructure, more liveable cities, and ultimately, wherever our technological ingenuity guides us.
[English]
The choice before us is unequivocal. Either Canada will be a follower or it will be a leader in the global movement for the less carbon intensive economy. Canada is well positioned to succeed in this new world; to build on our indepth expertise and energy production and distribution; to point the way toward the future environmental action that promises remarkable economic advantage; and to show the world how it can be done. The choice is ours.
We must recognize as well that technology alone is not a panacea to the climate change challenge. There is no silver bullet. Our targets would require a conscious and focused effort on the part of all Canadians. We must be realistic and honest about the extent of the challenge before us and about what we are asking of each other.
Thus the fourth principle I propose as we develop the implementation plan is one of embodying the greatest degree of openness and transparency.
I support this resolution, but I do not agree with the way it has come into being. Canadians have the right to expect better in the future. Combating climate change would be a huge national undertaking. As we move forward we must do more to inform and engage the public from coast to coast to coast. To that end, allow me to make two specific proposals.
First, we must have a revitalized process going forward. The government must reach out. Earlier this year I spoke about the importance of citizen engagement, the role of Parliament and parliamentarians in the development of public policy, and the furtherance of national debate. The design of the various Kyoto implementation strategies is a prime example of where such involvement can pay huge dividends. If there are regional sensitivities, then who better than the members of Parliament sent here from all regions to review the plan? If there is a need for greater national understanding, then who better than those elected to stand on the national stage to help bring it into being?
Accordingly, in order to hear from Canadians and to offer the House further input, the current implementation plan should be brought before a special parliamentary committee. The committee should have the opportunity to hold full national hearings and offer recommendations for improvement by no later than early spring 2003. The same process of parliamentary hearings should be followed as the plan evolves. By demystifying the content and consequences of Kyoto, such a process should lead to a better plan. At a minimum it would create greater understanding. Ideally it would lead to a stronger consensus.
The second proposal would ensure that Canada is indeed positioned at the forefront in the development of green technologies. We must meet opportunity with action. I spoke earlier about the advantages Canada has in developing new approaches and techniques. They are very real, but we have only scratched the surface of our potential. To get where we must from here, we need to make the economics of early endeavour more attractive. All this would cost money. That is the scarcest of all resources. Therefore, let us set some of it aside now.
The government has stated a number of times in the past that it intends to sell its remaining shares in Petro-Canada. My proposal would be, when this occurs, to set aside in existing investment vehicles the estimated $1.5 billion in profit, a one time surplus item, so that it could be dedicated to enhancing our ability to develop the environmental technologies of tomorrow.
(1235)
[Translation]
In conclusion, our task is now to go further than the debate surrounding the ratification of Kyoto. The moment has come to charge ourselves with putting it in place. We cannot allow ourselves to miss this chance. Our success in this area will be measured by our ability to transform challenges into opportunities.
We must address these challenges in a concerted fashion with the provinces, municipalities, the private sector, and relevant NGOs. We must define clear objectives as part of an equally clear plan. We must work together, in a spirit of unity and mutual respect, regarding the obligations and constraints that will be required of each of us. And all of this, while putting our technological ingenuity to work. It is in this way that we will take on the great challenge of climate change. A challenge that concerns not only us, but the future of generations that follow us.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the member for LaSalle—Émard is correct. Canadians expect better than what they have seen on this file, but we need action now. The best Canadians can hope for in his case is some 14 or 15 months away before he can implement the plan that he outlined and I applaud his suggestions.
However, we need action now. We have four projects in jeopardy in the Athabasca tar sands, including Canadian Natural Resources Limited. The company must make a decision on a multi-billion dollar investment within the next 60 days. We do not have 15 months to wait for the improved plan.
This morning the Investment Dealers Association of Canada is telling us that U.S. investment in energy in Canada would dry up if the Kyoto accord were to be ratified. The member has the power in caucus to influence the defeat of this ratification and give us something better. Why will he not do it?
(1240)
Hon. Paul Martin:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment made it clear with certainty what would be forthcoming. He made it clear that nothing would be done to inhibit the growth of the tar sands and the oil and gas industry in western Canada. The Minister of Health, speaking as an Albertan, has also made it clear. In fact, what the hon. member is doing is raising problems that do not exist. What he is doing is damaging the investment climate.
The government has made it clear and I said in my remarks that there would be no acts of discrimination against western Canada, against Alberta or against the oil and gas industry. The real difference between both of us is that this side of the House believes that international solutions must find international agreements. We understand that one country cannot act alone and that there would no acts of discrimination against western Canada. The hon. member should not raise this kind of fear.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we understand the message from the member for LaSalle—Émard, who said that real change will come through green energy sources. However, the reality is that between 1990 and 1999, $2.5 billion worth of government support went to the oil industry, compared to a mere $76 million during the same period that went to clean energy sources.
The member for LaSalle—Émard is quite aware of this fact, because he knows some companies very well, such as Cordex Petroleums, in which he has interests, and Commercial Coal and Coke Company.
My question, then, is the following: in order to develop green energy sources, is he prepared, in his future reign, to invest one dollar in environmental industries for every dollar invested in the oil industry? That is what we would like to know.
Hon. Paul Martin:
Mr. Speaker, the two companies that he mentioned ceased their operations a very long time ago. Perhaps he should review his notes. However, the fundamental point, is that first, the member is advocating discrimination against western Canada's oil industry even though we just said that we have no intention of doing that.
Second, why does the member not talk about the opportunity of investing in green technology, investing in the future? Why does he not talk about this government's programs that are already investing in renewable technologies? Why does he not mention, for example, the studies that indicate that by 2020, 2030, we can lower our greenhouse gas emissions drastically by investing in these technologies?
Why does he not look to the future? Because the Bloc Quebecois is disconnected from the Quebec and Canadian reality.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, throughout the hon. member's remarks he spoke of being realistic and honest. Most Canadians do not need to be reminded about the cuts to health care, social transfers--
The Deputy Speaker:
Order, please. I wish to caution the House that I have 36 seconds left on my clock. I can be generous, but I do not have time for a long preamble. I do not mean to be impatient.
I apologize but I passed over the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore.
Here is what I will do. It is somewhat unorthodox, but it is done in committee from time to time, I understand. I will take a question from the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough of about 30 seconds. I will go to the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore for 30 seconds and I am sure the member for LaSalle—Émard can take a few notes and answer both within approximately one minute.
Mr. Peter MacKay:
Mr. Speaker, with the long litany of red faced, red book reversals on positions, and all of the reversals he has taken, why should Canadians believe him now? Where is the record and evidence of this honest position that he is now putting before Canadians?
(1245)
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the CEP union which wholeheartedly endorses the Kyoto protocol, will the former finance minister be supporting just transition programs in terms of financial compensation to those workers who may be displaced by the Kyoto ratification?
Hon. Paul Martin:
Mr. Speaker, in terms of the first member's question, I was at Rio in 1992 and implementation plans should have been put in place. The Tories refused to do it. Let the hon. member stand and say why that was not more important.
In terms of the second question, I have made it clear in my remarks that this is a huge national challenge that must be met by the whole country. A substantial portion of the development of new technologies would go a long way but it is not the whole answer. All Canadians must come together. Where Canadians would require help, they would get it.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In light of the predicament that we find ourselves, where we have serious time constraints, one of the obvious solutions would be to extend the time for questions and comments. Because there are many people who would still like to ask questions, and hon. member are only allowed five minutes, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House for an extension of time for questions and comments.
The Deputy Speaker:
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I have a little bit of time left for a brief question from the hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, a moment ago my friend raised the example of Canadian Natural Resources Limited which is considering whether or not it would put more money into oil sands development. Does the member deny that companies like Canadian Natural Resources Limited are at this very moment considering whether or not they should put billions of dollars of investment into oil sands projects, depending upon the outcome of this ratification vote? If that is his position, then he is completely wrong.
Hon. Paul Martin:
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure again to respond to the hon. member for Medicine Hat. Unfortunately he has not changed his habits. He continues to get his facts wrong.
The Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health have said, and I have certainly said it here in my remarks, that no implementation plan should be developed that in any way discriminates against an existing industry or a region of the country. That is the fact. I do not believe that the hon. member in the House should be creating investment uncertainty. What we require is investment certainty and that is the objective here.
Mr. Peter Stoffer:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In all humility the hon. member did not get a chance to answer the question I asked him about the just transition program. I was wondering if the member could answer that question.
The Deputy Speaker:
I believe the question was answered. It may not be the answer the hon. member was hoping for, but now we are getting into debate. I wish to thank members on both sides for their cooperation. I think we have stretched the five minutes a little bit. On a point of order, the hon. member for LaSalle--Émard.
Hon. Paul Martin:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to make it clear that I thought the member's question was an important one, one of the best that has been put on that side of the House. I answered it by making it clear--
The Deputy Speaker:
Order, please. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. That is not a point or order either. That is debate. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Thunder Bay--Atikokan.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, over the last few days there has been a lot of rhetoric from both sides of the House. The content of much of that rhetoric dealt with the economics of the implementation of the Kyoto agreement over the next few years.
There is something far more important than the holy dollar with regard to this issue and that is the well-being and the health of my fellow Canadians. My remarks concern an aspect of the climate change issue that has not received much attention lately.
In fact, I suggest that consideration of this part of the climate change issue might be the most compelling reason for us to take appropriate action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. As there is little or no dispute about the fact that greenhouse gases are profoundly changing the global climate, we now understand that there will be a broad range of direct and indirect impacts on our health and our well-being.
We will have more frequent and severe extreme weather events, such as tornadoes, ice storms, floods, heat waves, droughts and the smog episodes that we find so common in our major metropolitan areas. A warming climate in Canada could also mean increased water-borne contamination and an influx of more vector-borne infectious diseases. We also know that many of the pollutants causing global warming are also involved in the thinning of the ozone layer, allowing more harmful ultraviolet radiation to reach the earth's surface.
Some Canadians, especially children, the elderly and the poor, will feel these impacts more than others. Different regions of the country, the north for example, will likely be affected much more than other areas. In fact, climate change is already having an effect on natural ecosystems, communities and cultures in all parts of Canada's north.
We need only look at the Winnipeg River flood of 1997 and the Quebec-Ontario ice storm of 1998 for compelling evidence of the severe impact that climatic events can have on the health and well-being of Canadians and their communities. The toll of the 1998 ice storm was fantastic. Over 600,000 people had to be evacuated and 28 deaths and 940 injuries occurred. The Red River flood resulted in the evacuation of 25,000 people from their homes.
A recent study by researchers at Health Canada, published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health and entitled “Potential impacts of global warming and climate change on the epidemiology of zoonotic diseases in Canada”, has given us an idea of what we can expect to confront us in terms of infectious diseases as a result of global warming. The study warns that viral illnesses such as encephalitis and E. coli have the potential to become increasingly common in Canada as climate change allows for increases in the population of rats, mosquitoes and other infection-carrying vermin.
It further warns that heavy rainfalls and rapid snow melts have the potential to transmit more bacteria such as E. coli into our drinking water. The report also suggests the possibility of an increase in Lyme disease, which can result in chronic arthritis, nervous system disorders and debilitation. A warmer climate could result in a rise in the number of ticks that transmit Lyme disease and in the mice and small mammals that act as its hosts, to help the illness thrive in Canada.
These effects will also bring with them economic costs, such as costs to our health care systems, to our social support systems and to our productivity as a country. The Ontario Medical Association has said that poor air quality costs more than $1 billion a year in hospital admissions, emergency room visits and absenteeism, in Ontario alone.
(1250)
By creating the conditions that increase the development of smog, climate change could actually increase these costs in the future, and this says nothing about the economic costs to Canadians associated with the impacts on their health from extreme weather events, declining water quality, more infectious diseases and other changes we can expect.
There is no question that a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will improve the health of Canadians by reducing the other pollutants that cause illnesses such as asthma and cardiac failure. Reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases by switching to cleaner power sources not only supports international efforts to tackle the problem of global warming, but will necessarily reduce the discharge of toxic pollutants, which translates into cleaner air and water and, ultimately, better health for all Canadians.
Yes, much research has to be done in this area. For example, many of our communities in Canada are one industry communities such as paper mill towns. More study has to be done to see if there is any relation between the toxic materials and the pollutants emitted from the paper making process and the high level of cancer that we find in many of these communities. For instance, in northwestern Ontario some of those communities that we call paper mill towns have cancer rates that are higher than the provincial average and much higher than the national average.
We must take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but that is not all we must do. Since climate change is already occurring, we must also take steps to prepare our public health system to reduce its impacts. We must do this because we have a duty to protect the health and well-being of Canadians and because of the economic impact that climate change will have on our health care system and the productivity of our workers.
We must develop contingency plans for outbreaks of new or re-emerging diseases. We must ensure that we have shelters for the poor, the elderly and the homeless as an escape from the heat. We need to enhance our emergency preparedness and response capabilities. We must protect the quality of our drinking water from severe weather events. Also, we must make Canadians more aware of these health threats and what they can do to avoid them.
I am proud to say that the Government of Canada is working with the public health community across the country to prepare for climate change. There is much to be done. We need to better understand the challenges ahead and develop actions to address these challenges. Preparing now will be more protective of human health and less costly than responding to emergencies as they occur.
There is a long path ahead for scientists, public health professionals, governments and individuals to address the impacts of climate change on the health of Canadians. In the end, we must work together as a country to ensure that no one region and no one vulnerable group suffers disproportionately from the effects of climate change.
(1255)
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the intervention by the member and I do not know who on earth did his research. Does he not realize that the hottest period in North America that is on record was between the 1930s and the 1960s? He can look at the EPA website. He can look at any weather-related website on the net and find that this is the case. Does he know that the worst heat wave in Canada's history was in July 1935? There were four days in a row where Toronto was over 42°. This was long before the concentrations of carbon dioxide were at the level they are at today.
Does he know that about a hundred thousand years ago Greenland was colonized because the temperatures were so high? Does he know that there was a mini ice age three thousand years ago? Also, does he not realize, for goodness' sake, that it ties in more closely to normal solar magnetic variations than it does to anything to do with carbon dioxide?
There may be very good reasons for us to control our emissions of carbon dioxide, but more important are other pollutants like sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide and ozone destroying components. For goodness' sake, to start all this fearmongering nonsense when there are numerous examples of high temperatures and low temperatures in our past is just completely ridiculous.
Right now the glaciers in the southern hemisphere are growing, such as the Franz Josef glacier in New Zealand. He can go and look it up. He can look in the news.
A friend of mine who runs the largest importer of fruits and vegetables in Canada told me that he has been warned by his suppliers in the southern hemisphere that it is the coldest spring on record, the harvests this year are going to be the lowest on record and we should be prepared for higher prices for the produce from the southern hemisphere.
