37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 016
CONTENTS
Monday, February 19, 2001
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1100
| FISH FARMING
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| Motion
|
1105
1110
1115
| Mr. James Lunney |
1120
1125
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1130
1135
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1140
1145
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1150
1155
| Mr. Lawrence O'Brien |
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1200
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
|
| Bill C-4. Second reading
|
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
1205
1210
1215
1220
| Mr. David Chatters |
1225
1230
1235
1240
1245
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1250
1255
1300
1305
1310
1315
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1320
1325
1330
| Mr. Julian Reed |
1335
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1340
1345
1350
1355
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| TED CHISWELL
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1400
| SHAWKY FAHEL
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| MCWATTERS MINING INC.
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| STRATFORD-PERTH ARCHIVES
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| MINISTER OF HEALTH
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| LIZZIES OLD TIMERS ASSOCIATION
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
1405
| WINTERLUDE
|
| Ms. Pauline Picard |
| SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| THE FAMILY
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| HUMAN GENOME
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1410
| QUEBEC ARTISTS
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| HERITAGE DAY
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| BLACK HISTORY MONTH
|
| Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1420
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
1430
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1435
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1440
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1445
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Andy Savoy |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Hon. Ronald Duhamel |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
1450
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| TERRORISM
|
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
1455
| INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| FINANCE
|
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
1500
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| IRAQ
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. John Manley |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
1505
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
1510
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT SUPERANNUATION ACT
|
| Bill C-270. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| EDUCATION BENEFITS ACT
|
| Bill C-271. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
1515
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-272. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| PETITIONS
|
| Child Pornography
|
| Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
| Divorce Act
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Iraq
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
1520
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
|
| Bill C-4. Second reading
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1525
1530
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1535
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1540
1545
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
1550
1555
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
1600
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1605
1610
1615
1620
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1625
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1630
1635
1640
1645
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1650
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1655
1700
1705
1710
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1715
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1720
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1725
1730
1735
1740
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1745
| Division on motion deferred
|
| SPECIES AT RISK ACT
|
| Bill C-5. Second reading
|
| Hon. David Anderson |
1750
1755
1800
1805
1810
1815
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1820
1825
1830
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Human Resources Development
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1835
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| Water quality
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1840
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 016
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, February 19, 2001
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1100
[English]
FISH FARMING
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this
House, the government should undertake a study of the
issues posed by the fish-farming industry, with particular
regard to ecosystem health.
He said: Mr. Speaker, members may want to know what I mean by a
study. Either an independent scientific panel or a House of
Commons standing committee or subcommittee should investigate and
examine this issue so long as the study is conducted at arm's
length from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and so long as
it is comprehensive.
Members may also want to know what is meant by ecosystem health.
What I mean is aquaculture's impact on water quality, other
species such as marine species and birds, and the genetic
integrity of the wild salmon stock.
The motion also focuses on the environmental risks posed by fish
farming. A comprehensive study would also consider the impact of
this industry on aboriginal and coastal communities.
In explaining to the House why a study of the environmental
impacts of this industry is necessary, I will begin with a brief
description of the industry itself. I will then describe the
level of public concern with the impact of that industry, the
federal government's involvement in promoting and regulating the
industry, and finally a brief outline of the evidence of the
damage caused by aquaculture.
By this I hope to demonstrate that the environmental impacts of
fish farming in Canada is a significant issue of national
concern. More important, this is an issue where there is an
urgent need to provide a forum for Canadians to express their
views and for an independent comprehensive study of its
environmental impacts. This is the intent of the motion before
us today.
The major form of fish farming in Canada is salmon farming which
currently accounts for 64% of total aquaculture production in
Canada. Salmon are raised initially in freshwater hatcheries and
at the juvenile stage transferred to open net pens in marine
coastal waters to complete their growth. It is while in these
net pens that possible interaction with wild salmon and their
habitat occur and where escapes of farmed salmon take place.
Canada is the world's fourth largest producer of farmed salmon.
British Columbia and New Brunswick produce almost all of the
farmed salmon in Canada. While fish farming takes place mostly
on the east and west coasts, it is an issue of significance to
all Canadians since this fish ultimately ends up on our dinner
table.
In fact, a recent pilot study conducted by a British researcher
found that farmed salmon had higher levels of toxins such as PCBs
and pesticides than wild salmon. Therefore this is an issue that
should concern us all.
1105
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans manages and regulates the
aquaculture industry. Just last December the report of the
Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons contained a
chapter entitled “Fisheries and Oceans: The Effects of Salmon
Farming in British Columbia on the Management of Wild Salmon
Stocks”. It is disturbing to find that the first main point of
the auditor general's report is that the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans is not fully meeting its legislative obligations under
the Fisheries Act to protect wild Pacific salmon stock and
habitat from the effects of salmon farming.
The auditor general found that the department is not enforcing
the Fisheries Act with respect to salmon farming operations, that
there are shortfalls in the research and monitoring to assess the
effects of salmon farming operations, and that the department has
not put in place a formal plan for managing risks and for
assessing the environmental effects of new fish farm sites.
According to the auditor general, a major constraint to
enforcing the habitat provision of the Fisheries Act is the lack
of scientific information. Hence, that is the importance of a
comprehensive study as proposed in this motion.
Historically the federal government has provided substantial
funds to support and promote aquaculture in the form of technical
support, engineering assistance, moneys through the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency in the form of direct grants to fish
farms, processing plants expansions, interest free loans,
training programs through Human Resources Development, et cetera.
In August of last year the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
announced $75 million in support of the aquaculture industries.
Such extensive government support calls for an indepth analysis
of the benefits and the costs of this industry.
The aquaculture industry has been one of the most rapidly
growing industries in Canada and it is now time it came under
public scrutiny. Therefore, I believe a thorough study by the
government is the appropriate procedure to deal with this matter.
We must note that there are approximately 17 federal departments
and agencies with responsibilities relating to the aquaculture
sector. It is evident many aspects of environmental health have
fallen through the cracks of the current patchwork of
regulations.
We tried to close one of those gaps in 1998 when the Standing
Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development
conducted its review of the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act. The issue at the time was to clarify the authority of the
Minister of the Environment to protect fish habitats from
deleterious substances. Apparently the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans still fails to enforce the fish habitat provisions of
the Fisheries Act when it comes to aquaculture.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
in February and March of last year had a few meetings to study
aquaculture. No report was issued but the records of those
meetings reveal how anxious many Canadians and members of
parliament are to see this industry adequately regulated.
In June 1999 the commissioner of aquaculture instigated a
legislative review of all acts and regulations applying to the
aquaculture industry with two perhaps conflicting mandates to
this review. One was to undertake a comprehensive review of all
federal legislation and regulations to identify and remove, where
appropriate, constraints to aquaculture development. The other
was to develop and implement a responsive and effective
regulatory and policy framework to ensure aquaculture is
conducted in an environmentally sustainable manner.
The review is now completed but it is not yet published. In the
meantime the auditor general has warned that in responding to the
review the department ought to give appropriate consideration to
environmental issues in accordance to its mandate.
It is evident that the department is committed to expanding this
industry despite growing evidence of its damages and that a
double mandate as both regulator and promoter of the industry is
inappropriate given the statutory mandate to protect fish
habitats. I would go one step further and submit that the
promotion and development side of the aquaculture industry, as
with any other industry, should be left to the Department of
Industry.
The debate of this motion is very timely as some members may
have seen last week's excellent documentary on salmon farming on
The Nature of Things by Dr. David Suzuki.
The documentary presented a wealth of scientific research and
reports on the environmental impacts of aquaculture, many of
which I will make reference to.
1110
For instance, Environment Canada recently released a study on
the dispersion and the toxicity of pesticides used to treat sea
lice on salmon in net pen enclosures. The study outlined the
negative impact of those pesticides on water quality and other
marine organisms. Fish farming also generates the release of
cage wastes, feces, nutrients from the fish feed, antibiotics and
other veterinary drugs, pesticides, antifoulants and other
chemicals.
These wastes are deposited and accumulated on the sea floor.
This accumulation can actually lead to the area being too rich in
nutrients, triggering algae blooms which are toxic to fish. The
composition of the accumulated waste can also lead to the release
of noxious gases like ammonia and methane. This affects animals
like crustaceans and arthropods that live in the sediment. It is
worth noting the area under the net pens is actually often
referred to as the dead zone.
Aquaculturists manage feeding regimes, temperature, light levels
and genetic selection of fish. Atlantic salmon raised in fish
farms frequently suffer from the salmon anaemia virus, a disease
that spreads rapidly due to the conditions under which these fish
are raised. What is even worse is that there are reported cases
of the disease spreading to our already endangered wild stock of
salmon. Fish in fish farms suffer from a wide range of
bacterial, viral and parasitological diseases and these epidemics
are controlled by extensive use of antibiotics and pesticides.
These health problems are associated with ever more intensive
production, the objective being to always bring the fish to
market in the shortest possible time.
A recent scientific study entitled “Potential Genetic
Interaction Between Wild and Farm Salmon of the Same Species”
concluded that the large influx of genes from farm fish into wild
gene pools could cause severe declines in the wild fish stock.
Already escaped farm fish have been reported in streams and
rivers of British Columbia and New Brunswick. The situation will
likely get worse as the industry continues to grow unchecked.
Escaped fish can spread disease, compete with wild salmon for
food and habitat and interbreed with the wild stock.
Wild salmon fish stocks are already declining due to loss of
habitat and salmon farming puts an additional stress on this
precious resource.
Wild salmon and fish farms can coexist. There is a possibility
for a sustainable aquaculture industry, no doubt. However, we
are clearly not on that path at the moment. We must put the
brakes on the promotion and funding of the status quo and conduct
an comprehensive study identifying the environmental effects
before considering further expansion of the industry. Only then
will we have accurate directions on how to put the existing fish
farms on a sustainable path and whether and under which
conditions the industry can be allowed to expand.
This improvement will likely require fulfilment of the
government's statutory duty to protect the wild salmon stocks,
changes in fish farm techniques, reductions, strict control and
containment of pesticides, drugs, feed and the fish themselves.
A greater regulatory presence in the aquaculture industry would
prevent long term negative impacts on the environment and thus be
beneficial to the long term economic health of this industry.
What is also at stake here are the stocks of wild salmon. Those
great big fish, gifted travellers, covering immense distances to
return to their native river, those accomplished swimmers, brave
waterfalls, strong currents, grizzly bears and other obstacles in
their way. Enduring symbols of nature's strength and
determination and yet, now serving as a warning to us all of the
fragility of the great Canadian wilderness, of how our once
plentiful resources, the wild salmon stocks, can quickly be
decimated when exploited for profits.
1115
In conclusion, there is a serious problem that warrants this
motion: the extensive influx of the aquaculture industry on the
environment; the inadequacy of the current regulatory framework;
and the negative publicity the industry will receive if the
situation is not corrected. This issue is of significant concern
to Canadians and it must and can only be addressed by a
comprehensive parliamentary study, as suggested in this motion.
I look forward to the participation and input of my colleagues.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, before I respond to the hon. member's motion, as
this is my first time speaking in the House I would like to thank
the citizens of Nanaimo—Alberni for the trust they have given me
to represent their interests in the House. As I begin my career
in serving them I pray that I will honour that trust. I thank my
campaign manager and the wonderful team that worked hard to
ensure our success during the election. I also thank my wife
Helen for her love, constant support and encouragement.
Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me a small personal digression,
I would like to pay tribute to my late father, Albert Lunney, who
passed away during the election campaign on October 24. I know
that there are a number of hon. members who have followed their
fathers' footsteps into the House and I congratulate them. On
his deathbed my father told me that he had bought a pair of shoes
a number of years back and he liked them so much that he bought a
second pair. He had never been able to wear out the first pair,
so he wanted me to have the second pair. To my surprise, they
fit me. When I visited him in the hospital the next morning,
although he was unable to lift his head from his bed I could see
the pleasure on his face when I whispered to him “Dad, I am
going to wear your shoes in the House of Commons on my first
day”.
It gives me great pleasure to have fulfilled that pledge the day
we first assembled in the House for the 37th parliament, the same
day the Speaker was elected and, Mr. Speaker, you yourself were
appointed. I congratulate you also. It is a day that I and many
of us will never forget.
I have one final word and then I will turn to the matter of
debate. One of the things I learned from my dad was a love for
truth. My dad used to say that truth is stranger than fiction.
It is my hope that during the 37th parliament members of both
sides of the House will be known for a passion for truth and for
service to the people who have elected us to this House.
Turning to the matter of debate, Motion No. 119 reads:
That in the opinion of the House, the government should undertake
a study of the issues posed by the fish-farming industry, with
particular regard to ecosystem health.
I am pleased to address this issue because it is one of
particular significance, study, opinion and debate in my own
constituency of Nanaimo—Alberni. Aquaculture in B.C. began in
the early 1900s, with shellfish, oysters, clams and mussels.
Farmed salmon were introduced in the early 1970s and have quickly
become the leading product in the industry. The B.C. coastal
area currently employs about 2,400 people and produces product
worth about $200 million Canadian.
Aquaculture shares elements of concern with all elements of
agricultural activity. Indeed, all human activities leave a
footprint of some kind on the environment. It falls to us as
good stewards of the environment to consider the short term and
long term impacts of that footprint and to make sure our
practices are balanced so that our needs of food production and
the growing demands of humanity for food are balanced with the
environmental concerns to protect unpredictable wild stock and
natural resources. We must ensure that we employ best science
practices to balance these potentially competing concerns.
That said, we know that extensive studies have been and continue
to be done. The minister announced last August, just in time for
the election, a commitment of about $75 million over the next
five years for sustainable and environmentally sound aquaculture.
I understand that included about $32.5 million for science and
research.
I know that we have an aquaculture commissioner's office now,
with a $2 million budget, and we have had travel to both coasts
by the fisheries and oceans committee to look into the issue.
Ongoing studies are continuing. We might wonder in this request
in Motion No. 119 whether we are asking for funds for a study to
study what the government is already studying and spending.
1120
Referring to the Commons debate on the issue in the 36th
parliament, I quote my colleague for Vancouver Island North, who
stated:
The creation of a big budget aquaculture commission in Ottawa is
not the answer. What is needed is a clear progressive mandate
and budget for more biologists to vet project proposals. The
committee heard from private investors who either had already or
were prepared to invest their money in labour intensive
aquaculture only to see their hopes and dreams dashed on the
bureaucratic rocks.
The frustration of many in the industry has resulted in a brain
drain coupled with capital shift as many highly skilled and
experienced personnel from B.C. are increasingly leaving for
countries such as Chile, Norway and Asia. Indeed, on my last
flight home to Vancouver Island I spent considerable time in
conversation with one such individual returning from Chile to his
home in Nanaimo.
Many genuine and serious concerns about protection and wild
stocks and the environment have been advanced. We have heard
them articulated very well this morning by the hon. member in his
motion. The concerns include, as he mentioned: escapement, the
potential for escaped salmon to interbreed; disease; sea floor
contamination; bioactive chemicals; and potential nutrification
of the sea floor. Also, there are economic concerns on the west
coast as commercial fishermen see their market undercut by low
priced farm fish.
All of these are legitimate concerns and are worthy of
scientific and public scrutiny. These issues have been studied,
are being studied and no doubt will continue to be studied. I
will say that intense scrutiny and study has brought about some
changes, at least on the west coast where our provincial
government has put in rather extensive controls. There was a
moratorium on expanding fish farms a few years ago and to my
knowledge it has not yet been lifted.
There have been improvements. The early farms involved shallow
water which was sheltered. That of course led to real problems
with disease and to sea floor problems. All farms now have to be
in deeper water where there is a greater flush. That has reduced
the problem of disease, at least in our end of the world, and the
sea floor problems.
I understand that treatment is also expensive. Treatment has to
be prescribed by a veterinarian and that adds to the cost of the
feed. That in itself encourages good farming practices. Science
has contributed to safety.
Predators do attack the nets. Auxiliary nets are now being used
to keep them away.
A recent advance is the use of cameras to control feeding so
that when feeding slows the dispensing of food also slows and
reduces the sea floor pollution.
Although we have had escapes of Atlantic salmon and there are
anecdotal stories of salmon in our coastal streams, there is no
indication they have been successful at spawning or
crossbreeding.
Many of the concerns originally advanced have been addressed by
good science applications. A whole new area of concern is the
attempt to develop genetically modified fish. The report of the
Royal Society of Canada which was recently presented calls for an
intense protocol of scientific screening before any GM organism
is released into the environment. This principle should rightly
be upheld in Canadian waters.
On the other side of the coin, I know that in our environment
the fish farmers often come under criticism for being found in
pristine areas where boaters or kayakers do not expect to find
them when they are seeking solitude. However, occasionally these
people have also been involved in rescue and in harbouring and
sheltering boaters who have been in trouble. Also, they are
involved in cleaning up the environment as they pick up after
other boaters who discard diapers and floating bottles and other
paraphernalia.
The hon. member mentioned some of the horror stories that have
happened, where production has gone unbalanced. Indeed, there is
going to be a need to maintain balance. There is a dynamic
tension among production, regulation and conservation. To be
successful we must find the balance. We must retain fundamental
respect for the earth. The earth is our home. We must use the
best tools of science, such as observation, measurement,
quantification, verification and diligence, to ensure that
production is optimized with minimal long term impact, but we
must also strive to ensure that bureaucratic and unwieldy
regulations do not frustrate an industry that has the potential
to contribute to growing demands for food and to an urgent need
for stable, long term, year round employment in our coastal
communities.
The hon. member has raised some very good issues. The need for
ongoing study is certainly there. We hope that much of the
available funding already committed to by the minister for the
next five years will be invested in continuing the research that
needs to be done.
1125
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased today to intervene on the motion concerning aquaculture
and the environmental impact of aquaculture as presented by the
member for Davenport.
When a person rises to speak after two presentations like those,
naturally there are a number of points, both statistical and
actual, to be presented to the House. I would like to address a
number of issues that have not been considered yet.
First, why is fish farming so often chosen? Why do we choose
this type of production to raise populations of fry and fish,
often for commercial purposes?
The fact is it is rather odd. Quite recently, the government
decided to create the position of aquaculture commissioner to
manage and oversee the operations of the various types of
aquaculture in Canada. At the same time, it decided to invest
several tens of millions of dollars in aquaculture.
There is something rather odd. There is something rather—the
word is quite specific—paradoxical about the federal
government's policy on aquaculture. It decides to spend tens of
millions of dollars on an industry—and we can call it
that—which,
creates jobs and helps raise the gross national
product, but this industry is defeating the environmental efforts of
this selfsame government. For years, it has been signing
international agreements, including one on biodiversity, but now
it is financing this industry. This also defeats the efforts
made on behalf of the environment in Canada.
We must remember that the whole issue of Atlantic salmon, the
ever shrinking population of salmon in the ocean at the moment,
is due in large part, naturally, to the environment of the
commercial situation and to the major industries, which in
recent years, have polluted the various oceans, if we may say
so.
It is paradoxical as well, according to what I was reading
recently: a report on the issue published by a university in
Indiana. It speaks reams. A number of groups have referred to
it.
I am surprised that the member for Davenport did not refer to
that study, which is rather eloquent in that regard. Many
environmental groups quoted it, as recently as in January 2000.
That report indicated that there were major impacts linked to
the new phenomenon of aquaculture. It also mentioned that fish
which is genetically modified and transgenic through aquaculture
is seriously affected. According to the report, the biggest fish
can concentrate on preys that had so far been left alone while
also going after a bigger volume of traditional preys. The
imbalance that could result becomes obvious when one looks at a
natural species such as the Nile perch which could, less than a
decade after being introduced, eliminate 50% of the species in
Africa's Lake Victoria.
This environmental impact from transgenic fish is also found in
Quebec.
The introduction of mere minnows in trout lakes is enough to
cause drops of up to between 50% and 60% in fish stocks.
1130
Aquaculture is a type of production that must not be analyzed
merely in commercial terms. While the government is investing in
that industry, it might be appropriate, from an environmental
point of view and for the sake of public health and the balance
of ecosystems, to also invest money to deal with the
environmental impact of that industry.
A number of researchers have made other eloquent findings. That
same report from a university in Indiana mentioned that
researchers and officials from Atlantic coastal countries
indicated:
Wild salmon stocks in the North Atlantic are always in trouble
and, according to scientists, they are currently at their lowest
level ever reported.
There is an obvious reduction in the level and volume of
wild salmon stocks in the North Atlantic.
We must ask ourselves whether aquaculture can be the solution to
this reduction in salmon stocks. The answer is no. I sincerely
think that, instead, we should work on our ecosystem and improve
the environment in which this salmon lives.
Two strategies were put forward. The first one consists in
reducing salmon catches.
It is not merely a matter of introducing into our ecosystem,
into our oceans, new transgenic fish; it might be wise as well
to give some thought to reducing catches. As well, this fish's
ravaged habitats on both sides of the Atlantic need to be
restored.
It is, therefore, not a matter of merely increasing the stock
through aquaculture, producing transgenic salmon fry, but rather
of finding and working on solutions further back in the system,
in order to reduce catches, restore habitat and ensure the
survival of the species.
It might be wise, while the Canadian government is busy making
noise about applying the principle of caution, to remind it, if
I must, that at no time in 30 years has the Canadian government
applied the principle of precaution to the aquaculture industry.
At no time has the principle of precaution been applied. The
only thing that counts is production. The only thing that
counts is commercial markets. There is no assessment of the
risks inherent in aquaculture and in this introduction of fish
that have been transgenicly modified to some degree.
Might it not be wise also, when looking at amending the
International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, to seek some advice
from the International Joint Commission in order to have a
proper analysis of the impact of aquaculture on our environment?
Why would this not be the time?
This is a joint commission that analyses a number of elements
from certain points of view. I, and we, propose that it be
consulted on water exports. Why would it not be the time as
well for it to analyze the impact of aquaculture and transgenic
fish on our waters? The joint commission could analyse the
situation.
1135
Unfortunately, the joint commission has nothing to say on this
matter. I see my time is up. In principle, I support the
motion by my colleague from Davenport, provided of course that
this is done in close collaboration with the provinces and with
Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
more than happy to address Motion No. 119 of the hon. member for
Davenport which pertains to a study of fish farming and ecosystem
health. I think that issue has been discussed in parliament.
Certainly it has been discussed at the fisheries committee for
some time. There are several areas that need to be looked at.
I should like to make a couple of points before I get into the
gist of my speech today. I should like to comment on the
documentary on the David Suzuki Foundation that was aired earlier
about ecosystem health. It was very anti-fish farming.
All of us have a responsibility in this place to understand the
facts as best we can and to present them in a manner that shows
both sides of the story, not just one side of the story. A
number of issues deal with fish farming in Canada. A number of
issues will continue and will be ongoing.
I will quote from Suzuki's report. I have a serious problem
with some of the science in that report. I also have a serious
problem with members of parliament who simply want to quote
something verbatim without taking a long, hard, serious look at
it.
In the Suzuki report there was mention of the salmon that were
tested. This is a major report which causes some doubt about a
major food source on the planet. Millions of tonnes of salmon
are grown every year by Canada, Norway, Scotland, Ireland and
Chile. We also have some very serious salmon farming operations
in New Brunswick, some in Nova Scotia, and a lot of salmon grown
in B.C.
The Suzuki Foundation tested just eight salmon, four wild salmon
and four farm salmon, and put out a report. That is far too few
to reach any scientifically defensible conclusions about
contaminant levels.
That does not say that we should not be worried about
contaminant levels, that we should not be vigilant about
contaminant levels, but it certainly says that it is based on bad
science. The Suzuki study has been neither independently
reviewed nor published and the organization has not released any
of its findings to date.
The Scottish study to which he referred found no discernible
difference in the PCBs and dioxins found in wild and farm salmon.
The author of the Scottish study, Dr. Miriam Jacobs, has called
the BBC 3 show claim absolute nonsense. The levels of the PCBs
and dioxins that the Suzuki Foundation reportedly measured in
farm salmon were well below the safety standards set by Health
Canada and enforced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
We have to question both on a scientific basis and, more
important, on a public basis the use of limited, unpublished and
unsubstantiated data purporting to claim health concerns
respecting farm salmon. If there are health concerns, we should
be the first people to be concerned about them. If there are
not, we should not be supporting a bogus claim of such.
After that little statement on Suzuki's evidence, I make clear
that I grew up on a small salmon river in Nova Scotia called the
Gold River. As a young boy I was able to catch salmon in that
river. We actually still have a few wild Atlantic salmon that
return to that river every year. That should indicate that I am
very friendly to the Atlantic Salmon Federation and to anyone who
supports wild salmon.
1140
I learned a long time ago to be very cautious in the aquaculture
industry not to point the finger of blame at some place that it
may not quite belong. Do we have some problems in the
aquaculture industry? Absolutely we do. Have those problems
been attended to, reported and looked at in a very serious manner
over the last 10 years? A lot of them have. Do we still have
problems with escapees, with algae bloom and with feces on the
bottom? Yes, we do. Have most of those problems been attended
to? Yes, they have.
I should like to break that down into a bit of detail. Last
year the fisheries committee proposed a study on aquaculture. We
finished the majority of that study, although we did not finish
it all. We visited the west coast of B.C. and Washington State.
The report will tell hon. members that we also visited the east
coast. We were there for two days. All members were not able to
attend. We were in Maine, New Brunswick, and had one quick stop
in Nova Scotia. It is a long way from being an indepth study on
aquaculture on the east and west coasts.
We also spent six days in Scotland. While we were there we were
able to meet with the minister responsible for aquaculture in
Scotland, the minister responsible for aquaculture in Ireland,
and a number of officials in Norway as well dealing with fin fish
aquaculture. That is another difference that needs to be
explained. We are dealing with two totally different types of
aquaculture. It should be made very clear to the listening
public that we do not want to get the two mixed up. Fin fish
aquaculture and shellfish aquaculture are two entirely different
things.
I can remember when shellfish aquaculture, which has been around
for the last 20 years, was first becoming an important industry
on the east coast. If anybody in the House is not aware of it,
95% of the blue mussels in the world are raised on P.E.I. A lot
of oysters have been raised traditionally for the last thousand
years.
I can remember in Mahone Bay in Indian Point when the Indian
Point Mussel Farm first opened. There was a lot of fear between
the traditional lobster industry and the farmer who was trying to
introduce the blue mussels. What happened was that the mussel
socks were put over muddy bottom, which is not lobster bottom. It
attracted a lot of predators, including crabs and lobsters for
the dead mussels that were falling out of the socks, and actually
improved the habitat.
We have the same type of potential not necessarily to improve
the habitat for other species by having salmon farms, but we
certainly have the potential if we look at it in a smart,
reasonable and responsible way to have fin fish aquaculture side
by side with the traditional fishery. Will that be an easy
process? Absolutely not. Is there a lot of fear out there from
the traditional fishery about fin fish aquaculture? Yes, we do.
Have there been some mistakes in the past? Yes, there have been.
Let us look at a couple of those mistakes. It is a fact that in
the past way too many antibiotics were used on fish farms. That
antibiotic rate has been cut down in the last three or four years
in particular, first, with the use of more vaccines and less
antibiotics. Second, it has been cut down so that probably today
we can fairly accurately state that aquaculture uses less
antibiotics than any other veterinary science. That is a big
statement. If members visit some beef lots and some feed lots
for the beef industry, and I am very familiar with those as well,
they will see lots of antibiotics.
Another issue, which is a very real and significant one, is that
of escapees. We have a problem with escapees. There is
absolutely no question about it. If members have studied the
aquaculture sites where they have significant problems with
escapees in the past, they will see that problem has basically
been managed. The escapee level has dropped dramatically in the
last five or six years. The previous speaker said there were no
incidents of escapees actually surviving. Unfortunately that is
not true.
There are incidents of escapees on the west coast. Incidents
have also been recorded in New Brunswick and more incidents in
Norway.
1145
Do we need to protect the biodiversity and the salmon stocks
that are there? Absolutely. Can we do that? Yes, a methodology
can be applied that will do that and still allow for fin fish
aquaculture.
The real culprit for the decline in the wild stocks is that we
overfished them. We overfished them on the west coast. The
government helped to do that. We overfished them on the east
coast in a very serious way. When wild stocks were found off
Norway, Canada, Norway and the United States fished them to
extinction.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member
for Davenport for bringing this very important issue to the House
of Commons, the place where these issues should be debated.
I do not think we are here to either slam aquaculture or to
promote aquaculture. We are here to debate the discussions and
the perceptions that are around aquaculture in Canada.
Aquaculture is not new. A lot of Canadians think the industry
is perhaps 15 or 20 years old, but in reality it has been around
for a long time. It was in our hatcheries well over 100 years
ago.
Aquaculture in Canada and around the world has expanded very
rapidly. People have concerns over genetically modified foods.
They have concerns over trangenics, or what is called
frankenfish. People have concerns about what they are eating
when it comes to fish proteins.
I and other members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans have studied aquaculture but not to the extent that we
should. When the committee does meet, we will be meeting again
on the concerns of aquaculture.
The Liberal government and the previous Conservative government
were sleeping when aquaculture was happening. The industry said
that it was looking for support and resources in order to
ascertain the industry in the new world. How do we replenish
fish stocks when we cannot do it for the wild species?
Wild species of salmon, cod, hake and turbot, as well as many
other species, are declining in our oceans. The void is being
filled by aquaculture, and therein lies the debate. There are
people within the department who are traditionalists and who
believe commercial fishing is the way to go and that it must be
maintained. We also have people within the department saying
that the commercial fishery is a thing of the past and that we
have to go to aquaculture.
Exactly what does that mean? I and my party believe that
aquaculture and the commercial fishing sectors can co-exist but
only—and this is where I want to thank the member for bringing
the issue up—when we have clear scientific evidence to move
ahead.
In the Aspotogan Peninsula near St. Margarets Bay a big battle
is being waged by a local community group that does not want to
see an aquaculture site expanded in the area. The DFO is doing
an environmental assessment. It will pass its recommendations on
to the province and the province in the end will make a decision.
Meanwhile the community waits. Meanwhile the businessperson who
wants to run the aquaculture site waits. Members can understand
why there is so much friction between the community, the
commercial fishers who harvest the lobsters and the person who
will invest a lot of money in an aquaculture site. There is no
streamlined process yet, and this is where a lot of the debate
and anger heats up.
On the west coast the aboriginal people are saying that they
will, under no circumstance, eat Atlantic salmon because to them
it is foreign. When the debate involves all these sectors, it is
no wonder people argue and facts go out that are maybe not
correct and that there is misinformation. It is not fair to the
aquaculture industry, the commercial sector or the communities.
We need clear guidelines on who is responsible for what. Right
now the DFO is responsible for the environmental work and the
provincial governments are responsible for the licensing and
leasing of the sites. That is a contradiction that needs to be
streamlined.
1150
Open net aquaculture farming has been going on for many years.
Along with the David Suzuki Foundation and many other people we
have advocated it is time to move toward a closed net system
because the problem with escapees is very real. It is extremely
real. The aquaculture industry used to tell us that escaped
salmon could not go up rivers and could not survive in the wild
or reproduce. We know to the contrary that is not correct.
