Karen Kraft Sloan

[Iraq, February 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, for the past number of months the American government has beat the drums of war louder and louder in the hope of drowning out the world's pleas for a rational peaceful solution to the situation in Iraq.

The war rhetoric is just that; rhetoric. Not even the lowest evidentiary standards have been met that would justify bombing Iraq and in so doing kill thousands of innocent people there. In fact, we demand more proof for a conviction of armed robbery than Mr. Powell gave the world last week in arguing for the invasion of a sovereign nation.

War is an admission that diplomatic means have failed. It is my fervent hope that we continue on the road of diplomacy.

[Food and Drugs Act, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this debate is all about choice. It is a debate on which Canadians have made their opinions very clear. Canadians are calling for mandatory labelling of genetically modified organisms.

Under the Food and Drugs Act as it stands right now, the government and others certainly are able to undertake a voluntary labelling approach. There is a Royal Society of Canada report that is often quoted as saying that it had accepted voluntary labelling, but let us be clear. The Royal Society of Canada report identified 53 recommendations that were absolutely imperative to implement before undertaking any form of voluntary labelling. Until those recommendations are met, this is not something on which Canadians can go forward with a great deal of confidence.

One has to understand the issues that were raised in the Royal Society report. The Royal Society is an independent scientific body of experts which identified issues around making regulations and risk assessments which are absolutely vital to restoring the confidence of Canadians.

The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee was also charged with initiating a national discussion on the issue of biotechnology. Unfortunately many criticisms of this process have been put forward, including that the group has a very strong industry bias. It is interesting to note that very few members of civil society provided input into those discussions, yet the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee was able to come forward with a recommendation for voluntary labelling.

As I pointed out, with a group that has such a strong industry bias, that ability already exists. There is a demand in the public for choice and choice will only happen with mandatory labelling.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, before I get into debate I want to mention two items. While the hon. member opposite identified certain members of his party, his counterpart in Quebec, whom he deemed to be very good environment ministers, I think that all of those in the House would have to recommend and respect the work that the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis did when he was the minister of environment in Quebec as well.

I would also like to point out that I will be splitting my time.

The great sadness I feel when listening to the debate on Kyoto is that so few of us in the House understand the notion of interconnectedness, that we as humans are nature and that the creations of humanity, be they political, economic, cultural or spiritual, are merely human artifacts and part of the greater reality of the earth community. We forget, as Jane Jacobs has said, that “nature affords foundations for human life and sets its possibilities and limits”. Economists she says, seem not to have grasped this reality yet.

As any student of economics will tell us, at least if they have studied the same textbooks that I did, environmental and social factors are externalities and are neither integrated nor accounted for in the normal costs of doing business. This is the central failing of economics and it is fueling the controversy over the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. Without understanding the fundamental reality that economics is merely a subset of the environment, just as humans are merely part of ecosystems, we risk failing in our efforts to address climate change.

Climate change is one of the most significant challenges facing our country and our world. What can we do about this problem? Let me suggest that we have two choices. The first is to act now to address the problems arising from climate change. The second is to wait until we are forced to act.

By acting now, the array of choices for implementation measures is broader and, by extension, less costly.

In the Kyoto debate, we have abandoned sober realism for petty ideological strutting. If I may, I would like to offer two reports on Kyoto grounded in the here and now. The first concerns Kyoto outside of North America. I have just returned from a week in Europe with the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association. While there, I was struck by the overwhelming support of European parliamentarians for the Kyoto protocol and what it seeks to accomplish. It is viewed as an opportunity, not a liability. It is considered a way to modernize their economies. Additionally, they see it as a responsible and necessary endeavour for members of the international community.

I was repeatedly told in explicit terms how thrilled EU members are that Canada is on the verge of fulfilling its commitment to the world. We North Americans are often justifiably accused of thinking regionally rather than globally. Sometimes one has to leave this continent to really get a sense of how our decisions resonate around the globe. In this case, our choice is being seen as a triumph for internationalism, as it signals a willingness to work with others on this most pressing problem.