Finally, the North Atlantic and the eastern seaboard are colder than usual. How does he explain all that with his fearmongering? It is ridiculous.
Mr. Stan Dromisky:
Mr. Speaker, the comments that have been presented are interesting. Yes, a lot of those facts are well known. When we study the history of climate, the history of this continent of ours and the history of the world, we can find isolated incidents such as the heat waves in the 1930s and the dust bowls in central North America such as those that occurred in the United States and in the Prairie provinces. There is no doubt that we can isolate those kind of events.
However, this is not what I am concerned about. I am concerned about the overall and overwhelming evidence of a consistent, ongoing, consecutive pattern that is emerging now on a more frequent basis than ever in the history of the globe. Those concerns, plus all the other factors regarding those forms of behaviour, the machinery, the agricultural practices and a host of other causes that help to create the kind of atmosphere which we have to cope with at the present time, raise the level of concern among the intelligent people of the world who know that something has to be done. We cannot put our heads in the sand and bury ourselves there because there was a heat wave in 1935.
(1300)
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the great job you are doing in refereeing the debate today.
I asked the member for LaSalle—Émard about this, and I will ask the hon. member as well. The CEP union has wholeheartedly endorsed the Kyoto protocol and ratification, but it knows that some of its workers may be displaced by current conditions if Kyoto goes ahead. It is asking the government to put in place financial transition programs to make sure that the workers who are put out of work in a particular industry have a soft landing.
Will the hon. member be supporting those initiatives?
Mr. Stan Dromisky:
Mr. Speaker, I understand and appreciate the kinds of concerns that have been raised. Those concerns have been raised time and again in the House in regard to how various groups and individuals, especially in certain occupations and certain regions of the country, are going to be affected.
However, what we have to ask ourselves is: What is going to affect them? We really do not know right now what the creative minds of the country will create in the next 20 years to cope with the kinds of problems that I and other members have been talking about. There is much that could be done. When it comes to producing energy, we are just at the beginning. Once we start rolling, we will find the creative minds of this world producing strategies, instruments, techniques and so forth that will drastically and dramatically change lifestyles, occupations and so forth, not only in Canada but all over the world.
However, there is one fact--
The Deputy Speaker:
However, the member is out of time.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I heard two points from the member who just spoke and the previous speaker on the government side of the House. I hope everyone in Canada remembers what they had to say.
The former minister of finance stood in the House and proclaimed, for everyone to hear, that Kyoto would not cost anything. This will cost millions and millions. To try to deny that is a pure fallacy, not only to the House but to the nation.
I was asked three questions this morning by very concerned constituents in my province of Saskatchewan, which is primarily an agricultural province. First, how much will this cost? No one can answer that question. If it costs 2¢ a litre for all the fuel that is consumed, that puts a lot of farmers out of business. People would not phone a car company, say that they want a certain kind of a car, ask what it would cost and then say they will buy it even though the salesperson was not sure of the price. People do not do that. People phone and ask me, and I am sure they ask members on the government side of the House, how much this is going to cost. Nothing. Who is kidding who? No one is buying that.
The second thing that no one is buying is what was said by the member who just spoke, that all of a sudden we are going to become diseased, we are all going to die from breathing problems and all of the other things. There are just as many scientists who, after listening to what the gentleman had to say, would have one word in response, “hogwash”. Many scientific facts say that is hogwash.
My hon. colleague, in talking about the weather and the changes in it, mentioned Greenland. Some real sharp high school students, who had not done their homework, phoned me the other day. They even wanted to know the number in the lounge. They wanted an example of climate changes in the world. I asked them if they knew where Greenland was. I told them that Greenland was so named because it was green at one time, that it was gorgeous, that it was growing gardens and vegetables, but that was 1,000 years ago. Climate has gone up and down over the years and it always will.
If the province of Saskatchewan will be hurt the way I think it will, it will be disastrous. I heard the hon. member saying that all parts of Canada will be treated equally under Kyoto. Once again, no one believes that. All parts of Canada will be hurt and hurt badly, particularly the province of Ontario which has the largest consumers of fuel and gas. First, Ontario consumers will pay the higher price, which they are not paying now. I rolled in here last night and, going back to the old measurement, gas was 80¢ an imperial gallon cheaper than what it was when I filled up before I left the airport in Regina.
Going back to this, let us put 2¢ on every litre of gas that goes through farm machinery. Add the fact that Saskatchewan does not have enough money right now to pay the crop insurance claims. Then, with all of that, say that no part of Canada will be adversely affected. It is simply not true.
I speak for my province and my constituency. My constituency has the only two coal-fired turbo plants. I would challenge anyone on that side of the House to say that industry will not be affected. There is also a huge oil patch in my constituency. I again challenge anyone on that side of the House to say that will not be affected. We know that jobs were lost before and we will lose a lot more.
(1305)
The hon. member from the NDP asked the government if there were layoffs. I wonder why he was asking that. I heard from that side of the House that they would increase employment, but if the unions are looking for layoffs, what about the oil patch? What about the farmers who cannot cope with the new prices?
The questions keep coming in, questions for which the government has not supplied any answers.
The hon. gentleman, who just spoke before me, used scare tactics on Canadians saying that if we do not move on Kyoto everybody will drop dead in 10 years. What kind of malarkey is that, to stand and talk about that in the House?
What happened in 1918? It was the biggest flu epidemic to ever hit Canada and we have never had one since. Was that caused by pollution? To draw these facts out of the historical perspective is nothing but nonsense.
The government has not learned, and it certainly did not learn with gun registration, to do things on a cooperative basis. We will not get cooperation out of a province like mine if it goes under with taxation. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has a motto, “Go ahead and tax me, I'm a Canadian”.
My own constituency is taxing junior hockey clubs that never made a cent and is forcing teenage girls who are running a canteen to pay collectively $120 a year. I tell them to watch out if they go back to babysitting because they probably will have to pay taxes on that as well.
Giving credits to other countries, selling credits and so on, nobody knows how it will work. The government has not explained it. While all this is going on, we will be paying a very heavy price. Implementing this treaty will result in massive job losses. Somebody said that there would be some job increases. Every time one oil well is shut down 100 employees are closed off. Every time an extra tax is placed on the fuel industry the same thing will happen.
It will affect my province and western Canada very significantly. What can we do? There is one thing we could do and this is where the government could put some money in to save a whole lot. We could have it so that we go to the power corporations, put up the 110 charges and when it is kicking out so much it would automatically cut in and supply the fuel and the electricity for the farm. That is cooperation.
Down on Highway 18 we have a huge trucking plant. The windmill goes and as soon as it reaches a certain point it cuts in and supplies the electricity saving tonnes of coal and tonnes of emissions. These are the things that we could do but we have not even stepped out, first and foremost, to look at the cooperative approach.
Last week I was in Holland. I was amazed to learn that it is light years ahead of us. It has to buy most of its power but it also has its own wind generating plants that do just as I described.
We have not taken these positive approaches. We have not yet begun to look at other alternative fuel sources. I would say to all the people who have a cottage, a Ski-Doo, a Sea-Doo, a four-wheeler and an SUV, they will pay a lot of money because those are the big burners. We do not have to go to the extremes that the government is suggesting. We have to take the cooperative approach and we have not done that.
(1310)
More people in my province today have quit farming than in the last 20 years. I received a number of phone calls this morning from constituents wanting to know basically the same thing: What effect will Kyoto have on the farming operation? The government owes these people an answer to that question but it does not have the answer. Everything it is saying is that it will design the plan but that we must give our cooperation to pass this accord and then it will tell us. That is not the way it works, which is why this is off to a very shaky start.
Another question I was asked is: Will the Kyoto accord have any effect on the growing of crops? They mention crops because they require a great deal of fertilization using a substance that has now been labelled toxic. I do not know the answer to that. Members of the House do not know the answer to that. The minister also does not know the answer to that.
As an individual, I will not buy a pig in a poke. I will not, as a representative of the coal-fired generators, coal mining, gas wells, oil wells, say that I support Kyoto, a deal that could well put them, because of the costs of the taxes thereof, just like in the national energy policy, out of business.
To say that this will affect different parts of Canada all the same way is not true. The government knows it is not true and it should not be standing in the House saying that. It will affect those areas that produce the fuels that we are presently using. Why does it not come out clean and say that it will?
There are too many unknowns for any person in the House to stand and support the agreement. Let me say that there are far more unknowns than there are knowns. Why would we want to support a basket of unknowns when we have no idea where this will lead us down the road?
(1315)
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member a very simple question. I want to read a quote, tell him where it came from and ask him if he agrees with it. “We care about the environment, of course we care, but we care about money first”.
That was a quote from the environment critic of the Alliance Party made just the other day. Does the hon. member support his colleague in that statement or not?
Mr. Roy Bailey:
Mr. Speaker, nobody cares more for the environment and has shown more toward a cleaner environment than the area from which I come. Therefore, when the member asks me if we care about the environment, absolutely we care about the environment. We care about the environment very much. That is why we want to take the lead in providing other fuels and other sources of fuels. That is why we want to take the lead in the petroleum industry to be more consistent with emission qualities.
We care about the environment. What we do not care for is the scare tactics that we will all die if we do not do something about it real fast and that we will all be treated equally. We know that will not take place, but indeed we are very conscious of the environment.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the other day I was speaking on behalf of the Canadian Alliance and the agriculture critic team that I head up. I was making the point quite clearly that the issue in this country and around the world is that pollution actually does have a negative effect on people's health as opposed to CO2, which does not have a negative impact. It starts to stretch the imagination to say that CO2 is connected to this, is connected to that and connected to that, and ultimately somebody gets sick.
I am asking this member if in fact the country should not be concentrating on reducing pollution as an objective as opposed to worrying about the possibility that mankind is affecting, in a very small way, the greenhouse gas effect of global warming.
Mr. Roy Bailey:
Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely true. The emissions harm our breathing and cause skin rashes. Those are the types of things we need to be look at. We have come a long way but we have not gone far enough.
Kyoto in itself in reducing the carbon dioxide in the air will not give us what we need. We should be looking for those things that cut emissions and cut them very quickly. I do not think we can really tie the two issues together like the government is trying to do.
We have done a great deal in western Canada. We produce gas and have switched over to gas producing which creates less emissions. We have cleaned all the coal stacks. We have done everything to make this possible and I am sure others across Canada have also done things.
However let us not confuse the public about the reduction of carbon dioxide and tying that closely to emissions. They simply cannot be tied together.
Mr. Peter Stoffer:
Mr. Speaker, I will ask the hon. gentleman this question one more time. His environment critic, who I assume speaks on behalf of his party, said that the Alliance cared about the environment of course, but it cared about money first, which means money first, environment later.
Does the hon. member support his environmental critic spokesperson for his party on that point because the Canadian people want to know exactly where the Alliance stands?
(1320)
Mr. Roy Bailey:
Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. member has taken that totally out of context. I am concerned about the cost as well. I am concerned about people being laid off. I am concerned with the price we will have to pay to heat our houses. I am concerned about all these things.
The hon. member says that I am concerned about financing first. I think the hon. gentleman wanted to know right away how much the unemployed people, those laid off from the industry, will get paid.
Obviously I could say that he is concerned about money first. Is he not?
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at the outset I just wish to say I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Kitchener--Waterloo.
The essential ingredients of engaging the threat of climate change and committing to a remedy are threefold: first, an understanding that the science is real; second, the corollary of seeing through the misinformation and hyperbole that has been employed to blur these realities; and, third, seeing the growth potential and advantages that current and future engagement of the Kyoto process presents.
The science itself is not in doubt. The conclusions that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the main national academies of science, including that of the United States, represent a broad international consensus with little serious dissent. Indeed, the latest findings of the IPCC show that the expected range of temperature change is greater than previously envisioned, that human activities are directly attributable to helping cause the climate change phenomenon and that climate change will, for the most part, have negative impact on the global ecosystem and the human race, particularly those most vulnerable and least responsible for it: Canada's Arctic, small island states and the sub-Saharan.
In Canada the effects have been marked and will become more so: more severe weather events; lowered fresh water level; droughts; sea level rise on all three coasts; longer and more intense heat waves with worse air pollution; and corresponding increase in heat related illness, to name but a few. These realities fly in the face of those who have chosen to balk at the need to address climate change and instead have elected to obfuscate and at times fearmonger with so-called economic forecasts that have no basis in research or fact.
As an example, in a major announcement made in March 2002, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce claimed “Canada's GDP would drop by up to 2.5% in 2010 under the Kyoto Protocol”, but cited no study to back up this number.
In September 2002, at the news conference to launch the “Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions”, the chamber's president made the groundless statement that Kyoto would “destroy the economy”. She cited no study to back up this claim. This is the “Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions”; some responsible, some solutions.
These dynamics underscore in some way the difficulty of communicating climate change. Sir Crispin Tickell, now at Harvard, has put it this way.
He first references those who are in the state of denial, “There are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear”. I think we can safely include therein these irresponsible naysayers who forecast doom and destruction.
He draws a comparison to the beginning of the 19th century, when everyone knew that slavery was wrong. There was a tacit conspiracy to do little or nothing about it. Too many interests were at stake. Leadership, public agitation and a few visible disasters were needed to bring slavery to an end. It also needed morality and a sense of public and private responsibility.
I think his analogy is excellent. Today as we debate the ratification of the Kyoto protocol, we are indeed encountering vested interests, but the leadership of this Prime Minister and this government is clear. We do acknowledge the need for public and private responsibility and the commitment to combat climate change. We realize the need to ratify the Kyoto protocol and thereby engage the mechanism that will help us accomplish this task.
Sir Crispin spoke of the need for public agitation as an ingredient necessary to turn a society and an economy from a routine course to a challenging new redirected course. The public agitation we are experiencing and the engagement of Canadians in the Kyoto debate is exactly what is needed.
(1325)
Canadians are concerned about their country and their planet. They know we play within a global ecosystem that is seriously stressed by greenhouse gas emissions. They intend to be part of the solution and no longer part of the problem. They are not deterred by naysayers and doomsayers. They strongly support the Kyoto protocol as a logical first step to addressing the damage human activities have wrought.
As I mentioned at the outset, I would like to speak, with what time remains, on the growth potential and the advantages, as well as the economic realities of the implementation of the Kyoto protocol and our plan to achieve Canada's objective. I am indebted to the Pembina Institute for much of this research.
Under the most likely implementation scenario, as jointly developed by federal and provincial governments after extensive consultation with industry, Canada's GDP would be just 0.4% smaller with Kyoto than without. This means Kyoto would reduce Canada's projected GDP growth during the current decade from 30% to 29.5%. No province would suffer an impact on GDP greater than 0.5%. Disposable household income would be unaffected by Kyoto. Between now and 2010 Canada would create 1.26 million jobs with Kyoto, compared to 1.32 million without Kyoto. Gasoline prices would be unaffected, while natural gas prices would be 8% higher with Kyoto than without. The cost of producing a barrel of oil would rise by just a few cents. Let us keep in mind that the current cost is $25 U.S. per barrel.