We also heard that 15 to 20 years ago a tremendous amount of
antibiotics used to be added to the feed and to the other sources
that feed the penned salmon that are there now. That has been
greatly reduced. However, what is feeding those salmon today?
Canada does not have that information. We know that a lot of it
comes from grains and from vegetable proteins, but a lot of it
comes from other fish stocks as well.
Years ago, three pounds of wild fish used to be taken out of the
ocean to market one pound of aquaculture salmon. That used to be
so, but it is not that way any more.
I believe the aquaculture industry's greatest problem is its
public relations efforts. It does not come consistently clear
with the information that Canadians need, especially those in
coastal communities. Aquaculture can be a future industry. It
can have positive growth in the country. However we must make
sure the Canadian people know exactly what they are eating when
they buy salmon or have it at a restaurant. Almost all salmon in
stores, restaurants or on airlines is farmed salmon.
I am encouraging the industry. I tell Mr. Rideout, the head of
the CFIA, all the time that he should label the salmon that is in
the supermarket. If we are proud of our farmed salmon then we
should say so. We should say the salmon came from a particular
farm.
We do it with eggs. We mark eggs properly. We tell Canadians
what area they come from. We do it with chickens. We do it with
beef. Why not label salmon as well? Why not label other fish
stocks that are marketed through the farm method, like mussels,
oysters, clams, et cetera? If we did that, a lot more Canadians
would be aware of what they were eating. They could then ask the
questions that are needed.
The North Sea oil in Norway is about to evaporate, probably
around 2015. Norway has made it clear that the industry it will
focus on in the future is aquaculture. It will be the world
leader. It is the world leader now and it does not plan to let
that go. Norway is way ahead of Canada when it comes to science,
when it comes to co-operation with communities and when it comes
to marketing its product around the world. If we want to be in
the market we will have to be more open with Canadians and with
government officials when the questions come around.
Yves Bastien is the commissioner of aquaculture at DFO. Most of
the information on his government website comes directly from the
industry. There is a perception that something is not right. If
the commissioner of DFO for aquaculture must get his information
directly from the industry, there is a perception that the
information may be tainted or misleading. That is completely
unacceptable.
If DFO is to be in the business of promoting aquaculture, it
must make sure it is a completely separate entity. It must
gather its own information and not information from the industry.
A cultural clash is happening within DFO between the traditional
managers who were born and raised in the commercial fisheries and
the new ones who are more used to aquaculture. They will have to
get their act together, otherwise aquaculture will not grow in
the country. It will be completely at loggerheads.
We cannot and should not ever say that aquaculture will replace
the commercial fishery. If we do that we will have abrogated our
responsibility as parliamentarians to the natural health of the
country and of the planet.
There was a battle the other day between Maine and the U.S.
federal government about making Bay of Fundy salmon stocks an
endangered species. The American government did so, simply
because it does not know what is causing the stocks to collapse.
It could be aquaculture. It could be forestry. It could be
mining. It could be commercial fishing. It could be
environmental problems, global warming or the whole bit.
1155
However when it comes to aquaculture issues, if we want to
protect natural species we must have all the information at hand.
We simply do not have the information right now.
On behalf of my party I thank the member for Davenport for
raising the issue. I wish we could discuss it more and I am sure
we will during the committee stage.
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great
pleasure to rise in the House today to respond to the motion put
forward by the hon. member for Davenport. I thank him for his
continuing interest in aquaculture.
Canadians want to know the implications of aquaculture for the
environment. For Fisheries and Oceans Canada the matter is a
very high priority. The program for sustainable aquaculture
announced by the minister last summer is an investment in
aquaculture's ability to grow and flourish as a key Canadian
industry. It also ensures that such growth does not come at the
expense of our aquatic ecosystems.
Over the past decade DFO has undertaken a number of initiatives
to examine the environmental impacts of aquaculture. Since the
announcement last summer, the department has accelerated its work
in this area.
We do not support the hon. member's motion for an entirely new
study of the issues posed by aquaculture, simply because such
work is already going on.
In past reviews a large part of the work has already been done.
For such a relatively young industry, aquaculture has been the
focus of rigorous studies and reviews over the past decade.
There have been federal studies, provincial studies,
international studies and industry studies. A number of these
have included indepth public consultations.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I am sorry to interrupt
the member's speech, but it being 11.57 a.m., and according to
Standing Order 95(2), the main mover of the motion has five
minutes to reply.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the
members for Nanaimo—Alberni, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, South
Shore, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, and
Labrador for their interventions, for the input they have
provided and for sharing their knowledge on this rather complex
issue. I very much appreciate their interventions and what they
said and I will comment briefly.
The member for Nanaimo—Alberni asked what I thought was a very
relevant question: Why we are asking for funds to study
something that is already being studied?
The member for Labrador just informed us that the process is in
action. We will only be able to find the answer when we see the
study publicly. The public has not yet seen the study, and
neither have we. We are not in a position to determine whether
the many interesting questions raised during the past hour are
being dealt with in an appropriate manner in the departmental
study.
With that kind of ignorance, so to say, we have to let the
matter rest until the study is published. We sincerely hope the
department and the government will publish it very soon.
[Translation]
As for the remarks by the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Prairie,
he has raised as usual a deeply philosophical question. I agree
with him that there is something of a paradox in fish farming,
but the same could be said of government activities in all
industries.
1200
If we take for example government activity in the asbestos
industry, in the lumber industry, or in agriculture, there is
always a contradiction between activities on behalf of
commercial interests and on behalf of those who want to protect
the integrity of the environment.
Obviously, our task is to find solutions that protect all
interests at the same time. This is not always feasible, but
that is what is called sustainable development, and it is the
subject matter of Bill C-4, which we will discuss in a few
minutes.
[English]
The member for South Shore, who has displayed a tremendous
amount of knowledge of the subject, recognizes the problem, and
particularly with escapees. We are all happy to learn that in
his experience and knowledge there is an inherent need to protect
biodiversity.
I was struck by his conclusion, which was very apt, that the
real culprit of the situation in which we may find ourselves with
aquaculture is the overfishing of the wild stock to extinction.
The member from Sackville, in his usual incisive style, thinks
there can be a co-existence between commercial fisheries and
aquaculture provided of course that we take the necessary
precautions for the long term, which is in essence the substance
of this motion.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired. As
the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order
is dropped from the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-4, an act to establish a foundation to fund
sustainable development technology, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present for second
reading Bill C-4, an act to establish a foundation to fund
sustainable development technology. I will begin with some
context.
We live in an era in which the economic, social and
environmental well-being of Canadians, and indeed of all the
world's people and nations, hinges on our capacity to innovate,
to respond to new challenges and new opportunities in new ways.
The bill is all about technological innovation in support of
sustainable development, a clear and compelling priority that was
identified in our Speech from the Throne.
Sustainable development is a complex balancing act among
economic, social and environmental values and goals. Furthermore,
it is a balance that constantly changes, influenced by such
variables as science, population growth, economic circumstances
and environmental requirements.
The optimism that we can stay on top of all the challenges, that
is keep our balance, assumes that as we move down the road our
ability to respond to those challenges will also evolve and
develop, that we be refreshed and re-equipped with new knowledge,
ideas and technologies to keep the equation balanced in our
favour and that we redefine the limits of what is possible. All
of that is fundamental to our future.
New technology by itself is not a silver bullet that will slay
every dragon that we will face but it is indispensable to our
success.
Leadership in developing and deploying new generations of
sustainable development technology will bring economic, social
and environmental rewards.
1205
Canada is in a worldwide race to reap those rewards. The United
States, the European Union, Japan and others are committing major
amounts of money to support new technology for sustainable
development, and Canada must keep pace.
That is why the principle of sustainable development is written
right into the legislative mandate of my department, Natural
Resources Canada. That is why our government tabled a whole
series of departmental sustainable development strategies just
last week. For the same reason, significant new dollars for
sustainable development activities were committed in both last
February's federal budget and in the economic statement last
October; over $1 billion worth all together. That is why we have
this new legislation before us today.
In budget 2000 we first announced the government's intention to
establish a foundation with initial funding of $100 million to
stimulate the development and demonstration of new environmental
technologies, in particular climate change and clean air
technologies. Bill C-4 delivers on that commitment from budget
2000. It creates the organizational structure, the legal status
and the modus operandi of the foundation.
I will talk for a moment about goals and points of focus for
this new foundation. The proposed foundation gives funding
support for development and demonstration of new and promising
sustainable development technologies. It will also support
measures to get these new tools into use as quickly and as widely
as possible. A bright new idea is only an idea as long as it
remains in the laboratory or in some academic institution. We
need to get it into the field where it can really make a
difference.
The foundation will focus in particular on the funding of new
and emerging climate change and clean air technologies, including
some in which Canada has already established an early
international lead and in which further investment is very likely
to produce new breakthroughs and new benefits.
Many hon. members in the House will be familiar with certain
projects of this kind in their own regions, provinces, some even
in their own constituencies. They will be familiar with the
environmental and economic benefits that these initiatives have
brought to Canadians.
I think, for example, of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas
emissions at source before they enter the atmosphere. I think of
technologies, such as carbon sequestration, that allows us to
capture and store greenhouse gases underground. I think of the
development of new and alternative fuel sources, including
ethanol, solar energy and wind power.
I think of energy efficiency technologies to conserve our
resources and reduce emissions at the same time. I think of
technologies in the field of enhanced oil recovery that reinforce
our energy independence by squeezing new oil from old wells and,
at the same time, reduce the environmental footprint. I think
also of technologies that reduce particulate matter in the air.
Within these areas and others, the foundation will concentrate
support by mobilizing collaboration among partners, partners in
industry, government, the universities, academic institutions and
not for profit organizations. Let me expand on that point for
just a moment.
When we analyze various strategies for spurring technology
innovation throughout the world, we find that a common
characteristic of those that truly work is support for
collaborative effort, people working together. The sum of these
combined efforts is much more than their individual parts.
Synergy succeeds.
In effect, the bill is about supporting synergy, about putting
money into the pooling of skills, resources and expertise,
bringing people and their talents together. It will help to
finance projects that bring together Canadian experts from
industry, from universities, from a variety of associations and
many others.
1210
It will pull together team members from the whole spectrum of
technology innovation, each bringing a specific competence to the
table. In doing these things, the legislation will fulfil
another vital need. It will use the leverage of the foundation's
funding to bring other money, new money, private sector money,
into the development and demonstration of new technologies.
None of these objectives are unique, nor are the strategies for
achieving them. They are similar to those of several other
federal programs that occupy a specific niche in support of
technology development. This foundation will complement and will
reinforce these other efforts through its emphasis on
collaboration and specifically its emphasis on sustainable
development technologies, in particular climate change and clean
air. It will also bring new money into the system.
The achievement of these goals requires attention to several
complex issues: administrative, technical quality and otherwise.
As hon. members will note, the legislation takes these issues
very much into account, for example, the question of intellectual
property rights: who owns and who can access the fruits of all
of this co-operative, publicly funded labour.
There are issues related to funding. The bill requires
recipients to conform to certain principles that the foundation
would set on funding issues, for example, the question of who
qualifies for funding. The legislation defines these
qualifications and requires that they be addressed. Details on
these matters will be spelled out in the specific funding
agreement to be entered into between the government and the
foundation.
Ultimately the benefit of this funding to the Canadian
environment and to the Canadian economy depends on the quality of
targeting and team building. This requires careful design of the
machinery of governance for the foundation. The legislation
outlines this machinery. It calls for the creation of a board of
directors. The board would operate at arm's length from
government. It would report annually to parliament.
The second component in the governance structure is a committee
representing stakeholders and potential clients of the
foundation. We call the people on this broader body the members
of the foundation. The board would consist of 15 directors, all
of them drawn from outside government. The first seven, that is
six directors and the chairperson, would be appointed by the
Government of Canada. The other eight would be appointed by that
broader group known as the members of the foundation.
The board would be an executive group. It would supervise the
management and services of the foundation and, subject to the
foundation's bylaws, it would exercise all of its powers.
The board would need to be balanced in a number of ways. First,
it would need to be balanced in terms of expertise. It would
comprise directors who collectively represent the whole spectrum
of sustainable technology development in Canada, public, private,
academic and not for profit. Last but not least of course, the
board would have balance in the geographic sense with members
drawn from all regions of Canada.
The legislation requires the board to establish financial and
management controls to ensure efficient execution of the
foundation's business. It calls for the board to appoint an
auditor and it outlines the qualifications for that role. It
requires the annual report, that I mentioned earlier, to include
an evaluation of results achieved by the funding of projects year
by year and also cumulatively since the start of the foundation,
so that we in the House, and Canadians generally, will be able to
know and to track the progress that is being made. Here again
the funding agreement between the government and the foundation
will spell out these requirements in detail.
One last thought that I will leave with the House before I close
is about the relationship between knowledge and technology on the
one hand and our national well-being on the other.
1215
In the knowledge based world in which we live, we are now well
across the threshold of an era in which the winners are not only
the swift and the strong but also the smart and the innovative.
Nowhere is this more true than in Canada's natural resources
sector, a sector in which economic and environmental imperatives
converge, a sector in which the cause and effect relationship
between innovation and success is clearly demonstrated.
In Canada today our resource companies are among the biggest of
the big spenders on innovation. They account for 22% of all new
capital investment in Canada. Of the ten most innovative
Canadian industries, five are resource based. Collectively the
companies in this sector are in the first ranks of being the
creators and the consumers of new technology. The results are
there for all to see.
The new Dow Jones sustainability group index, which was
introduced about a year ago, rates major corporations around the
world on their success at integrating economic, environmental and
social performance. That Dow Jones sustainability group index
ranks four Canadian companies at the very top of the index.
Significantly, all four are resource based.
During the past two years, average productivity growth rates in
our resource based industries have been two to three times higher
than those of the Canadian economy overall. These are powerful
facts, refuting the simplistic analysis of some, which tends to
think that natural resources are only the mainstay of the
so-called old economy, with a great past but little future in the
new economy of tomorrow.
In Canada today, energy, mining, forestry and earth sciences
account for more than 11% of our gross domestic product. That is
close to $90 billion. Looking outward, they account for about
$100 billion every year in Canadian exports, with a favourable
trade surplus of $60 billion. Canadian resource knowledge and
technology are being marketed and applied throughout the world.
In short, innovation is paying off for Canada. However, to meet
challenges like climate change, to meet challenges like clean
air, we must maintain and indeed accelerate our momentum in the
field of science, knowledge and innovation. We must keep
building our brain power and move rapidly to put new ideas into
action. Our record of performance thus far is encouraging, but
we need to do more, and that is what this bill is all about.
In the new millennium, Canada must become and must remain the
world's smartest natural resources steward, developer, user and
exporter. That means being the most high tech, the most
environmentally friendly, the most socially responsible and the
most productive and competitive, leading the world as a living
model of sustainable development and successfully so. The
legislation now before the House will help us to reach those
goals, goals that I believe are worthy Canadian aspirations.
We have an enormous wealth and an enormous heritage of natural
resources in our country. It is exceedingly important when it
comes to developing and managing those resources, not just for
the current generation but for generations of children and
grandchildren yet to come, that we do so in a responsible manner,
a manner that effectively balances our economic, social and
environmental imperatives. The new fund proposed by the
legislation will help us get there.
1220
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-4.
Certainly the minister paints a fine picture and I would not
disagree with much of what he said.
However, as the critic for the Canadian Alliance Party, I begin
the debate quite frankly undecided as to what position to take on
the bill, because it is generally quite vague and lacks a lot of
specific detail. Certainly in his presentation the minister did
little to add any of that detail.
In the seven years I have been in the House, many as the critic
for natural resources and for this particular minister, I have
found that he has always been a master of words and is able to
get around specifics while presenting a very encouraging picture.
However, I need to understand some of the details around the bill
and specifically why we need to create this new bureaucracy to
achieve the goals the minister spoke about.
Since the Kyoto protocol in 1997 and Canada's commitment at that
conference, the government seems to have been in a constant
search for that silver bullet the minister referred to and seems
to be shooting bullets in every direction rather than focusing on
any particular strategy.
Certainly the billion dollars the minister referred to that has
been put in place to help us to reach the objective has been
scattered around in so many directions that it is quite frankly
hard to keep track of. There have been a number of programs:
the climate change early action fund, $150 million; the $60
million for renewable energy initiatives; $15 million for the
procurement of green power; $125 million for the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities to support environmentally friendly
technologies; $100 million for international capacity building;
and the list goes on.
What I was hoping to learn from the minister's presentation was
why there is a need for the new bureaucracy and specifically what
it would achieve in enhancing our chances of reaching the Kyoto
protocol, the possible achievement of which seems to be quickly
evaporating in regard to the government and Canada. In spite of
how many times we read the government's action plan on climate
change, which was introduced before the election, it just does
not cut it in regard to the possibility of achieving the Kyoto
protocol targets. By my calculations, at least, if all of the
objectives under action plan 2000 were achieved we would only be
one third of the way to the Kyoto commitment, so we are certainly
not there.
The other concern I have is in regard to the minister speaking
about how our survival depends on our ability to innovate. I
suggest that there is some truth to that, but I certainly would
also suggest that our survival depends very much on our ability
to afford and to implement those innovations as they come along.
Of course that has been part of the problem with this whole
climate change initiative and where we are going.
The technologies that are emerging and will emerge and become
available generally, at least in the timeframe of the Kyoto
protocol, are totally unaffordable for the average Canadian who
would use this technology. I refer to the Ballard power cell and
the development of prototype power cell vehicles and electric
cars and those kinds of things, and to the government's own
initiative in investment in green power. These cars are three
times the price of standard cars on the market today and are
certainly far out of reach of the average citizen who drives to
work every day.
Also, the government's investment in green power comes at a
price at least double that of even today's marketplace
electricity rates, so again it is a wonderful idea but
unaffordable in general society.
1225
Our challenge is not only to develop these innovative ideas and
technologies but to make them affordable so that we can put them
to work in society. If we cannot achieve that, the development
of these things has little impact on or benefit for mainstream
Canadians.
Having said that, I have to spend a little time on the bill
itself because I have some real concerns with how it is put
together and what it is advocating.
Again I ask why we need the bill. Why could these funds not be
delivered through existing mechanisms that are already in place
under the climate change envelope, through the Business
Development Bank, through some regional development agencies that
a lot of government dollars are funnelled through? As well, why
could they not be delivered through some of the grassroots
community development associations that fund the development of
new technologies, new ideas and new projects? One has to wonder
why the government is choosing to go with this format. I did not
hear any indication as to why in the minister's speech. I am
really concerned simply because it is the creation of another 30
bureaucratic positions, albeit 15 of them are not in a true sense
paid bureaucrats and the establishment of the foundation is a
good idea.
On the other hand, long ago the minister established all kinds
of these bodies to help him understand his portfolio and to
advise him on all kinds of issues that fall within that
portfolio. They are called ministerial advisory committees. All
kinds of very knowledgeable and pretty sharp people sit on these
advisory committees at no cost to the people of Canada other than
the cost of their expenses, as would be the case for this
foundation. I do not think we need to create this foundation to
get the services of these people from industry and from society
at large in order to achieve what we want. Of course the board
of directors is another story because the directors will be paid.
The foundation itself will set the terms and conditions, the
salaries, the job descriptions and all of the rest of those
things that do not exist in the bill. The bill gives broad
powers to the foundation itself to set up all of those things. As
the minister suggested in his speech, the specific funding
agreement between the foundation and the government will come at
some time after the creation of the bill. Based on the
government's record of accountability and transparency and its
record on the appointment of people favourable to the government
for these kinds of positions, this is cause for concern for most
Canadians. If the government is just going to use this as
another source for patronage appointments to reward those loyal
to the government, I do not think we need more of them. We have
more than enough already. The government, or the governor in
council as it is called, has abused that power in the past. We
do not need to create more of those positions.
Having said that, we need only to look at other crown
corporations that the government has created in the past to
deliver funding in partnership with the private sector and for
good causes.
1230
The creation of the foundation generally sounds like a good
idea, particularly when the minister presents it. Why will this
be different from, for example, what happened to the president of
the Business Development Bank when he chose to turn down a
project in the Prime Minister's riding favourable to the Prime
Minister? It did not take long for him to change his mind and it
did not take long to find somebody else to replace the president
of the Business Development Bank.
My concern is whether the foundation, its president and board of
directors will be treated any differently by the government than
those other organizations. That is totally unacceptable.
It is difficult to determine exactly what this arm's length
organization, as the minister put it, will be. It appears to me
that it is in fact a crown corporation created by the government
to move the disbursement of funds away from the government, away
from direct responsibility of the minister and to remove it from
scrutiny by the Auditor General of Canada. That is one of my
biggest concerns with this whole foundation.
The bill deals a fair bit with the creation of an auditor who
would be hired and directed by the foundation itself. However,
it would be accountable only through its financial statement once
a year to parliament. I do not think that is sufficient scrutiny
or sufficient transparency to satisfy most Canadians.
The auditor general must have access to this thing. It must be
more than simply an effort to move the whole idea of funding the
development of new technologies away from the government so that
the government can deflect a lot of the criticism for the failure
of these projects. Of course the government always accepts the
accolades for the success of the projects. Essentially if it
moves away from the department as it exists now to this crown
corporation, then the crown corporation is a shield for the
minister and for the government for any undesirable results that
might in fact happen.
That has to be addressed and hopefully we can talk about that. I
will be introducing some amendments in the process to hopefully
achieve some of that transparency and some of that accountability
for those things.
Essentially, it could be a good tool for the government to use
to move and to help create this development of new technologies.
However, it is very hard to determine just exactly how this
foundation and its board of directors will achieve the goals that
are laid out for them. Clause 19(1) of the bill states:
From its funds, the Foundation may provide funding to eligible
recipients to be used by them solely for the purposes of eligible
projects in accordance with any terms and conditions specified by
the Foundation in respect of funding—
Again, this is okay expect that nobody knows what those terms
and conditions will be or what the agreement between the
government and the foundation will be. Hopefully we will have
some clarification of that as we go through the process.
However, what concerns me is that it states:
It is difficult to understand whether the foundation is simply
seeking out projects that show potential and helping to provide
funding in those projects or whether its role is to provide loans
to these projects.
It does not appear that the foundation has the ability to
actually have any ownership in these projects. It says:
—the Foundation shall not acquire any interest, whether through
the acquisition of share capital, a partnership interest or
otherwise, in any research infrastructure acquired by the
eligible recipient for the project.
1235
It is a little hard to understand what the objective is, whether
it is for the foundation simply to cast around and pick winners
and losers and when it thinks it has a winner to heap money on to
the project in the hopes that it will be successful or whether it
is something else.
Both provincial and federal governments certainly do not have a
good track record when it comes to picking winners and losers in
business. I do not think that should really be the role of
government. At any rate, the government's role is to provide an
environment where business can flourish, be successful and
develop these kinds of technologies. Government interference
through the use of tax dollars into business and into the
development of business can make winners if enough is invested.
If we invest enough money we can grow bananas at the North Pole.
The reality is that it distorts the marketplace. It distorts
market forces of competition and innovation. I do not know that
that should be the government's role. In fact, I do not think it
is. Say we have a promising private sector company in one part
of the country and a similar private sector company in another
part of the country, both with some interesting projects that
show potential. We have this foundation of people generally
appointed by the government and favourable to the government.
Again, if we look at the history with the Business Development
Bank, which is vulnerable to political pressure and political
interference by the government, it is easy to see how choices can
be made to influence the success or failure of a particular
project. Depending on where the company is located in the
country and how favourable that particular organization is, or
perhaps even how large a donation it has made recently to a
particular political party, could have an effect.
I hate to be so skeptical. However, after the years that I have
been here it just seems to happen over and over again. I have no
reason to expect that this particular venture will be any
different from the ones in the past.
We have learned some things already from the government's
efforts on greenhouse gas emission reduction. It is worthy to
note that the government has already made some serious mistakes
in this rush to reduce emissions, to clean up our environment and
to create sustainable technologies.
Right from the very beginning of the conference of the parties
in Buenos Aires, I believe it was, and as we move forward, the
environmental side of the equation has always presented the
theory that we had to force, either through taxation or through
market forces, the cost of fossil fuel energy higher. It was too
cheap in North America and we had to do something to force energy
prices higher, much higher than those in Europe. We had to force
energy conservation which would help us achieve our objective of
reduced emissions because we have used less fossil fuel and less
energy, thereby fewer emissions.
If there is anything to have been learned in the last year with
the energy crisis that we are facing with spiralling energy costs
in electricity, in natural gas in particular and gasoline, it is
that higher energy prices are not the answer for conservation.
1240
Fossil fuel intense projects like greenhouses, transportation,
commercial and residential heating are switching back to
technologies less favourable to the environment instead of simply
using conservation measures to reduce the consumption of fossil
fuels.
With organizations like the Pembina Institute, Friends of the
Earth, Greenpeace and the others that had this idea, it is
becoming clearer that there were other agendas at play other than
just energy conservation through higher prices for energy.
We have to look at that, learn from it and understand that the
development of new technologies will be the answer and will be
our saviour. They will reduce emissions and use less energy.
The fact is that the average citizens out there would love to be
more environmentally conscious and would love to do their part in
the reduction of emissions and saving the environment.
What has the government actually done to help them do that? To
my knowledge the only thing under this climate change initiative
the government presented was an offer of $100 to pay half the
cost of an energy audit for one's home, so that a new industry,
energy auditors, could be created and could go around telling
people how they can be more efficient and save money on their
energy costs.
It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that once the
energy auditor presents recommendations, the real cost in that
initiative is going to be the implementation of those
recommendations. The upgrading of residential and commercial
buildings and all of things that go with it can run into the
hundreds of thousands of dollars.
At some point the government is going to have to look at a
program to help Canadians take hold of the new technologies which
have been developed and implement them. That would not only be
in residential situations but also in transportation and all
kinds of sectors. There are some terrific ideas that will come
forward and that are already coming forward. However, the cost
of implementing them cannot be borne by the individual or by the
corporate sector that will be expected to use them.
Imagine what would happen to the cost of fresh fruits and
vegetables if the cost of transportation continues to rise as it
has done in the last year? We clearly have to find better and
newer technologies to implement in the transportation sector.
Because that sector operates on such a fine margin, there has to
be some kind of program and thought put into just how that
sector could implement those technologies and still be able to
provide a service to Canadians that is affordable and reasonable.
I have not seen any indication from the government that it would
do that. The only thing it has done so far is the recent energy
rebate which has turned into the biggest boondoggle we have seen
in a long time. People in penitentiaries, dead people and people
who never paid an energy bill in their lives are receiving
rebates, while those who are responsible for those costs are not
getting anything.
Just this morning I had a call from a lady not too far from
Ottawa. She was wondering what the longer term plan of the
government might be and what we could suggest to the government
that might help Canadians next winter and the winter after that.
It is inevitable that energy costs will continue to rise,
hopefully not at the rate they did this winter. It is a finite
resource and the cost of energy will continue to rise either
because of the depleting resource or because of the
implementation of these new technologies of which the minister
spoke.
1245
I was hard-pressed to give the lady a lot of assurance that
there was anything on the drawing board that would help her in
particular. However I did suggest, as we have suggested to the
government on a number of occasions, that by just simply
designating home heating fuels as an essential commodity and
removing excise tax and GST from those commodities would be a
step in the right direction. Gas bills having now reached a
point where in many cases they are higher than mortgage payments,
I think the removal of those taxes would go a long way toward
showing some compassion for the hardship created by those energy
prices.
I look forward to the bill getting into committee so we can hear
witnesses and hear an explanation of all these things. At that
time we will make up our mind whether to support the bill at
third reading stage. There needs to be a lot of discussion and a
lot of answers from the government side on exactly what we are
trying to achieve, how we will get there and how we will assure
Canadian taxpayers that this foundation is a good use of their
tax dollars. Canadians need assurance that their dollars are not
being squandered and abused as so often is the case.
I look forward to the debate and discussion in committee. We
will speak further to the bill at third reading stage and go from
there.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): At the outset, I would like
to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment, and the
new Speaker on his election. I am sure you will show
fairness and impartiality in your work.
This is my first time speaking in the 37th parliament. I would
have liked to rise before, but I was unfortunately gagged during
the debate on Bill C-2. I wanted to speak on behalf of my
constituents from Sherbrooke, but unfortunately I was unable to
do so.
I would also like to salute my constituents and to thank them
for the trust they put in me last November. I know many members
talked about their majority when they rose for the first time
and I will limit my comments to the fact that I increased mine
11 times. Figures should be interpreted when they are most
favourable.
The bill before us today had been introduced before parliament
was dissolved. It was then know as Bill C-46. The new Bill C-4
aims at establishing a foundation to fund sustainable
development technology. Incidentally, the word foundation is
reminiscent of the sad chapter of the millennium fund.
At the beginning of this session, it is difficult to see in what
direction the government is aiming.
Of course, the throne speech and its promises could provide
interesting leads. We realize that all that can be found in that
document looks like déjà-vu.
In fact, the legislative program looks the same as what it was
before the election was called. Just consider the legislation
concerning young offenders and the employment insurance program.
Even with regard to Bill C-3, a minister's assistant said only
the cover page was changed. That is a nice program. Even the
Cabinet remained unchanged. The old federal reflexes of
interfering in everything and anything are likely to carry on.
Let us put things briefly in context. Bill C-4, formerly Bill
C-46, sponsored by the Minister of Natural Resources, would
create a corporation, the Canada Foundation for Sustainable
Development Technology.
The objects and purposes of that foundation would be to provide
funding for projects to develop and demonstrate new technologies
to promote sustainable development, including technologies to
address climate change and air quality issues.
1250
The establishment of the Canada Foundation for Sustainable
Development Technology is one of the initiatives that the
federal government announced in its February 2000 budget to
promote environmentally desirable technologies and practices.
The foundation would operate as a not for profit organization. It
would consist of a chairperson, six directors and eight members,
some of them appointed by the government.
The foundation would have to table in parliament an annual
report of its activities. The foundation would also have to
administer a sustainable development technology fund, which
would be provided with an initial amount of $100 million.
According to the backgrounder entitled “Canada Foundation for
Sustainable Development Technology”, which was released by the
government when the bill was introduced, the foundation would
provide funding in two dominant areas: new climate-friendly
technologies that hold the potential to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, and technologies to address clean air issues. This
undertaking is not as clear in the bill, however.
The funding would be for specific projects. In order to benefit
the maximum number of innovative sources, the foundation would
accept proposals from existing and new collaborative
arrangements among technology developers, suppliers and users,
universities, not-for-profit organizations, and organizations such
as industrial associations and research institutes.
Small and medium size enterprises would be strongly encouraged
to participate and lead projects supported by the foundation.
The foundation's activities would complement other government
programs encouraging technological innovation, such as the
Technology Early Action Measures component of the Climate Change
Action Fund, and Technology Partnerships Canada in the case of
environmental technologies.
The creation of a funding agency responsible for promoting the
development of ecological technologies was recommended by the
Technology Issues Table.
