36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 38
CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 26, 1997
1400
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA TELEVISION AND CABLE PRODUCTION FUND
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VICTIMS BILL OF RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MINING
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Serré |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MINING
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réginald Bélair |
1405
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GORDON WRIGHT
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MINING
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JACQUES PARIZEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JACQUES PARIZEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1410
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE JUSTICE JOHN SOPINKA
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JACQUES PARIZEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JACQUES PARIZEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DISABILITY PENSION
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
1415
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KREVER INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SENATE OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1420
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CALGARY DECLARATION
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1425
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
1430
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OPTION CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
1435
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DRUG PATENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
1440
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL HOUSING
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MINING
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1445
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORKERS RECEIVING TIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1450
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
1455
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TELEVISION AND CABLE PRODUCTION FUND
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKS
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC'S CIVIL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Paradis |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1500
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Member for Yellowhead
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1505
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1510
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAYS AND MEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Notice of Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BLOOD SYSTEM IN CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE.
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-290. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-291. Introduction and First Reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1515
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS ACT, 1985
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-3. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Income Tax Act
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pay Equity
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1520
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canada Post
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-2. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
1525
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions in amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 3
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 5
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 21
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 23
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 24
|
1530
1535
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1610
1615
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1620
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1625
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1630
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2
|
1635
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1640
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1645
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1650
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1655
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1700
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 8
|
1705
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1720
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1725
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1730
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIANS
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1735
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
1750
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1755
1800
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1805
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1820
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
1825
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Jennings |
1830
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Climate Change
|
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
1835
1840
1845
1850
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1855
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1940
1945
1950
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1955
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2100
2105
2110
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
2115
2120
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
2125
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
2130
2135
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
2140
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
2145
2150
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
2155
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
2200
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
2205
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
2210
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
2215
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
2220
2225
2230
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
2235
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
2240
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
2245
2250
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
2255
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
2300
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
2305
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
2310
2315
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
2320
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
2325
2330
2335
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
2340
2345
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
2350
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
2355
2400
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
2405
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
2410
2415
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
2420
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
2425
2430
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
2435
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
2440
2445
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
2450
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
2455
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
2500
2505
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
2510
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
2515
2520
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
2525
2530
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
2535
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
2540
2545
![V](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
2550
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 38
![](/web/20061116181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, November 26, 1997
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada and we will be led by the hon. member for
Simcoe—Grey.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CANADA TELEVISION AND CABLE PRODUCTION FUND
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, television is our most powerful communications tool.
Canadians watch it at least 24 hours a week but what they watch
is what is in abundance, American programming.
Canadians deserve Canadian programming. The renewal of the
Canada television and cable production fund will go a long way to
achieve this end.
The fund represents a uniquely successful partnership of public
and private funding. It couples government and cable industry
contributed moneys to increase the presence of high quality
Canadian programming.
Last year the fund supported 376 projects and employed over
19,000 Canadians, with direct and indirect economic benefits
estimated at $525 million.
A fine example of this was the Avro Arrow mini-series which was
produced by two of my constituents. It was written by Keith
Leckie and co-produced by Marie Young-Leckie. This show has now
been sold throughout the world.
The renewal of the fund represents not only the government's
commitment to Canadian television, but also recognizes the
positive economic impact of Canada's arts industry.
* * *
VICTIMS BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I remember April 29 of last year so well. The Reform Party
brought a motion before the House to initiate a national victims
bill of rights.
The Liberals supported the motion. We had one committee meeting
where some victims rights representatives and myself were
listened to, but then nothing happened. How pathetic it is that
the Liberal government can give so much hope to so many victims
and deliberately forget they even exist after one meeting.
What about the right to know the status of the offender, the
write to give written or oral victim impact statements and the
right to know if plea bargaining is taking place?
It is easy to see why the general public has lost faith in this
institution. They see false promises and ignorance of the plight
of victims from a government that puts more emphasis on getting
re-elected than protecting its citizens.
My message to victims is this: I will not forget you. The
Reform Party will not forget you. Some day a Reform government
will legislate your national victims bill of rights.
* * *
MINING
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when our government took office, mining investment in
Canada was in decline. Since then our government's work with the
mining industry to reduce regulatory overlap and duplication,
implement innovative changes to our tax system and promote
environmentally friendly mining practices is resulting in
concrete benefits for Canadians.
For example in 1996, 20 new mines were opened or re-opened,
creating 1,790 new jobs. In 1997 it is expected that 31 mines
will open, generating over 6,000 direct and indirect jobs. By
1998, 32 new mines are expected to open. All in all, Natural
Resources Canada predicts that over the next five years the
mining industry will create 15,000 direct jobs and 15,000
indirect jobs in Canada.
I am proud to be a part of this government's efforts to assist
the mining industry in creating these much needed jobs. I look
forward to continuing our work together.
* * *
MINING
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to welcome the representatives of the
mining industry to Keep Mining in Canada's third annual lobby
day.
Mining is the backbone of many communities in northern Ontario,
particularly in Timmins where it employs some 3,000 people.
Mining and metals exploration expenditures in Canada reached
almost $900 million in 1996. My riding of Timmins—James Bay has
paralleled this growth with expenditures rising to $43 million in
1996.
[Translation]
In 1995, the mines in my riding had a production value of $836
million. My riding's economy will benefit even further, with the
opening of two new mines, by Echo Bay Mines and Royal Oak Mines.
I am proud to be part of a government that is committed to
developing, with the mining industry, policies that will ensure the
economic growth of mining communities in northern Ontario and
across Canada.
* * *
1405
[English]
GORDON WRIGHT
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure today that I rise in this House to pay
tribute to a great Canadian, Mr. Gordon Wright, a resident in my
riding of Simcoe—Grey.
Mr. Wright has dedicated his life to the service of others,
whether it be serving our country during World War II, as an
educator for the past 50 years, or most recently leading the
charge for a multi-use facility with an educational component
focusing on diabetes. Mr. Wright realizes that educating people
and in particular our youth would be a huge step in countering
this rapidly growing debilitating disease.
If he were here, I am sure Mr. Banting himself would be honoured
by the dedication Mr. Wright has shown over the past six decades.
I urge all my colleagues to join Mr. Wright, the residents of
New Tecumseth and myself in trying to achieve this goal of
education. I salute a great Canadian, Mr. Gordon Wright, an
example to us all.
* * *
MINING
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today
is Keep Mining in Canada day. It is only fitting to remind this
government and especially the Minister of the Environment about
the contribution the mining sector has on the Canadian economy.
By this minister's remarks to the Canadian Electricity
Association, she is clearly making the coal industry an economic
casualty of the climate change program, even after this
government has been promising for months that its program would
not result in major economic loss to the Canadian economy.
Let me remind the minister that the coal mining sector in Canada
employs 73,000 people and generates over $5.8 billion annually to
the Canadian economy.
I hold out the same example she used in her speech, that of
Edmonton Power which has committed to achieve the Rio commitment
by the year 2000 without eliminating the use of coal in its
generation of electricity.
How are Canadians going to trust a government that engages in
this kind of doublespeak? It is time for this government to come
clean on the real costs.
* * *
[Translation]
JACQUES PARIZEAU
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
separatists are ashamed. They are ashamed of the words and deeds
of their members.
Their latest fabrication is that former FLQ member Raymond
Villeneuve is in the pay of the federalists. I say the separatists
should have the courage of conviction of their own. Their former
premier, Mr. Parizeau, is not at all embarrassed by his shameful
remarks to those he considers ethnic minorities.
To eliminate any confusion, I repeat one quote “I admire Mr.
Parizeau very much.
He is one of the most brilliant politicians of his generation, he
is an extraordinary man”. Those are the words of Lucien Bouchard.
I challenge all the members of the Bloc Quebecois, especially
the head of the PQ branch in Quebec City, to disclaim the remarks
of Jacques Parizeau and the actions of their friend Raymond
Villeneuve. If they do not, it means they agree with them.
* * *
APEC
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the summit of
the leaders of the 18 members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation
forum was held this week in Vancouver. APEC is a forum
for discussions focussing on freer trade.
APEC does not include representatives of civil society or
permit discussion of any controversial issue and defines itself
more as an association of economies rather than countries, thus
ensuring that its decisions are not subject to any control.
Furthermore, since 1989, APEC has not drafted a single economic or
political principle its members can claim to share.
We find it deplorable that the Canadian government has not
encouraged the leaders of APEC to examine rights and freedoms and
the progress of democracy.
On the other hand, the Bloc Quebecois recognizes and supports
the parallel people's summit, which dealt with the social aspect of
APEC countries' trade policies. It was a summit where real things
were discussed.
* * *
JACQUES PARIZEAU
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again
I have been insulted by the words of the former leader of the Parti
Quebecois, Jacques Parizeau. Despite the 39 years I have spent in
Quebec, I will never be considered a full-fledged Quebecker by the
separatists.
This country the PQ wants to create, is it one from which
everybody who is not an old stock Quebecker will be excluded? I
consider these words a personal attack on my children and myself,
as well as on all other Quebeckers of Greek origin.
[English]
When are the separatists going to realize once and for all that
we are neither pawns nor puppets led by one side or the other,
but full members of Quebec society with our opinions, which we
have the liberty to express in a democratic society.
1410
[Translation]
Another quote from Lucien Bouchard “I admire Mr. Parizeau very
much. He is one of the most brilliant politicians of his
generation, he is an extraordinary man”.
Will Mr. Bouchard and the leaders of the separatist movement
condemn these shameful words of their former leader, or will they,
by keeping quiet as usual, approve of Mr. Parizeau's intolerant
position?
* * *
[English]
THE LATE JUSTICE JOHN SOPINKA
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a great defender of individual
liberties and a man learned in law. I refer to the late Mr.
Justice John Sopinka of the Supreme Court of Canada who passed
away earlier this week.
John Sopinka was born in Broderick, Saskatchewan in 1933. From
humble roots he rose to become a leading Canadian civil
litigator. John Sopinka knew the importance of protecting our
civil liberties. After being appointed to the bench he became
one of the court's strongest defenders of the rights of the
individual.
John Sopinka was a leader in many ways. He was the first
Canadian of Ukrainian origin to be appointed to the supreme
court. He believed that Canadians of all backgrounds should
participate in the justice system but insisted that everyone,
especially himself, be judged on merit, not ethnicity.
On behalf of Canadians, I would like to extend our heartfelt
condolences to Mr. Sopinka's family. We have lost a great
Canadian and we mourn his passing.
* * *
[Translation]
JACQUES PARIZEAU
Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday Mr. Parizeau made a statement claiming that all
federalist Quebeckers were of ethnic origin.
I have a question to ask of the PQ and the Bloc today: When
will I qualify as a full-fledged Quebecker? As a black women from
a variety of ethnic backgrounds: aboriginal, French Canadian,
Metis, Belgian, born in Ville-Jacques-Cartier, I ask the leader of
the Bloc “when?”
It scarcely seems necessary to ask this of Mr. Bouchard, for
his opinion could not be any clearer, and I quote: “I admire Mr.
Parizeau very much. He is one of the most brilliant politicians of
his generation, he is an extraordinary man”.
When will the Bloc and the PQ stop throwing our non-French
ethnic origins in our faces, labelling us federalist Quebeckers?
When will they dissociate themselves from this type—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver East has the
floor.
* * *
[English]
APEC
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
was proud to attend the APEC people's summit held in Vancouver
from November 17 to 24 with my NDP colleagues, the member for
Burnaby—Douglas and the member for Winnipeg Centre.
This gathering of representatives of NGOs, labour, environment,
women and aboriginal peoples discussed critical concerns about
the impact of trade liberalization and globalized corporate
power. We heard powerful testimony about the terrible working
conditions and denial of basic human rights.
APEC's agenda of unrestricted corporate trade and control is
increasing the exploitation of people and the environment. The
right to food, shelter, a living wage, political and civil
liberties and protection of the environment must be our
priorities.
What comes out of the people's summit is a strong commitment to
a vision for action based on meeting our human needs and putting
people before profits.
* * *
JACQUES PARIZEAU
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Jacques Parizeau said yesterday that his money and ethnic votes
statement is not a claim, it is a statistic.
Statistics or not, we live in a country with freedom of
expression and with the right to feel that we are full citizens.
As citizens who have and do contribute to the well-being of our
city, province and country, we are entitled to our ethnic views,
our vote and our choice for a future in Canada.
Mr. Parizeau is not an ordinary citizen. He was the premier of
our province and as such had an obligation to include, with
respect, all citizens regardless of their perspective. His
xenophobia is unacceptable.
The same goes for Mr. Bouchard who stated that he is “a fervent
admirer of Mr. Parizeau and that he is one of the most brilliant
political figures of his generation, an extraordinary man”.
Sadly Mr. Bouchard is entitled to his narrow vision but it is not
the opinion shared by the majority of Quebeckers. We have the
right to our opinions, our choice for our future and that of our
families and our children.
Enough is enough, Mr. Parizeau and Mr. Bouchard.
* * *
DISABILITY PENSION
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I have a unique perspective returning to the House of Commons in
1997. After having served in 1988 to 1993, I had a little
vacation and then was invited back.
There are many changes that have occurred over that period but
the most frustrating and dramatic change is the change in Canada
pension disability. I now have constituents who have been on
waiting lists for years waiting for a hearing or an appeal,
people like Archie Black, Marjorie Newman or Mr. Reginald Bavis.
1415
Mr. Bavis has progressive multiple sclerosis. He is totally
disabled. He cannot work. He is still denied Canada pension
disability. Mr. Bavis worked all his life and now he needs a
little help. He has exhausted all his resources.
I will be providing the Minister of Human Resources Development
with a file about Mr. Bavis right now. I respectfully request
that the minister take this in hand and provide the assistance
that Mr. Bavis needs.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
KREVER INQUIRY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the tainted blood scandal is the worst public health
disaster in Canada's history. Thousands of innocent Canadians
have died or are dying in part because of the federal
government's inattention to public safety.
Today Canada's foremost expert on that tragedy, Justice Krever,
finally got the chance to tell Canadians the truth about Canada's
infected blood supply.
Will the government implement Krever's recommendations and
ensure that this tragedy never happens again?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House
intend to adhere to the embargo until 3 p.m.
Members on both sides of the House have been briefed on the
contents of Mr. Krever's report. I would hope that the hon.
Leader of the Opposition would do likewise.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I just asked for a commitment to implement the
recommendations.
The government has frustrated Justice Krever every step of the
way. It took his inquiry to court to try to censor what he could
write about. It deliberately withheld cabinet documents from an
earlier period from his inquiry. It publicly criticized and
insulted the inquiry and it refused to act on Krever's interim
recommendations.
After years of frustrating the Krever inquiry, will the
government make a commitment today to implement his
recommendations?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the hon.
gentleman's premises to his question. He will know, as I said a
while ago, that this document is under embargo. Surely he will
have the patience of his own critic for the next 45 minutes to
wait for the report.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Right to the last they frustrate it, Mr. Speaker.
Ordinary Canadians want to have faith in the blood system. The
trouble is that the government has gone ahead without listening
to Krever. The health minister started a new blood system that
contains many of the same components as the old system. Krever
was shut out of this transition team and consumer groups have
been shut out too.
How can Canadians feel secure that our national blood system is
safe again, given that the health minister may well be repeating
the mistakes of the past?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Again, Mr. Speaker, these are rather
gratuitous remarks made toward the Minister of Health and others
in the government.
If the hon. member across claims not to know the content of the
report, I do not know how he can make such frivolous accusations.
If he knows, I wish he would wait until three o'clock when the
report is released.
Our government is looking forward to the report. It will be
studied carefully. We intend to do our best to ensure that the
blood system in this country is one in which all Canadians have
full confidence.
* * *
SENATE OF CANADA
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last month when a Senate seat opened up in Alberta the
Prime Minister angrily refused to allow Albertans the choice for
who would represent them.
The premier of Alberta wanted an election, the Liberal leader in
Alberta wanted an election, the people of Alberta wanted a
senate election.
Why did the Prime Minister deliberately ignore the wishes of
Albertans by appointing another senator for Alberta?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister took seriously the various views
expressed, but he has a constitutional duty.
I expect that the Reform Party, interested in respect for the
law, should respect the Prime Minister for carrying out his
constitutional duties.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Albertans elected a senator in 1990, and it is not
against the constitution, which we have the right to do.
1420
We are sick of the Prime Minister appointing senators to an
unelected, unaccountable, undemocratic haven of patronage.
How much longer will the Prime Minister disrespect the expressed
wishes of Albertans?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the senator from Alberta is Thelma Chalifoux, an
innovative educator and pioneering activist in the field of
native housing. She is a leading member of the Canadian Metis
community.
If the hon. member says that he is sick of such appointments, he
and the Reform Party should be—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.
* * *
[Translation]
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
definitely the first time I see the senators generate so much
excitement.
We now know that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs endorses
the Reform Party's position, which urges Parliament to consult
Quebeckers regarding the Calgary declaration.
Are we to understand that the federal government has decided to go
over the head of the Quebec government and the National Assembly to
consult Quebeckers on its own?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
elected members from Quebec, we have a duty to consult our fellow
citizens, and we are doing so on an agreement that will enable us to
show that Quebeckers and other Canadians share the same values and want
to remain united in this country.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
is a polite way of saying that the federal government does not care
about Quebec's referendum acts.
By supporting the motion, is the federal government not also
supporting certain unusual consultation processes in the other
provinces? I am thinking of the 1-800 lines, the questionnaires, the
Internet, the fax machines, and all these other not so serious means.
Is this the type of phoney consultations the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs has in mind for Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the provincial premiers are doing a good job under the circumstances.
However, let me give you an example of a phoney consultation. I am
alluding to a referendum question to choose a country, in which
reference was made to a bill on the future of Quebec and to an agreement
signed on June 12. However, a poll conducted during the referendum
campaign showed that only 43% of Quebeckers knew which agreement was
referred to, only 10% knew which bill was referred to, while 43%
believed that Quebec could only become a sovereign nation after signing
a partnership agreement. This is an example of a phoney and fraudulent
consultation, and it will not happen again.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, fortunately
Quebeckers have much more judgement than the minister. They
understood what was at stake, even if he did not.
Other provinces have been so efficient at consulting their
citizens about the Calgary declaration that certain of them have
had to cancel consultation days. In Calgary itself, the people
questioned during a CBC broadcast said they had never heard of the
Calgary declaration.
So how can the minister talk about consulting the people of
Quebec when the very folks who signed the Calgary declaration are
not even able to carry out consultations properly?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, consultations are being held and they are going well, and
that is precisely what is annoying the Bloc Quebecois.
They would dearly love to see the consultations fail, but the
problem for them is that things are going well.
1425
But I repeat that the last referendum question was deceptive.
Try asking the question clearly “Do you want to abandon Canada and
separate?” and you will get such a clear answer from Quebeckers
that that will automatically mean the end of your movement.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, over 93%
of people voted, and I am certain they knew what they were doing,
even if he does not.
Many people are starting to call for amendments to the Calgary
declaration: First Nations, francophones in Ontario and in
Newfoundland, and even their new ally, the Reform Party, is jumping
on the bandwagon.
My question is therefore as follows: What exactly does the
minister want to consult the people of Quebec about, when support
for the Calgary declaration is eroding daily?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): No,
Mr. Speaker, it is not eroding. However, if ever the separatists
were to put a clear question to the people, they would see that the
majority of Quebeckers want to remain in Canada and want nothing to
do with their proposal, and that is where the erosion would be.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the
absence of the Minister of Health, I would like to direct my
question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Canadians are aghast that this Liberal government has severely
eroded its commitment to health protection through deregulation,
privatization and massive cuts.
A safe, secure national blood system requires exactly the
opposite approach, a strong regulatory framework and sufficient
financial resources.
Instead of more cuts, will the federal government back up its
earnest words with cold, hard cash?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I answered to a previous
question, this government is interested and wants a safe blood
system, one that will enjoy the confidence of all Canadians.
We are looking forward to Mr. Krever's report which will come
out in a little more than half an hour. I am sure the hon.
member will want to be fully aware of the contents of that report
and then, of course, we would welcome her questions on that
document once it is tabled.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I think
it is clear that all Canadians are going to be concerned about
the contents of the report but they want to know whether this
government is going to put its money where its mouth is.
A safe, secure blood system is a matter of life and death. This
government has a terrible history of slashing funds and cutting
services that protect the health of Canadians.
Will the federal government assure Canadians today that the
money will be there to ensure a safe, secure blood system for the
people of this country?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously this government
supports a safe blood system for all Canadians and one that will
enjoy the confidence of all Canadians.
We intend to do everything we can. I would urge the hon. member
to listen to the answer. That is what we intend to do for the
benefit of all Canadians.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the governor of the Bank of Canada increased the bank
rate 25 basis points, allegedly for the purpose of propping up
Canada's dollar.
The last time I looked this morning, the Canadian dollar was
either where it was or actually lower than it was before the
increase in interest rates.
Could the Minister of Finance explain to Canadians what it is
exactly that he is trying to accomplish? What is wrong with his
economic policies then if the dollar did not increase in value?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Conservative Party, having himself
been a member of a government, knows that the Minister of Finance
does not comment on the value of the dollar.
What he should also understand is that in fact interest rates
are a matter of inflationary expectations. What occurred the
last time the government raised the overnight rate is that
long-term rates came down. It is long-term rates upon which
investment decisions are made and upon which large consumer items
are purchased.
In fact, what the Bank of Canada is doing is very responsible.
[Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, in a
meeting between the Conseil du patronat du Québec and the federal
Liberal caucus, the Conseil complained that the government was
trying to increase interest rates when, as far as we can see, the
rate of inflation is fairly stable. They complained that this
policy was going to affect jobs.
[English]
I would like to know today why it is that the government is
pursuing policies, whether it is EI premiums, increases in CPP
premiums and now an increase in interest rates that are having a
damaging effect on the 1.4 million unemployed in Canada.
1430
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me simply say that 10 year bonds have been down 27
basis points in the last two months and 30 year bonds are down 39
basis points. In fact 30 year bonds are now at a record low as
are mortgages.
In terms of EI premiums, the minister of human resources
announced last week that they were cut from $2.90 to $2.70. When
we took office they were on their way to $3.30. As far as CPP
premiums are concerned, the reason the federal government—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Skeena.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a department
of Indian affairs internal spending analysis obtained by the
Reform Party is a catalogue of failure and a scathing indictment
of the government. Words like non-compliance, inadequate
documentation, double dipping, fraud and cooking the books are
rife throughout.
A section of the report reveals DIAND officials think 20% to 50%
of nearly $1 billion in aboriginal social assistance is not
accounted for.
How could the minister possibly explain this massive abuse when
so many are so badly in need?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, having travelled across the
country and spoken to first nations leaderships, having spoken
with the commissioners involved in the royal commission report on
aboriginal people and having received the report to which the
hon. member referred, there is nothing clearer in my mind than
the fact the social assistance program we have in place to
support aboriginal people needs modernization and change.
It is my commitment to work with first nations and aboriginal
people to do just that and to modernize the program. I would ask
the hon. member to work with me.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that dog
won't hunt.
In 1994 the auditor general said there was a problem and the
government said that it would deal with it. Now, three years
later, we find out that the problem not only still exists but is
worse.
When did the minister first become aware of this document? Have
her own departmental officials been stonewalling her?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already spoken out on
the need for change to social assistance for aboriginal people.
It is a program of great support for aboriginal people. Their
unemployment levels are at 40%, 50% and 60%. We need to
modernize the system to ensure that it is not a system of
dependency but a system that is proactive and empowers aboriginal
people to engage in economic development and the strategies that
will make their lives better.
* * *
[Translation]
OPTION CANADA
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
In the murky business of Option Canada, the minister can say all
she wants but, by refusing to tell us how the $4.8 million was spent,
she is putting herself above Quebec's referendum act.
Will the minister confirm that she is hiding the details of these
expenditures because she knows full well that such expenditures were in
violation of Quebec's referendum act?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): No, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: That is the most substantial answer she has
ever given.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister already admitted in this House that she was even prepared to
break the law to protect her country. Is that not precisely what she
did?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I never said that. Speaking of breaking the law, I think that,
with the tax scandal they are facing, if I were in the Bloc Quebecois or
the Parti Quebecois, I would not talk about people breaking the law.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Indian affairs minister talks about modernizing social
programs on reserves. She talks all the time about the
partnerships programs she is involved in, but I think there is a
problem with partnerships in her own department. In fact her
officials have not even clued her in to the surprise report she
found out about today.
I want the minister to stand in her place to tell us when she
learned about the report.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been reviewing the
recommendations of the royal commission. As the new minister I
have been coming to understand the roles and responsibilities of
my ministry. It is absolutely clear to me that changing and
modernizing the support we provide to aboriginal people must
occur.
In my view we could look to the provinces that have found new
and modern ways to provide social assistance, income support and
real training initiatives for Canadians. We must do the same for
our aboriginal people.
1435
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is just more rhetoric that has gone on for a generation about
the whole department. The question was when did she find out
about this report. That is very important to the modernizing and
partnership she talked about. The problem will not go away.
She cannot write more memos, commission more studies and look
into more committees on this issue. Canadians want to know when
we will ever be able to solve the problem on reserves. When did
she find out about this damning report of her own department?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would
care to look into things and really understand what is happening
in first nations communities, she would find indeed—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Important questions are being asked and
important answers are being given. I would ask all hon. members
to refrain from heckling so we can hear what is being said on
both sides.
Hon. Jane Stewart: My point is that there are other ways
of receiving information. It has become clear to me that first
nations are making changes to support their people and to provide
not only income support but new strategies for connecting
aboriginal people to the economic levers of the country.
We all have a role to play in that regard. I would ask the
opposition to consider that and join us in partnership.
* * *
[Translation]
DRUG PATENTS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Standing
Committee on Industry extensively reviewed the drug patents issue and
recommended in its April report that the 20-year life of patents remain
unchanged. However, we know that there are tensions within the cabinet
on this issue.
My question is directed to the Minister of Industry. Can the
government indicate if its position is the one taken by the Minister of
Health, who is in favour of easing the rules, or the one taken by the
Minister of Industry, who is comfortable with the 20-year period?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our
position is clear, it was discussed on a number of occasions in this
House. We will honour our international commitments, which means that we
must respect the 20-year patent protection period.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the
government give us the assurance that, whether or not the link
regulations are amended, the actual life of patents will not be affected
in any way?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr,
Speaker, this is a very important question. The issue with
respect to the regulations is simply to ensure the 20 year patent
protection period afforded not just pharmaceutical products but
all patents is neither more nor less than 20 years.
The industry committee heard evidence from some who said it
caused an extension of the period and from others who said it was
not effective in giving 20 year protection. Any changes we make
will be intended simply and clearly to ensure that 20 years is
it. No more, no less.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are not satisfied with the answer from the minister
of Indian affairs.
The department has received report after report on fiscal
mismanagement within the department but nothing happens. We want
to know precisely when the minister received this indictment of
her department so we can judge how long it has taken her to act.
When did she receive this report?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was the department that
commissioned this report in response to the auditor general's
requirements. We do not stop working while we are waiting for
reports. We understand we have a responsibility to make change
and do it effectively.
I ask hon. members to look at communities across the country
that are modernizing their approaches and providing new ways of
modern transparent governance to make life better for aboriginal
people. We all have a responsibility in this regard. I would
ask them to understand how things have been changing, to get on
the wave and to join us.
1440
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is ordinary aboriginal people we are thinking
about. These people have seen study after study after study to
take $6 billion from the top of that department—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southwest.
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, when did the minister
become aware of the report which is a damning indictment of her
ability to finance aboriginal social assistance?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me use an example. Maybe
this will help.
I travelled to the Alexander first nation which is north of
Edmonton in the member's community. There we have a new
relationship with the fiscal transfer. The leaders in that
community have changed their whole provision of social
assistance. Where they had 100 people receiving income support,
through modern strategies there are now only 11.
The changes are happening. We just have to speed them up,
modernize them and work together.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL HOUSING
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
It has already been two years since the federal government
announced its intention to withdraw from social housing and transfer
full responsibility for that area to the provinces, along with the
related budgets. Since then, negotiations with Quebec have been dragging
on.
Since Quebec is home to 29% of those living in inadequate housing
in Canada, and since it is far from getting its fair share of federal
funds, will the minister pledge to make up, once negotiations are
completed, for this traditional shortfall, which represents, for those
living in inadequate housing—
The Speaker: The Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is negotiating with all the
provinces and territories regarding the transfer of social housing, to
avoid duplication. Some provinces have already signed an agreement,
while others, including Quebec, which the member referred to, are still
negotiating.
We have to look at the global picture. The hon. member says Quebec
did not get its fair share. I can tell him that under the Residential
Rehabilitation Assistance Program, the RRAP, Quebec is getting over 32%.
* * *
[English]
MINING
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Today representatives of the mining industry from across Canada
have come to Ottawa to outline their current challenges. What
steps is the government taking to ensure an attractive investment
climate for the mining industry in this great country of ours?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, mining in Canada employs about 350,000 people. It is
the economic backbone of some 150 communities. It contributes
$24 billion to our economy and generates about $40 billion worth
of exports.
Government actions in support of mining in Canada include the
success we have had in shaving four points off interest rates and
the fact that we are supporting world class science and
technology, particularly in the field of geoscience.
We have made our commitments to federal regulatory streamlining.
We issued guidelines for greater certainty into the regulatory
process. The list goes on and we will continue in that vein.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have
heard from aboriginal people at the grassroots complaining about
the misdirection of funding. The minister would not even meet
with them.
When did the minister find out about this report? Either it was
kept from her against her knowledge, or she was aware of it and
did nothing. Which is it?
1445
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we received the report in
1996. As I point out, we have been working to modernize and make
changes in the area of social assistance. If the opposition
would look at the changes that are occurring community by
community, it would see the changes that have transpired.
I have been listening to the public as well and I would say that
this is what it is saying about Reform. You and your party have
had some success in creating only self-propelling stereotypes
that victimize aboriginal people as unable to practise acceptable
standards of conduct.
We believe it is the conduct of Reform MPs that should be
scrutinized—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Crowfoot.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are
asking this minister about the report that we understand was
dumped on her this morning, today, which she knew nothing about
until now.
Would she confirm to this House whether that is the truth? If
it is not, then set us straight here in this House. When did she
find out about that report?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this report has been in the
department. We have been working with it and have made changes
to respond to the auditor general. There is nothing new, there
is nothing exciting. What the report tells us is what first
nations chiefs and the royal commissioners have been telling us,
that indeed we do need to modernize social assistance, and we are
doing it.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, 12,000
Canadians suffer from hepatitis C. I want to remind members they
are innocent victims of the Canadian blood supply system.
The question is pretty straightforward. I want to know from the
government when it will announce a compensation package for these
innocent victims.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to other
colleagues a while ago and as the hon. member knows, a number of
people, including organizations representing hepatitis victims,
have testified before Justice Krever. We do not know yet whether
Justice Krever has—
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Hon. Don Boudria: If the hon. member from Edmonton can
hold on a minute, perhaps I could answer another hon. member who
deserves respect from this House.
The issue the hon. member raises is very important. We are
looking forward to that report and recommendations of Justice
Krever in that regard and with regard to the blood supply
generally and anything else—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Charlotte.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I cannot
believe that answer. They have been in power now going on five
years. They dilly-dallied on this issue four, five years.
Nothing to do with the Krever inquiry. They know they have a
problem. They do not want to deal with it.
The question is when are they going to deal with it. These are
innocent victims, 12,000 Canadians, who deserve an answer. They
deserve that answer now, not five years down the road, not ten
years, but now. When are they going to act?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the day this report is
tabled, the hon. member across pretends he cannot wait 15
minutes. He is using those victims for his own political ends. He
can wait 15 minutes and listen to the report.
* * *
[Translation]
WORKERS RECEIVING TIPS
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The Government of Quebec recently announced measures to collect tax
on the tips of restaurant and hotel workers. However, many people are
concerned about how tips will be assessed for employment insurance
purposes.
Could the minister tell us what the Government of Canada is
prepared to do to make sure that the workers concerned can benefit to
the maximum of the safety net provided by the employment insurance plan?
1450
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec advised us of its intention
to tax tips. We then met with restaurant owners to discuss the
situation.
The Minister of Finance and I have agreed to amend the employment
insurance legislation by January 1, 1998, to make tips reported on a
voluntary basis eligible and insurable under the employment insurance
plan, without the requirement to first remit 20% of the amount to one's
employer, which will make the life of restaurant owners easier. By
working together, we can work in the best interests of Quebeckers.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Earlier this week at the APEC summit the minister stated that to
avoid irrelevance, the APEC agenda must include human rights.
Will this minister explain why the prime minister then
knee-capped him yesterday by saying that the APEC agenda will
never include human rights? Will the minister ask the prime
minister to apologize to Canadians for his disgusting joke with
APEC leaders about UBC students who were pepper sprayed while
demonstrating for human rights in Indonesia, East Timor, China
and other APEC countries?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the run up to the APEC summit and during the
summit, the prime minister, the ministers there and the Canadian
delegation have been actively working toward an APEC that would
be ensuring that its economic decisions were accountable to those
who are affected by them.
It is important to note that the final declaration states “as
leaders we are accountable to safeguarding and improving economic
and social well-being, we commit ourselves to ensuring that APEC
remains responsive to our concerns”. It demonstrates that the
work of the prime minister and all the delegation has been very
useful in helping APEC evolve.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, one of the leaders who was laughing at the prime
minister's joke was genocidal President Suharto whose government
recently threatened Indonesian participants at the APEC people's
summit if they demonstrated against Suharto.
Did the prime minister raise this issue with Suharto, in between
jokes of course, and what steps is our government taking to
ensure the safety of Indonesians threatened by Suharto's
repressive regime?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we know that the hon. member has a very long history
of super exaggeration. I think he has demonstrated this in his
questions.
The fact is we have met continually with representatives of the
people's summit. I can report to the hon. member that we have
asked our embassy to make sure, regarding those Indonesian
nationals who attended the conference, of what happened when they
came back, and nothing has happened.
Once again we find the hon. member engaging in the highest form
of exaggeration and misinformation.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, quite
a while back there was a request from a certain judge in the
province of Alberta that there be an inquiry into the Stony
Reserve because of some major problems. This minister denied
there were any problems. She said they would take care of
themselves, she was not going to dirty anyone's laundry. At a
recent request she has said there are no problems. When I ask a
question in this House she says there is no problem.
Does that mean that she finally learned that there are problems
because she just received the report that we are talking about
today?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject every
ounce and every word in the hon. member's comments. He talks
about the need for an inquiry. That is one approach, to sit and
wait and listen to see if there is a problem.
What we did was take action and implement strategies that help
us deal with the past, the present and the future. This side
wants to act and get results. That side just wants to talk and
talk and talk.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
TELEVISION AND CABLE PRODUCTION FUND
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Having cut cultural funding by over half a billion dollars,
the government created the television and cable production fund,
which made it possible to produce high quality programs, and the
cultural community says it is very satisfied with that formula.
Can the minister make a promise to this House, and keep it,
that she will do everything possible to convince her finance
colleague to renew this fund for several years in order to allow
better planning in this sector?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would first of all like to thank all my hon. colleagues
in the House for their support of the television and cable
production fund. I can assure you that my colleague, the Minister
of Finance, is so interested that he has already promised that,
right after oral question period, he will meet with the group that
came today.
I thank the minister and I thank all members who supported us
in this initiative.
* * *
[English]
BANKS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today
it was the turn of the Bank of Nova Scotia to reveal record
profits, $1.5 billion, or an increase of 42% over last year,
which is beyond even its wildest expectations.
Profits are fine if they are reasonable, but gouging the
consumer is not fine.
I want to ask the minister whether he is willing to agree to a
Parliamentary inquiry into bank services charges. I want him to
throw away his script and answer the question. Yesterday he had
the wrong script in his hand. He did not answer the question.
Can he answer the question today?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is entirely
up to the industry committee if it wishes to look into this
issue.
We have the banks before the committee four times a year. It is
quite capable of running its affairs. I am sure if the member
were there he would be able to ask these questions.
Let me put a few facts on the table. Taxes for Canadian banks
are 64% of net income. In the U.S. they are 54%, in the U.K.
52%. For Canadian manufactures the taxes are 47% and for our
credit unions they are 45%.
We are the government that imposed the temporary surtax.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
at human resources development offices across the country people
who are going in to pick up their cheques are getting something
extra. They are being asked to sign a computer printout with the
names and cheque amounts of everyone else in their community
getting a cheque.
The privacy commissioner has already started an inquiry.
Will the minister put a stop to this practice immediately,
launch a full investigation and prosecute those responsible under
the Privacy Act?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as members know, there is a
postal strike in this country. As shown in the House today, the
opposition seems to be satisfied with the answers of my
colleagues.
Our department has set up 500 sites across the country where
people can collect their cheques. I will look into the
allegations of the member. We ask people to identify themselves
for security reasons. We need to protect the integrity of the
system.
I will look into the hon. member's allegation. We want to serve
Canadians well.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC'S CIVIL CODE
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government is in the process of harmonizing its legislation with
the provisions of Quebec's new Civil Code. Quebec is unique, not
just for its language and its culture, but also for its legal
tradition.
Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tell the House
what Quebeckers and Canadians can expect from this important
harmonization?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada has the tremendous good fortune to be a bilingual
country with both its languages international.
Canada is also a multicultural nation, giving us many
footholds throughout the world. Canada has access to Atlantic,
Pacific and Arctic civilizations. But Canada also has another
strength that we can turn to the advantage of all Canadians, and
that is Quebec's Civil Code, which makes us bijural.
In order to turn this to best account, the Government of
Canada will intensify the process of harmonizing federal
legislation with Quebec's Civil Code, a project without precedent
in the history—
The Speaker: The member for West Kootenay—Okanagan.
* * *
1500
[English]
CANADA POST
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in this secure building the Minister of Public Works,
who last August promised business he would act swiftly to
legislate posties back to work if they went out on strike, has a
guard posted at his office door.
I would like to know if that guard is there to protect him from
angry CUPW workers for promising to legislate them back to work
or to protect him from angry business owners for reneging on that
promise or to protect him from the Minister of Labour whom he
keeps contradicting.
The Speaker: The question is out of order.
My colleagues, that would bring to a close our question period
for today.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of some representatives from Canada's
film and television industry.
We see you on our television and movie screens telling us our
stories as Canadians, reflecting our values and playing out our
dreams.
[Translation]
We are proud of your work and of your cultural achievements.
Dear colleagues, I present our Canadian stars.
[English]
I think today will be a rather busy day. I have a point of
privilege. I received notice yesterday. I have at least one
point of order that I know of. I will handle these matters
before I get to the routine proceedings of the day.
The hon. member for Burlington.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
MEMBER FOR YELLOWHEAD
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of personal privilege.
My rights and those of several of my colleagues have been
violated by another member of this House of Commons.
On his instruction, the staff of the member of Parliament has
deliberately harassed my colleagues and myself, thereby
preventing me from doing my duties as a member of Parliament.
This is clearly an abuse of the facilities provided to all
members of Parliament to fulfil their responsibilities to
Canadians. There is no doubt that the staff member acted on
behalf of his employer, the member for Yorkton—Melville.
The staff member has boasted of disrupting a private dinner
comprised of duly elected members of this House, taking
photographs and behaving in a threatening manner for the sole
purpose of invading our privacy.
1505
His antics need no further description as they are well
documented in the Ottawa Sun. This is not a joke. It is a
very serious harassment that needs your attention.
The member's staff clearly meant to intimidate and frighten my
colleagues and myself. I must insist that this behaviour cannot
be tolerated as appropriate activities by those people who are
employed by us.
I believe I have a prima facie case of privilege, and if you so
rule, I am prepared to move the necessary motion to refer this
issue to the appropriate committee.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Burlington mentioned
specifically the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville. I am not
sure this is a question of privilege. I want to hear what he has
to say.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is the first I hear of this. I know nothing about
it. I think the member is obligated to give me some details
regarding what she is talking about. I know nothing about this.
The Speaker: I need a little more information. I address
the hon. member for Burlington. Could you identify for me, my
colleague, which if any, parliamentary procedure was
involved in this so-called intimidation?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I have the
wrong Mr. Breitkreuz. It is the member for Yellowhead.
An hon. member: Apologize.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: The part where I said I am sorry was
an apology.
The Speaker: Evidently, the hon. member in her statement
has misidentified one member of Parliament for another. She has
said from her seat that she apologizes, that in her statement she
was talking about the hon. member for Yellowhead.
I am going to let you say something but then I am going to come
back to this.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, when a member rises on
a question of privilege and accuses another member directly of
this, is there not some obligation to have her in fact at least
resemble something to the truth? I find this just abhorrent.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
An hon. member: Shame.
The Speaker: My colleagues, it is a question of privilege
of one of our colleagues here after all. We are all involved in
this, all of us.
May I please ask for your indulgence. I want to get more
information. I wonder if the hon. member would consider perhaps
approaching me in my Chambers to give me more information. I
will reserve judgment until I get more details.
I am going to go to a point of order.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
you called my colleague from West Kootenay—Okanagan out of
order. I think as a matter of information to my colleagues and
to the House, I would like you to explain to us what exactly the
order was where he was out of order.
The Speaker: It is not common practice for the Speaker of
the House to give his reasons for what he does to the House. You
have empowered me with this.
From what I could hear, the hon. member was talking about
security. I, as Speaker of the House, am responsible for
security in the House.
From what I could make out in the preamble, he was talking about
the security of the House. I ruled that to be out of order.
From my understanding, that is where it was going. I have to make
these decisions on pretty short notice. I stand by my decision.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1510
[Translation]
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to lay upon
the Table a Notice of Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax
Act and a related act, as well as explanatory notes on the
preliminary bill and regulations pertaining to the GST and HST.
I ask that you designate an Order of the Day for the
consideration of the motion.
* * *
BLOOD SYSTEM IN CANADA
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour today to table the final report by Mr. Justice
Krever, in three volumes, entitled “Commission of Inquiry on the
Blood System in Canada: Final Report”.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to 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 responses to three
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 13th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the changes
the committee recommends to Private Members' Business.
This report would not have been possible without the energy and
conviction of the members of the subcommittee on Private Members'
Business at the Procedure and House Affairs Committee in both the
present legislature and the 35th legislature.
I commend the work of the subcommittee and the committee members
on this and hope that all members of the House will appreciate
the complexity involved in proposing amendments on such a
process.
It is our hope that these changes will further strengthen the
role of private members in the House.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-290, an act to
amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (membership of Board of
Directors).
He said: Mr. Speaker, in this period of negotiations at Canada
Post Corporation, we may have an even greater awareness of the
necessity for the composition of the board of directors of the
Canada Post Corporation to require the creation of an advisory
committee to handle decisions of an administrative nature which
might be made by the corporation, particularly on questions
relating to rural post offices.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
PETITION ACT
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): moved for leave to introduce Bill C-291, an act to
provide for petitions presented to the House of Commons that have
250,000 or more signatures to be subsequently prepared as bills so
far as possible and introduced in the House.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill aims at ensuring greater
public involvement in decisions taken by Parliament and
satisfaction for a significant proportion of the population,
250,000 people, signing a petition expressing a desire for
legislation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
1515
[English]
PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS ACT, 1985
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.) moved for leave to introduce
Bill S-3, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act,
1985 and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions Act (Review Committee).
(Motions deemed adopted and bill read the first time)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to give notice of the following concurrence motion:
That the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs, presented on Wednesday, November 26, 1997, be
concurred in.
This is a notice of the motion to come.
* * *
PETITIONS
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have one petition today from Saint John, New Brunswick.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children
is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to society.
They also point out, as did the National Forum on Health, that
the Income Tax Act discriminates against families that choose to
provide care in the home to preschool children because it does
not recognize the real costs of raising those children.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon parliament to
pursue initiatives to eliminate the tax discrimination against
families that choose to provide care in the home for preschool
children.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to present a petition signed by 312 people from my
riding of Red Deer.
Parliament's recent amendments to the Criminal Code in response
to the Daviault and Seaboyer cases, as well as amendments to deal
with stalking and harassing conduct, reflect public policies
underlying the law which requires males to take responsibility
for their violent behaviour toward women.
Therefore the petitioners request that parliament review and
change relevant provisions of the Criminal Code to ensure that
individuals take responsibility for their violent behaviour
toward others.
I met with these people and certainly believe this law must be
changed.
The Speaker: I remind all members that it is not
necessary to support or not support petitions.
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition concerning pay equity. The petition has
been signed by several people from various communities in Nova
Scotia: Halifax, Dartmouth, Fall River, Beech Hill, Windsor
Junction, et cetera.
It points out that the Canadian Human Rights Act includes
provision to end pay discrimination against women by making equal
pay for work of equal value the law.
The petitioners call upon parliament to put an end to pay
discrimination by implementing the results of the joint study
through negotiations with the Public Service Alliance of Canada,
the union representing the workers that are grieving.
* * *
1520
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 16, 19, 27 and
28.
.[Text]
Mr. John Cummins:
With regard to the 1995 fishing season on the west coast: (a)
did all sport fishing lodges provide catch data directly to
Fisheries and Oceans as required by the Fisheries Act, (b) which
lodges refuse to directly provide the catch information, (c)
which lodges were charged for refusal to directly provide catch
information, (d) which charges were dropped or stayed and why and
(e) did the Minister of Fisheries or any member of his staff meet
with any officials or representatives of those lodges charged
prior to the dropping or staying of charges?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
(a) All sport fishing charter operators, which includes sport
fishing lodges, except the two indicated in part (b) below,
supplied the requested catch information to Department of
Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, either directly or through the Sports
Fish Institute.
(b) There were two sport fish charter operations which did not
provide the requested information to DFO either directly or
through the Sports Fish Institute. They were: Mr. George Ardley,
owner/operator of River Lodge, Rivers Inlet, B.C.; Oak Bay Marina
Ltd. which operates various sport fishing enterprises including
the King Salmon Lodge and the M.V. Marabell in the Rivers Inlet
area, B.C.
(c) Both sport fishing charter operations indicated above were
subsequently charged.
(d) The charges filed against Oak Bay Marina Ltd. were stayed.
These charges were for failure to provide DFO with information
requested by a fishery officer pursuant to section 61(4) of the
Fisheries Act, thereby committing an offence contrary to section
78(a) of the Fisheries Act.
The Department of Justice stayed the proceedings on the grounds
that evidence had come to the attention of the crown counsel
handling the case, after the charges were laid and before the
trial, that provided the company with a clear defence of
officially induced error to the charges.
Specifically, DFO had arranged that fishing lodges could provide
catch records to the Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia.
This arrangement was made to allow lodges to provide the
information to DFO if they preferred not to do so directly.
However, due to an administrative oversight in Oak Bay Marina
Ltd., two of their lodges were not informed of the arrangement
and they consequently refused to provide the data to fishery
officers. Furthermore, local fishery officers had not been
informed by DFO management about the arrangements which had been
put in place. In crown counsel's opinion the confusion provided a
defence of officially induced error.
After weighing all factors, Department of Justice officials in
Vancouver determined that it would not be appropriate to take up
needless court time in the circumstances. The circumstances were
discussed with Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials who
agreed with the course of action.
(e) Yes, on unrelated issues.
Mr. John Cummins:
With regard to the refusal of sport fishing lodges owned by the
Oak Bay Marine Group of Victoria, the M.V. Marabell and King
Salmon Resort, to provide the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
catch data during the summer of 1995 as required by Section 61 of
the Fisheries Act: (a) on what dates were verbal requests made
form the Fisheries charter vessel Hook Line 3 and what was the
response; (b) on what dates were verbal requests made from the
Fisheries charter vessel Francis M and what was the response; (c)
what was the date of the first boarding of the M.V. Marabell by
Fishery Officers to request the catch data and what was the
response from the lodge; (d) what was the date of the issue of a
letter to the M.V. Marabell requesting the catch data and what
was the response from the lodge; (e) what was the deadline
contained in the latter requesting the catch data from the M.V.
Marabell and was the deadline met by the lodge; (f) following the
expiry of the deadline what was the date of the second
boarding of the M.V. Marabell by Fisheries Officers and what was
the response form the lodge; (g) what was the date of the first
boarding of the King Salmon Resort by Fisheries Officers to
request catch data and what was the response: (h) what was the
date of the issue of a letter to the King Salmon Resort
requesting catch data and what
was the response; (i) what was the deadline contained in the
letter requesting the catch data from the King Salmon Resort and
was the deadline met; and (j) following the expiry of the
deadline, what was the date of the second boarding of the King
Salmon Resort by Fisheries Officers and what was the response
from the lodge?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
(a) The charter vessel Hook Line 3 made a verbal request of the
King Salmon Resort on July 29, 1995. The King Salmon Resort
refused to provide information. The Hook Line 3 made no verbal
requests of the M.V. Marabell.
(b) The charter vessel Francis Mr. made no verbal requests of
the King Salmon Resort or the M.V. Marabell.
(c) The first boarding of the M.V. Marabell by fishery
officers to request catch data was on August 1, 1995. The
operators refused to provide the requested information.
(d) The letter to the M.V. Marabell requesting catch
information was first served on August 1, 1995. There was no
specific response to this request.
(e) The deadline in the letter was that requested catch
information was to be provided by August 6, 1995. This deadline
was not met.
(f) The second boarding was on August 9, 1995. The captain of
the M.V. Marabell had been advised in writing by his empoyer
not to provide the catch data. However, catch information was
subsequently provided to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
through the Sport Fishing Institute by the end of November 1995.
(g) The first boarding of the King Salmon Resort by fishery
officers to request catch data was on August 2, 1995. The
operators refused to provide the requested information.
(h) The letter to the King Salmon Resort requesting catch
information was first served on August 2, 1995. There was no
specific response to this request.
(i) The deadline in the letter was that the information be
provided by August 6, 1995. This deadlime was not met.
(j) The second boarding of the King Salmon Resort was August
7, 1995. The captain of the vessel had been advised by his
employer not to supply the department with catch data. However,
catch information was subsequently provided to the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans through the Sport Fishing Institute by the
end of November 1995.
Mr. Rick Borotsik:
With regard to the Agriculture and Agri-food Canada “At Work in
Rural Commununities” resource kit, (a) what was the breakdown
of the exact cost of production and distribution; and (b) what
categories of people received a copy of the kit?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada, Lib.):
The resource kit, called Canada— At Work in Rural Communities
is a package of information about federal programs and services,
designed to help all members of Parliament and federal public
servants to better serve the information needs of rural
Canadians.
Canadians in small communities and rural areas do not have the
same access to information as Canadians in urban centres. The
kit is one part of a pan-government communications effort,
developed under the leadership of the rural secretariat in
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, to address this issue.
The kit represents the work of 14 federal departments and
agencies, and includes more than 100 fact sheets with program
details, contact numbers and Internet addresses. The fact sheets
are organized according to the government's priorities for rural
development: partnerships with rural communities, rural youth,
access to information and capital, and improving the business
environment.
There are two versions of the kit. One is a permanent binder,
sent to members of Parliament and senators, which can be updated.