The economic model that produces that scenario, as other economic models, fails to include these essential considerations.
First, the cost of not acting to protect the climate, although the costs of inaction are difficult to estimate, extreme weather events like drought and floods, projected to become more frequent if climate change continues unchecked, routinely cost Canada billions of dollars.
Second, the health co-benefits from reduced air pollution are estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Third, there are vast opportunities in technological innovation in a low carbon economy. Kyoto implementation will benefit industries specializing in energy efficient buildings, transportation and industrial equipment, as well as alternative fuels and low impact renewable energy, the world's fastest growing sources of energy.
History has shown that when faced with a major challenge and allowed flexibility in meeting it, the private and public sectors exhibit an enormous capacity for technological innovation to solve the problems more quickly and at a lower cost than forecast. Look back at the Montreal protocol on ozone, the horrors but the necessities and what happened as a result of World War II and the Apollo Space Program.
Innovation is the most fundamental driver of economic growth and the Kyoto protocol can play a major role in stimulating it.
I fear I am almost out of time but I would have also liked to have addressed the Kyoto architecture and the Kyoto mechanisms in particular, such as international emissions trading, which are only available to us as signatories and are important for the House to be cognizant of.
One last point is that the Canadian public is engaged in this debate. That is vital and it is exciting. We have their attention and we must keep it as the implementation of Kyoto will involve every one of us, and Kyoto is just the beginning.
(1330)
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in her speech the member said that the science is not in doubt. However the fact remains, and she must know, that a long list of prominent Canadian scientists were in Ottawa only two weeks ago to dispute the science of the Kyoto accord. That list, if she wants it, is available from my office. It is also available on the web. It is very easy to find.
There is a longer list of opponents to Kyoto, more than 3,000 scientists from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel prize winners. The member can find it on the web at www.heartland.org/perspectives/appeal. She will find quite clearly that the science is in doubt. It is no good just standing there saying that it is not.
I would like to make one other comment and ask her a question on this. Does she not know that Canada's contribution to CO2 emissions are only less than 2% of the world's total? If she was to go to the Environmental Protection Agency website or even the IPCC website, she will see that it does not even register on their scales.
How does the hon. member think that getting rid of even 100% of our emissions would even register on the world scale?
Ms. Aileen Carroll:
Mr. Speaker, indeed Canada's greenhouse gas emissions represent 2% of the global emissions. We have been very much a part of multilateral efforts and treaties that address worldwide dilemmas. We are committed to this process.
If this process is allowed to crumble, the possibility of which exists if a requisite number of signatories representing a certain percentage of the greenhouse gas emissions do not sign, we realize what it would be like to recommence a process, whether it is 2% or 20%, that is vital to our health, to our children, to our north and to all of the global ecology to which I referred.
With regard to finding some scientists who for a variety of reasons have declined to accept what is worldwide accepted science, I will listen to the hon. member pick out one or two. It goes without saying that they do not belong to the flat earth society but frankly, the preponderance of national academies of science, the top people in the world and the data is there. There are none so deaf as those who will not listen.
Mr. Ted White:
Mr. Speaker, since the member raised the point that there are none so blind as they who will not see, or something like that, might I say to her as for her state of denial, it is completely irrelevant if we are unable to alter climate change.
I would put to her that even though she criticizes the 3,000 scientists and 72 Nobel Prize winners who disagree, there is plenty of science that indicates there is a much better correlation to solar magnetic cycles from the year 1750 than there is correlation to carbon dioxide emissions. How does she explain that one?
Ms. Aileen Carroll:
Mr. Speaker, I have addressed sufficiently the my scientist says, your scientist says comments. As my dear husband who is a lawyer says, “It is not the question he was supposed to answer to which I object, but the one he was about to”. Since he did not ask me the one I would like to have had asked, and I have heard many of his colleagues ask it, I would like to add that one of their greatest complaints is that in signing Kyoto, we will be put at a disadvantage with our neighbours to the south. I would have loved to have had another 40 minutes to address many points and that is one of them.
I point out some of the excellent research which shows that although the Bush administration has abandoned leadership on climate change, the American government still administers a much more substantial body of greenhouse gas reducing measures than even our government does. According to opponents of the Kyoto protocol, ratifying the protocol would damage Canada's economic competitiveness because the U.S. is not taking action to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. The evidence assembled in this report shows that perhaps the biggest flaw in this argument is the erroneous assertion that they are not; they are collectively doing more than we and our provinces together are doing.
(1335)
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to partake in this debate. We are involved in a historic debate in which we are saying to Canadians, and hopefully the world community, that the status quo is not an option.
In 1950 the population of this planet was 2.5 billion. Right now the population of the planet is approximately 6.3 billion. By 2050 the population of this planet will be 9 billion. There is no question that if the human race is to survive, we have to reduce our environmental footprint.
We live on a small planet with finite resources. They are not endless so we have to start using our resources much more efficiently. We in the western world, the industrialized world, are the greatest users of energy. Consider what would happen if China, India, Africa and Asia had the same level of consumption. If we were to export our SUVs, our energy consumption, on a per capita basis to the rest of the world, our planet would not survive.
We are looking at a global problem and we need global solutions. For those who say that whatever we save in comparison to the rest of the world is 2% or less, the point is that everybody on this planet will have to take action, and will have to look toward a green future.
The majority of Canadians believe that addressing climate change is something that must be done because clean air and water are essential to our health and quality of life. They are part of the heritage we must leave for future generations.
The release of certain pollutants into the atmosphere, known collectively as greenhouse gas emissions, is increasing the overall temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. Even if it did not, surely to God nobody in the House would argue that greenhouse gas emissions are good. All we have to do is look at the number of smog alert days that occur in Canada. I can say that my community of Kitchener--Waterloo has too many, given the wind patterns we have coming in from the U.S. and picking up on the industrial sector.
When we signed the protocol in 1997, we joined with 180 other countries and pledged to fight climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have promised to lower our emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012. Our goal is to come up with the best plan of action that will achieve our targets, minimize costs and maximize benefits to our economy as well as the environment, improve competitiveness, ensure no unreasonable burden to a region of the country, and provide flexibility to deal with uncertainties. We will be able to meet our objectives while ensuring robust economic growth.
We have examined the concerns of Canadians regarding implementation and have released a climate change draft plan on how we can meet our emissions reduction commitments. For almost five years, we consulted with provinces, territories, business stakeholders and the Canadian public before reaching the decision to proceed with ratification.
Much has been said on how this might hurt the economy. Let me draw on a simple example in my community called TeleflexGFI. It addresses one area which the action plan does not even take into account in terms of reduction of greenhouse gases. That is the use of natural gas.
(1340)
Canada has an incredible abundance of natural gas. Huge deposits of frozen natural gas pellets were found recently off the coast of Vancouver Island. Alberta has vast amounts of natural gas.
In 1994 in my riding of Kitchener--Waterloo a company that used to manufacture armaments, Devtek Industries, spun off a company called GFI Control Systems with the help of the government. GFI Control Systems allows automobiles to use alternate fuels such as natural gas and propane.
The vast abundance of natural gas that Canada has as well as the new discoveries off the west coast of Vancouver Island are a possible solution, but these have not been included in the action plan. Economic opportunities have occurred in my community. There is continued job growth.
This company is the leader in new technologies. Since 1997 the federal government, through technology partnerships Canada, has invested approximately $10 million in this company. It has resulted in jobs here in Canada and very positive action in the area of greenhouse gas reduction. There is no friendlier alternate fuel than natural gas in terms of green technology.
Approximately one-quarter of Canada's natural gas exports, the equivalent of about 225 billion litres of gasoline, would be sufficient to displace all of the projected gasoline and diesel fuel consumed by road transportation in 2010. Natural gas is the only fuel that is transported to pumps via pipelines thus further reducing truck volume on highways and the ensuing emissions that come from that.
Over the past two decades Canada has nurtured a number of companies that have become global leaders in natural gas vehicle technology and refueling equipment. They are able to rapidly expand the size of the natural gas and propane vehicle fleets and the volume of natural gas and propane used in Canada. In order to create and sustain markets for alternative fuel vehicles, support from all levels of government, particularly the federal government, is essential.
The United States and European alternative fuel vehicle markets are much larger and are growing faster than the Canadian market. There is a bit of irony in this. TeleflexGFI has produced over 30,000 vehicles with the new technology. The vast majority of them operate in the United States of America. It means that Canada's green technology is reducing greenhouse gas production in the United States.
The federal government could lead in this area. We could mandate that all vehicles use natural gas. This would include the green buses that run on the Hill and which, at the present time, use diesel fuel. We could make sure that all fleets in the federal service used natural gas. We could make sure that provincial and municipal fleets used natural gas. In this way we would not be displacing jobs; we would be creating them.
(1345)
The greatest producer of natural gas right now is the province of Alberta. The opportunity for the province of Alberta to continue in the provision of energy to the rest of the country is still there. The possibilities for development of gas resources off Vancouver Island are there as well.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member why he feels that we have to sign on to the Kyoto protocol when the government could make its fleets use natural gas instead of petroleum now. There are many things that Canadians can do, with a Canadian solution, rather than buying into a European solution. Why does he feel we should not be doing these things anyway rather than signing on to the Kyoto protocol?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi:
Mr. Speaker, what is so very important to understand is that when we take action in preserving our environment on this very small planet we as a nation cannot do it alone. We have to do it in concert with the rest of the nations of this planet. We might represent 2% of the usage, but look at the benefits we would have if we could have an impact on 100% of the usage out there, if it were to assure a cleaner and healthier future for the planet Earth.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the member, with all due respect, is getting completely mixed up between pollutants and greenhouse gases. Numerous times in his speech he mentioned that the greenhouse gases were pollutants, and he talked about natural gas being the answer. I would urge him to study basic chemistry. He will see for himself that when we burn natural gas, we get greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and water vapour. We get greenhouse gases.
He should not get mixed up between pollutants, which this side of the House is arguing to get control of, and greenhouse gases, which are part of an unproven theory about global warming. For goodness' sake, I urge the member to please study some basic chemistry and some basic science. He will see for himself that there is a huge difference between Kyoto and pollution.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi:
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member, since he comes from North Vancouver, that when I come in from Vancouver Island via ferry going to Horseshoe Bay, too often I am unable to see Mount Baker because of all the pollution that is spewed out by the gasoline engines and diesel engines of cars in Vancouver. That is how bad the situation is: at times Mount Baker cannot be seen.
Let me say to the member across the way that smog is produced by present fuel usage of vehicles. That is where smog comes from. Let me also say to the member that there is probably no part of the country that is more greatly affected by that smog than the province he comes from and the community he represents.
I can say that the long term future of fuel usage is going to be fuel cells. To get to fuel cells, we need hydrogen infrastructure, which would be provided in the interim by the usage of natural gas as fuel. It is the friendliest fuel we have.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for Red Deer spoke for about 11 hours here. At the end of those 11 hours I was more confused than ever before.
I would like to ask the hon. member to clarify one thing for me. The logic of the opposition is that if we have more greenhouse gases in the air we have better business. That is what they compare to the U.S., saying that obviously we would have less business. Are they proposing that we have more greenhouse gases so we can have more business in the country? Is that the proposal? Maybe he can explain to me this contradiction in logic.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi:
Mr. Speaker, it would take some real flip-flops to make sense of a lot of the hot air that comes from the other side. We should consider putting in a monitor to measure the greenhouse gas emissions.
It is clear that evolving technologies mean that we will have to be a lot smarter in terms of our usage of energy, because not only can we not afford our wasteful energy practices, the planet cannot survive if that is what we are going to do.
(1350)
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, ignorance is a shame, but wilful ignorance is inexcusable, and that is what we see from the members opposite.
The fact of the matter is that Kyoto has nothing to do with smog. Perhaps I should repeat that. It has nothing to do with pollution in the air. It has nothing to do with pollution of our water. Kyoto is about carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. I hope that will assist Liberal members when they are speaking to this debate, because it is a very important point.
The point that this is not about pollution is one which I think the government deliberately does not want clarified. In fact, its ads supporting the Kyoto accord for some strange reason show factory chimneys belching noxious gases. The fact is that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Kyoto is not about pollution. It is not about environmental cleanup. If it is about anything, it is about greenhouse gases possibly, according to some people, causing global warming.
If we are going to make a rational decision on the Kyoto accord, a good decision, a sound decision, a decision in the best interests of Canada and Canadians, then we must be honest and clear about what it does and does not do.
On November 25, a group of climate specialists wrote a letter to the Prime Minister and made it public. The heading of their letter was, “Climate specialists urge the Canadian government to delay ratification of the Kyoto accord pending comprehensive science consultations”. The letter reads as follows:
|
|
Many climate science experts from Canada and around the world, while still strongly supporting environmental protection, equally strongly disagree with the scientific rationale for the Kyoto accord. |
|
|
Nevertheless, the Government of Canada has yet to conduct comprehensive consultations with climate scientists in order to properly consider the range of informed opinion pertaining to the science of Kyoto. |
|
|
Consequently, the views of dissenting scientists have not been properly heard or considered by the government. |
|
|
Therefore, we, the undersigned climate scientists, call on the Government of Canada to delay a decision on the ratification of the Kyoto accord until after a thorough and comprehensive consultation is conducted with non-governmental climate specialists. |
|
|
If the climate models are correct, the effects of implementing Kyoto will be so small as to be undetectable even a century from now. |
That was said by scientists, by climate specialists. They continue:
|
|
Delaying ratification for a short period so as to allow proper science consultations to take place will do absolutely no damage to Canada or the environment and is unquestionably the prudent and responsible course of action at this time. Therefore, we implore the [Government of Canada] to proceed with comprehensive science consultations as soon as possible. |
The letter is signed by a long list of climate specialists. More climate specialists have indicated since this letter was published that they too would like to sign on to the letter and endorse its contents.
One has to wonder why the government says that we have to sign Kyoto because there is a problem with climate change and then ignores the climate specialists. Does this make sense? It is pretty hard to follow that logic.
(1355)
These scientists have come up with nine myths about Kyoto. I want to go over them quickly because Canadians deserve to know what climate specialists are saying about the rush to sign Kyoto and the lack of any scientific basis on which to do so.
Myth 1 is that “humanity is the primary cause of global climate change”. That is a myth. They say that even in the past thousand years “there were much warmer and colder periods than today”. It is a normal phenomenon that has been shown to exist over centuries.