In its December 10, 1999, report on the development of
technological innovations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
the Technology Issues Table recommended the creation of a fund
to develop climate change technologies in order to encourage the
development of target technologies with the potential to reduce
greenhouse gas effects and stimulate international sales.
The technology issues table called for an initial investment of
$20 million annually, to be increased to $200 million annually
starting in the fifth year. It also recommended that 50% of the
funding come from federal sources, 25% from provincial sources
and 25% from private sources, although it felt that this could
vary from one project to another.
Noting that one of the major challenges of innovation is the
initial introduction of new technologies and new services in the
market, the issue table also recommended the creation of a
climate change technology demonstration program that would
offset some portion of the financial risks involved in early
domestic commercialization of greenhouse gas mitigation
technologies.
According to the issue, this option should ramp up from
$60 million per annum for year one to $300 million per annum for
year five. The federal government should provide, on a portfolio
basis, up to 30% of the investment, with the remainder
originating from provincial and industry sources. The federal
component would be repayable.
In this context the government decided in its budget 2000 to
create the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development
Technology, which would support both development and
demonstration activities but would not limit itself to climate
change technologies.
1255
Instead, it would fund various projects aimed at promoting
technologies that contribute to sustainable development. Thus,
this is a category of much larger projects.
While the government said it intended to put the emphasis on the
funding of new technologies relating to climate change and clean
air, the bill does not reflect this priority. It simply deals
with the funding of sustainable development technologies,
particularly those that are aimed at bringing solutions to
climate change and air pollution issues.
Under the definition of “eligible project” in clause 2, the bill
does not give express priority to the latter type of projects.
Therefore, it might be up to the foundation alone to determine,
under clause 19, what types of projects relating to sustainable
development it would be prepared to fund.
It is important to note that the definition of eligible
recipient in clause 2 refers to an entity that meets the
criteria of eligibility established in any agreement entered
into between the government and the foundation. It is not
clearly indicated if this power, whose concrete aspects are not
defined anywhere in the bill, could be used by the government to
restrict the definition of “eligible recipient” to those
claimants that carry on specific types of projects, thus
influencing or restricting the foundation's funding decisions.
In other words, could the government and the foundation agree on
eligibility criteria that would impact on what is an eligible
project? It would be appropriate to get some clarification on
that point, particularly since the government said that the
foundation will not be an agent of Her Majesty.
The round table on technologies recommended initial funding of
$80 million for the two phases of the projects, that is
$20 million for development and $60 million for demonstration. It
also recommended that this amount be increased to $500 million
after five years, or $200 million for development projects and
$300 million for demonstration projects.
Under the bill, the foundation would get an initial amount of
$100 million to support development and demonstration projects.
Now, since the foundation's mandate goes beyond the financing of
technologies linked to climate change, one could come to the
conclusion that the financing provided is insufficient, at least
for the initial period.
I would also like to talk about some Liberal commitments
regarding the environment. I would like to remind the House of
some promises made by the Liberals during the last election
campaign and contained in the third edition of the red book.
However, the events of last week have shown the real usefulness
of such documents. They do not seem to stand the test of time,
since the authors of the promises contained in the red book
voted against a motion containing one of those promises word for
word.
Here are some of those promises which are directly linked to the
subject matter of today's debate. Again, these are promises made
by the Liberal government. They are the following:
(1) A new Liberal government will help the private sector by
maintaining R&D; tax credits that are already among the most
generous in the world, and by working to commercialise
discoveries made in government and university labs.
(2) A new Liberal government will act to significantly improve
air quality for all Canadians. We will make special efforts to
clean-up the air of our cities, where the population and the
pollutants are most highly concentrated.
(3) A new Liberal government will continue to support the
development of cleaner engines and fuels, and we will strengthen
emissions standards for vehicles. We will greatly reduce sulphur
in diesel fuel.
(4) A new Liberal government will attack the problem on several
fronts under our Action Plan on Climate Change.
We will promote increase energy efficiency in industry and in
the transportation system. We will fund the development of new
energy technologies, such as fuel cells, and help farmers to
reduce agricultural emissions through improved farming methods.
1300
Those are promises still. I continue:
We will increase Canada's use of renewable energy, such as
electricity from wind and ethanol from biomass. We will
encourage consumers to buy more energy-efficient products by
providing information and setting high product standards.
That makes a lot of promises. In the throne speech, the
government essentially repeated the same things. It said, for
instance.
As part of its efforts to promote global sustainable
development, the Government will ensure that Canada does its
part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will work with its
provincial and territorial partners to implement the recently
announced first national business plan on climate change.
I am not going to comment on these statements and promises one
by one. A number of them, however, were already known. For
instance, the action plan on climate change was announced last
October 6.
In the 1997 and 1999 throne speeches, the Liberals announced
that they would make the environment one of their priorities,
that they would address the matter of climate changes and commit
to promoting sustainable development on an international scale.
Yet the budget allocated to the environment has done nothing but
decrease since 1994-95.
How then can the Liberals be believed? We have no choice but to
conclude that there is a lot of difference between talking the
talk and walking the walk. For example, Environment Canada
announced several months ago that it was going to call for
tenders for the design of an import-export policy for
PCB contaminated waste. This was made necessary by budget cuts
at Environment Canada. As a result of these cuts, the private
sector was entrusted with the mandate of designing policies on
the import and export of hazardous waste. Really now.
I have, nonetheless, retained a few words from the vocabulary
used in the promises and the throne speech: “on several fronts”,
“provincial and territorial partners”.
Several fronts suggests a shotgun approach, in all directions
and none at the same time.
I presume that the government has good intentions and is acting
in good faith. However, what does such concern hide? We saw the
government move on several fronts in the case of the millennium
scholarships and other initiatives in the education area, but
its partners are given very little consideration. The federal
government always acts as if it was the holder of absolute
truth.
Let us now turn briefly to what the environment and sustainable
development commissioner said. If the federal government really
wants to take the path of sustainable development, it should
start by examining its own operations to identify the areas it
could improve before telling people that they should consume
more ecological and energy efficient products. In his report for
the year 2000, the Commissioner of the Environment and
Sustainable Development said:
Since 1990, the federal government has made commitments to
Canadians that it would green its operations. Yet, a decade
later, there is a lack of rudimentary information about
government's vast operations, the costs of which are likely more
than $400 million annually for water, energy and waste disposal.
We found that the government does not have complete and accurate
data on the annual cost of running its buildings and on the
environmental impacts of its operations.
When compared to Liberal commitments, this statement by the
commissioner reveals that what is probably lacking the most at
the federal level is concerted action. After the fiasco of the
heating bill visibility operation we see clearly that the
government does not have a long term vision.
Also, I would be remiss if I did not underline the recent
findings of the auditor general on various appointments. The
establishment of a foundation necessarily implies the
appointment of a board of directors. I hope that the ministers
who will make the appointments will base their decision more on
the competence of the candidates than on their political
allegiance.
Another point is the fact that Canada clearly will not fulfil
its Kyoto commitment. Not only does Canada not appear to be on
the way to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, but it
actually appears to be increasing them.
In the February edition of Le Monde diplomatique, it is reported
that Canada is part of group of countries called the umbrella
group. Reference is made to the November 2000 conference held in
The Hague, which ended in failure due to these countries'
intransigence.
1305
These countries are attached to loopholes such as the unlimited
emission rights instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
insist on taking forests into account in the determination of
efforts made by each country. Organizations have already
denounced the hypocrisy of Canada, which is hoping to boost its
reactor sales by trying to include nuclear energy among clean
tools of economic development.
At the Vancouver environment and natural resources ministers
conference, Ottawa tried to address only public awareness
measures and investment projects in less energy consuming
technologies.
And yet, if the trend holds, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada
could be 35% above what they should be.
We must therefore conclude from these examples that what Canada
is lacking is the firm political will to significantly reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Resorting to its age old strategy of
invading provincial jurisdictions rather than developing a joint
strategy, Canada will not be able to meet its international
commitments.
The establishment of foundations and other similar initiatives
will only ease the Canadian government's conscience without
leading to any tangible result.
Would this be a new hobby aiming at shrinking the provincial
role? Quebec does not need anybody's advice. As Mr.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau used to say:
One way to offset the attraction of separatism is to put time,
energy and huge amounts of money at the service of federal
nationalism.
No doubt, the environment will be the next area to be invaded by
the federal government to try and shrink Quebec's role even
more. After the Canadian millennium scholarships, education, the
health minister's plans for a family medicine program, the new
federal hobby may well be the environment.
In this respect, the bill under consideration, which establishes
a foundation to develop and demonstrate new technologies to
promote sustainable development, appears to belong to the
Canadian government's continued effort to have its way in many
spheres of human action. What will the foundation do? How much
money will it have at its disposal? The news release announcing
the bill states:
The new Foundation will administer the Sustainable Development
Technology Fund for the development and demonstration of new
technologies, in particular, those aimed at reducing greenhouse
gas emissions and improving air quality.
We are told as well that the foundation will have a budget of
$100 million. How will the federal government reconcile the
many efforts being made in the area of climate change and
sustainable development? How will the money allocated for this
foundation differ from the climate change action fund? Part of
this fund is intended for cost effective technological projects
promoting a reduction in greenhouse gases.
The Liberals have a long tradition of unfulfilled promises with
respect to the environment.
More specifically, in the area of greenhouse gases, not only is
Canada not sufficiently reducing its greenhouse gas emissions,
it is significantly increasing them. Rather than making a
serious commitment to reduce them, Canada is now one of the
group of countries that is looking more for loopholes in the
Kyoto protocol than it is for sustainable ways to reduce
emissions.
In this regard Quebec's energy choices are exemplary, and
Quebec is resolutely committed to reducing greenhouse gases.
Will this foundation support initiatives in the nuclear sector?
We could think so, since Canada has lobbied vigorously to have
nuclear energy considered green.
In our election platform we noted that an investment of $1.5
billion was required for the environment. The federal
government must attack this problem seriously. Had it not
implemented the policy of $125 for heating oil, for example, it
could have saved $1.3 billion. Will the foundation's $100
million be enough? Only the future will tell.
The Bloc Quebecois of course would support this bill because our
party is concerned about the environment.
1310
We would support the bill if it were amended on six factors
giving rise to concern and opposition from the Bloc.
The first one is the division of powers. We see this as an
underhanded way for the federal government to intrude once again
in provincial jurisdiction.
The second one is that Quebec already has such a foundation. The
creation of this foundation comes as a surprise, since a $45
million action fund for sustainable development already exists
in Quebec.
Instead of creating this foundation, the federal government
should transfer the money to Quebec's agencies, which are
already working along the lines recommended by the table and
which have a good understanding of the issue.
Concentration of powers is another factor. Practically all the
directors of the foundation are appointed by the governor in
council. Under the bill, the governor in council, on the
recommendation of the minister, appoints seven of the
fifteen directors. However, the eight other directors are
appointed by the very members appointed by the governor in
council.
Finally, the chairperson and all directors may be removed for
cause by the governor in council. This method of appointment
seems to be a roundabout way of allowing the federal government
to interfere in an area under provincial jurisdiction and to
have control over an organization that is not accountable to
parliament.
The fact that the governor in council has the authority to enter
into agreements with the foundation to set eligibility criteria
regarding eligible recipients shows that this organization would
not really operate at arm's length from the federal government.
The latter would, in a roundabout way, have a say as to how
funding is granted to eligible recipients.
Another factor is the dangerous definitions contained in the
bill. For example, since the term “eligible project” deals with
technologies that include, but are not restricted to, those to
address climate change and air quality issues, this could allow
funding for nuclear technology projects justified as a means of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which would be contrary to
the commitments made by the federal government in Kyoto.
The fifth factor to consider is the disparity between the
recommendations from the table and the bill. The foundation
would be responsible for managing funds to support technologies
to promote sustainable development. It is certainly a lofty
goal, but it is rather vague when used in a bill.
The establishment of such a foundation would not reflect the
main recommendation of the table which was to allocate money for
the development of technologies to reduce greenhouses gas
emissions and to stimulate international sales.
The bill does not reflect the general direction of the
recommendations of the technology table, mainly because it does
not include a goal oriented implementation strategy. Also, the
bill does not promote co-operation between the federal
government, the provinces and industry and does not contain a
qualitative definition of the benefits and factors contributing
to our quality of live for each of the options.
The bill only focuses on two of the eight options brought
forward by the technology table.
The last factor has to do with the level of funding.
We are concerned about the small amount allocated to the
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In 1998, the Anderson
strategy had a budget totalling $1.3 billion over a period of
five years to fight this problem.
On December 10, 1998, the table released a report on the
development of technological innovations to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, in which it recommended that a fund be set up,
with an initial contribution of $80 million for both stages,
development and demonstration, and that the funding be increased
to $500 million after five years.
Since the terms of reference of the foundation are not limited
to technologies addressing climate change, the funding for the
initial phase is not enough.
1315
In conclusion, I would say that, through its environmental
policy, the Bloc Quebecois does support positive and proactive
actions, provided they take into account the fact that Quebec is
an important stakeholder.
Therefore, we will be moving amendments at committee stage.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I say a special merci beaucoup to
the translators of the House of Commons who do a great job
interpreting what we are trying to say to the Canadian people.
What can we say about the bill? It is sustainable development
technology. It is a $100 million fund that will go into a pot
somewhere and then some people will look at it and do something
about it.
If it is anything like the millennium scholarship fund, we in
the New Democratic Party fear that it will go absolutely nowhere
and benefit very few people. I find it pleasing that the
government is at least talking about sustainable technology. We
fear that the government will not do very much about it. Anyone
needing more proof should look at our commitments at Kyoto and
Rio. What did we do about those commitments?
We set targets and guidelines for CO2 emission reductions for
2006 and 2008. The goal posts have now been moved to 2010 and
2012 and so on. It is quite ironic that while we are debating
the bill there is a report from the UN coming out today
mentioning that global warming is indeed real. It is happening
and it is having a great affect on the population of the planet,
not just in one specific area.
For those of us on the east coast, as my Conservative Party
colleague from the South Shore knows, people living by the ocean
are getting a little nervous. On the prairies this has probably
been one of the driest winters my friends in Calgary have ever
had. Yet St. John's, Newfoundland, has had over 16 feet of snow
and it is still coming down.
After the floods on the Saguenay River in Quebec and the Red
River in Winnipeg, it is very important that all Canadians start
to realize that they should not be critical of the reports by
scientists from around the world and the UN. Global warming is a
fact although I have to say, tongue in cheek, that members of the
Reform Party, now the Canadian Alliance Party, stated in the
House many times that global warming was a myth. They said that
it did not exist and asked what we were worried about. We should
be very worried about it.
I am pleased that the government is at least discussing
sustainable development technology. However I suspect, like the
millennium fund, that it will be just a group of people who the
government mostly appoints. Most NGOs, groups like International
Fund for Animal Welfare, the David Suzuki Foundation, the Sierra
Club of Canada, the World Wildlife Fund Canada and a group from
my own riding like the Ecology Action Centre, are great people
who volunteer a lot of their time to promote sustainable
technology in the world and in their own community. I suspect
they will be left out of this so-called inner circle.
It is astonishing that the government wants to bring something
in like that. At the same time it says not to worry because it
knows that Canada has to be the number one nation in the world
when it comes to sustainable technology. It knows that Canada
has to care for the planet and be world leaders. At the same
time it says that, CIDA gives $280,000 to Monsanto so that it
could have its genetically modified cotton and corn seeds grown
in China. This is absolutely unbelievable. It is incredible
that the government would give a large corporation like that any
tax dollars at all to support genetically modified foods.
I suspect that the fund will end up supporting large
multinational corporations such as Monsanto so that they in turn
could promote genetically modified foods and all kinds of things
of which Canadians are simply unaware. That simply would not be
acceptable.
1320
If the government were serious about sustainable development
technology it would have incorporated into law two motions that
were passed in the House. One was in the name of my colleague
from Winnipeg Centre that asked for a major retrofit of the
50,000 government buildings that Canada owns. Not only would
that create green jobs, but it would reduce the amount of energy
those buildings currently use. The savings would be enormous and
it would create work at the same time. So far the government has
been silent even though the motion was passed in the House.
Another one was in the name of Mr. Nelson Riis, a former member
of the House. His motion passed in the House. It basically said
that any company of business that wished to give its employees a
transit pass to take a bus to their workplace instead of using a
vehicle would be allowed to claim the transit pass as a business
deduction. That makes a lot of sense, especially for urban areas
like Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton and Halifax.
It may not be so big in Bridgewater down on the South Shore or in
areas like Sheet Harbour, but in the major urban centres it would
make a lot of sense. So far there has been silence from the
government.
These are the kinds of initiatives that we as New Democrats
bring forward. Many government members voted for the motion, so
why has it not been incorporated? It would reduce our dependency
on fossil fuels, which would be great for all of us.
Having $100 million going to a specific fund that other people
could access to do various projects basically means that the
government could then turn around and say it is not responsible
any more and be at arm's length. The government would supply
taxpayer dollars. There are no assurances that taxpayers will
get the best bang for their buck. This group, whomever they are,
will decide how to spend it or what to do with it. When a
problem arises, the government could easily wash its hands and
say that it is not responsible and that the group is.
More proof of that is the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum
Board. I believe oil and gas exploration and commercial fishing
can co-exist, but the fears of commercial fishermen in the
communities along the coastlines, especially in the areas of Cape
Breton, New Brunswick and P.E.I., should be allayed.
They are basically asking for clear, independent scientific
assessments on what seismic drilling and gas exploration do to
the fisheries along their coast, especially on the inner coast.
That is all they are asking for and they cannot get it.
The government says it is not its responsibility any more. It
handed that responsibility over to the Canada-Nova Scotia
Offshore Petroleum Board. When the province is approached, it
says the same, that it is not responsible. It turned that
responsibility over to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum
Board which is now responsible.
We have seen this happen already. Seismic drilling leases have
already been granted in phase 1, which is the Cabot Walk just off
Cape Breton. The company will do the assessment afterwards. That
is putting the cart before the horse. What should happen quite
clearly is that the assessment must be done first and then a
lease should be granted, depending on the environmental
assessment.
The assessment may say it is not a good place to drill because
it could do harm to the fish stocks. We do not know. We should
not be drilling or even testing until that information is brought
forward first. If the information says they can co-exist, that
is great for everybody. As long as we do not have an assessment,
we will always have a large percentage of people opposed to oil
and gas drilling.
In previous discussions we had earlier this morning we discussed
aquaculture. I believe aquaculture could be a very good thing
for the country only if the precautionary principle is taken.
That means that we do all the environmental work upfront to
ensure that the aquaculture site, the oil and gas sector or
whatever is using our waterways is done within the strict
guidelines of the environmental assessments.
Those assessments must be paid for by the government. They
should not be paid for by industry, because there is always the
perception that the advice or the information may be tainted.
The perception is that if we pay enough money and get the right
scientists they will tell us whatever we want to hear. However,
when it comes to our environment, the thing that sustains us the
most, we should take every precaution when it comes to protecting
our environment.
1325
The $100 million fund will simply not be enough. We believe the
government should put a couple of billion dollars into the fund
and see what happens. The fact is that $100 million will simply
not cover what is required to develop new sustainable
technologies.
Going back to the aquaculture industry, I have said many times
that the federal and provincial governments should be working
with industry to develop the closed net systems. By doing that
we would have no escapes and no effluent running from those cages
into our waterways. We need to do that.
The government should be working together with the industry and
with other groups for the best technology that is out there. The
government must accept its responsibility. It cannot hand off
its legislative ability to an arm's length body. It cannot do
that.
Many people come to us, whether we are in government or in
opposition, to express their opinions and their views. They do
not see these other groups and organizations. All they know is
that they elected us to protect them when it comes to their
environment.
We as legislators, whether federal, provincial or municipal,
have a responsibility to the citizens of Canada to ensure that
they, their families, their children and their children's
children have a proper, healthy environment in Canada and
worldwide.
The minister was right when he spoke about Canada being a world
leader. If he had said that from his heart and his head I would
have believed him, but he was reading a prepared speech at the
time he said that. It is a little tongue and cheek when I say
that I am rather doubtful that the Liberal government will once
and for all understand the environmental damages some of its
policies and past Conservative policies have placed on the
Canadian people.
A classic example of environmental damage is at the tar ponds in
Cape Breton. I am sure my Conservative colleague has been there.
The Sydney tar ponds are an absolute disaster, a major blight. I
am not talking about Prince Edward Island and the potato blight
problem it has. I am talking about an eyesore not only on Cape
Breton but right across the country. It is our worst
environmental mess.
What did the government and the province do about it? They set
up a committee called JAG to work out solutions and figure out
what was going on. They have been talking about it for years and
still nothing has been cleaned up. People are getting cancer and
dying from the residue. The NDP has been encouraging the
government to put the resources behind it and clean up the mess
once and for all. There was even a proposal, and I am not sure
if it was this particular group, to cement it all in, cover it up
or maybe put a parking lot on top of it. These are the kinds of
ideas they come up with and they are unacceptable. It is time
the government accepted its responsibility when it comes to
protecting our environment.
There are many great organizations out there that are saying to
the government that they will help. They are saying that they
would like to become part of the so called inner circle when it
comes to these types of funds. They want to work with industry
not against it. They want to work with the provinces and the
municipalities. As my colleague from the Bloc said, one of the
things the Bloc will have concerns with is that this may intrude
in the provincial powers that Quebec has.
I say to the Bloc that it should lighten up a bit because the
environment knows no boundaries. The federal government has a
responsibility in all parts of the country, whether it is in
Quebec or anywhere else. We are opposed to the legislation at
the current time because it is too vague and wishy-washy. It is
$100 million so the government can show what it did. However it
has not done anything. It will not reduce CO2 emissions one
ounce when all is said and done.
It will not encourage the environmental groups to get onside and
give them their ideas and work together. It will not do any of
that. Some of the people here will be appointed by the
government. We know what happens when the government appoints
people. The former member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port
Coquitlam, Mr. Lou Sekora, was appointed, I believe, to the
immigration board, a $100 million board, to discuss citizenship
and immigration.
1330
I like Mr. Sekora. He is a great guy and a lot of fun. However
when he sat on the fisheries and oceans committee we had to wake
him up all the time. Now this guy, who happens to be a
Liberal, has been appointed to the board of citizenship and
immigration. What qualifications does he have for that job?
I greatly admire Mr. Sekora but he should have appeared before a
committee and the committee should have decided whether he was
qualified to do the job. It should be the same for this kind of
board. If the government spends $100 million of taxpayer money
parliament should, especially in the environment committee, have
a say in who is on the board. That is open and transparent
government.
Unfortunately we do not have that in the House of Commons. The
vote the other day showed that. The Liberals voted against their
own 1993 promise, with the exception of a couple of members who
had the fortitude to say that what the government was doing was
wrong. They supported the opposition.
Politics get in the way. If the government can do that, who
says it will not do it with this type of legislation? Over and
over again, decisions are made within the PMO and to hell with
anybody else. That is why a lot of people have no trust in
either government or opposition MPs.
I believe most Canadians understand that Ottawa has an
obligation and a right to protect them in terms of the
environment. However if we asked any Canadian they would say
that the government does not know the first thing about
protecting the environment.
As legislators we have done a bad job of protecting the
environment because we have been afraid of upsetting major
multinational corporations. There is a court case in B.C.
involving a company called Metalclad. The company wants to override
Mexican laws and put its plant in Mexico. Its plant will pollute the
air and do all kinds of things but Metalclad does not care what
the Mexican government says.
The same is true on MMT. We tried to ban a manganese additive
from gasoline in Canada but we did not have the legislative
ability to do it. While it is banned in other countries and in
many U.S. states, we cannot ban it here because of our trade
agreements.
The bill does not address the trade agreements. It does not address
whether Canada will have the ability to protect itself. Will the
people appointed to the board administering the $100 million fund
go to the government for answers on what they can do, or must
they go to some obscure place like Brussels and ask some trade
panel what they can do? These are the worries we have over on
this side.
We support the initiative the government is finally talking
about. We appreciate the government for doing that. However we
are disappointed that it is very vague and superficial. There is
no hard evidence in the legislation that the government will
finally get serious about global warming and other environmental
effects on our country. Without further amendments we simply
cannot support the initiative at this time.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to add a little correction to my friend's comments about
MMT.
1335
I was very closely involved with that legislation. The member
has led us to believe that some U.S. states still outlaw MMT. In
fact the U.S. supreme court overruled the EPA about a year and a
half ago, making MMT legal in any state where the refiners still
want it. I wanted to make that correction.
The legislation is incredibly timely when we hear reports
continually about global warming and the fact that it is
accelerating to a degree we did not imagine even six months ago.
The challenge is how to deal with it and properly address it.
The government has introduced the bill on sustainable
development technology to try to address it. It has proposed
that a board be set up to look at proposals on new technologies
and hopefully to assist in their development.
I heard my hon. friend say that the people making the proposals
should come directly to government. I may have misunderstood
what he said, but I think he said that government itself should
intervene with the developers rather than an arm's length
organization. Perhaps I was wrong.
I have another question for the member. Why does he say that
$100 million is not enough? It may not be enough and may be a
fraction of what is needed but what amount would the member
suggest? Would he suggest we get into the dozens of billions of
dollars? Does he have some foundation to put an accurate figure
to the question?
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, on the MMT debate, I will
check my notes again. It was very interesting that he asked
about the amount. When the millennium scholarship was started it
was $2.5 billion. That was a good figure to start with. If it
can be done for the millennium fund, why not put the same amount
into something of this nature?
The government is ultimately responsible for environmental
protection. It is amazing to hear a member of the government say
that the government had no idea six months ago that global
warming existed. It is as if the member just had an epiphany and
found out about the issue.
People have been talking about global warming for many years. It
is not new to the people of Canada or to the citizens of the
world. Unfortunately, however, it may be new to the federal
government.
Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to correct my hon. friend. That is not what I said
at all. I said that the government had no idea that global
warming had accelerated to the extent that it has.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
pointing that out but the facts are there. Where are the real
commitments? Where are the Kyoto commitments? Has the
government completely ignored them? I bet it has.
The government will now come up with something new. If it would
honour the commitments it made in world cities like Rio and
Kyoto, maybe we would not need $100 million. If it had honoured
its commitments initially we would perhaps not be having this
debate today.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, before I
start into the bulk of my speech on the Canada foundation for
sustainable development technology, I will comment on a couple of
points made by my colleague from Sackville—Musquodoboit
Valley—Eastern Shore. My colleague in the NDP could not resist
the urge to take a swipe at the Conservative Party.
1340
First, the Conservative policies did recognize climate change
and climate warming on the planet. We were the people behind the
Rio summit and we started the whole operation.
My colleague also mentioned a small problem with potato blight.
If he was a farmer in P.E.I. with a million dollars worth of
potatoes in cold storage, and if he was looking at $10 million
that the Liberal government put into a composting program while
it did absolutely nothing to help farmers in P.E.I., he would not
think it was a small problem.
I am getting off subject, but as far as the tar ponds go, I
spent a good part of my life mixing mud on oil rigs and know a
little bit about how to make mud. Anybody with a couple of tons
of barite, a couple of tons of gel and a little bit of resinex
could mix that stuff in the tar ponds and would have had it
pumped out of there long ago.
What we had was an abrogation of responsibility by the former
Liberal provincial government of Nova Scotia and by federal
governments in Ottawa that did not deal with that issue. It
could have been dealt with, the waste could have been incinerated
and it would have been gone and we would not be dealing with it
or discussing it today.
Back to the point of the debate, the Canada foundation for
sustainable development technology act is a bill that would
establish a foundation to fund innovative projects specifically
in the areas of climate change and air quality. Those are two
areas we must deal with. We were never able to ignore the fact
that climate change was taking place, but we can no longer afford
to look the other way and not deal with it.
I was quite shocked to hear that the bill could not get at least
tentative support from the NDP to go to the committee stage. My
tendency, as critic for the Conservative Party, is to at least
support the bill going to committee stage where we can have a
look at it, debate it much more indepth and then see what comes
out of committee.
The purpose of the foundation will be to support the development
or demonstration of new technologies or innovations that will
help to reduce the impact of climate change, whether through
energy efficiency, alternative energy sources or other
developments. It is a lofty and commendable objective since we
all know that Canada needs to do its share to help reduce climate
change worldwide.
Canada committed itself at Kyoto to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions to 1992 levels. I will address today whether
establishing the foundation is one way of achieving that
objective, but I will also be closely examining it at committee
stage.
There are numerous alternative energy sources available on the
market but getting them into public use or making them cost
effective can be challenging. Canada may be a world leader in
some areas, such as the Ballard fuel cell or solar technology,
but I question whether we are fully exploiting these
capabilities.
The United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change,
which was mentioned earlier, released its assessment two weeks
ago. In its report it states:
There is now new and stronger evidence that most of the warming
observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human
activities.
I do not think this is anything new but it is very damning
evidence when a number of countries and industries on the planet
say that they are not contributing to climate change or, even
worse, that climate change does not exist.
Capitalizing and exploring opportunities to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions will be a challenge for Canada. Although Canada
offers generous tax credits for research and development, the
private sector has been slow to embrace the new technologies.
We may have the ability and the ideas but we are not bringing
them forward or pushing them into mainstream applications. There
are large markets for these technologies or ideas if they can be
shown to be effective. However, Canadians need to be encouraged
to bring forward ideas, to seek new solutions and to develop them
for the market.
If the research and development tax credit has failed to spur
innovation can the proposed foundation overcome the obstacles and
help bring new ideas to the market stage? That is the gist of
what this is about, and it is really the issue we are talking
about.
Andrew Weaver made an interesting argument for more action on
greenhouse gas reductions in his article in the Edmonton
Journal. In asserting that countries should continue to try
to meet their Kyoto commitments, Mr. Weaver stated:
The reason lies not so much in the carbon-dioxide reductions that
will ensue, but rather through the spawning of new technologies
which will lead us to a less fossil-fuel-based society.
1345
This is precisely what the legislation hopes to accomplish in
some small way. With $100 million to allocate over a period of
time that will likely span five to seven years, it will be a job
for the foundation to ensure that the money is used in the most
effective manner possible. By leveraging projects at a 25% basis
there is a maximum potential to spur $400 million worth of new
projects.
As members of parliament we all know many people are seeking
government funding for good ideas. Projects to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, however, are the target of the legislation. It
will be up to a board of directors and a board of members to make
decisions about which projects receive funding.
It should be noted, as was noted by other members who spoke to
the legislation, that one of the items in the bill we really do
not fully understand is the remuneration that will go to board
members. The per diems that will go to board members will be the
same as those that go to any federal employee.
We also need to find out at committee stage who comprises the
board. We know that seven of the fifteen board members will be
appointees of the federal government. Who comprises the board?
Who picks the board? How much industry representation will be on
it? How much exactly will the board cost Canadian taxpayers who
take the money out of their back pockets to run this operation?
As I mentioned, the foundation will be provided with $100
million that it will have to allocate over a period of time with
the aim of helping those projects that best meet the
qualifications.