The other is a cheaper Cerlox version, distributed to well over
1,300 frontline federal offices across Canada where rural
Canadians go for government information. That includes Community
Futures offices, Canada Business Service centres, Human Resource
Centres of Canada and other locations where the federal
government comes into direct contact with rural Canadians. An
Internet version is available on Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada's web site, and an electronic version, by end of the
season, will have travelled to 155 rural fairs across the country
as part of the 1997 rural exhibits program, which some 10 million
Canadians attend.
Total costs to develop, design and produce the kit in binder,
Cerlox, Internet and CD ROM versions were approximately $200,000.
The main contractor was Innovacom Marketing and Communication of
Hull, Quebec. It competed with two other design companies and
won the contract to create the rural “look”, used on the resource
kit, the rural Government of Canada kiosk and supporting
materials. The company also provided advice as to materials and
suppliers.
Distribution costs totalled about $5,800.
Mr. John Reynolds:
With regard to permits issued by
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, (a) how many were
issued for each of the years from 1993 to 1997 (to date); (b)
what constitutes a “compelling reason” for issuing such a permit;
(c) what is the most often cited reason for issuing such a
permit for each of the years 1993 to 1997 (to date); (d) does
the Minister personally review every case where a ministerial
permit has been issued; (e) who, other than the Minister, has
authority to issue such a permit; (f) what is the nature and
extent of background checks on those individuals who receive
permits; (g) how many ministerial permits have beem renewed at
their expiry date since 1993; (h) for what average period of
time have these renewals been extended; and (i) how many
individuals who have received such permits have been living in
Canada longer than ten years?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.):
a) The number of permits issued for each year from 1993 to 1996
is as follows:
Year>Number
1993>10,069
1994>7,263
1995>5,482
1996>4,007
The number of permits issued in 1997 will be reported to
Parliament by the minister as required by subsection 37(7) of the
Immigration Act.
b) All cases must meet this condition. The reasons that compel
the department to issue permits vary. Often the presence of the
permit recipient is required to help workers in Canada produce
goods and services, e.g. to deliver goods to a manufacturer or to
provide training. Hastening or allowing family reunification in
special circumstances, e.g. pregnancy of an immigrating spouse,
while continuing processing applications for immigrant visas or
landing is another typical reason. They are issued for
humanitarian and compassionate reasons in order to allow
individuals who would otherwise be inadmissible to enter Canada.
The department does not issue permits unless the risk to Canadian
society of the recipient's presence in Canada is minimal.
c) The most often cited prohibiting section of the Immigration
Act for permits issued in each year from 1993 to 1996 is A
19(2)(d). This section describes people who “cannot or do not
fulfil or comply with any of the conditions or requirements” of
immigration legislation or any orders or directions lawfully made
or given under the legislation. It is a very broad class of
inadmissibility. Permit holders in this class are not
inadmissible for any of the other reasons specified in section 19
of the Immigration Act, e.g. medical, criminal or security
reasons.
d) No, the minister does not personally review each case of
permit issuance.
e) The minister has delegated authority to issue permits to the
positions listed in Instrument I-1 attached. In cases of medical
or serious criminal inadmissibility there are restrictions on the
delegation of authority. These restrictions ensure permit
issuance is monitored by CIC's headquarters.
f) If the permit recipient applied for permanent residence, the
nature and extent of background checks are identical to those for
immigrant applicants, i.e., medical, security and criminality.
If permit recipients are seeking temporary entry and are
inadmissible for criminal acts, police records are checked. If
permit recipients are seeking temporary entry and are
inadmissible for medical reasons, they will have undergone a
medical examination.
g) 16,699 permits for 11,433 persons have expired and been
renewed since January 1, 1993. Of these permits only 3,781 were
still valid on October 28, 1997.
h) The average period of renewals since January 1, 1993 has been
72 weeks or 506 days.
i) Only 570 of the people whose permits have been renewed since
January 1, 1993 have been in Canada for longer than 10 years.
I-1
Delegation of authority under sections 37 of the Immigration Act
1. Pursuant to the provisions of section 121 of the Immigration
Act, I hereby authorize the following persons, and, in their
absence, the persons who act for them, to issue a written permit
authorizing any person to comme into or remain in Canada pursuant
to subsection 37(1) of the act. I also authorize these same
persons to extend or cancel a permit pursuant to subsection 37(4)
and to direct such a person to leave Canada pursuant to
subsection 37(5) of the Immigarion Act.
National Headquarters
Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations
Director General, Enforcement
Director General, Case Managment
Director, Security Review
Director, Organized Crime
Director, Case Review
Regions in Canada
Regional Executive Directors/Directors General
Directors General/Directors, Immigration
Area Managers
Managers, Branch Managers and Assistant Managers Canada
Immigration Centres
Mangers, Assistant Managers, Case Processing Centres
Operations Supervisors, Mississauga
B.C./Yukon Region
Managers: Inland Operations, Port of Entry Operations, Hearings
and Appeals
Overseas
Officers in charge of visa offices outside Canada
2. Pursuant to the provisions of section 121 of the Immigration
Act, I hereby authorize the following persons, and, in their
absence, the persons who act for them, to issue, pursuant to
subsection 37(1) of the act, a written permit authorizing the
following persons to come into or remain in Canada:
a) In the case of persons seeking to come into Canada, persons
who are members of the inadmissible class described in paragraph
19(2)(d) of the Immigration Act and of no other inadmissible
class;
b) In the case of persons in Canada, persons with respect to
whom a report has been or may be made under paragraph 27(2)(a) by
reason of the person being a member of the inadmissible class
described in paragraph 19(2)(d), or under paragraphs 27(2)(b) or
(e), and under no other provision of the Immigration Act.
I also authorize these same persons to extend, pursuant to
subsection 37(4) of the act, a permit issued to the said person.
Regions in Canada
Senior Immigration Examining Officers
Supervisors of Immigration Counsellors, Case Presenting Officers,
or Examining Officers, Enforcement Program Coordinator
Supervisors of CIC Operations, British Columbia/Yukon Territory
Region
Team Leaders, Case Processing Centres
Quebec Region
Expertise officers
3. Pursuant to the provisions of section 121 of the Immigration
Act, I hereby authorize the following persons, and, in their
absence, the persons who act for them, to make a removal order
pursuant to subsections 37(5) and (6) of the act.
National Headquarters
Deputy Minister
Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
CANADA POST
The Speaker: I am in receipt of a notice of motion under
Standing Order 52 for an emergency debate from the hon. member
for West Kootenay—Okanagan.
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise once again in accordance with Standing Orders
52(1) and 52(2) to seek leave for an emergency debate on the
question of the post office situation.
I made this application last Thursday. You ruled at that time
that it was a relatively new strike and it was not in your
opinion an emergency at that point in time but that perhaps later
it would be.
The strike has now been going on for a week. There does not
seem to be any guarantee, certainly, or even any realistic
likelihood that it is coming to an end. Therefore I think it is
appropriate to request your consideration again, not so we can
talk specifically about back to work legislation but so we can
get all the issues on the floor.
We are hearing conflictions about how much the strike is costing
business. We are hearing conflictions about how much
unemployment it is causing. We are even hearing conflictions
from various ministers on their position.
I would like all members of the House to put their concerns on
the floor and discuss them rationally to see what solutions we
can come to.
The Speaker: The hon. member rightly points out that
he has already asked for an emergency debate on this topic. He
was kind enough to send me a second letter with his reasons for
asking for an emergency debate at this time.
I am still of the view at this time that it does not meet the
requirements for an emergency debate.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
For my guidance so that I do not waste the time of the House or
yourself, could you tell me what would constitute an emergency
for this purpose?
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. member will put forth
another motion at some other time and at that time I will decide
if it constitutes reason for an emergency debate.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-2, an act to
establish the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and to amend
the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: There are 25 motions and
amendments standing on the notice paper for the report stage of
Bill C-2.
Motions Nos. 4, 6 and 7 are the same as amendments presented and
negatived in committee. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order
76.1(5), they have not been selected.
The other motions will be grouped for debate as follows:
Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1, 3, 5, 21, 23 and 24.
[Translation]
Group No. 2: Motion No. 2.
[English]
Group No. 3: Motion No. 8.
[Translation]
Group No. 4: Motion No. 9.
[English]
Group No. 5: Motions Nos. 10 and 12.
Group No. 6: Motions Nos. 11, 13 to 19 and 22.
1525
Group No. 7: Motions Nos. 20 and 25.
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
I shall now propose Motions. Nos. 1, 3, 5, 21, 23 and 24 to the
House.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been consultations among all parties and I believe you would
find unanimous consent for an order of the House that would deem
all amendments that have been found in order at the report stage
of Bill C-2 to have been read by the Chair and to have been duly
moved and seconded and to further provide that, when there is no
further debate, the amendments will be deemed to have been put
and a recorded division requested.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly, Motions Nos. 1, 3, 5,
21, 23 and 24 have been deemed to have been read, moved, seconded
and put to the House.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved:
That Bill
C-2, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 21 on page 4
the following:
“(3) The Governor in Council may appoint a panel of experts
to review the conflict of interest procedures established by the
board of directors under paragraph (2)(b) and to recommend
changes to those procedures.
(4) The Governor in Council may direct the board of
directors to adopt any of the recommendations of the panel of
experts and to ensure that any procedures adopted are made
available to the public.”
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC) moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 42, be amended by replacing lines 40 to
42 on page 21 with the following:
(1.1) If the board of directors decide to remove the auditor
before the auditor's five-year term ends, the board of directors
must notify the appropriate provincial Minister of each of the
participating provinces giving the reasons for the decision.
(1.2) The auditor may not be removed unless at least two
thirds of the participating provinces having in total not less
than two thirds of the population of all of the participating
provinces has agreed in writing to the removal.
(1.3) An auditor who resigns before the end of the five-year
term shall notify the board of directors, the Minister and the
appropriate Minister of each of the participating provinces
giving the reasons for the resignation and make those reasons
available to the public.
(1.4) Where the auditor has resigned or been removed, no
person or firm shall accept an appointment or consent to be
appointed as auditor until the person or firm has requested and
received from the other auditor a written statement of the
circumstances and reasons why the other auditor resigned or why,
in the other auditor's opinion, the other auditor was removed.
(1.5) Notwithstanding subsection (1.4), a person or firm may
accept an appointment or consent to be appointed as auditor if,
within fifteen days after a request under that subsection is
made, no reply from the other auditor is received.
(1.6) Unless subsection (1.5) applies, an appointment as
auditor is void if subsection (1.4) has not been complied with.”
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved:
That Bill
C-2, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing lines 10 and 11 on
page 25 with the following:
“47. (1) The Minister shall cause a special examination
to be carried out at least once every six years in respect of
the”
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved:
That Bill
C-2, in Clause 91, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 72
the following:
“(4) The Investment Board and its auditor shall provide
the Auditor General of Canada with any records, accounts,
statements or other information that in the opinion of the Auditor
General of Canada are necessary to audit the annual financial
statements of the Canada Pension Plan.”
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 94, be amended by replacing line
19 on page 74 with the following:
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved:
That
Bill C-2, in Clause 96, be amended by replacing lines 24 to 26 on
page 81 with the following:
“period in which the report is prepared;
(d) set out the manner in which that contribution rate was
calculated; and
(e) describe how the contribution rates presently set out under
this Act will affect the income level of future retirees as well
as their income share relative to the income of those working.”
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on a couple of
the motions I have presented under Group No. 1 before the House
at this time.
The first motion we are dealing with asks to establish a panel
of experts to review the conflict of interest procedures
established by the board of directors. We are talking about the
board of directors of the new investment fund that will be
established.
We believe it is very important that there be an independent
panel of experts which will help to set up a court of conflict
for the boards. The reason is that we want to make sure the
board is as independent as possible from the government. It
seems wise to have an independent panel of experts. It makes it
more independent from the government. It is fairer, more
transparent and something that should be done. I hope the
government across the way would be willing to consider it.
In committee a number of amendments were moved. On many of the
amendments in committee the four opposition parties were in
agreement but the government did not accept them. It has now had
a chance to think about another whole series of amendments. I
hope this time around it will be a bit more receptive to some of
the wise ideas coming from the opposition parties in the House.
The second amendment I am moving in Group No. 1 is Motion No.
24. This will establish a new reporting requirement by the chief
actuary in terms of how he or she reviews the Canada pension
plan.
Right now the actuary only focuses on costs. In the future the
actuary should focus as well on forecasting the income of
seniors. That has not been done. What will be the income of
seniors in 20 years or 30 years? That is a very important aspect
of the bill before us today. Those are the kinds of things I
believe should be done.
We support the idea of a pay as you go plan, but a number of
things in the new Canada pension plan bill are not fair and not
progressive. There have to be a number of changes to make the
plan more progressive. It is important to say that at the
beginning of the debate.
For the most part the Canada pension plan cannot be amended
without the support of two-thirds of provinces representing
two-thirds of the people of the country in addition to the
federal Parliament of Canada.
When the provinces were negotiating with the government a while
back, the federal government obtained the support of eight of the
ten provinces. The two provinces not in support of the
amendments being made to the Canada pension plan are the
provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia, both of which
have NDP governments.
I come from Saskatchewan and want to and do reflect, on behalf
of my party, a number of concerns of those two governments about
the amendments moved at committee stage and again here at report
stage.
Now we are finding that there is going to be a rapid escalation
in the premiums facing workers and employers of this country. In
fact over the next three years after this bill takes effect on
January 1 there will be an increase in premiums of some 73%. That
is a rapid escalation in premiums that will be very difficult to
meet by a number of people.
1530
It is particularly going to be difficult for the self-employed
and more and more people are self-employed. The self-employed
have to pay both sides of the premiums, the employer and employee
premiums. Instead of being the current 5.3% or 5.4%, in six
years they are going to have to pay 9.9% of their earnings in
terms of CPP benefits. That is going to be very difficult for
the self-employed and very difficult indeed in terms of many
workers who are receiving wages at the lower end of the scale.
We are also very concerned that the whole thing is not
progressive enough, that the basic yearly exemption of $3,500 is
no longer going to be indexed. From 1966 on, that exemption was
always indexed so that when the cost of living went up, the basic
exemption also went up, giving a bit of a break to low income
people. That is going to be eliminated and it is going to be a
hardship on a great number of people across this country.
On the other hand, the maximum on which one has to pay
contributions is going to be $35,800 per year. We are suggesting
that that should be increased as well so that people who are
making more money, such as members of Parliament, senators, the
Minister of Finance or many of the wealthier people in this
country can pay a greater share of those CPP benefits.
Again that was a suggestion made by two of the governments
during the round of negotiations on changes to the Canada pension
plan. It is another area which I believe we should look at.
The contributions are going up and they are going up in a very
regressive way. That regressive way is also going to hit
generationally as younger people, many of whom are not in the
workforce yet, are going to be paying more and more in order to
pay the CPP to people who are retired or who are going to retire
in the next five or ten years. That is also very unfair.
On the side of the benefits, on the side of the recipients we
are also seeing very regressive changes under the amendments to
the Canada pension plan. The benefits are going to drop. They
are going to drop in particular for low income people, the
majority of whom of course are women in this country.
We are also going to see a drop in the survivor's benefits. With
respect to the survivor's and death benefits, once again most of
those recipients are women because women live longer than men.
There are more widows than widowers. It is going to discriminate
against women in this country. That of course is a concern to us
as well.
Those are some of the concerns we have about the changes that
are being made to the Canada pension plan. We strongly believe
in a public pension system in this country. We do not believe as
the Reform Party is suggesting that we should privatize the whole
thing or abolish the existing Canada pension plan or the public
pension plan and move to a super RRSP plan.
If we do that, what do we do with the so-called unfunded
liability of $600 million that is going to increase to over $1
billion within a few short years? How do we do that? How do we
cover that? Those are questions that have not been answered
appropriately in terms of getting rid of the Canada pension plan,
in terms of a radical solution for the problem that is facing us
today.
The other thing that should be pointed out is that the Canada
pension plan is not strictly a pension plan. In fact it is
misnamed. It should really be the Canada pension and insurance
plan. A lot of the money, about one-third of it, is paid out for
insurance benefits. It is somewhere around that amount. When we
are looking at insurance benefits in terms of CPP disability,
which by the way will be harder to get under the amendments,
survivor's benefits, death benefits and all of these other
benefits are really insurance benefits.
If we were to privatize the Canada pension plan, what happens to
the insurance side of it? Those questions have not been
answered.
I do not think those are amendments that should be seriously
considered at all by the Parliament of Canada. The important
thing is to make sure that this country has a very strong public
pension plan.
1535
CPP in its first 30 years has been a great social program in
terms of helping to redistribute some income in Canada. If we
look at the statistics we find that the number of seniors who are
living in poverty is a lot lower today than it was in 1966 when
the Canada pension plan was first formed. Any regressive change
in the CPP in terms of who has to pay the premiums and who will
get the benefits is something which is not going in the right
direction.
On behalf of my party I have recommended a whole series of
amendments, two of them in this particular group, which will help
improve the Canada pension plan to make it more transparent, to
make it more accountable.
An independent group that would advise on the code of conduct is
something the government can certainly live with. It is not
going to detract in any way, shape or form from the Canada
pension plan to have an independent group to advise on how to set
up the code of conduct and look at conflict of interest rules for
the board of directors of this new investment fund.
The new investment fund is going to be a big fund. It will
eventually be over $100 billion, perhaps the largest investment
fund or largest pension fund in this country in a few short
years. It is important that there be very stringent, very
transparent conflict of interest rules. Some of the people who
will be investing in that fund will be involved in other
investment organizations. It is very important that they be at
arm's length from any kind of conflict of interest.
Those are some of the reasons why I am moving these amendments.
I hope the government will be receptive to some of these
amendments. I am reminded that the government across the way had
the vote of only 38% of the people so the majority is actually on
this side. Therefore, the government should take some of our
advice very seriously.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
motion I moved that is currently under study concerns the mandate
of the auditor of the investment board.
We in the Progressive Conservative Party are very concerned
about the problems this issue raises, because the Canada pension
plan investment board will have huge responsibilities and power.
It will oversee the billions of dollars invested by Canadian
employers and employees. It will be playing with the financial
future of thousands and thousands of Canadians.
Transparency and accountability are therefore of the utmost
importance if we want to ensure this sizeable fund is well managed.
This is why we wanted to clarify the provisions of clause 42
of Bill C-2.
[English]
We first start our amendments to clause 42 by extending the
auditor's term from one year as it presently stands in the bill
to five years. The one year term set out in Bill C-2 is too
short a term to allow for continuity. With such an important
fund it does not make sense to allow the possibility to change
auditors every year. It does not make for sound administrative
practices. We want to make sure the funds will be properly
managed and allowing the auditor to have a five year term will
help in achieving that goal.
The second amendment we would make on clause 42 is to stipulate
that removing the auditor can only be done with just cause. As
it stands now, clause 42 says that the auditor of the board may
be removed at any time by the board of directors. This is
clearly insufficient.
[Translation]
This provision clearly needs clarification because, as it stands
now, it would allow the auditor of the board to be removed at any time,
without just cause and without anyone having to account to anyone as to
the reasons for doing so.
Such vagueness, such discretion invites abuse of power on the part
of the board of directors, and that cannot be permitted.
[English]
What we propose is that the board of directors may remove the
auditor at any time. However they must do so with cause and
those causes must be made public.
In our amendments, disclosure provisions start in subsection
1.1. It stipulates that if the board decides to remove the
auditor it must notify the appropriate provincial minister of
each of the participating provinces of that removal. The board
must also provide the provincial ministers with a reason for that
removal.
1540
It is important to note here that the provinces are an important
and integral part of the Canada pension plan. Yet under the
current bill they need not be made aware of such an important
issue as the reason to remove the auditor or even the removal
itself.
It is true that under clause 43 provinces are informed of the
resignation or removal of the auditor. However this is only when
the auditor herself objects to her removal or has to resign
because of differences with the board. The provinces are
therefore made aware of a done deed and they have no power to
change anything.
That is why we went one step further in our amendments. In
subsection 1.2 of our amendments we indicate that the auditor may
not be removed unless at least two-thirds of the provinces
representing two-thirds of the population agree in writing to
that removal.
I hope that my colleagues understand and acknowledge that
corporate auditors such as will be the auditor for the CPP board
are there to protect shareholders, not the board of directors.
The same principle ought to be applied to the Canada pension plan
investment board. Furthermore, the protection of shareholders is
a recognized principle in Canadian law.
Our amendments reflect this widely used principle such as is
found in section 344 of the Insurance Companies Act which
requires shareholders to be told the reasons for the auditor's
dismissal and to vote on that dismissal. In our case, the
provinces stand in as proxies for the shareholders with the
standard two-thirds rule replacing the shareholders meeting.
Similar rules are part of the Bank Act of Canada, the Canada
Business Corporations Act and the Trust Companies Act.
In subsection 1.2 I explained the process to be used in case an
auditor is removed by the board. Subsection 1.3 explains the
process to occur when an auditor resigns. In this case our
amendment would require that the auditor notify not only the
board of directors of a resignation, but also must notify the
minister and the appropriate minister of each of the
participating provinces. Notably the auditor would also be
required to provide the reasons for the resignation and the
auditor must make those reasons available to the public.
This is again common practice in a corporate world and those
principles should be applied to the Canada pension plan
investment board.
[Translation]
To ensure full disclosure of the circumstances of the removal or
resignation of an auditor, we provided for the requirement for any new
auditor to obtain a written statement from the outgoing auditor. This
statement would state the circumstances and reasons of the resignation
or removal.
It is important to note here that something is missing in French
version of subsection (1.4), as compared to the English version. On the
third line, we should read “d'avoir demandé et obtenu” instead of just
“d'avoir obtenu”.
This would reflect the English wording “has requested and
received”.
This is an omission that has an effect on subsections (1.5) and (1.6).
Now getting back to the relevance of subsection (1.4), as I
explained earlier, there are practices in the corporate world that
should be applied to the operation and management of the Canada pension
plan investment board.
It is a matter of transparency and accountability. We want to
ensure that the funds entrusted to the investment board will be managed
properly and that reputable administrative practices are used.
By providing that the incoming auditor must ask the other auditor
why he or she resigned or was removed, we are echoing a provision of
section 345 of the Insurance Companies Act.
It is so important that the new auditor comply with this
requirement that he or she cannot accept this appointment without first
having received the written statement of the circumstances and reasons
behind the other auditor's resignation or removal.
1545
In clause (1.5), we make an exception to clause (1.4). If the new
auditor did indeed request a written statement from the former auditor,
but that the latter did not provide a reply within 15 days, the new
auditor may nevertheless accept his appointment as auditor. This would
avoid having too long a period without an audit being conducted.
In clause (1.6), we reiterate that an appointment as auditor is
void if clause (1.4) has not been complied with. For example, if a
person accepts an appointment as auditor without having requested a
written statement from the former auditor, the appointment will be void.
To conclude, this explains the amendments provided in Motion No. 3
now before the House.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my comments, these clarifications to
clause 42 of Bill C-2 have to do with the mandate of the auditor of the
investment board. Our amendments help ensure the board's transparency
and limit the powers of the board of directors, for the benefit of
Canadians as shareholders of the fund.
I urge all hon. members to support the motion.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the name of my riding is quite appropriate today since I
have a bad cold. That is another story.
Today begins a very gripping debate on proposed amendments to
Bill C-2. Those Canadians who watch the proceedings of this
House will probably want to be reminded that Bill C-2 deals with
the proposed changes by the government to the Canada pension
plan.
This stage of the proceedings is called report stage where the
bill is reported to the House. Amendments are proposed to the
bill for the House to vote on. Then the bill goes into third
reading or final debate stage before it is voted on.
These are amendments now that we are talking about today to the
CPP bill. There are six groups of amendments and we are now
discussing Group No. 1.
Group No. 1 has six different amendments in it. I assume they
are all grouped together because they deal with accountability.
Under this bill there is a big fund of money set up and it is
managed by people who will be talked about later.
This group of amendments talks about how the fund managers need
to report and account for their actions. There were six
amendments put forward to deal with this. These were not the
only amendments to deal with the way the fund managers operate
and are accountable.
There were quite a number of amendments, as the previous speaker
mentioned, put forward at the committee stage. All those were
voted down by the Liberal majority even though, as has been said,
the opposition was, in a rare show of good sense, unanimous in
supporting the amendments which would have made the account and
its management a great deal more open and transparent.
Considering that they have in their hot little hands a large
chunk of our retirement security, one would think that the more
we can do to make this thing open and accountable and
transparent, we would be eager, willing and prepared to do that.
Unfortunately there does seem to be some reluctance on the part
of some members from the government to do that.
Let me talk briefly about the six amendments that have been put
forward because I support all but one of them, just so the public
knows what the opposition and the government are proposing to
make this fund a little more accountable.
The first motion is the one that has been spoken about by my
colleague from the NDP. Essentially what that does is say that
the cabinet can set up a panel of experts to review the conflict
of interest procedures which the directors, the board that
manages this fund, put into place.
1550
In a sense the cabinet appoints the fund managers and this
amendment says the cabinet can appoint some experts to breath
down the necks of the fund managers. In a way it is political
appointees looking over the shoulder of other political
appointees.
I suppose we could wish there were a bit more arm's length
arrangement to all this. However, it is a step in the right
direction. At least somebody, even if a political appointee, is
going to look over the shoulders of these board managers and it
seems to me that gives us at least another kind of avenue of
comfort to know that somebody has some review mechanism or review
responsibility for these conflict of interest procedures.
We certainly do not want these conflict of interest procedures
to be like the cabinet conflict of interest procedures we heard
much about but have never seen. There seems to be this sort of
talk about conflict of interest procedures but nobody sees them,
nobody really seems to be able to make sure they are followed.
It would be very useful, at least in this case, to move in that
direction.
So we do support that amendment by the NDP.
The next amendment is one by my colleague from the PC party. We
have just heard about this, so I will not go on at any length.
Instead of an auditor being appointed every year, year by year,
it gives the auditor a term of five years.
There are two important things here. One is of course that the
auditor has some staying power in this whole scheme of things.
There is no revolving door of auditors where someone comes in
cold. This is a huge fund. It manages literally billions of
dollars and it does take some knowledge and expertise to do a
proper audit.
So rather than having a possible revolving door of auditors,
there is somebody who has a grip on the thing and some stability
and some tenure and who can look after it. As the proposer of the
amendment mentioned, if the auditor were not doing their job,
they could certainly be booted out the door before five years,
but there would be some good reason to do so.
The other thing to mention is that this five year term,
generally speaking, would outlive a government, so to speak. We
would not have quite so much of the auditing of the thing tied to
whomever is in power at a particular time. I think this is an
excellent amendment and should be supported.
The third amendment is by the government. I do not know if the
government intends to speak to it. It is a good amendment.
The act presently provides that a special examination of the
operations of the board may be carried out at least once every
six years. In other words, there may be no special examination
at all. This amendment changes “may” to “shall” so there has
to be a special examination at least once every six years. Again,
it is a step in the right direction. This is our retirement at
stake. To mandate a special examination on top of some of the
other accountability measures surely would not be amiss. So we
support that.
The government is also bringing in what I call the amendment
from the hon. member from Prince George—Bulkley Valley because
that member of the Reform Party challenged the finance minister
in question period on the fact that the auditor general was not
the entity or the person with the audit responsibility for this
huge fund.
It seems strange to us that Parliament appoints an auditor
general to oversee the operations of government but somehow this
huge fund of billions of dollars had its own auditor whom the
board, appointed by the cabinet, chose. We feel very strongly
that the auditor general should have every ability and every bit
of information necessary to conduct his own audit of this fund,
and this amendment would allow that.
We commend the government on this amendment. In fact, it is the
very first time it has agreed to such a measure, because in
committee it turned all these kinds of measures down.
1555
However, now that the auditor general has had a word with it, the
government has recognized that it cannot have an auditor general
of a country and have an aspect of the operations of government,
particularly such a large aspect, not explicitly subject to his
operations.
With respect to the motion I have introduced, it would require
that the schedule of rates charged under the CPP, the
contribution levels, not be changed except after reasonable
public hearings. Presently the act says it can be changed by
cabinet. We say no. If people are going to have to pay more
bucks they should at least get to say something about it. We say
there would have to be public hearings before changes are made.
I would like to have said a few passionate words about Motion
No. 24, but unfortunately I do not have time. However, the
motion has been ably spoken to by the NDP member and I will leave
it at that.
I believe these are good amendments and I hope they will be
supported by the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at the report
stage of Bill C-2, which creates Canada pension plan investment
board and which carries out an in-depth reform of the Canada
pension plan.
It is important, I think, to begin with a brief overview of
the key elements which led up to the drafting of this bill. The
first point I would like to speak to is that the Canada pension
plan had got pretty well out of date and no longer really met the
needs. It was headed toward an incredible deficit. It was
absolutely vital for a decision to be taken in order to remedy the
situation.
I am rather proud that they turned to Quebec in order to see
what had been done with the Quebec pension plan. An equivalent
pension plan was created in 1964, in the early sixties, during the
term of Prime Minister Pearson whose view of federalism allowed
Quebeckers the leeway to create institutions specific to them if
they so wished. They did so in the area of pensions with the
creation of the Quebec pension plan which, moreover, has always
performed better than the Canada pension plan.
At the same time, the decision was made to manage pension
funds and other funds, but particularly the pension funds, by
creating the Caisse de dépôt et placement. Some 30 years later,
along comes the federal government with the decision to create a
similar body so as to have a satisfactory yield from the
investments made.
The bill to create the Canada pension plan investment board
is, therefore, a sort of practical and concrete acknowledgement of
the efforts that have been made in Quebec. There might be a lesson
to be learned here by the present government on the leeway that
should be given to Quebec on the issue of social programs, and
perhaps in another three, four or five years, before Quebec becomes
sovereign, we will have been able to make a contribution to the
implementation of other still more satisfying programs.
Today, at report stage, we need to look particularly at a
number of amendments made by various parties. We have to see
whether they would improve the act. I refer particularly to Motion
No. 5, the one tabled by the government, which says that, when the
auditor general needs to make a special audit, the government is
committed to a special audit every six years. I think this is an
outcome of the work done in committee.
It is an amendment proposed by one of the opposition parties. It
was not accepted at first reading, but the government agreed to dig
a little deeper. Today we have this motion, which, like Motion No.
21, will ensure better distribution of information. Thus these
motions may be interesting.
The same is true of the NDP motion on conflict of interest.
I think, with the size of the amounts managed by the Canada pension
plan investment board and by the whole new Canada pension plan, it
is clear that conflicts of interest must be prevented and that
everything will be done legally and appear to be done legally.
The Conservatives have also tabled an amendment. It aims at
ensuring increased autonomy for the auditor general.
1600
We must look in greater detail; we must analyze it properly to
ensure it is not already included in other provisions of the bill.
The first group of amendments therefore contains a series of
clauses intended to improve the bill, according to how you look at
them. This leads us to the realization that the bill will achieve
a certain consensus across Canada.
Unfortunately, the Reform Party has a whole other view, that
of privatizing the entire pension plan.
I think this view is not in tune with our values of social justice.
In this regard, I think that the Reform Party should listen to the
public some more to make sure its position is the right one.
I would like to point out that the Canada pension plan covers
some 12,000 people in Quebec. The others are covered by the
pension plan of Quebec, which has already carried out a
consultation similar to that being done by the Government of
Canada. The two plans have certain identical elements. This is
relevant, because it makes it possible to transfer the plans of
people who have worked in Ontario or another anglophone province to
Quebec, should they move there. To a certain extent, this is
automatic, which is useful.
It also allows members of the Canadian armed forces and the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police to be covered under the Canada pension plan.
This is a practice that has caused problems in the past. It shows that,
as far as Quebeckers are concerned, the main pension plan is the Quebec
pension plan. It is the plan under which almost everyone is covered. For
the 12,000 individuals involved, it may be important, but on the whole,
Quebeckers are much more interested in the Quebec pension plan.
I would also like to bring to the attention of the House the fact
that these amendments to the Canada pension plan come within the scope
of a more comprehensive reform of the retirement income system, which
includes the Canada pension plan, or the Quebec pension plan in Quebec,
and old age security and guaranteed income supplement.
In this regard, the Bloc Quebecois has very serious concerns about
what the existing pension plan will be replaced with. Just as people
currently covered by this plan, who are already receiving benefits under
the plan, are assured that existing conditions will be maintained, so
will those currently receiving what is commonly known as old age
pensions.
Under the plan to be established, on which broad consultation
should be conducted, starting in 1998, it will be important that both
young people and those in their forties have an opportunity to select a
pension plan with full knowledge of the facts and that a plan that does
not provide for intergenerational balance, which is one of the
objectives of the pension plan currently being considered, not be
imposed on them.
This is an element that can be found in Bill C-2, the Canada
pension plan bill, and this principle is also included in the Quebec
pension plan reform. Efforts are made to create a better
intergenerational balance, by increasing premiums now so that everyone
can contribute as much as possible toward what they will be getting out
of the system later. This way, there is no surprise and younger
generations will not have to pay disproportionately for retirees who
contributed less in the past, percentage-wise. This applies to baby
boomers in particular.
There are interesting adjustments in this regard in the bill. There
are the amendments that we find in the first group.
These are interesting features that will make it possible to
improve the legislation, after the stages we have seen so far, that
is, consultation in all provinces, recommendations resulting from
this consultation, and the work in committee, where we heard from
groups who came to make representations along the lines of what is
contained in a number of amendments.
I think that it is important not only that the Canada pension
plan be more effective than in the past, that it match the
effectiveness of the Quebec pension plan, but that there also be an
appearance of fairness, and amendments such as that of the NDP, for
instance, to ensure better management of conflict of interest.
1605
I think this is important and interesting because the system
introduced will be in place for many years. There has been no
reform of the Canada pension plan since it was first introduced.
We are therefore looking at a system that will have to work for 10,
20 or 30 years. We must make sure that the bill will be the best
possible.
I hope the government will give it the necessary attention,
because opposition parties have taken a constructive approach so as
to ensure it is the best bill possible. This is what we want to
continue to do with the suggestions made today.
I urge the government to pay attention to the votable motions
among the group of amendments so that, in 10, 15, or 20 years, the
system is successful and so that people can be as proud in Canada,
whatever it looks like then, of the results achieved as we are of
the Quebec pension plan. In any event, compared to the CPP, the
QPP has done well, and the federal government has recognized this,
judging by what we see in the bill.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we
restate again today at report stage of Bill C-2, which is
amendments to the Canada pension plan, that Canadians from all
walks of life want assurances that the CPP will really be there
when they need it and when they retire. They want assurances
that it will never be taken away from them.
I think these are legitimate aspirations that everyone from all
sides of the House shares. What we are doing is of course making
sure that the financial sustainability will never again be at
risk, that in fact the CPP funds will be invested in the same way
as the private pension plans and that Canadians start to receive
regular statements of their pension and earnings.
Specifically on the motions in Group No. 1, Motion No. 1 in
particular talks about the conflict of interest procedures. I
think it is important to note that the board's conflict of
interest procedures will be made public and that will be subject
to scrutiny not only of experts, but also the public at large.
The conflict of interest provisions contained in the legislation
are widely regarded by experts to be quite stringent.
I want to make a point of clarification. The first speaker as
we kicked off the debate today at report stage made a point that
the investment board was not independent. I want to state again
that that is not true. It is an arm's length board.
The board will be working for the best interests of the plan
members. In fact the whole basis of establishing this board is
to ensure that it is an arm's length board and that there is
accountability built into that board.
There was the comment about how women were being treated
unfairly. It is important that we make reference to the gender
analysis that was put forward that showed that in fact women
would receive $2.56 of benefits for every dollar of contribution.
Motion No. 3 talks about appointing the auditor for a five-year
term. I think it is also important that we make the point that
it is standard corporate practice to appoint an auditor for one
year, but nothing is preventing the board from reappointing that
auditor for subsequent terms.
In the case of resignation or removal of the board's auditor,
the act already requires that a statement explaining the reasons
for the resignation or removal be sent to the finance minister
and the finance ministers of participating provinces.
There has to be a reason for the resignation or removal by the
board and that provides the accountability and the transparency.
Again, I want to reiterate that the board is an arm's length
corporation.
I want to make reference now to the two proposed amendments that
the government has put forward, the first of which will in fact
clarify that the auditor general will have access to all the
information that he considers necessary to conduct his overall
audits of the CPP. On the basis of this change, the auditor
general has indicated that he is satisfied with the audit
provisions of Bill C-2 and has written to the finance committee
chair to this effect.
The second amendment will require that the CPP investment board
be subject to special examination at least once every six years.
Bill C-2 currently provides for special examinations but it does
not specify the fact of minimum frequency.
1610
I want to restate that these amendments are a result of the
committee work and the contributions that the various members of
the committee have made in the discussion on Bill C-2. The fact
that we are moving to put a timeframe on the special examination
once every six years is a slight change from the original motion
that was put forward in committee.
That change is there to coincide with the review that is to take
place every three years. The auditor general would have to
perform a special examination on the second triennial review so
if there were any challenges to the plan, the Minister of Finance
would be able to address them at that time.
I have some additional information about the board and its
accountability since there has been a fair amount of discussion
in this first part of the debate on Group No. 1 on the
accountability to Parliament and to Canadians.
The legislation makes the investment board fully accountable to
Parliament and to the Canadian public. Experts in pension fund
governance have praised the accountability provisions of Bill C-2
for being extremely rigorous. The Ministers of Finance and Human
Resources Development will be required to prepare an annual
report on the CPP which will be tabled in Parliament and also
sent to the provincial finance ministers. The report will
include the audited financial statements of the CPP investment
board as well as the report of the auditor general in those
statements in his overall audit of the CPP.
The amendment we have made clarifies a provision that was
included in the bill already. It merely clarifies for the House
that the auditor general would have had access to any and all
information that would be required to complete his audit of the
consolidated financial statements of the Canada pension plan.
We have responded to the issues that a number of members of this
House have made with respect to the auditor general's access to
information by bringing forward these two amendments. These
amendments also address the request for the auditor general to
conduct these special examinations over a period of time. We
have indicated that every six years would be suitable since at
the second review of the plan the finance minister would be able
to address any issues of concern.
The board will keep Canadians well informed of its investment
activities. It is important for us to tell Canadians that the
board will be managing this large pool of money in a very
transparent fashion. Canadians will be fully aware of this. The
board will make Canadians well aware of its investment activities
by making its investment policy standards and procedures public,
releasing quarterly financial statements, publishing annual
reports and the board's members will be holding regular meetings
in each province to allow for public discussion and input with
respect to their work as members of the investment board.
I will comment briefly on the last motion which is related to
Motion No. 23. It requires that any changes to contribution
rates resulting from the three yearly reviews by the federal and
provincial governments be subject to public consultation by the
finance committee. The finance minister has stated over and over
again that any major changes to the Canada pension plan in the
future will be subject to consultation with Canadians and that
all changes to contributions require the consent of two-thirds of
the provinces and two-thirds of the population.
Any changes large enough to require legislation would always be
referred to an appropriate committee of the House for review as a
matter of course.
1615
Therefore there really is no need for this proposed motion. The
process is already in place. It is a standard process and one
that the Minister of Finance is on record as stating he asked
for.
With respect to the motions which were put forward in the first
grouping, I want to say that certainly every member of this House
is committed to ensuring there is financial sustainability in the
Canada pension plan. The changes to Bill C-2 are responding to
the public consultations which took place over a period of time.
Canadians had an opportunity for input and to talk about what
they would like to do and would like to see happen with respect
to the Canada pension plan. The message was overwhelmingly that
they wanted to have the Canada pension plan sustainable, safe and
in place for them in retirement. The changes in the amendments
being put forward in Bill C-2 speak to those concerns of
Canadians.
I look forward to the speedy passage of this bill so we can
continue to do our work in ensuring that we reflect the
priorities of Canadians as we move forward.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the parliamentary secretary has thoroughly covered the report
stage motions in Group No. 1. I would like to add a couple of
notes for the benefit of all members.
As members know, the chief actuary in his 15th report, his last
report, let it be known that the Canada pension plan would not be
sustainable past the year 2015 unless certain changes were made.
That is one of the reasons we are here today.
As a result of that report and as a result of the prescribed
reviews of the Canada pension plan, discussion documents were
prepared. Extensive cross Canada consultations were held with
all vested interests, with seniors, women, labour, corporations
and everyone who wanted to appear before the panel, who sought
input into changes or options that could be made with regard to
the Canada pension plan.
Canadians should be assured that these changes which have come
before the House on Bill C-2 are as a result of exhaustive
consultation with Canadians across Canada.
By law any change to the Canada pension plan requires the
approval of at least two-thirds of the provinces representing not
less than two-thirds of the population of the country. All of
the proposed changes which are coming forward in Bill C-2 have
received the requisite support from the provinces. Canadians
should be assured that this is clearly as a result of extensive
consultation and has the full support of the majority of the
provinces of Canada.
It is also important to assure all members, particularly today's
seniors who are current beneficiaries of the CPP and any other
Canadians who receive other benefits such as disability benefits,
that their current benefits will not be affected by the changes
being considered by the House under Bill C-2. It bears repeating
that seniors should be assured that their current benefits under
the Canada pension plan will not be affected.
The parliamentary secretary dealt with many of these points. I
will simply move on and repeat that the benefits as a result of
these changes under the CPP will continue to be secure. They
will continue to be guaranteed. They will continue to be indexed
so that all Canadians can enjoy the benefits of the Canada
pension plan for generations to come. That is the reason we are
here.
Finally, with regard to the Canada pension plan investment
board, members should know that one of the features of the
current plan is that funds accumulated by the plan have been
invested in provincial bonds at federal rates. To ensure that
Canadians get the lowest possible rates of premium to pay into
the plan, one of the big changes being proposed is the creation
of the Canada pension plan investment board, a board selected in
consultation with the provinces. Its members are experts in
investment. The board will ensure that the funds received by the
Canada pension plan will be invested as wisely as possible to
earn the optimal return for the benefit of all Canadians.
1620
Canadians should be assured that the changes being made here
respond to the concerns raised by the chief actuary and respond
to the needs of all Canadians that the Canada pension plan system
will be there for generations to come.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased as a member of the New Democratic
Party to participate in this debate.
I stand in this House in support of two motions that the NDP
have put forward to improve Bill C-2. I refer specifically to
Motion No. 1 in Group No. 1. This motion will replace with an
amendment where the government may set out an independent panel
of experts to review publicly disclosed and externally
enforceable conflict of interest rules.
Why would we propose these changes? An independent panel of
experts should help set up a code of conduct for the board of
directors. I know the Liberals are very concerned about having
codes of conduct because whenever that phrase is used, the
Liberals seem to get caught breaking all the rules of the code of
conduct.
I am absolutely petrified, apprehensive and not confident in
what the Liberals are saying. They are telling this House and
the people of Canada that Canadians can be assured that the
Liberals are undertaking a program that will benefit them. Let me
talk for a few minutes about how Canadians are so sure of the
Liberal record when it comes to social safety programs.
Members and other Canadians may recall members of Parliament who
preceded us in this Chamber, members in high regard, members like
Major James Coldwell, a CCF member of Parliament from Regina.
Many years ago members will recall the names of J.S. Woodsworth,
Stanley Knowles and Tommy Douglas. What these four CCF and NDP
members of Parliament had in common was that they did not rest
assured with assurances from Liberal governments previous to this
one that they were going to support the benefits of Canadians in
their later years.
As a matter of fact, these individuals, Woodsworth, Coldwell,
Douglas and Stanley Knowles, fought tooth and nail for all of
their political careers stretching some 35 years in a certain
member's experience, fighting for pensions for Canadians. And
who opposed those pensions? It was the Liberal Party, Liberal
governments in the past and before that Conservative governments.
If it was not for these four individuals and many other
like-minded Canadians, we would not have a pension program in
this country.
When I hear the Liberals opposite stand in their place and say
rest assured Canadians, we are going to look after you, I think
Canadians should be doubly aware and doubly concerned about
something rotten in the state of Canada with respect to this
pension plan. The record is very clear.
What I want to talk about in respect of these amendments is why
does the government not support an independent panel of experts
being created to outline a code of conduct for the board of
directors? Is it because it is going to appoint the wealthy
friends of the Minister of Finance? Is it going to appoint
people like Conrad Black, a good friend of the prime minister of
this country? They golf together, ride horses together and do
all sorts of things together. What they do have in common with
respect to all of Canada is that they tend to put the screws to
those on the lower income scale. That is unacceptable in this
day and age in this country.
Why are the Liberals not supporting such an amendment for a code
of conduct? I think people should ask that question. When
Liberals give them assurances that they are protecting their
interests, I do not think those assurances are sufficient.
The true test of progress in our society somebody once said is
not whether we add to the abundance to those who have much, but
whether we provide enough for those who have too little. With
respect to this test of progress on this bill and these
amendments that the government is opposing, the Government of
Canada is falling far short of passing this test of progress. It
is not providing enough for those who do have little. What it is
doing is making sure that those who have abundant incomes and
assets are going to maintain and roll those assets at an
accelerated scale at the expense of those who have very little.
1625
The second amendment the NDP is putting forward is Motion No.
24. We are suggesting that there be a requirement for the chief
actuary to forecast income from public benefits of future
retirees relative to the earnings of those who are working. Why
the change? Because we have an actuary who has been instructed by
the Minister of Finance, and some people refer to him as the
Scrooge of Canada and others have more unflattering names, but we
will not get into those because we do not want to get into name
calling at this point.
Why not allow the actuary and some of these Canada pension plan
employees to provide some analysis of the costs of the plan and
the benefits to seniors and older Canadians who will qualify for
this pension? Why can they not share information publicly which
would outline what retirees will receive 15 and 20 years down the
road? It has projected what we are going to be paying, it has
projected what it is going to cost, but it will not tell
Canadians the truth about how much they will receive for paying
for all these benefits.
I am asking the government to reconsider. If it really believes
what it says that it is going to assure Canadians that it has the
confidence of all of the provinces, then it will undertake to
support these amendments.
I might add when the member opposite stood in the House and said
that he had the support of two-thirds of the provinces, that
eight of the ten are supporting Bill C-2 unamended, how many are
from the CCF-NDP form of government? Not one. Who did the NDP
and the CCF fight tooth and nail, year after year, decade after
decade to obtain pensions? The NDP and the CCF fought the
Liberals year after year, decade after decade for pensions on
behalf of seniors. We were able to obtain the pension plan in the
country after many decades of fighting and now they are asking
why the NDP province of Saskatchewan, where I come from and
represent, and the NDP province of British Columbia are not
supporting the bill.
Canadians should be asking this question of themselves. They
should be asking this question of the Liberal members of
Parliament. When the Liberal members go back to their ridings
constituents should ask them why the NDP provinces, the NDP who
fought for pensions in this Parliament and this country are not
supporting Bill C-2? Why are they not embracing all these
changes?
An hon. member: Tell us.
Mr. John Solomon: We will get into that later in the
other amendments, but I think my time is running out. We have
all sorts of information that we want to share. I am sure all
members are open minded and very willing to listen to some of
these suggestions and recommendations. I certainly look forward
to sharing them.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
like my colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, I stand
today and support Motions Nos. 1 and 24 in Group No. 1 on behalf
of Atlantic Canada.
Coming from Atlantic Canada I have a difficult time
understanding why the government would not want to support Motion
No. 1. We in Cape Breton have been very well aware of government
patronage over the years. I have to say that when I hear the
government talk about priding itself on openness and
accountability, this is a surefire way to ensure that
accountability and openness. We have seen years of patronage.
This is like allowing the mouse to mind the cheese.
What is really important is that this will ensure a balance
between the private and public aspects of the so-called changes
to the CPP which are going to benefit all Canadians. I must say
there is a large number of seniors in my riding of Bras d'Or and
they are not as confident that these changes are going to benefit
them.
With respect to Motion No. 24, it is quite simple. It is asking
the chief actuary to do the job the government has not been able
to do or has refused to do. It is the right of Canadians to be
told what the fund is going to cost them and what benefits they
will receive or what benefits they will lose.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, my comments were going to be brief and
hopefully we will get an opportunity at a later date for some of
the other what I see as really good amendments.
1630
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the order made earlier
this day, all the motions in Group No. 1 are deemed to have been
put, recorded divisions deemed requested and deferred.
We will now proceed to debate on the
motions in Group No. 2. Pursuant to the agreement reached
earlier this day, the motion in Group No. 2 is deemed proposed
and seconded.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC) moved:
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain to members of this
House why it is imperative to delete clause 37 of Bill C-2, which reads
as follows:
37. The Board and its subsidiaries shall invest their assets
in such a way that tax would not be payable by them under
subsection 206(2) of the Income Tax Act if Part XI of that Act
applied to them.
Pursuant to this clause, the Canada pension plan investment board
should act as if it were governed by the provisions of the Income Tax
Act dealing with the foreign content of pension plan portfolios. This
means that the new board would not be allowed to invest more than 20% of
its assets outside Canada.
Because we believe the board should have the power to make
investments that will best protect the interests of the plan's
beneficiaries, clause 37 must be struck from the bill.
In fact, the government should increase and even eliminate the
limit put on foreign investments, instead of extending it to other types
of investments.
We must make sure the board is free to choose the investments likely to
provide the best return, regardless of any political consideration.
Also, maintaining restrictions on foreign content could trigger
major problems.
First, limiting investments abroad could prevent the board from
building a portfolio that is sufficiently diversified to reduce
financial risks. We all know that this issue is an important one and
that it is time to restore Canadians' confidence in a pension plan that
was once their pride.
Second, this constraint also has the effect of reducing the
competitiveness of Canadian businesses.
Knowing that there is a large and secure capital base on which they can
rely, they have less motive to be effective and efficient than if they
were in direct competition with foreign companies.
Third, and this is certainly an important concern, it prevents
Canadians from receiving a fair return on their pension savings: their
money is tied up in a stock market that represents only 3% of the
capital in the global market.
Quoted in the Ottawa Citizen, Professor James Pesando from the
University of Toronto summarizes and illustrates better than I can the
concerns that were raised. He said, and I quote:
[English]
“You have heard that expression `don't put all your eggs in one
basket'. Just imagine that the CPP fund in the extreme case was
invested only in Canadian stocks and bonds and then in 2005
Quebec secedes. That would be devastating in terms of its impact
on share prices and bond markets in Canada”.
[Translation]
Professor Pesando continued:
[English]
<“Think about what would happen if 50% of those funds were
invested offshore. Not only would they continue to do well, but
the drop in the Canadian—would mean the returns would be
magnified”.
1635
[Translation]
It is not complicated: Bill C-2's provisions setting out the rules
on the portfolio's foreign content deprive Canadians of over $700
million annually. By eliminating clause 37, that is by eliminating these
rules, the market value of the Canada pension plan could increase by 20
to 25%. This is no small amount. I would even say it is significant.
The government should stop limiting potential investments by
millions of Canadians and should act to eliminate this outdated and
archaic requirement.
It is in fact that same government that is saying to these same
taxpayers that they should be more responsible in financing their
retirement. I am saying that the government should act more
consistently.
During the electoral campaign last spring, the Progressive
Conservative Party clearly stated that it wanted changes to the rules
governing registered retirement savings plans in order to gradually
eliminate restrictions on foreign investments.
Its main argument at that time also applies very well to the issue
of the Canada pension plan today: Canadians have the right to seek the
best possible return from the market.
To achieve this, it is essential that the investment board be
allowed to make its investments in the best interests of the Canada
pension plan's beneficiaries.