Myth 1A is that “computer models show catastrophic warming in the future”. That is a myth. The fact is that there is no reason to expect a sudden turnaround. Rather, “continued adaptation and prosperity are much more likely”, say these climate specialists.
Myth 1B is that “the consensus of world scientists, as revealed by the UN's [international protocol on climate change], is that they agree that “humanity is causing significant climate change”. That is a myth, say these climate specialists, saying, “There is of course no consensus at all”. In fact, they say that this whole business was “advocacy”, not a scientific assessment.
Myth 1C is that “climate change is occurring at an unprecedented rate”. Now we have our Prime Minister standing up in the House of Commons saying that if we do not sign Kyoto people will be dead in 30 years. Those are the myths being put out by supposedly responsible people in the country, but the climate specialists say that is nonsense. They say that there is not such a thing as unprecedented rates of climate change and that in fact in the past there have been “breathtakingly sudden variations in climate throughout the geologic record”.
Let us move to Myth 2, which is that “recent global temperature rise has been dramatic”. That is a myth. The climate specialists say that satellite temperature spot sensors reveal “only a very small amount of global warming since measurements began in 1979”, in fact, less than 1%.
Myth 3--
The Deputy Speaker:
Order please. I will proceed to the next order of business, which is statements by members. The member will have approximately 12 minutes remaining after question period.
Statements by Members
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[Translation]
World AIDS Day
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a number of activities took place around the world this past weekend in conjunction with World AIDS Day.
In Italy, Gabon, China, Iran, France, Great Britain, the United States, and in this country and many others, there were manifestations of great solidarity with the battle against this disease, which continues to claim far too many victims.
The marches, prayers, demonstrations and declarations are all highly encouraging. I join with all those who took part in these activities in encouraging action to halt the progress of this disease.
The battle is not yet won. The UN reports that there are close to 42 million individuals in the world who have contracted the AIDS virus.
This magnificent solidarity which unites us all must be reflected in our actions. Let the research continue so that this dread disease can be overcome.
* * *
[English]
Queen's Jubilee Medal
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to once again commend 20 well-deserving residents of Crowfoot, Alberta whom I had the distinct honour of presenting with the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal this past Friday.
Each of these Canadian citizens have been “integral members of our community”. They have displayed a willingness to above and beyond the call of duty. They have been humble, giving and caring of every person who crosses their path and they have always been willing to lend a hand. They have made this country a better place to live.
I ask the members of the House to join me in congratulating Crowfoot's Golden Jubilee recipients: Dolores Aseltine, George Biggs, Jack Chapman, William Duncan, David Duzuba, Muriel Fankhanel, James Gillespie, Harry Gordon, George Geer, Rose Jardine, Mildred Luz, the late Thomas Machell, Walter McNary, Jack Mitchell, Morris Schultz, Auguste Simard, Gordon Taylor, Wanda Tkach, Joyce Webster and Chester Zajic.
I congratulate them all and thank them.
* * *
(1400)
[Translation]
Health
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.):
Yesterday in Montreal we heard a great Canadian Prime Minister deliver an impassioned speech to the Liberal faithful.
The Prime Minister made it very clear that the provinces will have to commit to implement some of the Romanow commission recommendations before there will be any blank cheques.
The Prime Minister said “The Romanow report sets out a blueprint for the evolution of the public health insurance plan in the 21st century. New investments must focus on change and on results, such as ensuring access to quality health care around the clock, seven days a week”.
In the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister pledged to make health one of the key elements. Yesterday, the Prime Minister pledged to act very quickly, and said that his government will do its part.
Canadians and Quebeckers want the Government of Canada to come up with a comprehensive agreement which includes all of the provinces and territories.
* * *
Anti-personnel Landmines
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this week marks the fifth anniversary of the Ottawa convention banning anti-personnel landmines.
For the past five years, Canada has done much under the Ottawa convention to resolve the issue of anti-personnel mines, and we continue to play an important role in this field.
Last week, the Department of Foreign Affairs announced that the Government of Canada would be investing an additional $72 million in the Canadian Landmine Fund, which supports initiatives aimed at eliminating mines throughout the world.
This fund demonstrates Canada's long-term commitment to implement the convention and alleviate the suffering of communities affected by the presence of mines.
Canada leads international efforts aimed at eliminating anti-personnel mines and alleviating the suffering they cause.
* * *
[English]
Women, Sport and Physical Activity
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the organizers of the National Conference on Women, Sport and Physical Activity. The first conference of this kind to be held in over 21 years, the national conference was hosted from November 28 to December 1 in Hamilton, Ontario.
Approximately 300 delegates representing federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments, sport, health and physical activity organizations, members of the media and the corporate sector attended.
The National Conference on Women, Sport and Physical Activity was organized by the Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women and Sport and Physical Activity, and was supported by the Department of Canadian Heritage (Sport Canada) and Health Canada. It followed as a legacy of the World Conference on Women and Sport hosted in Montreal in May 2002 under the auspices of the International Working Group on Women and Sport.
I would like to applaud the Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women and Sport and Physical Activity for organizing such a successful and very important event.
* * *
Forest Industry
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian forest industry continues to get beat up with U.S. tariffs that have so far this year cost our industry over $1 billion.
Since the spring the Canadian Alliance has been asking for a loan guarantee program for softwood producers. In early May the Minister for International Trade agreed with the Canadian Alliance that loan guarantees could be configured to avoid U.S. countervail action.
Seven months later the Minister for International Trade has not followed through and the Minister of Natural Resources is deferring action once again for at least three or four months. Workers and industry are increasingly concerned that no announcement this week guarantees no progress until February or March.
Why is the government so callous to the destructive fallout imposed on workers and companies as a result of U.S. tariffs on softwood lumber?
* * *
Hanukkah
Hon. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, tonight is the fourth night of Hanukkah. One of the beautiful dimensions of Hanukkah is its universal message of religious freedom and tolerance. The light of the Hanukkah candles bestow their warmth and inspire us to reach ever upwards, like the bright flame of the candle, in an effort to spread the spirit of generosity and respect.
I would like to therefore invite all members of the House to the 13th annual Menorah lighting ceremony on Parliament Hill this afternoon at 3:00 p.m. in room 237-C. I also would like to take this opportunity to recognize the children of Shmuel Zahavy Cheder Chebad Choir who have travelled here from Thornhill to sing in this ceremony.
Mr. Speaker, I wish you, all members of the House and all Canadians a very happy Hanukkah.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Health
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the members of the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously adopted a motion condemning the centralist vision of the Romanow report. Jean Charest, Mario Dumont and Bernard Landry all agree: the federal government must immediately transfer funds for health to the Quebec government without conditions, without new bureaucracy and without Canadian standards.
The only obstacle to the long awaited reinvestment in health throughout Quebec and Canada, is the Liberal members in Ottawa. While everyone in Quebec is united on this issue, the only ones we are not hearing from are the federal members from Quebec. In Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, resolving this problem would require an investment of more than $100 million over three years, but the Liberal candidate stands in solidarity with the Liberal members and refuses to give us back our money.
Enough is enough. In Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, we want our money without any conditions.
* * *
Education System
Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last week the United Nations Children's Fund reported that Canada has one of the top ranking education systems in the world. In fact, our ranking was fourth.
Our school children, whether they were born here or elsewhere, are highly successful. Our excellent ranking shows that our system treats students fairly throughout their academic careers. In Canada any child can succeed regardless of his or her parents' socio-economic or educational background.
I am sure that all Canadians are proud of these results, and I would like to congratulate all those who work with children, particularly within our school systems. With the support and dedication of our governments, our kids are on the right track.
* * *
[English]
Kyoto Protocol
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, a survey by the Investment Dealers Association revealed that two-thirds of the U.S. equity analysts contacted believe that if Canada implements Kyoto it will harm the Canadian economy and cause Wall Street to rethink energy sector investments north of the border.
True North Energy, Petro-Canada, Husky Oil and now Canadian Natural Resources have already announced cancellations or postponements of their oil sands projects. Clearly the uncertainty regarding the Prime Minister's Kyoto plan is already hurting Alberta and the Canadian economy.
Wishful thinking and fancy rhetoric will not change this stark economic reality, no matter how much the member for LaSalle—Émard wishes it otherwise.
The member for LaSalle—Émard has the power to stop this foolishness. It is time that he stopped the empty rhetoric, stopped hedging his political bets and instead stand up for the economic and environmental future of Canada. We cannot wait 15 months for the member's version of Kyoto. The damage has already begun.
Canadians really do deserve better.
* * *
Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Winnipeg, Governor General Adrienne Clarkson honoured the brave members of the 2nd Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.
They were presented the Commander-in-Chief Commendation. This award, which is something I had recommended about four years ago, recognizes outstanding service by members of the Canadian Forces who come under direct fire in times of conflict.
Yesterday's commendation was awarded for courageous and professional execution of duty during the Medak pocket operation in the former Yugoslavia in September 1993. Under heavy enemy fire the Canadians intervened to stop ethnic cleansing in Croatia. They drove the Croatian army back and saved many innocent lives.
Wherever crimes against humanity occur, the international community has an obligation to step in. These brave soldiers were among the first to confront the new realities of international conflict in a changing world. Their courageous response is worthy of our respect and admiration.
I ask the House to join me in congratulating each of those brave soldiers.
* * *
World AIDS Day
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday around the world was World AIDS Day. This terrible disease has a way of ravaging populations throughout all countries. It knows no borders or class of citizen.
We encourage the government and all parliamentarians not to rest on their laurels and become complacent over this terrible and ravaging disease.
We encourage the government to do all in its power to ensure that the resources are there for the research and for educating and making this terrible disease known throughout the country and throughout the world.
AIDS is wiping out generations upon generations of people in southern Africa. It is working its way into China, Thailand and throughout this country, especially those most impoverished in our society.
We in the New Democratic Party again encourage all citizens and the government to do all in its power to put a stop to this disease once and for all through research and education.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Health
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, for years now the Bloc Quebecois has maintained that the federal government has not been pulling its weight in health care funding. Eighteen months and $15 million later, the Romanow commission has acknowledged what we already knew.
If the Liberal government had not tried to buy some time with this commission, it could have immediately transferred funds to Quebec and the provinces. Instead of putting the $8.9 billion surplus into the debt, it could have transferred some of it to health.
Five billion dollars for health means $1.2 billion for Quebec. This represents, for the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, over $21 million. With $21 million we could hire 75 more physicians, 50 more nurses, and over $2 million worth of equipment.
The people of Berthier—Montcalm have had enough waiting. Now they want their fair share of that money to spend on health.
* * *
Anti-personnel landmines
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, December 3, is the fifth anniversary of the signing of the Ottawa convention banning anti-personnel mines. On this day, in 1997, 122 countries made a commitment to the rest of the world.
Since the beginning, Canada has been a leader in the campaign to eliminate anti-personnel mines. Since 1997, Canada has spent $100 million on anti-mine programs to encourage countries to take part in this effort, on demining operations, on assistance for victims of landmines and on destroying landmine stocks.
I am all the more proud because, on Friday, the government announced that it was renewing its funding to the tune of $72 million.
[English]
One hundred and thirty countries have now ratified the Ottawa convention and more than 34 million landmines have been destroyed. I also wish to congratulate the numerous volunteers who organized the second annual potluck dinner at Ashbury College in Rockcliffe Park last Friday night for the benefit of the landmines fund. I congratulate all those people.
* * *
Fisheries
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC):
Mr. Speaker, today Newfoundland's political leaders, Premier Roger Grimes, opposition leader Danny Williams and NDP leader Jack Harris, from the provincial House of Assembly, are in town to meet with MPs and senators from Newfoundland and Labrador.
These provincial leaders are meeting with us to talk about the possible closure of the remaining northern cod fishery and all the social and economic implications arising from that kind of a catastrophe.
One of the reasons for the trouble in our fishery is the federal government's refusal to take custodial management of our continental shelf outside the 200 mile limit and thereby put a stop to rampant foreign overfishing.
The time has come for the federal government to act on custodial management before we lose every fishery on our continental shelf.
* * *
National Safe Driving Week
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this week is National Safe Driving Week.
Multi-tasking while driving can be very dangerous; 20% to 30% of car accidents are caused by driver distraction. According to a recent study, driver distraction was a factor in almost 10% of serious or fatal crashes.
Canadians frequently adjust CDs, eat, talk on the phone or get caught up in other activities that take their attention away from the road. Driving is very demanding and it should be the first priority.
As we all become increasingly accustomed to new electronic devices, I urge members of the House and all Canadians to take a moment to consider their own driving habits and think about using technology responsibly.
The Canada Safety Council has a safety CD called “Driven to Distraction” that assists drivers with ways to overcome distractions. Most of all, it encourages using common sense and paying attention to the road.
During Safe Driving Week I wish all members of the House a happy, safe holiday season.
* * *
Kyoto Protocol
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Member of Parliament for Edmonton West to stand up and state clearly where she stands on the Kyoto accord.
She has publicly stated that she would not support this accord if there was no implementation plan. She knows that the government's PowerPoint presentation is not an implementation plan. She knows that the implementation of this accord will damage our economy from coast to coast and do nothing to improve the environment. She knows the effects this accord will have on the economy of Alberta, particularly on the energy sector.
She knows that the Minister of the Environment has alienated almost every province and has gone out of his way to alienate her own. She knows that the Prime Minister completely ignored her, the senior minister from Alberta, when he went to Johannesburg and publicly stated that the government will ratify Kyoto by the end of this year.
It is time for the Minister of Health, the MP for Edmonton West, to do the right thing, to stand up for her province, her constituents, and vote against the ratification of this accord.
* * *
(1415)
International Day of Disabled Persons
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is UN International Day of Disabled Persons. This year the United Nations selected a theme that was proposed by Canada's disability community.
To celebrate the success of “Independent Living and Sustainable Livelihoods”, the theme of this year's celebrations, the Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres will host a breakfast in Ottawa tomorrow morning.
The morning's event will focus on the independent living movement and the need for Canadian business, and indeed all Canadians to tap into a tremendous human resource pool that is too often untapped, whose stories go untold, and yet whose potential is unlimited. The event will be attended by the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific, as well as business and community leaders.
I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Canada's disability community on its recent success at the United Nations.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[Translation]
Kyoto Protocol
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, not only has the Prime Minister alienated the provinces, but the Investment Dealers Association of Canada has warned the Prime Minister that ratification of the Kyoto protocol will force Wall Street to rethink its investments in Canada's energy sector.
Will the government at last acknowledge that its irresponsible approach to Kyoto is going to harm the economy of Canada?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, curiously the Financial Post has a headline story today, “Canada's oilpatch to step up pace: 85% of drilling fleet to be active in hectic winter as U.S. firms ramp up exploration”. It is a headline story. What is he talking about?