One of these qualifications will be that the development or
demonstration be widely applicable and not limited to a single
application. Since the objective will be to help Canadians, the
idea and the developing technology must be made available to
other interested parties. That is why the issue of intellectual
property, while not belonging to the federal government or the
foundation, will have to be discussed by the partners to ensure
accessibility for anyone else who would like to utilize this
technology.
I would like to take the time to highlight a few technologies
and ideas which I think are relevant to this discussion. One
example is LNG, liquefied natural gas. It is a gas that has been
cooled to a liquid state, meaning that the higher volume can be
stored in a smaller space. There is improved fuel economy and
lower emissions because there is greater optimization of engine
performance with liquefied natural gas. Obviously this is one
option for helping to reduce emissions and ultimately improve air
quality.
There are limitations, however, with liquefied natural gas. The
gas has to be cooled to -125°C, presenting some challenges and
some additional costs. Otherwise vaporisation would occur and
some of the fuel would be lost. That is one of the reasons why
this fuel is geared toward long distance, heavy duty vehicles
which could conceivably handle the storage challenge. These
challenges, however, are being addressed with a growing emphasis
on alternative fuel sources. There may be greater attention paid
to developing more practical applications of liquefied natural
gas.
Although the first patent for liquefied natural gas was issued
in 1914, it was not until the 1990s that it really moved beyond
the experimental stage to the point where today its application
as a fuel alternative is being seriously examined and tested. By
offering a fuel alternative with lower emissions, it is an
example of the type of innovation that the legislation would want
to promote and encourage.
Another example that is more broadly familiar to Canadians is
the Ballard fuel cell. Ballard Power Systems began in 1979 but
it was not until 1983 that it began testing the concept behind
fuel cells, mainly the combination of hydrogen fuel and oxygen to
create electricity. With heat and water vapour the only
byproducts of the combustion process, fuel cells show immense
potential as a means of reducing greenhouse gas.
A prototype vehicle powered by Ballard fuel cells was unveiled
in March 1999 and can travel 450 kilometres before refuelling.
Ballard hopes to have fuel cell powered cars on the market for
public use in 2003 to 2005 from major auto manufacturers such as
Ford, General Motors, DaimlerChrysler, Honda and Toyota. Although
not yet available on a commercial scale, the focus for Ballard
will be to help develop viable alternatives and applications on a
wide scale mass market level.
If cost reductions could be achieved by mass marketing, this
technology would allow the advantages of the product to be widely
applied.
1350
That is the point behind the government's bill. It is to take
good ideas and good concepts that are not mainstream now, put
them out there and apply them on a very wide scale. It is this
type of innovation that the legislation before us today hopes to
promote and encourage.
Much room exists for renewable energy sources. Currently
renewables make up only 2% of the global energy supply, but the
International Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development suggests that by 2020 it will make up
only 3% of the global energy supply.
We can see from that statement that the world and certainly
Canada, the United States, the developed countries and the G8
nations are moving painfully slow in the direction of renewable
energy.
If we are to improve the projection, it will be imperative for
the Canadian government to encourage the development of new
technologies and to encourage not just new ideas but to challenge
people to think of new applications for the regional, national
and global markets.
Energy demands are increasing as a result of our increasing
reliance on the high tech industry and its immense need for
electricity. If any of us need to think that over, we best think
about brownouts and blackouts in California where the high tech
industry for the entire world is situated. The fact is they use
so much electricity in that field that they are taking more
electricity than the grid can offer.
In addition, the rapid industrialization of developing countries
will also increase global demand for energy sources. If there
are new options that provide cleaner fuel sources or that use
alternative energy sources, we could take steps toward reducing
global greenhouse gas emissions. It is a challenge for everyone
but the federal government needs to be taking the lead if it
wants to demonstrate any commitment to meeting its Kyoto
standards.
The legislation is another step, but further study will help us
to determine if it is truly a step in the right direction or
simply another government initiative that looks good but really
does not accomplish its objective.
Questions were raised before that there was not enough money,
that $100 million was not enough money. If members would do
their research on the legislation, they would recognize that it
dovetails with a lot of other existing legislation.
I would like to review the other legislation that the new piece
of legislation would dovetail with. The existing federal
technology programs all have features that distinguish them from
the sustainable development technology fund but are complementary
in nature.
First, the program of energy research and development has an
allocation of $58 million.
Second, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada does not fund development or demonstration projects led by
the private sector as the SDTF will.
Third, there is a budget for the Canada Foundation for
Innovation of $2.4 billion, quite a substantial amount of money.
Fourth is Technology Partnerships Canada with another budget of
$300 million.
Fifth, the industrial research assistance program funds for
small and medium size enterprises to help them improve their
innovation capacity through research and development projects
that could span the full spectrum of technological and industrial
sectors. It has an annual allocation of $7 million.
The technology early actions measures funds technology projects
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions nationally and internationally
while sustaining economic and social development. Its allocation
of $57 million over three years is basically now depleted. I
suspect the $100 million may dovetail quite nicely into that
program.
A lot of federal funding is going into sustainable energy and
alternative energies. There is a lot of commitment by the
government and previous governments to deal with the issue. We
have to ensure any time we are spending taxpayer money, and
ultimately it is always taxpayer money, that the money is
allocated in a proper manner and that the government spends it
responsibly.
The issue if there is one with the $100 million fund is
certainly that there are a number of other programs out there
now.
1355
Many of those programs would dovetail very neatly into the
existing program. I should like to find out more about the other
existing programs at the committee stage before we support the
bill when it comes to a vote in the House. I certainly encourage
and applaud the government for moving in the right direction with
the bill. We will take into consideration at the end of the day
whether or not we will support it.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was very
happy and excited to hear the member's comments in support of the
bill and getting it to committee to be properly scrutinized and
perhaps amended and improved as we go along.
The member's heart is in the right place. He understands the
direction that the country has to go in. We do not have a choice
any more. I would leave him with one question. How does he
consider a finite resource is sustainable?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, how do we consider a
finite resource is sustainable? All resources ultimately are not
sustainable and we will end up using every resource on the
planet.
When we talk about sustainability of finite resources and if we
are speaking about fossil fuels, the issue becomes how we better
utilize the fossil fuels in the ground today. We have new
technologies. We have new ways of getting more gas and more oil
out of the ground. We have found ways to develop the tar sands
that were not in existence 20 years ago.
The finite resources may not be as finite as we once thought,
but it is an issue we have to deal with. The government has to
deal with it. We simply cannot continue to ignore it.
In the future, energy sources will become even more valuable
than they are today. We will depend upon larger sources of
electricity. We will be using more electricity as the IT sector
takes off.
We have done it in every other resource. We do not use less
energy; we use more energy. Some people would argue that we use
too much energy. The fact remains that we use energy and we have
to find ways to produce it, more sustainable ways not only of
finding alternative and new energy sources but new ways of
utilizing and extending the energy sources that are there
already.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
TED CHISWELL
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate
one of my constituents, Mr. Ted Chiswell, on his outstanding
efforts working oversees for the Canadian Executive Services
Organization.
Ted went to Georgetown, Guyana, to assist the auditor general.
He was asked to advise on policy and procedural manuals. During
Ted's time with the auditor general's office he prepared two
manuals, one dealing with internal office procedures and the
other with audit procedures. He trained 16 people as reference
guides. Ted anticipates a reduction in audit costs as a result
of the standardization of preprinted audit programs.
I say congratulations to Ted on a job well done. He has been a
great ambassador for Canada.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I draw attention to an urgent matter in my riding of
Nanaimo—Cowichan.
As the House sits, the first urban treaty in B.C. is being
negotiated with the Snuneymuxw band that resides in the Nanaimo
area. While I personally want to see a resolution to all
outstanding land claims, I believe the government is again
conducting negotiations behind closed doors and ignoring the
wishes of the residents of Nanaimo and Gabriola Island.
To date neither the city of Nanaimo, the regional district of
Nanaimo nor the Islands Trust are official parties to the treaty
negotiation process. I believe that these local government
bodies should be formally invited to the table as full and equal
voting partners.
The people of the Nanaimo area have a vested interest in the
negotiation process and are duly represented by these elected
governments. The Nanaimo city council and regional district have
specifically asked for the minister's attention to this matter
and the opportunity to meet with him personally at his earliest
convenience.
With what is at stake in all these negotiations, I believe this
would be in everyone's best interest. I again offer my
assistance in setting up any meetings with local officials.
Perhaps the minister would like a briefing from my office on this
important issue.
* * *
1400
SHAWKY FAHEL
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today to recognize and congratulate Shawky
Fahel, a successful Kitchener entrepreneur who has been named
Citizen of the Year by the Twin City Jaycees.
Shawky is well known to many of us on this side of the House for
his hard work within the Liberal Party. I personally appreciate
his commitment as president of my local riding association.
His humanitarian service extends around the world. He founded
the Canadian International Development Organization, a non-profit
organization that provides poverty relief and improved health
care in developing nations. His commitments to peace in the
Middle East and trade development with Palestine are well
regarded by the government.
An avid volunteer, Shawky's community service includes the
Kitchener Rotary Club and the Waterloos of the World Gathering.
Shawky's business success with the JG Group of Companies is a
further testament to his hard work and resourcefulness.
As an entrepreneur, humanitarian and volunteer, Shawky Fahel is
a leader in Kitchener-Waterloo. I ask members to join me in
congratulating him as Kitchener-Waterloo's Citizen of the Year.
* * *
[Translation]
MCWATTERS MINING INC.
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on February 14, McWatters Mining Inc. announced that it
was immediately closing down operations at its Sigma-Lamaque
complex for an undetermined period for financial reasons.
This closure will put 120 permanent employees out of work. If
McWatters does not get any additional funding, it will not be in
a position to resume full operations on a permanent basis.
McWatters is the eighth largest gold producer in Canada, with
reserves of 2.4 million ounces of gold and additional resources
of 4.6 million.
McWatters is also involved in developing a sizeable portfolio of
exploration properties.
If there is a complete shutdown, this will be a hard blow to
Val-d'Or and the Abitibi region, with a total of 946 direct and
indirect jobs affected if all the permanent employees,
subcontractors and service providers are counted in.
* * *
[English]
STRATFORD-PERTH ARCHIVES
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure I rise in the House today to
announce that on February 24 and February 25, 2001, the
Stratford-Perth Archives will be holding its 13th annual
collectors exhibition.
The Stratford-Perth Archives is the municipal repository for the
city of Stratford and the county of Perth. Over 6,000 people use
this facility annually. Collections in the archives range from
postcards to antique dishes, military memorabilia, antique
cameras and teddy bears.
The Stratford-Perth Archives is a recipient of a Canada
millennium partnership grant. The components of the grant will
be available for exhibition and include the microfilming of the
Listowel Banner from 1971 to 1986 and the oral interviews
of 12 Perth county war brides after the war in 1945.
* * *
MINISTER OF HEALTH
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of members of the
House and House officers to extend best wishes for a speedy and
complete recovery from prostate cancer surgery to our colleague,
the Hon. Minister of Health.
The health minister is undoubtedly spending much of his
post-operative downtime enjoying House proceedings on the
parliamentary channel, so this is an appropriate moment to let
him know that we are cheering him on and that our thoughts and
prayers have been with him and his family.
Of course some of us have entirely selfish reasons for looking
forward to the minister's early return to the House, especially
opposition health critics. We will do our best with our
questions when he returns to demonstrate to the minister how much
he has been missed.
All of us here send him our good wishes and best regards.
* * *
LIZZIES OLD TIMERS ASSOCIATION
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Lizzies
Old Timers Association is a unique community organization that
has its roots in Toronto's Elizabeth Street Public School, now
known as the Bob Abate Community Centre. Playground teams named
the Lizzies were initially involved only with baseball but have
grown to include other athletic activities such as hockey and
basketball.
Today the Lizzies are more than just an organized sport group.
They actively participate in worthwhile community causes and
contribute to many charitable organizations. Every year they
sponsor organized sport programs in Toronto, which allow over
1,000 underprivileged youth to enjoy organized sport programs.
In addition, the Lizzies Old Timers Association also honours
outstanding individuals throughout the community for their
athleticism in the programs and for volunteerism that has
demonstrated a commitment to making a difference in the Toronto
community.
1405
I take this opportunity to congratulate Lizzies Old Timers on
their recent 17th anniversary and give my best wishes to members
of the former and present Lizzies who have contributed their
efforts toward the success of this outstanding community
organization. They have shown that the Lizzies are truly
winners, not just in amateur sport but with the community.
* * *
[Translation]
WINTERLUDE
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at this year's
Winterlude, Quebec won first prize in the Canadian snow sculpture
competition on Parliament Hill.
For the second year in a row, the prize went to a team from my
riding made up of Normand and Martine Rousseau and Gérard Vallée,
all of Notre-Dame-du-Bon-Conseil.
Because of the disastrous weather conditions, our three artists
had only 30 hours to complete their sculpture of sugaring-off
time, “Le temps des sucres”. It got the nod from the judges
nevertheless, for its technical and artistic merit.
Speaking for myself as well as the people of Drummond, I would
like to say thank you and congratulations to our three sculptors
for this great win.
* * *
[English]
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to allow the extradition
of two men accused of murder on the condition they not be
executed is to be applauded and supported.
To the dismay of some members opposite, the supreme court has
made a landmark decision reflecting the view of many, including
that of the distinguished Italian jurist, Cesar Beccaria, when he
wrote over 200 years ago about the death penalty:
The state should set the example of civilized behaviour and not
take human lives in a cold and deliberate way, applying violence
to deter the use of violence.
It is time now for the United States of America, China and other
countries to heed Beccaria's admonishment and abolish the death
penalty in the name of progress and civilization, as has already
been done by 104 parliaments around the globe.
* * *
THE FAMILY
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
Monday, February 19, is a statutory holiday in Alberta to respect
families. It is a day on which to take a little break from
school and work. In the middle of a cold, snowy February in
Alberta some kids can go skiing.
In fact, I found out today that members of my own family are
skiing in West Castle near Pincher Creek. I must say I am a
little jealous being here in Ottawa while they are at home in
Alberta.
My oldest son, Rob, said that on Saturday he tried to modify a
tree somewhat with his leg, only bruising it, I am also glad to
say. It seems like he was trying to imitate my youngest son, who
actually broke his leg skiing at Lake Louise over the Christmas
holiday.
It is real nice to be able to stand and recognize families and
all those Albertans who get to enjoy this statutory holiday in
honour of the family, surely the foundation of our society.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN GENOME
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform my colleagues in the House that last week was a
gloriously full of scientific and technological developments.
The completion of the human genome mapping marks the start of a
new era for humanity, one in which we can now glimpse the
control, reduction and even defeat of a multitude of genetic
diseases.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State
for Science, Research and Development for announcing that Canada
will not allow information on the human genome to be the private
property of anyone.
[English]
There were two other technological achievements of note last
week. The Destiny Science Lab was attached to the International
Space Station, thus providing a unique research facility to
better understand our interstellar environment. As well, the
NEAR satellite, after orbiting an asteroid for over a year and
relaying data to earth, has now landed on that asteroid, a first
in the annals of space.
I say bravo to all the scientists, engineers and technicians
involved.
* * *
AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
today is a day of mourning for workers in the automobile industry
and for NDP members. The auto pact agreement, which was signed
36 years ago, ends today. This agreement helped Canada become a
major player in auto making around the world.
The auto pact was a model of good trade policy. Unlike free
trade, the auto pact made access to our Canadian market
conditional on a commitment to Canadian jobs and communities.
It has been an engine of prosperity for the province of Ontario
and Canada as a whole.
1410
Now that the auto pact has been killed by the WTO, the Liberal
government must rethink its failed free trade policy and come up
with a new policy to stimulate investment and jobs in the
Canadian auto industry.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC ARTISTS
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the
weekend, the talent of Quebec artists was recognized
internationally, in both Paris and Berlin.
Saturday evening, in Paris, at the 16th Victoires de la musique
ceremony, the French equivalent of the Félix awards, Isabelle
Boulay was twice crowned. She was chosen artistic discovery of
the year and her album Mieux qu'ici bas was chosen best album
discovery.
The following evening, in Berlin, it was Martine Chartrand's
turn to shine. She won the golden bear for her short entitled
Âme noire.
Also, Denis Villeneuve's film Maelstrom, shown outside the
competition, won the prize in the parallel section Panorama.
Well done. Through your genius and your excellent work,
Quebec's culture continues to spread the world over. You are our
pride.
* * *
HERITAGE DAY
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is
Heritage Day. Our heritage is the culture which we cherish and
wish to preserve and pass on to our children and our children's
children.
It is our shared symbols, the collections preserved in our
museums, libraries and archives, the buildings from another era,
our parks and natural spaces, our traditions, our customs and
our stories.
Everything that embodies Canada's cultural diversity is part of
the shared heritage of all Canadians.
[English]
I stress the importance of preserving our heritage and
highlighting it so that all Canadians can appreciate its
richness.
I invite all Canadians to celebrate Heritage Day and to reflect
on the shared heritage that unites us as a people.
[Translation]
Today and tomorrow, after Oral Question Period, the trust for
the preservation of Canadian audiovisual materials will be
honouring 12 audiovisual works representing Canada's heritage
which have been preserved and restored for the benefit of the
public.
I urge members to attend this event, which will take place in
Confederation Room, Room 200, in the West Block.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
fishermen and industry representatives are questioning why
several fishery research vessels are tied up at various ports in
Newfoundland when there is critical work they could be doing
offshore. As an example, the Wilfred Templeman has been
tied up in Burin since early December.
The department always uses a lack of research as an excuse for
poor decision making and now we understand why. The future
success of the fishery will depend greatly on scientific
knowledge. As our fishermen would say, “it looks like we are
depending on a rotten stick”.
* * *
[Translation]
BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, February
marks Black History Month, an opportunity for all Canadians to
celebrate the contribution of people of African origin to the
development of Canada.
In schools, community centres and workplaces, Canadians are
being urged to increase their knowledge and appreciation of this
important but often neglected aspect of our history.
The arrival of Mathieu Da Costa in the early seventeenth century
is historically associated with the presence of the first blacks
in Canada. Da Costa, who was an interpreter, helped the Mi'kmaq
and the French explorers to communicate with one another.
The federal government pays tribute to the contribution of
Mathieu Da Costa and of others of diverse backgrounds with its
Mathieu Da Costa Awards Program. This program invites students
aged nine to 19 to learn more about two people who, like Da
Costa, played a vital role in the creation of Canadian society.
As elected representatives, we are proud of the achievements of
all Canadians of diverse backgrounds.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Liberal government
actually understands the impact of the decisions it makes. The
recent decision to ban the import of Brazilian beef has caused
Brazil to retaliate by putting restrictions on a number of
Canadian products, including potash, which is one of the biggest
industries in my constituency.
IMC Kalium in my riding is concerned it could lose millions of
dollars in contracts, which could force it to reduce operations
or even shut down.
1415
This would ultimately put the 1,000 people in my constituency
who work at the mine out of work. If that happens, families in
the communities of Esterhazy, Churchbridge, Langenburg and many
more will be feeling the impact of this suspect trade action.
Businesses in these communities will also suffer as these
families will have less money to buy goods and services. There
are even a number of farmers who depend on the jobs at this mine
to put food on the table.
Did the government not foresee that its action would trigger a
trade war? The government's own scientists have even questioned
the validity of this trade action. To put families at risk for
political posturing is unacceptable and the government will be to
blame if these allegations are unfounded.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the official opposition, the markets
and most economists have been saying for some time that we are
going into a downturn. The federal Liberals have been in constant
denial about that, just whistling that we should not worry and be
happy.
On Friday in the House the Deputy Prime Minister agreed with the
official opposition. He said “The Canadian and U.S. economies
are headed to a slowdown”.
If the Deputy Prime Minister agrees that we are headed toward a
slowdown, why is the government not putting into place clear,
precise steps of action to reduce the impact of that slowdown on
Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has said right from the very beginning
that the Canadian economy is not immune to a slowdown in the
United States. We are indeed preoccupied with what is happening
with our neighbour to the south and, obviously, its effect on
jobs and the quality of life in Canada.
Given the fact that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned
Nortel and given the fact that what has happened at Nortel is in
fact a reduction in demand outside our borders, primarily in the
United States, would he tell us what we could do in a Canadian
budget that would improve consumer demand in the United States?
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Yes, Mr. Speaker. At 3.30 this afternoon I will
be addressing that in a news conference complete with charts and
very specific steps of action. He should come on out.
Some call it a slowdown and some call it reduced demand from
outside the United States. It is incumbent upon governments to
plan,—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. It is very difficult for the
Chair to hear the Leader of the Opposition. I think it is
appropriate for members to hear the Leader of the Opposition ask
his question, certainly the Chair wishes to.
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, it is noisy over there.
Who let the dogs out?
It is incumbent upon a government to plan for both the good
times and the bad times. The only planning we have seen from the
government is a stale-dated mini budget last fall based on rosy
predictions which even their resident economist, the now member
for Markham, said could lead into a deficit because of their
increased spending.
Why will the government not table a budget to deal with the
uncertainties and to show clear steps of actions to reduce the
impact. Table the budget.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right, it does take
foresight and planning. That is why in the October statement not
only was there the largest degree of stimulus in Canadian
history, the largest tax cut of $17 billion this year, but there
was also massive spending both on health care and on early
childhood development.
Rather than the Leader of the Opposition waiting for his
charts—will he wear a wetsuit at the same time—what would he do
in a Canadian budget that would increase consumption in the
United States?
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's spanking
obviously still has him startled.
[Translation]
The federal Liberals are out of touch with reality. Job offers
are down 2.2%, 43% of manufacturers are anticipating a slowdown
and thousands of workers have lost their jobs.
Everywhere in the country people are adjusting to the new
economic realities. Why does the government refuse to do the
same?
1420
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have said on two occasions that the government, as a
result of its prudence, as a result of its tax cuts, which are
unparalleled in Canadian history, and as a result of its
spending, has put in place the measures that are required. While
the Americans are debating tax cuts, the government has done
them.
I should also point out that the tax cuts that we brought in on
January 1 were greater than were the tax cuts that were
recommended by the Alliance.
Now I go back to the hon. member. I have asked him the question
three times. What would he put in a budget now that would affect
consumer demand in the United States? That is where the problem
lies.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the problem lies with a finance minister who cannot
recognize reality. We proposed $125 billion in real tax cuts,
unlike the kind of CPP payroll tax increases being imposed by
this minister.
In December the manufacturing decline was offset by an increase
in shipping of electronics parts. Now that Nortel has laid off
10,000 people, we can see that the picture will change
significantly down the road.
Why will the finance minister not agree with the growing number
of experts who say that it is time to come in with a real budget
and a plan to jump start the Canadian economy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the slowdown in the United States is taking place now.
The tax cuts that we put into place are greater than the first
year tax cuts that the Alliance would have brought in.
Yes, the Alliance did recommend $25 billion in tax cuts in the
fifth year, greater than what we did, but that would have put us
back into a deficit. Would the hon. member tell us why going
back into a deficit would improve the situation with consumers in
the United States?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, if he wants to talk about deficit, perhaps he should
talk to his member for Markham who said that his own wild
spending plans in this budget could put the government back into
deficit.
Since he seems to be in denial, perhaps he could talk to his own
parliamentary secretary who said on TV last week, on a panel
with me, that growth this year could be as low as 2%. That 2% is
a whole lot less lower than the 3.5% which was the growth
projection in this government's tax and spend fiscal plan.
With the member for Markham and his own parliamentary secretary
contradicting him, will the minister come in with a budget that
will jump start this economy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the October statement we set aside prudence factors
that in fact compensate for the reduction in growth that is now
projected. The fact is that we showed the foresight.
The hon. member just said that we should be cutting spending.
Would the hon. member tell me how cutting spending will add
stimulus to the Canadian economy at a time of slowdown in the
United States?
* * *
[Translation]
FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
parliamentarians, and also civil society, are asking to have
access to the documents that are being discussed in anticipation
of the Summit of the Americas.
In our opinion, these documents should be debated in this House,
before the government signs any agreement.
Will the government make public not Canada's position which is
on the Website—and we know it—but, rather, the documents of the
nine sectoral tables that are being discussed regarding the free
trade area of the Americas?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Bloc Quebecois
leader acknowledges that our government was the first one of all
the countries of the hemisphere to put its bargaining positions
on the Internet.
The Bloc Quebecois leader should also recognize that 34
countries are engaged in these negotiations, which means there
are 34 parties involved. It is not up to Canada to disclose the
content of discussion papers that concern 34 countries.
We will not do so unilaterally but, as Canada's Minister for
International Trade, I will ask that these documents be released
in Buenos Aires or before, if possible.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
surprised, because a document from the office of the President
of the United States, in Washington D.C., reads exactly as
follows:
[English]
The initial draft chapters in these nine areas were developed
based on texts proposed by individual countries or groups of
countries. The draft text is available for review by cleared
advisors, including all Members of Congress.
[Translation]
Therefore, if members of the U.S. Congress can have the texts of
the nine sectoral tables, why are we not allowed to have these
documents? I would like the minister, who is very open, to
explain this to us.
1425
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the Bloc Quebecois would like to
see the americanization of our institutions and, instead of a
parliamentary democracy, a presidential system that is
completely different and that has nothing to do with our own
system.
Here in Canada, we have our own way of doing things; the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
does a very serious job. Canada's position
is largely based on the work of parliament's foreign affairs
committee and we will continue to proceed in this fashion.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is very
serious. On February 8, the Prime Minister said he could not
make Canada's position public, because the other countries did
not want it and he could not reveal it to us parliamentarians.
Today, the minister has just said the same thing, that we cannot
make it public, since the 34 countries do not want us to. A
U.S. government document, dated January 17, says that American
elected representatives will have access to the documents.
How can the government justify what the Prime Minister said and
what the minister has just said?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the Bloc Quebecois'
surprise at the Prime Minister and the Minister for
International Trade saying the same thing on such an important
issue. It would have been totally surprising if the Prime
Minister and I were to say the opposite thing.
I can assure the hon. member of one thing and that is that the
Canadian government wants there to be as much transparency as
possible in the negotiations of the free trade area of the
Americas. We were the first country to make our bargaining
positions public and we will ask our partners in the Americas to
release the texts of negotiations, because this is what we want.
However, Canada will not do it unilaterally. It will do it with
its partners and the other parties to the negotiations.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once again,
when the U.S. government, whose members are not exactly in the
pee-wee league of this type of international negotiations—as
members will acknowledge—consider it legitimate to make the other
countries' positions public and accessible to their
representatives, the minister should not be surprised that we
consider it unacceptable for the Canadian government to call
itself transparent and refuse to reveal its position. This is
abnormal.
Instead of talking about transparency, the minister should act
coherently, tell us the truth and show us the documents.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is the leader in transparency. We
set Canada's position out before all the other countries, and
the United States and Chile followed our example.
We were the first country to ask for publication of the
negotiations texts, and I really hope we can convince our
partners in the Americas so that we may all look at them
together. However, Canada will not do this unilaterally. We
will do it with the other parties to these negotiations, our 33
partners.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is also for the Minister for International Trade.
The minister seems to not appreciate the seriousness of the fact
that documents may be available to American members of congress
that are not available to Canadian members of parliament.
I would like the Minister for International Trade answer a
question. Never mind Americanization. The most Americanizing
thing that one could think of would be the FTAA. It is not a
question of Americanization. It is a question of democracy and
access for members of parliament to important documents. Will he
make a commitment that whatever is available to members of
congress will also be available to Canadian members of
parliament?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that we see the NDP
joining the Bloc in wanting the Americanization of our way of
proceeding. I will look into exactly how they are proceeding in
the United States and I will look into what is available. If it
is available to congress, it will not be long before it becomes
public. Let me look into exactly how the Americans are
proceeding.
The one thing I can tell the House is that nobody will give
Canada lessons in transparency in these negotiations. We have
been transparent and have taken the lead in dialoguing with
society on these issues.
1430
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, that was one of the dumbest answers I have heard and,
believe me, that is going some.
My second question is also for the Minister for International
Trade. It has to do with the way in which he as the minister has
been misleading the Canadian public with respect to the GATS.
We have a study done by the CCPA which shows that Canada's
health care services are in fact critically exposed now under the
GATS and will be even more exposed under the agenda that is now
before the GATS. Will the minister stand in the House and
indicate Canada's intention to take out a general exception—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister for International Trade.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the GATS explicitly excludes “services
supplied in the exercise of governmental authority”.
With respect to these services it is absolutely clear. I have
been saying it in the House and I have not misled the House, as
the member of the NDP just said in his question, which is not an
appropriate parliamentary way of doing it. The GATS is clear.
Services supplied in exercise of governmental authority are
excluded.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the solicitor general. Just before question
period I received a letter from the commissioner of the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police relating to the Auberge Grand-Mère.
Could the solicitor general tell the House whether in its review
of the file the Royal Canadian Mounted Police interviewed the two
former presidents of the Business Development Bank, Mr. Beaudoin
and Mr. Schroder, and will he tell the House whether they
interviewed the Prime Minister?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that a former prime
minister would not be aware that the solicitor general does not
get involved in reviewing material that is supplied to the RCMP.
He should be aware of that.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the solicitor general might find out. My question is for
the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister. On January 25,
1999, Peter Donolo said “The government does not get directly
involved in the lending decisions of the Business Development
Corporation”.
On April 10, 1999, the Prime Minister wrote to the National
Post saying ,“I had no direct or indirect personal connection
with the hotel or with the auberge with the adjacent golf
course”.
On November 16, 2000, the Prime Minister directly contradicted
himself, admitting that he called the president of the bank twice
and invited him once to 24 Sussex to—
The Speaker: I am afraid the right hon. member has run
out of time. Whether there is a question there or not, the
Minister of Industry may choose to reply.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for greater clarity, the leader of the Conservative
Party did not advise the House what the communique, which was in
the way of a press release, from the RCMP said.
Following two letters from the leader of the Conservative Party,
two requests for a criminal investigation, the communique today
says that “the review was done to determine if a criminal
investigation was warranted in the matter. Our review of the
facts”, something with which the hon. member is not familiar,
“has determined that there was no information or facts to
support such an investigation. We have therefore concluded this
matter and have advised the complainant we will not be pursuing a
criminal investigation into this matter”.
Joe, it is time to give this nonsense up.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the economy is taking a turn for the worse and the
finance minister is ignoring it.
The Bank of Canada has decreased its economic forecast by one
full percentage point. Forty-three per cent of Canadian
manufacturers are planning for an economic slowdown. Thousands
of Canadians have lost their jobs. Why is the finance minister
ignoring the problem and not tabling a budget in the next month?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is obviously preoccupied by the economic
situation. There is no doubt that whenever a Canadian loses a
job it is a tragedy and it is of utmost concern.
However, the fact is that in the last six years there have been
two crises, the Mexican peso crisis and the Asian crisis, both of
which the government has taken the country through. We have done
very well. In both cases panic was demonstrated on the other
side, which is exactly what is being demonstrated now.
I ask the hon. member, as I have before, if there is to be a new
budget what would the hon. member like to see in that budget that
will improve consumer demand in the United States. That is where
the problem lies.