The second report I would like to offer involves the very real and very current impacts of climate change in Canada's Arctic. Despite the efforts of many to cast the impacts of climate change as being distant and theoretical, our northern peoples know better. I have had the privilege over the years to work on Arctic issues with people like Sheila Watt-Cloutier, international president of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference. Here is her account of what climate change means to Inuit people:

There is something missing from images of melting ice and disappearing polar bears to illustrate climate change in the Arctic. They are neither the essential story nor the best of images. To Inuit, climate change is a matter of cultural survival. Our very future as a people is at risk. How can we remain a hunting culture when it is predicted that by the latter decades of this century the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free in summer and the animals we now hunt will be gone? Climate change in the Arctic wears a human face, an Inuit face. We look to Ottawa to protect our rights through national and international action, including ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

The Inuit speak from experience and current realities, not from the world of modeling and computer simulations. Climate change for them is not a contentious issue. Like persistent organic pollutants, it is an unwelcome gift from the south.

Building on this, it is important to remember that, like all environmental issues, when discussing climate change one must consider the equity factor. Those who are least responsible for environmental problems so often bear the brunt of them. At the same time, they are shut out of the economic benefits that are born out of the activities that cause the problems. In Canada's case we need look no further than the Arctic for proof of this. Let us remember that what happens in the Arctic will happen to those of us who live in the south.

The debate over the Kyoto protocol is also about adjustment. It pits a desperate faith in the status quo against a courageous willingness to change. A lot of people do not like change and many have built prosperous careers out of wagging fingers and frightening us into inaction. The sudden efforts of some parties to delay ratification, parties who have been consulted, parties who have walked away from the consultation, strike me as the actions of those interested in dragging out the status quo purely for reasons of self-interest.

Kyoto is not about self-interest. It is about doing something for the current and future good of the world. It is the first step in what will be a long and permanent process.

There will always be dissenting voices like the ones we have heard in this debate. The problem is, we have given those voices impetus through our own inaction. We have allowed the critics to make climate change a contentious issue in spite of the fact that all of the evidence is stacked against them. Who are we to believe, the 2,000-plus scientists who form the IPCC and who say climate change is a burgeoning threat to the environment? Or those political and industrial interests with a storied history of vociferous opposition to improving environmental protection who are saying global warming is not really that big a deal?

The starter gun for positive change goes off with the ratification of Kyoto. It shows industry, the provinces, the international community and the Canadian people that the government intends to act. Until we make such a commitment, confusion will reign, and the relevant parties will condemn us for contributing to that confusion.

Stakeholders have demanded clarity. Let us give them clarity. It is time to change the focus of debate from divisive haggling over ratification to united cooperation in implementation. Let us leave the finger waggers and professional fearmongers to their cigar dens. Instead, let us work with those who already have it right: pioneering industrial actors, homeowners and non-governmental groups. In particular, I would like to applaud the efforts of the Smart Implementation Coalition, a partnership of industry, NGOs and municipal governments. The forward thinking of this group and others shows that many of the steps toward greenhouse gas reduction are not that difficult. For the bigger ones, we need to create a decisive atmosphere of change.

We can, through ratification of the Kyoto protocol, create such an atmosphere, or we can ignore the colossal amount of work that has gone into this problem and be forced to change later. These are the two fundamental choices presented by Kyoto. Nature, not the naysayers, will make the final decision if we wait.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and congratulate the hon. member for his very comprehensive and thoughtful speech on this very important debate. Indeed he is a very able contributor to the work that we do in the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

The information put forward by the member in his speech is available to all members of the House. First, how did he come to the conclusion that he would like to support the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. Second, how do his constituents feel about this issue?

[Petitions, November 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I have a number of other petitions as well which call upon Parliament to enact an immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides until such time as their use has been scientifically proven to be safe.

[Petitions, November 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I have a petition that calls upon Parliament to request that the Government of Canada undertake a review of the foreign aid policy that provides the Bangladesh government with aid in view of the government's record of recurrent violation of human rights with respect to the persecution of Hindus and other minorities.

It also calls on the Government of Canada to consult with the Government of India to ensure that refugees belonging to Hinduism and other religious minorities in Bangladesh are given all possible assistance in India on humanitarian grounds, as outlined in the Geneva convention and in conformity with the practice of the Indian government in the past.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about big businesses like BP and Royal Dutch Shell who have made laudable strides toward energy efficiency and sustainable development. These accomplishments are worthy of remark, and one wonders why some industrial players would prefer to remain rooted in the industrial stone age.

Less mention has been made of the accomplishments of small and medium sized enterprises. Many smaller businesses across Canada are reducing emissions and using greener technologies. Profit making for these companies is clearly linked to more environmentally sensitive ways of doing business.