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, maybe he would like to go to the last quote in that story. It says, “that these investments will dry up in Canada if we ratify the Kyoto accord”.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker:
Order, please. We must be able to hear the hon. member for Macleod. I know many of his colleagues are enthusiastic in their support for him, offering assistance with his question, but we must be able to hear the question. The hon. member for Macleod has the floor.
Mr. Grant Hill:
Mr. Speaker, I will then pose the question. Would the environment minister like to read that last quote so all Canadians can know what it says?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to read it because what he did not tell us was that the words about the Kyoto protocol are in brackets. The person who wrote the story had to insert them. The words had to be inserted because they were not there in the original story. It reads as follows:
|
|
“In the past two or three years, almost all their budget was spent in Alberta, or at least in Canada,” he said. “Now you got companies that are lot bigger and they have opportunities all over the world. If the economics change due to [Canada's plan to ratify the Kyoto treaty on climate change], they are going to move to more economic projects outside of Canada”. |
The Speaker:
Next time I would like to get past the questions and comments with a little less noise.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, a little less substance is what we are getting from the government, frankly.
The government has failed to produce an implementation plan and has failed to bring out a cost impact assessment. My question is pretty simple. Now that it recognizes that the investment climate in the country is also at risk, why is it moving ahead with the reckless implementation of Kyoto?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what he did not want us to quote was, “Drilling activity in the Canadian oilpatch is forecast to pick up significantly next year despite concerns over the Kyoto Protocol...” It goes on to say, “Overall industry spending is expected to rise to $25.5 billion in 2003, up from $23.8 billion this year”. It goes on to talk about, “--14,000 workers will be needed this winter, an increase of 5,000 people...”
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the revelation that the Prime Minister had a report from the Investment Dealers Association of Canada saying that implementing the Kyoto accord will harm the Canadian economy, is disturbing because the government has been spending oodles of taxpayer dollars only on propaganda for the accord.
It is time for the government to come clean with Canadians on the accord. What other reports does the government have which show that harm will occur if the Kyoto accord is implemented?
(1420)
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to correct one thing the hon. member said when he referred to the Investment Dealers Association of Canada and the alleged report that the Prime Minister had in his possession. It is my understanding that the IDA issued no such report.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have the report right here. Perhaps I could table the report for the hon. member. I do not know exactly what he is talking about.
I would like to ask him again, what other reports does he have and will he state again that the report, which I have in my very hand, does not exist?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a news release from the Investment Dealers Association of Canada which says:
|
|
We have never seen the letter described in the article and no such letter was drafted by the IDA.Therefore, we take no responsibility for its content. |
* * *
[Translation]
Health
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the three parties in the Quebec National Assembly, that is the Parti Québécois, the Action démocratique and the Quebec Liberal Party unanimously passed a resolution calling on the federal government to hand over the new funding for health without any conditions attached.
Does the government intend to respect the unanimity shown in the Quebec National Assembly by making this funding available without any conditions attached?
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is unquestionably a current issue.
I should mention that the minister is sick today, but she will surely be in good shape by Friday to meet here with the provincial and territorial health ministers and take a very close look at the recommendations made in the Romanow report, so that we take all the necessary measures to ensure that the health system meets the needs of Canadians—and I emphasize the expression “the needs of Canadians”—regardless of where they live in the country, whether in the east, the west, the far north or the south.
Again, I want to assure hon. members that we have a very interesting report that will allow us to do great things for all Canadians.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government.
In the best interests of the sick, all the political parties in Quebec, including the Quebec Liberal Party, as well as doctors, nurses, specialists and even some Liberal members from Quebec, such as the hon. member for Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles and the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, feel that Ottawa must make the funding available without any conditions attached.
Should the government not immediately reassure the public and announce that this funding will be made available without any conditions attached?
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, following the measures taken in September 2000 regarding a five year investment plan—and all the provinces agreed with it at the time—we did not come back here simply to rest on our laurels. We took measures to conduct a very important study to meet the needs of Canadians.
We are continuing in the same direction and this is why we are committed to cooperating with all the health ministers. Also, the premiers are scheduled to meet early in the new year, as the Prime Minister mentioned—
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Témiscamingue.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Medical Association, through its vice president, André Senikas, has said very plainly that it is concerned about the federal government's follow-up to the Romanow report, and is worried that as long as the squabbles and frustrations continue, the backlog and accessibility problems will increase.
Would it not be advisable for the federal government, in the best interests of the sick and out of respect for the Quebec Medical Association, to announce right away that it will drop the conditions that it was going to attach to new funding for health? This is the voice of reason speaking.
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it was precisely in the interests of all Canadians that we took measures that were very appropriate. We will follow up on these measures.
Once again, at the risk of repeating myself, that is why on Friday, in four days' time, the ministers of health will be meeting to discuss the key features of the report.
The Prime Minister promised to meet in January with the provincial premiers to make decisions, once again, to meet the needs of Canadians. It is important that we not make decisions lightly and resort to band-aid patching. That does not work. We must take time to think.
(1425)
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, while the secretary of state is thinking, there are people waiting.
Jennie Skene, the president of the Fédération des infirmières et infirmiers du Québec said last week that immediate efforts are needed for the sick, that Ottawa should provide available funding for health without any strings attached.
Is the federal government planning to keep on ignoring calls by Quebec's physicians and nurses, which echo the resolution passed by Quebec's National Assembly?
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is clear just how important it was to have this pan-Canadian report, given how terribly interested Canadians are in the report now. People everywhere are talking about it. Some support it, others are against it, but that is why this debate is important.
And that is why I am very pleased to see that the government is committed to having this debate. We did not bury our head in the sand and pretend that there were no problems. There are problems. Now, everyone claims to have the magic solution. That is why we must sit down together and take the time to take a fresh new look at what we can—
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, we are clearly at a turning point in terms of the future of health care. The people of Canada have spoken through the Romanow commission. Now it is up to the government. To go forward and prevent this process from degenerating into a federal-provincial squabble, the government has to be forthcoming about its plans and has to share vital information about the financing of health care with its partners.
In the spirit of federal cooperation and in the interests of medicare, will the government state today its intentions with respect to the Romanow commission.
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we will try to simplify things. Again, we all care about the well-being and the health of our fellow citizens.
This is why we are committed to providing leadership on this issue, so that, together with the provinces and territories, we can sit down at the table and pursue a common objective, which is the well-being of Canadians, instead of sitting down at the same table and each blaming the other. We know that such an approach is fruitless. Again, we will provide leadership on this issue, so as to achieve a common objective.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, we are less than a week away from the meeting of health ministers and we still do not have an indication from the government about its response to the Romanow commission. Being open-minded and being empty-headed are two different things. The government seems to suffer from a severe case of the latter.
Does the government even have a position going into these negotiations and is that position the Romanow recommendations or not?
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I was looking at statements made by the Prime Minister this weekend. He said that, obviously, the investments made in health will have to focus on change and results. All Canadians realize that investing money without knowing what we want to achieve, without holding people accountable, would be unproductive. This is the approach that was used for years.
The Prime Minister made it very clear that if we can all agree on where we want to go, the federal government will make the necessary investments. However, in order to achieve that, we must sit down together and talk. And this is what we are doing.
* * *
[English]
Kyoto Protocol
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The member for LaSalle--Émard admitted timidly today that he has problems with the Kyoto process but that he will knuckle under. The Liberal premier of Newfoundland and Labrador was more forthright. His letter to MPs warns of the “divisive and deliberate manner in which the federal government” has excluded Newfoundland and other provinces. He said the premiers “have repeatedly asked for a first minister's conference” before ratification “but the Prime Minister has consistently refused our requests”.
Why does the Prime Minister refuse to meet the premiers before the ratification of Kyoto?
(1430)
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this matter has been under debate for five years. The Parliament of Canada is now debating the resolution. There will be a vote held within a matter of days. I think that the matter is well in hand in terms of public debate in the country. The premiers have been consulted. All interested stakeholders have been consulted.
I hope that the hon. member will come and speak in the debate, as he has already. He will try to influence the debate and he will vote. That is what all members have to do. That is the parliamentary process and it is working extremely well.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting prime minister.
In 2005 Canada must provide demonstrative evidence that our climate change strategy is on track. Substantive tax incentives for renewable sources of energy, energy efficiency, ethanol blended fuels and loan guarantees for energy retrofits to buildings were needed five years ago. These incentives were in the direct purview of the former finance minister, who this weekend in a somersault to revisionism said, “We should invest in green technologies”.
Everyone knew these incentives were needed. Who is the roadblock, the Prime Minister or the former finance minister?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct that we have to move ahead. That is why we have been trying to have this debate terminated and a decision taken before the end of the year. It is very important that we move ahead, and I trust he will be supporting the measures that are in place to achieve Kyoto goals.
The previous minister of finance put in $260 million to support renewable energy in the last budget, which is a very substantial amount and a clear indication of the government's direction. I am delighted to hear that he continues to believe that we should proceed in that way.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the leader of Hezbollah has now called upon his terrorist organization worldwide to go beyond killing Jews and Americans and attack western nations in general with acts of murder that, and I will quote his words, “will astonish the world”.
Everywhere I go across the country, everyday Canadians are asking me this question. What has Hezbollah got on this foreign affairs minister and these Liberals that they refuse to ban them?
Will the foreign affairs minister please answer that question for Canadians?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member opposite that we have taken note of what the leader of Hezbollah has said.
As I have said to the member on previous occasions, there is a process in the works. In terms of the listing of entities, we will take into consideration the criminal and the security intelligence reports and we will analyze and make a decision based on those concrete facts, not on a headline in a newspaper story.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, they have banned other groups that do not have the same notorious record as Hezbollah. The Hezbollah leader has said that there is no separation between the military arm and the social arm. He has called for worldwide acts of murder.
Without them hiding behind the pretence of confidentiality and so we do not have to use freedom of information legislation, when exactly did CSIS warn the government that Hezbollah should be banned? How long ago?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that this minister and the government do not hide behind anything. We want a review with real, substantiated facts and that we will do. We will not take the position like the hon. member obviously did on the weekend, and on which I saw him quoted, that no research was needed.
In terms of listing entities, the government will do its homework. It will do its research. It will do a listing of an entity based on concrete facts that can be substantiated.
* * *
[Translation]
Health
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, among the post-Romanow comments, the former Minister of Health for Quebec, Claude Castonguay, has said that there are simpler ways of managing additional funding for health than adding a federal structure on top of all that is already in place.
Does the federal government intend to respect the non-partisan and unanimous character of the comments by all the health care experts in Quebec who are calling for the Prime Minister to drop the strings he wants to attach to additional health care funding?
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we will certainly listen to experts in Quebec and in all the provinces of Canada.
There are people with expertise and opinions across Canada and in this House. It is very interesting to see that people are taking part in the debate. I can assure the hon. member that this is what will be done. We will sit down together. To quote the Prime Minister's words from yesterday, in connection with Quebec and the federal government:
|
|
Quebeckers want both levels of government to work together with a common objective: quality health-care services. |
This is the objective we are going to set and together—
(1435)
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Laurentides.
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, Michel Clair, a former commissioner who headed a study into the health system in Quebec, has questioned the need for another level of control, one more bureaucracy, describing this as adding no value whatsoever.
Will the unanimity of all experts in the Quebec health system not convince the federal government that it is on the wrong track in announcing its intention to attach its own conditions to any additional health funding?
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it may be important for my colleague to understand that the Government of Canada has a responsibility to all Canadians.
Certainly, the Government of Quebec looks after the interests of Quebec, which is entirely legitimate, and I applaud it. Now we need to sit down together throughout Canada to consider the interests of all those in need of care. This is what we will do, and we will be assuming a leadership role. What is more, we will not have any kind of overview by listening to just one province.
I trust that, once and for all, my colleague now has a clear understanding of our responsibility to Canada.
* * *
[English]
National Defence
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the cozy relationship between Bombardier and the government continues. Bombardier has just received another untendered contract for flight training, this time for $105 million.
Despite the Auditor General's warnings, the government continues its love affair with unannounced and untendered contracts. The secretive and closed approach is even more suspicious considering last year Bombardier gave the Liberal Party of Canada $142,503.80.
When will the government stop rewarding its friends and--
The Speaker:
The hon. Minister of National Defence.
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it has absolutely nothing to do with any possible Liberal connections. The simple fact of the matter is the Treasury Board approved the three year extension to the contract in August of this year. This was a very simple matter. The contract had to be extended for reasons of continuity of pilot training. In six months or so there will be a new tender for a 10 year contract that will be subject to competition.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I want the minister to tell me how this connection looks. The minister's smug response just shows how out of touch he usually is. The Contracts Canada website shows that Bombardier has received $540 million worth of contracts from his government. Of these contracts, $276 million worth were non-competitive. That is over half.
When will the government stop this closed tendering process?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of National Defence has explained, this was not an untendered contract. In fact it is the extension of an existing contract while a formal request for proposals for a competitive process can be put together.
If we had not extended the contract, then a very valuable economic development and national defence project in Portage la Prairie, Manitoba would have closed. We have acted to defend the interests of Manitobans.
* * *
[Translation]
Health
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, Bernard Landry, the Premier of Quebec, has floated the idea of creating a health care fund to provide adequate funding for Quebec's health care system that is not subject to the controls of a new federal bureaucracy.
Would not the creation of this fund, free from all of the conditions that the federal government wants to impose, be a sufficient guarantee to the government that the money will indeed be spent on health?
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, once again I will rise for this one. After all, these are health issues and I have the health interests of Canadians at heart.
I must say once again, at the risk of repeating myself, that we will be sitting down with all of the stakeholders in order to look at the report, which is important for all Canadians. Everyone acknowledges this. It is so important that everyone has been talking about it for four or five days.
Obviously we will look at it together with those responsible in the provinces. Together, we will try to the meet the objective of better health for all Canadians. This seems simple enough to understand.
(1440)
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the parliamentary secretary should change his tape, or turn the page in his briefing book. We are talking to him about a health care fund, the health care fund that was proposed by the finance minister.
If the federal government is bent on ensuring that the money for health goes toward treating the sick, will he recognize that a health care fund may well satisfy those concerns?
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will not use a tape or read from a page, but I will try to see clearly where we want to go. If we change our minds every time the wind blows, we will not get very far. Perhaps this is what we should avoid doing.
[English]
One has to be consistent.
[Translation]
We need to at least know where we want to go. Then, we will meet with the provincial ministers of health. We will study the report. We will agree on a common goal. Then, as the Prime Minister has said, he will meet with the provincial premiers in January. In the end, we will come up with an extraordinary plan for Canadians.