1435
[Translation]
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, last Friday, the Deputy Prime Minister clearly said that
the economies of the United States and of Canada were slowing
down. It is obvious that the Deputy Prime Minister's view is very
different from that of the Minister of Finance.
With what part of the Deputy Prime Minister's economic analysis
does the Minister of Finance not agree?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member seems to be having a little trouble understanding.
There is no doubt that the economy of the United States is
slowing down. There is no doubt that this will have an impact on
us. Furthermore, that is why the government introduced the
largest tax cut in Canada's history. That is why we put so much
into new spending.
Now, if the hon. member has other suggestions, I look forward to
hearing them. Does he want us to go into a deficit? Does he
want to cut spending? Does he want to increase tax cuts? And,
if so, how will this work? How will this improve the economic
situation of the United States?
* * *
FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
response to my question a little while ago, the Minister for
International Trade told us it would mean the Americanization of
our institutions if we were to allow parliamentarians to have a
right of inspection, to be informed about the documents relating
to the Summit of the Americas.
I am not talking about the countries' positions. I am referring
to the nine sectoral working documents, which we have been
requesting for several weeks. The Americans are entitled to see
such documents. Why would we not have the same right? How is it
that our system would be thrown into total disarray if
parliamentarians were informed? Are we not headed toward the
same situation we had during the negotiations on the
multilateral agreement on investment?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are working in conjunction with partners
throughout the country. With the standing committee on foreign
affairs, we have a web site, a protected site, through which an
ongoing dialogue is carried out daily with all provincial
governments focused on the multilateral agreements. Whether the
free trade area or the World Trade Organization is involved, we
are constantly seeking improved ways of working. We are totally
open to any possible improvement.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
is the same thing we heard when they were negotiating the MAI.
That is what they were saying when a text came out on the
Internet at a certain point. A great hullabaloo ensued.
I would ask the minister this. We are told here in the House
that the countries had agreed not to make the nine documents of
the sectorial tables public, whereas this had happened in the
United States as far back as January 17. There are two possible
scenarios here: we were not told the truth, we were lied to, or
the government was not aware of this. Neither is a particularly
attractive situation.
If they want to improve the situation, as the minister has just
said, would he accept doing the same as is being done in the
United States, here in this very House?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that here in Canada we have
an approach to multilateral and bilateral agreements that
involves a parliamentary committee. The positions of our
government, my negotiating mandate, were put on the Internet
site and very closely reflected what had been said by the
parliamentary committee.
We worked with the parliamentary
committee and our position is very closely in line with its
wishes. It is, moreover, our intention to continue to do a good
job as far as openness in the negotiations is concerned, and the
negotiations are being discussed with the provinces.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the finance minister filed his fiscal flight plan when the
financial skies were clear and the winds were calm. Now the
forecasts clearly indicate some fiscal turbulence ahead and a
revised flight plan is called for.
Will the finance minister table a new budget reflecting the
present reality, or is he intent on risking the safety of his
Canadian passengers on only a hope and a prayer?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the hon. member's party talked about
foresight. At the time we tabled the October statement we were
told that there was probably excessive stimulus in the budget we
were submitting, that we were probably cutting taxes too much and
that we were spending too much.
The October statement tax cuts which came in on January 1 are
exactly the kind of medicine that the Canadian economy required.
We showed that foresight.
1440
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister is ignoring the signs that are
evident to many others. Automobile and high tech companies in
Canada are taking corrective action. The fiscal leaders in the
United States are taking corrective action.
Only the finance minister wants to go into the future with a
blindfold on his eyes. Why does he not just do what is right and
table a plan, a new budget, that will minimize the damage to the
security of Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the fiscal action they are talking about in the United
States is major tax reductions spread over a 10 year period, with
the bulk of them to occur at the end of the period.
In our case we brought in a massive tax plan on a per capita
basis equal to that of the United States. It was not done over
10 years. It was done over 5 years and ours was front end
loaded. The fact is that while the hon. member talks about it, we
did it.
* * *
[Translation]
FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when he
addressed the Organization of American States, in Washington,
the Prime Minister said, and I quote “The free trade area of the
Americas cannot be about trade alone”.
Later on, he added “It must be holistic in nature. It must
include improving the efficiency of financial markets,
protecting labour rights and the environment, and having better
development cooperation”.
Unfortunately, that position is not shared by the Department of
Foreign Affairs. My question is: What is Canada's true position
regarding the negotiations on the free trade area of the
Americas, particularly as regards labour rights and the
environment?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
obviously the Prime Minister speaks on behalf of the government.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is the
government itself that is creating confusion in the preparations
for the negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas.
I am asking this government, whoever can answer, whether it is
prepared to hold a debate in the House, so that we know what we
are about to negotiate regarding the free trade area of the
Americas?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. The Prime Minister and
myself said exactly the same thing. When he addressed the
Organization of American States, the Prime Minister was
referring to all the work that we are going to do during the
Summit of the Americas.
That summit will of course include discussions on trade. But the
Prime Minister also said that the summit would provide an
opportunity to discuss with the other countries issues such as
the environment and labour rights which, of course, impact on
one another.
The Quebec summit will deal with all these issues. We on this
side of the House are all on the same wavelength.
* * *
[English]
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we have been asking about the Prime Minister's
interest in the Grand-Mère Golf Club for two years but he still
refuses to answer questions to Canadians whether at home or
abroad.
The Prime Minister has described his unsold shares in the golf
course as a debt that was owed him, as a receivable and as an
asset.
The ethics counsellor described them as a bad debt and a
financial obligation to the Prime Minister. How could the Prime
Minister expect Canadians to believe he had no personal interest
in collecting on the debt owed to him?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the facts are clear. The Prime Minister did not own the
shares in question in the 1996 period.
This has been stated over and over again. This has been
confirmed by the ethics counsellor. Insofar as there are any
allegations of criminal wrongdoing, the RCMP has found on the
facts that these allegations are totally unfounded.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is simply wrong. The
Prime Minister owned shares in the golf course through his
company, J & AC Consultants. He claimed he put all his affairs
in a blind trust when he became Prime Minister.
If all the dealings of his company were really in a blind trust,
how did the Prime Minister even become aware that the sale of the
shares in the golf course had fallen through? If these shares
were really in a blind trust, why did he personally intervene and
phone the ethics counsellor on the evening of January 27, 1996,
to discuss this matter?
1445
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the shares in question, as I understand it, did not have
to be in a blind trust because at the relevant time we are
talking about the Prime Minister did not own them.
Even though the transaction in question did not result in
immediate payment, the shares did not revert to the physical
possession or the ownership of the Prime Minister. Those are the
facts. In effect those were confirmed also by the RCMP release
today stating that on the facts of the matter there is no
criminal—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on Thursday of last week the Canadian Foundation for Climate
Change and Atmospheric Sciences announced an investment of more
than $3.9 million for climate change and clean air scientific
research.
Could the Minister of the Environment tell the House how
this will help Canada reach both its climate change goals and its
atmospheric pollution goals?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Foundation for Climate Change and
Atmospheric Sciences is an arm's length foundation which was
established last April by the government with a $60 million
grant.
The member is quite correct. The grants announced on February
15 will provide almost $4 million in funding to Canadian
universities over the next three years. There were some 15
projects approved. They will assist us in understanding climate
change, although I might add that more research needs to be done.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians wish to know and have it
verified that the government is to cut our air force by half.
Will the minister of defence please tell Canada, those men and
women working in our military service and those civilian workers
in air force bases around the country that their jobs and bases
will be protected? Will Canada maintain control of its
sovereignty over its waters and the far Arctic as well?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are investing in modernizing and upgrading our
air force. More than half the number of planes that are being
retired from service are being replaced by a public-private
sector partnership arrangement whereby new aircraft will be
brought into the system.
The Tutors will go out, for example, and in will come the Hawks
and the Harvards as part of NATO flying training. That will be
an even better service. The upgrades in terms of the CF-18s will
make them among the best and most effective fighting equipment in
the world. We are investing to modernize our Canadian armed
forces.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for
the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Last week in the House he said
that once the applications were in he would go back to cabinet to
see if there was any more money.
The merchant mariners have done more for the country than the
government ever has. What those remaining veterans and their
surviving spouses would like to know is whether there is enough
money left in the pot to satisfy all the needs of the merchant
mariners in their compensation claim against the government.
Hon. Ronald Duhamel (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification)
(Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am apprised that
merchant mariners have made an extraordinary contribution to the
country.
My colleague should recognize, and I believe that he does, that
the initial request was for $50 million. That was insufficient.
I was able to go back and get another $20 million. That will be
insufficient as well.
I am waiting to see what the reviews will yield so that I know
exactly how much I have to ask for. Until the it would not be
appropriate to make a request because we do not have a specific
amount, but the government and I want to be as accommodating as
possible.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, we just
heard the minister of defence talking about how he is investing
to modernize the air force. Let me state that they are cutting
the number of planes from 505 to 280. The flying time for the
Auroras that are left is being cut by 60%.
How could the minister of defence justify such reckless cuts
which will leave us with very little coastal patrols to defend
against illegal fishing, illegal refugees and environmental
hazards?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to meet all our obligations in
terms of the protection of the country and in terms of patrol and
surveillance of our coastal waters.
We are talking about a reduction of five aircraft in the Aurora
surveillance and patrol aircraft. We are talking about a
reduction in the number of hours.
However, we are making that plane more efficient by the upgrades
that will be put into it. That will in fact cut down on the
number of training hours, but in terms of the surveillance
capacity there will be no diminution of the service provided to
Canadians.
1450
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I do not
think the minister of defence knows what is happening in his
department.
The Auroras are being cut from 19,000 hours to 8,000 hours of
flying time. This is not only an issue of military capability
but of sovereignty. Cuts to our air forces will leave our
coastlines virtually unprotected while forcing us to rely heavily
on the United States.
How could the minister defend actions that so clearly threaten
the independence of our country?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the 19,000 figure is wrong. The current number of
hours is about 11,000. We are talking about reducing that to
8,000 in 2003-04, but that includes more than just surveillance.
That includes the training hours.
With new equipment and new simulators we will be able to cut
down on the number of hours spent in training in the actual
Auroras and still be able to maintain the hours spent on
surveillance and protection of Canadian coastal waters.
* * *
TERRORISM
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, last week the United Kingdom enacted the terrorism act
2000, wide ranging legislation designed to counter terrorism and
provide authorities with the necessary tools to combat those who
use violence and terrorism to advance their causes.
When the government adopted the convention in 1999 it was
expected that legislation would soon follow. To date,
legislation has not yet been tabled. Where is the legislation?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government strongly condemns
terrorism and any group that uses terrorism to forward its goals.
In fact, I plan to introduce legislation soon to combat terrorism
fundraising.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is already a year late. The Ottawa declaration
called upon all states to join with the existing treaties on
terrorism by the year 2000.
Even the Prime Minister recognized the urgency of the situation
when he stated that we were to take whatever measures necessary
to ensure that no country anywhere in the world could get away
with giving support to terrorists. Instead of ministers having
dinner with terrorists, why is the legislation not here?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to my hon. colleague,
legislation will be coming soon.
The country has and will continue to fight terrorism. I hope my
hon. colleague and his party will support the legislation when it
is brought forward.
* * *
[Translation]
FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the issues that will be negotiated at the Summit of the
Americas involve a number of areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tell us what kind
of co-operation exists with provincial governments with respect
to the positions the federal government will be defending at the
Summit of the Americas in Quebec City?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the federal-provincial conference two
weeks ago on Monday, February 5, we looked at the whole range of
issues, including those that interest us with respect to the
summit on the free trade area of the Americas in Quebec City.
I must say that the dialogue with all the governments in the
land was very constructive and very useful for our government. We
intend to go on working very closely with all provincial
governments.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we know that the issues to be discussed at this Summit
of the Americas will have an impact on the immediate and the very
long term economic future of the three Americas, including Canada
and Quebec.
Is the Minister for International Trade prepared to arrange a
federal-provincial conference of first ministers so that the
positions of the federal government are clear, accurate and
consistent with the priorities of the various provincial
governments?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will pass on to the Prime Minister the
suggestion from the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier.
However, I must say that it is up to the Prime Minister to
determine the issues to be raised at federal-provincial
conferences.
However, I can say that the Monday, February 5 conference of
ministers went extremely well and consensus was reached fairly
easily on all issues discussed.
I am extremely pleased with my working relations with the
Government of Quebec and with the governments of each of the
provinces across the country.
* * *
1455
[English]
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, last week the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
stated that the leader of my party and the leader of the
Progressive Conservative Party were promoting blackmail by
western separatists.
I have to assume that the minister's words mean that he feels
that it is never acceptable for any Canadian from any region to
suggest that their region could get a better deal from Ottawa by
negotiating with a knife at the throat. I applaud that
sentiment. That is why our leader has said “any discussion of
separatism is absolutely untenable”.
Now we learn from the minister that he will not be going to
Alberta during his upcoming tour. How will this exclusion of
Albertans make them feel more included?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not our intention to exclude Albertans. In fact,
we have great sympathy with Ralph Klein when he said “I would
hope the Alliance Party would return some of that money”, that
is the $70,000, “on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition to
the Alberta treasury to help offset the atrocious cost of that
lawsuit”.
The member for Calgary—Nose Hill happened to say when she heard
of it “$70,000, whoo-ee, we need to get to the bottom of it”.
Those were real western sentiments.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. Deputy Prime Minister for that
spectacularly irrelevant response.
During the election Alice Farness, a Liberal candidate,
threatened Saskatchewan farmers that they would get no help from
Ottawa if they did not vote Liberal. So far, the government has
done a spectacularly good job at following through on this
election promise.
For example, last week the intergovernmental affairs minister
went all the way west to the University of Toronto Law School to
remind western Canadians that the policy of tough love is still
in effect.
The minister has not even hinted at repudiating Mrs. Farness'
comments. Will he do so now or does he think they are
legitimate? Are they policy?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that at last the Leader of the
Opposition made a very clear statement about the necessity to
never flirt with any kind of separatism in the country. It was
time.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, accidents
at railway crossings account for half of all railway related
deaths and injuries each year. What is the Minister of Transport
doing to improve safety at railway crossings in Cambridge and the
rest of the country?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows that we have a program which helps
fund separation at railway crossings. In fact, an announcement
was just made at the end of last week on the latest funding.
This is right across the country. Unfortunately there is not
enough money to do all the crossings that are so needed,
particularly in urban areas. We have to come to grips with the
fact that we have to put more money into this kind of project,
and we need the participation of our municipal and provincial
partners to really do the job.
* * *
FINANCE
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, finally last week after an unusual prolonged silence
the industry minister acknowledged what the opposition has been
saying for a long time, that the current equalization formula
impedes economic development in the Atlantic region. He promised
to push his cabinet colleagues to change the formula.
Despite repeated urging by the opposition, other parties and now
even the industry minister, the finance minister has refused to
address the issue. Has the industry minister finally managed to
convince the finance minister to change this counterproductive
equalization system?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member ought to know that the equalization
formula is constantly under discussion by officials and that is
going on.
He also ought to know that I will be meeting with my provincial
counterparts in the next month following the Prime Minister's
commitment not only to increase the base for last year but to
discuss the overall economic situation as it applies to the
recipient province.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is nice to know the industry minister is having
an influence over there.
Before meeting with his cabinet colleagues last week the
industry minister announced to the media that he intended to
raise the equalization issue. In that way he ensured he would
get credit for any agreement on equalization which came out of
that meeting or any subsequent meeting.
1500
Could the finance minister, who still will not address the
problems with the equalization formula promptly and properly,
assure us in the House that he is able to set aside his eroding
leadership aspirations, in spite of the credit the industry
minister may get, and deal with the issue properly?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I know everyone wants to
hear the minister's answer to the question. The hon. Minister of
Finance has the floor.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I assure the hon. member that I will be discussing this
issue, that I have discussed it with my colleague and that I will
be discussing it with my provincial colleagues. We will continue
to do that.
* * *
[Translation]
IRAQ
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, last week the American government authorized the bombing
of Iraq. We know that Great Britain not only agreed in advance
to this, but also took part in the U.S. military action.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Can he
confirm whether Canada was consulted before the bombings? Is the
minister himself in agreement with the U.S. attitude, and does he
intend to accept an emergency debate on this?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not a matter of whether or not we were consulted
beforehand. We are, however, in favour of exclusion zones, which
are in my opinion necessary to protect civilian populations in
Iraq, the Kurds in the north and the Shiite Moslems. This is
therefore necessary.
Second, I believe it is necessary for the pilots to be protected
as they carry out their duties. Finally, I would say that the
best for Iraq to do is to accept the standards set by the United
Nations.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Janos Martonyi,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Hungary.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I also draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Graeme Bowbrick,
Attorney General and Minister responsible for Human Rights of the
province of British Columbia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Contrary to repeated assertions by the Canadian Alliance in the
House today and elsewhere, I never at any time said that the
Liberal program would lead the country back into deficits.
The contrary impression arose from media spin during the
election, generated by a Canadian Alliance which was desperate—
1505
The Speaker: I know the hon. member is trying to raise a
point of order, but I am afraid that it is a point of debate.
Members sometimes disagree about statements that other members
make in the House, and of course in debate we do have
disagreements. If the member has a point of order to make I am
sure he will make it very promptly and will want to conclude with
that.
Mr. John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, without going into
further detail, then, let me register the point that their claims
that I said there would be a deficit under the Liberal program
are untrue.
The Speaker: Here we are going into debate.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Because I do not tolerate specious points of order, I
will simply remind you that the member's point is out of order
and that just this week he said that the chances of a recession
coming on had been—
The Speaker: Here we go again. I did try to quell any
disorder that might arise from the point of order, pointing out
that this really is a point of debate rather than a point of
order.
I thought the hon. member for Calgary Southeast was going to be
very helpful, and he started out that way, but as you can see we
are moving into debate. We will end it at this point. I
appreciate the assistance of all hon. members.
* * *
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: Order, please. I wish to rule today on a
point of order raised by the hon. member for Repentigny on
February 14, 2001. This point of order concerns comments made by
the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac during question
period.
The point of order raised by the hon. member for Repentigny
concerns a question put by the hon. member for
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac to the government House leader. In
phrasing his question, the hon. member for
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac referred to a statement by “The Bloc
Quebecois”.
When the hon. member for Repentigny raised the point of order,
he claimed to have been targeted by that comment and quoted the
statement he had made during the time allotted to Statements by
Members on Tuesday, February 13, 2001.
[English]
The hon. member for Repentigny argues that the hon. member for
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac attributed to him comments that he never
made. He objects to the interpretation given to his statement by
the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac and claims that what
was said in the House was inaccurate and impugned his integrity
and honesty. He also asks that the comments be withdrawn and
that an apology be offered.
[Translation]
I checked the videotape of the exchange that took place on
February 14 and the transcript of the Debates, and I can
confirm that what was said was not a personal attack or a
quotation.
The comments made did not refer to a specific individual and
constituted, at most, a partisan remark by one party about
another.
[English]
Speaker Fraser, who had to rule on a similar question on May 15,
1991, stated the following at page 100 of Debates:
The hon. member has raised an issue which is not an unusual kind
of issue to raise. The difficulty that is always with the Chair
in these cases is that there are often very great differences of
interpretation on answers that are given. It is not a question
of privilege, it is a question of disagreement over certain facts
and answers that were given.
I finish the quotation from Speaker Fraser and I say we have
witnessed exactly the same thing today.
[Translation]
In this case involving the hon. member for Repentigny, the
exchange also constitutes a disagreement.
I repeat what I said when the point of order was raised, that
“there is a disagreement concerning the facts in this case” and
that “it is not up to the Speaker to rule that this is a point
of order”.
I would like to thank the hon. members who intervened in this
matter.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I raise a question of
privilege.
If I properly understand your ruling, and this is where I want
to ensure I have got your ruling right, it means that anyone in
the Bloc Quebecois may say, without foundation, that we heard
one or more Liberals make outrageous remarks, last week, against
the people of Quebec, for example. We could say that in this
House and would be entitled to do so. With this ruling, you are
allowing us to do that.
Do I properly understand your ruling Mr. Speaker?
1510
The Speaker: I think the hon. member may read and consider my
decision, which will be available in today's Hansard. It is not
up to me at the moment to interpret my ruling for members. I
have made my decision. In my opinion, it is very clear. The
hon. member may read it and decide for himself whether it is
clear and, I hope, in his opinion, wise.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) they are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT SUPERANNUATION ACT
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-270, an act to
discontinue the retiring allowances payable to members of
parliament under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances
Act and to include members of Parliament in the Public Service
Superannuation Act and to discontinue members' tax free
allowances for expenses and include the amount in members'
sessional allowances.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to reintroduce a bill
in keeping with a promise to my constituents made in 1998. The
bill addresses two concerns of parliament and two concerns of the
Canadian people.
One is that MPs should be paid in a manner which is visible and
should be treated in the same manner as other Canadian taxpayers.
The second is that the pension plan of MPs should be in line with
what is available to others. In the case of my bill it will put
them in line with the program of federal superannuation paid to
all public servants in the country.
I believe this is a fair way to treat MPs. With a review of the
pay and benefits of MPs now underway I hope the government will
implement the recommendations of the study, which it did not do
in 1977.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
EDUCATION BENEFITS ACT
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-271, an act respecting education benefits for
spouses and children of certain deceased federal enforcement
officials.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce
my private member's bill, an act respecting education benefits
for spouses and children of certain deceased federal enforcement
officials.
The bill proposes to fund the equivalent of one post-secondary
degree for children and spouses of federal enforcement officials
who die as a result of injury received or illness contracted in
the discharge of their duties.
The bill will apply to certain employees of the Correctional
Service Canada, the RCMP, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency,
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Parks Canada, Canadian
Security Intelligence Service, Department of Citizenship and
Immigration, and members of the Canadian armed forces.
Between 1989 and 1999 a total of 23 federal police and
enforcement officials were killed in the line of duty. During
the same time 22 members of the Canadian armed forces serving in
peacekeeping missions abroad lost their lives while serving our
country.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1515
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-272, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act (child adoption expenses).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Athabasca for so
willingly seconding my private member's bill.
I rise today to introduce a bill to amend the Income Tax Act.
Although I would like to repeal it altogether, I am instead
proposing the bill to make the act more equitable to parents, and
in this case those who have adopted a child. The bill, if
passed, would allow adoptive parents to deduct the expenses
related to the adoption of a child up to a maximum of $7,000 in
one year.
Many families adopt Canadian children. Many others choose to
rescue orphan children from foreign countries. The process is
expensive and I believe a portion of the expenses incurred should
be tax deductible.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by
over 1,600 citizens.
They respectfully ask that parliament take all measures
necessary to ensure that the possession of child pornography
remains a serious criminal offence, that the age of consent be
raised to 18 years of age, and that the police be directed to
give priority to enforcing these laws.
DIVORCE ACT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a
petition which was signed by over 50 my constituents of
Calgary—Nose Hill.
They request that parliament immediately amend the Divorce Act,
taking into consideration the recommendations made by the Special
Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. These
recommendations were made December 8, 1998, and included a
minority report submitted by the then Reform Party of Canada.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed
* * *
[Translation]
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
IRAQ
The Speaker: I have received a notice of motion pursuant to
Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for Mercier.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 52, I wrote you a letter requesting an emergency
debate on the British and American bombing of Iraq. Why?
Because this question concerns Quebecers and Canadians. It also
concerns parliamentarians.
The exclusion zones proclaimed by the United Nations were not
even respected during the February 16 air strikes. Four of the
five targets were not in the exclusion zones.
This raises some extremely important fundamental questions about
rights. Canada, along with Poland, are the only countries that
confirmed the right of the Americans and the British to do what
they did, according to the dispatches I have read so far.
As well, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs unanimously
signed a report calling for the lifting of the economic embargo
affecting the population of Iraq. Since the 1990 air strikes,
poverty has increased dramatically, affecting children in
particular. We can see that the sanctions are not affecting
Saddam Hussein, but they are seriously affecting the general
population.
Last year, a delegation of Quebecers and Canadians visited the
region and returned greatly troubled. They called upon
parliament and the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs to bring
pressures to bear.
This movement to put an end to the economic embargo that is
affecting the population has made some progress, but the air
strikes of February 16 are a backward step and likely to make any
diplomatic solution to this conflict that has been going on for
11 years extremely problematic.
1520
As well, and this third reason strikes me as a very important
one, the situation in the Middle East is already tense.
Considering the deterioration in the relationship between the
Israelis and the Palestinians, the events in Iraq on February 16
cannot help but inflame the Arab peoples of the entire region
still further. What is likely to happen is that the region will
become a powder keg.
For all of these reasons, because peace, or the lack of it,
affect all Quebecers and all Canadians, and because there has
been such a major change in the Middle East situation, I call for
an emergency debate.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Mercier for her
request for an emergency debate on the situation in the entire
Middle East as a result of last Friday's air strikes.
I considered this matter at length, before Oral Question Period
today as well as during her remarks, and I agree with her on the
serious nature of the situation.
It is my duty, however, to reach a decision under the applicable
procedure, that is Standing Order 52. At this time, I am not
prepared to grant the request by the hon. member for an emergency
debate. Should the circumstances change, a similar request could
be considered differently.
I thank the hon. member for Mercier for her intervention.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, an
act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable development
technology, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the minister for introducing the bill and for the
compassionate commitments he made a few hours ago to the cause of
sustainable development. I also congratulate the member for
South Shore for his open and very supportive intervention which I
found extremely helpful, and I am sure the government did as
well.
The member for Athabasca raised some fears in connection with
the bill which perhaps could be allayed because there is
definitely a precedent for the foundation that is being proposed,
namely the foundation for sustainable development technology.
In the Budget Implementation Act, 1997, we find the commitment
by the federal government to create a Canada Foundation for
Innovation for the purpose of modernizing, acquiring or
developing research infrastructure in science, health,
engineering and environment. In terms of its structure, the
Canada Foundation for Innovation is very similar to the proposed
Canada foundation for sustainable development technology. It is
managed by a mix of appointments approved by the governor in
council and foundation members. It is also required to table an
annual report of its activities before parliament.
One important difference between the Canada Foundation for
Innovation and the foundation for sustainable development is
funding.
1525
In contrast to the $100 million that would be provided to the
Canada foundation for sustainable development technology, the
Canada foundation for innovation was given an initial allotment
of $800 million, an additional $200 million in the 1999 budget,
and in the 2000 budget, another $900 million, for a total
investment of $1.9 billion.
Another noteworthy difference is that unlike the Canada
foundation for sustainable development technology, there is no
authority for the governing council to enter into agreement with
the Canada foundation for innovation to develop eligibility
criteria respecting eligible recipients, thus making this body
more independent from the government.
Finally, the Canada foundation for innovation appears to have
worked out very well in practice. Hopefully, the proposed Canada
foundation for sustainable development technology will follow in
its footsteps.
In the debate at second reading, which is a debate on the
principle of the bill, there is room for discussion on what
technology for sustainable development should be all about.
Perhaps there is a conceptual challenge here. I would argue that
one should be clear in his or her mind as to what the technology
for sustainable development ought to achieve. Should it achieve
a balance between the economy of the environment, as some people
suggest and have suggested in recent years, or should it instead
be a technology for sustainable development to integrate social,
economic and environmental objectives? I fully subscribe to the
latter interpretation.
I would suggest that perhaps this concept of integrating
objectives of a social, economic and environmental nature ought
to be incorporated in the definition of sustainable development
in the bill, in addition to the one that is already in draft
form.
This morning the minister outlined five areas of activity for
this particular foundation for sustainable development
technology. He referred to technology for carbon sequestration,
for new and alternative fuel sources, for energy efficiency, for
enhanced oil recovery and for technology to reduce particulate
matters in the air. These are all energy related areas, some of
which could provide interesting results.
Let me only comment, perhaps in a superficial manner, to the
fact that when it comes to carbon sequestration, we already have
a well developed technology that has existed for millions of
years, our trees and forests. I submit that it would be hard to
find better ways of sequestering carbon that would be able to
compete with the durability and effectiveness of trees and
forests.
On another area, some of the technology to reduce particulate
matters in the air already exists. It is a well known fact that
particulate matters are in good part due to the burning of diesel
fuel. The purification of the diesel substance and the removal
of sulphur and particulate matters is one that ought to be
possible without additional research as envisaged in the outline
this morning.
What the removal of particulate matter requires is timetables,
percentages and the will to do so. I believe that the Minister
of the Environment, on his announcement on air quality later
today, this week or next month, will make a substantial statement
on this matter to this effect.
1530
Will it be technology to research ways and means to reduce
energy demand or just to enhance and facilitate energy supply?
That is a question that troubles me. We seem to be engaged in
recent times in research and in emphasizing the need for
increased supply. We seem to have lost sight of the importance
of energy demand and how to handle it. However, evidently if we
are going into energy efficiency, we must probably go into energy
conservation and some knowledge has already been accumulated in
this field in recent years.
Surely, on a global plane, the predicted rising population from
some six billion people today to nine billion people some 40
years from now is posing an enormous challenge to this particular
foundation in Canada and of course around the globe.
In examining what the technology can do, obviously the
technological fix, as they call it, can go a long way in
resolving some of our economic, environmental and social
problems. However, I would submit that on climate change in
particular, which seems to be the main thrust of research that is
to be assigned to this particular foundation, attention ought to
be paid to existing policies. In other words, technology needs
help from changes to current policies, and in particular, to
current policies in taxation on energy. The technology thrust,
in order words, cannot be effective in isolation. It needs to be
helped by measures that will make the task of reducing, for
instance, greenhouse gases easier by the way in which we act
through our fiscal and taxation provisions.
We have outdated tax subsidies which increase greenhouse gas
emissions, as members know, with particular respect to the
production of oil sands. We have an outdated tax system
favouring fossil fuel energy over renewable sources of energy.
Certainly, we still have to establish as a bare minimum a
so-called level playing field between non-renewable and renewable
sources of energy in the taxation treatment that we give in
Canada to these sources of energy. Progress must be made in
updating and fitting our taxation system in a manner that will
help to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions so that taxation
policy will support and reinforce what the foundation is being
asked to do. The taxation system of course could then make the
achievement of the goals of the foundation much easier.
These are just some thoughts that came to mind while listening
to the debate so far. I submit them for the consideration and
attention of the government.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to applaud the member for
Davenport year and years of work on this subject. We have become
quite good friends as I have been getting to know him.
1535
I would like to ask him one question regarding my concerns with
this legislation. We all agree that it is really important that
we address the global warming issue and look at new innovation,
new technologies and how do we develop them. At the same time,
it is critical to ensure that this does not become political.
The government is going to appoint seven out of the 15 people
who would be on this board. In order for it to succeed, it is
absolutely critical that it be based on the scientific community
as opposed to the political community. Is there changes that
the member would put forward to ensure that the scientific
community would be in control as opposed to the political
community?
Hon. Charles Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his kind words. My understanding from Bill C-4, in
particular section 11, is that there is an elaborate system for
the appointment of directors. This would make the foundation
fairly independent and considerably at arm's length from the
government.