That is why I urge my colleagues in this House to vote in favour of
this motion.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this amendment may be one of the single most important
amendments which have come forward. I believe nearly every
witness I heard at committee commented on the management and
investment of our retirement fund. They said that this 20% rule
should be changed, that it should be lifted. This amendment, of
course, would do that.
Currently, pension funds in Canada are limited with respect to
freedom of investment. Only one-fifth or 20% can be invested
offshore.
To put this in context, the global capital pool is very large
and Canadian investments comprise only 3% of it. In other words,
Canadians are expected, indeed forced, to put almost all of their
investments upon which their retirement security depends into a
very small capital pool. This does not give us the best return
and the best security.
As the member who just spoke indicated, it substantially limits
the kind of return we can hope to achieve. It does not maximize
the investment return which we can hope to achieve.
This is particularly important for poorer Canadians. People who
have money, who have companies registered offshore, who have
family trusts and all of those good things can diversify their
assets to the point where this rule does not substantially hurt
them. However, for lower income Canadians who have almost all of
their retirement savings invested by these mandatory payments
into the Canada pension plan, this restriction and the
consequential limitation of the investment return they hope to
receive means a great deal.
If we want to provide particularly low-income Canadians with a
secure portion of retirement that they can count on, we simply
have to get rid of this 20% foreign investment rule.
1640
As I said, this is not just something that a couple of
opposition parties are talking about, although certainly if we
think so, that should be persuasive. We are joined by almost
every single witness that appeared before the committee,
including actuaries, accountants, pension fund managers,
economists, analysts of all kinds, some of the most respected
thinkers in this country.
I wish that it was the finance minister's name on here as the
mover of this amendment. That would indicate that we were going
to get this matter taken care of. Since it was an opposition
member who had the wit and the courage to put this forward, I
would certainly hope that all members of the House would support
this amendment. If they do not support any other one, I would
say this is the one to support, particularly for the benefit of
the most vulnerable members of our society who need the best
return we can possibly give them on their pension and retirement
investment.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today we can situate this amendment
within a context in which the Canada pension plan has, in the past,
not had a very high yield when reinvesting the money paid into it.
The reason for this is certainly that the cost-effectiveness of the
plan was not really an objective, unlike Quebec's Caisse de dépôt
et placement, which was intended to increase the yield on its
investments as much as possible.
Today, then, in reading the proposed amendment, we see there
is a continuity with this, in the desire for the investment board
to try to solve this problem of profitability of the plan's
investments.
It is, however, important to carry out a fairly detailed
analysis, because the section of the act they wish to do away with
says that the funds invested by the investment board must be
handled differently than that invested in registered retirement
savings plans. What is not said is that the 20% rule cannot help
but be changed, but this will be done by considering all of the tax
implications, for the RRSPs as well, and perhaps even other
implications there may be within the Canadian federal taxation
system.
So, the question we should be asking today is whether this is
the right time to be changing the rules of the game in this bill,
when no similar change will be made to RRSPs. In my opinion,
parliamentarians should look at this with a concern for
co-ordinated and logical taxation in Canada.
The investment board will surely permit a better return on
investment, because it has been given the criteria for economic
performance. In terms of investment objectives, types of
investment, the only remaining constraint concerns the 20% maximum
during the time the tax legislation in question applies.
So we see that within this no undue pressure is being applied
to investment choices if, suddenly, tomorrow or in the coming years
the board could invest as it likes outside Canada.
1645
However, if this option is not available through RRSPs, we
will end up with a double standard. The government will no longer
be behaving like an employer and a lawmaker, but as an investor and
a lawmaker and will not be giving private pension plans parity and
the chance to the same investments. I think that at that point we
could run the risk of making this sort of amendment.
So I think it would be better, in the context of the pre-budget
consultations currently underway for the next budget, to take a
look at the relevance of giving everyone equal opportunity.
As the bill now stands, the day the tax system is changed, this
amendment will apply to RRSPs, as it will to the Canada pension
plan investment board.
This would, in my view, be more ethical
and would avoid putting the government in a difficult situation
vis-à-vis the representations that might be made to it in the
amendments to come regarding RRSP rules. When the door is
opened, it must be opened for everybody, so that the change will
affect everyone equally, so that the government and private
investors who must now contend with the 20% rule in every other
sector will start off on an equal footing.
So, for these various reasons, we do not think it advisable to
make this amendment today. It will be necessary to verify whether
the change will be made for all investment programs affected.
In conclusion, the Canada pension plan investment board is the
cornerstone of this bill. A major effort is already under way to
obtain a better return on the money invested by the public in the
CPP. Investments will be carefully monitored and special studies
to evaluate effectiveness will also be possible. I think that now
is not the time to remove the equality that will exist among the
various investment vehicles. This change would be more appropriate
in the context of a fiscal debate.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on Motion No. 2. I want
to say a few words because I am a bit puzzled with respect to my
colleagues who are moving this and supporting this motion.
The premise that the Reform Party and the Conservative Party put
forward with respect to this issue on Canada pension plan
amendments is they want Canadian taxpayers to give tax deductions
to individuals and businesses that make CPP contributions, give
tax breaks in Canada, yet they want the money invested outside
Canada.
I do not understand the rationale for this. Maybe they have not
heard of the Hang Seng or Tokyo or some of the other foreign
markets that seem to be in a little turmoil.
It seems to me if tax breaks are going to be given in Canada for
deductions with respect to pension plans, then maybe the money
should be invested in Canada to support the businesses that are
hiring people and building our country. I do not understand
this.
However, the Reform and the Conservatives talk about back to the
future. They are winding the clock back to 1897, 100 years back
to the future when it was archaic. I think it is outrageous what
they are proposing.
Let us just clarify this one more time. The Conservative Party
is the party of Brian Mulroney and Grant Devine and the harem
that is now in jail. We have the Reform Party which is the party
of Grant Devine and Brian Mulroney. They want to support tax
expenditures in this country to invest outside our country for
their friends. Who are their friends?
1650
An hon. member: Call them the reverse party.
Mr. John Solomon: We know who their friends are. Their
friends are people like Conrad Black. My colleague across the
floor from the Liberal Party says that the Reform Party should be
called the reverse party. That is probably a suggestion others
have as well. Others suggest that maybe it is the reformatories,
we do not know. There are many things people use to refer to
these individuals and their parties because they keep wanting to
reform and change the way Canadians govern themselves, the way we
have built our country, the way we have encouraged small business
to build up this country from the grassroots.
Reformers are like ostriches with their heads in the sand who
say that they are close to the grassroots. The problem is they
are buried in the sand and do not understand what grassroots is
all about. If you ask anybody in this country if we should give
tax deductions to Canadians to invest outside our country they
will say “I don't think so”. If we are going to give tax
deductions, we would rather give them to Canadians to build our
economy, to reinvest in our communities, to reinvest in our small
businesses.
I am puzzled as to why the Reformers are proposing this. The
only conclusion is they are very supportive of these individuals
who have lots of money. My advice to them is that if they want
to invest outside of Canada, they should take their own money out
of their own pockets, out of their own farms and businesses if
they have them and go and invest in Fukuoka, Japan or in
Kumamoto, Japan or in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia or go and invest in
Indonesia. There are some good gold stocks in Indonesia they
could probably invest in. I do not happen to have any because I
do not do that sort of thing. I have problems enough, as most
Canadians do, investing in things they know, never mind in
countries they have never heard of before.
We must look at this proposal by the reformatories and defeat
it as quickly as possible.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to add a couple of points with regard to this report stage
motion which deals with restriction on foreign investment.
Currently investments are restricted to 20% foreign content. That
rule applies to other pension plans. It is the same rule that
applies to personal RRSPs. As the previous speaker said, these
are all instruments or vehicles under which Canadians get tax
consideration for having made those investments.
The rhetorical question to ask is should the Canada pension plan
investment fund have different rules or latitude from that
extended to other investors providing for their retirement
through registered pension plans or RRSPs. I have some concerns
that the differential may lead to some adverse consequences and
some challenges simply because the rules are not consistently
applied in Canada.
The issue of the borrowing requirements of Canada has to be
taken into account in view of the fact that the Government of
Canada is not borrowing anymore. Although the deficit is not
totally eliminated at this time, the non-cash charges mean the
government is in a position where it is not a player in the
market. It does not have an appetite for new capital at this
time other than for debt that is maturing and has to be rolled
over.
There are some dynamics that occur in the marketplace. Although
Reform has indicated Canada is only 3% of capital markets, it is
still a substantial marketplace in which there is broad latitude
to invest.
It would appear to me that nobody in this House can support this
motion. I will check it. Motion No. 2 basically states that
clause 37 be deleted. Clause 37 is the clause that states that
the investment shall be subject to the same rules that are
applied to RRSPs.
1655
It appears to me that if the clause is deleted so that the 20%
rule does not apply, in the absence of anything else, that means
there would be unrestricted foreign investment. I do not know
how anybody in this House could leave this bill in the shape
where the investors of the funds of Canadians, the Canada pension
plan, could invest anywhere they wanted, totally outside of
Canada. I will check that. If that is the fact, I doubt there
is anybody in this House who can support Motion No. 2.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have just
a few words to say in response to what the hon. member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre was saying.
He made some references to Reform and some of them were a little
unkind. I want him to know that as a fellow hon. member I
respect him anyway. I hope he learns to clean up his thinking.
That will then clean up his speaking.
I would like to say a few words about this whole general
concept. There is this anti anything outside Canada bias by some
people. Yet we find, for example, the Liberal government at a
snap of a finger will lend $1.5 billion to China to finance a
nuclear reactor, a country which has not signed on to any nuclear
non-proliferation agreement, a country which does not comply with
environmental standards, a country which we presume will maybe
some time pay back this $1.5 billion by goods it produces or
whatever. We hope that is true. The government is thinking it
can do that with taxpayer money.
If we are going to say we do not want to do that, that we are
going to do everything inside Canada only, I think we will
entirely loose our trade. Very frankly one of our strongest
trading partners is also one of our strongest economic partners,
the United States. If we are able to invest some of our
retirement money in the United States, it has to be at least as
secure as the money invested in Canada in most instances. It
seems to me rather arbitrary to say that we should not do this.
There is another aspect to this that is very important. There
is not a gift or a payment by other taxpayers when someone puts
money into an RRSP. The same thing is true when we invest in the
Canada pension plan fund. The fact is if some of that money is
invested from outside the country, it comes back with a return.
According to the rules on both Canada pension and RRSP that money
is then taxable on receipt.
Why on earth would we say we do not want any American money in
Canada? If we can take $100 and have it bring back another $100
because it has been invested there for a number of years at a
good interest rate, it brings $100 into this country from an
international market that was not here before. It is now going
to be taxed at regular tax rates. So it not only adds to the
wealth of the country but it also produces tax revenue for the
government at the time of retirement, as all RRSPs do.
The member from the NDP has some really cute statements. I like
that one about Reform getting at the grassroots. He had it wrong
about the sand part and the head. We do want to listen to the
people. We want to do what is best for them. He is cute in that
regard, but I really think he should start thinking a little more
globally, a little more laterally, think a little more beyond a
very narrow focus that the NDP seems to be stuck in. That has
kept it at the low level of public support it has enjoyed over
the last 50 years.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of
points on this motion and get some facts on the record.
Canadian pension funds and individuals saving through RRSPs can
invest up to 20% of their assets abroad. It is a statement
and a fact that I think most Canadians are aware of.
1700
It should also be said that this 20% is a significant amount of
international diversification and additional international
exposure can also be gained by investing in Canadian companies
with international operations. However, the 20% foreign property
rule also ensures that a significant portion of tax assisted
savings is invested in Canada.
We should also point out the fact that in recent days
international markets have not performed well. Present rules are
intended to provide a sort of balance for Canadian investors.
It is also important to mention studies by experts like Mr.
Slater who stated that Canada's capital markets could absorb the
increase in the CPP fund. The fact is that our capital market is
quite healthy. It does provide substantial rates of return. Let
us also remember that the changes to C-2 are increasing the rates
of return to the Canada pension plan. So we are all moving in
the same direction.
I also want to point out a statement that was made by the hon.
member from the Reform Party who said that it was important to
listen to the people because they are connected to the
grassroots. I am sure every member of this House takes the
opportunity of listening to constituents and trying to reflect
their concerns here in this House of Commons.
It is also important to note that Canadians have indicated
through public consultations that they want the CPP fund to be
invested like other pension funds. Today in Canada pension funds
are allowed to invest up to 20% of their assets in foreign
securities. The CPP will follow the same limitation. It does
allow for diversification to enhance returns but it also ensures
that CPP funds are invested predominantly in Canada.
As was stated earlier, the intent of the government is to ensure
the financial stability of this plan. It is crucial that the
changes that we have been making to the CPP provide for that
financial sustainability. With this particular motion we would
be treating the Canada pension plan in isolation. Making changes
to the Canada pension plan or if we did make changes to other tax
assisted programs, it would not be fair.
What we are saying is that the CPP fund will follow the same
limitations. If the foreign property rule were to change at some
point in the future then we would see the Canada pension plan
reflect that change. Therefore, if in the future the 20% foreign
property rule were eliminated, although no one is saying it will
be eliminated and we are not advocating its elimination, then the
Canada pension plan fund, as requested by Canadians through prior
consultations, would be treated like other pension plans in
Canada.
What C-2 does is treat the Canada pension plan like other
pension plans throughout this country.
I believe it is important to make those points. Other members
have made similar points. I would certainly encourage members of
this House not to support Motion No. 2 for the reasons stated.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question on Motion No. 2 is
deemed to have been put, a division deemed demanded and deferred
pursuant to special order made earlier this day.
The next question is on Group No. 3, Motion No. 8.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC) moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 53, be amended by adding after line 15
on page 28 the following:
“(1.1) A regulation made under paragraph (1)(b) must reflect
the objects of the Board as set out in section 5.”
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is another amendment to Bill C-2. It is
still time for government members to see the light and to support
amendments that will make the Canada pension plan more fair, more
transparent, more performing and more accountable to those who
contribute to it. I hope government members will support this amendment.
1705
This is an addition to clause 53 of the bill, which deals with the
regulations that the governor in council may make.
In its current form, clause 53 basically provides that the governor
in council may make regulations: (a) specifying which provisions of the
Pension Benefits Standards Act of 1985 apply to the board; (b)
respecting the investments the board may make; (c) prescribing anything
that the act provides.
Clause 53 also deals with the coming into effect of regulations. We
are pleased to see that a regulation has no force or effect until it has
been approved by at least two thirds of the participating provinces
having in total not less than two thirds of the population.
The purpose of our proposed amendment to clause 53 is to require
the governor in council to take into account the objects of the board,
as set out in clause 5 of the bill.
Allow me to read clause 5 so that hon. members can understand the
scope of the obligation that we want to impose on the governor in
council:
(a) to manage any amounts that are transferred to it under
section 111 of the Canada Pension Plan in the best interests of the
contributors and beneficiaries under that Act; and
(b) to invest its assets with a view to achieving a maximum rate
of return, without undue risk of loss, having regard to the factors
that may affect the funding of the Canada Pension Plan and the
ability of the Canada Pension Plan to meet its financial
obligations.
[English]
Therefore, by passing our amendment the governor in council
would be bound by this mission as it is detailed in clause 5.
This would ensure that after the three year phase-in period the
government exercises its ability to restrict investment under
clause 53(1)(b) in a manner that reflects the best interest of
the beneficiaries.
This would be done by requiring that such regulations be made
with a view to ensuring that the plan's investment advisers are
subject to the prudent person rule. To take effect, any
regulation that is not passed with a view to those objectives
would have to be approved by two-thirds of the participating
provinces with two-thirds of the population.
Bill C-2 provides the government with the ability to set through
regulations the kinds of investments the board may make. This
may preclude the board from making investments that are in the
best interests of the beneficiaries, for example, through limits
on foreign investments or the government could choose to simply
list certain sectors at the expense of others.
We want to ensure that this plan operates in the best interest
of the beneficiaries free from any political, economic and social
objectives.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
comment on what our colleague from the Conservative Party has just said.
First, we know that with this bill, workers and companies will have
to contribute more to a fund so that when people go on retirement, they
will receive an amount that may not be very high but that will
nevertheless be essential.
We know also that if we do not act now, it will not be long before
the Canada pension plan can no longer meet its obligations.
That is why, I repeat, the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill.
1710
But
also, when money is taken from employers and employees, it is also taken
from the economy in which they are living, and these are considerable
amounts that workers or employers will not be able to recycle in the
economic system through the purchase of goods and services. It is
therefore essential that the money that will be taken and given to an
agency responsible for reinvesting it be invested in a way that allows
these communities to continue to rely on the economic activity they
require to survive.
However, if I heard correctly, the motion that has just been
presented would allow and would require the investment board to reinvest
without taking into consideration the social aspects or the economic
impacts in the community. I believe that in fact this agency should have
a social conscience.
I would like to mention in this respect the case of Quebec and its
Caisse de dépôt et placement which has in fact allowed the Government of
Quebec to ensure greater economic returns for Quebec in keeping with the
requirements of Quebec society. It seems to me that the federal
government would be well advised to consider what is being done in
Quebec in this area and to do the same.
That is in fact my interpretation of what it wants to do with the
bill we are considering. It seems to me that any amendment that would
not limit the board's ability to make investments through which
Canadians can obtain a better return not only when they retire but also
now when they are contributing is a step in the right direction.
Any amendment that would go against that objective would be a step in
the wrong direction.
I think it is also important to note that for an employer or an
employee who will see next year an increase in his or her contributions
to the Canada pension plan, this will have an impact in terms of
competitiveness. I was pleased when the Minister of Human Resources
Development announced a reduction in employment insurance contributions.
I consider that this also is a step in the right direction, because it
will allow in fact to maintain payroll taxes and other deductions at an
acceptable level.
However, the Minister of Human Resources Development did not bother
unfortunately to consider the retroactive effect of an increase in
contributions for the current year, and this will definitely have an
impact on the personal disposable income of each worker and on the
production and operating costs of every business.
1715
In economic terms, this has a significant adverse effect. And in
the future, as the contribution rate slowly increases, it will be
important to reassure our business community, our businesses and their
employees that adjustments to employment insurance premiums or other
measures will indeed counterbalance the drain on corporate or personal
finances caused by contributions to the Canada pension plan.
This is a matter of economic balance. We cannot dip into a lake
indefinitely and hope it will keep filling up by itself. It will need
water sooner or later. He who draws water out of a lake has to ensure
that a soothing rain falls on the area, other wise it will dry up.
This is a simple principle, and the example was an obvious one, but that
is reality. Businesses and employees cannot keep on paying indefinitely.
At one point, the economic balance will be destroyed and this will
have repercussions on our society, as it will slow the economy down,
with fewer businesses employing fewer people, who will produce fewer
goods that fewer consumers will be able to buy. That is not what Bill
C-2 seeks to do. However, it would be important that the government side
give the business community and our workers some indication that it is
aware of this and will take appropriate measures to protect the sound
balance I just mentioned.
In closing, allow me to say that, in Quebec, we are 35 years ahead
on this pension plan issue.
We have a pension plan in Quebec. Quebec's experience was a good
experience, and I only hope that our Canadian friends make the most of
it.
[English]
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to speak against the amendment which basically targets
the investments of the board on a high return on international
markets and possibly domestic markets, but there is no
consciousness of Canadian here.
Our responsibility is to invest our pensions for future
generations. It is a social cycle where the youth provide a
means for the elderly, the underprivileged and the disabled. It
is a human cycle. That is our purpose.
When we have this huge fund for investment purposes we should be
consciously aware of Canadian content and Canadian needs. At
sometime in the future, beside the investment requirement, our
targets could be set on the highest rate of return on investment
and disregard the environmental needs or the economic needs of a
region of Canada. Instead it could be sent offshore into an
Asian region where the return could be 20%. It could be a nice,
juicy return. The money could be invested in another region
which promises a higher return.
Here we have a chance to invest it in an underprivileged region.
It would give a certain workforce in the region more wages in
their pockets to contribute to the investment fund. It is a
cycle. The more we work, the more the investment fund will work.
The concept of Canadians being Canadian is what is being tested
by the amendment.
We have to think of the Canadian picture and the Canadian future.
1720
The investment future is a means of our purchasing the economic
engine of the future. We can invest it strategically. Hopefully
the investment board will do that. If it is restricted to
investing only in higher returns, our Canadian concept and our
Canadian vision will be dimmed.
I speak against the amendment and encourage other members to
reflect on the Canadian need and the Canadian perspective for the
betterment of our future.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if any Canadians watching the debate were wondering
about the necessity of the amendment, they had only to listen to
the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP to be scared right out of their
socks.
The amendment would make it necessary for the board and for
cabinet, in making regulations respecting how the board invests,
to be guided simply and solely by what is in the best interest of
contributors and beneficiaries.
This is our retirement we are playing with here. What words do
we hear from the socialists? We have to invest
“strategically”. We have to have a “social conscience”. I
can just see the socialists getting into government, licking
their chops over having these billions of dollars to do their
wonderful social engineering experiments with. It would be our
pensions they would be playing with.
If we do not have an amendment which prevents a future cabinet
from indulging in that kind of nonsense, this kind of doctrinaire
driven investment, our pension security goes right out the
window. We would have all those with noble intentions to save
the country or to save this or that industry, having our money to
play with. It is bad enough that we are paying so much in taxes
for social engineers to dispose of, to waste and to fritter away
as they have for years and years. Now they want to use our
pension plan.
I hope Canadians watching this debate run, not walk, to their
faxes, phones and e-mail machines to say: “For God's sake,
members of Parliament, include this amendment and make sure that
whatever you do with our pension funds you are guided simply and
solely by what is in our best interest and what will get us the
best return, secure future pensions, and keep the mitts of social
engineers and economic central planners off our pension plans”.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this motion
because, frankly, I was rather surprised by the remarks of the
Reform Party member before me.
He accuses the other parties in the House of not responsibly
studying this bill and yet, in committee, the model proposed by the
Reform Party was shown systematically to not necessarily be
sufficient for all Canadians and really had no future here.
Today we are considering an amendment to the bill at report
stage aimed at ensuring that action the governor in council may
decide to take regarding the management of the investment board be
in keeping with the mandate of the board.
I think we have to acknowledge that this is an interesting
amendment. I do not think the Reform Party said it either, but I
find it a bit surprising, at the stage we have reached in
considering the bill and the contribution made by all the parties.
I think there has to be some sort of balance in the way return is
made on investment in the Canada pension plan, like the Quebec
pension plan. Under the bill the investment board would be
mandated to ensure profitability only.
1725
A limit has been set so that there will be no more than 20% of
foreign investments. An earlier demonstration has explained very
well why these things are being put into place.
It can also be understood on the other hand that the present
draft amendment is not aimed at changing the basis of the bill, but
at improving it, as the person moving it sees it. I believe this
point of view can be shared, by saying that, yes, the investment
board will be given a clear mandate, in other words to seek the
best possible economic return.
At the same time, however, we want to make sure that the proposed
amendment, when the government brings in regulations on this, will
be in keeping with the mandate of the investment board.
In this
way there is an attempt to avoid excesses, and perhaps a sudden
need by the Canadian government to exceed the mandate of the
investment board. This can go both ways. It could be a decision
by the government to have the capital invested in projects not
directly linked with the clear mandate of the investment board, but
it could go the other way as well. If we want to respect the
statutory scheme, if we wish to ensure that its logic is respected
as the bottom line, this amendment must be considered in order.
Would we not end up in a sort of a dead-end situation, an
unacceptable impasse, if the government could adopt regulations
which would run counter to the objectives of the investment board?
I think that, within its general mandate of good government acting
in the best interests of society, the government will always have
the opportunity to take decisions which strike it being best for
the future of its people, but that expanded power must not
necessarily be via regulatory channels. It may be a good thing to
retain this right, having it operate via measures which require
legislation, in order to ensure that things are not done in a sort
of underhanded way.
For this reason, the amendment on the table is worthy of
consideration and of being judged on its worth. It must be looked
at within the general objective of the statutory scheme. That
objective is to ensure that the investment board can maximize its
outcome and do so with a government which respects that mandate.
This is the spirit in which we will support this amendment.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 reflects what Canadians
have said throughout the consultation process. In fact the
motion would eliminate the restrictions that apply to other
pension plans in Canada, essentially specific restrictions that
are part of the fed-prov agreement.
The regulations which are part of Bill C-2 require applying the
appropriate provisions and regulations of the Pension Benefits
Standards Act to the new CPP investment board, regulations that
in fact state things like the fund could not hold more than 30%
of voting shares of a company or that it could not invest more
than 10% in the security of a single company.
As joint stewards of the plan and as a result of the fed-prov
negotiations and agreements, Bill C-2 will specify the
arrangements under which provinces will have access to portions
of the new CPP funds the board allocates to bonds.
Essentially the investment the fund makes requires that domestic
equity be passive and that it be reviewed after three years.
Provinces will have a guarantee of access to a portion of the new
funds and thereafter, after three years, their access will
reflect a percentage of provincial and municipal bonds held by
pension funds in Canada.
That being said and despite the restrictions, the chief actuary
still says the fund will receive a 3.8 per cent real rate of
return, which is a good rate of return and one that reflects the
priorities and the best interest of Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30
o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of
Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1730
[English]
CANADIANS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.) moved:
That a legislative committee of this House be instructed to
prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order
68(4)(b), to prevent the reference to and designation of any
Canadian or group of Canadians in a hyphenated form, based on
race, religion, colour or place of origin.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Surrey Central
and on behalf of the silent majority in Canada I am pleased to
introduce my private member's Motion No. 24 calling for the
introduction of legislation which would prevent the reference and
designation of any Canadian or group of Canadians in a hyphenated
form based on race, religion, colour or place of origin.
I have many reasons and experiences personally in my life which
have compelled me to introduce Motion No. 24 concerning
hyphenated Canadians, but let me first clear the air. This motion
is non-partisan and is put forward with the best interests in
mind for the people and the future of our beloved country of
Canada.
Canada is a country of immigrants. I respect the diversity of
Canada and its cultural mosaic. Our diversity is our asset, not
a liability. We do not oppose the multicultural fact of Canada
but taxpayer funded official multiculturalism as a Government of
Canada objective, that is the commercialization of
multiculturalism.
It is time to review our 25 year old expensive and divisive
multicultural policy. It needs not only a tune-up but an
overhaul. Let us not look 25 years backward. There is no use
crying over spilt milk. Let us look beyond our noses. Let us
look to the future and believe in the reality and changing
dynamics of Canada. Emphasis should be on enhancing the equality
of Canadians.
Most people view themselves as Canadians, yet the government has
been collecting information about their ancestral origins and
referring to them accordingly. The census is becoming more and
more precarious. In the 1991 census Stats Canada asked the
question “to which ethnic or cultural group did your ancestors
belong?” It listed 15 ethnic or cultural groups as choices but
not Canadian as a group.
The current ministry of multiculturalism has three goals:
fostering Canadian identity and belonging, assisting with
integration, and creating social justice by eliminating the
barriers to equality. None of these goals can be achieved under
the present federal multiculturalism policy by encouraging
hyphenation of Canadians.
Hyphenation of Canadians weakens and dilutes the Canadian
identity and belonging. Hyphenation inhibits integration and
rather assists segregation of our population. Hyphenation of
Canadians fosters barriers to equality rather than eliminating
those barriers. Hyphenation does more harm than good. In fact,
we see that the government is going in a completely opposite
direction, 180° from the objective we want to achieve.
Rather than uniting Canada and sustaining our multicultural
reality, we are going completely in the opposite direction on
this. The current policy is promoting diversity at the expense
of unity and equality. As parliamentarians it is our obligation
to ensure our laws and policies achieve the desired outcome.
We have many differences among all of us. Two individuals are
different unless they are identical twins or perhaps if they are
cloned.
A person could be, for example, a woman and at the same time a
mother. She could be fat, short, with a particular ethnicity,
language, colour, religion, et cetera. That is okay. We respect
that.
1735
Like everyone else, I am equally proud of my ethnicity, my
culture and my religion. Like everyone else, I have chosen
Canada as my home. This is the future of my children and my
family. This is where our hopes and opportunities are and I am
proud of that, like everyone else. Canada has been generous to
me and my family. I and my family are proud to hold a Canadian
passport. Like everyone else, I am proud to be a Canadian. But
the hyphen still interferes with my pride.
This government encourages new Canadians to be called something
like Indo Canadians, Chinese Canadians, Italian Canadians, not
just Canadians.
The other day on TV the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism
and the Status of Women said she is proud to be a
Trinidad Canadian. She is a Canadian government minister. When
will she call herself a proud Canadian? When will she call a
Canadian a Canadian? When will she have a Canada first attitude?
Those are the questions many Canadians are asking. But just as
in our question period in the House, they do not get answers.
It is time to define Canadian culture for the 21st century.
During this century we have seen enough evidence in many African
and Middle Eastern countries of the consequences of dividing
populations based on ethnicity, race, religion or tribe. It is
never too late. We can still learn lessons to keep us united and
strong, rather than divided and segregated, particularly at a
time when we are working hard to heal fractious wounds and to
keep Canada united.
Hyphenation and multicultural policies promote too much
diversity at the expense of unity and equality. Reminding us of
our different origins is less useful in building a unified
country than emphasizing the things we have in common.
We have too many differences based on race, religion, culture,
ethnicity, et cetera, but we have only one common similarity, we
are all Canadians.
The children in our schools have differences, but we call them
students. The men and women in the army have differences, but we
call them soldiers. Citizens in our country have differences,
but why should we not call ourselves Canadians? In fact, the
definition of multiculturalism should be a single society united
by shared laws, values, future aspirations and responsibilities.
Let individuals and groups have full freedom to promote their
own culture, their own religions, heritage, et cetera. If the
truth be told, current multiculturalism is actually
multifacialism. Hyphenation brands us like commodities, but we
are all equal human beings. It creates different tiers of
Canadians.
Are there some Canadians who are more Canadian than others?
Every Canadian has the right to be 100% Canadian and not a
sub-Canadian.
How foolish it sounds when someone says even Canadians voted for
Chinese Canadians or Indo Canadians or Italian Canadians.
This government's practices and policies unnecessarily fuel
division, frictions, jealousies and prevent and discourage
integration of various communities and, in fact, are a precursor
to discrimination.
Canadians continue to search with increasing urgency for ways to
cross lines of colour, culture and religion.
Yet the more we criss-cross these lines which establish our
identity, the more it becomes evident that the very lines that
define us also confine us.
1740
What can we do? Surrendering a hyphen is one thing. That tiny
little splash of ink called a hyphen unites words but acts as a
wedge to distance words and keep them apart. The best way to
draw a line is simply to withdraw that line. Sooner or later we
have to get rid of the stigma of hyphenated Canadianism,
otherwise our children, our grandchildren and their grandchildren
will continue to be identified with prefixes like Indo, Chinese,
Italian, French, English and even Trinidad when they are
described as Canadians. Canadians in other countries are not
called Canado Indian. They are not called Canado Chinese, Canado
French or Canado Italian.
How about true origins in history? Many may be Aryan before
being Chinese or Indian. Should we call them Aryan Chinese
Canadians? How about those with mixed ethnicity like
Ukranian Polish French Italian Canadian? What should we call
them? It is possible in our country to have brothers and sisters
in one family who could have been born in Trinidad, India and
Canada, but they would still be a family of Canadians. It is as
simple as that.
The essence of the Canadian bill of rights and the charter of
rights and freedoms is to uphold every individual as equal before
and under the law and free from discrimination. We should
sensitize Canadians to each other and stress not the differences
that divide us but the similarities that unite us.
Hyphenation and promotion of cultural diversity by government
encourages ethnic differences that lead immigrants to adopt a
psychology of separation from mainstream culture. It isolates
ethnic racial groups in distinct enclaves by fostering an inward
focus mentality that drives a wedge between Canadian of different
backgrounds. Let us not create multicultural tensions or invoke
jealousies but foster an atmosphere of harmony and love.
Motion No. 24 has raised more than just a few eyebrows. It has
generated an outpouring of support from across Canada to my
office. From the feedback I have received I know I am not alone.
There are many more Canadians across this great land who feel the
same way. One Canadian even sent me a five dollar bill to have a
drink in his name.
My office has received many telephone calls, letters and e-mail
messages. People have even stopped me on the street to tell me
of their support of my efforts to draw attention to those
problems caused by the use of hyphenation.
I have so many quotes to share but time does not permit me. I
wanted to quote from about 60 letters.
We must all work together to pursue equality and unity but it is
vital that government lead the way. It will certainly bridge the
gap. It will be a step forward toward the elimination of racial
barriers. Let us not be partisan on this significant issue. Let
us embrace what is common among all of us. Let us promote,
encourage and put Canada first. Let us put our effort into
keeping Canada not only united but together and strong. Let us
not create multicultural tensions or invoke jealousy but foster
an atmosphere of harmony and love. Let us all be 100% Canadians
and not sub-Canadians. Let us start thinking about and defining
Canadian culture.
1745
In all honesty, I hoped to bridge the political divide and gain
the consensus from all sides of this House to address what I and
many other Canadians believe to be a problem, including many
members from various parties whom I talked to and including the
lonely independent member of this House.
Let us work together, recognize the merit of motion 24. This is
what the silent Canadian majority want. Motion 24, if
implemented by the government, will certainly bridge the gap. It
will be a step forward toward eliminating racial barriers. It is
everyone's responsibility to find solutions, but it is important
that the government lead the way.
Let us do what is in the best interests of all Canadians and
Canada. I urge all the hon. members, including you Mr. Speaker,
not to look to your political stripes but to look into your own
heart and stand up united in support of motion 24.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, may I say from the outset that
although I consider this motion misguided, I am absolutely sure
that its impetus was my colleague's sincere love for Canada and
his desire to ensure that Canada remains whole and united.
Having said that I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that my basic
objection to this motion, since there is no official policy about
calling oneself a hyphenated Canadian, is there is no law that
designates that one must do that. The wording of this motion
seeks to prevent freedom of speech. It seeks to prevent the
freedom of a person to define themselves in any way that they
choose.
[Translation]
I share my colleague's opinion regarding respect, but I urge him
to take a closer look at Canada. Our country is not
one-dimensional. Our collective identity is complex, as are the
individuals that make it up.
Our geography is one of the most diverse there is, our history
is a mosaic of events that shaped our country, and our population
is made up of representatives of every culture in the world. These
factors enrich our identity.
[English]
Do we deny the diversity of our landscape? Do we deny the many
events that mark our progress in national maturity? Should we
deny the reality of our geography, of our regions? Should we
deny the reality of cultural diversity? Of course not. Even my
colleague agrees with me on this. He freely admits that he is
not opposed to multiculturalism. This certainly indicates good
sense because we are a multicultural country whether we like it
or not.
It makes it all the more difficult to understand the motion we
are debating today. I can only believe that my colleague does
not fully understand Canada's multicultural policy or what
changes it has wrought in Canadian society.
For example, had it not been for Canada's multicultural policy
and its supporting program, federal government initiatives, it is
questionable whether my colleague would be sitting in the House
today as a member of Parliament exercising his right to debate
the issue of multiculturalism. This House reflects to an
unprecedented degree the cultural diversity that is and has been
for a long, long time a primary characteristic of our society.
Here is the figure. Forty-one MPs in this House are first
generation Canadians. This is what the multiculturalism policy
is about, about equality, about justice, about representation and
about the right to define ourselves in any way we choose. It is
not about hyphenation.
Earlier I referred to this motion as misguided. That is at its
best. At its worst it is an affront to everything Canada stands
for in the area of human rights. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, next
year Canada will be commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the
United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights which was drafted by
a Canadian.
[Translation]
My colleague wanted to speak on behalf of all Canadians, as
though we all shared his opinion about our individual identity.
With all due respect, I do not think this is the case.
Canadians in all communities are proud of their heritage and take
advantage of the freedom available to them to express this pride.
In my opinion, this is proof that Canada is a country that respects
individual rights and freedom of expression. One does not have to
deny one's background to be welcome in Canada.
1750
[English]
I consider myself completely Canadian, but I do not hesitate to
admit that my origins are in Trinidad. As a Canadian, I can take
advantage of the freedoms that are allowed me to express my
opinions and to present myself as the person that I am. It is my
right to say who I am. I can say I am a woman, a doctor, a
Catholic or a member of Parliament.
I also have the right, if I wish, to say that I was born in
Trinidad because I am a complex being. I am made up of many
different things that make me who I am. At any time in my own
life and in my life cycle I may need to refer to the different
aspects of my person, my character and the things that have made
me to this day who I am.
Canada's multiculturalism policy, born out of our sense of
justice and fair play, encourages Canadians to acknowledge,
understand, accept and respect the reality of our cultural
diversity knowing that it will not be a means of discrimination.
It will not prevent them from participating fully in every single
aspect of Canadian economic, social, political and cultural life.
It is in fact the ability of Canadians to refer to themselves
according to the colour of their skin, their sexual orientation
and their gender in whatever way they choose to feel secure that
who they are in fact is respected or are respected by the people
of this country. We do not have to become one mass of people,
one amorphous mass, one cloned group where we all have to be
exactly like everyone else to be accepted.
It does just the opposite. This policy is there to assist all
Canadians to become full participants in Canadian society with
the dignity and self-confidence that comes from personal pride. I
say that an element of personal pride for many people is their
family heritage.
Ask any Canadian of Scottish background how he or she feels on
hearing a pipe band strike up—or should I have said Scottish
Canadian before it is too late if my hon. colleague has his way.
The multiculturalism policy is about identity, self-knowledge,
personal pride and self-respect. These are qualities that are
important not only to every Canadian but to every individual
human being. Canadians who are confident about themselves and
what they can do and offer to Canada are infinitely more valuable
to our society than Canadians who must wipe the slate of their
personal history completely clean in order to appeal to some
artificial ideal of what it is to be a Canadian.
The perfect Canadian is one who I can say, I or my father or my
grandmother chose to come to this country and make it my home. I
am proud of that. I know who I am, I know what I can do and I am
willing to contribute my share to keeping Canada the great
country that it is without giving myself away and without having
to give up who I am.
This is what multiculturalism policy is all about. It ensures
that Canadians can live their lives in respect without fear that
anything that they are, their colour, their gender, their sexual
orientation or their religion, will remove them from
participating.
My colleague's motion is obviously misguided. However, it is
also the thin end of the wedge. I have to ask myself, once I and
every other Canadian are forbidden to refer to ourselves
according to our roots or our origins, what is the next step? Do
I tear up my birth certificate which shows that I was born in
Trinidad? Will I have to find some way to change the colour of
my skin because it is certainly going to define me regardless of
what I call myself?
A long time ago, Sir John A. Macdonald tried to form a country
that was distinct from our people to the south, the United
States. We have striven to have a country that is a melting pot
and not an assimilated mass of people who are all seeking to be
cloned and to be alike.
Should neither of these views carry any weight, the House might
want to consider a third view: that this motion is a bad joke
and in bad taste. On those grounds alone it should be dismissed
forthwith.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I listened as carefully to the Reform Party member who introduced
the motion as I did to the government party member.
1755
To a certain extent, if sovereignists had resorted to the same
discourse, I am absolutely certain that it would have been
interpreted as racist, but when it comes from the two federalist
parties, who are very often on the same wavelength and who join
forces in running down Quebec, everything is just fine.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order. The member for
Bourassa on a point of order.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to listen
to the member for Berthier—Montcalm, but members of the House have
never run down Quebec. We may have run down the Bloc Quebecois,
but we never ran down Quebec.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is not a point
of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, the member for Bourassa should
know that this was not a point of order and that the only example of
what I mentioned earlier is the Reform opposition day when they and the
Liberals voted hand-in-hand to blame the government of Quebec, among
others, for not having held consultations on the drivel called the
Calgary declaration. If the member for Bourassa did not understand that
yesterday, I am telling it to him now—he is in front of me—and I hope
that now he will understand.
That having been said, I read the motion carefully and I must tell
you—and here I agree with the parliamentary secretary when she says
that this motion is in bad taste and ill-considered—that no matter how
hard I try to read it from left to right and from right to left, I have
difficulty understanding it.
I would like to read it for those who are listening:
That a legislative committee of this House be instructed
to prepare and bring in a bill in accordance with Standing
Order 68(4)b), to prevent the reference to and designation of
any Canadian or group of Canadians in a hyphenated form, based
on race, religion, colour or place of origin.
I read it several times, and I wonder what exactly he wants us to
bring in a bill on? Will it be in the regulations made by this House or
in the regulations made by a department? Will it be in the legislation,
in the bills, in the acts? Is its purpose to make a law on private
conversations between individuals and to prevent people from mentioning
Canadians of Irish, Portuguese or Haitian origin, or even Quebeckers?
Is its purpose to make laws on that? I do not know. Is it to forbid
members in this House to use this language during debates. I do not
know, the motion does not mention that.
There is one thing certain however. I agree with the parliamentary
secretary. Earlier, I started by making a joke, but I agree with what
has just been said on the government side. I would like to add that
there is in Quebec a Charter on Rights and Freedoms. In Canada, there is
the Canadian Charter on Rights and Freedoms, the Constitution Act, 1982.
Quebec has never ratified it. No premier has signed it, as the member
for Bourassa would mention, I am sure. But there is section 15.(1) which
states:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and
has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the
law without discrimination and, in particular, without
discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin,
colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
The Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms has an equivalent of this
section. I believe that as far as protecting individuals is concerned,
in Canada and in Quebec, we have the appropriate tools. I believe that
we are even ahead of many countries when it comes to individual rights.
I sincerely believe that this is a debate that we should not be having.
1800
I think this is a pointless debate under the circumstances, given
that there are already provisions that deal very efficiently with this
issue. You will have gathered from what I said that I am opposed to this
motion.
I will conclude with two comments. First, with his motion, the hon.
member of the Reform Party managed to suggest that the concept of
Canadian culture should be redefined. I think that he does not
understand his motion all that well either, because that was not exactly
his intention.
Second, on the government side, in interpreting the motion, they
managed to say that they were in favour of a strong and united Canada.
Again, both sides are showing great imagination.
But they are not really addressing Motion M-24 before us.
For all these reasons, you will understand that I cannot be in
favour of Motion M-24.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
with mixed feelings of pleasure and great concern that I rise
today in this House to speak about the motion presented by the
member from the Reform Party.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to share my views on such an
important issue. But at the same time, this motion proposing the
creation of a House committee to draft a bill that would prevent
any reference to the ethnic, cultural or religious origins of
Canadians troubles me deeply.
Let us not be fooled by the wording of this motion. The Reform
Party is out to destroy the multicultural policy that stands at
the heart of our heritage and this comes as no surprise from a
party that is promoting division and exclusion in its policies.
The member from the Reform Party presents his motion as an
anti-discrimination measure that will ensure that all Canadians
are considered equal in status. He refers to the use of
hyphenated identification of Canadians from various origins as a
way to create categories of citizens who are not just Canadians
or simply Canadian. He argues that no one should be treated
differently.
If the member thinks that being different means being less
important, it is really sad. Does it mean that we should all
forget our diverse origins and become white Anglo-Saxon
Protestant Canadians? Does it mean that the only identity
acceptable is the one of the majority? Does being
Chinese-Canadian, German-Canadian or Italian-Canadian mean being
less Canadian? No. It means being ourselves and wanting to be
accepted as such.
The very principle of equality so often abused in Reform
ideology is itself based on the idea that differences do exist.
Being equal does not mean to be all the same. Equality means
respecting differences and ensuring these differences will not
limit the freedom of opportunity of individuals. This is what
multiculturalism is all about.
Multiculturalism is about recognition, acceptance and
celebration of differences. I am proud to say that this is the
conception of equality promoted by the NDP. Equality means
equality of opportunities. It means respecting and appreciating
one's particular heritage, differences and characteristics. It
also means that the government has an active role in promoting
the right to be different and to counter intolerance.
To the contrary, the Reform Party wants multiculturalism to be
purged from any government programs. The Reform Party thinks
that the government should not participate in promoting
multiculturalism because one's heritage is a private and personal
matter.
Basically they say it is okay to be Indo-Canadian at home but
let us avoid being multicultural in public. Why? Is it a shame
to be different? Does it mean that we should all hide our roots
in order to live together? Dangerous concepts and for many
reasons.
It means that difference is not welcome and must be hidden. It
also means that the government should not be active in promoting
real equality of opportunities for minorities.
Does the member think the government has no business promoting
justice or fighting racism and intolerance? Because
multicultural policies are also about educating people on how
enriching and powerful working together can be. Why is the
Reform Party so terrified of multiple identities?
It is normal for people to cherish their specific heritages.
Removing descriptions does not mean removing differences. The
names we use to identify ourselves are ways of saying “Here I
am. This is the way I am and I want to be respected as such”.
Being Cree, Quebecois, Indo-Canadian or Jewish is a way to
express our specific heritage, our roots and a certain sense of
collective belonging to a group but it is not a rejection of our
common Canadian identity.
In fact it is just the reverse. It is a strong statement
strengthening the vibrant fabric of Canada.
1805
Reform's rejection of the very idea that people have specific
identities beyond their Canadian citizenship is also simplistic
nonsense on the eve of the 21st century. When in the same day
one can chat on the phone with someone from Rio de Janeiro, send
an e-mail to a friend in Berlin, eat Jamaican patties while
watching the news from Algeria or Afghanistan with a friend born
in East Timor, multicultural we certainly are. To be
multicultural we must fully participate in and understand this
constantly changing and thriving world.
Canada has been recognized as a world leader in developing a
policy that addresses today's multicultural world. Let us not
give away what we have accomplished. Going back to what now
seemed like stone age denials of different policies would be a
major setback for this country. Sadly, this Liberal government
has done little to defend multiculturalism from the unfounded and
misleading attack from such groups as the Reform Party. Rather,
multiculturalism programs have been whittled down bit by bit
since the Liberals took office.
If the Liberals really believe in promoting diversity and
participation of all Canadians in public life as a way to
consolidate our national unity, maybe they could explain why this
government has been following the politics of division and
exclusion promoted by the Reform Party. Slashing social
programs, cutting public education about multiculturalism and
imposing burdens on newcomers like the infamous head tax,
officially referred to as the right of landing fee, on permanent
residency is not about inclusion. That is about exclusion and
marginalization of a growing number of Canadians of all origins.
I and my New Democratic colleagues strongly believe that the
state has an essential role in promoting a fair and just society.
We think, as do the majority of Canadians, that multiculturalism
policies are an important aspect of this role. In times of
economic harshness, intolerance is on the rise. This should be a
concern for all of us.
I personally think and history tends to confirm that in general
when people can be open about and proud of their specific culture
and ethnic origin, and when the state is willing to accommodate
and promote diversity, there is harmony. It is only when
attempts are made to suppress differences that troubles are
developing.
[Translation]
I think it is possible, and even desirable, to live together in a
spirit of co-operation and openness to one another. Only by recognizing
our differences, not only our commons values, but also our distinct
historical roots, can we build a Canada that respects our characteristic
diversity.
Canada is by definition a country based on diversity: geographic
diversity of course, but also the diversity of its people, cultures,
languages and faiths.
I think that, by emphasizing the role of the founding cultures—aboriginal,
French and English—while at the same time promoting and
cherishing the new multicultural reality of our country, we will learn
to live together.
[English]
To recognize our differences, promote our common values and
learn from each other and to enrich our cultural and social
heritage is the way to a better future for Canada, not the
politics of division and denial that we hear more and more from
the other parties in this House. I will always rise to promote
and defend our shared values of tolerance and inclusiveness that
have made Canada such a cherished place to live.
I want to thank all the members for listening to my comments. I
hope that I was able to convince some of them that this motion
must be rejected.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to speak on the motion. I am a little bit
concerned that the member for Surrey Central does not truly
appreciate the implication of the motion he has put before this
House.
We get into the very idea of what it means to be a Canadian. It
was not too long ago that we had a debate in this House. The
issue was about people who had turbans were barred from legions,
something that we as a government did not agree with.
There was also the issue of people being able to wear turbans in
the RCMP.
1810
It is very important in some ways to recognize the reality of
this country which defines us as Canadians. The strong pillars
of that are tolerance, understanding, and being able to
participate fully with one's different religious background, with
one's different ethnic origin, with one's different place of
birth and be truly Canadian.
I was not born in Canada. I came to Canada in 1957 when I was
10 years old. Since 1957 I have lived in Canada. First and
foremost I am a Canadian. But there is no denying that I was
born in Hungary and I would not want to deny that. My mother
came here at the same time when she was 36 years old. She died
very recently. She was 76 years old. She died as a Canadian. She
was proud of being a Canadian, but she did not forget her
homeland. She did not forget where she came from.
In many cases it is coming from other countries, coming from
other cultures that we can bring the very best to this country
that is called Canada, a country that is the best country in the
world.
I say to the member for Surrey Central there are countries where
people try to hide their background. They try to hide their
ethnic heritage. They deny it. They do so because they are
living in a totalitarian country. They are living in a fascist
country. In those places great sanctions are taken against
people who are not perceived to be the same.
One of the strong points of this country is we can be different.
If we look at the demographics of Canada, what does it mean to be
a Canadian? We know the native people, our First Nations came to
this country first. We know that the French factor came to this
country. We know that the English factor came to this country.
But we also know that we have had people come to this country
from all over this planet. They have brought to this country the
strengths from around the world and together have built the very
best country in the world.
The other day we were debating the issue of land mines. There
was an incredible consensus in this House that this was the right
way to go. When I took part in the debate I could not help but
remember that in 1956-57 Lester B. Pearson invented peacekeeping.
One of the reasons this has happened is because in Canada we
have the demographics. It does not matter where the problem is,
where the conflict is, there are Canadians with the background.
They have relatives, friends, acquaintances and a familiarity
with the place where the strife is taking place and they are
hurting.
That is one of the reasons we as Canadians are so good at
peacekeeping. We can broker differences. We can recognize
differences and try to build the best society that we can. To
deny that reality is to say to the rest of the world that we have
to hide our differences, we have to submerge our differences.
Clearly that is not what Canada is about.
I have been disturbed over the years when people have tried to
attack the whole concept of multiculturalism in Canada.
The reality is that we are a multicultural country. That is one
of our very real strengths.
1815
It is a pleasure to attend multicultural festivals with many
people in my community, such as Canada Day, because we are
celebrating the inclusiveness of society and sharing the best
experiences from around the world.
I cannot agree with the motion. It is misguided at best. I
certainly hope that we as a government and as members of the
House of Commons work together to build on our tolerance and
understanding so that we can continue to be a beacon of hope to a
troubled world often torn by strife based on religious
differences, ethnic background and various nationalities.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion. I thank my
colleague for raising the issue. I did not think I would have
the opportunity to speak today, but I am doing so because this is
a subject that is dear to my heart.
Before coming to parliament I was a teacher. That experience
taught me a lot about society and about people. For almost 25
years I observed the things that happened in my classroom. I
began to realize the classroom was a microcosm of society, a
small society within a larger society.
As teachers we were given direction from those above us who
thought they knew better than teachers how to handle the affairs
of the classroom. From time to time we received directives
telling us to make children more sensitive to students with
certain characteristics.