* * *
[English]
Coast Guard
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the commissioner of the Coast Guard is in agreement with the Canadian Alliance. He has said that the Canadian Coast Guard is unable to adequately protect Canada's coastline from terrorists and that for the most part for most of the B.C. coast there is no radar capability. The commissioner has admitted that the Coast Guard depends largely on an honour system to obtain information on the whereabouts of incoming vessels and that the Coast Guard does not have clue on who or what is entering Canadian waters.
When will the Coast Guard be provided with the resources it needs to secure our borders?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the commissioner did agree with the Canadian Alliance, we would indeed be in trouble.
The Canadian Coast Guard works in cooperation with all other departments under the direction of the Department of Transport which has the responsibility for marine security. We work with the Department of National Defence to ensure that we keep our coasts secure. It is not the sole responsibility of the Canadian Coast Guard. The Coast Guard supports, and it does a very good job.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we are in trouble all right.
Here is a fact. The Kapitan Man is a Russian spy ship long of interest to security forces in Canada and the United States. Three days ago the Coast Guard tracked the Kapitan Man from Seattle to Victoria to Tofino. Two days ago the Kapitan Man voluntarily reported anchoring off Massett in the Queen Charlotte Islands. Yesterday the Canadian navy asked the Coast Guard if it could provide information on the small vessels seen approaching and tying alongside the Kapitan Man. The answer was no. The Coast Guard has no surveillance radar in the area.
Could the minister tell us what this spy ship is up to?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that the Canadian Coast Guard works in cooperation with the Department of National Defence, with the RCMP and with all other government agencies to ensure that service is provided to Canadians.
If the member wants to know what that vessel was up to, perhaps he should ask the owners of the vessel. If the Canadian Coast Guard or the military had information, it surely would not be made public here today.
* * *
Finance
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Both the Auditor General and the public accounts committee have called on the government to adopt full accrual accounting in its reporting to Canadians. When can we see some action on this issue?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for Ottawa Centre for his interest in having better information for Canadians and parliamentarians.
The government has already announced its intention to implement full accrual accounting in the upcoming budget, provided that the accrual accounts have been verified and audited by the Auditor General. I have to say that most of the changes associated with this implementation have been verified and validated. We are still working with departments and the Office of the Auditor General to resolve the remaining issues. I am confident that we will do it.
* * *
Coast Guard
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, no matter what kind of spin the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans puts on it, our Coast Guard is in a mess right now. John Adams, the commissioner of the Coast Guard, stated the obvious.
The fact is there are many other aspects of duty that the Coast Guard is responsible for, such as overfishing and environmental pollution. It is not capable of doing that job right now because it simply does not have the equipment, materiel and personnel to do the job.
Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans go to the cabinet table, as I asked him to do last month, to fight for the men and women of the Coast Guard and get the resources required so that the Coast Guard can do the job it has been asked to do?
(1445)
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Of course, Mr. Speaker, that is my responsibility. It is my job. It is also my job to look internally first to make sure that we are using all of the available technology and that we are properly using all of the available resources, so that we efficiently use the resources of Canadians. That is why we work in cooperation with other agencies. That is why we conduct DFO flights off the coasts to look for foreign overfishing and work in cooperation with other agencies.
* * *
Aboriginal Affairs
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, last evening CBC Sunday Report featured an individual who stated she was a commissioner for one of the new first nations financial agencies. The surprise to all is that no such agencies exist and the legislation that would bring them to life has not been tabled in Parliament.
My question is or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Why bother tabling the legislation? He obviously does not care what Parliament or first nations have to say. Who else has he promised to appoint to these agencies? Why not tell Parliament before he tells the media?
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for anyone who is on television in the evening, but I can say that we have had a draft piece of legislation dealing with fiscal institutions out in the public domain since July. The first nations people can look at it, assess it and arrive at a decision as to whether that is the best approach to take to develop a first nations economy and to put in the kinds of tools for fiscal relationships that we, as governments, need to see first nations communities succeed.
* * *
Kyoto Protocol
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the president of Decoma International Inc. has said that his Canadian company is building its new plant in the United States and not in Ontario because of the Kyoto protocol. He has said that the blind ratification of Kyoto will prevent companies from investing in Canada.
The job losses from Kyoto ratification will affect all regions of Canada. Have the Ontario Liberal members of Parliament asked the government for detailed information on job losses in Ontario due to the blind ratification of Kyoto? Will the government table this information?
The Speaker:
It is not clear what information the hon. member asked the government to table in the last part of the question. The first part was clearly out of order. Perhaps he could clarify in his supplementary.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the fact is Ontario members of Parliament in the government are not defending the interests of Ontario if they have not asked the cabinet for detailed information on job losses to Ontario of the blind ratification of the accord.
Terrance Salman, chairman of the IDA, has informed the Prime Minister that senior equity analysts on Wall Street are warning that blind ratification of Kyoto in Canada is going to cost jobs and investment in Canada.
Will the government confirm that in fact--
The Speaker:
The hon. Minister of the Environment.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the November 26, 2002 New York Times there is an article about the oil and gas sector and Kyoto. It is interesting. Quoting an energy analyst of the Bank of America it says that ratification of the treaty “does not seem to be a big deal at all”. He went on to say the profitability of some oil sands projects is currently threatened by cost overruns and by a predicted North American surplus of the type of oil they produce. “These companies could be using Kyoto as an--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam.
* * *
Airline Security
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the air tax is hurting consumer confidence. The government could help consumer confidence by telling Canadians what exactly it is they are getting for their $24.
The Aeronautics Act does not prevent the government from answering the following questions. What percentage of checked bags are being screened right now? What percentage of flights now have air marshals on them? What exactly is it that we are getting for our $24?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member certainly knows the improvements that have been made to air security since September 11, 2001. He knows full well that we are not going to give percentages with respect to checked baggage or anything else simply for the reason that when we make that kind of information available, we are helping the people who we really want to prevent from incursions of security in the country. Obviously that is lost on the hon. member.
(1450)
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, percentages do not jeopardize national security at all.
The fact is the finance minister told the House that he was going to review the air tax eventually. Every party on the transport committee registered their opposition to the air tax. Every air carrier in Canada, every tourism official, every provincial finance minister, everybody who has registered their opinion on the air tax is completely opposed to it as it is.
Can the transport minister name one stakeholder in the air industry that is in favour of the air tax as it is, other than himself or the air tax inventor, the member for LaSalle--Émard?
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first of all, the minister was very clear. The minister has indicated that by December 31 we will be seeking input on a review of the air security charge. As the hon. member knows, this review will take place and when it does, we will then be in a position to respond.
I point out to the hon. member that in the United States up to $1 billion of the cost of air security is on the backs of the airlines. That is being reviewed. The price will probably have to go up because it is not making the necessary amount of dollars needed in order to cover security costs. The member should think about that as well.
* * *
[Translation]
École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in answer to all the questions that we asked him regarding the fact that the veterinary college at Guelph University received millions of dollars from the Innovation Fund to modernize its infrastructure, the minister stated that the École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe could have made a similar request. However, in 2001, officials rejected such a request from the École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe.
Why is the minister suggesting that we request money from this fund when he knows full well that such a request will be refused? Is he trying to cloud the issue; does he hope to sabotage the veterinary college in Saint-Hyacinthe?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a number of schools and institutions have made requests to the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, which is an arm's-length foundation. Applications go to the foundation. The government does not indicate which ones should be funded. They are addressed and reviewed by peers and decisions are made by the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, not by the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)
Mr. Speaker, we want to believe him, but currently, a Canadian veterinary college is in danger, and it happens to be the one in Saint-Hyacinthe. Perhaps the minister is more interested in Guelph's fate since he graduated from Guelph University.
I would ask the Prime Minister, who perhaps has an interest in all of Canada, to personally intervene to save the veterinary college in Saint-Hyacinthe and ensure that it keeps its accreditation. To do this, the federal government must invest $59 million. Will the Prime Minister take action?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were to check, I think he would find that the institution in St. Hyacinthe has received some funding from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, as have some other veterinary colleges in Canada. I repeat, that decision was made by the foundation, not by the government.
I also repeat that the government recognizes the situation as far as the accreditation for all of the vet colleges in Canada. We are reviewing it and taking all of that into consideration.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the U.S. will soon be vaccinating 500,000 first line responders for a possible smallpox attack, to be followed by another 7 million to 10 million health and emergency workers. What is the government planning? To vaccinate 500 front line workers.
The U.S. takes this very seriously. What does the government think it knows that the U.S. does not?
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first of all, we need to realize that, when it comes to implementing a smallpox contingency plan, different countries have different approaches. The Americans decided to take one approach, and have chosen to vaccinate everybody. That is one way.
We in Canada have chosen a different approach after consulting the experts. What we are going to ensure is that, in the very unlikely event of a smallpox epidemic, we shall—
(1455)
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Yellowhead.
[English]
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, what the government does not say is that it will take 10 months to fill an order if it were to order vaccines right now. Then it will take considerably more time to order a vaccine antidote.
Massive vaccination clinics will be needed if a smallpox outbreak occurs. We cannot scramble to vaccinate front line workers to staff the clinics at that time. If smallpox is not a real threat, the government should do nothing, but if it is, then the government should do it right. What is the government's position?
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this question allows me to finish my explanation. It must be understood that there has not been a smallpox epidemic for many years, and there were virtually no bulk supplies of vaccine available anywhere.
Last year, after the tragic events of September, the vaccine producers started up operations again. We have placed our order and will obtain what we need.
In the meantime, we have been wise enough to work with the rest of the world, so that if ever there were an epidemic anywhere, we would work together—
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.
* * *
[English]
Taxation
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the CCRA's heavy-handed approach to auditing junior hockey teams in Saskatchewan is threatening the viability of junior hockey in that province. The minister has known this for at least two weeks and still she has done nothing about it.
When will the minister tell her department to cease and desist these punishing audits and instead set clear guidelines for the teams to follow, starting now?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, hockey teams in Canada normally pay their fair share of Canada pension and EI premiums.
Right across the country it is important for CCRA to ensure that the Income Tax Act and its provisions are fairly applied to all employers. We give 75,000 employee-employer related decisions each year.
I can say to the hon. member that employers are required to make these deductions so that their employees are eligible for benefits.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, these junior hockey teams and the players are broke all year. They do not make any income. To be eligible for scholarships, the players must retain their amateur status. By forcing players to count their room and board as income destroys that amateur status and prevents them from getting scholarship funds for their education.
Why is the Minister of National Revenue putting the future of these young hockey players at risk by forcing them to declare room and board as income?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me repeat this, because obviously the hon. member was not listening. Hockey teams across the country pay their fair share based on the same rules under the Income Tax Act, and hockey teams right across the country pay Canada pension plan and employment insurance premiums.
Does the member opposite suggest that young Canadian employees should not be entitled to benefits? Is that what he is saying?
* * *
[Translation]
École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, to the questions we have asked him repeatedly over the past several months about the urgent need to provide financial assistance to the École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe, the Minister of Agriculture responded that the government understood the role of veterinary colleges across Canada.
Is the Prime Minister finally going to admit that the time for understanding and studies is over and that it is now time to take action? An immediate investment of $59 million from the government is necessary to save the accreditation of the college in Saint-Hyacinthe. Clearly—
The Speaker:
The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question a number of times. I will repeat this one more time. We are looking at it. We understand the situation at Saint-Hyacinthe and at a number of our veterinary colleges across the country. The government is looking at that, because we understand and recognize the importance of it and we want to do all we possibly can so that they can maintain their accreditation.
* * *
Firearms Registry
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have just received information from the justice department showing that it has a backlog of more than 134,000 gun registrations. A quarter of them have been backlogged for more than a year.
Considering that Statistics Canada reported that there were 11 million guns in Canada back in 1974 and less than half of this number are now registered, why is the minister misleading Canadians into thinking the government will register all firearms when clearly it cannot, even with the six month amnesty it has just declared?
(1500)
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, clearly a large majority of the Canadian public has followed and registered its guns in accordance with the law.
For those who are finding themselves in difficult circumstances, the minister last week announced that there will be a grace period. Provided that they file their applications before December 31 of this year, there will be a grace period of six months so that they will not need their certificates within that period of time.
Canadians will comply.
* * *
[Translation]
Agriculture
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, Quebec farmers are impatiently waiting for an agreement to be reached between the federal government and the Government of Quebec on the agriculture policy framework. What the Union des producteurs agricoles and Quebec are both asking for is some flexibility from Ottawa.
Will the Minister of Agriculture finally agree to allow the financial part of the aid designated for farmers in Quebec to be administered by the Financière agricole du Québec, yes or no?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the agricultural policy framework has been open for the Quebec government to sign since the end of June this year.
All of the ministers agreed a year ago last June in Whitehorse that we would go forward with programs to support Canadian farmers with national standards. They will be delivered across the country. We are in negotiations with the Province of Quebec, and we understand fully that it has some different delivery mechanisms in the province, but it is the goal and the determination of all ministers that all farmers in Canada will be treated the same on a national basis.
* * *
Points of Order
Oral Question Period
[Points of Order]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very brief point of order on a ruling made in question period today on the question asked by the member for Kings—Hants. It was, as I understand it, in order to ask about representations the government has received from any group that the member for Kings--Hants asked about questions put to the government by one particular group, the Liberal members of Parliament from Ontario.
In my view, Sir, that is in order, and I certainly have heard that type of question put and permitted before. You might want to review the blues to see precisely what was said and consider the ruling.
The Speaker:
The hon. government House leader on the same point.
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the question. To the best of my recollection, the hon. member asking the question was asking Ontario MPs if in fact a particular course of action had been taken. First, one asks questions only of the government, as Mr. Speaker knows, and as I suspect the right hon. member knows or should know. Second, questions cannot be asked about an area of regional responsibility. That is against the standing order as well. Third, they must have to do with the business of the minister to whom the question is being asked.
I suggest that none of those three criteria had been satisfied, and no doubt the Chair took that very carefully into account when he rendered his very able decision earlier today.
The Speaker:
I should advise the right hon. member for Calgary Centre and the hon. government House leader that the Chair appreciates both their generous interventions and will certainly review the matter and get back to the House if necessary.
* * *
Oral Question Period
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period the minister stated that there was not a letter and a report from the Investment Dealers Association of Canada. I have a copy here in my hands which, in the interests of openness and transparency for all members of the House, I would like to table a copy of at this time.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest have the consent of the House to table the document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1505)
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
* * *
First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-19, an act to provide for real property taxation powers of first nations, to create a First Nations Tax Commission, First Nations Financial Management Board, First Nations Finance Authority and First Nations Statistical Institute and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Right Hon. Joe Clark:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Indian Affairs is leaving the House. I wonder if I might ask the minister to come back. An allegation was made during question period that an appointment has already been made under the legislation that has just been introduced for first reading. I wonder if the hon. minister could assure the House that no actions have been taken stemming from the authority of the legislation just introduced into this House before that legislation has been approved by Parliament.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
I am advised that this is not a point of order, but if the minister wishes to answer he may do so.