The provision as written divides the directors into three
categories. The first one deals with persons engaged in the
development and demonstration of technologies to promote
sustainable development, including technologies to address
climate change and air quality issues. One could safely
interpret this clause to mean that these would be scientists,
technicians and researchers or engineers.
The second category would be from the business community on
which I do not need to elaborate.
The third category is non-profit corporations. They would
probably be NGOs and other agencies that are knowledgeable and
competent in providing advice and direction to the foundation on
technological innovation on the mandate of the foundation.
These three sectors put together would seem to indicate that
this type of foundation would operate with a considerable degree
of independence, if not entire independence. It should be able
to achieve the goals, and we hope it will achieve them, that the
hon. member and I have in mind.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Saanich—Gulf Islands, I
am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-4.
We have heard a lot about global warming today in this debate.
Global warming is an important issue. At this time of year in my
riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands, which on the southern tip of
Vancouver Island, we are usually counting flowers. I would like
to advise the House that I took my little ones David and Victoria
tobogganing in Victoria this weekend.
I agree with the concept of this bill. I look forward to it
going to committee where it can be further flushed out and we can
get into it in more detail. I agree that as we go into this
millennium air quality is going to be an increasing concern for
people globally. It is something that we should tackle head on.
This foundation will receive $100 million in funding from the
government to look at everything in technology and to ensure that
we can have increased air quality and reductions in greenhouse
gases. That is a positive thing. I agree that is a good first
step. It is going to becoming increasingly more important as
time goes on.
1540
Ten years ago people were talking about the importance of air
quality. That debate of course is so much more significant today
than it was 10 years ago and it will be increasingly so 10 years
from now.
I alluded to my concerns with the board in my question to the
member for Davenport. As I understand it, seven of the 15
members, including the chair, will be appointed by governor in
council.
There are boards out there that work. I know David Strangway,
the former President of UBC, is the Chairman for the Canada
Foundation for Innovation. It does a lot of good work. If this
is going to work though, it is so important that there is
accountability to the taxpayers because it is essentially
taxpayers' money. They want to see value as I do. Members
across the way want to see that it is truly working toward this
goal. This is a concern I have. We do not have to go very far.
We know some of the other stories. There is the Federal Business
Development Bank and we do not have to go too far into that.
We see that there are patronage appointments. I would urge
anybody in the House who has influence in the debate that these
appointments be based on the foundation being very functional and
based on science. I know there are provisions in the bill that
there be people from the scientific community, the business
community and from the not for profit, so there is a strong
balance. Again, I only have to go back to some of the things
that have happened in the past. I see that the former Liberal
candidate from Port Moody—Coquitlam, Mr. Lou Sekora, was
recently named a citizenship court judge.
In earnest I question if these decisions are based on politics.
I would argue that in appointments such as that they absolutely
were. I would hate to see a foundation like those types of
appointments. I know the member opposite would love to see it
based on scientific communities, arm's length, with NGOs and a
whole cross section of people who have the same ultimate goal in
mind and that their decisions are based on science.
As this goes off to committee these ideas can be fleshed out and
we can get into greater detail to ensure that these safeguards
are put there.
I also agree with the member for Davenport that we should not
just look at reducing greenhouse gases. This is critical. We
have to reduce greenhouse gases and ensure better air quality in
the future, but consumption is such a huge part of this equation.
We not only have to, through technology, decrease consumption and
deliver the same, but we have to look at the whole way we do
things. I think we can. We have to start changing the mindset
of people not to be wasteful. We see an energy crisis in
California right now. These are very real problems and they are
happening in our own backyard. I take our own backyard as being
North America.
I have travelled all over North America as most members of the
House have. We would all agree that we live in somewhat similar
economies. Other parts of the world are much different. In
North America things generally can be quite similar. They are
having problems in California which is very heavily populated.
It is a sign to all of us to say this could be a problem that
could expand and grow if we do not take the issue head on.
I also agree with the member that consumption is a very real
problem. At the same time, when we are looking at this
foundation, we have to not put blinders on and recognize there
has to be a balance between economic growth and industry. I
would argue that we use the best available technology to ensure
the reduction of greenhouse gases, that we ensure better air
quality in the future and we start getting the continuum going
the other way.
I look forward to the bill going to committee. I look forward
to following the bill closely and seeing what recommendations
they come up with.
1545
[Translation]
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I thank you for giving me this opportunity to address the House.
I am not sure whether I am pleased or displeased to do so,
particularly since I have been watching the debates since 11 a.m.
and I am under the impression that everything has already been
said about this bill and I would not want to repeat the same
comments.
I would like to ad lib, and I hope that I can accurately express
the concerns of women. As the Chair knows, I take a great
interest in this issue. In fact, I am the Bloc Quebecois critic
for the status of women.
Women are very concerned about the environment and about health,
education, family policies and poverty.
Looking at the bill before us, it is obvious that women cannot
be opposed to it, since it is a small step in the right
direction.
However, we feel that this bill is incomplete. Moreover, women
do not trust it. This bill reflects a blatant lack of respect for
the table. It lacks transparency, and duplication, including in
Quebec, costs money.
I will discuss these issues so as to explain the position of
Canadian and Quebec women on this bill.
First off, we would ask the minister to go and do his homework,
very simply because the bill is incomplete. There is absolutely
no reference to the requests made at the issue table. A person
who belongs to a group of women knows all about an issue table
is.
An issue table can be bodies or people each with their own
attributes agreed on undertaking a project and giving their
opinion. This is very special, because these people are
qualified to give their opinion and because it costs money.
When it costs moneys, the group agrees to use the report
prepared by the issue table and to implement it. People agreed on
that. Women are very aware of the value of money, because they
are poor and do not have their fair share of this product. Women
do not necessarily enjoy equality.
This bill is incomplete. The groups working at the issue table
on the bill came up with eight ideas. Eight elements were
advocated. The government chose only two.
To the women's groups, this shows lack of respect for the
individuals and the organizations working at this table. The
women are very perplexed about what will happen next. When there
is no respect for the remarks made at an issue table, for what it
establishes, for what it advocates, how will people react later
on in setting up this famous bill. Will it be respected?
1550
Third, women think that the bill is lacking in transparency
because of the process for appointing directors. If I read
correctly, if I understand the bill correctly, the governor in
council will appoint seven directors out of fifteen. That will
leave eight directors to be appointed. These eight directors will
be appointed by the other seven, who have been appointed by the
governor in council.
I can presume, even though it does not mean that it is indeed
what is going to happen, that the governor in council will
appoint people it trusts. Maybe these people will in turn appoint
people they know and trust. In fact, people will appoint each
other. That means that the government has not set up a
transparent process to appoint members to the board of directors.
Moreover, we have no guarantees with regard to the projects that
will be favoured by this foundation because the directors who
will appoint each other will most likely favour projects for
which they have a personal preference. The bill does not provide
for any mechanism for project selection. Again, the
recommendation from the table was not followed. As for directors,
there is no mechanism to ensure transparency with regard to their
appointment and their eligibility.
Fourth, we have eligibility criteria for projects, but there are
none in the bill. For women's groups, this bill certainly does
not inspire confidence.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is something we
could support, although it is a bit timid. What guarantees can
the federal government give women that the money allocated to
this foundation will be spent wisely and legally, in a
transparent way, and how will the expenditures be accounted for?
At a time when one out of five children in Canada is poor and
when a lot of single mothers in Quebec are having trouble making
ends meet, the government is spending $100 million establishing
this foundation, which leaves women wondering how these millions
of dollars are going to be spent. As I said earlier, women are
concerned about the environment, but also about poverty.
I know of a support group for women with AIDS. This Canadian
group just had a grant application for $15,000 turned down by
Health Canada, because it does not necessarily look out for all
women. Yet this group only needed $15,000. The government
scrutinizes the work of this support group, but introduces a bill
with no mechanism to ensure the good management of public funds
and the transparency of the appointments to the foundation board.
I do not get it.
I would also remind the House that in Quebec we already have a
fund. Bill C-4 is promoting the same thing.
1555
What I want to say is that it is upsetting, really upsetting,
and for a woman it is even insulting. The Liberal government is
going to use money to do the same thing in Quebec when we, in
Quebec, have already allocated money and have our own bill. This
is duplication. In this sense, I wish the federal government
would take the money it wants to use and give it to Quebec, so
that we can do what we want with it.
However, I believe that it is not only in Quebec that things
happen this way.
I think this happens also in the other provinces. In this
respect, women are tired of seeing that for the sake of power
and political visibility, our political leaders take money and
use it for other things than what could help fight poverty, such
as social housing, or to help children, and women with children,
and to eliminate poverty.
To conclude, I would like to say that the environment,
greenhouse gases and clean air are issues very dear to me
personally. The future quality of life of Quebecers, Canadians
and their children depends on it.
I can guarantee that, if there are no assurances that all the
money allocated for the implementation of the bill will indeed
be used to develop new technologies to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions as requested by the technology issues table, women
will continue to oppose this bill.
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the member with respect to her comment that women
need money in the form of transfers and that they do not support
such a bill. I think that that goes without saying. Women
are not the only ones opposed; so are young people and other
groups as well. Opposition is widespread.
When blank cheques are handed out as a result of legislation
such as this, with terms as important as technology, in order to
produce equipment necessary for the environment, the amounts in
question are very large, but the board must know how to manage
them.
My question for my colleague is this: with respect to the money
now available, how much will be spent on implementing such an
important piece of legislation? Will the federal government's
contribution be used to promote this technology, or will it
really be used to buy the necessary technology? Does the member
not think that this money will simply be used to put in place
another system identical to the one the provinces already have?
The question is this: will this money just be transferred to
the provinces to buy the technology or will it be used to create
another level, when it is really much more necessary to buy the
equipment for this technology?
1600
Ms. Diane Bourgeois: Mr. Speaker, I have clearly understood my
colleague's question.
As I said at the start of my speech, I wanted to go beyond the
theoretical framework in order to explain the view of this bill
held by the women of Canada and Quebec. A group of women got
together to look at this bill and we found it did not go far
enough, that it did not contain enough guarantees.
However, some things were obvious. We did not go to see what the
situation was in the other provinces, but the Government of
Quebec already has a sustainable development fund of $45 million.
According to the bill, the government is going to use a certain
amount in order to certain things in Quebec. It is very clear to
us that this is federal interference in an area that falls under
provincial jurisdiction.
It seems to me that my colleagues in the House are sufficiently
clever to understand. I think it is clear: a province is in the
best position to know its own needs.
Going still further, the women expressed concerns that the
federal government would uses this money to interfere in the
municipalities' environmental management, for instance
municipalities on the shores of waterways wishing to create a
special project. This is a concern to me. There is no guarantee
in the bill, nothing to specify what would happen.
As hon. members are aware, women are prudent creatures. They
feel that the best action if one is not sure is no action.
Canadian women and Quebec women have reservations about this bill
and wish no action to be taken.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the people of Surrey Central are pleased to have me
participate in the debate today on Bill C-4 concerning the
establishment of a foundation to fund sustainable development
technology.
For the benefit of the folks who are watching, sustainable
development means development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs.
In the 2000 federal budget, the Liberals announced that they
would be creating a sustainable development technology foundation
to administer these funds at arm's length from the government.
Later on when we look at the bill we will find out that the
length of the arm is too short. Perhaps their hands are in their
pockets.
In that budget they earmarked $100 million as the amount of
initial funding. It is to be operated as a not for profit
organization. It will administer funding primarily to projects
that will bring innovation and technology. The foundation will
accept proposals from existing and new collaborative arrangements
among technology developers, suppliers and users, universities,
not for profit organizations, and other organizations, such as
industrial associations and research institutes.
Clause 5 of Bill C-4 provides that the objects and purposes of
the foundation are to provide funding to eligible recipients for
eligible projects. That is a very vague definition.
The foundation will dole out funds on a project by project basis.
Clause 19 of the bill talks about eligible projects in a very
vague way. It states:
The Foundation may provide funding to eligible recipients to be
used by them solely for the purposes of eligible projects in
accordance with any terms and conditions specified by the
Foundation—
1605
The minister mentioned that those who qualify for funding will
be mentioned in specific funding agreements. What are those
specific funding agreements? We will never see them.
Being the past co-chair of the scrutiny of regulations
committee, I can share with the House that most bills give very
little information about subject matter, the modus operandi or
various other things that cover the whole bill or the scope of
the bill. Most of the stuff comes through the back door in the
form of regulations. We will never debate those regulations nor
the terms and conditions of the stipulations. That is what will
happen with the bill.
Where are the principles that will guide the allocation of
funds? Will they be coming through the back door? We do not see
transparency in the allocation of funds. I would like to see the
regulations before the House in black and white so that we can
debate them in the House.
The people of Surrey Central support the kind of initiatives
that will create synergy and teamwork where people will work
together to respond to new challenges by way of innovation. We
appreciate the initiative to enhance innovation in technology and
sustainable development as well as a clean and healthy
environment, but we do not agree with the modus operandi as
suggested in the bill. The bill is poorly worded. It lacks
clarity, transparency, accountability and effectiveness.
I would venture to say that members of the official opposition
would like Canada to create a balance of economic, social and
environmental goals and challenges and thereafter reap the
rewards from them. We want excellence in exploring efficient
fuel sources. We want to explore various ways of harnessing
energy, such as solar and wind power. We want to enhance oil and
natural gas recovery technology and mobilize partners in
industry, universities, research institutes and in businesses
everywhere.
We want to protect the environment and work on projects related
to greenhouse gas reduction and improving air and water quality.
Our children certainly want that and we want our children and our
grandchildren to have that.
Therefore, the Canadian Alliance policy supports sustainable
development initiatives. Our policy states:
We are committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural
environment and endangered species, and to the sustainable
development of our abundant natural resources for the use of
current and future generations.
I heard someone from the Liberal side, perhaps the environmental
minister, saying no. The Alliance policy goes on to state:
Therefore, we will strike a balance between environmental
preservation and economic development. This includes creating
partnerships with provincial governments, private industry,
educational institutions and the public to promote meaningful
progress in the area of environmental protection.
As a government, the Liberals have mismanaged our environment
and failed to provide sustainable development. They have signed
international treaties, including Kyoto, Beijing and Rio, with no
intention whatsoever of carrying out these commitments.
1610
They have made those commitments without consulting Canadians,
parliament and the provinces. They have failed to provide
commitments with the required scientific support. Rather, they
have made political decisions about matters that require
scientific decisions. These political decisions have amounted to
nothing more than interference into scientific matters.
That in a word explains the fact that the government cannot meet
the international commitments that it makes when it comes to
protecting our environment. Perhaps it is too busy trying to
garner votes and counter Canadian Alliance policies rather than
allow scientific principles and evidence to drive the efforts to
protect our environment.
This weak and arrogant Liberal government has allowed the
endangered species legislation to die twice on the order paper.
Since 1993 it has been promising Canadians that it will pass
endangered species legislation. What do we have after seven or
eight years? Another bill that it is promising to pass. The
government is proposing an endangered species bill without
consulting Canadians and the scientific community. In any event
that is another story for another day.
This weak Liberal government lacks vision. It has done nothing
since 1993 in terms of initiatives on our environment and
sustainable development. Other countries have passed legislation
and are way ahead. Even the United Nations has a sustainable
development office. There is a worldwide race to reap the
rewards of innovation and state of the art technology, but the
Liberals allow Canada to be left behind.
The government expects the foundation to be in place by March
2001. The bill was originally introduced as a part of budget
2000, delivered almost a year ago today. It has been one year
and the Liberals have still not passed the legislation. That
goes to show Canadians just how serious the government is about
sustainable development.
After a year of doing nothing following the Liberal government
budget 2000 agenda and seven or eight years since red book one,
the government would like the bill to be passed by the House, the
Senate and receive royal assent by March 2001. That is when it
would like the foundation to exist with $100 million to hand out.
After doing nothing for a year the government is giving us only
a couple of weeks to work on the legislation. There will be no
opportunity to have a fair debate in the House because there will
be undemocratic time allocation to limit the debate. The
committee hearings will be a farce. The witnesses before the
committee will be set up and the opposition amendments virtually
ignored. The half-baked bill will be rammed through because of
the government's parliamentary majority and its arrogant
attitude. It is unbelievable.
We on this side of the House want to make some amendments before
we could support the bill. The amendments will not deal so much
with the sustainable development aspects of the bill but with
efficiency, accountability and transparency; in other words with
the modus operandi of the bill.
According to the bill the Liberal government would appoint six
directors and a chairman of the board of directors. These
appointees would appoint another eight directors and the
appointed board of directors would appoint the auditors.
The intent of the bill is to create and enhance innovation in
technology and not patronage. The Liberals are developing
innovations in how to make the best use of patronage. They are
proposing to turn the sustainable development foundation into a
Liberal patronage pork barrel for the friends of Liberals and
defeated Liberal candidates. I see a hidden agenda. If the
modus operandi is not corrected, that is what the bill would do.
1615
Rather than creating and encouraging new and private funding for
technology and innovation, taxpayers' money will go to the
friends of the government and ultimately to a black hole, and we
will one day see another boondoggle. We want this to be
corrected. Let me again read for the Liberals a simple paragraph
from Canadian Alliance policies:
We believe that a non-partisan civil service, an independent
judiciary and competent leadership of government agencies, boards
and commissions are vital in a democracy. We will therefore
ensure appointments to these positions are made through an open
and accountable process based on merit.
The appointments should not be based on patronage or defeated
Liberal candidates or friends of Liberals or any Liberal
connection. We want these appointments to be made based on
merit.
The people of Surrey Central and I are dismayed. We are so
disappointed that the government would take such a wonderful
initiative of supporting projects related to greenhouse gas
reductions and improving air quality and turn the effort into
some kind of Liberal Party payoff.
When will the government stop behaving this way and doing these
things? When will it evolve into the new millennium and put a
stop to these kinds of 17th century old boys' club practices?
When will it abandon the politics of exclusion? When will it
stop implementing the systems of disenfranchisement? The
patronage practices of the government are virtually fascist, in
the strict political definition. The Canadian Alliance will put
a stop to this sort of thing when it forms the next government.
The creation of a sustainable development foundation is
something all Canadians have wanted for years and the Liberals
are turning it into some kind of arena for political payoffs. It
is a sham.
On the subject of auditing the foundation, while the foundation
does provide an annual report each year to parliament, the
foundation appoints its own auditor and has final approval on the
financial reports before they are made public. Is that not
convenient? While the legislation does set out rules as to who
would be eligible to be the auditor, there is no mention of
allowing the Auditor General of Canada access to the books of the
foundation. Only those auditors appointed by the Liberals would
have access to the auditing of the books. The Auditor General of
Canada would be left aside. He would not have access to these
audits.
It is no wonder that the government does not want the Office of
the Auditor General of Canada involved. The Liberals have had a
difficult ride with the outgoing auditor general. His report
tabled early this month was probably the most scathing indictment
yet of this government. Each auditor general's report on the
mismanagement of the Liberal government is worse than the
previous one.
The official opposition wants these issues, the questions of who
will audit the foundation and how appointments will be made to
the foundation, to be dealt with at the committee hearings on the
bill, which will be held shortly. We will not allow these two
concerns to be swept under the carpet by the Liberals. We want
those issues to be addressed and properly addressed.
Unless there are amendments along these lines, we may have to
oppose the bill and we do not want to have to do that. We want
these amendments to be incorporated so that the official
opposition members on this side of the House can support the
bill.
Let me cite an example of sustainable development that I saw
myself, an evolution of sustainable development taking place. I
will cite the example of Taiwan as an example of strategic and
sustainable development, where new and private money has been
pouring into innovation and technology.
1620
Taiwan is a small island the size of Vancouver Island, with a
population of about 25 million people. Sometimes I wonder; if 25
million people lived on Vancouver Island it would probably sink.
Taiwan is a small island with an unemployment rate of about 0.5%,
not 5%, but half a percentage point. That is an admirable
record. How did Taiwan do it? Taiwan has accomplished that in
large part through their sustainable development strategy, with a
special emphasis on technology and innovation that has led to
business development, exports and economic growth while
protecting their precious and rather limited resources.
In conclusion, once again we have the Liberals taking an
initiative, one that everyone would want to support: the
creation of a sustainable development foundation. However, what
do they do? They leave so many terms undefined. The bill is
vague. They turn it into a venue for patronage payoffs and they
close the books to the auditor general. They want to control the
$100 million they give to the foundation without anyone else
finding out which Liberal Party donors receive the bulk of the
$100 million.
It would be amazing if it were not so sad. The people of Surrey
Central, who want to support the creation of a sustainable
development foundation, do not want to support this bill. Rather,
we do not have to support this bill, because of the way the
Liberals are playing politics with it. If the Liberals are
prepared to fix the flaws and the corruption they have written
into the bill, then we would be glad to support it.
We are giving the government the opportunity to have a fair
debate, to listen to the amendments, to consult Canadians through
parliament and to incorporate those amendments so that all
parties can support this wonderful initiative.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member says he is not fully in favour of the idea of an
institute or a foundation like this being created, that he has
reservations about the amount of money being used. We are all
concerned when we hear figures like $100 million, which is being
allocated with a sketchy sort of mandate that we are not really
certain about.
However, putting it in the context of other programs, when we
look at the EI fund, for instance, it is showing a surplus of
$600 million a month. With the relative importance of the issue
of sustainable development, would he not agree that $100 million
toward such a necessary, timely and topical subject is money well
spent?
Would he not also agree that his own province of Alberta should
welcome the whole movement toward the true and genuine study of
the issue of sustainable development as we, as a planet, try to
wean ourselves off fossil fuels for our own future? For many
people there is a growing realization that we cannot exist simply
in an economy based on oil, that there is no future in it and
that we are soiling our own nest to the point we cannot live in
it any longer.
My question is whether he feels that $100 million would be well
spent with a tighter mandate, a real objective or assignment,
given to this new foundation, which would ultimately result in
weaning our population off the burning of fossil fuels and toward
alternative energy. Would he be more satisfied if it had that
kind of rigid mandate?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the wonderful question. It is a very thoughtful question.
By the way, just to correct the record, I am from B.C., not
Alberta, although that is nearly the same neighbourhood. From
here in Ottawa or from the CN Tower, when we look past the Rocky
Mountains things are not visible sometimes, but that is okay. I
can understand that.
With regard to the funding, we are not debating the funding. I
think every reasonable Canadian realizes that we have to do a lot
of work in innovation, technology, research and development.
Probably it is the initial funding that is stated in the budget.
Funding is not an issue here.
1625
The issues are these: how the bill is worded, what is missing
in the bill, and what the modus operandi is of administering
those funds. Is it clear? Is it transparent? Is accountability
there? Those are the factors that are more important, of course,
particularly with the rising costs of fuel and natural gas. It
is becoming more important than ever before that we look for
efficient, economical and cheap sources of energy in regard to
fossil fuels, as the hon. member mentioned. Of course we want to
develop efficient resources so that taxpaying Canadians and our
children and grandchildren have enough resources to play with, to
utilize in industry.
I very much agree with the hon. member that we have to invest in
technology and research and development. That is why the topic
of sustainable development is so important. However, we want to
do the right thing in the right way. That is what we are asking
the government: that it do the right thing in the right way.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very glad to have the opportunity to join in the debate on Bill
C-4. As I mentioned earlier, I believe it is probably the most
timely and topical thing that the House of Commons could be
dealing with. It speaks to the very future of the human race on
this planet. All else really pales in comparison when we view
what other subjects we could be debating in the House of Commons.
Bill C-4 is a disappointing reference to the very pressing,
timely and topical issue of sustainable development. The NDP
opposes the bill in its current format in that we believe, as I
pointed out earlier, its mandate is vague and its funding has no
real specifics attached to it. We consider it a gesture to the
subject, but it has no real and specific plan.
I would also point out that in regard to the idea of creating a
new foundation of this sort, the government does not really talk
about where it would be based or what centre it would work out
of. It actually puts in question the future of an institution in
my own riding, the International Institute for Sustainable
Development. This institute was created years ago and has had
its funding reduced year after year, to where it is really a
shadow of its former self. There was a time when it had a staff
of 140 people and its own building. Art Hanson was the CEO. It
now occupies a very small office, with maybe a handful of people,
on the third floor of an nondescript office building in the
centre of downtown Winnipeg.
I wonder about the logic and the sense of it. It makes me
wonder if the government has completely forgotten it already has
an institute of sustainable development in my riding. Maybe the
government members do not get outside the city limits of Ottawa
often enough to remember that such a place exists. There is a
growing feeling in Winnipeg that there is a real reluctance to
decentralize the activities of Ottawa to any real degree. There
was a possible exception to that when the government could not
find any other place to put a level 4 virology lab and plunked it
down in the middle of Winnipeg. It took away the CF-18 contract
and gave it to Montreal and then gave us the virology lab so that
the Ebola virus and every unsavoury thing that comes into the
country is going to wind up in our backyard.
I really do resent any steps that might threaten the viability
of what is left of the International Institute for Sustainable
Development in my riding. I am certainly not entirely thrilled
about the idea of the creation of a new foundation which might
put the institute in jeopardy.
One of the reasons this whole subject is so timely and so
topical is that it is a top of mind issue with most Canadians
given the soaring and skyrocketing energy costs that we are all
witnessing. That has brought the issue home to the kitchen
tables of the nation instead of it being an academic exercise.
Again, look at the funding of $100 million to try to change the
very way we live on this planet in terms of challenging the very
foundation of our economy, which is the burning of fossil fuels,
and compare that with the $1.3 billion the government threw into
a wasteful program to try to mitigate the impact of the rising
costs of fuel.
1630
Surely that $1.3 billion would take us a lot further down the
road of sustainable development and would address in a permanent
way the problem we have with access to fossil fuels.
We have come to a day of reckoning in terms of energy. We have
come to the growing realization that we simply cannot run an
economy based on oil any longer. A number of things will not
tolerate it anymore, not the least of which is the fact that we
cannot continue to soil our own nest to this degree and continue
to move forward and prosper.
Everyone on the planet cannot use the amount of energy that
Canadians use. It simply is not possible. If the 1.3 billion
people in China had two vehicles in the garage, an SUV and an
outboard motor, and if all people in the world consumed the same
level of energy as Canadians, we would need six more planets.
There simply is not enough fossil fuel in the world for that kind
of energy use.
There could not be a more pressing and more topical issue than
to revisit the way we view our precious natural resources. We
must try to wean human beings away from burning hydrocarbons
because it will not work.
What are we faced with? The one upside of skyrocketing energy
costs is that it has forced people to revisit energy
conservation. When we are hit in the pocketbook we get motivated
to do something.
The oil crisis of 1973 was the reason people switched from V-8
to four cylinder engines. They realized a four cylinder engine
could push a car almost as well. The fact that oil prices went
through the ceiling is what pushed the new technology. It had
the shock effect of forcing people to find solutions.
We are at a point now where we must to conserve energy or find
alternative energy sources. The $1.3 billion that was thrown in
a scattergun approach toward energy rebates should have perhaps
gone toward the research of hydrogen as a fuel. We are very
close to a breakthrough where cars will burn hydrogen and not
gasoline. The only byproduct would be water dripping from the
exhaust pipe. That, frankly, would do the country and the world
an enormous favour.
The $1.3 billion could be spent in any number of positive ways.
Instead, the government essentially rolled down the window and
threw it out, hoping some of it would fall on people who would
benefit. That was wasteful.
Now we are hearing a figure of $100 million to cover the huge
pluralistic issue of sustainable development, and yet the
government put $1.3 billion into a very narrow and fixed program,
a one time payment to offset energy costs for Canadians. It
really does make one wonder.
It also makes one wonder why, if the government was serious
about sustainable development, it would not follow through on one
of its own programs, the federal building initiative. The
federal government owns 68,000 buildings, most of which are
absolute energy pigs. They were built in an era when energy was
not expensive. It was cheap and plentiful.
The government did undertake a token effort to energy retrofit
those buildings, to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions, to
reduce operating costs and to make indoor ambient air quality
better so that federal public servants did not turn green when
they tried to work eight hours at their desks. They are being
slowly poisoned in many ways in a bunch of sick buildings.
All those things are now possible. The empirical evidence now
shows we can reduce operating costs by as much as 40%. It would
be such a positive measure. It would be revenue generating.
However the federal building initiative, under the auspices of
the Minister of Natural Resources, has renovated only a couple of
hundred buildings. At that rate it will be 150 years before all
federal buildings are energy retrofitted.
It makes one wonder what the government is waiting for. The
energy savings from its buildings alone could pay for the
development of new technologies that would allow Canada to become
a world leader. We would be a centre of excellence in energy
conservation and sustainable development technology with just the
energy savings from the 68,000 federal buildings.
1635
I have been riding this hobby horse for years and to no avail.
In 1993 I came to Ottawa, long before I was a member of
parliament, to appeal to the Minister of the Environment at the
time. I was given an energy innovator's award by NRCan, the
federal department of energy, for the innovative idea of
retrofitting publicly owned buildings as a pilot project, as an
example to the private sector of what could be done. However
eight or nine years later in its own federal building initiative
program the government has only done a couple of hundred
buildings.
I question its commitment. It is willing to throw $100 million
at a new foundation that should blah, blah, blah, but it has a
unique opportunity to show the world how it can be done. We live
in a harsh northern climate. We have massive geographical
challenges. We could show the world how to use energy in the
smartest possible way. We could show the world how to live
comfortably and in a healthy environment without being the
largest consumers of energy in the world, which Canadians find
themselves being today.
I am the first to admit that Canadians and people all around the
globe need to embrace the concept of energy conservation and
sustainable development in everything they do. It should be the
common thread through any program the government undertakes. I
do not believe the creation of a new foundation, which may
jeopardize the institute that is already in existence in my
riding, will in any way move us closer to that admirable goal.
If there were $100 million to spend, why would the government
not restore the institute to its former stature, that of a world
leader, research centre and source library for anyone interested
in the whole concept of energy conservation or sustainable
development? Why not start a centre of excellence right in the
centre of Canada and become world leaders so we can export the
technology?
It does not have to be jobs versus the environment any more. To
speak this way does not mean we have to shut down industries and
put people out of work. We now know that it is jobs and the
environment: jobs with the environment, jobs for the environment.
There are unbelievable entrepreneurial opportunities in the
field of energy retrofitting or sustainable development. There
are now smart thermostats or boiler systems or heat pumps that
harvest units of energy even if it is 20 below. There is a
difference between 20 below and 30 below. The other 10 degrees
of air can be harvested. There is warmth and energy in there and
that energy can be used.
We have not been thinking outside the box. It is far too easy
to start another oil well in Alberta than it is to set up an
institute and research alternatives that will give our children a
future.
I sometimes think the worst thing that happened in western
Canada was Leduc No. 1 in 1947 when they struck oil in Leduc,
Alberta. It was regressive. I almost wish the world would run
out of oil more quickly so that we still have some air left to
breathe by the time we find alternative fuel and energy sources.
That would be my first wish.
Ban the internal combustion engine is a radical idea, but we
could still move around if were burning hydrogen. The Ballard
fuel cell, which is being developed in B.C., is close to
marketability. It needs one little nudge before it replaces
forever the internal combustion engine. The $1.3 billion the
government flushed down the toilet in the failed energy rebate
program may have moved us one step closer to finding a true
alternative and a true solution for the planet.