When we tried to implement policies in the classroom to cause
students to be more sensitive to other students with certain
characteristics defined as ones we should be sensitive to, the
result was very interesting. It created a problem for me in the
classroom. I relate this story to the House because I think the
same problem is being created within society.
Students began to resent each other when certain ones became
specially identified. I began to have tensions within my small
classroom because of the policy. I suggest the same thing is
happening in Canada. Students became jealous of each other
because some were singled out as having a special sensitivity.
One student asked me “Are we not all special? Don't each one
of us as individuals have certain characteristics that others
should be sensitive to?” I am sure you have certain
characteristics, Mr. Speaker, that, if we were to become aware of
them, we would all like to be sensitive to. We would treat you
very carefully.
The students taught me something about people. Each person as
individuals want to be respected because they are who they are.
They do not want somebody from above telling them to be sensitive
to people who have a certain characteristic.
When are children in classrooms the happiest? It is when we are
sensitive to each and every one of them and do not divide them
into groups or cause certain ones to be singled out as needing
special attention.
We are important because we are individuals. We will run into
trouble, and we already have, within the society when we begin to
implement policies from above that cause resentments and
jealousies.
If we single out certain characteristics, we have to ask about
all other characteristics that define us. We have a very wide
variety of characteristics, not just our ethnic background,
religion or whatever defines us or that we feel is important.
We have all these things. I do not think we should use those
characteristics to set ourselves apart from others in society.
There are many other characteristics we could use.
1820
I want to give an example. Saskatchewan has problems that are
compounding as time goes on because aboriginals have been given
the right not to comply with certain laws. Those with some
aboriginal blood are now claiming the same right not to obey
these laws. As a result people are beginning to be concerned
about their safety and the preservation of the environment.
When we create differences we run into problems, as we already
have. We should not be creating particular differences and
giving people special consideration in certain areas.
I lived overseas in third world countries for almost five years.
In my experience I was happiest, as the children in my classroom
were happiest, when I was accepted for who I was and not because
I was white, bald, of a certain religious persuasion or any other
external characteristic.
We are important because we are people. Each one of us has many
wonderful qualities. We are each special. Government should not
be trying to define or meddle in areas that can actually divide
us. That is counterproductive. It could create the problem we
are actually trying to solve.
We could apply the lessons I learned in the classroom to the
situation of today. We need to move toward equality.
Multiculturalism is fine but government should not be involved in
such things. When it is involved the big policies it tries to
impose on the country do not work. One size does not fit all.
We should respect each other's background. We have many
wonderful things to contribute. Let us as individuals contribute
and not allow the government to become involved, as it will only
make more of a mess than the one we have. We need to move toward
equality. That will do more to solve the problems.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been in
politics for 15 years to fight against people like Bloc Quebecois and
Reform Party members. Why? Because they always talk about ethnic groups.
Jacques Parizeau said that the referendum was lost because of the
Jewish, Italian and Greek votes. Then, during the election campaign, the
Reform Party was saying “Canadians should not elect another Prime
Minister from Quebec”. Now, these people want to tell me what to do.
They want to tell me what a Canadian is. I feel insulted and outraged by
these extremists.
There is no doubt that multiculturalism is an asset. What is
multiculturalism? It means being different but equal. In my riding of
Bourassa, 20% of the population is Italian and 5% is Haitian. Many
Haitians have settled in my riding of Bourassa.
It is a real asset to share with these people. The fact that I can
speak Italian is something positive. Mi fa molto piacere do parlo
italiano, signor.
This is what being Canadian is all about. Being
Canadian means to benefit from all these cultures.
To me, being a Canadian is to allow people to grow while respecting
their roots and traditions. All these cultures make me a better
Canadian. This is what makes up the people of Canada.
When I see people constantly trying to define what a Canadian
should be, using the highest possible common definition, saying that we
are good or bad Quebeckers, I realize why the public is cynical toward
politicians. Thank goodness the Liberal Party is in office with a
majority. I would be concerned if we were stuck with the ethnic policies
of the Reform Party or the Bloc Quebecois.
If, instead of having a national vision like that of the Liberal
Party of Canada, we constantly talk about regionalization, as do
Reformers and Bloc members, no wonder there are problems.
1825
I wish to commend our Secretary of State for Multiculturalism
on her work. I wish to commend her, and I wish to commend all of
the members of the Liberal Party of Canada, regardless of place of
origin, as well as all of the members of the Reform Party,
regardless of place of origin. They all have the opportunity to be
in Canada because of equality in difference. Now, today, they want
to scrap all of that. I cannot understand the logic of some
members of the Reform Party. They should join the Liberal Party,
because that is where openmindedness is found.
One thing that is certain, I hope this motion will be
defeated. It ought not to have even been moved, because it insults
people's intelligence.
It is an insult to my Canadianism. I trust, however, that these
motions can be taken advantage of as an opportunity for the Bloc
Quebecois to ask pardon of those Canadians who are of Jewish,
Italian or Greek background, so that it will be possible—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Centre on a
point of order.
[English]
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
understand it is customary that the person who moves the motion
normally has the opportunity to sum up. I request that the
person who moved the motion would be next up when the member
speaking concludes, which I hope will be fairly soon, looking at
the clock.
The Deputy Speaker: The ruling given by the Chair on the
first day of Private Members' Business in respect of the rule
about the five minutes for the member who moved the motion
indicated that if members kept rising in debate the member who
moved would not get that opportunity.
I urge hon. members to check the ruling of the Chair on the
first day of Private Members' Business. The ruling was given
that day. The five minutes is available if no one else rises to
speak.
The hon. member for Bourassa rose to speak. He has 10 minutes
in his speech. If he uses his full time I am afraid there will
not be five minutes left. If he chooses to sit down and no other
member rises in debate, I will certainly recognize the hon.
member for Surrey Central at the appropriate time. The hon.
member for Bourassa may bear that in mind as he wishes.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I am so open-minded that I am
going to conclude my remarks quickly to enable another member to
speak.
One thing is for sure, however, contrary to what the member
for Laurentides has just said to me, I will never shut my trap, I
will never stop talking in defence of Canada and the interests and
values of Canadians.
If there is to be open-mindedness and appropriate policies, we
have to have a Liberal government. I thank the good Lord that we
finally, once again, have people like the Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism because thanks to her and people who have chosen
Canada, we can combat people like those opposite. They have
greater merit than I. They chose Canada. They know about Canadian
values.
They know about Canada's passion and intrinsic value.
I hope that the people of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform
Party will be open-minded and will apologize for wanting to have
such a motion passed. This is an insult to a person's
intelligence, and it is certainly not what Canada represents.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the motion the member of the Reform Party tabled in
the House perturbs me quite a bit.
As I stated earlier in the House, I am a Canadian. I am a
Canadian who is black, of African origin. I am of French
Canadian origin. I am of Belgium origin. I am of aboriginal
origin. I am of Metis origin. I have many different ethnic
origins coursing in my blood. I am very proud to be a Canadian.
When I hear someone proposing that Canada become a homogenized,
white bread Canada, I am scandalized. Canada has never been
white bread; Canada has always been whole wheat.
An hon. member: Multi-grained whole wheat bread.
Ms. Marlene Jennings: Multi-grained whole wheat. My
colleague recalled to me multi-grained whole wheat bread. It is
very good for us and full of fibre.
1830
As the doctor will tell us and our mother will tell us, we need
fibre in our diet every day. As Canadians we have that fibre.
It is really interesting to talk about how he wants to abolish
the appellations, Italian Canadian, Greek Canadian, Jewish
Canadian, Ukrainian Canadian. The point is we are all Canadian.
As the hon. Secretary of State for Multiculturalism mentioned and
stated quite clearly, people and individuals do not define
themselves by one thing—
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon.
member.
[Translation]
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the item is dropped from the Order
Paper.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey Central on
a point of order.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
since the employment of dirty tactics in the debate, I was not
given time to close my debate and give answers to some of the
questions raised in the debate.
I will ask you, Mr. Speaker, to seek unanimous consent on the
motion and I implore the House to call for a recorded vote on
motion 24.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the proposal of
the hon. member. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no consent.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been moved
pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 25, 1997.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
CLIMATE CHANGE
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that this evening
parliamentarians of all parties have the opportunity to record
their opinions in this House on the important subject of climate
change.
Climate change, the most serious environmental issue this
century, has been much talked about by members during the last
few months here in the House of Commons during question period,
in the standing committee on environment, in the press and no
doubt in homes and communities across this country.
We know that this issue, climate change, is of great concern to
Canadians. According to our most recent polling, 87% of
Canadians believe it is likely, or somewhat likely, that climate
change will have serious negative effects on both the environment
and our economy within 10 years.
Seventy-two per cent of Canadians believe that the government
should take necessary actions to curb greenhouse gas emissions,
even if such actions could have negative impact on the economy
and their lifestyles. Seventy per cent of Canadians believe that
individuals can play a part in doing something about climate
change.
The phenomenon of climate change is the most serious
environmental threat of this century. In a statement released by
the international panel on climate change in 1995, over 2,000
internationally renowned scientists from all across the world
told us that human activity is having a discernible impact on the
global climate. Nevertheless, some skeptics still refute the
science suggesting an enormous hoax has been perpetrated upon the
global community and that we can carry on with business as usual
or at least wait 20 to 40 years before taking preventative
action.
As responsible members of Parliament, as responsible government
with the authority to act, we are compelled to respond to this
environmental threat with at minimum the attitude of precaution.
As a government we must show leadership by working with all
Canadians, all governments, provincial, territorial and
municipal, all industry and business leaders and our scientists
in order to put in place both realistic and achievable targets
for greenhouse gas emissions reductions and implementation plans
which reflect the engagement of all.
It is important to note that if we take up this challenge, as we
must, we will not only correct a serious global environmental
problem in the long term, but we will also experience some
shorter term environmental and health benefits along the way.
The measures we promote to tackle the climate change problem will
also help to address smog, acid rain and lake water
deterioration. Smog accounts for an estimated 1,500 premature
deaths in Ontario alone, to say nothing of the cost of
hospitalization, asthma attacks and chronic bronchitis.
Committing ourselves to reduce greenhouse gases will contribute
to cleaner air and purer water.
1835
It is important to reflect upon why this issue is important to
Canada. A series of studies released this fall outline the
impacts of climate change on the different regions of Canada,
B.C. and the Yukon, the prairies, the Arctic, Ontario, Quebec and
Atlantic Canada.
The Mackenzie Basin impact study of the north reveals that the
north has already warmed at three times the global rate. We now
know that climate change will result in melting glaciers, ice
caps and permafrost which will result in higher sea levels, more
frequent forest fires and changes in migration patterns of
wildlife.
The Mackenzie Basin impact study goes on to outline how in
contrast to sea levels, lake and river water levels will actually
drop. This will affect freshwater sources and fish and wildlife
habitat. There will also be an impact on agriculture, forestry
and fishery industries because of more frequent droughts and
fires.
However, despite these serious threats, there are those who
suggest that in a cold northern climate like Canada, climate
change will be a benefit, this despite the fact that climate
change would cause unprecedented upheavals in our environment, in
our economy and in our lives. Key sectors of our economy such as
forestry, fisheries and agriculture will be affected in all areas
of Canada. Canada will not be a winner if the phenomenon of
climate change continues unchecked, and this must be understood.
Scientists predict that with present levels of greenhouse gases
we will see more severe weather events like the B.C. snowstorm
last December, hailstorms that hit Alberta in 1991, floods such
as those that struck the Saguenay and Manitoba in the last two
years and possibly more tornadoes and severe storms across the
country.
According to the insurance industry, there have been record
losses in recent years, much higher than previously recorded. In
1996 alone extreme weather events resulted in losses of
approximately $165 million. This is the reality we face in
Canada, a country which on a per capita basis consumes enormous
amounts of energy, the second highest per capita rate worldwide,
second only to our neighbour the United States. This means we
contribute significantly on a per capita basis to the problem of
climate change.
It is also important to put this reality within the global
context. Our world population continues to grow at an
unprecedented rate and all human beings are consumers of energy
and contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. Most of the
population growth occurs in developing nations. Most of these
people live in poverty with no or little access to electricity.
Poor people use every tree available for cooking and heating.
Developing nations are among the largest smog ridden countries
in the world. The air is rank with wood, coal and charcoal smoke
in combination with dirty fuel emissions from cars, trucks and
buses. It is a real chemical soup with serious health and
business costs, to say nothing of the environmental implications.
We must ask ourselves if it is fair to tell developing nations
that they cannot grow and develop because this would perforce
increase their countries' emissions. No. Despite the reality of
dirty air in many cities of the developing world and incredibly
high populations, it is still the developed world that accounts
for 58% of global carbon dioxide emissions.
Is it possible to allow developing nations to grow with business
as usual unchecked growth in greenhouse gas emissions?
No, but it is possible for them to grow with an equivalent effort
at reduction of greenhouse gases in relation to developed
nations.
1840
This proposal offers many opportunities for a country like
Canada, opportunities to share our technologies, our science, our
expertise, opportunities to invest in developing world growth in
a green and environmentally friendly fashion.
Canada has some of the world's best environmental technologies,
some of which must be used more in Canada but which are very
attractive to developing nations as well. For example, we have
some of the best technologies to assist in the clean burning of
coal.
Since 1975, the government has spent $10 million annually on
coal research and development, 40% of which has gone to clean
coal research and development. Environment Canada has
participated in this program and the program is expected to
continue for the next three to five years.
As I have said earlier, the science is sound and compelling and
that is why, when the Canadian government goes to Kyoto next
week, it goes in search of realistic, meaningful, achievable and
equitable targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
We want to make it clear that all countries in the world must
participate in reducing emissions globally. The agreement will
also underscore the need for flexibility mechanisms which will
allow all nations to make significant domestic reductions and
earn credit for reductions achieved internationally.
We are doing this because it is right for the world and because
it is right for Canada.
[Translation]
But Kyoto is not an end in itself. I do not wish to downplay
the importance of the Kyoto meeting. It will be a real challenge
to reach an agreement acceptable to everyone, to developing
countries more concerned with feeding their growing populations, as
well as to small, insular countries that run the danger of sinking
under rising ocean levels.
The real work will begin, however, when we come back from
Kyoto, for it is then that we will have to decide how we are going
to achieve the targets on which we have agreed.
When my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, Ralph
Goodale, and I met with our provincial and territorial counterparts
in Regina two weeks ago, we agreed to formulate this plan together.
The federal government alone cannot reduce greenhouse gas emissions
in Canada.
It was after consultation with provincial, territorial and
municipal governments and with industry and environmental groups
that we formulated Canada's proposal for the Kyoto meeting. We
will take the same approach in working out the plan for meeting our
commitments.
We want the plan we come up with to be consistent with the
environmental, economic and social aspirations of Canadians.
No, it will not be easy. Everyone will have to take part:
governments, industry, environmental groups, communities and each
member of the Canadian public.
[English]
We are all going to have to make changes, changes in the way we
generate electricity, changes in the way we get around, changes
in how we heat our homes and changes in the way our industries
use energy. These changes will be significant, but I have faith
in the willingness of Canadians to make the necessary changes.
Who would have thought a decade or more ago that Canadians would
spend the time required to separate their garbage, rinse tins and
jars and carry different loads of garbage out on garbage day?
Today, curbside recycling is so much a part of our lives, not
many of us think about it any more. We just do it. Many,
without access to the program, are actually taking their
recyclable garbage to another area of town that has the program
so that they can contribute to the recycling effort.
1845
Taking action to reduce emissions can be as simple and
inexpensive as changing or cleaning filters in your furnace and
having it serviced once a year, driving more slowly and keeping
your vehicle's tires fully inflated.
Canadians across the country are already doing what they can to
reduce emissions. They are helping to reduce the number of cars
on the road.
The people at the Toronto Region Carpool initiative have worked
with large employers in three areas of Toronto not well served by
public transit to organize car pools for employees.
Another example is in Edmonton. The EcoCity Society is building
greenways from abandoned rail corridors for cycling, walking and
in-line skating creating a green link between inner city
communities and downtown.
Again, the Cambie Corridor Consortium in Vancouver provides ride
matching services and oversees preferred parking for vans and
car pools, transit pass discounts, and showers for those who walk
and cycle to work.
In Whitehorse, Yukon a 10 kilometre trail will provide residents
with a safe and direct route for cycling and walking in the
summer, snowshoeing and skiing in the winter.
They are making it easy for drivers to have their emissions
tested.
Citizens in Fredericton and Saint John, New Brunswick competed
in the Emissions Impossible contest to see which community could
have the greatest number of cars tested for emissions. One
participant even had the problem fixed and brought his car back
the same day to pass the test.
In Edmonton a campaign called SMOG FREE, Save Money On Gas From
Reduced Exhaust Emissions, provided drivers with free emissions
tests and a coupon good for $10 off on any emissions reducing
work of more than $50.
Canadians are helping homeowners make their homes more energy
efficient, saving them money and reducing emissions at the same
time. Green home visits in Cornwall, Ontario have saved
homeowners anywhere from $300 to $10,000 on their heating bills.
In St. Catharines, Ontario home visits have helped to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions by 369,000 kilograms per year.
The 20 Per Cent Club is a group of more than 30 Canadian
municipalities who have committed themselves to reducing
greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2005. One of the members of
the club, Toronto, has just been recognized by the United Nations
as the most successful city in the world at reducing emissions.
Business too is participating in the effort to reduce emissions
because it is good for the environment and because it is good for
the bottom line. Between 1990 and 1994 Chrysler Canada decreased
total energy use by 5% at its largest Canadian operation at the
same time as production increased by almost 50%. Over the same
period Falconbridge reduced its overall energy consumption by
just over 6% by modifying compressed air systems in several parts
of its operations.
Just this week Petro-Canada announced a joint venture with Iogen
to develop Canadian technology to produce ethanol, an alternative
fuel, from straw, waste wood and other byproducts of agriculture
and forestry. Producing ethanol from biomass in this way reduces
carbon dioxide emissions by more than 90% compared with the
production and use of gasoline. Petro-Canada is committed to
exploring the commercial potential of this process because it
believes that harnessing our powers of innovation is the way to
reduce emissions.
Government too is committed to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. Besides several other significant budget measures
taken by the federal government in the last few years, I was very
proud earlier this week to announce that my department will be
purchasing 100% green power for its Alberta facilities from
Calgary's ENMAX. This is the first ever institutional green
power purchase in Canada. By choosing to power our facilities
from wind power supplied by Vision Quest, Environment Canada will
be reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 2,000 tonnes annually,
enough electricity to power about 250 homes.
That may not sound like much but that is how we will reduce
emissions, step by step, with each step leading to the next step.
1850
Despite everyone's voluntary efforts, we are far from achieving
the goal of stabilization of greenhouse gases at 1990 levels and
we know we must reduce our emissions well below stabilization as
the years go on. We must redouble our efforts, work together to
select and focus on implementing those measures which will have
the greatest cost benefit for the environment and for the
socioeconomic well-being.
The federal government will develop an implementation plan in
collaboration with all our partners.
Climate change poses a real challenge for Canada, but as with
any real challenge real opportunities exist. As an international
leader in energy research and development, Canada's private
sector will be well placed to take advantage of an increased
global demand for renewable resource expertise and clean energy
efficient technology. Canadian companies such as Ballard and GFI
are already taking advantage of this global opportunity with
support from the federal government such as Technology
Partnerships Canada.
Our children and grandchildren deserve a future free of
environmental and economic uncertainty. There will be costs
associated with reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, but the
cost of inaction will be much higher and more profound. Together
with the spirit and determination which shaped our country,
Canadians can meet the challenge of climate change. In so doing
we can demonstrate the international leadership for which this
country is renowned. Our children and our grandchildren deserve
no less.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to participate in this take note debate on global
warming. Our aim is to hold the government accountable for its
approach to the development of Canada's position on this issue in
preparation for the third conference of the parties to the UN
framework convention on climate change to be held December 1 to
10 in Kyoto, Japan.
The minister has previously indicated in the House that Canada
is committed to signing a medium term, legally binding agreement
for reducing CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2010.
However with only a few days left until Kyoto, the minister has
yet to lay before the House in a definitive way the science on
which Canada's position is based. The science, she said tonight,
is sound and compelling and then she failed to present any of it.
The minister has yet to lay before the House a definitive
statement of the economic, sectoral, regional and taxpayer
impacts of pursuing its CO2 emissions reduction targets. The
minister cited public opinion polls, but opinion polls conducted
in the absence of the presentation and knowledge of any of the
impacts would certainly change the results.
The minister has yet to satisfy the House that the government
has a workable agreement with the provinces or with anyone else
for achieving its targets and paying the bills. In the absence
of such a plan, the minister was relegated to listing anecdotes
of emissions controls which however laudable do not even scratch
the surface of the emissions controls required.
I suggest that surely the time for a take note debate is long
overdue. Given the government's ineptitude in approaching this
issue, it is time for an accountability debate and that is what
we intend to present.
I would like to confine my remarks tonight to three aspects of
the issue: the science of global warming; the public interest in
global warming, in particular the taxpayer interest; and an
alternative to the approach the government is taking.
My colleagues, particularly the official opposition critic for
the environment, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni, and the
official opposition critic for natural resources, the hon. member
for Athabasca, and other colleagues will be analysing the
government's approach and position in greater detail from their
perspectives.
I would like to start with global warming from a scientific
perspective and present some of the information which I frankly
had expected to hear from the minister tonight.
I believe that most of us as MPs should attempt to do this, to
outline our layman's understanding of what science is saying on
an important public issue, even at the risk of exposing ourselves
to correction by experts.
By doing so, we acknowledge that science has a major contribution
to make to the issue at hand. By outlining however imperfectly
our understanding of what science is saying, we can learn and
improve our application of science to public policy. So let me
try my hand at describing the greenhouse effect and global
warming from a scientific perspective.
1855
Science tells us first of all that the greenhouse effect is a
natural phenomenon vital to the existence and preservation of
life on this planet. This phenomenon is described in many
scientific textbooks and in the introduction to most policy
discussions on global warming. I will go through a few of these.
They usually begin by reminding us that interstellar space is a
cold place. Its average temperature is -250°C. The average
temperature of the earth on the other hand is 15°C, a difference
of 265 degrees. The difference is explained by the impact of the
sun's radiation as a source of global warmth and the effect of
greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere.
Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and water vapour which
occur naturally in our atmosphere have the following properties:
they are transparent to short wavelength radiations such as
sunlight, but they are opaque to longer wavelength radiations
such as the infrared radiation emitted by the earth. These gases
therefore let sunlight through to warm the earth, but trap the
infrared radiation from the earth and warm the planet by about
20°C.
Let us therefore pause, especially those of us who live in a
northern climate, to express thanks for the greenhouse effect
because without it, the average surface temperature of the earth
would be -5°C and of course it would be uninhabitable.
It is not the greenhouse effect itself that is the current cause
of consternation and the subject of international conferences
like Rio de Janeiro and Kyoto. The cause of consternation, the
subject of this take note debate, is the so-called enhanced
greenhouse effect, the greenhouse effect enhanced by human
activity, in particular the burning of fossil fuels and the
probability of so-called global warming as a result.
In 1896 it was the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius who put
forward the hypothesis that the addition of greenhouse gases from
human activity would trap more infrared radiation and
consequently lead to an increase in atmospheric temperatures.
Today it is not disputed that man's activities over the past two
centuries, in particular the burning of hydrocarbons and the
destruction of forests, have led to an increase of between
one-quarter and one-third of atmospheric CO2. Similar increases
of other greenhouse gases have occurred.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution we have
therefore increased the equivalent CO2, the increase in all
greenhouse gases by approximately 50%. That said, the hypothesis
that global temperatures are in fact increasing over the long
haul is still and should be still the subject of scientific
debate. The hypothesis that increases in CO2 emissions are the
principal contributors to global warming is also and should also
still be the subject of scientific debate.
The scientific literature on global warming includes evidence
and argument for and against both of these hypotheses.
For example, climatologists observe that global temperatures in
the 1960s and 1970s were cooler than in the 1950s. If you go
back and look at their literature, particularly the popular
literature of that period, the global warming theory lost ground
during those years to the ice age theory.
Books such as Ice by Sir Fred Hoyle, an eminent scientist,
The Cooling by Lowell Ponte, The Genesis Strategy by
Stephen Schneider, all purporting to be based on solid science,
argued that global temperatures were falling, not rising.
In 1988 however—and I am talking mainly about the North
American context; you can follow a line of development in Europe
and other parts of the world—the global warming theory regained
attention from testimony before the U.S. Senate energy
subcommittee of the commerce committee by James Hansen, head of
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Hansen said: “I have a high degree of confidence that the
current climate is related to enhanced greenhouse effects. Global
warming is now sufficiently large that we can ascribe with a high
degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the
greenhouse effect”.
1900
In 1990 the UN published its scientific assessment of climate
change, authored by a scientific panel. It is commonly referred
to as the IPCC report. This was a scientific report, prepared
and reviewed by scientists.
Its findings, however, were challenged even at the time by other
scientists, leading the influential scientific journal
Nature to say in an editorial at the time that IPCC's
failure to discuss dissenting opinions, perhaps even to dismiss
them, was a mistake.
The UN subsequently convened the conference on the environment
and development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. This led signatories,
including Canada, to agree to limit CO2 emissions to 1990 levels
by the year 2000.
Incidentally, according to Environment Canada, a greenhouse gas
inventory prepared a year after put Canada's emissions at 461
million tonnes of carbon dioxide, for the year 1999, 3.7 million
tonnes of methane and approximately 92,000 tonnes of nitrous
oxide.
In addition, under a business as usual scenario, it was believed
that by the year 2000 Canadian emissions of carbon dioxide would
grow by between 11% and 13%.
While these measurements were going on, scientists like Patrick
Michaels, a climatologist at the University of Virginia, in both
scientific articles and in popular books like Sound and
Fury challenged the validity of the global climate models.
These are the computer models on which much of the global warming
theory is based.
DFO scientist Allyn Clarke, testifying before the parliamentary
committee on the environment on November 6, 1997, said: “I don't
believe that our current crop of climate models are particularly
good at predicting the future. I can explain away each new
climatic index as being within the range of natural
variability”. He is a Canadian scientist, working for the
Canadian government.
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the Global
Hydrology and Climate Centre at the University of Alabama, argues
that global temperature data collected from satellites, which is
more modern than the data collected from earth based
meteorological stations, do not support the theory of global
warming.
A 1991 study by Friis-Christiansen and Lassen and similar
studies found a correlation between solar cycle length and global
temperatures, suggesting that fluctuations in solar radiation
levels, not greenhouse gas emissions, were the controlling factor
in climate changes over the last 100 years.
All of this brings me to the following observation on the
government's approach to global warming from a scientific
perspective.
An underlying weakness of the government's approach is its
inability to sort out good science from bad, real science from
pseudo-science and basic science from science as applied by those
with vested interests in its application on either side of the
issue.
Indeed, this is a special case—and this is something I have
noticed since I came to this Parliament—of the government's
general lack of ability and mechanisms to bring science to bear
objectively and effectively on any issue of national importance.
Despite the importance of science to every aspect of our
national life, this is not a science oriented government. There
are very few science stories in the clipping service subscribed
to the by government. There are never any science illustrations,
contemporary ones or anecdotes, in the speeches of the prime
minister or senior ministers.
The government knows how to put on cocktail receptions for Nobel
laureates but does not know how to tap into their wisdom and
apply it to national policy issues.
To illustrate this further, when the minister was asked in the
House the other day by the member from Kelowna which particular
scientists and which particular studies she had used to form the
basis of Canada's position at the Kyoto conference, she said:
Mr. Speaker, there are thousands of respected scientists
throughout the world who are telling us that this is an issue we
have to be concerned about. There are all kinds of science in
support of the international community's signing an agreement in
Kyoto, Japan.
That was all that was said.
She then jumped from this totally vague reference to thousands
of scientists and all kinds of science to quoting particular
references from various interest groups.
This is a completely unacceptable and, I suggest, a completely
unscientific answer to a perfectly legitimate question on
relevant science.
The official opposition is therefore sceptical about the alleged
science behind the government's position, and for three
particular reasons.
1905
First, we are aware that one of the unfortunate byproducts of
government policy demanding results oriented science is to create
a market for biased science designed to serve political and
bureaucratic interests rather than a market for free and
independent science.
In the U.S. this trend is most aptly illustrated by a quote from
Dr. Stephen Schneider, a global warming protagonist and adviser to
U.S. Vice-President Al Gore. In an interview given by Dr.
Schneider to Discover magazine on October 1989 he said:
On the one hand, we are ethically bound to the scientific
method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but—which means we must include all the doubts,
caveats, ifs, and buts.
On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings
as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a
better place, which in this context translates into our working
to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To
do that we have to get some broad based support, to capture the
public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of
media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make
simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any
doubts we might have. This `double ethical bind' that we
frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula.
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being
effective and being honest.
Before accepting the government's position on global warming, as
based on legitimate science, Canadians want to be assured that it
is not based on, to quote Dr. Schneider, scary scenarios made
simple and dramatic with little mention of doubts, simply in
order to capture public imagination and support and, I might also
say, research funds from gullible governments.
Second, with respect to the record of this government in
bringing science to bear on public policy, the official
opposition is well aware that this House has been misled in this
area before. I refer particularly to the record of this
government and the previous government in bringing science to
bear on the sustaining of the fisheries, particularly the
Atlantic fishery.
Time and time again this House was assured that the goal of the
government was the sustainable development of the fisheries, a
goal which balances economic and environmental interests, the
same type of thing only in a different context as what we are
talking about tonight. Time and time again we were assured that
science was guiding the government's pursuit of sustainability.
All hon. members have heard that said at one time or another.
Now in more recent days we read stories of fishery scientists
who say their science was ignored or, worse yet, twisted to serve
political and bureaucratic ends, for example, to justify opening
a depleted cod fishery for a short time just before a federal
election. I wonder what scientific study led to that conclusion?
Most damning of all, we have the auditor general's recent report
saying that in reality there is no clearly stated policy for
sustainable fisheries in theory or in practice. Excuse us,
therefore, if we are sceptical of the claims of a government that
now claims it can harness science to public policy to save the
planet from CO2 emissions when it obviously could not harness
science to public policy to save a fishery.
Third, we are particularly sceptical about the capacity of
governments to harness science to public policy at high level
conferences like Rio or Kyoto because of what I call the Meech
Lake effect or the law of Meech. I am heading into new
scientific ground.
The law of Meech is based on observations made at the high level
constitutional conference held at Meech Lake in 1987. This was
conducted with politicians, not monkeys, because it was found that
the technicians were less likely to develop a personal attraction
to the politicians.
At that conference 11 first ministers were locked up for three
days to come up with a constitutional agreement while over 200
media persons waited outside for a dramatic pronouncement. The
agreement reached at that meeting under those kinds of
circumstances was so out of tune with the needs of the country
and the thinking of the public, so devoid of common sense, that
it was eventually discredited and rejected.
1910
According to the law of Meech, therefore, the capacity of
politicians in high conference with each other to deceive
themselves is directly proportionate to four things: the number
of politicians involved, the rank of the politicians, the length
of the time they are together isolated from ordinary people, and
the number of journalists, media persons, waiting outside the
door panting for a story.
I suggest that this Meech Lake effect was in full operation at
the Rio summit in 1992 where over 100 world leaders met in
isolation from their publics for almost a week with almost 9,000
media people panting for an instant, simplistic solution to a
complex problem.
I see increasing evidence of the Meech Lake effect coming into
play again as the Government of Canada rushes down the road to
Kyoto. Can we offer any constructive advice on how better to
harness science to the development of public policy on global
warming or on anything else?
Time will not permit me here to elaborate on an alternative
science policy to the federal government. I think we should have
a debate like that some time in this House.
Allow me to make one observation. This Parliament, indeed this
government, has no effective mechanism for bringing science
effectively to bear on big issues like global warming without
having that advice filtered or amplified by the departments and
interest groups with a strong vested interest in the content and
the direction of the advice we receive.
In retrospect, it was probably a mistake to do away with the
science council of Canada and the office of the chief science
adviser to Canada. We should re-examine whether such
institutions are in fact required. If they are, and I suspect
they are, we should take particular care to ensure that their
terms of reference enable them to provide that basic, objective,
unfettered, scientific advice which this Parliament and this
government so obviously need to deal with an issue like global
warming.
I want to turn from science to consideration of the issue of
global warming from the public interest perspective. This
Parliament has a responsibility to determine what policy, what
position on global warming is in the Canadian public interest,
and the public interest is rarely, if ever, synonymous with a
single interest.
It is not a matter of choosing between the protection of the
environment or the growth and development of the economy, but the
best balance between the two, the course of action that
reconciles the two at lowest cost.
It is not a matter of choosing between the federal interest in
this matter or the provincial interest but finding the position
and the policy that activates and co-ordinates both federal and
provincial responsibilities in this area.
It is not a matter of choosing between the interests of the coal
and the oil producing provinces and the interests of the other
provinces, but the position and policy that balances and
reconciles the best interests of both producing and consuming
interests.
I saw this neglected in the minister's presentation. Above all,
since we are the Canadian Parliament and it is the position of
the Canadian government we are seeking to devise, it is the
interests of Canada and Canadians in all these matters that we
must keep paramount.
Let me talk for a minute about balancing environmental and
economic interests. Let me first of all say categorically that
Reform is committed to the protection of the Canadian and global
environment. We do not believe that this country or any other
country can be indifferent to the real and potential
environmental damage that can arise from the combustion of
hydrocarbons.
When our party was founded, its statement of principles included
the following statement: “We believe that Canada's identity and
vision for the future should be rooted in and inspired by a fresh
appreciation of our land and the supreme importance to our
well-being of exploring, developing, renewing and conserving our
natural resources and physical environment”.
We understand from the laws of conservation of energy and mass
that the total weight of materials taken into an economy from
nature must ultimately equal the total weight of the waste
discharged plus any materials recycled. It is a great
fundamental principle, economic in one dimension and ecological
in another.
That means the only way to reduce the pollution burden on
ecosystems in this country in absolute terms is either to reduce
our economic activity or to dramatically improve our recycling
capability.
1915
Nations like ours, indeed all nations of the world, should begin
to give as much attention to the measurement and disposition of
the gross national pollution as we do to the gross national
product.
We are convinced the real standard of living of our country and
other countries of the world cannot be measured by GNP per capita
alone as it often is. Real standard of living equals GNP per
capita minus gross national pollution per capita. That equation
should guide both our economic and environmental policies.
To give a more human dimension to this point, I frequently visit
schools, particularly when I am on the road. I try to visit an
educational institution at least once a day. When I do that I
try not to give long speeches like this one. I try to get young
people themselves to talk.
I often ask them what kind of country they want to live in. I
have been impressed over the last 10 years by the fact that over
40% of the answers I receive are expressed in environmental
terms. I want to live in a Canada where there is clean air,
where there is clean water, where there are forests, where there
is unpolluted land, and so forth.
Whereas our grandfathers may have defined Canada as a
partnership between the English and the French and our generation
may wish to define it as a partnership between equal citizens and
provinces, I suspect our grandchildren may well insist the most
primary definition of Canada should be as a partnership between
its people and the land, between its people and its ecosystem.
That would not surprise me at all.
Let it not be said that this side is indifferent to the
protection of the environment and questions the adequacy of the
government's approach to global warming from that perspective.
Just as we believe and I think most members in the House believe
that major proposals for industrial projects require an
environmental impact assessment, we believe major proposals for
environmental protection require an economic impact assessment.
We have not seen that from the government with respect to CO2
emission reductions. How can we find the right balance between
economic and environmental impacts and effects if we do not have
them in the same degree of specificity on the table at the same
time?
The federal government is apparently prepared to commit itself
to significant reductions in GNP over the next one or two decades
to stabilize CO2 emissions at 1990 levels. If some industrial
concern came before parliament or one of its committees with an
industrial proposal that would increase our GDP by 1% to 3% over
the next 20 years, we would insist that it provide us with a
detailed assessment of the environmental impacts.
We have the government coming to us with an environmental policy
proposal that could require a significant reduction in GDP. The
government fails to provide an economic impact assessment. It
fails to provide sectoral impact assessments. It fails to
provide regional impact assessments. It fails to provide a tax
impact assessment.
Where is the impact assessment from the Department of Finance or
the Department of Human Resources on the number of jobs that will
be lost as a result of a GDP reduction required to hit the
proposed Kyoto targets?
Where is the assessment of the impact on loss of revenue to the
government and the increase in the deficit? We are not arguing
at this point whether it is right or wrong. We are saying where
is the assessment of the impact so we can make a judgment on
whether it is worth the cost.
Where is the economic impact assessment that supports the job
creation and economic activity are associated with new
technologies and exporting to which the minister referred?
Where is the assessment that indicates the value of that
activity would come even remotely close to compensating for the
job loss and curtailment of economic activity required to reduce
CO2 emissions to 1990 levels?
Where is the assessment from the transportation minister? That
minister has been silent on the contraction of that sector which
will result from the measures required to reduce CO2 emissions to
1990 levels.
Where is the assessment from the natural resources minister on
the contraction of the energy sector?
Where is the assessment of the trade minister on the trade
impacts? Why has this not run through the entire government if
the government is serious about the matter?
Where are the assessments of the so-called regional development
ministers on the impacts on the west, Ontario, Quebec, the
Atlantic region and the north?
In the absence of these impact assessments from the government,
we have no choice but to rely on impact assessments prepared by
the interests that would be directly affected.
1920
Some hon. members may consider the assessments biased, but they
are more substantive than anything the government has produced.
They are so sobering in their content that even if they were
discounted by 50% by 75%, they could hardly be ignored.
I apologize for taking so much time, but I am doing what I had
expected the minister to lay before the House. For example, the
Business Council on National Issues attempted to illustrate the
nature and the magnitude of the measures needed to reduce
Canadian CO2 emissions to 1990 levels. According to their
calculations reductions to 1990 levels—and this is the stated
Canadian position for Kyoto—would require the equivalent of one
of the following measures: a shutdown of 40% of Canada's
agricultural, petrochemical, industrial processing, metal
production and other industries utilizing hydrocarbon processing
or combustion in the production process; or a shutdown of the
entire upstream oil and gas exploration industry; or a shutdown
of all agriculture and the heating of 25% of Canadian homes; or
the removal of 50% of all Canadian passenger vehicles from the
highways.
If members think those measures are bad, take a look at the aim
to reduce CO2 emission to 1990 levels minus 5%, which is the
Japanese position. That would require the equivalent of one of
the following measures: the removal of 85% of all Canadian
passenger vehicles; or the removal of 75% of commercial
transportation vehicles, that is trucks, and the elimination of
all air, railway and marine transportation; or the elimination of
the heating of all commercial buildings and virtually all homes.
What they are doing here is simply illustrating the magnitude of
what is involved with even a so-called small percentage reduction
in GDP over this time period.
Our Prime Minister is striving to compete with the nations of
the world to see who is the greatest leader. If the aim is to
reduce CO2 emissions to 1990 levels, minus 15%, which is the EEC
position, that would require the equivalent of one of the
following measures: the removal of all Canadian passenger
vehicles and 80% of all commercial vehicles, that is just about
all of Canada's motor vehicles being off the road; or a shutdown
of all hydrocarbon fuel generation and all air, railway and
marine transportation; or a shutdown of all Canadian industries
which utilize hydrocarbon processing or combustion in the
production process.
That is only one set of analyses, the economic impact analysis
by an interest group. Even if it is discounted by 75%, the
magnitudes are far bigger than we have ever heard said by the
minister.
Turning to another model developed by the Government of Canada,
the DRI McGraw Hill analysis has been done on various regional
impacts of stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels. We are talking
about regional impacts, not gross economic impacts. This
analysis demonstrates the effect of stabilization of greenhouse
gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 as compared to
business as usual projections.
Its conclusion is that all regions suffer considerable declines
through to the year 2010. The biggest impacts occur in the
fossil fuel dependent provinces, with Alberta suffering
increasingly negative impacts through 2020. Negative impacts are
suffered by all regions, with the negative impacts in Ontario
almost equalling those in the western provinces.
An analysis done by Charles River Associates in the U.S. has
been used to look at the trade impacts. We expected the trade
minister to bring this analysis to the House. It has not come
and we are only a few days from Kyoto.
This study shows Canada to be the worst affected among the G-7
countries. This trend continues to the year 2030. The DRI model
has also been used to analyse the export performance of various
sectors under emission constraints compared to a business as
usual scenario. Not surprisingly, the biggest decline is in the
energy sector, particularly coal. Also significant is the impact
in energy intensive sectors such as iron and steel, chemicals,
mining, and pulp and paper. Many of these sectors will lose
market share to competitors in developing countries.
We are now seeing, belatedly, various industrial and economic
interests throughout the country beginning to come forward to the
natural resources committee, the environment committee and
individual members of Parliament, presenting their own
assessments of the possible impact of various CO2 emission
control levels on their industry, on their companies and on their
unions.
1925
We see estimates of job losses including—and I will just give
two that I am familiar with—up to 10,000 to 12,000 jobs lost to
the coal industry alone, 2,500 to 3,500 direct jobs in the coal
industry in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, and direct and
indirect oil and gas job losses as high as 56,000 including
spinoff effects.
These interests will concentrate on one side of the story. We
know that. Perhaps some of them will exaggerate the impacts. We
know that. However, our task is to try to get all major impacts
on the table to assess them as objectively as we can and to
define the proper balance.
There is another interest I want to touch on. What is most
disturbing of all to us is that the one interest most likely to
be dramatically affected by whatever positions we take at Kyoto
does not even seem to have entered into the equation or the
calculation of the government's position. I refer to that long
suffering, oft forgotten interest, the interest of the Canadian
taxpayer.
When the UN framework convention on climate change was agreed to
in 1992 with the aim of limiting CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by
the year 2000, there was much talk at that time among the
governments and trading blocs involved about meeting this target
through the imposition of a tax on fossil fuels. That was the
most frequently mentioned mechanism for paying for the targets
that were agreed to in Rio.
The precise form of this tax was not specified but most
economists talk about a carbon tax, which would mean that at some
point in the chain from producer to consumer a levy, probably
paid to the government of the state in which the sale took place,
is imposed on the sale of fossil fuels. The size of the tax
would be proportionate to the carbon content of the fuel, with
coal having the highest carbon content and methane having the
lowest.
Canadians know that Liberals have an instinct. It must be bred
into them. We do not know where it comes from. This would
perhaps be a good subject for a scientific study. They have an
instinct to try to solve every problem ultimately by increasing
taxes. That is how the finance minister effectively tackled the
deficit. Most of it was through an increase in tax revenues. It
is the solution they put forward for fixing the Canada pension
plan, a 73% hike in payroll tax.
The suspicion is that at the end of the day, after all the fuzzy
talk, the approach the government will take to endeavour to pay
for whatever it commits to in Kyoto will be a tax.
It is time for the federal government to come clean, although it
is pretty late in the day, on how will it pay for its targeted
reductions in CO2 emissions. Will it be carbon taxes, energy
taxes, fuel taxes, greenhouse taxes, direct taxes or indirect
taxes?
Energy industry analysts have estimated that if the bulk of the
cost of meeting the target of CO2 levels is borne through fuel
taxes, this could result in a price increase at the pumps of 10¢,
20¢ or 30¢ a litre, depending on which assumptions we use. If the
government has ruled out a carbon tax, as the Prime Minister has
said, if it has ruled out a fuel tax, what other taxes does it
have in mind?
The federal government has a moral and fiscal obligation to come
clean on the subject with the public, and it has singularly
failed to do so.
We have looked at the environmental impacts, the economic
impacts, the sectoral impacts and the taxpayer impacts. Let me
look at one more combination of interests, the balancing of the
federal and provincial interest in this matter. We are, after
all, a federal state.
In a federal system like Canada, the development of any position
on environmental protection, particularly one that has
significant ramifications for the economy, must be a co-operative
effort between federal and provincial governments. Under our
constitution responsibility for environmental protection is a
shared responsibility. Both federal and provincial governments
have responsibilities in the area of economic development as
well.
As I have previously stated, we do not believe the federal
government, even at this late date, has clearly stated what
interest it intends to advance and protect in developing its
negotiating position for Kyoto, or how it intends to implement
and pay for its commitments. This makes it extremely difficult
for the provinces to know where they stand or even to be able to
agree to the commitments.
1930
We do know, from the meeting of federal, provincial and
territorial energy environment ministers on November 12, 1997 in
Regina, that the provincial ministers are prepared to agree to
the following: one, reliance on joint implementation and
technology transfers as ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
globally; two, continued scientific research on such subjects as
reforestation, alternate energy sources, technology transfers and
research into climatic change itself; three, expansion and
promotion of the volunteer challenge registration program, which
we support; and four, the expansion of innovative approaches,
such as emissions trading, which of course would require major
changes in all of Canada's regulatory legislation which we have
not seen any evidence of at all.
What strikes the objective outside observer is that this hastily
prepared short list barely scratches the surface of what would be
required to meet the stated target of reducing aggregate
greenhouse gas emissions in Canada back to 1990 levels.
Again there is a gaping hole in the Regina statement as to how
any such effort is to be financed. Even the overall target
referred to in the November 12 statement was put in doubt just
eight days later—this is how permanent these commitments
are—when the Prime Minister implied to Premiers Tobin and Klein
that in his misguided desire to look better than the Americans on
this issue, perhaps a new target should be adopted by lowering
GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2007. That was eight
days after the firm commitment was made in Regina.
Parliament must therefore conclude that the federal government
has not even scratched the surface in identifying and reconciling
federal and provincial interests in implementing and paying for an
action plan for reducing CO2 emissions.
This task, which should have been accomplished prior to Kyoto,
apparently will be tackled, from what the minister said tonight,
after Kyoto. It is a classic case of getting the cart before the
horse.
Repeatedly in the House the minister, in an obvious effort to
divert attention from the poverty of the government's approach
and position, has asked what is Reform's position. It may be
that the minister is subconsciously anticipating the day when
Reform is the government. However, as of this hour we are the
official opposition, the Liberals form the government, and our
task is to hold the government accountable for the failures and
weaknesses of its positions.
We do not have the resources to do the work of the Department of
the Environment with its 4,000-plus employees and its budget of
over $575 million. However, what we do have to offer is an
alternative process for ascertaining and reconciling the
legitimate interests—the environmental interest, the health
interest, the business and commercial interest, the provincial
interest, the consumer interest, the worker interest, the
taxpayer interest—which must be reconciled if the government is
to have a credible position.
The government has put the cart before the horse. It goes to
international conferences where it is subject to all the
pressures of the Meech Lake effect and it agrees in advance to
certain targets and standards. It has, in effect, agreed to sign
a treaty at Kyoto even before that treaty has been negotiated,
having made commitments and having held the press conferences,
which seem to be the most important part of this exercise. It
then will proceed to negotiate with the people who will be
directly affected by those commitments, the private sector and
the provinces while, as I have mentioned, ignoring certain
interests, in particular the taxpayers' interests, altogether. It
is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse.
Our alternative process is simply this. Number one, get the
Canadian position first by negotiating with our key players.
Define a Canadian position on CO2 emissions that is particular to
this country; a big, cold, northern, exporting country.
Number two, having secured some agreement in principle on
appropriate CO2 emission levels for this country, then secure
agreement on implementation and who pays. I do not think someone
is serious on this issue until they address the issue of who
pays. It is always the last thing to be considered in this House.
It ought to be the first. It is because it was the last thing in
this House to be considered that we ended up with the deficits we
did and a $600 billion debt.
Number three, having reached that position at home, that is the
Canadian position which should be taken to Kyoto to be negotiated
in good faith with the other players.
Number four, if an agreement is reached that is close to or
better than the Canadian position, then sign.
Number five, if no such agreement is reached, do not sign. It
is better to be honest and say we cannot meet commitments beyond
our capability than to sign simply for the purposes of temporary
favourable press clippings, only to fail to keep our commitments,
which is exactly the case that happened in Rio.
1935
This is our alternative. It is an alternative process and we
firmly believe it would lead to a more responsible position than
that of the government, a scientifically sound position, a
position in the Canadian public interest and a position capable
of implementation.
I have one final word for the Prime Minister. I cannot for the
life of me understand where the Prime Minister is coming from on
this issue. In his desire to be seen as a good green fellow at
international environmental gatherings, he seems to have
forgotten where he lives and whom he represents.
The Prime Minister needs to be reminded that he is not the Prime
Minister of a unitary state. He is the Prime Minister of a
federation where joint action on the environment requires
federal-provincial agreement prior to making international
agreements.
The Prime Minister needs to be reminded that he is not the Prime
Minister of Fiji where they can survive without much extra
energy. He is the Prime Minister of Canada, a northern country,
with one of the coldest climates in the world.
He needs to be reminded that 24 Sussex Drive is not on the
Equator. It is at 45° north latitude in Ottawa, which the
diplomatic corps assures me is the coldest capital in the world
next to Ulan Bator in Mongolia.
He needs to be reminded that he is not the Prime Minister of
Belgium, a small country that can be driven across in a few
hours. He is the Prime Minister of the second largest country in
the world, a northern exporting country of immense distances that
has an energy requirement for transportation, an energy
requirement for heating just for survival, an energy requirement
for manufacturing and processing that is particular to this
country and requires a particularized approach to CO2 emission
limits.
In other words, the Prime Minister needs to be reminded that he
is the Prime Minister of Canada, in all its dimensions, federal,
ecological, and economic.
If he forgets that, as he and his government appear to have
done, the road to Kyoto will be a road to failure, not the road
to a better world and a better tomorrow.
Take note, Prime Minister, please. Take note.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak on a matter of utmost importance: global
warming.
As we speak, millions of tons of carbon dioxide are being released
into the atmosphere. North America alone is responsible for more than
25% of these emissions that are having an unprecedented effect on our
atmosphere.
How should we react to this major challenge? That is the question
we must ask ourselves, the purpose of the debate we are having tonight.
But first of all, let us take a brief look at history. Society took
a long time to realize basic things concerning the environment.
For some time already, scientific experts around the world have been
noticing that, over the past century, the globe has been warming up
faster than before. Many research teams have looked into this serious
problem to seek out its causes. One after the other, these teams have
released their troubling findings, that human activity is responsible
for global warming.
Their findings were immediately challenged by numerous sceptics,
and from what I could see this evening, the leader of the official
opposition is one of them. However, many sceptics, not counting the
leader of the official opposition, were shocked to learn that humans
could have such a major effect on the atmosphere. For the longest time,
like the environmentalists, these scientific experts were doomed to be
a voice crying in the wilderness.
But since the mid-1980s, a growing number of people have started to
realize how serious this environmental problem is.
Having recovered from the effects of the 1982 economic crisis,
society is realizing how extensive and diverse environmental problems
are. The ensuing expansion of the debate was beneficial to us all.
1940
The environment quickly became a major concern for the whole of
society. Public opinion developed an awareness and began to support
experts and political leaders for greater protection of the environment.
After facing the numerous challenges relating to the protection of
our water, air, forests and soil, we turned to issues of a more global
nature, such as greenhouse gases. At the international level, these
issues require the implementation of global and co-ordinated measures by
all the nations.
This led to the signature in Helsinki, in 1984, of the first
international protocol to reduce transborder emissions responsible for
acid rain.
Three years later, in 1987, Montreal hosted an international
meeting that led to the signing of what was called the Montreal
protocol, the purpose of which is to reduce the production of gases
harmful to the ozone layer.