Hon. Robert Nault:
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that in fact the information that was suggested in question period is not correct. The individual who was reported to have made the comments on the evening news last night in fact is already the chair of a finance authority for Westbank First Nation. That was the comment that was made. That is a different matter than the bill being presented to the House today.
* * *
Petitions
Child Pornography
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have in my hands another petition that has come in with signatures from across Saskatchewan, and they just keep coming, asking that Parliament do something about the current pornography law and make it clear that children are going to be protected.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I too have another petition to table on the same matter, along with the many that have already been tabled, asking Parliament to do something to protect our children from the perversity that passes as artistic merit.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.
First, hundreds of people in my riding are calling upon Parliament to change the laws regarding child pornography for fear that the artistic merit clause will allow people who prey on children to get away with all kinds of deviance. Hundreds of people in my riding are praying that Parliament will address that.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance):
Second, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a group of people who would like to see the Department of National Defence exercise its contractual right to cancel the supply chain project and by doing so ensure the long term and ongoing security of supply to Canada's armed forces. This has to do with a specific situation in my riding at CFB Suffield.
* * *
[Translation]
The Environment
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by a majority of the residents of Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, but also by many residents from the greater Quebec City area. First, the petitioners want to voice their disagreement with the new fill activities at the flats of Beauport on the St. Lawrence River. They urge Parliament to mandate an agency to manage the recreational areas located near Beauport Bay to develop their recreational and tourism potential with full respect for the environment.
* * *
(1510)
[English]
Child Pornography
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, like many members in the House, I would like to add another 758 names to those of individuals in my constituency who are calling upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia and sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.
* * *
Fisheries
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of the citizens of the great city of St. John's, Newfoundland, and surrounding communities, who are praying upon Parliament to support the standing committee's recommendation to move expeditiously toward Canada's taking custodial management of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap, a wise suggestion indeed and one the government should take seriously.
* * *
National Defence
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present on behalf of the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke who are asking that the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College, which is essential to training Canadians for emergency situations, remain in Arnprior and that the government upgrade the facilities in order to provide the necessary training to Canadians, instead of having a temporary move to Ottawa and then another one to places unknown to reward a Liberal member of Parliament.
* * *
Child Pornography
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present three petitions signed by hundreds of constituents of Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake.
The first two petitions urge the House to adopt laws against glorified pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children.
* * *
Stem Cell Research
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the third petition, many constituents of mine call on Parliament to focus its legislative support on stem cell research for cures and therapies.
* * *
Child Pornography
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition calling on Parliament to take steps to prevent the distribution of materials involving pedophilia and sado-masochistic activities.
I note that in my riding these lists are forming the basis of a direct mail and telemarketing solicitation. I have had complaints in my riding that people who have signed these lists that are distributed all across the land and appear in Parliament suddenly find themselves receiving mail solicitations for donations. We should treat this type of material with our usual good caution in the House.
* * *
[Translation]
Inuit Community of Nunavik
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present four petitions, all on the same matter, signed by residents from the area of Nunavik, Puvirnituk, Kangiqsujuaq, Akulivik and Kuujjuaq.
The federal government, through one of its departments, ordered the killing of Inuit sled dogs from 1950 to 1969, in New Quebec.
The federal government adopted a policy supporting the dog killing.
The federal government did not hold public consultations with the Inuit communities in New Quebec.
We are asking for a public inquiry into the federal policy of dog killing that was implemented in Nunavik.
Lastly, the federal government made no effort to suggest corrective action to help the Inuit communities maintain their way of life.
[English]
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to revert to the introduction of private members' bills?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
Is there unanimous consent to revert to private members' bills?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
* * *
(1515)
Questions on the Order Paper
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Kyoto Protocol
The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment and the amendment to the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
Just before statements by members the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill had 12 minutes remaining in her speech, followed by a 10 minute question period.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have been identifying for Canadians nine myths about climate change which have been brought forward by climate change specialists.
I would like to continue with myth 4 which states that if the earth warms, it will be disastrous for the environment and human society. That is a myth according to climate change specialists. Climate historians say that during warm periods civilization flourished while in cold periods there was more drought, famine, wars and disease.
Myth 5 is that extreme weather events are expected to be more common if the earth warms. This has already started. More droughts, floods, forest fires, et cetera, are on the rise as a result of our greenhouse gas emissions.
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a meteorologist with 25 years experience with Environment Canada, showed in a study about to be published that extreme weather events are not currently increasing anywhere in Canada. He says, “Extreme weather events are definitely on the decline over the last 40 years”.
Myth 6 is that sea level is rising quickly and will get worse if the polar ice caps melt due to global warming. Coastal settlements and low lying islands will be submerged. That is a myth according to climate change experts. They say sea level has been rising naturally since the end of the last ice age and this has not accelerated recently.
Myth 7 is that humanity is causing earth's polar regions to warm quickly resulting in unusual rates of ice melting. That is a myth according to the climate change specialists. In fact, Mr. Winsor, of Göteborg University in Sweden, used detailed measurements to conclude in a report published just last year, and I guess the Minister of the Environment may not have seen it, which stated:
|
|
“...there was no trend towards a thinning ice cover during the 1990s. Data from the North Pole shows a slight increase in mean ice thickness, whereas the Beaufort Sea shows a small decrease, none of which are significant”. |
Myth 8 is that Kyoto will save thousands of lives by cutting air pollution. The fact is, according to these climate change experts, Kyoto is not a pollution treaty. Carbon dioxide is in no way a pollutant. We breathe it in and out every day. Plants use it for photosynthesis. Real pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxides, can be reduced with far less expensive methods than a greenhouse gas treaty.
Myth 9 is that solar and wind power can soon be significant contributors to the base load energy needs of Canada. The experts say that both solar and wind power are far too diffuse and intermittent to ever provide more than a small fraction of the energy needs of any major industrialized nation, let alone a vast northern country like Canada.
This is what climate change experts say about the kinds of arguments we are hearing from the Liberal government. Nine myths that they say are completely without scientific basis. Who are these experts? They are: Dr. Tim Patterson, a professor of paleoclimatology; Dr. Morgan, a climate consultant and Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; and Dr. Madhav Khandekar, an environmental consultant who has 25 years experience with Environment Canada as a research scientist. Dr. Khandekar states:
|
|
Climate change is the most complex issue humanity has ever handled. To pretend that the science is sufficiently mature to substantiate rushing forward with ratifying Kyoto is ridiculous in the extreme. |
(1520)
On hearing about the environment minister's confident predictions of the dire effects of not ratifying Kyoto, the professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says Dr. Khandekar, and one of the lead authors of the report on which the Kyoto protocol was based, laughed, and said, “There is a certain charm when politicians are so certain of the science when the scientists are not.” That is what Dr. Khandekar, a former research scientist with Environment Canada, who holds a Ph.D. in meteorology, and has worked in the fields of climatology, meteorology and oceanography for over 45 years had to say.
To continue the list of experts, they are: Dr. de Freitas, professor at the School of Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland in New Zealand; Dr. David Wojick, Canadian climate specialist and President of climatechangedebate.org; Dr. Kenneth Green, expert reviewer for the UN report on which Kyoto was based; Dr. Tim Ball, professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg; Dr. Petr Chylek, professor of physics and atmospheric science at Dalhousie University; Dr. Michel, professor with the Department of Earth Sciences and an Arctic regions specialist in Ottawa; David Nowell, past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group; Dr. Sallie Baliunas, specialist in sun/earth climate interactions; Dr. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia; Dr. Fred Seitz, climate specialist and past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences; Dr. Art Robinson, founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine which focuses on climate change and CO2; Dr. Hans Jelbring, wind and climate specialist from Stockholm, Sweden; Dr. Hans Erren, geophysicist and climate specialist from the Netherlands; and Peter Dietze, energy and climate specialist, and official scientific reviewer from Germany who reviewed the report on which Kyoto was based.
I wish I could name all of these people who are renowned experts in their field of climate change, and who are saying that the whole argument that somehow Kyoto has to be signed to protect us from climate change is nonsense.
If the science is solid then why is the government so afraid of including scientists who challenge the government's stance on Kyoto into the debate? When some of these leading scientists, who I have just quoted, asked to be part of the debate, they were not allowed to be heard. The government said they were not stakeholders.
The government does not want to hear the truth because this is not about science. It is not about climate change. It is not about what is best for Canadians. It is not about what is best for the environment. It is about what is best for the Prime Minister who desperately needs a legacy to hold up as he is leaving office. That is the sad truth of the matter.
It is so clear that Kyoto does not address the environment. It does not address pollution and it does not clean up the environment. It is clear that Canada produces only 2% of global CO2 even if it was a problem. Less than 10% of carbon dioxide is man made. In fact, some estimates are only 2% and Canada produces only 2% of that. Yet the government is acting like ratifying the accord is a matter of life or death when we have minuscule, fractional measurements of carbon dioxide. The accord is not dealing with a pollutant.
Even the government's own figures say that Kyoto would result in a loss of GDP of $16.5 billion a year. That is before it figured out it had better hide the numbers. Estimates by other more objective groups are a lot higher. We must remember that the government has a track record of lowballing program costs to sell its initiatives. It is difficult to have any faith in the government numbers. Even if their lowball figures are correct, it is $16.5 billion a year that this deal would cost and most other objective estimates are far higher than that.
(1525)
If we have an extra $16.5 billion to spend, would Canadians not want it to be spent on reducing carbon dioxide for a fractional amount when it is not even a pollutant? Would they not rather spend $16.5 billion on cleaning up the smog over our cities and helping out the hundreds of communities in this first world country, many of them aboriginal communities, that are under boil water orders because they do not have clean water? Would they not rather clean up the toxic waste sites that the Auditor General has just said the government has done nothing about?
Yet the government, which has done nothing about toxic waste, smog and the clean water needs of hundreds of communities in the country, has the nerve to get up and say that we have to sign Kyoto to reduce our 2% production of man-made CO2. This is where the real priorities of the government are. It is not in the environment. It is not in common sense. It is not in science. It is in making political hay for the Prime Minister.
Canada should mandate a decrease in the emission of real pollutants. It should invest in environmental clean up. It should support research and development into alternative fuel sources and energy conservation measures and products. It should offer possible tax credits to award innovation, energy conservation and environmentally friendly practices. However this Kyoto accord completely misses all those important initiatives and must be rejected. I urge the House to do so.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly enjoyed the speech given by my hon. colleague from Calgary.
I guess there is a little fact that is well known and that is, there are many scientists on both sides of this argument. One of the most interesting things I heard recently was a scientist who said that for years and years, if we tracked the mean temperatures at different locations in North America, which is where they have the records, we would see that the temperatures go up and down. I wish we could use graphic aids in the House but I guess my hands are the only props I am permitted. The temperatures are cyclical. It is true that from time to time, over a 50 year or up to an 80 year cycle, the temperatures will gradually go up and they will turn around and go down again.
The scientist said that what distressed him the most about some of his scientific colleagues was that they were now willing to somehow predict that the cyclical nature of temperature changes would be abandoned and the current uphill trend would become a straight line extrapolation. He said that there was no scientific basis whatsoever for that extrapolation, for that curve to go up and down. He said that it was unjustified to say that the current uphill increase in the temperatures would not keep going up invariably. I would like my colleague to comment on that type of science.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy:
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is correct. The University of Virginia climatologist, Dr. Patrick Michaels, says that statements about dramatic increases in global temperature are stark examples of non-science.
A closer look at the 20th century temperature record shows three distinct trends. First, a warming trend of about half a degree Celsius began in the late 19th century and peaked around 1940. We must remember that 1940 was, supposedly, when all of this carbon dioxide burning started, but the warming trend peaked at 1940. Then from 1940 until the late 1970s temperature decreased. This was when there were fears of a coming glacial period by some of the same environmentalist alarmists who are now telling us that we have to fight global warming.
There was a third warming trend from 1976 to 1986 after which the increase becomes very small.
The question is, where do environmental groups get the idea that our planet has warmed dramatically in recent decades? The answer is simple, according to the climate change experts, they are using the wrong data. Instead of citing modern, accurate, space based measurements, they quote error prone, ground based temperature readings that give little indication of true global trends. The earth based readings are notoriously inaccurate, according to the experts. Most of them come from developing countries that do not properly maintain their stations or records. Nearly all of these stations are land based even though three-quarters of our planet is covered with water.
Second, urban sprawl has enveloped many temperature sensing stations in heat islands which are significantly warmer than the surrounding countryside.
The climate change specialists, and I quoted a number of them in my remarks, are saying that this perception, this scaremongering about global warming, is completely and utterly baseless.
(1530)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton.
One of the first speakers on the bill spoke for over 11 hours on the subject of Kyoto and various aspects of it. I think it is demonstrative of the breadth of input and diversity of opinion that exists.
Quite frankly, I am not surprised that Canadians are maybe a little concerned that they do not have the information they require. I think Canadians are generally aware that Kyoto has to do with greenhouse gases. I think they probably understand that it has something to do with climate change impacts when they think of El Nino, La Nina, the Winnipeg floods, the Quebec ice storm, the western droughts and the floods in Quebec, some very stark and dramatic examples of aberrant climatic events. Those are events that concern Canadians but I think they understand that if there were something we could do to mitigate the incidence of those, we would seriously consider it.
Canadians also have indicated a significant interest in the health side of the parameters surrounding the equation of the Kyoto discussion. I am sure all members of Parliament have had correspondence from and meetings with their constituents about the environmental impacts of particulate matter, of the burning of fossil fuels, of car emissions and of the importation of harmful elements in our air, which are important. For instance, about 40% to 50% of our particulate matter comes from the Ohio valley in the United States. However we also export some of ours, because, quite frankly, those harmful things in our environment move. They are transportable and global.
One of the important aspects that Canadians should understand is that 9% of all the greenhouse gas emissions in the world affect Canada's climate, that is 9%, which is not insignificant.
Another interesting fact that I came across in the environment minister's documents, which are available to all Canadians through their members of Parliament and which are on the minister's website, is that Canada is the largest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases. On a person by person basis, Canadians produce more greenhouse gases per person than anyone else in the world. That is a very stark factor but I have had people come back to me and say that since it was only 2% of the overall greenhouse gas emissions globally, why would we be concerned about it. We should be concerned about it because 9% of global greenhouse emissions do affect us. It is important that we put these things in perspective.
I do not think I should have to stand here and list all the people who are for and against something. I think we have come now to the point where people are looking for a little bit of synthesis of what has been said.