The jig is up in terms of our wasteful energy use. We can no
longer carry on as we are carrying on. As I said, for all people
on the planet to live as Canadians do, we would need six more
planets. There are not enough resources in the world for
everyone to be as wasteful as Canadians.
We can go one of two roads. We can be head in the sand
ostriches and carry on until it is an absolute crisis, or we can
change direction. We can voluntarily simplify and use less
energy and, I argue, without a reduction in the quality of life.
People do not have to freeze in the dark to use less energy if
they are smart.
1640
We have done a great deal of research in this regard. The best
example and most graphic illustration the federal government
could point to is its own buildings.
The most beautiful thing about the concept, to expand on the
federal building initiative and its potential windfall for
demonstrating the whole concept, is that all of the above could
be done at no cost to the taxpayer. There are private sector
companies willing to pay upfront for renovation of federal
government buildings and be paid back slowly out of the energy
savings. They are called ESCOs, energy services contractors.
Why not do that? What if such a company offered to renovate a
big federal government building with operating costs of $1
million a year by putting in state of the art mechanical
equipment, insulating the exterior and putting in new windows and
doors at no cost? What if it were paid out of the energy savings
and after over four years when the total renovation costs were
paid the government could keep the energy savings from there on
ever after? Would that not be smart?
It would stimulate a whole industry and put thousands of trades
people to work. It could use materials and mechanical equipment,
smart thermostats and boilers that could be produced locally.
Then we would be able to point to our federally owned buildings
as a showcase to the world. We could show the world how it could
be done. We would have the smartest, best run and best operated
buildings in the world.
They could be shown to the private sector too. Many property
owners and building managers face increased fuel costs but cannot
raise rents to their tenants. The only way they can show a
profit is by reducing their operating costs. They would be very
interested in such a concept. If the government were a little
more progressive or a little more action oriented instead of
being academic about its commitment to sustainable development,
we would see it moving on that front. It is absolutely natural.
We have reservations about Bill C-4. We believe the
government's mandate is far too soft and fuzzy. We do not know
what it is being challenged to do or what responsibilities it is
being charged with. The government talks about promoting
technologies to address climate change. Frankly we would like to
know more. There are also air quality issues.
As is often the case, members of the NDP are frustrated at the
composition of the board. We are not comfortable with the way
the foundation's board will be struck, who will be appointed and
how, and for what terms. The specifics of how the board will be
structured will be the success or failure of it. We do not want
it to be another dumping or patronage ground for failed Liberal
candidates. We do not want it to be a patronage holding pattern
type of place. We were always frustrated by that in the past and
would certainly speak out against any move in that direction
again.
It is very much an open ended funding arrangement. The
government is saying it will be $100 million to start. What is
it for? How will it apply for further funding? Will it be part
of an annual report to parliament? All these are unknown
commodities and things that make the NDP very uncomfortable.
If there is $100 million to be spent on sustainable development,
a very worthy subject, it should be put into the International
Institute for Sustainable Development on Portage Avenue in the
riding of Winnipeg Centre in my province of Manitoba. Let us
rebuild the institute for sustainable development to what it once
was. That is where Canada could be proud.
I have a feeling the newly struck foundation will be located
somewhere within the capital region of Ottawa. Instead of
decentralizing this innovative technology, we have every reason
to believe the architects of the bill could not find the province
of Manitoba with both hands and a flashlight.
We are always frustrated, in terms of western alienation, that
the government does not consider such things. We feel we often
get the raw end of the deal. Instead of the CF-18 contract we
get a virology lab. Instead of getting an institute of
sustainable development with reasonable funding, we get an
announcement that there will be a new foundation to study
sustainable development. Does that mean the lights will be
turned off once and for all in what was once a well respected
international institution in the riding of Winnipeg Centre?
We are very critical of that. At this point we will oppose Bill
C-4 and will be voting against it.
1645
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I highly appreciate the speech given by the hon.
member for Winnipeg Centre. In fact, he worked hard on it and he
has essential knowledge of the subject which I really admire.
He mentioned that Canada could have been a leader in sustainable
development and technology. I agree with him. However, it is
the lack of vision by the weak Liberal government that did not
let it happen. For the seven or eight years since it has been in
power, its abysmal record on environmental and sustainable
development is quite evident.
Besides the point he mentioned in his speech about the technical
part, we have to start the sustainable development somewhere or
this initiative has to be implemented somehow. Would the hon.
member agree that if patronage is taken out of the whole bill and
also if the auditors, those who were appointed by the board of
directors and report to the board of directors, and if there is a
mechanism to restore accountability, transparency and clarity in
the whole process, would he support the bill?
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think we have made it
quite clear. If the original mandate was not so fuzzy and more
clear, the reason for which the foundation was developed, if the
composition of the board was free and clear of any possibility of
patronage or being used as a holding pen for Liberal hacks or
failed candidates and if the funding and accountability issues
were more transparent and more to our liking, then we would have
no problem with the federal government allocating $100 million to
the topic of sustainable development. In fact, we would welcome
that.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my colleague was explaining to us that there was already
an institute for sustainable development in his riding. He seemed
to be a little bit disappointed that the federal government
wanted to propose a foundation. If I understood correctly, he
seemed to say that it would have been better to put the funds
allocated for the establishment of the foundation into the
institute for sustainable development in his riding.
My question to the hon. member is twofold. First, does the hon.
member think that this is unacceptable interference by the
federal government in a provincial jurisdiction, which seems to
be the objective of the Bill C-4? Second, is the hon. member
going to take the time to explain to the people of his riding the
federal government's actions?
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are
looking at a jurisdictional dispute in this matter. The
International Institute of Sustainable Development in my riding
is in fact a federal program, a federally funded institute.
I will certainly raise the alarm in my riding that we, in the
riding of Winnipeg Centre, stand to lose an important
contribution to our community and a well respected international
institute that has a reputation far and wide for doing wonderful
work in this field.
We do feel threatened by Bill C-4 in that it could further
diminish the important role that the institute plays in the
riding of Winnipeg Centre.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I hope all of Canada was listening
to our hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre talk about where that
money should go. He is absolutely correct that a facility that
is already up and running has been severely cut back.
I believe that what the $100 million will do is allow the
government to say that it is arm's length, that it is no longer
responsible and that it will shuffle its responsibility off
somewhere else.
1650
Our former colleague Peter Mancini from Cape Breton brought up
the issue of the tar ponds time and time again in the House of
Commons. Environment minister after environment minister from
the program went to Cape Breton said that something needed to be
done. They are still talking about the cleanup of Canada's worst
environmental mess.
My question for the hon. member is about using $100 million to
set up some sort of agency. If that money cannot go to his
particular area of Winnipeg for the institute, would it not be
better spent in cleaning up the tar ponds once and for all?
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Sydney tar ponds stand
as a blight on the landscape of Canada. I agree that there is
environmental degradation that needs to be addressed right across
the country.
We cannot address these issues in isolation. We cannot try and
separate the ideas of energy conservation, alternative energy
sources, sustainable development and environmental degradation.
They are all part and parcel in cleaning up the planet and
viewing it in a different way so we can all move forward in a way
that does not pollute and gives our children opportunities.
If there are hard dollars to be spent, if there are actual,
tangible things to be done, the Sydney tar pond disaster should
be first and foremost in the minds of government as it spends
money for environmental cleanup and fixing environmental
degradation.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight
at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, human resources development; the
hon. member for Manicouagan, water quality.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-4, an act to establish
a foundation to fund sustainable development technology.
One would think this is truly environment day here in the House,
after considering the motion by my hon. colleague from Davenport,
in which he specifically asks the government to conduct studies
in order to get a clear idea of the impact on the environment of
fish-farming and its industry.
Today, we are studying Bill C-4. We do not know
when but perhaps in a few days we will study the bill on threatened
species.
Quite honestly, when I read the bill, I rather supported it. The
bill advocated a number of principles, which one cannot oppose.
In Quebec, it is often said that it is impossible to oppose
virtue and apple pie. This is where we are at with this bill at
first reading. In other words, it permits the creation of a
foundation which has basic funding, which would permit the
funding of research on sustainable development, but more
specifically, in order to work on the development of energy to
fight climactic change and atmospheric pollution.
When I read the bill, I said “Finally the government is doing
something to respond properly, by allocating the necessary
resources to meet international objectives on greenhouse gases”.
I said “This is a way for the government to meet its
international commitments, especially those pertaining to
climatic change and the Kyoto conference”.
This foundation provides financial assistance for the
development and demonstration of new technologies to promote
sustainable development, including technologies to address
climate change and air quality issues. It is a foundation which
would operate like a non profit organization, with a chairperson,
14 directors and 15 members, all appointed by the government.
1655
Quebecers remember what happened in the case of the millennium
scholarship fund, an endowment fund or a foundation with a
chairperson and a number of directors that was supposedly set up
to achieve the laudable objective of helping students pursue
their studies.
When we took a closer look, we discovered that this foundation
was not necessarily there to meet the needs of students. The
millennium scholarship fund was not established to meet the
essential and critical needs of students and help them achieve
their educational goals but, rather, to award scholarships based
on merit. The fund had been set up so that the maple leaf could
appear on the cheques.
Today, a similar foundation is proposed. Its members will be
appointed by the government and, more often than not, for the
government. Under the bill, the foundation would receive an
initial endowment of $100 million per year. Is this a realistic
figure to achieve the objectives agreed to before the public and
before the heads of states at the Kyoto summit? One hundred
million dollars per year to achieve the Kyoto objectives is not
acceptable.
If the government had really wanted to adequately meet these
objectives, it would not have created a foundation which, in a
way, is a bogus foundation.
Clauses 11 and 15 deal with the appointment and selection of
directors and members. Clause 11 reads:
Remember these words “as far as possible”. At any time, about
half of the directors will represent persons engaged in
research, while the other half will represent people involved in
the business community and not for profit corporations.
In selecting the directors we must “as far as possible”
ensure that half of the appointees are from the research sector.
There is no obligation to ensure that these people have the
required knowledge, expertise and experience to make a major
contribution that would give Canada the means of production to
achieve the goal of reducing greenhouse gases.
Also, clauses 11 and 15 stipulate that the appointment of
members shall be made having regard to the following
considerations:
Therefore, at all times, the membership must be representative
of persons engaged in the development and demonstration of
technologies to promote sustainable development. There is a need
to ensure “as far as possible” that the members of the
foundation are experts.
If the government were truly honest and really wanted to make a
serious commitment to the environment and renewable energies,
would it have included in its bill clauses to ensure that experts
would be appointed as far as possible? The answer is no.
If the government were truly sincere, it would have ensured that
experts would be appointed to this foundation, not friends of the
Liberal Party. What we want is more transparency. I am not sure
the foundation will have all the transparency needed to ensure
that its goals will be reached.
1700
I want to come back to the $100 million initial funding for the
foundation. Will it be enough? One could put that question to all
the experts, not to the environmental groups, not to the
so-called green organizations. One could ask the experts in the
field of technology and renewable energies. They would say that
$100 million, that is peanuts.
I want to remind the House of the Bloc Quebecois' commitment to
sustainable development.
The Bloc Quebecois suggests that the federal government invest a
further $1.5 billion over five years to better meet sustainable
development requirements. We are not opposed to a fund, we are in
favour of a real fund with real resources to ensure that the real
goals are met. On this side of the House we are not convinced
that this fund will make it possible to meet these goals.
Why do we have reservations concerning the resources available
to the fund? I will say honestly that I would rather be on this
side of the House today, I would rather not be on the other side
of the House and have to introduce a bill such as this one which
is providing $100 million a year to deal with a fundamental issue
requiring a major shift in terms of energy, namely renewable
energy. We have doubts as to the government's goodwill when we
look at the results concerning its international commitments.
I remind members that in 1992 the federal government signed the
Rio framework convention on climate change and the ensuing Kyoto
protocol containing more definite commitments, namely, for
Canada, a 6% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2012. Are
we anywhere near achieving the Kyoto objectives? The answer is
no. To meet these objectives we need real resources, not $100
million a year.
Far from dropping, greenhouse gas emissions have increased by
13% in Canada. They have not dropped.
We are not on our way to meeting the targets set by the federal
government in Kyoto, far from it. In Canada, there has been a
13% increase in greenhouse gas emissions and, according to the
figures put out by the federal government and the Royal Society,
we are far from meeting our targets.
A report was tabled at the end of May by the Commissioner of the
Environment and Sustainable Development, who was quite critical
of the federal government. He faulted the government for its
failure in the fight against smog. On a more global level, he
underlined the importance of reducing air pollution, which
causes disease and death. Even though the government and the
Minister of the Environment announced, yesterday and last
Friday, a policy to help us reach that goal, we must realize
that we are still very far from it.
Even worse, in terms of the financial means available to us to
meet our targets at the international level, the insignificant
amounts included by the federal government in its 2000 budget
show the Liberals' lack of vision with regard to the
environment. Just for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,
the federal government should be spending $1.5 billion over five
years, not $100 million.
The urgency of the situation requires a $1.5 billion investment,
but instead, the government is planning to spend a total
$700 million over the next four years on all environmental
issues.
1705
A $100 million investment will not be enough to help us face
these environmental changes, and neither will the $700 million
included in the last budget. We need $1.5 billion. Here is the
situation: in 1997, Canada's emissions were 13% higher than in
1990.
With regard to the issue of climate change, I reviewed Quebec's
position, its performance and how we fare compared to the other
provinces and to Canada itself. That review shows that Quebec is
clearly performing better in that area than the federal
government and the other provinces.
Why do we have a better performance? Because we made the green
revolution several years ago. When we look at the energy policy
of Canada, of western Canada, with due respect to my colleagues,
we realize the energy policy is still based on fossil fuel
energy sources. There are three fossil fuel industries: natural
gas, coal and oil.
Western Canada is a major producer of greenhouse gas, an oil
producer and an oil user, which mainly produces greenhouse gas.
However, since the 1960s, Quebec has had a totally different
energy policy.
We have been using an energy that is called renewable.
Hydro-electricity has contributed concretely and totally to
Quebec's economic growth. Besides, it has allowed to stop the
production of greenhouse gas.
This is a practical application in a country, the country of
Quebec, of the sustainable development concept. We do not put
the sustainable development concept in a bill such as Bill C-6.
It does not belong in a bill such as the one the minister has
introduced today. Sustainable development calls for a practical
application. This means economic growth and the use of our
resources with consideration for environmental protection.
Mrs. Brundtland, the former prime minister of Norway, had
defined this sustainable development concept that we are now
applying in practical terms in Quebec. We have given ourselves
all the tools required to achieve these environmental objectives
without necessarily neglecting economic growth. This is what is
different.
Often, people think that a change in energy policy leads to
reduced economic activity. Quebec is a prime example.
A few years ago, how many homes used coal, natural gas or
petroleum? How many businesses and industries used them in order
to produce consumer goods? How many houses were heated with oil?
A very heavy majority.
Yet today, we use another source of energy, what is termed
renewable energy. In the case of Quebec, it is hydroelectric
power, electricity. Yet the economic activity of Quebec has not
been affected by this pro-ecology and pro-environmental move.
1710
On the contrary, Quebec's government corporation has been able
to export energy, to the U.S. for one. This goes to show that a
change in energy use does not necessarily mean job losses, as
some would have us believe.
How often we hear the comment “The petroleum industry is so
important to Canada, and jobs connected to that industry must be
preserved”. I say there is a way of making a logical and
balanced change of direction toward Canada's use of a sustainable
energy source.
I am referring to hydroelectric energy. It is not the only type
of renewable energy there is; there are other kinds.
Among other things, there is solar energy, which works fairly
well in certain countries. Proper investments would ensure that
this technology could be developed.
There is wind energy as well. This energy has been tried out in
many countries, including Quebec and Canada. Wind energy is used
in Europe, among other things, as a primary source of energy, and
not just as a secondary energy.
I will conclude by talking about the principle underlying the
bill. As I was saying, I agree with the principle of the bill.
It is impossible to oppose investment in technology that will
mean the achievement of the objectives of sustainable
development.
However, I have some doubt as to the vehicle for achieving these
objectives, namely a foundation appointed by the government,
with, in my opinion, insufficient funding.
My final remark is to the effect that the foundation would not
permit the achievement of the objectives and the environmental
green shift. I fear instead that it will manage to sprinkle a
few thousand or tens of thousands of dollars about without really
achieving its target objective, that of producing while
respecting and protecting the environment at the same time.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my
colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie on his speech. As always,
he was very eloquent and quite clear in what he said. He has been
working very hard on environmental issues since the last
election.
I particularly noticed his concern in the matter of the
contaminated water in Shannon, in the Quebec City area. His
interest in these problems is obviously very high.
I listened to him carefully and I agree with him when he says
that the proposed foundation will have no effect on what is being
debated today.
Since he always has an answer, I would like to ask him what he
himself would do if he were in the government's place. What would
he propose, while respecting jurisdictions, to meet the
objectives and reduce greenhouse gases?
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question, which basically is twofold. I do not know how long I
still have, but to me the Shannon issue is really important. It
is so because the government has to admit one thing. The
contaminated lands in Shannon are located on lands under the
jurisdiction and responsibility of the federal government.
1715
Let me tell the hon. member that on last February 6 I wrote to
the Minister of National Defence, asking him to proceed
immediately with the decontamination of the site and work
together with the province in order to find a sustainable
solution to the problem. That falls precisely within the scope
of this bill.
This is not about patching problems, but finding a solution. The
solution involves decontamination. As for the means available to
us, while the federal government is proposing a foundation, I
should remind the House that Quebec does have an action plan to
deal with climate change.
There is a whole range of means that the Quebec government made
available to the public—voluntary measures in some cases, and
public information—in order to deal with the major challenge
represented by climate change.
Given the federal government's performance on the climate change
issue in recent years, would it not be sounder and more
transparent to transfer these $100 million to the province that
already has an action plan and made sure to meet its greenhouse
gas reduction targets?
Does the member not think that, on that issue, the Quebec government gets
much better marks than the federal government? Let the federal
government take that money and transfer it to Quebec, and then
we will be able to meet targets even higher than those we have
met so far.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it
is commonly known that Canada has been vilified by international
environmentalists because it is seen as one of the main brokers
of deals to try and get around the Kyoto protocol and the
obligation to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
We are seeing token gestures on the part of the government to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions with its own federal buildings.
It is also trying to encourage municipalities to energy retrofit
its buildings.
A $25 million fund has been put aside for green municipalities.
Out of $25 million, $30,000 will be allocated to the city of
Montreal to energy retrofit its municipal buildings. Would the
hon. member have any comment on that allocation of resources?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, this is an eloquent example
of the danger of this bill. My colleague has just given an
example, and I will document it.
Thirty thousand dollars went to the City of Montreal to retrofit
its equipment and buildings in order to meet environmental
objectives. That is the danger of this type of foundation, which
has an initial endowment of only $100 million.
Earlier, I mentioned this danger in the conclusion to my speech,
and I repeat that the danger is that this leads to a sort of
piecemeal approach, with the result that the objectives would not
really be met. The member for Winnipeg Centre spoke earlier
about the institute for climate change. In Quebec, we have an
action plan for reaching our objectives in this area.
Would it not be possible to recognize the work being done by the
provincial governments or by the institutes on this issue and to
fund these institutes or governments in order to consolidate the
work they are doing, rather than create a foundation appointed
by the governor in council—we do not know whom he will
appoint—and to pour $100 million a year into it?
We do not know to whom this money will go. We know that there
will probably be agreements, but clearly it will be very
difficult for us, with the foundation they want to create, to
know with whom agreements will be reached. It will be incredibly
difficult. We are talking about a foundation with $100 million
dollars.
1720
I agree with my colleague and I think that recognition should be
given to the work done in the institute for climate change in his
riding, and to the Government of Quebec's action plan, and that
the federal government should improve and consolidate existing
measures rather than create a foundation that will throw money
all over the place.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too
want to congratulate my colleague for Rosemont for his splendid
work. He acts in a competent and eloquent way.
I do not have to tell any member of the House that we need air
and water to live, hence, the importance of environmental
protection. It just so happens that there has been contamination
of the water table by the Department of Transport in a
residential area of the town of Sept-Îles. On three occasions,
that is February 1, 2 and 5, I raised the issue. As a matter
of fact, I have been speaking about this issue for three
and a half years. The Minister of Transport admitted to the fact and
recognized his responsibility.
On February 14, that is quite recent, I received a document
which I hope to be able to table tonight. In this document, the
department of public health recommends not drinking the water in
the Des Plages area, and this recommendation comes from Dr.
Raynald Cloutier.
How are we to believe in the government's credibility? Even if
Bill C-4 contained the best clauses, does the government think
that, as it included in its policy statements a clause based on
the “polluter pays” principle while it was itself polluting and
contaminating the Des Plages area—a woman says she is desperate
because she is without water and sewer systems—we are going to
give it credibility? According to Le Soleil “People are
Desperate”. There was also action taken by the town of
Sept-Îles on February 12, which is also fairly recent. But I was
not satisfied with the answer the Minister gave me in the House.
I ask my colleague for Rosemont if he sees a way to solve the
problem of the Des Plages area of Sept-Îles so that the
Department of Transport will finally act responsibly. Does he see
in Bill C-4 any means to avoid such situations in the future?
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent
question. Today I make the assumption that since the House
reconvened the federal government has been introducing
environmental bills that intrude in provincial jurisdiction, for
example Bill C-6 amending the International Boundary Waters
Treaty Act, the bill respecting species at risk, and this bill
establishing a foundation to fund sustainable development.
Could the federal government not look after areas under federal
jurisdiction rather than meddling in provincial areas of
jurisdiction? Let it proceed with land decontamination in
Shannon, at CFB Valcartier, or at the airport, in Sept-Îles. That
is all we ask. The federal government has no say in provincial
jurisdiction, particularly not as regards drinking water
management. This side of the House does not need any lectures.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on the sustainable
development technology foundation legislation Bill C-4.
Like so many initiatives of the government, this initiative
represents a baby step in the right direction, a glossing over of
a very major issue with what some would describe as a cosmetic
approach in order that the government can say that it has in fact
done something to address the issue of sustainable development
and climate change. However, it is very much a baby step.
The Liberals have had an abysmal record on environmental policy.
1725
I have in front of me a quotation from David Boyd, a senior
associate with the eco-research chair of environmental policy at
the University of Victoria, in the riding of the Minister of the
Environment. Mr. Boyd, who is an expert on the environment, has
said that “ in two terms the Liberals have yet to pass a single
significant new piece of environmental legislation. Many green
promises from the Liberal red book remain unfulfilled”.
That is a damning description, to have seen this level of
demise, of two terms of Liberal government, a party that has
historically had strong principles relative to environmental
issues. The principles and values of environmental policy in the
Liberal Party is indeed unfortunate.
The notion of a sustainable development technology foundation
should have been addressed and developed before Kyoto. Instead
the government's plan in terms of the Kyoto agreement was
basically written on the back of an airplane napkin on the way to
Kyoto. There was no long term planning. There was no real
negotiation with the provinces or with industry sectors. In fact
it was a last minute, hastily drafted agreement.
The federal government was not responsible for developing, in
advance, a long term strategy on how to meet the terms of the
Kyoto agreement. It was left scrambling after the Kyoto
agreement. This legislation is a band-aid approach to make up
for lost time years later. That is highly unfortunate.
An hon. member: Too little, too late.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Winnipeg Centre says that it is too little, too late. As with so
many things, I share his views on that. He was speaking earlier
about some of the omissions in the legislation, including the
fact that the government is not addressing the important
potential of decentralization of research and policy development
in terms of this very important area of the environment.
With the death of distance as a determinant in the cost of
telecommunications and with companies around the world
decentralizing and putting research and policy development out in
the field, it is the people making the decisions and researching
the policies that are close to the people that are ultimately
affected.
It is not just in terms of the foundation. That same rationale
could be applied to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and
the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Instead the
government continues to fill office buildings in Ottawa and
continues to cut down on its commitment to the regions to develop
the sound policies close to the people ultimately affected in the
regions. This is again a missed opportunity by the government.
My colleague from Winnipeg Centre also referred to the process
of appointment in terms of the board members of the foundation.
I share with him his concerns. The government has an unfortunate
record of cronyism when it comes to the appointment process.
The member for Winnipeg Centre also referred to the habit that
the government has of appointing failed Liberal candidates to
senior positions. While I share his concern, I would remind him
that the only thing worse than a failed Liberal candidate is a
successful Liberal candidate. In many ways we should at least be
thankful that there are still some failed Liberal candidates. We
hope that we will add to their ranks in the future.
With regard to the direction of the foundation to have a greater
level of private sector participation, I do share the notion that
we could do more to incorporate the private sector in the
delivery of products that are actually beneficial to the public
good.
1730
Look at the general trends in terms of medical technology or
biotechnology. A lot of these cutting edge technologies can
provide immense societal gains and benefits. Many of the
developments are actually coming from the private sector.
Therefore, I do support the notion of leveraging some of the
government investment. In this case it is a very small
investment of $100 million into $400 million, which is a fairly
small amount of money, but it is still positive that there is a
leveraging effort.
I can point to another example in recent days. It was the
announcement on the human genome project. One government funded
group had spent 10 years encoding the human gene. Another group,
which was a private sector group, completed much of the same work
in three years. There are some private sector advantages
developing these types of cutting edge technologies. We can,
through public policy, effect and create greater levels of
interest in developing these societally beneficial technologies.
There are some tax credits currently for research and
development in Canada, but we could possibly develop a more
advantageous set of tax credits to apply specifically to
sustainable development technologies. For instance, research
into alternative energy sources and the whole emerging industry
of wind generated power comes to mind. Certainly, during
question period we would have no shortage of mega watts coming
from the government side of the House. Even the House of Commons
could potentially be powered by wind generation in such a scheme
and perhaps some of this money may go in that direction. That
would be parliamentary reform that would have long term benefits.
The issue of private sector participation in this is going to
become increasingly important in Canada. Whether it is an
environmental policy or almost any new area of technology, we can
demonstrate to private individuals and companies in Canada that
good environmental policy is good economics and good economic
policy is good environmental policy. For far too long we
separated environmental policy and economic policy. In failing
to incorporate the two, we did a great disservice to both
disciplines and to the public in general.
If we do more, such as internalize externalities of production
at the time of production and ensure that the cost borne by
consumers of particular products or services reflect not just the
cost of production but the environmental cost of production, we
would be far better served. These are the types of regulatory
reforms that can effect changes. It might be actually more
significant than that which is presented in this legislation.
This legislation is very vague on how it would address the long
term issue of sustainable development. Again, it is only $100
million. A few months ago, anything dot com could have raised
that in an IPO anywhere and those companies only took a few
months to burn through that. With government involvement it may
take less time. However, I have some real concerns about the
scale of commitment of the federal government. Again, it is not
a huge commitment. It will allow the government to point toward
this very vague and cosmetic approach to this very serious issue
and claim that it has taken action. In fact, it really is not a
significant level of commitment to such an important global
issue.
1735
I would urge the government to be more responsive to this issue
and incorporate a more effective regime of tax based incentives
to reward and encourage private sector development of new
technologies for sustainable development, as well as to encourage
consumers to make choices, whether it is in their own homes or
the fuels that they choose for their automobiles, to be more
sensitive to environmental issues.
A positive thing that has happened in recent years is if one
goes to a high school, speaks to a class and asks how many of the
students feel environmental policy is of great priority, almost
every one of them will put up their hands.
Ten years ago or fifteen years ago, if we had asked the same
question to a group of school students probably most of them
would not have said that. I do not think the environment was of
huge importance to me when I was in high school. However,
education has effected change in that direction and that is very
positive.
We have now an emerging group of young adults who are
environmentally sensitive and intrinsically interested in
environmental issues. They may be more responsive to tax based
measures which encourage sustainable environmental policy and
greater levels of sensitivity as consumers. These Volvo
vigilantes can make a huge impact on the future of the country,
regardless of the car they choose to drive. It is important that
we recognize more creative means by which to develop approaches.
Canada in so many areas, particularly in environmental policy,
has failed to research best practices around the world of other
jurisdictions and governments in terms of policies which apply in
this case to environmental policy, but in so many other areas,
whether it is in tax policy or social policy. We could have
tried a little harder in this case to be somewhat more creative.
The government has almost a franchise like approach to policy
development and the creation of these foundations. It names a
bunch of Liberals to the board. Then, it sends it off to
ultimately die a natural death and spend some money. In some
cases, by hook or by crook, and I do not mean crook as in the
stuff that has been alluded to in question period over and over
again or in a criminal reference, sometimes a positive thing will
come out. By and large the results have been less than
substantial.
The fact is we could do much better. I was the co-chairman of
the Progressive Conservative platform committee for the recent
election. All three Canadians who read that document thought it was an
excellent document. It was supported across the country
by these people. They all voted for us.
The fact is the Sierra Club actually recognized that platform
for its sound environmental policies. It also recognized the New
Democratic Party. If there is an area of policy that I would be
quite proud to stand beside my colleagues in the New Democratic
Party, but not all policies, it is the environmental policy.
There is a level of commitment that is consistent and of
vigilance in areas of the environment that I have a great deal of
respect for.
In another area and on another topic, the Canadian Alliance of
Students Association, not to be confused with the other Canadian
Alliance, said that the Conservative platform was the best in
terms of student policies and education policies.
Those are two areas that may not be recognized widely as cornerstones of
conservative policy, but they certainly are cornerstones of
Progressive Conservative policies, of which we are very proud.
1740
We need to do more than simply institutionalize lip service to
environmental and other important issues. We need to work with
the provinces to develop meaningful tax and regulatory incentives
to encourage a greater level of commitment from all Canadians,
from the business community and from individual citizens. This
is our legacy that we are leaving to future generations of
Canadians.
We should not talk just about Canadians when we talk about the
environment because this is a global issue. There are no borders
when it comes to environmental policy. The legacy we are leaving
to future citizens of the world is a very sad legacy.
I believe it was last week that there was another report on the
whole global warming issue indicating that the worst fears of
global warming are coming to fruition. We are seeing it in many
of the natural disasters occurring in all parts of the world. The
fact is that we in the developed countries which have led and
created much of the problem are better insulated to survive
during these crises than some of the developing countries.
There are some real issues of equity that we as a developed
country, as a country that has in the past been a leader in
environmental and foreign policy, can play in a greater role than
the size of our population would typically dictate in leading
greater co-operation globally on environmental policy.
Some people are talking about the issue of intergenerational
equity. When they talk about that they are talking about the
issue of the national debt which future generations are going to
have to pay. That certainly is an issue of intergenerational
equity. People your age, Mr. Speaker, leaving that kind of equity on
people like me, the next generation, is indeed unfair. That is a
career limiting move.
However, a more damning legacy and on intergenerational equity
issue is that of the environment. We will at some point have to
pay off the national debt. I would argue we should pay it off
more quickly than some would argue. The damage we have inflicted
on the environment is a debt that we may not be able to ever
repay. That is a scientific fact.