Five years later, in 1992, over 150 nations got together in Rio for
the earth summit. This meeting led to the signing of a UN framework
agreement to limit concentrations of greenhouse gases. At this
unprecedented summit, developed countries set as a common goal to
stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at the 1990 level by the year 2000.
Today, five years later, we are faced with the same potential
disasters. Why?
Because several countries, including Canada, did not manage to reach
their objectives.
The Liberal government, which has been in office since 1993,
seemingly put more effort into using doublespeak regarding the
environment than in applying concrete measures to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
There are numerous examples. On April 24, the Liberal government
came up with an advertisement highlighting their achievements, in which
it claimed to have been a leader on the international scene, by helping
reduce the causes of climate change in the world. However, nothing could
be further from the truth. Canada's performance regarding greenhouse gas
levels is one of the worst.
Indeed, compared to other OECD members, Canada did poorly in terms
of reducing greenhouse gases, in spite of Quebec's good performance,
which should not go unnoticed.
It should be remembered that in Quebec, there is an average of nine tons
of carbon dioxide emissions per capita, whereas the Canadian average is
18 tons, while in Alberta, it reaches the unacceptable level of 56 tons
per capita. Quebec is in a position to meet the objectives set in Rio.
However, for the whole of Canada, observers expect that instead there
will be an increase of 13% in emissions by the year 2000. Quite a
performance for a government that likes to brag about its leadership in
this area.
Unfortunately, the government's failure to act in this issue
extends beyond that. Of all the G-7 countries, Canada will be the last
one to present its negotiating position at the Kyoto summit. That is
some leadership when hiding one's own position seems to be the
objective.
Since we are still waiting for this so-called final position, we
have to rely on the only public position that was endorsed by the
Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources, the
so-called Regina agreement.
During that meeting, the environment and natural resources ministers
from all ten provinces were invited by the federal government to discuss
the objectives for greenhouse gas emission reductions. The rest of
Canada managed to agree on only one thing: to delay for ten years the
environmental commitments made by Canada at Rio. No reduction objective
was discussed.
That meeting is an unfortunate setback for the environmental cause
in Canada. That meeting showed the ministers giving in to the demands of
the oil lobby.
1945
Having recorded one of the worse increases in emissions among
the OECD countries, after being the last G-7 country to submit a
negotiating position for Kyoto, with what is called the Regina
agreement, the Liberal government is assured of presenting one of
the lowest reduction objectives among the industrialized countries
in attendance at Kyoto.
Yet at the international conference at Berlin in 1995, the
attending countries clearly agreed that stabilizing emissions would
not be sufficient to eradicate the negative effects of global
warming caused by human activity.
It is inevitable that what we do not do today, we will have to
do tomorrow.
Not taking action today means saddling future generations with an
even heavier burden. In deciding to restrict itself to a sensible
stabilization of emissions until the year 2010, the Canadian
government is choosing inaction as its action plan for meeting one
of the most important challenges facing the planet, contrary to its
promises.
This government got itself elected in 1993 by promising to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% before the year 2005.
Today, it is putting its 1992 commitments off for ten years.
In their government publication, the Liberals tell the public
that it is time for action to reduce greenhouse gases. Yet, when
they sit down together at Regina, they decide instead to put their
promises off for another ten years.
The federal Minister of Natural Resources, seemingly totally
unconcerned by any contradiction, has taken the Liberal derision
further still.
He said a bargaining position like Regina's would enable Canada to
build bridges and promote consensus in Kyoto. Since when does the
individual with the weakest position at the bargaining table
promote consensus?
Are we to understand from this statement that it is the firm
intention of the Liberals to go to Kyoto to build international
consensus around immobility? This would seem to be the
government's position.
On the same day that the Liberal government and all the
provinces but Quebec reached an agreement in Regina, the Minister
of Finance was making a speech at the University of Toronto. In it
he said that the economic growth we are aiming at is a reflection
of the quality of life Canadians deserve.
If Canadians' quality of life is really of interest to the
Minister of Finance, perhaps he should have a look at the major
studies done by the Department of Environment on the impact on
Canada of the rapid warming of the climate. The most significant
of these studies indicates that we should expect higher mortality
and more disease if we do not act quickly to stop climate changes.
More specifically, the study provides that the heatwaves caused by
global warming will raise the rates of death and disease
particularly among young people, old people, the chronically ill
and those whose health is fragile. In short, the consequences of
failing to act now could be disastrous.
With only a few days before the start of international
negotiations in Kyoto, all speakers in this House should drop their
arguments and work together to find a constructive solution to this
major problem of humanity.
Our era has been marked by frenetic, even aggressive
development. Now it is time to be cautious, self disciplined and
mindful of nature. This is the message sent in 1986 by the United
Nations commission on the environment and development chaired Prime
Minister Gro Brundtland of Norway. The work of this commission
gave rise to what we now call sustainable development. Growth and
the environment are not mutually exclusive, rather they should be
used together.
We have to recognize that the extension of respect for
individuals lies in respect for their surroundings. We have to
protect the environment of this planet out of respect for what our
forefathers bequeathed us and a sense of responsibility toward
future generations.
1950
For its part, the Bloc Quebecois, through its environment
critic, the member for Rosemont, has been calling for serious
commitments from Ottawa for several weeks now. Throughout the
debate, we have stressed the importance of this issue for the
environment and the economy.
We feel that the federal government must make serious formal
commitments at the Kyoto conference with respect to reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Only serious objectives to significantly
reduce carbon dioxide emissions would confirm its desire to tackle
this major problem.
In addition, the provinces, particularly the worst polluters,
must also undertake to do more.
There must be clear and concrete objectives in order to avoid
backsliding. We must do better than the Americans' timid
objective. We must aim even higher than Japan's objective, which
is to reduce by 5% from 1990 levels by the year 2012.
Ratification by all provinces of the Kyoto convention is vital
in attaining the objectives set. The Rio agreement, it will be
remembered, was ratified only by Quebec and British Columbia. All
provinces must make efforts consistent with their situation. It is
a question of equity.
Finally, while the Bloc Quebecois is interested in the
objectives, it is even more interested in seeing them met.
This is why an independent compliance committee composed of experts
and private citizens should be created to ensure that, within
Canada, the federal government and the provinces follow up on the
commitments made in Kyoto through periodic public reports.
In closing, I would like to stress the major role governments
play in protecting the environment. As parliamentarians, we must
set an example and be attentive to the possible impact of our
actions on the future. Global warming is a major problem, and the
long term impact on society may be devastating.
We all have a collective responsibility to protect our
environment.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let me
say how very pleased I am this evening to have the opportunity to
participate in this very important debate in the run up to the
Kyoto conference next month. I have to say in all honesty so far
I feel a little like Alice in Wonderland.
First of all we were treated to some comments by the environment
minister who I must say made a reasonably solid case. In fact I
would say she made quite a convincing case for why we desperately
need leadership from the Government of Canada to tackle the
problems associated with climate change. It is the very
environment minister who apparently has attempted but failed to
persuade her colleagues of the critical importance of this
challenge.
It leaves one somewhat worried. Once again we see an example of
where the more progressive elements within the Liberal
caucus—and I am certainly prepared to acknowledge that the
environment minister falls within that category—are nevertheless
overshadowed and prevailed upon by the regressive elements in the
Liberal caucus. What we get instead is a total absence of
leadership.
It is a situation where at this point in time we are coming up
to Kyoto with absolutely no clear indication from the Government
of Canada of where it stands and what it intends to do on behalf
of the Canadian people who have elected them to office and who
have been looking to them for leadership.
1955
Then we heard the Reform leader again very effectively in his
usual eloquent way damning the government for its record in
regard to climate change. I want to quote directly and I hope I
got the exact words. It seemed to me to be an absolutely classic
statement by the Reform leader when he said that we have had a
government “panting for a simplistic solution for a complex
problem”. I have to say that I have never heard a better
description of how the Reform Party of Canada conducts itself day
in and day out in this House and outside of this Parliament in
regard to practically every single issue of public policy.
We then heard the Reform leader once again make the case that
who pays for this should be the single most important question.
He went on, as he does so often, to define the public interest as
being absolutely identical and equal to the concept of the
taxpayers' interests. That vision of Canada is a bankrupt vision
that is causing a lot of Canadians to lose heart these days about
the amount of influence that the Reform Party has on the current
federal government.
I think most Canadians see the issue of the public interest in a
much broader way. They understand that it has something to do
with citizenship, with community and with our sense of pride as a
nation. To define the public interest in the narrowest possible
terms as having exclusively to do with taxpayers' interests is an
abdication of leadership it seems to me.
Finally we heard the Reform leader offer up his astounding
statement about how in his view one had to recognize that there
was, I guess, a pretty even balance between the international
consensus that exists around the globe today among highly
respected scientists, among independent peer review scientific
evidence and the so-called scientific evidence that is offered up
by the high paid lobbyists on behalf of the narrowest of economic
interests.
To equate those two and say that they have to be balanced and
they leave us not really knowing for sure whether the scientific
evidence is sound is again, I think, an act of deception. It is
the opposite of the kind of leadership that Canadians are looking
to their parliamentarians to provide.
Moving on from there and travelling through this world of
wonderland we then heard the Bloc leader. The Bloc leader in his
comments tonight and the presentations that his colleagues have
made in recent weeks have taken a more progressive view than the
other two parties. It is certainly a more enlightened view with
respect to the whole issue of climate change.
What we heard tonight was that in the process of the Bloc leader
applauding the record of his own provincial government, the
Government of Quebec, in regard to the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions, he really advanced one of the most convincing
cases that I could ever hope to hear for why we need a strong
federal government from coast to coast to coast in this country
to provide leadership on this kind of issue.
The Bloc leader knows perfectly well that we live in an
immensely diverse country, that we have very different regional
economies, that the energy base and the economic base from one
province to another differ greatly. I know he understands that
given the fact the province of Quebec is blessed with a very
generous amount of hydro energy, its economic base and its energy
source are very different from those of provinces that depend
upon a more carbon based energy source.
2000
What he understands I am sure, and what I think increasingly
Canadians are coming to understand, is how barren the notion is
that somehow we should be able to lay on a uniform formula across
the country and say every provincial government and the people of
every province should expect to make the exact same contribution
based on the exact same formula for greenhouse gas emission
reduction.
That is not reality. We need to be clear that people sometimes
try to make fun of the fact that European nations have come
forward with the most progressive proposals for greenhouse gas
reduction and that we understand the so called European bubble
effect that allows for some flexibility across the European
nations on which countries are going to be able reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions most and in which particular way.
This is a phenomenon which also needs to be understood in the
Canadian context. This is precisely why we desperately need
leadership from the federal government. There are many different
ways in which different parts of the country can and should be
expected to contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. No uniform
formula laid across the nation is going to do it. The impacts
are going to be different. The measures are going to be
different.
That is precisely the tragedy about the complete failure of the
federal government to date to provide any real leadership in
working with the provincial governments partners to achieve an
overall strategy and to begin to address Canada's responsibility
to meet its commitments made in Rio in 1992.
In answers to questions which I have raised, which others have
raised, my colleagues in the NDP caucus and others in other
caucuses as well, again and again we have heard members on the
government side and a number of different ministers say do not
talk to us, go and talk to the provinces. They do not seem
willing to just sign on at the eleventh hour as we are on our way
out of town to Kyoto. No wonder they are not able to just sign
on. There has been absolutely no leadership from the government
in any meaningful way for the past four years.
I am not in the habit of rushing to the defence of the
Conservative caucus. I thought this debate around greenhouse gas
emissions reached an all time level absurdity when I heard I
believe the finance minister or some minister on the front
benches of the government rip into the Conservative leader who
was pushing for progress on this, saying it was really your fault
because he was the energy minister in Rio in 1992 and you came
back to Canada and you completely failed to implement a
comprehensive strategy that would move us in the direction of
meeting our commitments made in Rio in 1992. Think about the
absurdity of it.
I profess no expertise in what went on before I came to this
Parliament, but it is my understanding that such measures did
begin to get under way in 1992 and into early 1993. One is hard
pressed to find that the current Liberal government has done much
of anything every since.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Ten points for honesty.
2005
Ms. Alexa McDonough: I did not hear the comment of my
hon. colleague, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Ten points for honesty.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: I appreciate that. The Conservative
leader has said that at least you get some points for honesty.
Canadians want to see honesty in this debate. Canadians want to
see integrity in this debate. What they want to see is a federal
government that is willing to tell the truth to Canadians. Yes,
we have a lot of work to do to catch up. No, we have not made
any significant progress whatsoever in the direction of meeting
our commitments.
We talk in terms of meeting our commitments in Rio in 1992. What
we need to be very clear about is that in 1992 nations around the
world began to face up to the fact that it was going to take a
global effort to begin to address what is a growing crisis with
respect to climate change.
It is a matter of weeks before the government goes to the
international conference in Kyoto to represent the interests of
Canadians. We do not have a clue what the position of the
Government of Canada will be on our behalf. It is absolutely
humiliating.
Surely the Prime Minister of Canada must have felt some sense of
embarrassment that before leaving Canada, the Prime Minister of
Japan joined the chorus of concerned Canadians in pleading for
the Prime Minister of Canada to finally make his position known
with respect to the upcoming conference in Kyoto. I am sure that
is not what the Prime Minister had in mind when he invited the
Prime Minister of Japan to participate in the APEC conference.
I would suggest that it is darn well time that the Prime
Minister started to understand that the very government which is
responsible to provide leadership on this issue is far behind the
Canadian public, and that is an embarrassment. It certainly
gives a very different notion of this government's idea of what
leadership is all about.
So far the position of the Canadian government is a sort of
half-hearted commitment that we will do a little better than the
United States at Kyoto. The government argues that the reason
for not being more specific about it is because it needs some
flexibility at Kyoto.
Given the record of this government on climate change and its
failure to provide any meaningful leadership on greenhouse gas
emission reductions, Canadians generally are nervous that the
kind of flexibility which the Government of Canada wants is
flexibility that will allow it to drop below whatever commitment
the U.S. makes with respect to climate change. Why else would we
have the government arguing that it needs flexibility instead of
setting its sights higher and talking about developing the kind
of strategy which is necessary to ensure that we achieve those
targets?
It is absolutely critical that the Government of Canada go to
Kyoto and stake out a strong position. If we continue to ignore
the signs and the damaging effects of a changing climate, then we
have acted extremely irresponsibly with respect to future
generations of Canadians.
Despite the hysteria of the Reform Party on this issue, the
science is clear. Yes, of course there are some scientists who
will say they are not completely convinced by the evidence they
see that the problem is of the magnitude that the overwhelming
consensus of scientists have assessed it to be.
2010
We have heard scientist after scientist after scientist provide
evidence that I think has to be taken seriously. As I say, there
is an international consensus that this is a problem that we have
a responsibility to face up to as a family of nations.
I do not know what is the most accurate prediction, but when one
hears large numbers of respected scientific bodies predicting,
for example, that by the year 2100 the average global temperature
will increase by 3.5° Celsius, we know that we have a very
serious problem on our hands and that the full impact of changes
that will result from those kinds of climate changes, those kinds
of temperature increases, would be absolutely devastating.
There would be more frequent and severe hurricanes and storms,
widespread drought in some areas. In other areas there would be
flooding, the extinction of many plant and animal species,
widespread coastal flooding and erosion and even the
disappearance of low-lying islands. We are talking about islands
of human beings that could literally disappear into the ocean if
we do not face up to this problem and take some leadership.
There would be massive economic losses in forestry, agriculture
and fisheries for example.
We have heard a lot of arguments in this House in recent weeks,
particularly from Reform but also from the regressive wing of the
Liberal Party that seems to prevail in this debate, that we need
to know the costs associated with meeting our commitments at Rio
and any commitments that we make at Kyoto.
Let me say that I absolutely agree with that. Of course we need
to know the cost. What I think a lot of Canadians find
objectionable and what my colleagues and I find absolutely
profoundly ignorant is the viewpoint that keeps getting put
forward again and again that somehow there are no real costs
associated with not doing anything about dealing with the
impending crisis in climate change.
Make no mistake about it, there are significant costs. There
are economic costs, environmental costs and health costs
associated with the do-nothing approach that this Liberal
government has taken to date with respect to climate change.
What scientists, doctors, economists, environmentalists all
understand and what the government and my colleagues on the far
right steadfastly refuse to understand is that doing something to
reduce greenhouse gases, to taking up this challenge of dealing
with the crisis of climate change can actually be a powerful job
creator. The economy can and should benefit from addressing this
problem if it is addressed responsibly, if it is addressed
comprehensively and if it is addressed in an innovative way.
Preventing global warming means investing in people and in
businesses who are developing clean technologies. It means
investing in new technologies like solar and wind power that
create jobs.
What Canada needs is a comprehensive plan that includes building
retrofits, that includes electricity reform, that includes more
fuel efficient vehicles, greater access to public transit and
greater industrial innovation, all of which can be powerful job
creators.
Let me give one example. The climate action network and the
Sierra Club have developed a rational energy program, a program
that calculates measures to reduce greenhouse gases and create
jobs.
Their proposal, which has been analysed by respected economists,
would indicate that over a five year period the measures that
they have proposed are capable of creating over 500,000 jobs,
over half a million jobs.
2015
The tragedy about how little this government has done to get on
with this task is that it is not only important to do for
environmentally sound reasons, it is not only important to do for
energy conservation reasons, it is also important to do in a
country that continues to have close to a million and a half
people unemployed.
Surely any government worth its salt, any government that is
prepared to call itself a leader has to understand that there can
only be a win-win situation in environmental and economic terms
resulting from our taking hold of this problem and getting on
with it.
Let me just cite a couple of examples of the kind of job
creation outcomes and the kind of job creation programs that are
proposed by those who have taken a serious look and carefully
analysed what it is we need to do.
Building retrofit programs that conserve energy. Some members
scoff at that and say it sounds like Mickey Mouse stuff. The
reality is that thousands and thousands of jobs can be created in
comprehensive retrofitting programs and they can be paid for in
the savings effected in energy consumption.
Urban transit and other transportation initiatives. It is not
rocket science. It is not as if we were waiting for some kind of
invention to know what to do. But the tragedy is that this
government has virtually gutted some of the programs that had us
on the right course with respect to a bigger commitment to public
transit for example.
There are other jobs created through supporting research and
development that are capable of greater energy efficiency and
renewable energy sources.
There are additional economic benefits to reducing the effects
of global warming. Direct savings in energy costs are a direct
benefit. For those who insist on talking only about the costs
associated with our tackling this problem, it is time to look at
what some of the real benefits can be.
There is the growth of energy efficient and renewable energy
technologies and the avoidance of environmental damage and health
costs associated with pollutants such as sulphur dioxide that
accompany greenhouse gases.
We heard earlier this week scientific evidence and some of it
coming directly from the environment department about how
worrisome it is to see the increasing health problems associated
with greenhouse gas emissions and how much more severe that
problem is going to be if we do not very quickly get on with
addressing it in an urgent way. The fact is that our global
environment simply cannot absorb our ever increasing pollution.
At the same time here in Canada and even more desperately in
developing countries like China and India, people need jobs so
that they can feed their families and they can achieve a decent
standard of living. The people and the businesses that can
develop clean and efficient technologies, that can take up this
challenge will address those two fundamental needs, the need for
jobs and the need to ensure a clean environment for future
generations.
We already see evidence that innovative businesses that can
accomplish this twin objective are going to be in great demand
around the world.
They will be the employers of the future who can provide
competitive and exciting jobs and opportunities for our young
people. Surely we need no reminder that this must be a very high
priority since we live in a country where some 25% of our young
people are unemployed and their first experience with a job is no
job at all.
2020
If we act now to prevent global warming, we can win on both
counts. We can win in respect to jobs and we can win in respect
to a cleaner environment. If we get on with it, we can lay the
cornerstone for a new dynamic and a cleaner economy.
It is on that basis that my colleagues and I embraced a policy
to commit to the reduction of greenhouse gases by 20% from 1990
levels by the year 2005. Some will say that surely that goal is
no longer realistic. It certainly is true that this government
has provided so little leadership and there has been so little
progress in getting on with the kind of comprehensive measures
that are needed that it does seem very difficult to imagine how
we can attain those objectives. I have heard no argument as to
why we should not get on urgently with beginning to tackle the
job.
In case government members need a reminder, these targets were
not pulled out of thin air. These targets could not be described
as totally irresponsible and irrational. We remind the Liberal
members that in their own red book in the 1993 election, they
stated very clearly that that goal was attainable.
I believe the finance minister in his bid for the leadership of
the Liberal Party said that we could do better than those
reduction levels. The Liberals came to office in 1993 and the
previous environment minister committed herself to those levels.
She did so in writing. Surely it cannot be said that these are
completely irresponsible, irrational targets to put forward.
The problem is that this government is going to Kyoto virtually
empty handed without being able to demonstrate any progress
toward these objectives because it has failed to put in place the
kind of comprehensive strategies that are needed to ensure we
make progress toward those objectives.
As important as it is for us to go to Kyoto and enter into an
agreement to achieve some reasonable progressive levels of
greenhouse gas emissions reductions, the real work begins when
the delegation returns from Kyoto. We must ensure that we put in
place the kind of plan of action that was not put in place after
Rio. We need a plan that can get us on a path both to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and to enhance our economy and our
environment.
Some would say that surely this is all just a pipe dream, that
it is not realistic, that it is just a lot of talk, that we do
not really have at hand the concrete measures that are needed.
That is simply not true. We talked briefly about Germany. The
German government has actually implemented 109 different measures
to tackle the problem of climate change.
That means making a real commitment that goes far beyond the kind
of token measures that the Government of Canada holds up and says
“No, no, we are doing something”. It means going far beyond
the voluntary programs and putting in place solid regulatory
regimes and putting in place the kind of incentive programs that
will produce real results.
2025
Comprehensive programs to assist companies to become more
environmentally sound and more energy efficient. Measures to
assist the construction and expansion of public transit in its
many different forms. Measures with the benefit of federal
funding to put in place more energy efficient forms of housing
and public buildings. What we have seen in the last couple of
years is the Liberal government pulling the plug on its
commitment to social housing for example, at a time when there is
a job to be done here that would help us move in the direction of
greater energy efficiency.
In conclusion, I simply want to once again reiterate the plea to
the Prime Minister, to the Minister of the Environment and to the
entire Liberal government to begin taking this seriously, to
begin to understand and tell Canadians the truth, that we can
only win, it can be a win-win scenario for Canadians in terms of
both jobs and the environment if we get on with the task. Let me
say that the failure to do so is a failure to protect the
interests, the health and the livelihood of future generations of
Canadians.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
participate in this debate with a great deal of anticipation
given the importance of this issue and the personal interest I
have in it and the interest my caucus has also taken in this
issue.
I can certainly report to the House that our critic for the
environment, the hon. member for Fundy—Royal who is only 33
years old and one of the newest members but one that we are very
proud of, has worked extremely hard in helping us develop this
position. He is not alone. He is going to join a number of
members of this place and other houses in all political parties
who over the years have cared a great deal about this issue.
I want to single out tonight the fact that we do have in the
House of Commons the past Minister of the Environment, the member
for Davenport, who has served in that portfolio in the past. I
want to use this opportunity tonight to tell members that when I
had the privilege of being the head of Canada's delegation in
Rio, he accompanied the delegation.
I had the opportunity of doing some events with him and he was
well remembered. I remember this distinctly because I thought
gee, one day I may retire from the department. He was well
remembered by his colleagues. He has maintained an interest in
this issue, a sincere and real interest. He is here tonight. He
is one of those who has made a lasting contribution to this
debate.
Also the member for Lac-Saint-Louis was the minister of
environment in the province of Quebec and the parliamentary
secretary for environment. I had the added pleasure of working
with him on a few key issues, cross-border issues. He was one of
the most appreciated, well remembered ministers of environment
ever in the province of Quebec. And so what, he is on the wrong
side of the House.
A number of people have taken a keen interest in this issue. I
do want to take a second to thank the leader of the NDP for her
remarks in regard to Rio, in regard to the record. It is in fact
a rare occurrence in this House when a member is able and
gracious enough to correct the record in that way.
I suspect it may have something to do with the fact that a past
member from the riding of Rosedale if I remember correctly was
also part of the Canadian delegation. He himself was very
involved in the leadership and in the way the delegation was
conducted. He would have some intimate knowledge of what
happened in Rio.
And so, Mr. Speaker, on that lighter note I want to offer some of
our views on this very important issue.
2030
First, I would like to direct my remarks as to how this whole
issue of environment and sustainable development relates to
Canada and to the future of our country by saying as succinctly
but as clearly as I can how important an issue it is for Canada
more than any other country in the world. There are a few
reasons for this. First is because we have this great land mass.
We have the second biggest country in the world in terms of land
mass. We have three oceans that surround us. We have a very
fragile northern environment. For this reason alone this issue of
climate change and global warming will have more impact on us by
virtue of the geography than any other country.
There is another reason that is even more compelling, the
economic reason. I stress here of all the developed countries in
the world, not developing, Canada is the country that depends the
most on its natural resources, in other words on its environment,
to earn its way. That is of all the developed countries. We can
easily understand why.
Think of what our economy is made of. What is it? It is the
forestry sector with pulp and paper and softwood lumber. The
mining industry was in town today lobbying on some of its
concerns. The mining industry is very prominent in this country.
Of course fishing on both coasts, even in the north, is very
important. Think of the time and energy that we put into those
issues, as my own caucus has put into fishing issues in this
country. Then we can go on with energy, whether it is
hydroelectric energy or hydrocarbons, and of course agriculture.
The list goes on and on.
Let me repeat, of all the developed countries in the world
Canada is the country that depends the most on its environment to
earn its way. We live off our environment.
For us, this issue is not just one of trying to determine
whether we want a pristine landscape or the Rockies or whether we
enjoy the sight of the ocean. Actually our livelihood depends on
how we will manage this environment and there is actually more to
it than that, the future of our own children. Their standard of
living will depend on how we manage this environment today. For
that reason alone this is an extremely important issue for
Canada. I would venture to say that this issue, all things being
relative, is more important to Canada, whether it is global
warming or other environment issues, than to any other developed
country in the world that I know of.
There is another twist to this. If it is true we have this big
land mass, that we depend on our environment to earn our way, let
me add this other element that will really bring home how
important environment issues are going to be for Canada.
We are also now one of the countries in the world most dependent
on trade. Because of the success of the 1988 free trade
agreement, because of the success of NAFTA, because of the role
we have played in furthering the interest in the WTO, Canada is,
with Germany, the developed country that depends the most on
trade to maintain its standard of living. I think it is probably
close now to 40% of our gross domestic product.
By the way, for those who may be surprised by that statistic,
maybe we need to remind them that how could it be otherwise. How
could we otherwise explain that a country of 30 million people
only, if we put it in the context of the G-7, could have such a
high standard of living if it were not for the fact that we sell
abroad? Trade for us is important, so important that the jobs
that have been created in Canada in the last few years have been
created because of an increase in trade, in particular, trade
with the United States since the signing of the 1988 free trade
agreement. Had it not been for the trade agreement and the jobs
that ensued in the last few years Canada would have been in a
recession and we would not have had any jobs created. That is how
significant it is.
Let me finally try to tie this together. Our land mass is very
vulnerable. We live off our environment. We are dependent on
trade.
This also means that of all the countries in the world on this
issue we are very vulnerable.
2035
If ever there were to be a movement for green protectionism in the
world, and there are signs of that, of sanctions leveraged
against countries that are not perceived as respecting
environmental standards, Canada would suffer,
immediately and immeasurably.
I will speak to some of the comments of our colleague, the
leader of the Reform Party, who based all his arguments on
science. In all honesty and sincerity I would have to add this
to the colleagues of the Reform Party. They would be wise to pay
attention to the fact that in the international marketplace
science may not have a lot to do with decisions taken by certain
countries that perceive Canada as not living up to environmental
standards. If they come to the conclusion, right or wrong, that
we are not respecting environmental standards and they decide to
act against us, we will be in big trouble.
Do not take my word for it. Ask those in the pulp and paper
industry. Ask those companies that try to sell paper abroad what
they went through in the early 1990s. I will forever remember as
minister of environment the industry's asking me to bring in
tougher environmental regulations which cost the industry between
$3 billion and $5 billion in adjustment. This was at a low time
in the cycle while it was coming out of a recession. Why was it
asking for the regulations? It was getting hammered in the
marketplace by its European competitors that were accusing it of
not living up to the environmental standards that they were
supposedly imposing on themselves.
Let us be under no illusion here. It is great to talk about the
science, which I do want to talk about, but there is more to it
than that. Let us look at this issue in terms of our
self-interest as Canadians. We need to understand that we have
an opportunity for some enlightened self-interest. The
enlightened self-interest of Canada is to be ahead of the game in
the area of the environment. We should be ahead of the game
whether in terms of sustainable development, the pulp and paper
industry or global warming, energy or sulphur dioxide emissions.
If we are not ahead of the game, if we are not doing as well or
better than the highest standards of our competitors in this
area, we are vulnerable to sanctions and we will be the first to
suffer. We will suffer environmentally, from a standard of
living perspective and also from an economic perspective. That
is the bottom line.
I have some good news for those listening who may be scared of
these issues. As many Canadians, they may see these issues as
insurmountable problems. There is reason to feel that way at the
outset. When we are confronted with this problem of global
warming it is complicated and technically difficult to
understand. We hear of scenarios of countries being gobbled up
by the sea with rising sea levels, terrible catastrophes if we do
not deal with the problem. The same is true for a number of
environmental issues.
I want to share this good news with those Canadians listening
tonight. When we were confronted with similar problems, when we
faced them head on based on good science, good common sense,
strong political will and clear leadership, we were able to make
real progress in dealing with some equally difficult issues.
I would like to say it was only under Progressive Conservative
governments but I cannot, although I am very proud of the role we
played. I am extremely proud of the role former prime minister
Brian Mulroney played on the world stage. He was known and he
has a clear record as one Canadian prime minister who made this
one of his top issues.
I have other examples of success stories for everyone in the
area of the environment. One of them is the Montreal protocol of
1987. If memory serves me correctly, the member for
Lac-Saint-Louis attended that conference as minister of
environment for the province of Quebec in 1987. He is saying
yes, and that may explain why it was partially successful.
In 1987 we were faced with the issue of ozone depletion. Let me
point out to the leader of the Reform Party who went on ad
nauseam about science that what he said tonight about science are
things we heard only a few years ago about ozone depleting
substances.
2040
As far back as 1985 we heard exactly the same thing coming from the
naysayers who denied that there was any problem at all. Now we
are stuck. Future generations of Canadians are stuck with a
problem that is still going to be around in 50 years from now.
Why? Because there are a number of people who did not want to
admit that there was a problem until they had the absolute,
total truth.
Hon. Charles Caccia: The smoking gun.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: The smoking gun, the member for
Davenport says as an example. I remember that. They wanted the
smoking gun. They discovered the smoking gun in 1985 and now
there is a number of people who think it was too late.
Nonetheless, the Montreal protocol was signed and there are very
real examples of progress to follow with regard to what it has
been able to accomplish.
First of all, one of the things done in the Montreal protocol
was the recognition for the first time that developing countries
and developed countries needed to be treated differently. There
was a very lucid view brought to the signing of that agreement in
1987 to the effect that if we imposed on developing countries the
same standards we were going to ask of developed countries, they
would never live up to them, it would never happen; that it was
wiser and better to actually impose and ask them to adopt a
different schedule that was slower, but at least allow them to
meet the targets. That is what was done, and done successfully.
The second thing I remember about the Montreal protocol that was
successful was the commitment to develop substitutes to ozone
depleting substances like CFCs, thus the development in Canada in
particular of HCFCs which, by the way, let us be very clear, are
not pollution free products. In fact, there are no pollution
free products. They do not exist. But they were a substitute
that was a lot less damaging than CFCs. Real progress was marked
and we were able to move from there.
From the Montreal protocol on, we were able to make some real
progress and today this is an issue that I think is well
understood. The science is well established. It happened maybe
a little too late. It did happen too late, actually, for people
who continued to be the naysayers, but here is an example where
Canada, I am proud to say, played a very real role in bringing
about an environmental agreement that worked.
The same is true in the second example about sulphur dioxide
emissions. Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect,
what sulphur dioxide emissions are about? I know the member for
Davenport and also the member for Lac-Saint-Louis know what I am
talking about. I am talking about acid rain.
Acid rain was probably the number one issue, one of the number
one irritants between Canada and the United States in the 1980s.
It was one of the top issues between the previous Conservative
government and the Government of the United States from 1984 to
1990. I remember what was said in industry, much as the leader
of the Reform Party said tonight, when confronted with the
importance of our cleaning up our own house first.
Those who were there will remember that Canada could only make a
case to its southern neighbour if it started by cleaning up its
own act. So we had to make a commitment to reduce sulphur
dioxide emissions at home, which we did in the signing of an
agreement, if I remember correctly either in 1986 or 1987,
committing us to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by 20%. Low and
behold, if we went back and saw the record and the reaction of
industry at the time, which I am sure was sincere, it said it
could not be done, that this would kill jobs, that it would kill
the economy. Guess what. It had exactly the reverse effect.
Again I want to be cautious. My memory may not be exactly
correct on this, but it was Inco in the region of Val D'Or in
northern Quebec. Through this commitment it was forced, coerced,
into reviewing its production processes and by doing that not
only did it reduce sulphur dioxide emissions, but it was able to
reduce the cost of producing its product. That is one of the
consequences, one of the very positive consequences that emerged
from that initiative. Yet it was not described as that from the
beginning.
In fact, what we heard was very similar to what the leader of
the Reform Party said tonight, the sky is falling, from the
reverse side of the coin. There is a real example.
Then we went on from there to sign an agreement, the clean air
agreement of 1990, with the American government.
2045
The problem of acid rain is not solved, far from it. We should
debate that another day because there are issues on the horizon
with regard to that agreement. We certainly met our objective at
the time. We made progress since then. We were proud of what we
were able to accomplish.
I hope this language is not unparliamentary but it needs to be
said because much like the leader of the Reform Party tonight,
the American president at the time, Mr. Reagan, also said there
was no acid rain problem. Some members may remember because it
was reported—I do not know whether it was true—that apparently
the American president, Mr. Reagan, said that acid rain was
caused by “duck shit”.
The Minister of Natural Resources has said that though it may
not be the best parliamentary language, he can live with it.
Being at the cabinet table I will take his word for it.
Does that not remind us of how some political leaders can get
embroiled in their own rhetoric and ignore the science or the
basics? Yet we had to persevere. Yes, we did and we were able
to come to an agreement.
I want to speak on the science aspect. Let me be very clear
that I am not a scientist. In fact, when I was minister of the
environment it was one of the most challenging areas for me to
deal with. Believe me, ministers who have been there know how
tough a department it is. It is a department that is on the
cutting edge of science, of law and of public administration. It
is very challenging.
We are lucky in Canada because we have within the Department of
the Environment some of the best scientists in the world. We
certainly have the best public servants in the world.
I will take a second to attest tonight that when we were in Rio,
Canada's delegation was the best served delegation in the world
with regard to its public servants. Whether it was the
Department of Foreign Affairs, CIDA, natural resources, energy at
the time or the Department of the Environment, they represented
the absolute best, no question asked, of public servants in the
world. It is still true today.
When as a layman in the department I had to rely on them for
science, I found them to be rigorous and honest in their
assessment. I also found it was very useful for me to have no
knowledge of science, because by the time they explained it to me
and I could figure it out I could explain it to anyone else. That
was a real advantage for me.
On science, just to reassure Canadians, there is no one who
takes it lightly. We have in excess of 150 countries involved in
the agreement signed in Rio. Does anyone think for a second that
all these countries got involved in it, not caring what the
consequences would be and what it would lead to? Of course not.
I do not take it for granted that they were all right because
they were all there, but I can report how the science was
developed. Again Canada was intimately involved.
There was a conference here in 1988 on the changing atmosphere
in Canada. From that conference emerged the commitment to put
together an international panel on climate change, known as the
IPCC, which then produced a report and followed it up with
others. The latest was in 1966 at the Geneva conference that
resulted in the declaration calling for commitments to control
emissions in a post-2000 era to be legally binding.
The conference also endorsed the IPCC climate change 1995 report
which concluded that the balance of evidence—and the words here
are carefully chosen—marks a “discernible human influence on
the global climate”, which has a destabilizing impact on the
globe's ecosystem.
There is no one who ever pretended for a single second that the
science in this regard was ironclad and absolute. Rarely is the
science on anything ironclad and absolute. To pretend or imply
that is the case is to deliberately mislead. That should never
be allowed to happen.
Beyond that, I can certainly reassure Canadians we are working
on very solid science that has been verified.
I hear members of the Reform Party laughing.
2050
Mr. Lee Morrison: What do you know about science, Jean?
Hon. Jean J. Charest: The member asks what I know about
science. I wonder what he knows about science. I know what
international science knows. That is why the international panel
was put together.
The leader of the Reform Party tonight only reminded me of the
other scientists we heard from recently who are still arguing
that cigarette smoke is good for your health.
We could use exactly the same line, because there will always be
a scientist somewhere who will say that smoking does not harm
your health at all. They are out there. If he wants to line up
with them as a member of the flat earth society, fine, but it
speaks to those who continue to dwell in this paranoia.
I assure Canadians that with regard to the science this is a
very solid case.
[Translation]
I would like to take a few minutes to discuss the process that
has failed and that preceded this conference on climate changes in
Kyoto. This in my opinion is where we find the greatest difference
in approach between the current government and the Rio conference.
The minister is well aware, she is present this evening, she
was also in Rio at the earth summit, as was the current Minister of
Finance.
What I want to point out this evening is that in the months and
years prior to the earth summit in Rio, the government of the day
made a commitment to involve the main actors, the principal
decision makers in the delegation.
We did something fairly rare, we involved the provincial
governments, environmental groups and the business community from
the outset. We opened wide the doors to permit access to all
government officials. We even involved municipal governments. The
minister will recall that the mayor of Montreal attended the earth
summit in Rio along with other big city mayors.
With this approach we wanted to reflect the very nature of our
federation in the decisions made in Rio. There were four essential
elements.
There was what was termed Agenda 21, which was the basic document,
the overall framework, making commitments on a number of subjects.
There was also a proposal for a convention on climate changes, the
topic this evening.
There was a second convention proposed on protecting
biodiversity. The fourth document discussed at Rio was an
agreement on forest management, which we wanted to see made into a
convention, but there were objections by the developing countries
when it came down to doing so.
In order to ensure that Canada could exercise its full
authority at Rio and use its influence to the maximum, we
acknowledged right from the very start the importance of involving
all stakeholders. This was a wise decision for us, and I am very
proud of that decision because it is an example of how Canadian
federalism must operate.
So much so, that we also decided, within that context, to have
an open delegation, which is to say that ordinary citizens had
access to public servants. They could influence decisions, whether
the department was Natural Resources, Energy, or Environment. As
well, these people were directly accountable to them.
Every morning at Rio, there was a meeting of the Canadian
delegation. Some mornings we were close to 200 people, with
everyone taking part and being informed of the decisions of the day
and the way we would be proceeding. For us, and for Canada, this
was an extraordinary experience.
When we are told—and I take this opportunity to clarify
this—when somebody tells us that we made commitments at Rio and
did not know what we were doing, that is false. The attitude of
all countries in attendance at Rio in making commitments was “We
don't know exactly how we will stabilize levels, but we are
committed to taking precise steps in order to reach an assessment
of the actions to be taken”.
2055
But to claim that in Rio we deliberately signed an agreement
not knowing what we were doing, or misleading people into thinking
we were going to do something when we did not know what, is false.
It is completely false to make this kind of insinuation. The
members who were there know that it was a very open process.
In his speech a few minutes ago the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois illustrated just how open it was when he told us that
only two governments in Canada ratified the agreement on climatic
change. In fact, it was three governments, because the government
of which I was a member ratified it. We were the first government
in the world, among those who signed the Rio agreement, to do so.
This Parliament was the first Parliament to ratify it.
We were followed by the Government of British Columbia and the
Government of Quebec.
The Bloc Quebecois leader himself pointed this out. I am sorry to
turn his argument against him and I do not do so out of malice, but
let us admit that it is hard to resist reminding Bloc members that
this is one of the very successes of our federalism. Here we have
the proof, and he himself admitted that the approach we took in Rio
made it possible for the Government of Quebec to participate fully
in the decision, actually formally ratifying the treaty on climatic
change.
Now they remind us that only Quebec and British Columbia did
so. Surely there must be provincial governments in Canada that are
less federalist than Quebec is now. This, for us, is a
demonstration of what federalism can be when this kind of issue is
tackled the way it must be tackled.
I am sorry today to have to say the opposite. For some reason
I do not understand, and I really do not understand, I wonder why
the provincial governments were not involved from the start. I do
not know why. They should have been though. The same applies to
the private sector and environmental groups. However, that is not
what we feel. In any case, if we are to believe the reaction of
the people involved, this should not be the case. I do not know
about the environmental groups. But the provincial governments
were not involved from the start.
I can only conclude this evening that, basically, the Liberals
have reverted quickly to their usual style. They do not tend to
involve the provinces. It does not come naturally to them.
This is why we find ourselves in the rather awkward situation of
having a federal-provincial conference a few days before the
conference, with the Minister of the Environment and the Minister
of Natural Resources in attendance. I acknowledge their good
faith, but we have to admit they got no help from their cabinet
colleagues. My sympathy. It must be tough in cabinet. I can see
them around the table. They raise their hands, and the Prime
Minister gives them each a turn. The Minister of the Environment
probably said “Mr. Prime Minister, Kyoto is coming up”. And the
Prime Minister replied “Next item on the agenda. We will get to
it”.
I am exaggerating a bit, but this cannot be far from reality.
Otherwise, how do we explain that we are on the eve of an
international conference with monumental consequences for Canada
and we are so ill prepared. It is a disaster.
And this is disastrous, not only disastrous politically, but
also because it raises the following question: how are we going to
implement the decisions taken at Kyoto, if the provincial
governments are not fully involved in the debate?
Even if the federal government were to come back to Canada
with a commitment to a 20% reduction within ten years, if no
provincial government is involved, nothing will happen, period.
This is very serious. This government must, unfortunately, be
told that the fault lies, in this connection at least, with the
fact that there is a lot of catching up to do if we are to prove to
Canadians that they are capable of making this federation move in
the direction of real progress, so that an issue like climatic
change can be successful.
[English]
As we now look ahead to this conference and its results, it is
very difficult for other parties in the House of Commons, given
the lack of preparation, to give a commitment, to give a good
sense of what Canada's commitment should be. I am being very
honest tonight as we try to assess ourselves. We have been as
honest and forthright as we can in trying to estimate what
Canada's position should be.
2100
Given the lack of work done around this, it is going to be very
difficult for anyone to put forward a position. I thought the
leader of the NDP was quite courageous tonight. She expressed the
view that her party would support a 20% reduction in 1990 levels
by the year 2005. That is very ambitious. I would beg to
disagree with the leader of the NDP on that. I would think given
the circumstances and what we know, that is beyond what is
reasonable.
The leader of the Reform Party has shied away. He is still
arguing that there is a world plot against Canada. The skies
probably let them figure that out, a world plot working against
us. Apart from that fact, he would probably defend that
cigarette smoking is good for your health.
He also says that the government cannot make the difference
between good and bad science. One of the arguments he gave for
that is that apparently there are very few science stories in the
clipping service of the government. Now there is a good
scientific measurement. There is a real test of absolute rigour.
I hope no one from any other country is listening. This is
embarrassing.
I have to congratulate him on developing the Meech Lake effect
because the Meech Lake effect extends all the way into the Reform
caucus. Everyone will remember Meech Lake.
The leader of the Reform Party has made a career of arguing
against the distinct society clause but he may not have picked
this up. The government has said a few times that the unique
character clause means exactly the same thing as the distinct
society clause and now he is in favour of the unique character
clause. I guess that is new science also.
I guess we will leave him alone with the grand plot to unthrow
the world.
I want to add in regard to the position that we in this party,
in this caucus, will support the position that Canada should
strive to stabilize its 1990 greenhouse gas emissions by the year
2010 as was agreed to by the provincial governments, except for
one provincial government, that of Quebec. That is the position
this government will bring into this conference.
We view this as being an interim position or a position that we
take going into the conference that will be susceptible to change
as Canada emerges from the Kyoto conference hopefully better
enlightened about what the world community is ready to do and
committed to develop a real action plan and not allow this issue
again to go back to, not to put a pun on it, the back burner of
the cabinet.
Among the things we would like to see this government speak to
very clearly in regard to Canada's position are these few. First
of all, much as we did in the case of sulphur dioxide emissions,
which is a success story, that proves this can be done. We need
to recognize that in Canada there has to be regional variances.
The economy of Alberta is not the same as the economy of the
province of Quebec. We have to recognize these differences to
allow each region of Canada to carry its fair share of the load.
For example, the Canadian petroleum producers make the argument
that part of the greenhouse gas emissions they produce, a good
part of the increase is due to exports they send to the United
States. I think they make a very good case to the effect that
the increase in economic activity happening in another country
has had an effect on greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. In all
fairness it should be recognized that they in that respect carry
a heavier burden than other regions of Canada vis-à-vis the
United States and there has to be some recognition of that.
That is the first principle we would like to see the government
adopt as it goes to this conference and emerges with a position.
The second one has to do with joint implementation. Here Canada
should really lead the way. Canada takes great pride in the role
it plays in developing countries. Here is a real opportunity for
us to recognize that if we wanted to have the biggest bang for
our buck in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, if we wanted
to have the most effect at the most rapid rate, we would
certainly put the bulk of our resources in helping developing
countries acquire basic technologies.
We do not have to get the last version of the best high
technology in the world, but basic technologies to help them
diminish greenhouse gas emissions.
2105
By doing this we would help the cause in a way that would be
measurable quite rapidly. We would also help developing
countries have a better environment within their own land mass
and ecosystems. We would also help them have more productive
means of producing energy. It makes sense all around. It makes
sense for us. It makes sense for them. This should be an issue
on which Canada should lead in Kyoto on joint implementation.
I hope the minister will do that, that cabinet will press that
and that the government will do it. We will certainly back them
up on this so that we can receive credits for the efforts that we
were able to allow. Again this will allow Canada to continue to
play a lead role in the world in promoting these technologies
elsewhere.
The third principle should be some flexibility also in the
commitments we make. This is a little more complicated and it is
new. What we should strive for if we want an honest and lucid
agreement is an agreement emerging from Kyoto that would allow
some countries to have a different target and to vary that target
given their own realities.
Canada in this respect is a very solid example. Our land mass,
our climate, the distances. There are obvious reasons why we
would produce more energy per capita than other countries in the
world. Given this reality, given the efforts that we are ready
to put into this issue, there are good solid reasons why we could
also have recognition of some differences and some variation in
the commitments that different countries make.
The fourth principle is one I and my party are very interested
in and which carries a great deal of potential. That is the use
of economic instruments. Here we have to be clear. Economic
instruments in the area of the environment embrace a broad range
of tools, including carbon taxes to which we are opposed. We are
opposed to the use of carbon taxes. Let me take a second to
explain why.
We already use energy in our country for the purposes of
taxation. We hear our American neighbours talk about carbon
taxes and they compare them to Canada and forget one essential
element. In the southern part of the United States and in most
parts of the United States the gasoline at the pump is not used
as a source of taxation. In Canada it is. In this respect we
could argue that we already have a carbon tax. Going that route
from our perspective is certainly not the best idea.
But there are many other instruments available to us, including
tradable permits. This is something rather difficult to
understand for the public. It was developed around the acid rain
agreement on sulphur dioxide emissions. Our American neighbours
are using it. I have heard that for the first time in the last
few months these permits are actually being traded and profits
are being made. This seems to demonstrate at the outset that
they will work. I say seem to because it is very early in the
area of tradable permits to determine whether they absolutely
work, but they seem to carry a great deal of promise for reasons
I believe in.
If we are able to offer real economic incentives to deal with
this issue, we will get results. We live in a market based
economy. A market based economy works if it is directed toward
incentives that allow and encourage people to be more efficient
with the environment and with their greenhouse gas emissions.
Tradable permits could very well and should be part of the
initiatives that Canada embraces. The American president in the
statement on the American position has alluded to the fact that
they are interested in such a system on a world basis. We could
certainly interpret from that that if he is interested in a
tradable permit system on a world basis, geography being what it
is, we happen to be neighbours and it would involve us. Certainly
any initiative that goes beyond the United States will have a
continental impact and we would be natural partners in
implementing such a system.
I encourage the minister to do that. I encourage both
ministers. But I encourage you to start doing the homework
because the government failed in doing its homework around this.
You failed in doing the homework around this, Mr. Speaker. Not
you personally, Mr. Speaker. I know you have been nodding
incessantly since I have been talking, positively, and I thank
you for that.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources should not assume
that any movement of your head has the same significance for him
as it would have for me.
2110
I want to say to the government that on this issue it has
certainly failed any reasonable test of following up on work that
had been left behind. There was a commitment that the
environment and finance departments would produce a working paper
on this. The paper that was produced was quite weak. The
introduction described the paper in very clear language, that the
mandate was very narrow, and the work was quite weak.
The government should be encouraged since others have taken up
the cause. The environmental commission in Montreal which was
struck as a result of NAFTA has done some excellent work in this
area. That commission would be able to help all countries,
especially the three NAFTA countries, to develop a tradable
permit system.
Fifth, the government should get some recognition for the
management of our carbon sink. For those who are unfamiliar with
a carbon sink, it is an ecosystem that is able to absorb carbon
dioxide, our forests being an example.
The best known carbon sink in the world is the Amazon forest,
which we would feel very strongly about because we do not live in
the Amazon. There are people all over the world who would be
very shocked at the idea that the Amazon forest would be cut
down. This would naturally preoccupy us since the Amazon
represents the most important carbon sink in the world, although
the oceans are also carbon sinks. Carbon sinks absorb carbon
dioxide.
Canada's land mass contains 10% of the world's forests. We have
a responsibility in the management of our forests in terms of
softwood lumber and other issues today and tomorrow for our
children's sake, and for those who work in the industry. Canada
has come a long way in the last few years in the way it manages
its forests. There is a lot of enlightened self-interest
involved here also. Although I understand it will be difficult
for us to get recognition for that, we should get some
recognition for the carbon sinks.
Others have spoken about measures to get more economy out of the
use of energy. Efforts in that area will be spoken of. Our
environment critic, the member for Fundy—Royal, will speak on
this issue. He will detail some of the work we have done. As
someone said earlier, in the end this is not a partisan issue and
I agree. We wish the delegation well in Kyoto. We did well in
Rio. We will do everything in our power to help advance this
debate for the sake of doing what is right not only for our
economy today but for future generations of Canadians.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this special debate on
climate change. I am glad to have an opportunity to say a few
words and to hear what other members of the House have to say as
well. I hope our overall discussion this evening will be useful,
constructive and realistic.
This debate is really another step among many, another phase in
the ongoing public dialogue on the issue of climate change in
which many Canadians have been thoughtfully engaged for a long
time. Scientists, environmental experts, non-governmental
organizations, think tanks, business leaders, industrial
organizations, municipalities, federal, provincial and
territorial officials, government ministers at all levels,
individual citizens and consumers have all been advancing ideas
and debating possible solutions. Our government has been
participating throughout.