I have come to the conclusion that in the main people who are in favour of ratifying the Kyoto protocol generally talk about the benefits to Canadians. Just today I received a letter from the Registered Nurses Association in which it stated, “We hope that you will support the reduction of greenhouse gases from 6% below 1990 levels by the year 2012. In the interest of improving the health of Canadians the nurses organization also urges that we maximize the co-benefits of cleaner air by employing an implementation strategy that aims at reducing all fossil fuel emission and other air pollutants”.
The nurses of Ontario are saying that it is a health issue, that it has an effect on the general health of Canadians. I think most Canadians, particularly those who have seniors and children in their midst, will know that the prevalence of puffers in our society has gone off the charts. People are having respiratory problems and it is not unrelated to Kyoto.
(1535)
On the other hand, those who speak against Kyoto in my view seem to be speaking on the basis of not the interest of Canadians but rather the interest of their business or industry.
Today in the Quorum document the heading reads “Auto parts firm slams Kyoto”. It is saying that the key issue for auto parts makers and the auto industry is the potential damage that could be done to investment in Canada if Canada ratifies the Kyoto accord.
We know the nurses support ratification of the Kyoto accord. We also know that the auto sector does not support it. One is in the interest of individual Canadians. The other is in the interest of business.
Canadians should look for those things and look at the rationalization for arguments when people speak. If they are part of an industry sector, part of the fossil fuel industry, the petroleum industry in Alberta for instance, if they are part of a very rich province in the manufacturing sector which is a heavy consumer of fossil fuels, chances are Canadians will see that the provinces may come out opposed to Kyoto.
The stories in the newspapers of late have demonstrated that there are some difficulties between the views of the federal government, the Minister of the Environment and some of the provincial premiers. The premiers came up with a list of 12 conditions under which they would be prepared to have further discussions on the ratification of Kyoto and what it meant.
One of the two that the federal government has not concurred with is that the provinces have asked the federal government to pick up the tab if there is any impact on their economy. That is an interesting point. However I wonder if they would also accept this. If the government has to back stop losses as a result of Kyoto, will the provinces be prepared to share, in excess of their burden on taxation, any benefits from Kyoto? They cannot have it one way only. It should be a two-way street. If good things happen with Kyoto, the federal government and Canadians should benefit. If bad things happen with Kyoto, the provinces have said that they want to be held harmless and that the federal government should pay the bill. We all know the federal government has no money of its own. It is taxpayer money.
I believe one of the most important things that Canadians should realize is that the debate going on now with regard to Kyoto demonstrates clearly the need for a national government. Let me repeat the point. There is no consensus on Kyoto and there is disagreement on the various aspects of Kyoto and its impacts, costs et cetera. As a consequence, it is a clear demonstration that we need a strong national government to look for consensus and to take a leadership role on a very difficult issue.
Have we ever done this before? Of course we have. Acid rain. Did we not have an acid rain outcry? Our lakes were dying. On the consequences of acid rain, people were talking about the billions and billions of dollars. We could not cost it out though. Today people say that we should cost out Kyoto right down to the penny of how much it will cost between now and 2012 to get reach our targets. However, did we do that with acid rain? No. We made a commitment on acid rain. We said that it was something that should not happen and that it was in the best interests of Canada and of future generations to deal with it, and we did.
We did not wait for all the little nitpicking points, where people wanted to get the is dotted and the ts crossed. It took bold leadership and acid rain was addressed by the Government of Canada.
Are there any other examples? Sure there are. How about the ozone. There was serious concern about the depletion of the ozone layer and about that whole problem again related to hydrofluoric carbons out of I believe aerosol cans and all the other causes of how this hole might be developing, allowing less filtration of the deadly impacts of sun rays. We have addressed it. We took action on that.
I only have a few minutes. It is unfortunate that one member had 11 hours and I have 10 minutes, but in 10 minutes I want to say that I think we dealt pretty well with unleaded gas.
(1540)
The federal government has demonstrated clearly that exhaustive consultation of all sectors and being open to those points is very important. However at the end of the day it is the national government, under the executive authority of the national government, that must make those tough decisions and show leadership on a very important matter affecting the health of Canadians.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I caught from the member's speech. The acid rain and the ozone treaties were not international treaties. They were bilateral treaties and did not have the potential impact on the Canadian economy that the Kyoto accord would.
Second, if the member thinks his time in the House to debate this issue is not sufficient, why do he and his colleagues not ask the Prime Minister for more time? There is no rush. There is no crisis tomorrow. The sky will not fall tomorrow. Why do we not have more time after the Christmas break to have a proper debate on this issue when we really have a plan to get us to the target, not 60 million tonnes short of it?
Mr. Paul Szabo:
Mr. Speaker, I do not need 11 hours to make my point. In 10 minutes I think I can make enough points to demonstrate to the member that it is time we look at the synthesis of the key points not being made, unlike the prior speaker who had to spend 10 minutes of a 20 minute speech listing the companies who are against Kyoto ratification.
At this point, Canadians should know that Kyoto will mean smarter homes, efficient cars, alternative energy source development, cleaner air and demonstrate yet again that a national government has to show leadership on important issues affecting the health of Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, to get back to the initiatives that the federal government is supposedly going to take, as the hon. member opposite stated, does he recognize that greenhouse gas emissions in Canada will never be reduced if this double-talk continues? On one hand, we are talking about ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and, on the other, about continuing current subsidies to the oil industry.
In fact, the government gave the oil industry $66 billion in subsidies between 1970 and 1999, compared to a mere $329 million for renewable energy. During a period during which this government was in office for part of the time, from 1990 to 2000, $2.6 billion went to the oil industry, as compared to a paltry $76 million to renewable energy.
Can we not agree that significant change is necessary and that we need to echo the commitment made by the European community at the earth summit in Johannesburg? Such a commitment would mean that 15% of our total energy production would come from wind, sun and other renewable sources. Should this government not make such a commitment?
(1545)
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo:
Mr. Speaker, some have suggested that Canada cannot demonstrate that we can meet our targets. Therefore, I assume by that argument they are saying that we should do nothing. Well nothing is not an alternative.
Over the last 10 years, we have had exhaustive consultations on an important global problem, not just a national problem. If Canada cannot meet its targets, then nobody can meet its targets. We can have efficient homes. We can start producing ethanol so that our cars do not emit the dangerous emissions that they do now. We can have better habits and better marketing of products without all the wastage in packaging. We can deal with our transportation problems.
I believe very sincerely that Kyoto will be the springboard against which we will be smarter in terms of our energy consumption and it will translate immediately into a better and healthier Canada.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the motion regarding the Kyoto accord and to raise my concerns and, in fact, my dismay and opposition to the circumstances surrounding this motion.
First, by this motion, the government is asking the House to call upon it to ratify this treaty. Under present national circumstances that is a most peculiar and, dare I say, unusual procedure in a parliamentary system. What we have heard repeatedly, and know to be unquestionably true, is that cabinet can ratify, that is to say recommend to Her Majesty that it be signed. Therefore the motion is in a form which seeks to have the House tell the executive branch to commit an act which the executive branch can do without any advice or direction from the chamber. This is, therefore, a take note debate which for reasons of political misdirection has attached to it a vote which is unnecessary and meaningless. It is unnecessary because the signing or ratification of a treaty is an exclusive prerogative of the Crown and it is misleading because the House can never give orders to the Crown on its exclusive rights or prerogatives.
Second, Kyoto is, once ratified, an irrevocable accord among nations. Once signed, the executive is bound. It is obligated to do all necessary to implement it. That is why our system, the Westminster model, demands that certain conditions precedent be met before signing it. There is good reason for this. It is, if we consider the popular term, the due diligence of our form of government. It exacts an extremely high standard of assessment by the executive, that is the cabinet, be met before advice to proceed, that is to say ratify, is given to Her Majesty to sign. A treaty is, above all, an agreement between or among sovereign states.
Approximately 85 years ago, a Liberal justice minister and attorney general, the Hon. David Mills, a member of both the Mackenzie and Laurier cabinets, wrote and later lectured on the subject of treaties and their implementation in Canada. He stressed that when a treaty would have direct impact on provincial governments, whether there be a cost or an impact on existing provincial laws, the federal government should not proceed to ratify until consensus be reached. I stress consensus not unanimity. We have heard both inside and outside the chamber that the federal cabinet has the unquestioned legal right in every way to sign and therefore the provinces will be required to live with it.
As I speak in this place today, eight provinces are not in agreement with the federal plan. These provinces, as represented by their cabinets and premiers as first ministers, are opposed to that which is proposed here. Today they are saying that they do not wish to be bound by this accord and at least one, if press reports are correct, will take concerted legislative steps to counter the effects of the so-called implementation plan.
I therefore ask and wonder where is the due diligence of this chamber in proceeding when there is clearly and unequivocally no consensus.
I would point out that on September 2 in Johannesburg the Prime Minister in his speech said that he would obtain consensus among the provinces before he proceeded, yet here we are proceeding.
We have, as we know, inherited a British style of treaty making. It is clear that country, Great Britain, had great global influence and interests around the world at one time which necessitated that the art, that is to say the steps to be taken before a treaty be signed, of necessity be fastidiously followed. This stress of due diligence had good reason. It recognized that the federal cabinet, giving advice to the Crown on the subject of ratifying a treaty, should not put itself in a spot or position whereby it would be in conflict or clash with itself, realizing that provincial governments gave advice to the Crown also as to their sentiments or agreement in adhering to the direct effects the treaty would have on it.
(1550)
In brief, provincial consensus is absolutely necessary because it is they who will shoulder some of the costs and today there is no provincial agreement to do so. Today we see a state of profound disagreement, a fundamental dissonance between the federal crown and eight provincial crowns which is a most disturbing and peculiar embarkation on treaty ratification by the federal cabinet. I do not believe as a member of the House that I should abet this very real, and I would suggest, legitimate concern by provincial governments.
This is, in the absence of consensus among provincial premiers, a step which the late Liberal Justice Minister Mills warned against. He said it could not proceed because to do so brings this pact into disrepute. In brief, it is imprudent, the test of due diligence is not met and it flouts the federal cabinet powers to advise Her Majesty to sign. Quite simply, it is the wrong step to take at this time.
A third point to be considered requires, if and only if consensus exists, that the cabinet bring to the House as soon as possible upon signing, the estimates, what will be required from the public purse or cost, as well as any bills necessary to amend the existing legal framework to ensure the objectives and demands of the treaty be carried out. It is only at this stage that the accord, that agreement among sovereign states, will be in fact Canadian law.
I would only say on this point, when the treaty is ratified it will not change one iota of anything in the country, perhaps with the exception of a louder outcry from provincial capitals and other federal-provincial litigation.
In this short period of debate on this treaty it is easy to characterize the views as being strongly held and polarized. My observation is that there is a concerted attempt to fashion this debate around virtue, that is to say those who support the ratification and are the true and exclusive environmentalists and it is only they who really truly care for the country's environment. There will be this vast and perceptible change in air quality, rivers will flow clean and lung disease will become an ailment of the past. Their commitment to their grandchildren and unknown future generations is often raised. A new economy will spring up.
Conversely, others say certain industries will be inordinately impacted with job and future investment opportunities will be lost. They say this is an exercise premised on uncertain science which will have negligible environmental but dire economic consequences.
Certainly today's stories concerning the 190 member Investment Dealers Association's report, if true, are most disturbing.
We are by this unnecessary motion being asked to choose which side is correct.
Let me return to Justice Minister Mills' words on this. He said:
|
|
The matter of making treaties is a most serious business and one in which dilettantes should not engage. After all, a treaty is irrevocable. |
I will state and openly confess that on this subject I am a dilettante since I possess neither the scientific acumen nor the economic insight to know who is correct. In such case I listen closely to those in my riding who have greater insights and understanding than I could possibly possess. They tell me Kyoto will cast uncertainty on industrial investment in many sectors. It will have a chilling effect that will be negative. Is that a matter to which I should pay attention and be concerned?
As a border community in southwestern Ontario will it have any effect on air quality? The answer is no, because 90% of airborne particulates and greenhouse gases come from the United States, a mere 400 metres away.
Will it lead to an explosion of new jobs? The answer is no one knows for certain. It is in fact less than clear. Some call it a leap of faith.
Therefore, in the presence of an apparent federal-provincial disagreement of considerable proportions on this agreement, in the face of an economic downturn or bad economic prospects with no environmental upturn, I as a dilettante am being asked to say, I support Kyoto.
I have seen nothing of the cost or the extent of the legislative agenda to implement it. I have heard the bravado of the polar extremes of those who love the environment and future Canadians while the others purport to speak for the economy.
(1555)
I speak for the clear message received away from this place which is that there are too many uncertainties, too much risk, no due diligence, do not support it, and I do not. It is, I fear, a leap of faith one should not be asked to take.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite for his very honest, humble and thought provoking remarks.
He made several good points, not the least of which was the costs that this would entail, the costs that industry would be expected to absorb, the costs that the average Canadian would be expected to absorb which are completely unknown.
He also made the point that it would bind Canada but we do not know what impact it would have in terms of having a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions because the United States is not a signatory.
One of the more important elements of his remarks was about the lack of consensus and the lack of information. The provinces will be forced to bear the costs of implementation. I would dare say that we might include the municipalities in the discussion as well. He quite rightly pointed out that there has been no consensus.
We know that in the past there has been the ability to get consensus on international accords of this type. Rio was an example. The acid rain treaty was another. I would suggest that in constitutional terms Meech Lake was another.
We also know, as he has said, that eight of the provinces are not there. They are not including themselves as supporters of this accord. Ironically, one province that is, the province of Quebec, was left out of the Constitution so it should understand the need for consensus on something like this.
I ask the hon. member is there not still time? Could we not still bring the provinces into this process knowing that we do not have to ratify, we do not have to implement it until 2003? Is it not time that we had the provinces here? What is the rush?
Mr. Roger Gallaway:
Mr. Speaker, the fact is there is no rush. The rush is self-imposed in that we are going to ratify it apparently by Christmas, or else.
What is clear is that we are asking provincial governments to pay part of the costs for this. We can imagine in this place if a provincial government in particular, or if collectively the provincial governments, were to pass uniform individual laws which imposed a financial burden on the federal government, it would go to court in about 39 seconds. There would be a challenge.
We do have treaty making powers at the federal level. In my opinion, we are heaping abuse on that process by saying that we have this power, and because convention demands that we seek the consensus of provincial governments, and I stress not the unanimity, but the consensus, and because we do not have that consensus, we really do not have anything, but we are going to use our power in a way which was never contemplated. In fact most legal observers would deem it to be unconstitutional. It is unfair to abuse a given power and that is what we are doing.
(1600)
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see finally some sanity in that vast Liberal caucus over there with the member's memorable speech. Given the member's speech and his position and how he feels about this process, will he then stand in his place when this motion comes to a vote in the House and vote against it?
Mr. Roger Gallaway:
Mr. Speaker, that