We need to become increasingly vigilant. We have been asleep at
the wheel for far too long on environmental policy. That is not
a legacy that as policymakers in the House we can afford to leave
for future generations of Canadians.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
was very interested in some of the points the hon. member for
Kings—Hants was making regarding the mindset shift that is
necessary for industries to undertake in the way they do
business.
He said that they need to internalize externalities. First, I
would like him to explain that. Second, I would like him to
expand somewhat on the issue he raised that we need to view
things in the way of whole costing. In other words, if we are
going to burn oil we need to recognize what the whole cost of
burning that oil is.
I would also ask him to comment on the fact that the real price
of a barrel of oil is probably not $27 or whatever it is on the
open market. The real cost, the whole cost, can be as much as
$150 a barrel when we factor in the price of the American
military and keeping the Persian Gulf sea lanes open, and the
environmental degradation and the clean up necessary when burning
hydrocarbons.
1745
Even if the technology is not quite there yet, would the Ballard
fuel cell, wind energy or solar energy not render all other
alternative sources of energy cheap by comparison? When we look
at the whole cost of a barrel of oil all other sources of energy
seem like a bargain, internalizing externalities first and then
whole costing. Would the member like to comment on that?
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, we should make note that
this is probably the first time in the history of Canadian
parliament that a Conservative updated the lexicon of a New
Democrat in terms of environmental phraseology, otherwise known
as buzzwords.
Turning to the notion of internalizing the externalities, the
externalities are those products that are produced
unintentionally by any level of production. To internalize those
externalities means to incorporate in the cost of production the
unintended production costs. In this case, environmental costs
are incorporated into the cost of products that the consumers
pays at the time, also known as whole costing. I appreciate his
update of my lexicon in areas of the environment in a more simple
and holistic way.
The notion of whole costing and addressing the total cost of
production is difficult to do. The methodologies for doing this
are not easy to implement. However, I think it is very important
that we start doing that.
Again, bad environmental policy is ultimately bad economic
policy because both disciplines deal with the management of
scarce resources. Any economic argument or any pricing
arrangement that ignores the true cost, wihtout the whole costing as put
forth by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, is in fact bad
economics. We have to become more rational in the way that we
allocate both environmental and otherwise economic resources.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure we will all be much the
wiser for that explanation and it will be on a test somewhere
down the road.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: The vote has been deferred until
tomorrow at the end of government orders.
* * *
SPECIES AT RISK ACT
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife
species at risk in Canada, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before I begin debate I should like to
congratulate the member for Fundy—Royal on his election as
vice-chair of the finance committee. I think it is very generous
of the official opposition to let the Conservative Party have
that post and I wish him well as the vice-chair of that
committee.
[Translation]
Canada is blessed with a rich biodiversity of over 70,000 known
plants and animals, many of which are found nowhere else in the
world. We have a moral obligation to protect this precious
diversity so that it can be enjoyed by generations of Canadians
to come.
1750
Bill C-5, the proposed Species at Risk Act, will enable
countless Canadians to continue to work to protect and recover
species and ensure that the Government of Canada can act as well.
Despite efforts to protect wildlife and plants, we continue to
lose species at an alarming rate around the world because of
human activity.
In Canada today there are 364 species classified as being at
risk nationally.
[English]
Canadians overwhelmingly support the protection of species at
risk and their habitats. From ranchers to fishermen, trappers to
farmers, biologists to conservationists, we have heard the call
for effective legislation. Bill C-5 responds to that call with
certainty and with conviction.
It is effective legislation that will help prevent wildlife in
Canada from becoming extinct. It will also provide for recovery
of species that are at risk of becoming extinct. This is
legislation that will achieve results where it counts the most,
on the land, in our streams, in the oceans, on the prairies, in
the forests and in the air above.
[Translation]
Bill C-5 is effective legislation that will help prevent
wildlife in Canada from becoming extinct. It will also provide
for the recovery of species at risk.
This is legislation that will achieve results where it counts
the most: on the land and in our streams, oceans, prairies and
forests.
I would like to outline the key strengths of the bill
before parliament today.
The proposed act will cover all birds, fish, mammals, plants or
insects listed as being at risk nationally. These species and
their critical habitats will be protected whether they are on
federal, provincial, territorial or privately owned land, in the
air or in the water. SARA will be the cornerstone in species
protection and recovery.
SARA will ensure that science is the first consideration in the
recovery of species. For the first time, the Committee on the
Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC, will be
given legal status under the Species at Risk Act.
COSEWIC will continue to operate as a scientific
body independent of the government. It that will assess and
classify the status of wildlife species in accordance with the
best available scientific, community and aboriginal traditional
knowledge.
SARA will provide the authority to prohibit the killing of
endangered or threatened species and the destruction of their
critical habitats on all lands in Canada. We will have the
authority to provide immediate protection to species and their
critical habitats in imminent danger. The Government of Canada
will also have the authority to act alone when and if necessary.
Under SARA, there will be a mandatory requirement for developing
recovery strategies and action plans for endangered or threatened
species, and management plans for species of special concern.
The Minister of Environment must report annually to parliament
on actions taken to recover all listed species.
[English]
Possibly the strongest element of the bill is the extensive
dialogue that has resulted in its evolution. The proposed
legislation reflects more than seven years of consultation with
Canadians in all walks of life, in all parts of the country,
including specifically ranchers, farmers, land owners, fishermen,
aboriginal peoples, business leaders, trappers, scientists,
academics and many other stakeholders, including thousands of
interested Canadians.
1755
The Species at Risk Act or SARA is what it is today because of
what we have heard over the last seven years.
[Translation]
We have heard that Canadians want legislation in place that
empowers individuals to take action to protect habitat. This is
the goal of Bill C-5.
We have also heard that Canadians want to know that there are
strong legal protections in place so that, if necessary, the
government will act alone to protect species and their habitat.
This is another key component of Bill C-5.
We have heard loud and clear that the approach to species
protection and recovery must be balanced and effective. The bill
before us today meets these requirements.
Bill C-5 incorporates a
number of useful suggestions made by individuals and groups in
submissions to the standing committee during its pre-study of the
former bill C-33. These changes reflect the intent and spirit of
the former bill, while improving its clarity.
I would like to outline some of the improvements that have been
made in the bill we are debating today.
Of particular significance are the following, which will provide
greater openness, transparency and accountability.
A new section was added, which would require that the minister
convene, at least once every two years, a round table of persons
interested in matters related to the protection of species at
risk. The round table would advise the minister on these matters
and its recommendations would be placed in the public registry.
The minister would be required to respond within 180 days and his
response would also be placed in the public registry.
The COSEWIC list will be published, unchanged, in the public
registry. By doing this, it is given public recognition as the
scientific list of species at risk in Canada.
Other documents to be placed in the public registry would now
also include the annual reports of COSEWIC, general status
reports, action plans and the minister's annual reports to
parliament.
The registry, which will be available on the Internet, will be a
comprehensive online source of relevant documents and information
about efforts to protect species at risk in Canada. It will give
Canadians the opportunity to follow the development of
regulations and orders under the Act, from the consultation phase
to final publication in the Canada Gazette.
In short, the registry will enable anyone to track government
action on species which have been found to be at risk following
scientific assessment.
These changes show that we have listened to Canadians. We intend
to continue to take the advice of Canadians, and all reasonable
suggestions to further improve Bill C-5 will be considered
carefully as the bill progresses through parliament.
The bill that we are debating today is only one component of the
Government of Canada's overall strategy to protect species at
risk.
In fact, the strategy is already producing results through
stewardship, recovery planning and partnerships with provinces,
territories, non-government organizations, academics, and private
citizens. This strategy includes this legislation, the accord for
the protection of species at risk, and the habitat stewardship
program.
1800
Through stewardship and recovery efforts, we are taking action
on species at risk where it matters most: on the land and in our
streams, oceans, prairies and forests.
Our first line of defence will be to protect habitat by
encouraging land owners to undertake voluntary conservation
measures, often in co-operation with other governments.
The Government of Canada is providing incentives to promote
habitat conservation, because we know this approach works on the
ground to effectively protect species.
[English]
Through the new habitat stewardship program, the Government of
Canada contributed, in the year 2000, approximately $5 million to
over 60 partnership projects with local and regional
organizations and committees. Species that have benefited
already include the Vancouver Island marmot, the marbled murrelet
and the critically endangered eastern loggerhead shrike, a bird
that was once distributed from Manitoba to the maritimes.
Our approach to habitat stewardship also encompasses large areas
of land such as the Missouri Coteau landscape of southern
Saskatchewan. Located in the prairie pothole region of the
province, the Missouri Coteau landscape is approximately 23,000
square kilometres in size and includes several species at risk,
including the piping plover, the burrowing owl, the loggerhead
shrike, the ferruginous hawk, the northern leopard frog and the
monarch butterfly. The Coteau stewardship first step project
seeks to maintain natural, restored and managed land capable of
sustaining populations of these species at risk.
Funding for the habitat stewardship program is one of several
initiatives to protect species at risk that were announced in
budget 2000, which contained a commitment of some $90 million
over three years and thereafter stabilized funding of $90 million
every two years for the protection of species at risk.
[Translation]
Budget 2000 also made it easier for Canadians to donate
ecologically sensitive lands and easements by reducing the
capital gains from donations through the EcoGifts Program.
These partnerships and incentive programs will extend habitat
protection in all parts of Canada.
Our preferred approach to protecting species at risk is through
voluntary activities by Canadians. However, there may be times
when these do not produce the desired results. At that point,
government action will be required, either at the federal,
provincial or territorial level.
We respect the authority of other governments, but we also
expect them to bring in habitat protection measures when they are
needed. This bill will complement existing or improved provincial
and territorial legislation. It will not compete with it.
Make no mistake, where voluntary measures do not work, or other
governments are unwilling or unable to act, the federal safety
net will be invoked. If a province does not have complementary
legislation, the Government of Canada will act to protect
Canada's heritage, to protect threatened or endangered species
and their critical habitats on provincial and private lands.
Landowners, farmers, ranchers, trappers and others who live off
the land or waters of Canada are among our most important
partners, since in many areas, their land includes the habitats
of species at risk.
1805
The proposed SARA will enable compensation to be paid for losses
suffered as a result of any extraordinary impact when it is
necessary to prohibit destruction of critical habitat.
[English]
One of the most difficult questions in the debate over how to
protect species at risk is that issue of compensation. That is
why I asked the distinguished Dr. Peter Pearse, a professor
emeritus at the University of British Columbia and a well known
expert on natural resource issues, to review the issues involved
and to provide me with advice concerning compensation under the
legislation.
Dr. Pearse has done an excellent job of reviewing the issues and
his findings will be an important contribution to the debate on
compensation. His recommendations are of great interest to the
government and they will be considered very carefully as we
develop compensation regulations in consultation with Canadians.
[Translation]
I want to assure hon. members that as our discussions on
the issue of compensation progress, we will continue our
discussions with interested Canadians. We will keep them
informed on this important issue. Our regulatory proposals will
be shared on the registry in the same spirit of openness that has
marked the development of the proposed species at risk act.
[English]
Anecdotal evidence on severe economic losses by landowners in
the United States because of the American endangered species act
has generated concern and fears in some parts of Canada. Let me
assure the House that the proposed Canadian species at risk act
is fundamentally different from the American act and, I might
add, dramatically better.
The species at risk act represents a Canadian approach based on
our own strengths and values. While it does give the government
the power to protect threatened or endangered species and their
critical habitats on private land, we have gone a long way to
meeting the concerns of landowners and other people who work on
the land.
[Translation]
The bill recognizes the fact that in order to be effective,
species at risk legislation must be accepted and used by the
people on the land who make decisions affecting wildlife every
day.
Species protection requires a co-operative approach on the front
lines. This does not preclude the inclusion of strong measures
for those who would break the law.
I cannot emphasise enough the importance of partnerships in
protecting wildlife in Canada. We are working with the provinces
and territories, individual Canadians, conservation
organizations, academics, industries every day to conserve and
protect species at risk.
For this legislation to be effective, all affected stakeholders
must be engaged. In order to get the job done, we need
landowners, conservation groups, and other levels of government
working together.
[English]
Aboriginal communities are especially important in efforts to
protect species at risk since so many endangered or threatened
species are found on aboriginal lands. Aboriginal peoples have
been successfully involved in efforts to develop this legislation
and they will be involved in the species at risk act recovery
efforts at every appropriate step. The assessment and recovery
processes will incorporate the wisdom of aboriginal traditional
knowledge as well as local community knowledge.
[Translation]
We will work closely with and respect the role of wildlife
management boards established under land claims agreements to
ensure the protection of species at risk.
1810
In fact, one of the improvements that has been made to the bill
was to amend the definition of wildlife management board to
ensure that any body authorized to perform functions in relation
to wildlife species in a land claims agreement is covered.
We have a long history of co-operation with the provinces and
territories on protecting species at risk in Canada. We have
negotiated an accord to protect species at risk and have made
significant progress on many issues under it. Because of the
active involvement of many interested parties in this file, we
have made remarkable progress.
[English]
Here are some examples. In 1941 there were about 16 whooping
cranes in Canada and now there are about 200. The swift fox has
been successfully reintroduced along the Saskatchewan-Alberta
border and, in fact, its status has been upgraded by COSEWIC. The
wood bison is returning to healthier and sustainable numbers.
From a low of about 250 animals a century ago, there are now some
1,800 wood bison currently living in seven wild, free ranging
herds. Again, COSEWIC has upgraded its status from endangered to
threatened in recognition of this progress.
Clearly there has been progress. Now we must focus our efforts
to save species still in danger, such as the right whale, the
Oregon spotted frog and the Jefferson salamander, which was added
by COSEWIC in November to the list of Canadian species at risk.
[Translation]
As a government, as citizens and as stewards, our goal must be
to protect species on the ground. The proposed species at risk
act is part of a comprehensive approach to accomplish this goal.
I invite all members to take an important step toward
protecting wildlife species and their habitats across Canada by
supporting Bill C-5. Canadians have told us in overwhelming
numbers that they want a law to protect species at risk and their
habitats. After seven years of debate, it is time to move on,
and to focus our attention on protecting and recovering wildlife
at risk.
In 1996 governments across Canada agreed, through the accord
for the protection of species at risk, to bring in species
protection legislation in their own jurisdictions. Many
provinces and territories have already fulfilled this commitment.
Now it is the time for the Parliament of Canada to live up to
this commitment by approving Bill C-5.
Bill C-5 creates a framework for the protection of species at
risk that will achieve results on the ground by using incentives
as the preferred approach, backed up with strong legal
protections that give the government of Canada the ability to act
alone when necessary.
It is designed to work not merely in courtrooms, but where it
counts: in the fields, forests, wetlands and open waters of
Canada. Effective species protection, not costly litigation,
must be our primary goal.
I look forward to committee hearings on Bill C-5, where we will
discuss the bill in detail, and hear the views of Canadians on
how effective this bill can be.
We have an opportunity to pass effective legislation,
legislation that is needed and long overdue. I sincerely hope
the members of the House will assist with this monumental
responsibility.
[English]
This bill is important for Canada's biodiversity. I urge all
members to give it speedy passage at second reading and I urge
that it be voted with minimum delay for the committee stage and
examination by the committee of the House.
1815
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today in the debate on this bill on species at
risk in Canada.
In principle the Bloc Quebecois should be satisfied, and it is,
that there is an endangered species act in Quebec.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: My colleagues opposite just applauded. We do
have an endangered species act in Quebec. Government members,
including the Minister for International Trade, have just
recognized by their applause that the matter is of vital
importance.
Since our colleagues opposite are satisfied with the endangered
species act, I will now talk about the bill on species at risk
in Canada.
I must first remind the House that a number of international
conventions inevitably led to Canada introducing this
legislation. We wish this legislation had been quite different,
but it inevitably had to be introduced in the House.
There are three or four reasons that justified the introduction
of this bill in the House. First, on the international level,
one has to remember the signing of the convention on wetlands,
which is of international importance. This convention is quite
important since at least 30% of species in Canada live in that
kind of habitat and land.
A second important reason relating to commitments made by Canada
at the international level is the convention on international
trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, which
clearly required the introduction of this type of legislation in
each country.
A third reason is, of course, the convention on conservation on
migratory species of wild fauna, but the fundamental reason
which also led to the introduction of the act respecting
threatened or vulnerable species in Quebec is the 1992
convention on biodiversity. That convention stated clearly that
countries had to introduce and bring into force legislative
provisions to protect species at risk.
Why introduce legislation on species at risk and why give so
much importance to this type of legislation? I said this type of
legislation, not necessarily this piece of legislation.
Why? Because we have witnessed a significant reduction in
biodiversity over the last few years.
Our methods of producing and consuming have significantly
altered our ecosystems. This has resulted in a significant
reduction in organisms living in these ecosystems, which means
that it also has an impact on species at risk. Of course, all
this has an impact on the food chain.
All the different changes we made in our production methods have
had an effect on biodiversity, and this is why we had to take
measures to protect our species.
Legislation to protect species at risk is essential. However, we
would have liked legislation that respects certain frameworks,
not only a legislative framework, but also a constitutional
framework.
1820
It must be remembered that four provinces already have
endangered species legislation. They are Ontario, British
Columbia, New Brunswick and, of course, Quebec.
These provinces have passed a number of measures to identify and
legally designate endangered species, and to implement programs
and plans, like recovery plans, to ensure the continuity of our
ecosystems and aquatic and plant habitats, and to ensure these
species are not put at risk or made vulnerable.
In 1989 Quebec passed its own endangered species legislation.
This was ground breaking legislation in those days. As I said
earlier, the convention on biodiversity was not signed until
1992.
Before the signing of the international convention on
biodiversity, calling for changes to legislation to protect
endangered species, Quebec had already passed its own
legislation, which was welcome by environmentalists and
interested parties.
This legislation was meant to be and was flexible, because it
was respectful of property holders and landowners. Its purpose
was to identify and legally designate endangered species, and to
provide a number of recovery plans to protect their habitat.
Quebec went even further in protecting endangered species.
Later on, Quebec took two more measures: the fishery regulations
and an act respecting the conservation and development of
wildlife. The goal of these three fundamental measures was to
protect and preserve the species as well as the aquatic, plant
and animal environments.
In no way, shape or form does the bill introduced in the House
respect the forward looking approach taken by Quebec in 1989.
I cannot wait to see what decision some of the members opposite
will come to. I cannot wait to see what the hon. member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry, who was a minister in 1989 under Robert
Bourassa when the legislation was passed, will do. I cannot wait
to see what the hon. member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, who supported
the legislation and urged the opposition to pass it, will do.
They have introduced, supported and defended this kind of
legislation.
These federal Liberal members from Quebec are about to vote
for a federal bill that will duplicate the Quebec legislation and
will infringe upon areas of provincial jurisdiction concerning
the protection of critical habitat. We will see what the federal
members from Quebec will decide. Chances are, they will show
their true colours.
We will see what is going on when we will compare the two pieces
of legislation, when we take the time to read through the bill
the Minister of the Environment introduced a few weeks ago and
compare it to the Quebec legislation. We will have to take into
consideration not only the Quebec legislation on endangered
species, but also the act respecting the conservation and
development of wildlife and the regulations. That is when we will
realize all the overlap there is. The first example of overlap
deals with the identification of the species.
1825
The federal act formalizes the status of COSEWIC, that is the
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. So far,
the committee has legally identified over 340 endangered species.
If someone told me today that Quebec does not have a committee
to identify these threatened plant species, I would say that this
double net is justified. We need a double net and there is one in
place. It is in the form of an advisory committee made up of
scientists. It is not a phoney committee, but an advisory
committee made up of scientists who work at identifying the
animal and plant species that are vulnerable and threatened.
In Quebec the advisory committee on threatened species works
in close co-operation with COSEWIC. It works in such close
co-operation with COSEWIC that Quebec signed a harmonization
agreement on threatened and endangered species. The Quebec
government signed that harmonization agreement back in 1996. At
the time, it said “Quebec has an act and we will co-operate”.
Where is that harmonization agreement? Where is the federal
government's pledge to respect provincial jurisdictions, to
respect Quebec's legislation, as stated in the 1996 harmonization
agreement? Whatever happened to that spirit of co-operation?
Today, what we have before us is a bill that interferes in
provincial jurisdictions. This is totally unacceptable.
If I were told that Quebec does not have a recovery plan for
threatened species, I would say that there is a reason for having
a double net.
I would say that Quebec is not doing its job and lacks
legislation, but the fact of the matter is that Quebec has
recovery plans. The argument for the double net does not hold
water. Quebec has a recovery strategy for when a species that
is endangered is identified and its habitat must be protected in
order to ensure survival.
The second aspect is the recovery plans, as proposed by the
federal government. Quebec has one in its legislation.
The third aspect is compensation. This is pure improvisation
here. One wonders why the federal government did not fully
accept the recommendations of the Peter Pearse report, including
that for 50% compensation of farmers and land owners. There was
none of this. At the briefings, we asked the departmental staff
what the principle of compensation was.
The answer was “We are not really sure”. This is total
improvization.
There are two basic reasons we are strongly opposed to this
bill. I can assure the House that we are going to work very hard
in committee to ensure that it does not get through.
First of all, because we believe that the entire habitat issue
is a provincial responsibility.
Second, because we want the federal government to keep its word
to respect Quebec legislation, which it gave when the
harmonization agreement on endangered species was signed in 1996.
1830
We call upon it to respect its signature and to ensure that the
Quebec legislation is respected. This bill is headed toward
duplication and overlap and, dare I say, perhaps a court
challenge as well.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie
will have 25 minutes, if he wishes, when this bill next comes
before the House.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I have an opportunity to shed some light on a very
murky and dark issue, a dark chapter, perhaps, in the
government's administration.
Today the RCMP announced that it will no longer be pursuing an
investigation into the affairs surrounding the Auberge
Grand-Mère. What it does not say is that very little took place
in terms of an investigation.
We know that individuals we suggested it contact were not
contacted. The prime individual in all of this, the Prime
Minister, was certainly not contacted by the RCMP.
Let us take a quick walk through what has happened. The Prime
Minister and his Liberal government have stated for a long time
that they did nothing wrong when they lobbied the Business
Development Bank to secure a loan for a questionable business
practice.
This was a loan that would improve a hotel adjacent to a golf
course that was owned by the Prime Minister, 25% at that time.
The golf course is linked to the hotel. The hotel is linked to a
bank loan. The bank loan is linked to a president and also the
immigration investment deal that followed a meeting in Chrétien's
office with people he cannot remember.
The Deputy Speaker: I perhaps was not paying as close
attention as I should, but if we are making reference to someone
by that name who also holds an office in this Chamber at this
time we should refer to the office, please.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to
the Prime Minister. If nothing irregular happened, why did the
Prime Minister's spokesperson, Mr. Peter Donolo, mislead the
public in January 1999, saying that neither the government nor
the Prime Minister were involved in the decisions made by the
BDC? This was reported in the National Post on January 25,
1999.
On February 10, 1999, when asked if the Prime Minister or a
member of his staff intervened with the Business Development Bank
or any other department to obtain money for Mr. Duhaime, why did
the Minister of Industry state that the loan decision was made by
a vice-president and that it was not an order in council
appointee who was appointed to determine the process? These
statements were later found to be false.
The Prime Minister himself went to great lengths to write a
letter that was sent to the National Post, and that date is
November 16, 2000. The Prime Minister contradicted himself when
he said in that letter:
I...had no direct or indirect personal connection with the
hotel...or...with the adjacent golf course.
That was directly contradicted by himself in the Chamber when he
indicated that he did speak to the Business Development Bank
president twice and also spoke to him at 24 Sussex.
There are so many contradictions surrounding this entire issue.
We do know some of the facts. We know that the Prime Minister
sold his part ownership in the Auberge Grand-Mère, just north of
his home in the town of Shawinigan, to a personal friend, Mr.
Duhaime. We know that in 1993 he tried to unload those shares to
the adjacent Grand-Mère golf course, but that was not completed.
This is the important fact. The transaction did not occur. The
shares came back to him, which he later admitted to the ethics
counsellor in a letter to him.
At the important time in question when the lobbying was
occurring, when the Prime Minister was in touch with the
president of the bank to try to secure the loan, he was still in
possession, still a potential beneficiary of those efforts.
After two rejections, two efforts to secure loans by Mr.
Duhaime, he finally got his $615,000 and then went into arrears.
During that time the decision was made to foreclose. The
president of the Business Development Bank later lost his job
over that decision, we maintain.
There was a conflict of interest in lobbying to aid this hotel,
which would also directly aid the adjoining property.
The right hon. member for Calgary Centre has repeatedly raised
questions about this issue, also about Mr. Jean Carle, who went
directly from the PMO to the board of directors of the Business
Development Bank. That in and of itself, I would suggest,
certainly creates the appearance of a conflict of interest, where
a lot of information might be available to interested parties.
1835
The former clerk of the Privy Council, Gordon Robertson, stated
this “What happened in Shawinigan would never have met the
standards set in Pearson's code of ethics. The Prime Minister
has lowered the bar.”
The Prime Minister, who was subject to this code as a member of
the Pearson and Trudeau governments, said which provisions of the
Pearson code were not too stringent for him to follow. Why did
he lower the bar? Why has he refused to answer direct questions
about this topic? Why has he designated the Minister of Industry
to come to his defence to help navigate these murky waters?
Canadians deserve better from a Prime Minister who campaigned on
watchwords of transparency and ethics.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me begin by stating
there are statutory limits to what details can be provided
concerning the member's question, since section 37 of the BDC act
intended to protect commercial confidentiality must apply.
Furthermore, when the member asked his question on January 31,
2001, the Minister of Industry informed the House that the
subject matter raised is presently before the courts and we must
thus act accordingly.
Nonetheless, this does not stop us from providing the House with
the facts.
The first fact is the Auberge Grand-Mère loan was never part of
the circumstances surrounding Mr. Beaudoin's resignation. Mr.
François Beaudoin was not constructively dismissed. He chose to
resign rather than account to the board of directors of the BDC.
The office of the auditor general revealed that he had awarded
himself an unjustified annual retirement income at the age of 50
from $169,000 and $468,000.
The second fact is following Mr. Beaudoin's resignation, KPMG
began an investigation which revealed that the former president
used bank property for personal enjoyment and made a number of
expenditures outside officially appropriate activities, in
violation of the BDC code of conduct and the code for public
office holders.
The third fact is the Auberge Grand-Mère is open and expected to
do well. The Auberge will benefit from increasing economic
activity in the region.
The fourth fact is this project was financed in partnership with
the Caisse Populaire and the FSTQ.
The fifth fact is members of parliament from all parties refer
potential clients to the BDC. They approach the BDC on behalf of
their constituents and seek information about the bank's products
and services.
The sixth fact is the final decision as to whether or not a loan
is made is the exclusive responsibility of the BDC. These
decisions are based solely on the merits of the application and
the project to be financed.
Finally, the fact is that there is no smoking gun here. There
is just smoke and mirrors on the part of the opposition, or, to
use the words of the member's leader, perhaps this is just a
fishing expedition.
[Translation]
WATER QUALITY
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to address a matter in which the Minister of Transport has
dragged his feet. For the past three and a half years that I
have been here, he has been dragging his feet, even though we
raised the matter repeatedly.
I would first like to mention two newspaper articles in order to
show just how long ago the Minister of Transport was asked to
settle this matter.
On Thursday, December 14, 2000, not exactly yesterday, in the daily
Le Soleil, a woman wrote “We are back in the age of Le temps
d'une paix or worse, in the 1900s, because we have to use a lot
of imagination every day in order to wash and cook without
putting ourselves at risk”.
On February 5, the minister told me during Oral Question Period
that he had assumed his responsibilities and had decided to deal
with the matter and find solutions.
Just recently, on February 14, an article stated “Public health
department recommends avoiding drinking the water”. I will
quote one little paragraph from the article “The director of
public health for the North Shore, Dr. Raynald Cloutier,
recommends that the residents of the beaches area in Sept-Îles
not drink their water. The public is clearly at risk”.
Dr. Cloutier added “In short, it is becoming very distressing.
I see no solution but to connect people to the municipal water
and sewer system”.
1840
The city of Sept-Îles assumed its responsibilities. For those
not familiar with the area, there are four beaches. If a person
heads east, toward the airport, toward Havre-Saint-Pierre, the
first beach is the Monaghan beach. Then there is the Ferguson
beach, and it is followed by the Routhier and the Lévesque
beaches.
The one most affected was the Monaghan beach. The water was red
like tomato juice. The city of Sept-Îles invested nearly
$10 million. A figure of $5 million was negotiated in subsidies.
I was the municipal councillor for that area at the time.
Five million dollars was also invested on sewage treatment. At
the time, this fixed the problem.
The further east one went, the more drinkable the water was.
Then the Department of Transport contaminated the water table
with nitrate from the airport. Since then, the minister has been
giving us the same answer.
On September 28, 1998, the Sept-Îles municipal council passed a
resolution—that is what municipal councils do—calling on
Transport Canada to assume its responsibilities in the whole
contaminated area by providing drinkable sources of water.
The minister's answer was the same one he gave me in the
House on February 5. He said that the solutions proposed by
Transport Canada to the water table contamination in the beaches
area consisting of “an ion exchange treatment device, a reverse
osmosis treatment device, bottled water delivery and the payment
of a sum for the purchase of bottled water” were considered
acceptable.
Can the House imagine the minister's reaction if he were to be
given a bottle of water and a washcloth in his home or in one of
the luxury hotel rooms he stays in and told that that was the
water he was to wash with and to drink. Would he sit still for
that? On April 26, 1999, the same municipal council passed
another resolution calling for a meeting with the Minister of
Transport.
This meeting took place, and the Minister of Transport told the
House on February 5 that the permanent solutions, those in the
second “whereas” of the municipal council's resolution, would
be implemented.
What residents therefore want and what the municipal council
called for at its February 12 meeting, is a meeting with the
Minister of Transport to resolve the problem once and for all.
This is ridiculous. The health of the public in the Sept-Îles
Des Plages area is at stake.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Transport
Canada is committed to implementing a permanent solution for
Sept-Îles beaches area residents whose water is affected by
abnormal concentrations of nitrates. Twenty-three residents are
affected. Although it amounts to only 13% of the area in
question, we do take the matter seriously.
It should be noted that all of the other problems recently
identified in the affected area are in no way connected with
Transport Canada's activities. Transport Canada met recently
with the residents concerned to outline the four options examined
by the department. Only three of those residents agreed to the
installation of an ion exchanger.
Transport Canada is monitoring the groundwater nitrate levels
very closely. Recent tests show a significant decrease already
in these levels in the beaches area. According to experts, the
nitrate concentrations in the groundwater can be expected to
return to normal between 2002 and 2007.
We are now in 2001, and the pocket of contamination can already
been seen to be steadily receding. Based on this finding,
Transport Canada maintains that the proposed solutions adequately
meet and are in proportion to the nitrate problem. The
installation of a piped water system is out of all proportion to
the problem observed.
Transport Canada is committed to act like a good corporate
citizen and maintain a healthy environment for the Canadian
public. The department is being proactive on the matter and has
taken all appropriate corrective measures.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is
now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.44 p.m.)