Many different and sometimes conflicting points of view have
been put forward but despite the intensity of feelings on various
sides, for the most part all of those participating in the public
debate have tried to be reasoned and helpful. I hope that spirit
can prevail in this House as well.
2115
We do not need histrionics and hyperbole. We do not need the
verbal excesses and abuses which too often prevail in Parliament.
What we do need is careful thought, common sense, a sense of
common purpose and the will to pull together in a real and
serious way to address what most of the world has identified as a
genuine problem demanding an effective global solution.
The climate change challenge is especially perplexing for Canada
because of some of the unique and, ironically, some of the most
desirable features of our country, features like the sheer size
of our land mass, the long distances and the tough topography
over which we must transport our people and goods, the extremes
of our weather conditions from 40° below to more than 40° above,
our resource based, energy intensive and export oriented economy,
an economy which is growing faster than the rest of the
industrialized world, our record setting exports and our growth
in population, the second highest growth rate among all developed
countries.
Each of these Canadian characteristics contributes more to our
national total of greenhouse gas emissions which in turn
contributes to that discernible negative impact upon the climate
which can be attributed to human conduct.
In coming to grips with greenhouse gases and climate change, we
in Canada have a difficult circle to square but that does not
mean that we can ignore or deny the problem. We cannot shrink
from the challenge or shirk the responsibility.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition tonight spend a good deal
of his time condemning the national and international science
upon which the concern about global warming is based. The only
logical extension of his reasoning is that Canada should go to
Kyoto to prevent any agreement from being reached or, if one is
reached, Canada according to him should opt out.
He may or may not agree with the science, but does he seriously
contend that Canada can simply stand aside? Ours is a more open
society, a more open economy than most others in the world. We
are more dependent upon world trade and global economics than
almost any other industrialized country. Forty per cent of our
gross domestic product is derived from exports. Eighty per cent
of our trade is with the United States.
There is global momentum toward an outcome in Kyoto, an
agreement including the United States. In the face of that
thrust, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, we do not have
the luxury of simply holding up our hand and hollering “whoa”.
We cannot say “Stop the world, I want to get off”. What we
need to do is to try our best to be constructively influential,
to achieve the best possible result in Kyoto in concert with the
rest of the world, a result that works for Canada and one that
works for the globe.
I am very pleased that the provinces and territories have
adopted a constructive attitude in common cause to achieve that
kind of outcome. They have been very much involved with the
Government of Canada in consultations over the last many months,
not the least of which was the joint meeting of federal,
provincial and territorial energy and environment ministers in
Regina last month.
The provinces and territories have acknowledged that Canada
needs to be part of a realistic global agreement on climate
change. They have agreed that based upon the current
understanding of Canadian circumstances and the current
understanding of the state of international negotiations, it is
reasonable to seek to reduce aggregate greenhouse gas emissions
in Canada back to 1990 levels by approximately the year 2010.
The provinces and territories also agreed that it is desirable
to do better than that if at all possible. They have emphasized
the need for flexibility, flexibility to take into account the
inevitable give and take, the ebb and flow that is inherent in
international negotiations and flexibility in terms of
implementation techniques and methodologies.
2120
The provinces and territories also agreed on a collaborative and
inclusive approach on implementation. We need to make a solid,
comprehensive team Canada effort. We must all strive to be part
of the solution. We must all work very closely together as
partners. That is the provincial attitude overall and it is
helpful.
A great many in the private sector, in business and industry
have also worked very hard to be helpful and constructive. They
have not buried their heads in the sand. They have not tried to
deny reality. They have offered useful ideas and advice and they
have started to take concrete actions within their own sectors,
organizations and companies to reduce emission levels and move
forward.
The private sector, the provinces and territories, a broad range
of other stakeholders, indeed all Canadians have been invited to
work closely with us to build together a sound and sensible
implementation plan for the Kyoto agreement.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly reaffirmed that we are not
interested in a carbon tax. We are not interested in seeing any
province or region or sector bearing a disproportionate burden.
However, we are keenly interested in greater energy efficiency
for vehicles, homes, buildings and industrial processes. We are
interested in the greater and more cost effective applications of
renewable and alternative energy sources.
Just this week a groundbreaking agreement between Petro-Canada
and Iogen Corporation will help us to move in that direction.
We are interested in the implementation of co-generation
projects and their integration into power grids. We are
interested in the very substantial acceleration of science and
technology, commercialization and transfer, projects like the
Ballard fuel cell, for example.
We are interested in the use of joint implementation schemes
with other nations. We are interested in the creation of credits
and the trading of credits to recognize our relatively cleaner
and lower carbon exports and our advanced technology. We are
interested in the broadening, deepening and strengthening of the
self-initiated measures launched and pursued by business and
industry.
These and perhaps other measures are likely to be part of the
overall package. Through extensive and exhaustive consultations,
both within Canada and abroad, we have built a platform for the
kind of meaningful partnerships that we will need in spades after
Kyoto to deliver on our commitments. We have positioned our
country to build bridges of consensus internationally to
facilitate an agreement when the end game of the global
negotiations beings in earnest about 10 days from now.
We want a deal that works. We want a deal that makes sense both
environmentally and economically. We want a deal that transforms
problems and challenges into opportunities for jobs and growth,
for technological sophistication and for trade. We want a deal
that is right for Canada and a deal that is right for the world.
It is with that conviction and determination that we go to Kyoto
a week from now to make a real difference for Canada and the
world.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened very carefully to the minister and would like
to draw his attention to a program in 3,000 Toronto households.
That program is called Green Saver. It shows people how to
improve home comfort, save on bills and reduce household energy
consumption. The green saver program works with clients and
shows some improvement in terms of their individual homes. It
shows the impact on climate change and emissions. They have
documented the progress that individuals have been able to make.
I want to ask the minister if individuals and communities with
some assistance, acting on their own, can reduce greenhouse
emissions, what is the federal government taking into the
international forum to show how the federal government itself has
been putting its house in order? In other words, how can we show
some of the efficiencies that we have done in our federal
buildings and what can we take to that forum for discussion?
2125
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale: Mr. Speaker, on the basic
questions of can Canadians as individuals make a difference, I
think the answer to that is profoundly, yes. Indeed, when we
hear some of the debate we may get the impression that the big
enemy or the bad culprit is the upstream oil and gas industry in
the country. In fact, on the production side with respect to oil
and gas, that sector would account for roughly 15% or 16% of
emissions overall.
The largest part of the challenge here is not on the production
side of the equation, it is on the use and the application side
of the equation. It is obviously necessary, important and
possible for all players, whether they are in business or
industry or in their own private residences, in community groups
and organizations to participate and to make a very large
difference.
The hon. member referred to one very useful example. There are
literally thousands of examples across the country where
Canadians as individuals may be well ahead of their political
process in grappling with the issue and developing innovative
ideas that can truly make a contribution.
I think it is important for us, as we have already begun to do,
to make a complete inventory of all of those initiatives, to
determine to what extent those initiatives can move forward and
be successful on their own foundation without any kind of
stimulation or encouragement and where, in the appropriate
circumstances, would there need to be some kind of incentive that
might come through the government sector or through a
collaborative effort among organizations in the private sector.
I think we will need a mix of instruments, some of them
voluntary, some brought about by incentives and other forms of
encouragement so that all Canadians can be actively engaged in
building solutions. I think those individuals to whom the member
just referred who are already active in this field in the city of
Toronto deserve a great deal of praise and commendation.
In appropriate circumstances, yes, I believe there is a role for
government incentives to encourage further and greater progress
in that direction.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister stated very properly that we should try not
to be too partisan when discussing this issue.
I wonder what he thinks of the stridently anti-intellectual
comments of the leader of the fifth party when he was ridiculing
other people's take on science. I suspect the only physics that
man ever took was Ex-lax.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I
should comment on the biological theories of either party in the
opposition. I think they are perfectly capable of demonstrating
their abilities in one way or the other in that regard.
However, partisanship aside, the only point I would like to make
is that this issue is real and it is serious. It demands real
and serious attention. I hope that all members of the House,
members of the other place and all Canadians will address it in
that spirit so that we can at Kyoto and beyond Kyoto arrive at
results that are good for our country and good in terms of our
responsibility in the global community.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
think the importance of this debate is being shown by the people
who are addressing it tonight. Two ministers, the leaders of all
the opposition parties, shows the significance of the debate to
the House and to Canadians.
However, I have to ask why we are having this debate when we are
10 days away from Kyoto? This should have happened a year and a
half ago.
2130
The government is asking for comments and advice from Canadians
and from the other parties. It is too late. It is 10 days from
Kyoto, and we are still waiting for the government's position.
This is not the way to go to an international event.
I would like to address some of the issues that have not been
touched on so far. I suppose if we had to pick a date 1990 would
be as good as any. I thought the minister was on the right line
about a month ago when she said there had to be a formula to
address Canada's particular conditions. She withdrew her
comments within a day. Obviously some people in her caucus got
to her.
Canada is a different country. It has a smaller population and
wide expanse. It is a cold country. If we compare the Europeans
we do not try to lump Scandinavia in with Spain. Yet, with
Canada's expanse, we are trying to that. That is incorrect.
There needs to be a formula to address a country's unique
perspective, whether it be Australia, Canada or whatever. It
needs to be addressed so that 1990 can be picked as a date,
wherever one is in the spectrum.
For example, Canada has done a pretty good job in many areas.
Other countries, particularly the European bloc, are at the
beginning. Why would we have one country up here on level of
attainment compared to one below it? There needs to be a
balancing. What I am suggesting is a level playing field.
That formula has not been addressed by the government. I do not
believe it will be addressed at Kyoto. I think the President of
the U.S. will address it because he wants to level the playing
field. I think that is correct.
Another issue is that 35 of the 165-odd countries 35 will be
asked to sign on. This is a global problem which requires a
global solution. All the countries in the world going to the
conference need to be part of the solution. We cannot have
Canada, for example, signing on to a particular agreement when
Mexico, China and India, which will be major contributors to
greenhouse gases in the future, are not being asked to sign on
the dotted line. Perhaps it should not be to the same degree as
Canada but at least they should be asked to make a commitment.
That commitment to my knowledge is not being asked for. There
has to be some agreement that gets all of us into the arena
together.
We keep hearing that Canada's problems are huge. We need to
bring into perspective that Canada is responsible for 2% of
global emissions compared with the U.S. at 25% and China at about
20%.
We often hear the minister and the government say that Canadians
have been consulted, that the provinces have been consulted. The
provinces were consulted in the last couple of months. To my
knowledge there has not been a broad cross-Canada forum for
Canadians to address the issue; for Canadians to say yes, they
believe there is a problem or no, they do not; or for Canadians
to say the degree they would like to address it and to indicate
some solutions. Whatever the issues they should be bring them
forward but a forum does not exist and did not exist.
We are going to Kyoto. The government will come back with the
solution, ram it down our throats and say “This is it, Canada;
like or leave it”. That is backward. It is top down government
instead from the bottom up. The consensus of the players, the
Canadian people, the provinces and the industry should be taken
to Kyoto.
There was not consultation other than the last month, and I have
to question that. What happened two weeks ago in Regina? The
Minister of Natural Resources just commented on what a good deal
that was. However, to my knowledge only eight days later the
Prime Minister was stating a different target. The year 2010 was
arrived at by the provinces; 2010 was the year the Prime Minister
quoted to Premier Tobin and Premier Klein.
2135
Where is the commitment? If this was a consensus or commitment
as a result of the provinces and the Government of Canada working
together, it did not last for eight days. There is a huge
credibility gap between the Prime Minister, who is taking the
commitment to Kyoto, and the provinces that will have to
implement it down the road.
Where is the economic analysis? We can take various scenarios.
We can take the emissions down to 2005, 2007, 2010 or 2015 and
work out the different scenarios. How do we get to them? How
will we get the standards whether they be fuel taxes or voluntary
commitments? However we get there Canadians need to know the
numbers. We have yet to see an economic analysis from the
government of the different alternatives, the different costs and
who will pay them.
The government has dropped the ball. It is going to Kyoto 10
days from now with a stance Canadians have yet to hear. That is
not the way to do it.
Hopefully in the next couple of days we will hear it and we will
be able to get on side. I fear that the government will sign on
to something in Japan, bring it back to Canada, and be forced to
push it down the throats of Canadians. I fear it will be a
position we may not agree with. I hope this can be avoided in
the future.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would ask the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni the following
question.
Why has he not brought to the attention of his leader the
statement made by the intergovernmental panel on climate change
“Greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to increase and
the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on
global climate?”
This statement was made by more than 2,000 experts worldiwide.
participating in the drafting and reviewing of the
intergovernmental panel report on climate change. Why has the
hon. member not brought this statement to the attention of his
leader?
Mr. Bill Gilmour: Madam Speaker, I am delighted the hon.
member for Davenport raised the panel on climate change made up
of 2,500 renowned scientists.
If we were to listen to the government, we would get the
impression that these 2,500 scientists were all using the same
song sheet but they are not. There is a vast difference of
opinion in the climate change report.
Some sentences were politically written in the front summary by
analysts for Vice-President Gore which do not reflect the inside
of the report. If we pick selective sentences from that summary,
they can be exceedingly misleading.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, I
have a couple of questions for my hon. colleague. I find a
couple of points to be a bit confusing.
The hon. member said that this was a global problem which
required a global solution. I do not understand. Some of his
remarks, and definitely those of his leader, actually refuted
science and questioned whether the science actually existed.
Why would they recognize on the one hand that the science is
questionable and then on the other hand come forward and say it
is a global problem?
I find rather confusing. Reform is all over the map on this
issue.
2140
The hon. member was reported in the Ottawa Citizen of
October 25, 1997 as saying that environmental taxes may be part
of the equation if they are dedicated. I actually believe the
Reform Party does not like taxes, but I do not understand why it
would advocate taxing something that is not a problem.
Mr. Bill Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that we
hear this from the Conservative Party. It was the leader of the
Conservative Party who was in Rio and got us into this glue pot
in the first place.
I suggest the member should hold on to the coattails of his
leader because they are going nowhere. I also suggest they
should listen to the Reform Party because the Reform Party is
questioning the science.
This is one of the few times people should say “Let's all jump
on the bandwagon”. This is not the time to jump on the
bandwagon. This is the time to question the science.
We did not question the science in the cod fishery. The member
is from the east coast. He knows what happened to the cod
fishery. The science that we were promised was okay in the late
seventies, was okay in the early eighties and was okay in the
mid-eighties. We some the decimation of the cod fishery because
the scientists were not allowed to put forward straight science.
It was political science, and that is what we are listening to
here.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to briefly make a few comments on speeches that have
been made so far. I congratulate the Minister of the Environment
for her thoughtful intervention, for her emphasizing the
importance of harnessing innovation, and for bringing to the
attention of members of the House the situation in the Mackenzie
basin.
The Minister of Natural Resources made an intervention
indicating to us what is the composition of the package that
Canada will bring to Kyoto. Evidently, when it comes to dealing
with distant deadlines, it is quite understandable that
governments would want to make their position known when it is
very close to the deadline of the event. Therefore it is not a
question of Canada going empty handed to Kyoto. It is just doing
its homework very thoroughly. The speech of the Minister of
Natural Resources is an indication that the package will be a
thoughtful and fairly comprehensive one.
For 45 minutes we were treated to the unique review of the issue
by the Leader of the Official Opposition. It was unique for its
sequence of asinine statements, the like of which we have not
heard in the House for a long time. He trotted out all the
cliches that have been heard over the last 10 years on the issue.
Having mentioned a couple of U.S. scientists who have doubts
about the question of whether or not there is a climate change in
place or in action evolving on the face of the planet, he
concluded that actually we had to be sceptical, that we could not
accept the science.
As I just indicated to the Member for Nanaimo—Alberni, some
2,500 scientists, worldwide experts, participated in drafting and
reviewing the second report of the intergovernmental panel on
climate change of December 1995. Their conclusion in two lines is
simply that the greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to
increase and the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human
influence on global climate.
To prove that the Leader of the Official Opposition did not do
his homework properly, he made the capital mistake of quoting a
witness who appeared before the Standing Committee on Environment
and Sustainable Development, Dr. Allyn Clarke, and did not quote
his conclusion. He chose to quote the opening remarks but failed
to tell the House that the very same person concluded on that
occasion that climate change must be taken seriously.
2145
Not only that, but he also asked the committee to pay attention
to the work done by oceanographers and sought support for their
work.
Evidently the basis of information and research on the part of
the people who are advising the leader of the Reform Party is
very thin, if not very shaky.
When he ran out of arguments about the question of the
scientific validity of this issue, what did he do? He invoked
the spectre of taxes, which is always done when arguments run
out, when short of convincing themes. Then the flag of possible
potential taxes is waved. This is totally absurd in this
political debate tonight.
As the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party just said a
few moments ago, we have plenty of carbon taxes already imposed
on gasoline at the present time.
It is very difficult to deal with gladiators who are ignorant
and we have too many in this House of Commons. Speakers after
the leaders of the various parties have only 10 minutes to deal
with uninformed, ignorant and distorted information as was done
tonight, unfortunately, by the leader of the Reform Party, thus
contributing really nothing to the substance, to the search for
answers on this extremely complex issue that is engaging the
minds of scientists, of politicians of course, of decision makers
and of governments around the world. Enough said about the
pathetic performance by the leader of the Reform Party. What a
shame I must say.
This issue is posing to us a number of interesting conclusions.
Let me put the first one. The conclusion that one inevitably
comes to when analysing this issue is that here there is, in a
very rare moment, a rather unique convergence of economic and
environmental goals.
The economy can only benefit from energy efficiency. The
economy can only benefit from energy innovation and the economy
can only benefit from prolonging the life of the reserves we have
in our country through more careful consumption now and in the
near future.
This convergence is unique. It is good business to apply energy
efficiency and innovation and it is also good environmental
policy.
Second, this issue offers us a unique opportunity to switch,
gradually of course, from the use of oil to the use of natural
gas with which we are abundantly endowed and which is an ideal
fuel for its high calorific value because it is also clean. It
is efficient in use and available in large quantities,
particularly in our western provinces.
Third, this issue is indicating the urgent need for us to
examine tax expenditures, fiscal and taxation measures, either
direct or indirect, subsidies, you name it, which presently are
offered to the petroleum, the oil sands and the coal industries.
We have to ask ourselves do these particular measures make sense
when we are trying to move in a direction whereby we want to
discourage, gradually, the use of these fossil fuels.
Fourth, this issue offers us a unique opportunity to examine and
change our transport policies. Our transport policies are in
urgent need of being redesigned because we have to link them to
the aim of reducing greenhouse gases, to their reduction,
wherever possible, particularly with respect to the potential
offered in this country which is far from being achieved, namely
public transit.
2150
Fifth, this brings to our attention, in a frustrating manner
actually, the issue which can be witnessed by anyone who watches
landfill sites which are emitting greenhouse gases, the burning
away of waste gases, mostly methane, instead of being utilized
for district heating purposes, as it is done in many other
jurisdictions, particularly the highly populated jurisdictions of
Europe.
Sixth, this issue brings to our attention with crystal clear
evidence the necessity of giving momentum to and paying much more
attention to renewable sources of energy. They were recognized
in the last two budgets but we are far from having given them the
favourable tax treatment which is presently being given to the
non-renewable sources of energy.
Then the unique model comes to our attention when we are looking
for answers to this particular issue, the unique model offered by
the Toronto Atmospheric Fund whereby the municipality has adopted
a number of energy efficiency and innovation measures in the
public and private sectors which have now made Toronto the leader
in this respect in the reduction of greenhouse gases.
To conclude, let me indicate that this issues also reminds us of
the poverty issue in developing countries and of the necessity to
improve, accelerate and strengthen the efforts of the developed
countries in reducing poverty in order to come to grips with this
very complex and far reaching issue.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I want to comment on this debate and on one particular
item which I hope the government will pay close attention to. It
was the proposal put forward by the leader of the fifth party
concerning tradable emission permits.
I remind him and the government that when one sets up a system
of tradable permits of a limited stock, and as the leader of the
fifth party says, they are starting to trade at a profit, the end
result is they end up in fewer and fewer hands. Competition in
the economy is therefore reduced and the ends are not necessarily
achieved. Something which is a permit to pollute basically takes
on a tremendously large value.
I ask the government, before it goes down that road, to consult
with municipalities across this country that are desperately
trying to get out of exactly that same system. That is precisely
what has happened. Competition has disappeared. More and more
of the resource has been concentrated in fewer and fewer hands
and nobody benefits.
To the member for Davenport, he and I had the privilege during
the 34th Parliament of working on a series of reports on our
planet. They were all put together at the end of that Parliament
by the committee in a compendium that I would recommend highly,
particularly to the members of the official opposition.
I want to go back to some of the comments made in that report
about the situation the globe faces. I want to quote from the
president of the World Watch Institute: “On the environmental
front the situation could hardly be worse. Every major indicator
shows a deterioration in natural systems. Forests are shrinking,
deserts are expanding and crop lands are losing top soil. The
stratospheric ozone layer continues to thin. Greenhouse gases
are accumulating. The number of plant and animal species is
diminishing. Air pollution has reached health threatening levels
in hundreds of cities and damage from acid rain can be seen on
every continent”.
Maurice Strong said: “If we continue our present course, life
as we know it will not survive the 21st century. Indeed, our
grandchildren, even in this blessed nation, will be experiencing
a very severely deteriorated quality of life if we continue on
our present course. The course we are on is like a cancer,
headed for terminality. We simply cannot survive the pathway”.
I wonder if the member for Davenport would care to comment on
whether he feels the situation on the globe has changed in the
now nearly six years since our last report on global climate
change was produced in that committee.
2155
Hon. Charles Caccia: Madam Speaker, the short answer is
yes. We have noticed in a variety of ways the deterioration of
natural systems. That is the reason why we have at the present
time a world commission on forest and sustainable development.
That is why we have disputes in fisheries on the east coast and
on the west coast. That is why there is the emerging issue of
water in many populated countries. That is why we are engaged
tonight in this issue which is part of an overall deterioration.
This is why in the 1980s we had to deal with the question of the
ozone layer and the damage to it which, as the leader of the
Progressive Conservative Party said, has been one of the success
stories so far.
There is deterioration and we cannot hide our heads in the sand,
as the Reform Party seems to be inclined to do. We have to look
at the issue and boldly make certain difficult decisions that
have to do with the long term. Governments must make decisions
relating to the long term. Evidently it is not an easy matter.
This will be the test of openness and the farsightedness of this
government in coming to grips with this, probably one of the most
difficult long term issues.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would like
to start by asking for unanimous consent to divide my time into two
five-minute speeches.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member have
the unanimous consent of the House to divide his speaking time with
his colleague from Portneuf?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today
to speak on this important subject of climatic change.
With only a few days left until Kyoto, it was high time for a
debate in the House of Commons on this issue, which is of such
vital importance for the quality of life of future generations.
It is about this conference, which is vital to our future, that I
want to speak to you today.
On Monday, Environment Canada released the troubling results
of a study that took six years and cost over $80 million. This
study revealed that we must expect a higher mortality rate and an
increase in the number of diseases if something is not done right
away to slow down global warming.
This study also pointed out that certain species, whether
vegetable or animal, will actually be threatened with extinction.
According to the same source, the average temperature in Canada
will increase by 3 to 6 degrees Celsius for the eastern and western
extremities of Canada, and by 4 to 6 degrees Celsius for the
central part of the country.
The anticipated effects for Canada as a whole are disastrous.
Scientists predict an increase in the frequency and intensity of
storms, serious consequences for health, economic sectors,
forestry, agriculture and fishing, and a significant impact on
human health in general.
These serious phenomena are caused by the increase in
greenhouse gas emissions. These gases prevent the sun's heat from
returning into space and cause a gradual rise in temperatures. The
large scale use of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and, to a lesser
extent, natural gas produces these gases that cause the greenhouse
effect responsible for global warming.
Next week, delegates from over 150 countries will begin 10
days of negotiations in Kyoto, Japan.
Representatives of Canada and of Quebec will have to reach
agreement with other nations at the conference on an international
reduction objective. The Bloc Quebecois was the first political
party in Ottawa to take a clear stand on the need to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
2200
The Chrétien government has known since the Berlin conference, in
1995, that it would have to make a commitment at this conference, yet it
did not take the necessary steps to prepare Canada for this important
world summit.
Consequently, Canada is the only country among the seven most
industrialized countries that has not made its position public in
preparation for the negotiations. This is unacceptable, since Canada is
the second largest producer of carbon dioxide per capita in the world
after the U.S. In fact, we share this responsibility with all
industrialized countries, which produce 80% of all greenhouse gases.
The Reform Party is waving the spectre of taxes hikes and fuel
price increases to get us to do less than the U.S. Still facing a
credibility problem, strangely enough, it is painting an even bleaker
picture than the petroleum lobby in the United States with its
statistics.
Such short-sighted vision does not serve the interests of anyone in
Canada. What is at stake, in terms of our environment and our economy,
is so important that it requires vigorous action on this issue. That is
why the Bloc Quebecois believes that the federal government must
formally make strong greenhouse gas reduction commitments at the Kyoto
conference scheduled for next week.
The federal government must acknowledge the fact that its current
greenhouse gas reduction strategy has failed and act accordingly.
Only by setting meaningful goals promoting a significant reduction of
carbon dioxide emissions will the government confirm its willingness to
address this serious problem. The provinces, particularly major
polluters, must also pledge to do more in this area. The Canadian
position must go further than the variable rate formula proposed by the
Japanese. According to this formula, and given its size, population and
climate, Canada should achieve reductions of 2.3% by the year 2010.
Obviously, this objective is far from that of the European Union,
which we should try to reach, to the extent possible, but it does take
the Canadian reality into account. This is the Bloc Quebecois' position.
What will the Liberal government do, just days before the deadline?
Cabinet ministers are very divided on the issue.
In conclusion, I will say once again that global warming is a major
issue for my generation. Young Quebeckers want to live in a prosperous
and environmentally responsible society, something to be achieved
through sovereignty.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I consulted with the other
parties in the House and I think you would find consent from all
sides to send the pages home if it has not already been done.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Agreed. The hon.
member for Durham, a quick question, please.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
a comment to which the member can respond. We touched several
times on the topic of tradable credits tonight. The member for
Sherbrooke mentioned that in his speech. He said that tradable
credits are new and are just starting to be traded, even though
they were traded as long ago as 1990 in the United States at a
time when he was Minister of the Environment.
There is something missing from the equation in our business
cycle, that is, the costs of polluting. Often we do not try to
put a number on that. This is the problem with industrial
structure. We do not have a cost of pollution. The notion of
tradable credits allows us to recognize there is a cost to
pollution which requires companies to buy these credits.
Some interesting things have happened recently in the United
States. These credits are now traded on the Chicago Board of
Trade. Environmental groups like Greenpeace are buying them.
They are removing these credits which limits the ability of these
companies to pollute. The object of the exercise is to give
companies an incentive not to pollute by developing new
technologies to reduce their emissions.
What does the member think about that kind of concept?
2205
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Madam Speaker, as we have always said, the
important thing is to invest in renewable technologies. This is what is
important and what must be reflected in the Canadian position. We must
have an energy policy that will allow us not only to reach our
environmental goals, but also to maintain a degree of economic growth.
I truly believe that this can be achieved.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, we have
a big problem. When I say we, I am not talking about the Ottawa
area, Quebec City or Vancouver, but about the planet itself. We
have a big problem because, since the onset of industrialization,
we have been burning more of all sorts of things. We have been
burning oil, wood, coal, and alcohol. We have been burning all
sorts of things and this gives off carbon dioxide, a very simple
gas but one with the incredible property of holding heat around the
planet.
How can we trace 1,000 years of history with respect to carbon
dioxide? We have only to look at ice samples trapped in glaciers
for this period of time to see that historically the planet has had
approximately—and here I am referring to a chart—280 parts per
million of carbon dioxide.
This keeps us very comfortable on our planet.
With industrialization, we have doubled the number of parts
per million. This means that the planet is turning into a Thermos
bottle and that the rays of sun that enter the atmosphere are not
leaving at the same rate they used to. We are going to get fried
if we are not careful.
Do we have much time left to take action? I would say we
should have done something about twenty years ago to avoid the
worst. Already we should be getting ready for important climate
changes in 20, 30 or 40 years. We are perhaps already experiencing
these climate changes, which create hurricanes, flooding, or very
disturbing seasonal variations.
It is obvious that Quebec and Canada on their own cannot
change the equation significantly. Our contribution is important,
but it is not the only one.
Canada as a whole emits 2% of these greenhouse gases, which means
that the rest of the planet—and we can think particularly of the
industrialized countries such as the United States—emits the other
98%. That is why Kyoto is so important. That is why there must be
an international agreement between all countries, in order to
reduce these emissions, which are creating a sort of Thermos bottle
effect.
It will not be easy. I would even venture to say that it is
very late in this planet's time line, but it is very important. I
would urge all those who are listening at home and understand what
I have to say, not to hesitate to contact their MPs and to ask them
to ensure that Canada does everything within its power to reduce
greenhouse gases.
There are considerable variations within Canada. Quebec
produces around 9 tonnes of gas per inhabitant. That is a lot.
This means that, by using electricity produced by a thermal plant,
gasoline in my car, and a variety of other products, including
clothing containing plastics, I am causing nine tonnes of CO2 or
related gases to be produced.
2210
In Alberta, however, with the industries being what they are,
the figure is 56 tonnes per person. That is six times more than
the figure for Quebec. From sea to sea, people must become aware
and we must lower our production of greenhouse gas. We must set
the example so that other countries will follow and we can avoid
the worst.
The worst occurs when there is no more snow on ski hills in
Quebec. The worst occurs when the prairies can no longer produce
wheat. The worst occurs when we are invaded by all sorts of
insects and diseases carried along by the increased temperatures.
I know you do not need convincing, Madam Speaker, but I hope
our viewers tonight will understand the importance of this debate.
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Madam Speaker, over the next
century global temperatures are predicted to undergo change
greater than any seen in the past 10,000 years. This will create
a chain reaction, impairing the Earth's hydrology, geochemistry
and botany. As a result, planetary aquatic and terrestrial life
forms will be stressed, economic, industrial and commercial
activities will be challenged, and socio-political relationships
will be strained.
Even with concerted substantive action today we will see a
doubling of CO2 in the next century. Even with stabilization by
2010 it will still take a significant timeframe to rid the
atmosphere of the greenhouse gases to the point where the current
rise in global temperatures is restored to a level decreed in the
UN framework convention on climate change 1992. It stated that
such a level should allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to
climate change to ensure that food production is not threatened
and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable
way.
Roger Street, one of the editors of Environment Canada's recent
“Canada Country Study” said that climate is a key defining
variable for Canada, it defines our social and economic
well-being. Natural processes are inextricably linked and when
one fundamental piece, like climate, is so dramatically altered,
no other natural process is immune. With that fact in mind and to
paraphrase Mr. Street, our social and economic well-being will be
altered as well.
I fear that our institutions, political, economic and social,
have not kept pace to adequately respond to the changes we have
created in our natural environment. Our ability to mitigate
harmful human interference and adapt to negative impacts of
climate change is seriously hampered.
Natural laws are immutable. There is nothing we can do as
legislators in this place, pass laws, make policy and act on
these, that could ever supersede nature. When we attempt to do
so, we put at risk the health and well-being of all of the
Earth's community, including ourselves.
We must learn our lesson from climate change. We must legislate
and govern as if the Earth mattered.
Because we cannot fool nature, we must accept that action be
realistic and effective in actually dealing with the issue of
global climate change.
The eyes of the world will be on Kyoto next week as
representatives from the planet's governments convene to
negotiate an agreement. There are many proposals for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. We should acknowledge the effort put
forward by the nations of the world in recognizing the
seriousness of the problem and their willingness to propose
solutions.
There is concern however that some of the solutions have
loopholes attached, loopholes which would exclude HFCs, PFCs and
SF6, which are rapidly growing and could contribute at least 5%
more to greenhouse gas emissions. Other loopholes would inflate
the baseline year emissions thus making it appear easier for
countries to achieve stabilization.
Whatever legally binding agreement is negotiated at Kyoto, it
must be clear, express and provide targets and criteria to repair
damage to natural systems. Not paper reductions but real
reductions that can be measured by nature's account balance.
More important than Kyoto however is what we do after in Canada.
Climate change is a global issue, but the dialogue and action
begins at home. We have a duty. The duty is to engage
Canadians.
The solutions to address climate change exist. They exist in our
homes, communities, office towers, shop floors, classrooms and
labs and they exist here in this place.
2215
The public and private sectors and individual Canadians and
their communities must all make a fair contribution to solving a
problem of climate change. We must build on the exemplary work
of the Canada Country Study. It is the first ever national
assessment of the social, biological and economic impact of
climate change, which includes regional studies, sectoral
analysis and reports on cost cutting issues.
Environment Canada brought together experts from government,
industry, academia and non government organizations to complete
this study. The Canada Country Study tells us that impacts will
range in both degree and variability, depending on the region of
the country and the economic sector. Make no mistake, all parts
of Canada, all Canadians will be affected.
Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, utilities, energy
extraction and production and industrial and commercial
residential sources vary from region to region depending on
predominant economic activities. Any realistic post-Kyoto
implementation strategy should include a range of mitigation
measures reflecting the diversity of Canada's regions and
sectors.
Energy efficiency is crucial to the reduction of greenhouse
gases. Energy efficiency and conservation initiatives
implemented by Natural Resources Canada from 1990 to 1995
resulted in energy savings of approximately $4 billion a year to
the Canadian economy.
The private sector must be encouraged to increase energy
efficiencies. A number of initiatives currently exist and must
be expanded. For example, insurance companies are starting to
offer energy savings insurance policies to commercial and
municipal operations to provide their lenders with security for
the repayment of energy saving building retrofits.
Engaging Canadians individually and in their communities is
central to achieving greenhouse gas reductions. The Ontario
Green Communities program is a community success story. Green
communities are community based, non-profit, multi-partner
environmental organizations. They achieve results by mobilizing
community co-operation and providing practical services and
advice. The mission of green communities is to build sustainable
communities by conserving resources, preventing pollution and
protecting and enhancing natural ecological processes.
This year with the support of Environment Canada, the Green
Communities Association launched a national initiative to promote
the establishment of new community based networks across Canada
to build national partnerships and establish a national alliance.
A significant component of their activities is the residential
retrofit program which will help engage Canadians in the
reduction of greenhouse gases.
Another success story is the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities 20% Club. Members of the 20% Club bring national
objectives on climate change together with local voluntary
initiatives.
The federal government plays a pivotal leadership role in
engaging Canadians, communities, industry, along with the public
sector in the national effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Environment Canada's community based programs involve Canadians
at the community level. Their support of the Green Communities
Association means Canadians can increase awareness of climate
change and contribute to the betterment of the natural
environment.
Environment Canada's Canada Country Study involved hundreds of
Canadians in the assessment of socioeconomic impacts of climate
change. The shift to energy efficiency can be accelerated by
fiscal policies that support and encourage residential and
commercial retrofit, the development of renewable and alternative
energy and increased usage of natural gas. These policies can be
financed by shifting funds away from fiscal initiatives that
encourage perverse ecological subsidies.
Energy efficiency activities are job creators. The shift to
this sector would encourage technological innovations to flourish
in environmental industries that will increase trading
opportunities for Canadian firms.
This a win-win agenda. It is an agenda that engages all
Canadians in the very important national effort to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Madam Speaker,
coming from Churchill River, I have certainly learned a lot in
the last few months since entering the 36th Parliament.
Coming from my neck of the woods and realizing that we live in a
huge carbon sink, I thought it was a major, startling discovery
on my part. Then I had a chance to look at the international
comments and the lack of Canadian dialogue.
2220
Nobody's talking about greenhouse gas emissions and climate
change in this country. The media went to sleep on it. The
opposition has not collectively raised the issue except on the
carbon tax issue. The government has barely taken any leadership
on it. That is the political rhetoric of it.
As an individual and as an aboriginal person, my learnings and
my world view—
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]
[English]
If we look at the future and we look at the seven generations to
come, our present emissions that we are having today outside in
this world will have an effect seven generations from now. We
are the effect of the generations to come. We will never know
these children. We will never know them but they are ours.
Collectively all our children are coming.
I went to Tokyo to hear the pre-Kyoto talks which they call the
ad hoc group of the Berlin mandate. This is what the draft
agreement includes. These are the topics of discussion and
negotiation internationally. When they go to Kyoto next week
this is what they will hear: legally binding targets, something
that is going to press beyond voluntary which is what the Reform
is afraid of; the joint implementation where countries can
purchase and invest in other countries of the world and get
permits and benefits for their efforts; technology transfer.
Where we find a startling discovery in one of our universities
or research labs in Canada, we can sell and transfer this
technology for the betterment of humankind, for competition or
for the betterment of our generosity for all the peoples of the
world.
Capital investment is very interesting because money talks and
that is what we found here in Canada. We have not put money
toward this.
The United Nations has a global environment fund which the
developing countries are hoping will grow. On official
development assistance, ODA funds, developed countries, annex 1
countries are creating funds and investing elsewhere.
On bilateral agreements, the United States can have a bilateral
agreement with Chile to preserve its sink and do development and
research for that purpose and also capital investment. Here in
Canada we do not have an investment within our own domestic
efforts. I will come back to that.
There is also the tradable permits. That is a major discussion
at the international table. We cannot hide from that. It is
being discussed by all the nations of the world. Tradable
permits are putting a carbon value. However, it is a negative
value, but it is going to be a polluter pays. It is a short term
measure until we clean up our lifestyle. It is an instrument to
get us on the right track. We are at a crossroads here. The
journey started in Rio. We have not done anything yet, but Kyoto
is going to be a crossroads on which way we are going to go.
When we talk about sinks, it is a carbon reservoir. As the hon.
member from the Conservative Party mentioned, the whole equator
and rain forest is a major sink but we also have the Boreal
forest which is a major sink. Internationally what they are
recognizing as sinks are manageable forests, not wild forests.
Who is speaking on behalf of our bogs and muskegs in the back
woods of our country which are not manageable? It is beyond
imagination to manage the northern Churchill area because it is
beyond manageable or economic effort.
The other aspect is how many greenhouse gases are in this
negotiation? Three as presently in the agreement or a total of
six? There are six gases that should be discussed, not just
three.
As I mentioned, this is the international draft. It is
happening. It is at the international table. We never heard
about it. The CBC or CTV, the national media outlets that we
depend upon, do not even have an outlet in Japan.
They do not even have a correspondent in Japan to let us know
what the negotiations have been in Tokyo, Bonn or anywhere else
in the world. The media plays an important part.
2225
Domestically, I call on the government to talk about a national
atmospheric fund, a major revolving fund in this country, as a
challenge of consciousness. We spend about $600 million as a tax
incentive for the oil sands industry. Why could we not put $600
million on a revolving fund to lever atmospheric positive
measures for good energy use, a good livelihood, good perceptions
by the media, good initiatives given by municipalities, large or
small and maybe the automobile industry? Maybe some day we will
have a Canadian automobile, one we can truly call our own which
will be environmentally friendly. Let us challenge ourselves.
Let us challenge our intellectual and engineering communities.
Let the industries put their minds and money toward this as well,
not just take the profits and run.
Maybe we should revisit the incentives and the tax breaks that
we give to major industries and make sure they are put in an
appropriate place.
On the issue of preserving our forests, there are forests in the
province of Manitoba. When a forest fire makes a major break, it
is left to burn because there is no commercial forest there.
There is no dollar value on the northern boreal forests. Why not
put the forest fire out, giving employment to the people who live
up there and preserving the sink? It is releasing carbon as it
happens.
Transitional funding is a major issue. It has to be addressed
through Human Resources Development or the industry. There will
be transitions in training for the workforce of the future. There
is going to be transitional funding for industry.
The Minister of the Environment raised the issue of the coal
industry. There is not going to be a total eradication of the
coal industry immediately, which is the conclusion that everyone
jumps to. It may be a slow generational process by the next
generation of workers to look at a different industry. It is not
wholehearted.
We look at the international negotiations like a bubble. The
European Community, which is a huge trading block of common
currency, has now described itself as a bubble. Japan pointed
out that France does not have to cut its emissions for the next
15 years because they will be getting credits from other nations
within the European Community.
Canada is a bubble in itself. Alberta and Saskatchewan and the
coal industries in Nova Scotia should not be afraid because we
have to address this as a nation, not by regions. We have to do
it as a collective effort for humankind.
The hon. leader of the opposition mentioned a very precious
species in his perspective is the taxpayer. I think all species
should be considered, not just the human species, but all living
species. The humans of this world also live on the living beings
of this earth. There are living beings in the oceans and in the
air, truly the gift of mother earth. That is what we are taking
care of and that is what the future of generations to come will
depend upon.
I would like to call it the term of greed, which in my language
is—
[Editor's note: Member spoke in Cree]
[English]
When we are greedy, when we want something so much, that is
sinful. In that perspective I would like to call on the
conscience of all the people of Canada, the people who are
listening out there to be aware of the issue of climate change.
There are disruptions. We just had a temperature of plus 10
degrees Celsius in downtown Saskatoon the other day. That is a
major disruption. We will never know what the full effects will
be on the economy, or on our health as scientists are telling us.
We just have to look at it and take on the challenge.
The figure of 20% by the year 2005 was an achievable goal a few
years ago. Now we have increased 13%. I call on all Canadians
to take on the leadership, go to Kyoto and when we come back the
race will be on. It started in Rio. It does not start next
month.
2230
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to congratulate my colleague from Churchill River for
some extremely insightful and timely remarks.
I would like to request unanimous consent to split both my time
and question period with the member for Waterloo—Wellington.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the consent of the House to split his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you for the consent. I happen to
think this is a good speech but I am sure you did not want to
hear it twice.
I welcome the opportunity to speak about this important topic
and would like to congratulate all parties for the co-operative
effort that resulted in this debate being possible.
In terms of the consequences of atmospheric change, I hold the
opinion, and I will preface this by admitting freely that I have
absolutely no scientific background, but I hold a rather
simplistic view that non-sustainable practices are going to catch
up with us in a number of significant areas.
If someone is waiting for indisputable empirical confirmation of
the problem, I would suggest that they will be waiting a long
time because nature does not speak through science. She speaks
through symbols and signals, like climate change, like increased
acidity in water systems, depleted resources, the extinction of
species and any number of other signs directly linked to
environmental degradation.
The Reform Party has shown signs of enlightenment specifically
in two of the three r's, reduce and recycle. It has
effectively reduced its credibility on this issue to zero and its
stated position so far has contained 95% recycled material.
In addition to supporting research and simple observation, we
can also see confirmation of the problem from the corporate
sector. The insurance industry, a sector that survives with the
successful calculation in management of risk is all over this
issue like a cheap suit. The very real threat of claims
involving too much water, too little water or water at the wrong
times of year have set this industry on its ear.
While I readily admit that I could not tell the difference
between CO2 and CO1, I do know that money does not talk, it
swears. I need no further proof that we have an impending
problem. I also believe that this is just the tip of the melting
iceberg.
My greatest fear is that this argument, which is not unlike the
one that plagued progress on smoking legislation, will delay
action at the expense of future generations. I feel we have a
moral obligation to address these issues in a responsible,
logical, timely and co-operative manner. The clock is ticking
and the earth is warming and we are not going to get too many
chances at successful intervention.
What is important is not our position going in to Kyoto. It is
the nature of the agreement coming out. Simply reducing the
argument to green versus growth may be strategically sound but it
shows a fundamental lack of knowledge on the issues involved.
Clearly growth strategies and the pursuit of wealth do nothing
to help the environment. I am not saying growth is bad. What I
am saying is that unless we discover life on another planet, in
the long term it is a dead end street. It is in the long term
interest, the environmental interest, economic interest and
social interest of all Canadians that we lead the world in the
adjustment to this new economy. We certainly need to strike a
balance between short and long term interests.
The challenge we collectively face as politicians is this.
Addressing these issues is going to involve leadership. It is
going to involve increased levels of co-operation. It is going
to involve making decisions with the goal of improving the human
condition for future generations.
We are being asked to take a certain amount of risk to effect
change in a world in which we will have no direct share. The
potential Kyoto agreement is an excellent start and will serve to
jump start an upward spiral of net economic gain through the
adoption of sustainable practices.
In conclusion, it becomes clear that our country and indeed our
planet is faced with a number of environmental problems that are
paralyzing policy makers by both the severity of their
implications and by the complexity of the measures necessary to
solve them.
It is not unlike the mythical Medusa. If we stare at this
problem, it is paralyzing in its scope. Perseus managed to slay
this demon by using a shield to reflect the image. I would like
to suggest that we let our shield be the ingenuity, creativity
and co-operative spirit of the Canadian people, of Canadian
industries and I dare say Canadian politicians.
I will leave members with this final thought. If not Canada,
who? And if not now, when?
2235
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on this very important issue
affecting all Canadians and indeed all people in the world.
On a snowy night in Ottawa global warming may not seem to be an
issue of concern but I can assure you it is and members in this
House know that it is. We know that almost 90% of Canadians
believe that climate change is already occurring or will occur in
the very near future. So this is indeed of great concern to all
of us as Canadians and to all of us in the world.
Scientists are noting subtle yet significant changes in our
environment and the effect of this over time could seriously
damage our forests, our agriculture and our fresh water supply.
It could also lead to the extinction of species, including polar
bears, musk ox and caribou. Moreover it is no secret that a
warming climate caused by greenhouse gases will lead to more
illness and death in the next century unless steps are taken now.
All of this I find most worrisome, as do all Canadians.
It should be noted that nine of the earth's warmest years since
1861 occurred after 1980. Each year the burning of fossil fuels
introduces 22 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere. While Canada may not be the largest polluter
overall, we are the ninth largest. We have the second highest
rate of greenhouse gas emissions per person. Since 1990 these
emissions have increased by 13%.
The science of climate change is sound and it is compelling.
Although we do not know everything, what we do know is more than
enough to warrant responsible cost effective investment to
address the problem.
The global climate is warming at a more rapid rate. This is due
in large measure to a dramatic increase in the volume of
greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere. The issue of global
climate change is very important in the upcoming conference in
Kyoto, Japan. Representatives from around the world will meet to
put in place a plan to deal with that change.
Canada needs to and will push for new meaningful, realistic and
equitable legally binding targets to limit greenhouse gas
emissions. This will be done by developing Canada's position on
climatic change with partners from all across Canada, provincial
governments, municipal governments, industry and non-governmental
organizations.
Our position must be, and must be perceived to be, fair among
all regions, provinces and industries. We will endorse emission
targets that can be realistically achieved on a step by step
basis. We must do this because Canada must be part of the
international solution. To do otherwise would be untenable and
irresponsible.
All Canadians must be engaged in this debate. Canadians need to
understand the science of climate change, the resources and the
measures which have been taken to date and what actions they can
take to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.
Overcoming this problem will not be possible without the efforts
and support of all Canadians.
[Translation]
The federal government will continue to look after the
interests of all Canadians. It will lead us into the new
millennium with vision and foresight.
[English]
The challenge of climate change does not have to be a crisis. We
must take this opportunity to make Canada a more efficient and
innovative nation. If we meet this challenge, and we will and we
must, it will ensure the continued health of our planet. If we
fail to meet it, our children and our grandchildren will pay an
enormous price.
We need to work very hard to ensure that this will not happen.
All Canadians need to work hard on this issue. We owe it to the
generations that follow.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I thought I might share a little story about the nature
of environmental destruction, environmental problems and ask the
member to respond. It is really just a way of getting this
little story on the record. I remember reading this about 20
years ago. It was trying to illustrate the nature of
environmental problems. They are often geometric or exponential
in nature.
The story goes that you have to imagine a lily pond which is
being covered by lily pads at a certain rate over the course of
28 days.
It starts with one lily pad on the first day, two lily pads on
the second day, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, et cetera. The thing to
remember in the covering of this pond with lily pads is that if
this is a progression of pollution or environmental degradation,
on the 27th day there is still half the lily pond uncovered.
2240
It is very easy to believe on the 27th day or on the 26th day or
on the 25th day that the people who are saying there is a problem
are wrong, because they can look out over half of the lily pond
and say “These people are Chicken Little. These people say that
the sky is falling. These people are exaggerating. They want us
to take unnecessary measures”. If they listen to that kind of
advice in this story, when sitting on a lily pad on the 27th day
they are saying there is no problem and on the next day boom, the
entire pond is covered.
I ask members to consider whether or not this story is not
constructive in some way. We do not know with respect to
greenhouse gas emissions whether we are on the 27th day or the
26th or the 25th, but we are close. We are somewhere in the
twenties and it is incumbent upon us to act.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member opposite for that wonderful story. I am not sure where it
was going or where it was leading but it was wonderful
nevertheless.
It is imperative that Canadians, men and women of good faith
ensure that we do what we must for the environment. I think that
is important and certainly that is the position of this
government. We will continue to do so.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, Canada
has always been regarded as a world leader and a driving force on
critical issues which threaten the preservation of our
environment.
The Progressive Conservative years were characterized by action
and leadership. In contrast this government is long on
improvising and short on planning and implementation when it
comes to protecting the environment and reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. This is just as true for the last four years as it
has been for the last four weeks.
The Kyoto conference on climate change is less than one week
away. This government is flying by the seat of its pants and has
said nothing about its position for Kyoto. What it fails to
recognize is that any target is irrelevant when there is no plan
in place to achieve it.
In absence of an implementation strategy, set targets amount to
nothing more than good intentions. To be effective, our position
must be informed by science, enhanced by government and anchored
in society's will. Only when society is fully engaged will our
policies and strategies succeed.
The issue of climate change is real and it is complex. It is a
fact that there is a discernible human influence on global
climate change.
It is true that the world's scientists do not know the exact
consequences. However it is a disservice to misrepresent to
Canadians that the science is divided as some of my colleagues in
this House have tried to do.
I actually understand why the Reform Party does not understand
the science beyond this and it does not believe in global
warming. I think it is because it still lives in the ice age.
As a northern and a marine nation we must be resolute in
addressing this very serious problem. Global warming from a
Canadian perspective is indeed a national problem. It challenges
the environment of the town of Charlottetown, P.E.I. For the
Reform members who actually represent some seats in western
Canada, it also threatens the Fraser River delta in British
Columbia.
This government's made in the U.S.A. approach is not leadership.
The science and technology that addresses climate change is
evolving. A target a decade or more away is likely to become
irrelevant as the science continues to evolve. However the PC
party will accept reaching 1990 levels by the year 2010 as an
interim target as long as an implementation strategy accompanies
this target.
The Minister of the Environment stated in this Chamber on
October 22, 1997 in referring to the earth summit in Rio,
“Frankly with respect when we made our commitment in Rio in 1992
we really were not aware of what we had to do to achieve our
target”.
The environment minister should heed her own advice. Without an
implementation strategy we will not build on the global efforts
of the past five years in Rio, Berlin and Geneva.
2245
The government has been so focused on trying to arrive at a
target that it has forgotten to develop an implementation
strategy for home. It has been conspicuously quiet on its
negotiating strategy in relation to economic instruments and in
clarifying what is not on the Kyoto table. In no way should a
Kyoto position include potential trade sanctions for any
non-compliance.
As the auditor general has stated, the government has a vast
implementation gap when addressing environmental issues.
Some hon. members across the way like to raise the record of the
previous Conservative government to deflect attention away from
their actions or lack thereof over the last four years on perhaps
any subject.
My next comments may not be focused on the members in the House
today, but they may be addressed to some of the individuals in
the front row such as the finance minister, the defence minister,
the fisheries minister and so on. The fisheries minister blamed
us for the problems with respect to the salmon treaty when we
were able to negotiate a deal.
If the Liberals want to compare records, our party is up to the
challenge, especially with respect to the environment. Perhaps
hon. members across they way forget that it was our party and our
leader who developed the 1992 green plan. It was our government
that brought in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to
control toxins. This government has failed to pass one piece of
significant environmental legislation. Our party was responsible
for the Montreal protocol which committed over 24 nations to the
reduction of ozone depleting gases. Today over 150 countries
have ratified this protocol.
Even the finance minister is trying to get in on the act. He
claims that when the Liberals came into government—we heard his
tirade the other day—nothing had been done on the environment. I
remind the finance minister that we signed an air quality accord
with the U.S. to control air pollution. Under our government and
our leader we announced further measures for acid rain control.
Under our leader Canada was the first country to ratify the UN
conventions on biodiversity and greenhouse gas emissions. Under
our leader we introduced a national protocol on packaging to
reduce waste.
This government's record cannot even begin to match what was
accomplished for the environment when our party and our leader
were in government. For this government the environment has not
been a priority.
On the greenhouse gas debate the government has not fully
engaged the public at large, NGOs, municipalities and for that
matter the provinces. While the minister has claimed she has
been in dialogue with the provinces, the fact remains this
government has not come forth with initiatives or economic
instruments that will enable citizens, municipalities or even the
provinces to implement any accord derived from Kyoto.
The Progressive Conservative Party realizes that Kyoto is not a
conclusion but rather a small yet significant step forward in our
collective political, social, economic and industrial adaptation
to meet the challenge of climate change. Our party's focus is on
developing a strategy that will enable us to meet our
obligations. We have also focused on the mechanisms our
government must present to the world community to be developed
with both the industrialized and developing nations.
A global problem like climate change requires global solutions.
The debate on reducing emissions must move away from the focus on
who will lose as opposed to how we get the job done with as many
win-win solutions as possible. An international solution must
include commitments to develop international emissions trading
systems, a joint implementation strategy and an acknowledgement
of Canada's potential to be a carbon sink.
Engagement of developing countries may be the most critical
issue that challenges our ability to address global warming. Even
if the industrialized nations are able to achieve significant
reductions, the current rate of emissions growth in the
developing world will still pose a problem.
Our made in Canada solution must be market driven, incentive
based and focused on developing new technologies. New taxes are
not part of a constructive solution.
The natural resource minister has said that progress toward a
target can be made in setting energy efficiency standards,
promoting technological advances and educating consumers on
energy savings.
2250
The minister is right, yet the government has lacked the
initiative to implement a regime that supports these very
comments. If the minister truly believes this is the case, why
do we only allocate $20 million annually to promote investment in
both energy efficiency and renewable energy?
Without adequate funding for research and development and energy
efficiency, and without incentives for early action for industry,
Canada will continue to lag behind competing nations in this
field which is full of vast opportunities for Canadians.
The implementation gap must be closed on public education as
well. Most Canadians are unaware the everyday choices they made
on an individual level can make a real difference.
Since the government has taken office the number of energy
efficient R-2000 homes being built in Canada has fallen by 55%.
Governments have a responsibility to enhance and level the
playing field for the development and adoption of renewable
sources of energy. Equitable tax incentives must be introduced
for wind, solar and expanded hydro supply of energy.
A modern transportation policy must be developed for the 21st
century. Challenging the automotive industry to develop more
energy efficient vehicles is a component. The transportation
sector is responsible for over one-third of carbon dioxide
emissions in Canada.
In addition, we must move away from using carbon intensive
fuels, such as moving from coal to natural gas wherever possible.
This no regrets philosophy is the cornerstone of developing a
workable solution.
I reiterate that environmental decisions made by governments
which will affect us greatly into the 21st century must be
informed by science. These decisions, in turn, must be enhanced
by government, which has the responsibility to enhance the
collective will and to provide leadership. Only when policies
and strategies are anchored in society's will can they succeed.
I close by quoting the hon. member for Davenport who stated in
June 1994 “If our voices our strong, the speed of progress will
be swift”.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
having only 10 minutes to comment is a very limited time on such
a major issue.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. member asking a question
or making a comment on this speech?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Then he does not have 10 minutes; he
has five. He has less than that, in fact.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon.
member his perception of something.
A premature view is evident among countries. The United States
says that if China or other developing countries do not sign the
agreement, the United States will not sign. The Regina agreement
indicated that if the United States did not sign, Canada should
not sign.
The member talked about a made in Canada solution. With Canada
emitting 2% of total global emissions, does he believe that
Canada could take the lead? Or, should Canada hold back and
follow other nations? Should we be a role model for developing
nations, as a developed country, or should we wait until
everybody complies?
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question. He raises a very important issue.
It is possible that the result in Kyoto could be no deal. Just
because there is no deal, does that mean we should continue our
inaction on this issue? I say no.
We have to make an effort to engage the developing countries
because China and India are the second and fifth largest emitters
of carbon dioxide in the world. At a minimum we have to try to
engage the developing nations. I believe we can work in a very
constructive fashion to bring in a phased in program for the
developing countries.
At the end of the day whatever position is reached in Kyoto, or
perhaps not, the challenge before us from a Canadian perspective
is to show a leadership role and to develop a very distinct
implementation strategy for the country.
2255
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to
address this very important issue on the minds of all Canadians
and of the entire globe.
I speak on several fronts from my experience as an environmental
biologist. I have experience from an academic point of view and
from a practitioner's point of view in the fields of community
forestry, community based aquaculture and a number of other
community based industries striving for sustainable development
in rural communities in my home province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
The basis of the experience I am bringing to this debate is my
own personal experience working in the field of science, working
in the field of sustainable development, and working in a
province which I think is very nobly showing great leadership in
moving ahead in the field of sustainable development and
contributing to the solutions to global warming and the problem
of climate change.
I come from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador where we
have on our doorsteps one of the most vast offshore energy
resources in the world. The Hibernia field and the Jeanne d'Arc
Basin are producing and have the potential to produce significant
energy resources that will be used by global trading partners.
This is why I am very pleased to contribute to the discussion on
Canada's role in increasing energy efficiency, Canada's role in
increasing responsible consumption, and Canada's role in
providing global leadership on this issue.
We also have in our province one of the cleanest sources of
renewable energy found in the Lower Churchill Falls project.
Hydroelectricity will be for North America one of our great
advantages in terms of producing sustainable successful results
in reducing our carbon levels so that we achieve the greenhouse
gas reduction targets that we have set out.
I speak as a scientist with a laboratory in the province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. As has been raised during the course
of this debate, I have been witness to the destruction of the
northern cod stocks. While others in the House speak from third
hand information, I was in northern Newfoundland during the time
of the cod crisis and experienced first hand the consequences of
inaction and the consequences of not listening to science.
I feel very strongly that we have to listen to the scientists on
this issue. I note that my colleagues opposite are now publicly
saying that we should strictly be basing fisheries management
decisions on science and science alone; that administrators
should be exempt from the process of setting total allowable
catches, exempt from determining the total biomass availability;
and that science and science alone should be the guiding
consequence. Hon. members of the Reform Party are saying now
that the issue of global warming and climate change is in their
backyard that scientists are quacks.
That is an absolute outrage. When it is not in their backyard
science should be the guiding factor, but when it potentially is
in their backyard scientists are quacks. I think that is
reprehensible. Quite frankly inaction, not listening to
scientists, is what got us in trouble in 1990.
That is why we as parliamentarians have the responsibility to
listen to the advice available to us. To do nothing is
irresponsible.
While members opposite have found the new luxury of promoting
their own environmental agenda and their own environmental
performance of the past, it was the Conservative government of
the day that refused to act on the science in 1990. It refused
to embrace the challenges of fisheries management. Instead of
listening to science in 1990 it began the process of listening to
the major fish corporations.
It said enterprise allocations, regardless of the science,
quoting the then minister, the Hon. Bernard Valcourt and
others—it is very important that this be noted on the
record—“the economic consequences are far, far too great”.
2300
Right now in Atlantic Canada we are experiencing the economic
consequences of not acting appropriately and not acting in a
timely fashion. While others may laud their fisheries management
practices in terms of the west coast in putting together the
Pacific Fisheries Treaty, I suggest on the Atlantic coast we have
been witness in a very real and tangible way to the consequences
of the inaction.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural
Resources, I say that we are dedicated and committed to action on
this issue in a way which is responsible, which meets the needs
of Canadians. That is action.
I would like to point out that in Newfoundland and Labrador,
while we are participating in the energy industry, we are also
participating in the solutions. That is what Canadians expect of
us.
I would like to point out some other examples of actions which
are providing solutions. For example, Alcan Smelter and
Chemicals Ltd. is replacing its older facilities with new plants
built with the latest technology. Carbon dioxide emissions will
be reduced at this facility by more than 350,000 tonnes.
There are examples across the country where we can employ energy
efficiency, where we can employ better technologies and where we
can respond to the science that we know exists today rather than
burying our heads in the sand like ostriches and trying to
pretend the problem does not exist. What we have to do is act.
That is exactly what we intend to do.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to participate in this
debate. I know that it causes quite a high degree of debate
between members as to who is responsible and who is not. However,
I think that clearly we are all responsible as parliamentarians
to participate in the solutions, to participate in developing
answers rather than just simply saying “it is he or she who did
not act in the past”. What we have to do is recognize that this
is the time and the place to act. Let us start doing it.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I just
want to make a comment and question the hon. member across.
I am on the standing committee of environment and sustainable
development. Over the last while we have had numerous scientists
come to us as witnesses. One of the people who came to us was a
scientist from Newfoundland, an oceanographer. He had quite a
different view of what was going on. He studies the oceans and
he did not think that there was quite the reaction occuring in
the world that others did.
One question I tried to ask most of the scientists who came to
us was with today's technology and computerization and the
methods we have of measuring things, if you had five or ten more
years of accurate data added on to the data you already have,
would this help narrow down the projections that scientists are
coming up with? Would you be able to be more accurate?
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in
response to the comments and the question.
Unfortunately, I cannot respond to the comment about the
oceanographer because there was no specific information provided.
I will suggest that new, more, better information is always
important. That is one of the reasons why Canada is a world
leader in providing satellite technology and providing
environmental monitoring. Always as a country, as a globe we
should be striving to provide better information on the
environment.
Canada is successfully developing a world class industry in that
regard, providing services to countries around the globe and that
is actually providing jobs for Canadians.
2305
That is why I say that the challenge of global warming is
significant and of a huge magnitude. However, the opportunities
for Canadians to embrace the problem and seek solutions and to
actively engage in the solution provides us with unique
opportunities.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Natural Resources would answer a question. I know he was
talking some time earlier about the fisheries and the role of
science, et cetera.
In his role of parliamentary secretary and given his proximity to
the government's plan on how to deal with greenhouse gas
emissions, I wonder if he could tell me whether there is any plan
on the part of the government to reinvest substantially in rail
transportation in this country and re-regulate the transportation
industry in the country to favour rail transportation over other
modes of transportation.
It has seemed to me for a long time and, in fact, my maiden
speech in the House was to some degree about one thing we could
do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be to create a
transportation regime in the country that would move more freight
and people by train. Instead, we have had 10 to 15 years of
deregulation that has put more and more trucks on the highways.
There are trucks on the highways that look like trains, for God's
sake. There is less and less safety, more and more emissions and
still there is no end to this madness.
I ask the parliamentary secretary, is there a plan? Does the
government intend to use this opportunity that the climate
changes presents it with to reverse the madness of the last 10 or
15 years by which we have deregulated in such a way to favour
trucks over rail and have in fact created what I consider to be
not only an environmental crisis, but a public safety crisis in
terms of our highways and our environment.
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, there is more than a plan.
There is action. One thing the government realizes is that
transportation is actually a major producer of greenhouse gases.
It is one of the major, major producers of greenhouse gases. That
is why the government has dedicated itself to increasing energy
efficiency, not just in the transportation sector, but as well in
the heating of buildings and other things. Energy efficiency is
exactly where this country should be going and where we are
taking it.
I promote very strongly that federal buildings and government
vehicles right across the government increase their energy
efficiency by using different types of energy sources. As well,
we are always actively engaged in the debate regarding
transportation policy and creating greater efficiencies.
That is one object of the Canada Transportation Act, which I
will happily engage in debate about. It is providing economic
efficiencies and also creating an opportunity for greater
efficiencies in terms of the transportation routes. Instead of
duplicating loads, companies are now providing better services
more cheaply, but most importantly, with reduced use of fuel.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate, particularly after sitting
here all evening and listening to the debate and being very
annoyed at the gross distortion of the Reform Party position on
this issue and the undignified and unwarranted personal attacks
on members of the Reform Party.
The Reform Party certainly has never put forward a position that
we should not do anything. That could not be further from the
truth. Certainly we believe that all prudent measures to reduce
emissions and pollution should be done that can be effectively
done without committing economic suicide, which is what this
government is bound and determined to achieve.
We neither want to commit economic suicide nor be isolated in
the world by implementing a program that has no real plan, no
global plan for implementation, forcing other countries around
the world to participate.
2310
I think it would be truly tragic to end up in a situation like
that. For the life of me, I cannot understand how intelligent
people can totally ignore any of the conflicting science on this
issue. There is hard data written on pieces of paper collected
by scientists that without any doubt prove that the global
climate has not warmed since 1940. The data is there and is
indisputable.
There are scientists who participated in the IPCC, 2,500 is the
number talked about, who say that their scientific data was
misinterpreted and misrepresented for political purposes.
How intelligent people can discount all those things and engage
in psychological terrorism and coercing Canadians into taking
some action that is going to be extremely costly and harmful to
the Canadian economy is beyond me. Quite frankly, I think it is
unethical and dishonest.
There must be a broad public debate and discussion in this
country. We must bring ordinary Canadians into the discussion
because after listening to this issue in the House, in committee
and in the media, it becomes very obvious that the people who are
going to pay the price are going to be the ordinary taxpayers.
Governments have engaged industry in the dialogue. Industry has
presented a strong position. I think the government has listened
to industry to a great degree in talks about tradable credits and
the voluntary challenge program and a lot of these other things
that will likely work for industry. However, industry is only
one-third of the problem. Another third is the transportation
sector and the other third is people themselves.
Certainly while some interests have been addressed, some
certainly have not been. This shroud of secrecy over the Liberal
government's position gives cause for great concern and fear in
the general Canadian public and not unwarranted.
I heard the member for Ottawa West—Nepean tonight quote Maurice
Strong as a world authority on this issue. Maurice Strong, for
those who do not know, was the chairman in Rio who stood up and
said that the only salvation of the globe was the total
dismantling of the industrial society. It was the Liberal
responsibility to achieve that. If that does not strike fear
into the hearts of Canadians, I do not know what will.
This refusal to develop a dialogue and a position and to simply
announce one-upmanship against the Americans indicates to me that
the greatest interest here is not in the interest of Canada, it
is in the interest of grooming someone to be a greener leader or
the world's boy scout who is going to save the world faster than
the next leader. I do not think that really serves us well.
The Canadian reality is that we are a huge country and a cold
country with a very sparsely and disperse population and with
great dependence on the resource industries. Based on that, it
is important that we get this whole issue into perspective.
Canada only produces 2% of the world's greenhouse gases. China
and India are huge contributors to the problem and they are not
even part of this discussion. In fact, it is ludicrous that we
would take leading action to solve the problem without engaging
some of these other countries. If we, tomorrow morning, were to
achieve the commitment that the government talks about, the
achievement of 1990 levels by the year 2010, without engaging
India, China and some of the other countries, it would take a
mere 25 days for that benefit that Canada produced to be used up
by the third world.
Only 25 days and we would not have accomplished anything except
to destroy our economic base in this country. I think it would
be quite foolish to do that.
2315
As I said before, what we are mostly lacking in this debate is a
public debate engaging all Canadians in the issue. That has not
happened and it is not likely to happen now until after Kyoto,
until the government has signed a binding legal agreement that
leaves it little flexibility if Canadians do not buy into this
scenario.
If we think we hear emotions in the House tonight on this issue,
wait until the government starts to implement this program and
passes the cost of this program on to ordinary Canadians. We
should think back to last winter when there was a large increase
in the price of propane. For senior citizens in my riding on
fixed income, the price of their heating fuel doubled and caused
them great hardship. They could not afford to buy groceries.
People called me from reserves in northern Alberta. They could
not afford to buy heating fuel for their homes.
Look at the outrage in Toronto last summer when there was only a
temporary spike in the price of gasoline. There were calls for
investigation and government action immediately and it was
nothing compared to what this government is proposing, I am
afraid.
Canadians should be well aware of the fact that they are now
paying over 60% of their income in one form of tax or another.
Real take home income has been shrinking in this country for a
long time thanks to ever increasing taxes. I do not really think
there is a mood out there for further increases to the degree
this government is proposing.
It is very important that we take a balanced approach, a careful
approach, a cautious approach. We have never disputed and we do
not dispute that Canada's environmental situation is in serious
trouble. It is in serious trouble all around the world from a
number of sources.
We heard the Conservatives talk about the wonderful things
they had achieved. The member for Davenport, in spite of that
wonderful achievement on cleaning up pulp mills,
introduced a debate in the House about how this government has in
fact exempted pulp mills and they continue to pour dioxins and
furans into Canada's water system.
We have a potential Chernobyl in the suburbs of Toronto with a
nuclear power plant and we have an ever growing stockpile of
nuclear waste around the world that nobody has figured out what
to do with.
Our environment is in serious trouble, but that does not mean we
need to do the kinds of things this government is proposing to do
to solve the problem. Prudent action is in order. Responsible
action is in order and our party supports doing that. We just
urge caution.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would urge my colleagues across the floor, and particularly their
leader, to take heed from a significant group of taxpayers in
western Canada, the physicians from out west.
I would like to read the physicians' statement on climate change
from the Alberta Medical Association, the British Columbia
Paediatric Society, the UBC department of paediatrics, the Yukon
Medical Association, the faculty of medicine at UBC and the
Family Physicians of Canada, the Alberta chapter.
The first two signatories to this climate change are Dr. David
Bates, professor emeritus from the University of British
Columbia, and Dr. Tee Guidotti, professor and director of the
occupational health program, faculty of medicine, at the
University of Alberta. These people are not in agreement with
members opposite and I implore them, if they will not listen to
the scientists, at least listen to the physicians out west.
2320
What these people are saying is that as physicians they fear
that global climate change carries with it significant health,
environmental, economic and social risks and that preventive
steps are justified.
They say that all human health is ultimately dependent on the
health of the biosphere. Scientists believe that climate change
will have major irreversible effects on the environment with
secondary consequences for human health and well-being that could
occur within a matter of decades.
These impacts include increased mortality and illness due to
heat stress, worsened air pollution, increased incidence of
vector borne infectious disease, expanding populations of pest
species, and impaired food production and nutrition. Extreme
weather events such as floods, droughts and wind storms could
endanger lives and create environmental refugees.
As physicians they believe in the wisdom of preventive measures,
and therefore they urge prompt and effective action to reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases. Canada has one of the highest per
capita emission rates of greenhouse gases in the world. It has
become urgent that Canada provide scientific, technical, economic
and diplomatic leadership in the worldwide effort to
significantly reduce greenhouse gases.
I also want members in the official opposition know that this
erudite body, some of whose members even voted for them, in
separate resolutions and the CMA and the CPHA are calling on the
federal government to reaffirm at the Kyoto convention on climate
change in December its position of achieving 20% reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2005.
I urge the Speaker to implore the official opposition to
actually include a few more stakeholders in its consultations.
The physicians of western Canada are watching.
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the
question was but certainly that erudite body the hon. member
referred to is entitled to its opinion, as are all other
Canadians.
The problem has been that all Canadians have not been engaged in
this debate. They have not had a chance to express their fears
and their opinions. Based on an implementation plan that the
government would put forward, the group the member talks about
could probably pay double what it is paying now for car gasoline
without creating serious hardship.
I think there is also a very large group of middle income to
lower income Canadians who would suffer huge hardship when this
plan is implemented and the prices of energy rise significantly.
There are both points of view out there.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just wanted to refer to the comments of the member
about the IPCC, also preceded by his colleagues in the same vein.
I want to quote Dr. Bert Bolin, chairman of the IPCC: “This
thorough and completely open process has guaranteed that the
summaries of a wide ownership in no way can be described as the
work of a select few. The process provides justification for the
description of substantial scientific consensus”.
I think the hon. member's whole set-up about IPCC is the work of
the oil and gas lobby that has been parroting this thing in
the States and here for a long time.
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Speaker, pure greenhouse gas. I
said in my presentation that I was not speaking on behalf of the
energy industry or any particular industry. I think it has done
an excellent job of representing itself and I think to a great
degree it has protected its interests.
What I said was there were scientists who were part of those
2,500 scientists who were most upset because their scientific
evidence was distorted and misrepresented. I think that is a
valid position for them to take.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is totally false. Name them.
An hon. member: John Balling, Jr.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: John Balling, Jr. represents
Western Fuels and British Coal Mining Association. That is who
pays him.
He was not part of the IPCC. He was paid by the oil and gas
industry, a trillion-million dollar industry. But Michaels,
Balling, Singer, Dr. Richard Lindzen, all paid by the oil and gas
industry, are the people the member's leader quoted.
2325
In the fall of 1987 as minister of the environment of Quebec I
was a member of the Canadian delegation of the United Nations
when Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland presented the now famous report
of the World Commission on Environment and Development, “Our
Common Future”.
The lead speaker after Mrs. Brundtland was the President of the
Maldive Islands, Mahmood Abdul Gayoom. He described the natural
beauty of his island state of many hundreds of islands in the
Indian Ocean south of India as ecological jewels on a cushion of
blue. He told us about the tidal waves that had started to visit
his islands. He explained that the water surrounding the islands
had always been steady and calm until the eighties when they were
visited for the first time by giant tidal waves. The first time
the waves caused significant damage. The second time they were
more fierce and damage was correspondingly severe, and the third
time they caused havoc which included considerable destruction
and, sadly, human injury and death.
Way back then, 10 years ago, President Gayoom addressed us, the
rich industrialized world, in this way:
Scientists tell us that in the next century the seas could rise
drastically, maybe between 1 and 3 meters. If it was
something in between, my island-state would disappear under the
sea completely. We have no plants and no factories that spew
carbon gases into the atmosphere, yet our innocent people must
pay the price of your activities, and your negligence. Is this
right, is this fair?
I ask is it right and fair? Is it acceptable to Canadians who
believe so strongly in equity and justice? Is it right, fair and
acceptable that we should be the second ranking world champions
per capita of carbon emissions, a close second to the greenhouse
champions the United States?
[Translation]
I realize that some continue to pretend that climatic change and
the huge global threat posed by the increase in greenhouse gases are
just a myth spread by environmentalists and tree huggers.
As I was listening to the leader of the official opposition earlier
and after many years of environmental work, I wondered if the hon.
member and I live on the same planet. The hon. member should talk to
people from the Maldives, from Barbados, from the Marshall Islands, or
from 40 small island states, who live in constant fear that sea levels
will continue to rise.
Meanwhile, the leader of the opposition speaks like the dinosaur he
is.
[English]
I wonder how many people from Burundi and Mali and Benin he has
spoken to about the visibly encroaching desert in Africa.
[Translation]
The very limited time at my disposal does not allow me to mention
in detail the countless examples which clearly demonstrate that the
impact of greenhouse gases is not only real but has already begun to
cause dramatic climatic changes in many parts of the world.
As mentioned earlier, the UN intergovernmental panel on climatic
change includes some 2,000 of the greatest scientific experts on
climate, whose work and findings are systematically analyzed and
reviewed by their peers.
There is an impressive number of examples that show how the
greenhouse effect has intensified over the last 25 years, because of the
spectacular acceleration of the industrialization process and the
increase in the use of energy.
[English]
Let me cite only the example of Antarctica where in January 1995
a vast section the size of Prince Edward Island broke off from
the Larsen-Shelf. Two months later a 60-kilometre long fissure
appeared along the northern part of the same Larsen-Shelf,
Scientific measurements show that the mean temperature in the
Arctic peninsula has risen by nearly 20 degrees Fahrenheit over
the last 20 years.
In the book The Heat is On by Ross Gelbspan, the author
quotes Argentinian scientist Dr. Rodolfo del Valle as follows:
“Recently we have seen rocks poke through the surface of the ice
that had been buried under 600 metres of ice for 20,000 years”.
Sadly in spite of repeated commitments by industrialized
countries of the north which have the means, both technological
and financial, to stabilize and reduce excessive greenhouse
emissions, the evidence shows a very different and a very sad
tale. Emissions are not stabilized, let alone reduced, compared
to 1990 totals. On the contrary, they have increased
substantially.
2330
In Canada in spite of categorical commitments by successive
governments, our greenhouse gases have actually risen by 8% over
1990 results. In fact the UN climate change secretariat has
reported that among developed nations the U.S., Japan and Canada
were responsible for 85% of the increase in greenhouse gases
between 1990 and 1995.
[Translation]
Yet, we are a rich and influential nation, a member of the G-7, a
country whose natural resources are among the most abundant in the
world, a country of knowledge and first-class technological
achievements. We can and must do better.
[English]
If over the last five years India, a country far less favoured
financially and technologically than our own, can invest some
$600 million Canadian in solar energy as well as make significant
investments in waste recovery energy, in wind energy, in biomass
energy and in district energy, surely we can do substantially
more.
What we must do first of all is rebalance the economic and
fiscal incentive and subsidy program which over the years and
even today heavily favours the fossil fuel and nuclear
industries. Unless we change our ways and direction toward
energy efficiency and renewable energies, unless we have the
courage and determination to redirect our subsidies and fiscal
incentives toward environmentally clean energies, we will
continue to move from conference to conference to conference, not
only spinning wheels but losing ground in the global battle to
stabilize and reduce greenhouse emissions.
Over the last 20 years we have spent literally billions of
dollars in subsidies and tax incentives to the fossil fuel and
nuclear industries. In the oil and gas industry alone, according
to figures from Natural Resources Canada for the year 1993, the
value of tax deductions totalled a staggering $6.247 billion.
With a determined co-ordinated program backed by adequate
financial incentives, we can stabilize at 1990 levels by 2005 and
reduce our emissions substantially by 2010, some reliable experts
believe by as much as 10%.
We have not scratched the surface of what is possible and
available: waste recovery energy, district energy, wind energy,
solar energy, biomass energy, better public transportation and
clean transportation fuels such as cellulose ethanol and of
course energy efficiency.
What we need is a determination that turned the acid rain
situation around in the eighties, when Canada took a bold
leadership position including tight timelines and substantial
reduction targets of 50% involving the federal government and
seven of the affected provinces. Rather than worrying about lack
of action by the United States, we took a bold lead and the U.S.
eventually followed by amending its Clean Air Act.
Canada must continue its role as an international environmental
leader regardless of the timid and pussyfooting positions of the
U.S. Canada must continue to set an international example, for
only when rich nations like our own set a convincing example will
we in turn convince less favoured countries of the developing
world to follow our lead.
For besides being good for our environment and our health, clean
energies are immensely beneficial to the economy, creating
investments, creating wealth through advanced technologies and
creating jobs.
I will describe one last example. Denmark now depending on coal
for 50% of its energy has established a bold program to replace
its total coal energy by wind power by 2030. Danish and German
wind power turbines now provide energy not only in Europe but in
Africa, Asia, North America and South America, to communities
large and small. Why should these turbines not be Canadian?
Indeed climate change solutions, very far from being an economic
burden, on the contrary are a sustainable economic opportunity.
Let us be bold rather than timid. Let us lead rather than
follow. Let us bet squarely on energies of the 21st century,
renewable energies, clean energies. Let us bet on a clean and
sustainable future for our children.
2335
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish I had a couple of hours for a one on one debate
with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis. Since that is not
possible I would like to address some of the misrepresentations,
or perhaps I should say the omissions in his presentation wherein
he was so selective about his choice of science and scientists.
I would commend him to Frederick Selz, president emeritus of
Rockefeller University, chairman of the George C. Marshall
Institute and a member of the IPCC who said, “I have never
witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process
than the events that led to the IPCC report”. Of course he was
referring to the 1966 report.
He and a group of fellow scientists went through line by line
the original version of the IPCC report before it was butchered
for political purposes. I would like to quote a few select lines
from the report. Now these are not quoted in context and I am
open to attack because of that. However, these are actual quotes
from the report: “None of the studies cited has shown clear
evidence that we can attribute changes to the specific cause of
increases in greenhouse gases”. That is a direct contradiction
to the paragraph which appeared in the summary, which has been
quoted by hon. members opposite at great length today.
The report continued: “No study to date has positively
attributed all or part of observed climate change to
anthropogenic causes”. The report continued: “Any claims of
positive detection of significant climate change are likely to
remain controversial until uncertainties in the total variability
of the climate system are reduced”.
That does not give anybody great credit or anybody great
discredit. What it does do is establish the fact which our
leader mentioned earlier in the evening that there is not
universal acclaim within the scientific community for the theory
of human induced global warming. It is a theory. It is an
interesting theory. I find it very interesting, but I do not
swallow it holus-bolus. I want to see more evidence.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting
that the member quoted Frederick Seitz.
I am going to refer to the book entitled “The Heat is On”.
The quote is from an article in the Wall Street Journal. Frederick
Selz is a director of the Marshall institute. He castigated
another scientist, Santer, for allegedly excising references to
scientific uncertainty. He wrote: “I have never witnessed a
more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the
events which led to this IPCC report”, which is the quote the
hon. member cited.
Several months later Seitz conceded the reports of his own
Marshall institute which consistently denied that any threat to
the global climate were not based on science but merely
“represent opinion”. So much for Selz. It was purely an
opinion. He admits himself that it did not represent scientific
fact.
If the hon. member would care to read “The Heat is On”, all
the references are there to the Marshall institute, to Selz, to
Bolin, to the IPCC, to Michaels, Balling, Idso, Frederick Singer
and Dr. Lindzen, who are all paid consultants of the trillion
dollar oil and gas lobby, who would want us to believe that the
world is not changing.
They would want us to believe, as tobacco scientists used to
that tobacco does not cause cancer. They would want us to believe
that the fish are not disappearing off the shores of
Newfoundland. They would want us to wait until the world is a
desert, until the seas have risen and the islands have gone. Then
the Reform Party could do something but it will not be here any
more, thank goodness.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
seek the unanimous consent of this House to share my allotted ten
minutes with my colleague, the hon. member for Laurentides.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House grant unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
2340
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, the scientific community generally
agrees that the phenomenal amounts of pollutants released into the
atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution are making
the earth's temperature rise at an unprecedented rate.
The scientific commission mandated by governments world-wide
demonstrated that the planet was warming and this was most likely due to
carbon dioxide emissions and other gasses produced by burning fossil
fuels as well as the destruction of forests.
Scientists are sending a warning about the consequences of global
warming, one of which could be the rising of the sea level by nearly one
metre.
In Quebec, the St. Lawrence River would be the hardest hit, as its flow
would be substantially reduced. Other examples could include more
droughts—more land will turn into desert—, more hurricanes, the
spread of famine and disease, vanishing forests and animal species
becoming extinct. Without being alarmists, these researchers foresee
disastrous consequences.
According to scientific forecasts, temperatures could rise by
anywhere from 2 to 6 degrees Celsius in Quebec over the next century,
which is the most dramatic climate change since the end of the last ice
age.
The Minister of the Environment corroborates these statements
with her statement that this climate change might impact upon our
natural resources, including forests, water, fisheries, agriculture
and a number of other sectors. Yet this government is suffering
from an unprecedented inertia when it comes to the positions taken
at the earth summit.
During the 1992 earth summit, the world governments agreed to
bring their greenhouse gas emissions back down to 1990 levels by
the year 2000. Yet only a rare few have made an effort to keep
that promise. The Liberal government is, in fact, living proof of
this, with its inertia and its slowness in taking a position in
preparation for the Kyoto conference which is about to start. The
Bloc Quebecois is asking the government to shoulder its
responsibilities.
With her lack of leadership at the Regina meeting, the
Minister of the Environment, by signing the final communique, is in
danger of jeopardizing Canada's environmental credibility in the
eyes of the international community. This agreement backs off from
the commitments made at Rio and proves how easy it is to let
oneself be intimidated by a sector of Canadian industry, the fossil
fuel sector.
No one in this House has any doubt that the time has come to
take preventive measures in light of the possibility of climate
change. It is vital that the industrialized countries adopt very
stringent objectives at Kyoto. Quebec, through its Minister of the
Environment, has dissociated itself from the Regina agreement and
by taking a firm position has demonstrated that it was possible in
America to attain the objectives set for the year 2000. As for the
federal government, however, it has demonstrated nothing except the
weakness of its position.
It is vital that the objectives be higher than those of the
United States and even Japan and that the objectives set at the
Kyoto conference be ratified by all provinces of Canada. Let us
not forget that only Quebec and British Columbia ratified the Rio
agreement in 1992. A province such as Alberta, which produces more
than a quarter of the greenhouse gases, cannot remain recalcitrant.
Greenhouse gases are a threat to humanity. Canada, excluding
Quebec, came up with no project in response to the commitments made
at the Rio summit. In fact, emissions of carbon dioxide, methane
and others increased by 13% this year.
We know the position of the Quebec government, environmental
groups and all the countries participating in the Kyoto conference,
but we still do not know the position of the federal Minister of
the Environment.
Is it too late for the government to do its homework?
We cannot accept mere wishful thinking. Too many young people are
expecting us to preserve their planet.
2345
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
inexplicable about-face of this government in the greenhouse gas
issue is unbelievable.
The problem of greenhouse gases is not a new one. When I was
environment critic, I rose on several occasions in the House to
warn the Liberal government about the dangers of greenhouse gases.
But apparently the minister back then and the one we have now seem
to have been chronically deaf because nothing has been done. On
the contrary, things are going from bad to worse.
I would like to remind the Minister of the Environment, in
case she has forgotten, that the Kyoto conference in Japan takes
place from December 1 to 12, five days from now, and that Canada is
still the only G-7 country with no specific position on the
greenhouse gas issue.
In addition, in case the minister has forgotten this as well,
the purpose of the conference is to review the situation of
greenhouse gas emissions with respect to what was agreed in Rio in
1992, in addition to adopting new objectives for the reduction of
greenhouse gases, accompanied by short term, 2005, and medium term,
2010, legal controls.
At the Rio summit in 1992, 154 countries, including Canada,
signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, thereby
undertaking to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at their 1990
level by the year 2000.
At that time, Canada was considered a leader and a hero in this
area, but today it is a real zero on that score. Even Canada's
ambassador for the environment, John Fraser, expressed harsh criticism,
and rightly so, against the government and its policies on greenhouse
gases, which he described as lacking in commitment and leadership.
In fact, Canada's performance is disastrous. By the year 2000,
Canada will have increased its greenhouse gas emissions by 13%. How can
this be when the Liberal government committed in Rio to stabilize its
emissions during this decade and then to reduce them gradually? What we
see is the exact opposite.
What the Department of the Environment does not seem to realize is
that greenhouse gases destroy not only our environment, but also our
economy and our social fabric.
The minister should stop catering to cabinet and to the Alberta oil
lobby, she should finally get her act together and adopt a responsible,
firm and clear position.
Being penny-wise and pound-foolish to help oil companies save money
by not taking drastic steps to eliminate greenhouse gases will
undoubtedly cost us dearly in the future. The minister should consider
the tremendous economic losses that thousands of companies would suffer
because of climate change, not to mention all the health and
environmental costs.
Furthermore, the minister should consider the economic benefits of
more energy-efficient technologies. In relation to this, there is in my
riding a very innovative and imaginative organization called CEVEQ,
which specializes in assessing the compatibility of electric vehicles
marketed with government standards.
This is a concrete example of where the federal government should
be investing our taxes in order to reduce greenhouse gases. But
obviously, the Liberal government prefers and considers it better to bow
to the wishes of the oil companies that are polluting and endangering
the lives of the people in Quebec and in Canada.
While we are still waiting for a clear position from the Minister
of the Environment, the other countries have already announced their
position on greenhouse gases for the Kyoto summit.
I invite the Minister of the Environment to read the Bloc
Quebecois' position on reducing greenhouse gases. Contrary to the
government opposite, the Bloc Quebecois takes the issue of greenhouse
gases very seriously.
I urge the Minister of the Environment, out of respect for
Quebeckers, for Canadians and for the young people who will be building
tomorrow's world, to assume her responsibilities immediately in the area
of greenhouse gases, in order to ensure for future generations the
quality of life and the prosperity they have a right to expect.
2350
[English]
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I would just like to ask a question and perhaps seek support for
a position a fellow member raised earlier. Members on the
government side did not answer him. I ask the member for
Laurentides to speak on the perspective of a national
transportation strategy.
Rail transportation is a low emitter. A big issue for
transportation is public freight and people who travel from one
end of the country to the other. Our country was built on rail.
Bullet trains are used elsewhere in the world. These trains
could be used from Quebec City to Toronto. Maybe a Bombardier,
using Canadian technology, could build an electric train that
could travel at 300 kilometres per hour.
What kind of support would we get from the Bloc concerning a
national transportation strategy to look at low emission
transportation?
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, naturally, for us in Quebec and in
the Bloc Quebecois, rail transportation is a non-polluting alternative
and, as such, should be used more. Except that we note that this
government is dismantling any rail transportation system we may have
had. So, there is one side of the issue that does not sound right.
I referred earlier to the electric car as being another mode of
transportation. We cannot rely on ethanol to save our environment. We
have a technology, the electric car, that is currently under
development. The mayor in my riding has been driving around in an
electric car for more than two years, and it is very efficient.
Instead of investing haphazardly, the government should invest in
areas where there are opportunities, and have a vision for a change.
These investments will require time and research, but at least the end
result will be products that will be useful, while preventing pollution
in our country and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
So, yes, with respect to rail transportation, the government will
have to invest in that area instead of dismantling the existing system.
Perhaps an analysis should also be made to ensure that this system can
be developed across the country and in Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this
important debate on greenhouse gases and climate change.
I am one who believes that greenhouse gases are a threat to our
planet. The balance of probabilities indicates that we should be
taking action. The risk of inaction is just too great. We
really cannot put this problem off into the future. We have to
deal with it now.
The questions for me are how we improve our environmental
performance with respect to greenhouse gases, at what pace we
proceed, and how we implement these policies without negatively
impacting our industries and our competitive position.
Reducing greenhouse gases is a very complex global issue. It
involves matters of public policy. It involves matters of
scientific and technical research. It is a very politically
charged issue as well.
As with most issues of public policy we would generally ask the
following questions. If we make a public policy change who loses
and who wins? Are there winners and losers? Is it a win-win or
is it a lose-lose situation?
If we look at the question of climate change and greenhouse
gases we clearly cannot measure all the benefits. Nor should we
try. We cannot really deal adequately with the benefits of a
climate that is more stable, that minimizes the frequency and the
severity of natural disasters, and that avoids the severe impacts
on agriculture and other negative consequences of dislocation
which climate change can cause.
These are some of the benefits of addressing climate change but
there are other benefits as well. One that has been brought to
the attention of our natural resource committee relates to
insurance costs. Insurance premiums that cover natural disasters
are getting to be totally out of hand and quite unaffordable.
If we do not deal with greenhouse gases insurance premiums will
become astronomically high and force our businesses and taxpayers
generally to deal with a very difficult problem.
2355
There are benefits such as that but some have argued there are
other benefits. If we deal with climate change we will create a
large movement in technology development.
The argument which has been repeated in the House goes something
like this. If we set aggressive targets for greenhouse gases new
technologies will help us reach our goals. The argument
continues with the thought that as these technologies develop in
Canada new industries and new export possibilities will be
created. We will be able to sell and license these environmental
technologies abroad.
I have oversimplified the argument but basically that is the
essence of it. I hope it comes true. I am sure a lot of this
will happen.
We should also ask ourselves what happens if these technologies
do not materialize What happens if they do not meet the test of
being commercially viable? We need to contemplate these
possibilities as we negotiate greenhouse gas emissions. We need
to have a fallback position. We should only bet on those
technologies that are proven today and have been demonstrated to
have commercial viability.
At the same time we can do a better job of removing obstacles
and creating the right policy and tax environment, favouring the
development and commercialization of environmental technologies.
The agreements we reach in Kyoto must be achievable. We know
from the Rio experience that targets must be realistic and
achievable. To do this in Canada we need to do a few things.
First, we need to agree on realistic targets. Second, we need
to obtain the commitment of all stakeholders, and that includes
all Canadians, to achieve these goals. Third, we need to provide
and refine economic instruments to create the right incentives
and the right market signals to industry to improve our
greenhouse gas reduction performance.
The economic instruments referred to are generally classified in
two broad areas, non-tax instruments and tax instruments. In the
area of non-tax instruments we have heard a lot about tradable
permits for emissions trading.
Although it is a complex issue it boils down to a very simple
scenario if we assume we have a certain jurisdiction,
oversimplify it and make it hypothetical. There are two plants,
two factories, and to reach certain greenhouse gas targets those
plants together are allowed, say, 1,000 units of emissions. One
plant is allocated 500 units and the other plant another 500
units of emissions. One plant is able to achieve the target, in
fact exceed it and perhaps reduce it to 300 units of emissions.
The other plant is having difficulty with achieving the 500 units
and will be over by 200 units.
What happens is that the plant that will be over buys the
surplus capacity the other plant will not utilize to meet the
reduction targets. There is a consideration. One plant pays the
other to buy its unused emissions target. This places a market
value or opportunity cost on the cost of not being able to comply
with the emissions targets.
It has some interesting possibilities. Although it is not a
long term solution it provides some phasing of the problem. It
allows companies and other creators of greenhouse gases some
opportunities to step up to the issue.
We do not have much experience with tradable permits. The
United States has some. We really do not have a lot of
experience to draw on. It is something we should be looking at
and seriously considering. Whether we could apply emissions
trading on a global context is more of a challenge.
2400
I am not sure it is workable in the short run, but it is
something that perhaps is a target to look at. I mention that as
one non-tax instrument. There are others. There are voluntary
measures.
I am not sure over the last number of years that voluntary
measures, unfortunately, have really done the job. I say
unfortunately because I know there are many companies that have
worked very hard at improving their environmental performance
with greenhouse gases.
I can think, for example, of the industry that I came from, the
forest industry, the pulp and paper industry. If we look at the
greenhouse gas emissions in 1995 for the Canadian pulp and paper
industry, they have been reduced by 20% from 1990. That is at a
time when the production increased by a similar amount, 20%.
Those were through voluntary measures.
I can look at my own riding of Etobicoke North where I have
Bayer, the pharmaceutical company, BASF Canada and Parker Amchem,
large chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturers which have really
put a great effort into voluntary measures and have achieved some
significant reductions in their emissions.
I would hope that voluntary measures will be part of the
solution because there are some sectors and some companies that
are working very hard to reduce their emissions.
If we look at other non-tax instruments, there are concepts like
user charges for water supply, disposal charges or deposit refund
schemes. There is a myriad of non-tax instruments that could be
embellished and expanded.
If we look at tax instruments, we could look at accelerating
depreciation allowances for environmental investments, for
example, waste heat recovery. We waste a lot of heat.
There are a number of other tax instruments, but to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, we must recognize some
important facts. Twenty-seven per cent of greenhouse gases
originate in the transportation sector.
Secondly, if we adopt a policy of business as usual with respect
to greenhouse gases, greenhouse gases will increase by 36.1% over
1990 levels by the year 2020.
We have seen this debate pitched as an Alberta oil patch issue
versus the rest of Canada. In fact, that is not the case. The
greenhouse gas producers in the next number of years will be
British Columbia, Ontario and other provinces like Quebec, the
Atlantic region and Saskatchewan.
To reach our goal, all Canadians will have to contribute. The
end result will be worth it but it will involve a huge commitment
by all Canadians. I think the goal will be worth it. I look
forward to continuing discussion on this important topic.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate much of what the member says. I agree with much of it
but this concept of tradable emission permits or credits is an
interesting theory until you start to really examine it.
The government member from Ottawa West—Nepean raised the
concern that if they start down that road, it will very soon
become much like the dairy quotas in Canada. These permits
become more and more expensive and fall into the hands of fewer
and fewer corporations and companies.
It seems to me that it quickly becomes unworkable or a real
hindrance to free economic activity. When you take the scenario
even just a little further and start talking about the worker who
has to commute into town to work every day and does not have
access to public transit and has to use his automobile, does he
then need to trade emission credits with the little old lady who
just drives her car to church on Sunday?
It just becomes in my view unmanageable. How would the member
see that system working?
Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
from the member opposite. With emissions trading, the experience
we have as I mentioned is quite limited. When they get to the
micro, micro level of individuals, clearly it is not workable,
no.
2405
I think it has some potential if you are looking at a transition
phase where you have different regions or different contributors
to greenhouse gases. What it does is it puts a market price on
the result of not meeting certain targets. If those permits
become concentrated in the hands of a few and the price goes up,
the entity that is producing the greenhouse gas emissions faces a
higher cost. The economics start to move more toward taking the
measures that will be necessary to meet their own target.
The market pressures are reasonable. It has some practical
challenges to fully implement, certainly on a global basis, and
even implementing it here in Canada, but it would provide some
transitional relief and it is something we should try.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member makes an interesting point. I would like to
congratulate him by pointing out that we should not point fingers
at regions of the country. Very clearly, this is an issue for
all Canadians and the solutions and the benefits of solving this
problem are going to be realized by all Canadians. Acceptable
and workable solution strategies will have to very clearly
recognize that particular point.
The member talked about the commercial viability of adjusting
technologies and he touched very briefly in the area of
cogeneration. Does he see cogeneration as a commercially viable
option?
Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question.
I did not have a chance to deal at any length on cogeneration.
In my view, it is an opportunity that we should look at,
particularly right now in the context of Ontario where we have
some nuclear capacity that is not in use and there are questions
around reinvesting in that nuclear capacity.
I know from my experience in the natural resource sector that
there are huge opportunities to use cogeneration as a competitive
tool to be more competitive with the United States and other
jurisdictions. It also has a huge environmental impact.
In the forest industry, for example, you are using biomass, wood
waste. If you set up an electrical generating plant, you can
fuel your own plant through wood waste biomass which really does
not create very much of a problem in terms of greenhouse gases.
Usually they build a capacity so there is some excess
electricity. You sell that to the grid, Ontario Hydro. You are
selling electricity at the margin.
The problem with electrical generation capacity and nuclear
capacity is the huge capital cost of those plants and that
translates, of course, into the cost of energy or electricity. I
think there is a unique opportunity in Ontario right now, instead
of ramping up this nuclear capacity, to look at cogeneration as a
reasonable alternative.
As more cogeneration comes onstream, you are avoiding some of
those huge capital investments. You are getting electricity at a
marginal cost and cheaper electricity for the plants that are
producing it. You are creating some competitive advantage for
some of the companies that exist in Ontario now.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
should note that it is now November 27, Thursday, and there are
only nine days left between now and Kyoto.
This government has once again withheld vital information and
refused to be held accountable for the position going into Kyoto.
Industrialists and environmentalists alike are puzzled by this
government's lack of leadership, openness and lack of
consultation as it crams together a last minute position for
Kyoto.
I can hardly believe, with Kyoto just a few days away, and one
less now, that we are still in the dark about Canada's position.
It is no wonder that public skepticism about government
accountability is at an all time high.
This government reminds me somewhat of a disinterested student
who rarely attends class and even when he is there, he never
bothers to listen to what is being discussed until the night
before the final exam when he begins to panic, wishing he had
paid attention and desperately crams, trying to understand
principles in the hope of scraping together a passing grade.
This government has had years to formally consult the public,
environmentalists, industrialists and their provincial and
municipal counterparts.
But no, they decided to sit on their legally binding protocol and
do nothing. From the onset, this process or lack thereof has
been marred by the absence of leadership, a lack of meaningful
dialogue and, most importantly, an infuriating lack of openness
and consultation.
2410
The government's refusal to get together and develop workable
targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions leads me to
several conclusions. It never took its responsibility seriously
or the government shuns accountability and it has something to
hide.
Really, to present a position at an international forum without
having reached consensus in the domestic arena is a recipe for
conflict. It is an affront to Canadians that the government was
not confident enough to sell this agreement at home, but is
willing to take a secret agreement to Kyoto for the rest of the
world to see.
Perhaps it would fare the government well to brush up on
environmental diplomacy and maybe start relearning what it means
to negotiate effective global agreements. Strategies to deal
with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions must be developed
with input from representatives of all levels of government,
while balancing public, environmental and industrial concerns.
This government is hypocritical in its approach to environmental
strategies. Why even bother to entertain the concept of
environmental harmonization if in reality there is no intention
of using provincial consensus for the really big issues like
signing international agreements?
This government had ample opportunity in the last four years of
governing to learn from the mistakes made by the Mulroney
government when it signed a deal in Rio without even thinking
through the method of implementation.
Those targets have come and gone with absolutely no progress
being made and still the same mistakes are repeated. Evidently,
issues such as consensus and feedback are not priorities with
this government. If the government has not yet even hammered out
realistic and achievable targets, I will presume that it has
failed to work out an implementation strategy.
The tremendous responsibility associated with signing a legally
binding protocol in an international forum necessitates an
incredible amount of consultation, research and planning. If the
government had done its homework, it would have been able to
answer such crucial questions as how much the implementation of
said targets will cost.
The Conference Board of Canada in its comparative review of the
economic impact of greenhouse gas reductions on Canada estimates
that reducing CO2 to 1990 levels will cost the average Canadian
family of four between $2,000 and $3,200 each year and those
estimates will be much higher in Alberta.
The Minister of the Environment has already told Canadians that
this agreement will cost them money. However, Canadians still do
not know what form these costs will take.
For the past eight years J. Allen Coombs, now retired chief of
International Energy Markets and Environmental Emissions of
Natural Resources Canada, worked on the stabilization of
emissions to 1990 levels, stating that it would be virtually
impossible. Canadians deserved answers months and months ago.
Now, as time runs out, Canadians are more concerned than ever
that this government has refused to protect their pocketbooks
from arbitrary and Liberal closed door decision making.
Weeks ago President Bill Clinton put the American position out
for all to see. The American government is firm on the fact that
it will not participate in an agreement unless developing
countries sign on, but the Liberal government remains silent.
Canadian provinces have agreed that Canada should not sign on
unless the majority of countries responsible for greenhouse gas
emissions sign on. But the government's silence continues.
If developing countries that are responsible for 40% of the
world's emissions are not participating, will the Canadian
government still take part despite the lack of a level playing
field?
Let me remind the government that in the next 15 years it is
estimated that developing countries will be responsible for 60%
of the world's emissions. Without the participation of the main
players, global benefits of pollution reduction will not be
achieved.
Canadians deserve to know what means of pollution reduction have
been studied, whether or not voluntary incentives will be
utilized or if a tax increase is the only option this government
will consider.
I strongly urge the government to consider voluntary industrial
incentives and for it to encourage Canadian companies to make
environmental modifications within their companies.
Canadians are desperate to know just what the government has
considered, what it intends to present and what it is willing to
sign and under what preconditions.
2415
The Liberal government has had ample opportunity to promote
responsible energy development principles and maximize voluntary
efforts within industry but chooses instead to do nothing.
Has the government decided that the co-operation and support of
Canadians upon entering a legally binding protocol is no longer
an issue? Has this government even got support from its own
cabinet? Over the last few months contradiction after
contradiction has emerged from the government side of the House.
For instance on November 12 in a last minute effort to appear
diplomatic, the Minister of the Environment met with her
provincial counterparts and a provincial accord was reached
targeting 1990 levels by the year 2010. At first this seemed
like a breakthrough until of course the Prime Minister hastily
brushed it aside and made it clear he is more interested in
beating out the American position and that he feels no obligation
to stick to the provincial agreement.
This government refuses to co-operate with Canadians on all
fronts. It has refused to engage in an open and meaningful
democratic dialogue.
In conclusion, the position to be tabled in Kyoto on December 1
will be the product of closed backroom politics. Unfortunately
Canadians will likely pay the price for this government's lack of
democratic consultation.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will preface my question by saying that I am in the back row over
here and the hon. member is in the back row over there and we
really did not have much to do with the Kyoto process. So let us
take that out of the loop. Let us pretend Kyoto is not going to
happen.
I am curious as to what the hon. member thinks independent of
that process. I agree that the correlation between what happens
there and the reduction of greenhouse gases is a subject of
debate. So let us take that out of the way.
What course of action in very general terms does the hon. member
think Canada should take just to handle the problem independent
of the Kyoto process because I realize it is a bone of
contention.
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, we have to keep in context
the size of the problem. Canada puts out 2% of the world's
emissions. Since 1990 that has grown only by 8%. It was thought
it would be 13% but it has been reduced. There have been programs
implemented and voluntary moves by industry.
I would like to see municipal governments more involved to get
down to the grassroots people and education of our young people.
We only have to look at what we are doing with recycling. The
hon. member referred earlier to a couple of rs. What
happened there? Everybody in this country recycles because we
trained our children. If we start education with voluntary
programs there is lots that can be done.
The thing we are worried about and the thing we wish would have
been put to rest a long time ago by this government is the fact
that we do not have a $4 billion solution to a $1 million
problem. We have to make sure the reaction we come up with to
this problem is somewhere close to the problem that it is
intended to solve.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw
the House's attention to the fact that while Canada emits 2% of
the world's total greenhouse gases, we are also the ninth largest
emitter and we are ranked second in our emissions per capita.
This is a very serious problem and it is a serious problem for
all Canadians to engage in. I am very curious to understand
where these $4 billion costs are coming from. The hon. member
sits on the same committee that I do. When we were sitting on
that committee we received representation from a witness who told
us that by a very modest investment of around $16 million from
NRCan they were able to undertake energy efficiency and
conservation initiatives that saved the Canadian economy $4
billion in energy costs.
I do not think this is such a terrible thing and I do not think
members of the House would agree that this was such a terrible
thing to do.
2420
There are many no regrets sorts of things we can do to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. My hon. colleague who is a medical
doctor spoke earlier in the House. She talked about the severe
medical problems that might befall Canadians if we do nothing on
this file as the member opposite suggested because he was
concerned about some mythological $4 billion cost. I am not sure
where that figure comes from.
I wonder what the cost would be to the health system let alone
the cost of illness in one's family or losing a loved one. Those
are costs that cannot be quantified. Does the hon. member not
think it is a good idea to implement a no regret strategy for
investing in energy efficiency where we can begin to increase
that $4 billion saving?
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, some of the ideas we have
heard tonight from the government side of the House are the kinds
of things we have been asking for during the past three or four
months. What are the types of programs we are going to have in
place? What are we going to do? What is the government
proposing to be done to meet these emissions reductions?
Any voluntary action that can be made to reduce emissions would
be tremendous. My comparison of spending $4 billion to solve a
$1 million problem was just a comparison. It was not right. Let
us not spend a huge amount of money to solve a small problem
unless we can prove that the problem needs those kinds of funds
to take care of it.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development and as the member of Parliament for Nepean—Carleton,
I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak on the issue of
climate change.
We hear a lot about this issue these days with the United
Nations framework convention on climate change in Kyoto, Japan
that is approaching this December. Much attention has been
focused on the implications of climate change not just in Canada
but certainly around the world.
Environment ministers from around the globe will meet in Kyoto
to try to deal with this issue and take steps toward a solution.
The eyes of many in the international community are upon Canada
as the conference in Kyoto approaches. The world looks to Canada
for leadership and it is leadership that we must and I believe
will demonstrate at Kyoto.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment have
stated that they are committed to working together with partners
across Canada including other governments, non-profit
organizations and the business community to seek creative
solutions to this problem. I sincerely applaud their efforts and
their commitment and I wish them Godspeed.
At the United Nations earth summit in 1992 many countries
including Canada promised to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions
at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Rather than contributing to a
solution however our country and others have had a less than
impressive record. While Canada is not the largest polluter
overall, we have the second highest rate of greenhouse gas
emissions per person on the planet. Canada along with Japan and
the United States are responsible for the lion's share of
greenhouse gas increases between 1990 and 1995.
Wherever you live in Canada, whether it is in Placentia Bay,
Newfoundland, Nepean, Ontario, Brandon, Manitoba or Whitehorse,
Yukon, you should be concerned about global warming. According to
the “Canada Country Study: Climate Impacts and Adaptation” by
the federal environment department, in my own province of Ontario
average annual warming of 3°C to 8°C felt especially during the
winter months can be anticipated by the latter part of the 21st
century. As this warming progresses, Ontarians could be
subjected to increased frequencies of extreme weather events such
as severe thunderstorms and tornadoes or even long summer
droughts as a result of global warming.
As Liberals we are not going to try to evade our environmental
responsibilities as the Reform Party is attempting to do with its
faulty science theory. We know what our responsibilities are to
future generations of Canadians and we are going to face them
head on. This Liberal government is committed to endorsing
emission targets that can be realistically achieved on a step by
step basis.
2425
I believe an effective strategy in the global response to
climate change must involve all levels of government, federal,
provincial, and I put special emphasis on municipal governments
because they are without question the level of government that is
closest to the people.
To make such change happen throughout the country, we must look
to individual communities for ways to enhance energy
conservation, reduce energy efficiencies and improve our
environmental record.
How do we as Canadians begin this process? First, because it is
obvious that human activity causes climate change, I believe
simple and even small changes in our own behaviour can help
alleviate this problem.
We all remember not so long ago the concept of recycling and how
it was the furthest thing from our minds. Yet the vast majority
of Canadians now recycle newspapers, cans, glass and plastic
products without giving it a second thought.
We need to look to other aspects of our daily lives and rethink
some of the ways we conduct our lives, do business and travel
from destination to destination.
Addressing the issue of climate change means doing things
smarter and in many cases saving money in the process. We must
remember that there are many benefits to a cleaner environment:
improved air quality, better environmental health, increased
efficiency and I would venture to say as well increased national
competitiveness.
While the agents of the status quo, the Reform Party, paint a
doom and gloom scenario about the aftermath of Kyoto, the reality
of improving energy efficiency and reducing waste is much more
positive. One thing that is also evident in terms of Canada's
response to Kyoto is that there is no one magic solution which we
can rely upon to deal with the problem. In my view it will take a
wide range of creative individual measures which are targeted to
reduce our emissions in specific ways.
Let us look at one particular aspect of the problem,
transportation. It is estimated that the transport sector is
responsible for almost 27% of total greenhouse gas emissions in
Canada and that this number may grow even larger.
One issue which I believe the government must address on a
national basis is that of declining public transit ridership.
This is an area where I feel some substantial progress on our
emissions could be made in a relatively painless manner. How do
we do this?
Speaking as a former municipal representative and transit
commissioner here in Ottawa, I believe we can and should use our
tax system to get people out of their cars and into public
transit. Nine tonnes of pollutants a year are saved by just one
busload of passengers. That is why taking public transit is a
key step in taking solid action on climate change.
A recent study by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute called
“Employer Provided Transit Passes—A Tax Exempt Benefit”
argues very convincingly that making employer contributions to
transit passes tax exempt would help to improve the cost
competitiveness of public transit in relation to the private
automobile.
The study notes that the average commuter who owns an automobile
and receives free tax exempt parking at the worksite pays
approximately the same to drive as to ride a bus. The value of
free or subsidized parking to employees is calculated at
approximately $1,772 in average pretax income for each employee.
This includes $1,200 in direct costs and $512 in tax exemptions.
The study also observes that while Revenue Canada ostensibly
collects taxes on parking benefits, it also provides exemptions
for which the majority of employees qualify. Therefore from a
policy standpoint the existing tax rules favour the private
automobile over public transit, inefficient over efficient travel
modes, and the economically more advantaged auto driver over the
economically more disadvantaged transit rider. Surely this
policy area needs re-examination.
I am not the only one who believes that this type of measure
could yield some significant benefits. A number of my colleagues
and several organizations have thrown their support behind the
transit benefit tax exemption proposal, including the Canadian
Urban Transit Association, the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities, the Transportation Association of Canada, our own
House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development and the National Round Table on the
Environment and the Economy.
So far, the federal government's response to this proposal has
been cautious as one might expect. Both the Department of
Finance and Revenue Canada initially opposed the idea of tax
exempt transit passes citing lost revenues and insignificant
reductions in automobile transit.
2430
In a 1995 letter to the Canadian Urban Transit Association the
finance department estimated this initiative would cause lost
revenue of $140 million or $2,550 for each new transit user.
However, according to the Victoria Transport Policy Institute,
experience in the United States where this type of tax break has
been available for 10 years suggests that our federal government
may be grossly overestimating potential lost revenues.
The initial government analysis assumes that transit benefits
would be available to 50% of all transit riding employees, but
the American experience indicates that less than 10% of employers
provide such subsidies. However, where such benefits are
available, reductions of auto commuting of 10% to 30% are
possible.
Based on a request made at the environment committee the
Department of Finance is currently reviewing the proposal and is
taking a closer look at the benefits and logistics of this
initiative. I sincerely hope the department gives this more than
a cursory examination.
Those of us involved in this initiative realize that results
cannot be expected overnight. However, as coverage of transit
tax exemption is gradually extended to more and more employees,
the benefits in terms of reductions in traffic congestion,
greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, road and parking
costs, and traffic accidents can be significant.
To sum up, the benefits add up to an improved urban environment,
lower costs and a better quality of life for all Canadians.
There are many other areas such as district energy where the
potential for energy efficiency cost savings and emission
reductions are also significant. Hopefully I will have the
opportunity to address some of those subjects at a later date.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in his presentation the hon. member made reference to an
average annual warming of 3° to 8°C. He probably misspoke
himself and meant 3° to 8°C by the year 2050. Even that comes
from a 12 year old computer model which has long since been
discredited even by global warming enthusiasts. A computer model
can be made to give an infinite number of results. The present
global warming dogma now puts 3°C by about 2050 at the top end.
That being said, I am wondering if the hon. member is familiar
with the work of Drs. Christy and Spencer, a climatologist and an
astrophysicist, who for the last 17 years have been measuring the
temperature of the earth's atmosphere on a continuous basis with
satellite based microwave sounding units. These are real
measurements, real science, not computer models. They have
discovered that for the last 17 years at least the warming trend
we are supposed to be so afraid of appears to be on hold and that
there has actually been a very slight cooling.
This is probably of no statistical significance. Nevertheless,
it flies in the face of the conventional wisdom which says we are
well on the way to being fried off the surface of the planet.
Guess what? Theorists who compose these computer models
actually had the temerity to say that the results of these
scientific measurements could not be right because they did not
reflect the predictions made in the computer models.
Is the hon. member familiar with the program and could he
comment on it?
Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Louis certainly addressed some of the scientific
issues, but it is clear that parts of the planet are cooling and
parts are warming. However on balance the warming effect is very
clear. The vast majority of the scientific community would
certainly agree with that analysis.
2435
As a general principle we as elected representatives have a
responsibility to address issues with the best possible
information we have available. The government is certainly
attempting to do that. The initiatives that will flow from Kyoto
will make a lot of sense not just from an environmental
standpoint but from an economic standpoint in terms of reducing
waste and enhancing our cost competitiveness. We can expect a
lot of very beneficial things coming out of Kyoto.
I have to categorically reject the suggestion that somehow or
other the science is not clear on this issue. The debate this
evening has pointed out the problem with the Reform Party's
analysis. Everyone in the House is virtually agreed but the
Reform Party.
In terms of the average Canadian and how they would look upon
this debate, the average Canadian would have to come to the
conclusion that perhaps the other parties seem to have something
and the Reform Party seems to be a bit off base on this issue.
That is unfortunate. In terms of the committee's work over the
course of the last month or so the testimony has been very clear
and rather conclusive.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if we repeat something loud enough and often enough
eventually it becomes a excepted dogma or universal truth.
I would like to begin by referring to a polemic statement
written a little more than two decades ago. It indicated that it
was cold fact global cooling presented humankind with the most
important social, political and adaptive challenge we have had to
deal with for 10,000 years, and that our stake in the decisions
we make concerning it is of ultimate importance to the survival
of ourselves, our children and our species.
If one merely substitutes the word warming for cooling, the
statement could readily have been made by an exponent of the
doomsday scenario of human induced climatic disaster today.
This cooling statement was made during a period when the media
and the public were much more skeptical and generally better
informed with respect to science than they are today.
During this new ice age scare—and I am sure there are people in
this room who remember it clearly—there was no expectation that
humankind could favourably alter climatic events by, for example,
firing up their automobiles full tilt and injecting more carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere. Proposed actions were not remedial
but they were more rationally protective and adaptive. The scare
died out and in due course the dogma of global warming became
fashionable.
The second major difference between then and now is that
informed debate about the merits of the cooling theory was
possible. We did not yet have an entire generation of adults who
had passed through the educational system with virtually no
exposure to any type of scientific training. Today scholarly
dissent is scorned. Scientists including many eminent
climatologists who dare to question the popular doctrine are
branded as thoughtless, uncaring enemies of the public good or
tools of vested interests.
The members from Lac St. Louis and Davenport and the leader of
the third party excelled themselves this evening in invective and
ad hominem attacks on anyone who dared to disagree with the
popular dogma. That indicates a certain weakness in their
arguments. If you cannot win it with rationale arguments, you
win it by shouting louder and calling the Leader of the
Opposition names. It always works.
2440
The scientific method of investigation has been almost casually
rejected. Solid empirical temperature data have actually be
disputed, as I mentioned a few moments ago, on the basis of mere
computer modelling. The modellers have won the battle for public
acceptance of their theories. Such is the state of scholarship
near the end of the 20th century.
On the basis of computer generated temperature projections which
reflect the preconceptions of the people making them, proponents
of the theory of anthropogenic global warming are predicting
natural disasters which would make much of this planet
uninhabitable.
The minister who is technologically and scientifically
challenged has yet to issue a news release predicting that the
skies will turn to buttermilk, but I am expecting to hear
something like that from her any day now.
Climate is a cyclical phenomenon. It always has been and always
will be. Let us consider, for example, the little ice age which
afflicted the northern hemisphere from about 1350 to the early
1880s. At its coldest during the late 17th century many
thousands of European peasants died from exposure to the cold or
starved because of
crop failures brought on by this terrible climate change.
We have had since the end of the little ice age an average
temperature rise of between half a degree and one degree
centigrade. That is in the last 150 years. I submit that is
normal, predictable and reasonable in a cyclical system. It is a
rebound toward but not yet up to long term averages. Temperature
measurements 150 years ago were pretty spotty, but I accept the
proposition that the world is slightly warmer now than it was
then.
I also accept the absolutely solid data collected by Drs.
Christy and Spencer. They are not local data. They are data for
the whole planet. These satellites are in different positions
every second and the measurements are being taken constantly. The
measurements have been checked wherever they were able to get a
juxtaposition of one of their readings with a reading from a
radiosonde instrument, and the checks are perfect.
This is true science. First you come up with a theory. Then
you do the experiment. Then you decide if the theory is correct.
The global warmers have put it backward. They came up with the
theory, say that it is true, and then reject any experimental
data which contradict their preconceptions.
I spoke about the cycles of climate. I would like to mention a
couple of them with which I have some personal familiarity.
These things have been going on forever. I have examined mining
operations dating from early Islamic times in North Africa and on
the Arabian peninsula. That would be 950 AD or thereabouts.
Very obviously, from the debris around these places, the people
who ran the operations had abundant water and abundant timber.
Now these areas are deserts. They have been deep deserts for
hundreds and hundreds of years. It did not happen due to any
human activity. There were not large numbers of humans on earth
in those days. What they did as far as contributing emissions to
the atmosphere was perhaps to build a few campfires. Yet there
were these drastic climatic changes.
When the Vikings came to southern Greenland they found a climate
much similar to the climate in northern Scotland right now.
2445
They built their settlements and these settlements disappeared
during the little ice age when they were overridden by the
glaciers. Now the glaciers are in retreat because we do have
this slight warming trend coming out of the little ice age and
the old settlements, the old stone walls, are reappearing. They
are an archaeological treasure.
Nothing is static on this earth and nothing that petty little
man can do is going to make a major difference in the vastness of
space. Sure, we can mess up the earth where we can see it, touch
it and smell it. We can destroy our personal, immediate
environment but we cannot destroy the climate of the earth or
change the climate of the earth any more than we can do like King
Canute and bid the tide not to come in.
It did not work for him and it will not work for us. This is
not science. The IPCC is not, as the hon. members, now absent
have, attempted to tell us, a monolithic organization. It has
very large divergences of opinion within the body.
There is actually a divergence between the climatologists and
environmental people on one side and the non-experts, the
mathematicians, the computer wonks, the chemists, the biologists
on the other side.
To be cruel, one might say perhaps the division within the IPCC
is between those who are experts in this field and those who are
not.
The Deputy Speaker: I hate to be cruel, too, but the hon.
member's time, I am afraid, has expired.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question to the hon. member is very simple. China agrees with
the facts of warming, the average temperature, and realizes the
immediate impacts on its northern region. Does he believe that
the Chinese are part of his conspiracy theory?
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon.
member lost me. I do not know what she was talking about with
her conspiracy theory. If stating there are different
schools of thought among scientists is a conspiracy theory, then
I guess I believe in conspiracy theories.
As far as the warming of northern China, I imagine it would
welcome that rather heartily at this point, but that is not the
subject for discussion tonight.
The northern parts of China may be warming. The world is
warming. We have already said that most people will agree on
that. What we do not agree on is that this is man induced. This
is something that I will not accept until somebody shows me some
real empirical data, which to this point do not exist.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is so much here I am going to have to try to take an
nanosecond and sort through it.
The member I guess is suggesting there is absolutely no damage
that the human race can do on the earth that is not irreversible
or will not have any sort of significant effect.
I really take exception to that. I suggest that as technology
advances, our capacity to degrade the environment in significant
and irreversible ways is increasing.
Having said that, back to the issue of global warming and
specifically the globe, the member took us down memory lane here.
I am just wondering, in the historical context is the member
prepared to admit that the earth is round or does he still think
it is flat?
2450
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, that is typical of the
level of debate which we have heard from members opposite
tonight. We try to discuss something rationally on a scientific
basis and we get smart mouthed. That is all we get.
If they want to debate something, debate it, do not enter into
this silly ad hominem stuff. We are adults here, at least some
of us.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question will be short.
Obviously there are many countries around the globe that are
going to be at Kyoto and signing on to some sort of climate
change package and commitment. I would ask the hon. member if
the scientific evidence on which they have based their decisions
to participate at Kyoto is all false. Are all world governments
operating with incorrect or faulty scientific information. Is it
only the Reform Party that has the straight facts on this one?
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, science is not determined
by a show of hands. I would answer the hon. member's question
with an analogy. If he can recall Copernicus and Galileo, they
were thought to be out of their minds. The whole scientific
community, the whole bureaucratic community, the whole
ecclesiastic community, said these people were mad because they
believed that the earth was not the centre of the universe, that
in fact the earth and the planets rotated around the sun. They
received much the same treatment that some of your eminent
climatologists today are receiving from the herd when they speak
out against a theory which they say, in their opinion, is not
proven.
I am not a scientific scholar but I did work in a scientific
discipline for 30 years and I am capable of reading and
understanding a scientific paper. Unfortunately the majority of
the people who have entered into this debate are not and cannot.
I hope that does not sound to egotistical. Maybe it does but
it is an unfortunate truth. Unless one studies and learns how
can one stand up and say “my god, I am an expert, I know it
all”?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, I think the Bloc
Quebecois should be first.
The Deputy Speaker: Yes, but the Bloc Quebecois member was not
present. Consequently, the hon. member for Lotbinière has the floor.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I want to
thank the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for his kindness.
My speech will deal with two important issues. I will talk about
the St. Lawrence River and then I will tell you about how little the
Liberals and Reformers care about the environment.
You know how important the St. Lawrence River is to my riding of
Lotbinière. My riding is bordered by the St. Lawrence on one side and
includes the following municipalities: Saint-Pierre les Becquets,
Deschaillons, Leclercville, Lotbinière, Sainte-Croix et Saint-Antoine de
Tilly. These villages located on the shores of the magnificent St.
Lawrence River are tourist attractions along highway 132. They are part
of Quebec's history and of Lotbinière's heritage.
2455
Several mayors and representatives of these municipalities have
contacted my office to express their fears about the alarming
information that appears in the national media about the future of the
St. Lawrence River. They wanted the Bloc Quebecois and its environment
critic, the member for Rosemont, to continue their attacks on the
Liberal government, which does not seem to be concerned about the future
of the St. Lawrence, preferring to give in to the western oil lobby
supported by the Reform Party.
I would ask the Prime Minister who is responsible for environmental
issues in his government. The Minister of the Environment or the Reform
Party?
On the subject of the St. Lawrence, scientists agree that the
greenhouse effect will seriously affect it. According to a study issued
last month by Environment Canada, the St. Lawrence will suffer the brunt
of the negative effects of any warming trend; its flow would be
substantially reduced. This negative impact would mean the disappearance
of the aquatic grass bed, a key element in the reproduction of some 100
living species. This study indicated as well that the average
temperature would rise by 4 degrees Celsius.
Once again we can see how the government treats Quebec when it has
to make a decision on a subject as important as the environment.
I had hoped that the future of the St. Lawrence, the river that led
our country's pioneers to discover Quebec and Ontario, would wake up the
Liberals.
But, no. They were put to sleep by Reform gases from western Canada.
The Minister of Finance claims to be concerned by the greenhouse
effect. He said that the question should be managed by several
departments. He even had the gall to say that the issue is often talked
about during cabinet meetings.
That is the way the Minister of Finance
usually speaks, although he sometimes forgets things in his fiscal
analyses. For example, he said that his government must invest to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but he did not mention any specific
amount.
The Minister of Finance tried to tell us that he would propose
concrete solutions, when, at the same time, he continues to subsidize to
the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars the development of oil and
gas resources. For example, he gave almost half a billion for the tar
sands project.
Here again we can see where the Liberal government stands.
The commitments of the Liberal government with respect to the
environment are clearly inadequate. If the Minister of the Environment
wants to be taken seriously at the Kyoto summit, she should go back to
the drawing board.
Recently, John Fraser, the Canadian environment ambassador, sent a
pressing message to the Liberal government, asking it to review the
position adopted in Regina in mid-November. He said that regardless of
what we have done in terms of reduction, we have not done enough. And he
went on to say that we all know that we can do more.
These words came from one of the many and invaluable collaborators
appointed in 1994 by the current Prime Minister, but the Liberals are
ignoring one of their own.
Canada should follow the example of Quebec, which is the only province,
with British Columbia, to have ratified the United Nations Convention on
Climate Changes signed in Rio in 1992.
The Bloc Quebecois is proud of what Quebec has done in recent years
in this area and intends to continue to pressure the federal government
so that it understands once and for all the high stakes involved, the
quality of life of the people of Quebec and of Canada.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to join this debate on global climate change. Like other
members, I regret the 10 minute time limit. I would be glad to
speak at great length on this topic and I am sure members would
be glad to listen to me if the rules allowed.
As we have heard this evening from the Reform Party, there are
still those who believe that climate change is not occurring.
They think we have nothing to worry about and we can go on living
and consuming as we have done for decades.
It is true there is a debate about the nature of climate change
but no informed person could possibly believe that human induced
changes are not occurring at an ever increasing rate.
2500
The great forests of the earth are disappearing rapidly. Perhaps
I should say that the great forest of the earth is disappearing
rapidly. Huge areas that were previously covered with vegetation
are now regularly laid bare for agriculture. Some of them have
become deserts. Automobiles and factories with their emissions
are still multiplying and so on.
All of these things, including the very existence of our cities,
have already affected climate. Some of the direct effects on the
atmosphere of such changes are already well established. It is
not a matter of conjecture.
Carbon dioxide, CO2, has been increasing in the atmosphere for
generations. This is one of the greenhouse gases which traps
heat in the atmosphere.
Increases in other greenhouse gases have become measurable in
more recent times. These include methane, nitrous oxide, carbon
monoxide and tropospheric, that is to say near the ground, ozone.
Increases in these and other greenhouse gases should cause global
warming.
Despite the selective science we have heard from the Reform
Party, there is no scientific debate about the increases which I
have mentioned. The debate arises as to the long term nature,
magnitude and rate of change. The global system is so huge and
complex that it is not easy to predict how the system will
ultimately react to such changes and what its feedbacks will be,
but the great weight of informed scientific opinion around the
world is on the side of global warming.
The fact is that we insignificant human beings have got to the
point where we can measurably interfere with this huge global
system of which we are a part. I do not know which is more
scary, the fact that we can significantly alter this global
system in a situation where we can predict the effects or the
fact that we can significantly alter this global system when we
cannot predict the effects.
I happen to believe that one of the results of the changes, like
those I have mentioned, is global warming. I believe that the
warming, with its various and enormous side effects, has already
begun.
I say this despite the fact that, with colleagues, I am in the
process of publishing three papers on glaciers and a lake which,
for particular reasons, failed to demonstrate measurable global
warming. I thank God that the changes we are looking at are not
yet so large that they can be detected with the data and time
periods that we happen to have available.
From the point of view of this debate, from the point of view of
us as members of Parliament, does it matter whether we are sure
about global warming? If there is a chance of it, surely we
should take reasonable steps to prevent it on simple
precautionary grounds.
The changes which we have measured are bad enough in themselves.
Who wants to live in an atmosphere of increasing ground-level
ozone or nitrous acid, even if the climate is not warming?
Ground-level ozone affects our lungs. It makes breathing
difficult for those with lung problems. It decreases athletic
performance. It also has a significant impact on agricultural
production. Studies show that it already costs tens of millions
of dollars a year in Ontario alone.
The fact is that a polluted atmosphere is an effective
greenhouse atmosphere. Who wants to live in a poisonous
greenhouse, whether it be warm or cold?
Greenhouse gases, including ground-level ozone and acid gases,
can be reduced and air quality can be improved by tough emission
standards for vehicles, factories and homes. We can use
gasolines with lower amounts of volatile organic compounds. We
can also reduce those gases by saving energy through recycling
and other sensible measures mentioned by the Minister of the
Environment.
We should never consume energy unnecessarily. It is
inefficient, uneconomical and unhealthy to do so.
Greenhouse gases and atmospheric pollution can also be decreased
by reforestation and proper forest management, and by low till
and other appropriate agricultural practices.
2505
As has been mentioned today, there is another well-known example
of human interference with the only atmosphere that we have, and
that is depletion of ozone in the stratosphere. I have to say
that we are in a very difficult position because of these human
actions of trying to increase ozone in the stratosphere and
decrease ozone near the earth's surface as a result of the
complications we have produced.
The ozone in the stratosphere shields us from ultraviolet
radiation which causes skin cancer and other horrors. The action
in slowing and one day stopping the depletion of ozone, in which
Canada played a key part, is often touted as an example of what
nations can do to prevent the deterioration of our globe.
Members should remember that despite the unprecedented
international action on ozone depletion, the ozone layer will not
be restored for 50 years. Until then, skin cancer rates and
other effects will still be high.
As I have said, we are dealing with a huge system: our
atmosphere. By the time we can detect effects, it is often too
late. It is a bit like trying to turn a supertanker around, only
more so. I believe that the people of Canada want their
government, their businesses, their unions, all their leaders to
set an example in combating global change. They know that in the
long run the only development that is possible is sustainable
development.
Let's take the lead in this matter in Kyoto and beyond.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the
member on his speech.
It is my understanding that the hon. member used to teach at a
university. Having had this experience, I am sure he is familiar
with the peer review process. It has come to my attention
numerous times in this House and in other arenas within the
parliamentary sphere that the so-called scientific experts that
the Reform Party is continually using to quote to debunk climate
change science are individuals who are often citing opinion as
opposed to scientific fact and they are certainly going without
peer review.
I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment on the peer review
process and why it is so significant for scientific research.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of the Environment for her comments and
question.
It is true. I have listened carefully to the Reform Party. I
am very wary of people who depend on authority, who depend on the
name of a scientist. In general, we have to look at the
literature, as the parliamentary secretary has said, weigh it up
for what it is worth, where it came from, whether it was peer
reviewed.
The peer review process is quite simple. It is when a scientist
submits an article to a journal. That article is sent to a range
of experts, not just experts who have one opinion, but to a range
of experts, and then the paper is returned with comments and is
either published or not.
I mentioned three papers of my own. Two of those are refereed
and will appear in international journals. The other is not
refereed. I think it is important to distinguish between those
two.
With regard to my own work, I have worked now for 30 years. I
have mainly worked on glaciers and on lake ice. If I can give
the example of one of the papers because I deliberately mentioned
the fact that these recent papers of ours do not demonstrate
global warming. No doubt that in some other house people like
the Reform members opposite will use those as examples of the
fact that global warming is not occurring, but in the case we
looked at, if I can give one example, we studied two glaciers for
30 years. At the end of that time, the glaciers were smaller,
but in all honesty, with the methods that we were using and over
the time period that we had, we could not demonstrate a trend.
It is in fact a trend that we are talking about.
2510
The member opposite was talking about the fluctuations of
climate. The climate of the globe continually fluctuates. The
discussion today is about whether since the industrial revolution
human changes, and I mentioned the very well established increase
in carbon dioxide which has now been measured since the middle of
the last century, are systematically moving the climate in a
particular direction.
If greenhouse warming is true, the climate is going to continue
to get warmer and get colder in a natural way, but when it is
getting warmer the warming will be reinforced by the artificial
changes which are occurring, the greenhouse effect, and when it
is getting cooler the cooling will be reduced by the artificial
warming which is occurring.
We are not debating whether the climate was going up and down a
thousand years ago. We are debating whether since the industrial
revolution there have been changes which have significantly
affected the way climate varies.
We would not expect climate with the greenhouse effect to simply
keep warming and warming and warming. It is going up and down
and the greenhouse effect would gradually steer it toward higher
temperatures.
I would say one more thing if I might because the member
opposite spent some time on this matter. It is not just a matter
of statistics and gathering figures and putting trend lines to
them. There is also the matter of physics. I have mentioned the
changes which have been measured, CO2, nitrous oxides, methane
and so on. It is true those gases have increased in the
atmosphere.
The physics of that is that interacting with radiation they will
warm up the atmosphere. We do not just have to depend on figures
and trends. We have to use the science which is available to us
in this century to support our opinions. That is in fact what
the scientific community is doing at the present time.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight
to stress the importance of acting immediately on the issue of climate
change.
On the eve of the Kyoto conference, we have a responsibility toward
our children and future generations to put forward a responsible
strategy that will protect our environment while ensuring a viable
economy for years to come.
The protection of our environment is logical for several reasons.
The most obvious one is, of course, maintaining a sound environment for
the future generation.
My honourable colleagues from other parties have pointed out the
cost associated with the use of energy in a responsible way,
but they never talked about the consequences of not developing an
environmental strategy.
I will give you an example. Not long ago, I was sitting on the
Standing Committee on Natural Resources when our colleagues from the
Reform Party asked: “Why should we in Canada undertake environmental
prevention procedures if the other countries do not to so?” To that I
responded that I was proud to be a Canadian. Canada has often shown the
way to other countries, which then followed suit. It is because of
attitudes like the one displayed by the member of the Reform Party that
we sometimes have problems.
I am surprised to hear tonight the speeches of Reform Party members
on the environment and on respect for our planet. They show a total lack
of respect for our planet. These speeches should not even be tolerated.
It is all fine and well to talk about scientists and experts.
It reminds me of when I was working in a mine where there were 250
Diesel engines about which the experts said that they did not affect the
miners' health. Why? Because the company was profitable. Without saying
that they were bought, it is still because of experts such as these that
I have a damned problem. Please excuse my language, Mr. Speaker.
Do these members want to tell us that our children's illnesses do
not involve any cost, that entire communities are not penalized when
fish no longer have an habitat and fish stocks disappear?
2515
We have a responsibility toward Canadians, namely to create a
context that will ensure a prosperous economy, while protecting our
environment.
The approach put forward by this government obviously does not
work. Following the Rio summit, the government set up a strategy which
called for voluntary participation in the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions. What happened? Greenhouse gas emissions did not diminish.
They did not even remain at the same level. In fact, they have increased
over the last five years.
At one point, the government wanted to put a stop to pollution
along the highways, right across the country. Now, when someone throws
something out of his car window, it costs him $1,000. I can guarantee
that the roadside is much cleaner than before. It is so because the
government took concrete steps that led to this improvement. I can
guarantee that people would not have acted voluntarily, if it had not
stepped in.
Today, if the government told people it is giving them an
opportunity to have a clean environment along the roads, coffee drinkers
would not throw their cups out of the window. With a fine of $100, or
even $1,000 in certain provinces, people keep their cups in the car and
wait to throw it in a garbage can. I just do not believe in voluntary
participation.
There are colleagues in this House who do not think that it is very
serious that Canada has been acting irresponsible for the last five
years. They talk of the costs involved if we adopt a responsible
position. But we are already paying the price for failing to act.
In fact, the government has conducted a study on the impact of
climate change. According to that study, in my region of the Atlantic,
we will be especially vulnerable to a rise in the level of the sea. That
will mean more floods, the loss of habitats for certain species of fish,
changes in the landmass and a drop in the reproductive success rate of
marine birds.
The costs are very high when there are floods. When fish stocks
disappear, communities suffer. When will the government stop
playing the ostrich and take its head out of the sand? The time
to act is now and not 15 years down the road, when we will no
longer be able to save our environment. We must act and act now.
Acting now does not mean that our economy will be the worse off.
There are alternatives that can create jobs while protecting our
environment. Through simple measures such as ensuring proper maintenance
for their vehicles, Canadians can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by
three tonnes per year.
Instead of using 250 trucks that pollute the environment, we could
use three locomotives that could do the same work but create much less
pollution.
I was speaking with CN officials this week. I asked them how many
trucks on the road three locomotives would replace. They told me they
would replace 250 tractor trailers. In addition to these 250 exhaust
stacks, there are also 4,500 tires. What will happen to these tires
later on? Most likely they will be another source of pollution.
Now, six locomotives would do the same job as 500 trucks on the road.
So, we can take our 4,500 tires and call it 9,000. Picture this, I drove
my car from Moncton, New Brunswick, to Sussex and that took me 50
minutes. During this trip, I met no less than 120 trucks coming the
other way, and that is not counting those that were going in the same
direction as I was.
Strategies could be developed to make the burning of coal less
polluting. I have information here about new technology that uses coal
to dispose of hospital waste in the United States. This technology is
not only good for the environment, it is less expensive. Using this
technology could mean savings of up to $400,000 a year for a hospital.
Environmental protection can be good for everyone. Other strategies
could create more well-paid jobs over time.
2520
Through research and development, we could develop skilled
labour that acquired its expertise here and that could then go and
work outside the country. Denmark is a good example of a country
that decided to invest in energy produced by windmills and that now
exports its expertise throughout the world. We are already behind
Europe on these issues. We must act now to remain competitive in
the energy sector.
Canada is recognized worldwide as one of the best countries to
live in. We have this reputation, because we are the leaders in a
number of areas. We show the world that assuming our
responsibilities means creating a better world.
In a week's time, leaders from all over will be gathering here
in Ottawa for the signing of a treaty prohibiting anti-personnel
mines. Without the courage of the Canadians, this historic event
could not occur.
Canadians are courageous. They want their government to act
responsibly and fairly. They want us to be brave now. This
means setting specific objectives that will guarantee slower
climate change. This means we must all do our part and use less
polluting forms of energy. This common effort must focus on
strategies that are based on new technologies and that create
jobs.
For the most vulnerable industries, we must look towards
diversification of local economies. In the Atlantic region, we
have seen what happened when the disappearance of an industry was
not anticipated. Now we no longer have any fish and entire
communities are suffering.
In order to avoid such a situation, the government must
develop long term strategies to prevent the disappearance of
certain industries. We must not just do the responsible thing, we
must do the humane thing.
Canada has never benefited when its government has refused to
be courageous and do the right thing. Protecting our environment
is not only the right thing to do, but it is also the strategy that
will ensure that Canada will still be the best country in which to
live in the next century.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
make mention of the fact that the hour right now is 22 minutes
after 1 o'clock in the morning. I mention that only to illustrate
the fact that the government is squeezing this very vital debate
into a time slot that makes it almost impossible for members to
be able to take part. This is a shame. When the debate started
yesterday, we ended up with 10 days to Kyoto. We are now down to
nine days to Kyoto and we still do not know what the government
position is.
Let me explain what the Reform position is. As far as
environmental protection is concerned, Reform along with
governments, industry and Canadians all recognize that action
needs to be taken to protect our environment where there is a
demonstrable need.
The Reform Party supports environmental policies on greenhouse
gas emissions based on concrete scientific evidence. The federal
government has failed to provide documents that have formed the
basis of the government's position on global warming. We wonder
where the leadership of the government is coming from and
obviously the Prime Minister is the leader of this government.
I draw attention to Hansard of November 5 and a question
from my colleague, the member for Edmonton North concerning Candu
reactors being sold without any environmental review by the
government to Turkey and China. In part the Prime Minister
answered: “We believe that exporting Candu reactors is very
important for the Canadian economy. It is extremely important
for countries which will use the electricity generated by nuclear
power to replace coal, which is causing a lot of climate
problems”.
I would like to know from the Prime Minister and the Liberal
government why he would make this quantum leap, this connection,
when he should have been answering a question about why the
government is not doing any environmental review on the Candu
reactor sales to Turkey and China, he turned it into a global
warming issue.
2525
I submit, as have all other Reform speakers, that this entire
process we are involved in is one of watching lemmings run. It
is one of very questionable science. I quote the consensus of
2,500 scientists that these members have been referring to. It is
pointed out that 11 chapters of this supposed 2,500 scientist
document were written by only about 80 authors. Most of the
hundreds of contributors listed were simply experts who allowed
their studies to be quoted without necessarily supporting the
report's conclusions.
Further, they state that the earth's average temperatures have
risen by a modest 0.3° to 0.6° in the 140 years since records
began. They point out that most of this warming occurred before
1940 and was followed by decades of climate cooling from about
1940 through to the 1960s at a time when greenhouse gas emissions
actually increased. Many climatologists feared the world was
headed for a mini ice age. This was referred to by my Reform
colleague earlier. Even the UN panel's chairman, Bert Bolin,
admits that the pre-1940 warming is probably a natural recovery
from an earlier natural cooling. Instead, of the 96 years of
this century so far, 32 show a warming trend and 64 show a
cooling trend.
One of the items I have yet to hear in this debate tonight is
mention of other natural phenomena like El Nino. We can expect in
my constituency where we had record levels of snow, cold and
freezing weather last year that this year the temperatures are
going to be moderated and we will be receiving less snow. Why?
Greenhouse gases, global warming? No. El Nino. There are all
sorts of impacts on our climate that are natural impacts. There
are impacts that we as human beings can and do create but we do
not understand the relationship between them.
Let us take a look at Kyoto. The countries that are going to
Kyoto are countries like Canada. Notwithstanding all of the
claims that we have the second highest per capita CO2 emissions,
the fact is that Canada puts out 2% while the U.S. puts out 23%.
China, Russia, India and Ukraine combined put out 27% and guess
what? They are not going to Kyoto.
As my leader demonstrated earlier, there is a very real
possibility that we will create serious problems for our economy
in trying to achieve these objectives and we will destroy parts
of this economy. If we are going to destroy our economy why are
we doing it without a knowledge and understanding of the
background of where we are coming from?
Where is Canada? Canada has already achieved 80% of its goals
in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Most of the growth in
greenhouse gas emissions is expected to come from developing
countries. Countries such as China and India will be the world's
largest emitters of greenhouse gases by the next century, yet
developing countries do not have to participate in the
reductions.
The possibility of climate change is a global issue and must be
addressed collectively. Developing countries are responsible for
40% of the world emissions. I repeat that this is a global
problem and developing countries are responsible for 40% of the
emissions, so why will they not be there? What are we trying to
do in terms of paring down our economy for what goal or what
objectives?
We must ensure in Kyoto that any commitments made are in
Canada's interest and recognize Canada's unique circumstances.
Any greenhouse gas emission targets must be realistic, achievable
and based on sound scientific evidence. Therein lies the problem
with the agreement from Brazil.
2530
The problem there was that the goals were not realistic. They
were not achievable. As we have clearly demonstrated they were
not based on sound scientific evidence. A national consensus
should be gained before international commitments are made.
It is very scary that the government has made the commitment to
go to Kyoto to sign an agreement without even telling us its
position. Who are the negotiators and what is the position the
negotiators will take? We have no idea. Who is going to be
giving them direction?
What is at stake for people in my constituency of
Kootenay—Columbia? Elkford, Sparwood and Fernie are all
communities that are completely based on the coal industry. The
south country, Cranbrook and as far away as Creston, are the
bedrooms for many thousands of workers from the Elk Valley. In
Golden and Revelstoke, CP Rail workers will be affected because
of the amount of coal that is shipped through there.
What does that mean? If these people do not have work they will
be moving out, which means the regional districts will no longer
be able to collect their revenues. What will happen to municipal
budgets? What will happen to libraries, garbage collection,
water and sewer, and for what?
This reminds me so much of lemmings. Mr. Speaker, you may be
old enough—I know I am—to recall a movie put out by Walt
Disney. It showed lemmings, which is what speakers from the
other parties reminded me of, all headed in one direction. They
all jumped off the cliff. That was not true either; that was a
fabrication of the moviemaker.
In conclusion, a UN panel report stated:
A prudent way to deal with climate change is through a portfolio
of actions aimed at mitigation, adaptation and improvement of
knowledge. The appropriate portfolio will differ for each
country. The challenge is not to find the best policy today for
the next 100 years, but to select a prudent strategy and to
adjust it over time in light of new information.
I beg the government not to let the word Kyoto become a word for
needless economic suicide.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a rather
frightening array of opportunities that I have to address as a
result of what the member opposite just said. Once again he
evokes the pseudo-science that the Reform seems to have such
great comfort in. He talks about El Nino which has to do with
southern oscillation.
El Nino right now is the most intense and longest El Nino we
have seen in almost 2000 years. Many climate scientists are
talking about the connection of El Nino and global warming. There
are connections the member seems to ignore.
He spoke about a cooling period, but he neglected to tell
Canadians that this was a period where ozone depletion substances
were gathering and acting as a cooling. This is a very clear
piece of information.
He went on about developing countries not participating in Kyoto
in the reduction of greenhouse gases. Again he is misleading
Canadians because developing countries have ratified the
framework convention on climate change. They are taking
significant steps to reduce growth in greenhouse gas emissions.
Brazil, India and Mexico, for example, have dramatically
increased energy prices and have launched specific programs to
improve energy efficiency.
The member opposite does not seem to believe in any of this. I
would like him to speak on behalf of his constituents and tell
something to the people of the south island state. I had the
opportunity of meeting the president of Micronesia who implored
me to make sure that Canada did something significant on the
issue of climate change. His country of Micronesia was shipping
rice to nearby island states because its taro fields were being
flooded.
2535
Will the member's constituents welcome these people into their
homes when they find out that rising sea levels have completely
drowned out south island?
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, where the member and I have
a difference of opinion is that I do not profess to have any idea
of the source of El Nino. I am rather surprised she has taken a
quantum leap on—I have no idea—its actual source. There may be
a relationship but we simply do not know. Until we know, to
trash our economy and trash the communities I represent are not
acceptable alternatives.
In terms of the developing countries taking significant steps, I
ask where Canada started. Canada is in a position of having done
a tremendous amount of reduction of CO2 emissions from 1990 to
1995.
I do not really understand if we are at a level of only
contributing 2% of CO2 emissions. We are not just talking about
CO2 emissions. We are talking about greenhouse gas emissions
that are broader than CO2 emissions. We are at a point of having
things in a position where we can continue to improve but are
only contributing 2%. She says we must do something significant
on climate change. Let us assume, just for the sake of argument,
that Canada is in a cost effective position to reduce its CO2
emissions and greenhouse gas emissions by 10%. This would be a
quantum leap. In the case of CO2 it would reduce worldwide CO2
emissions by .2%.
When we do not have the developing nations, Russia, China,
Ukraine and India at Kyoto, nations which combined contribute 27%
of the CO2 emissions, where are we going with this? Once again
the position of the Liberals is one of do good, feel good.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to contribute something to the debate that at this
point I have not heard mentioned. I am referring to the
scientific method.
Repeatedly in the debate I have heard members of the Liberal
Party refer to the science of global warming. However, before we
can even attempt to purport to have a scientific basis for a
theory, the theory should have passed the scientific method which
is a randomized, double blinded clinical trial.
In other words, in the case of global warming we would need two
solar systems. We would have to give the power to someone to
increase carbon dioxide levels on the earth in one of the solar
systems. The person would be blinded to knowing in which solar
system he or she would be increasing carbon dioxide emissions.
Then we would measure the temperature of the earth in the solar
systems, determine if there was any change and report the
findings. The findings would show that nobody knew, neither the
earth nor the contributor of the carbon dioxide, which one was
being contributed or which one had or did not have an increase in
temperature. These would be the results. We would see that
either increased carbon dioxide caused the increase in
temperature or did not, and to what degree. I am not saying that
carbon dioxide emissions do not increase temperatures of global
climates.
2540
We cannot lay our economic policies on the back of so-called
science when in fact there is no science. There is hypothesis,
there are suggestions to some observations and what effects may
or may not be happening, but there really is no science.
The carbon dioxide
emissions of our country apparently contribute to approximately 2
per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. Many of the major
nations with industries which emit carbon dioxide will not
be at the table in Kyoto. What is the point of such a small
player in the world, a minor contributor to global carbon dioxide
emissions, taking a world leading stance in what should be done when
we do not have any real science on which to base our position?
The real disturbing thing is what the Liberals are proposing.
The hon. member from the Liberal Party who spoke prior to me made
reference to a dramatic increase in energy prices in some other
countries in an attempt to curb their carbon dioxide emissions.
This concerns me deeply.
Why would we curb the economic growth of Canada? Why would we
suppress our economic activity? Why would we increase the price
of energy, the cost of heating our homes and putting gasoline in
the vehicles of ordinary Canadians? I would add that it could be
a very substantial increase depending on what position the
Liberals take in Kyoto which to this point they have been either
unable or unwilling to reveal.
What would be the point in harming families, increasing the
costs of heating their homes and fueling their cars when it would
have no demonstrable or significant impact on the amount of
carbon dioxide emissions in the world?
To conclude, I would again refer to what the hon. member from
the Liberal Party stated when she referred to the fact that
Reform members of Parliament are raising concern with this issue.
She referred to our position as pseudo science. My point is it
is all pseudo science to suggest that the world is heating or
the world is cooling.
Last winter in my constituency of Saskatoon—Humboldt we had
record cold temperatures. For as long as they have kept records,
it was never colder. That in itself is no evidence that the
world temperature is not increasing but on the other hand it
would tend to suggest that maybe it is not.
I have a real problem. Despite the fact that the impact our
carbon dioxide emissions will have is insignificant we may try to be
a world leader. Despite the fact that this may not have a basis
in science, that it may not be true, and despite the fact that
our measures are really not going to have significant impact on
the carbon dioxide emissions of the world, we are going to
implement serious tax increases for Canadian families on their
fuel consumption for heating their homes and fuel their
automobiles. This will hurt ordinary average Canadians.
In view of the tax increases which ordinary average Canadians
have been exposed to by this Liberal government, the previous
Conservative government and the Liberal government before that, I
implore the Liberals to use and exercise common sense when they
go to Kyoto and not subject Canadian families to yet another tax
increase with no basis.
2545
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to raise an issue with the hon. member. He was
discussing taxes in his speech. Does the member realize that
$600 million has been given to the oil sands industry? If we
took that money out and the industry decided to raise taxes, it
would be a carbon tax.
There is a huge industry out there making profits and it will
raise the pump prices during mid-winter when we need fuel in our
backyards to keep our homes warm. All of a sudden the petroleum
industry raises prices without warning. Nobody talks about that,
but for the last two months all we have heard is this carbon tax
issue.
They finally recognize that there is an environmental problem.
Maybe some common sense person deep down in their ranks had
written that there is environmental consciousness in the Reform
ranks.
They have been snagging their scientific facts from a satellite
scientist way out in outer space. That is where their policy
seems to be. Satellites have been measuring temperature in the
atmosphere, but if you measure temperature on the outskirts of
greenhouse gas levels of course it will be colder. Those gases
are trapped inside the atmosphere.
When I was young I thought the sky was immense and there was no
end to it. However, when we grow up and look at the facts, we
know that we live within the realm of our globe, our planet and
our atmosphere. We live and breathe as a species, collectively.
We are interconnected. That is what we have to realize.
What does the hon. member tell his children and grandchildren
about his beliefs? His children and grandchildren will be the
voters of the future. They will be the ones to decide who will
lead.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I do not really know how to
respond to that somewhat disjointed and incoherent speech by the
hon. member, except to say that when I go home to my constituency
what I will tell the people I represent is that I am opposed to
increased taxes on fuel, increased taxes not only on fuel for
their automobiles but on fuel for heating their homes. I am also
opposed to a carbon tax which would cripple the petroleum
industry and kill employment in the region of the country which I
represent. I would like to see taxes scaled back.
The last thing I want to see this country do is impose a 30 cent
or 40 cent tax on gasoline. That would kill even more jobs in
this country.
We are already facing increases in Canada pension plan premiums
which will take effect if the government manages to ram through
its legislation. Payroll taxes will increase. The cost to
employers will increase. It will affect jobs. It will affect
wages.
I am here listening to a member of the New Democratic Party who
is proposing more taxes for ordinary Canadians.
2550
We are crippled by taxes. I cannot even comment on what the man
said. It made no sense. All I can say is I am for lower taxes.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made Tuesday,
November 25, the motion is deemed adopted.
Accordingly, the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.50 a.m.)