Unfortunately, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and others fail to recognize that in a post-Kyoto Canada business can be profitable and compete. The fact is, industrial countries that do not ratify Kyoto will be left behind economically.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite as well. She and I have had many an opportunity to have good discussions over dinner as we travelled the country doing the CEPA review. I appreciate her significant contribution to the environment committee as well. It is interesting to note that when members have an opportunity to sit on the environment committee they learn an awful lot. They retain their interest in the environment as well. Members should have a mandatory time period where they serve time on the environment committee.

It is true that we work very hard and very well together. There are a variety of reasons as to why people make a decision. Sometimes it may not be for the best reasons. However, in the majority of instances parliamentarians will make good decisions. Indeed they have made good decisions in this particular instance with the election of our chair from the previous round.

I would suggest that because parliamentary standing committees work two, three or four times a week on issues that Canadians care about we must have good working relationships. It is easy to get into an antagonistic or a partisan fight in committee. It is easy to throw those words out. It is more difficult for us to bite our tongues and it is more difficult sometimes to listen. We learn an awful lot when we listen.

I must tell the House that as vice-chair I felt better because I was elected by a secret ballot. I knew that people on the committee were willing to put their trust in me as the vice-chair. I cannot speak for the chair himself, but I am sure that he feels the same way. I have other colleagues who are chairs of committees who would prefer a secret ballot. I cannot give names because I cannot speak for them. In many respects a chair would feel better about a secret ballot situation, and the committee would work together more effectively as well.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for those comments. Indeed the member opposite has been a member of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. He was also the vice-chair on a subcommittee of the parliamentary standing committee which organized an important forum that took place on Parliament Hill back in 1996, where we looked at the issue of jobs, the environment and sustainable development. I must thank the member for his contributions in the past. He has shown a significant interest in the environment, which I must applaud.

The member opposite has asked me to explain to the House what happened. It was simple. We sat in committee and the question was put: Can we have a secret ballot for chairs and vice-chairs? Everybody said, “Sure, why not?” Then there was a secret ballot. A chair was nominated, vice-chairs were nominated, and members of the committee voted in a secret ballot.

I will not talk about my credentials or my position on the committee. However, I would like to talk about the chair of the environment and sustainable development committee. The hon. member for Davenport was a former minister of the environment. He is a long standing member of the House. He is a longstanding member of the environment and sustainable development committee. There is probably no other member of the House that knows more about the environment, environmental issues, environmental policy and planning in terms of how Environment Canada operates and all of the other departments of government with regard to environmental issues. He was the one that was selected by the members of that committee. Therefore, I would suggest that there are times that members of Parliament, if given the opportunity, can exercise wisdom in their vote.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in debate today to support the idea of a secret ballot for the election of chairs and vice-chairs in our committees. I think that if we were able to go forward with this initiative it would be an important milestone in furthering the democratization of Parliament.

I have listened to the debate, and earlier I heard a member say something about the work of committees. I suggest to those people watching that committees are only a small part of what we do in the House. People who do watch us here in the House may be puzzled as to what it is that members of Parliament actually do, particularly backbenchers and members of the opposition. I have to say that contrary to what was said earlier, committees are not a small part of what we do. They are a very significant part of what we do.

As a backbencher one has limited options at times, but some of the good work we can do is fully represented in our committee work. For a backbencher there are opportunities around private members' business to bring motions and private members' legislation forward, and certainly we have the opportunity to debate, speak and ask questions in the House. We also have the right to stand in the House and vote as our conscience dictates, but probably some of the most important work we do for Canadians is the work that is done in committee.

I am the vice-chair of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Over a number of years I have had the pleasure of working with Liberal colleagues as well as members of the opposition. Together we have worked in a very positive way to bring forward studies and other things that have meaning and relevance to the lives of Canadians. However, I am deeply concerned that we would not be able to have a positive outcome of this initiative around a secret ballot for the voting procedures for chairs and vice-chairs.

I have listened to some arguments about the notion of whether a secret ballot should not be part of the democratic process, that people send us to Ottawa so that they know exactly where we stand on certain issues. Quite clearly, I am making my position very clear in the House today as to where I stand on the issue of secret ballots. We also have the opportunity to follow the committee Hansard and see where individuals stand on particular issues.

It is really important to note that when we look at the application of the open vote process and what that really means, there is a great deal of pressure put on certain members, particularly government members, to vote in a certain way. As a member who has taken stands differing from the government's on a variety of occasions, both in the House and in committee, I have to say that it is a very lonely position at times, when one is doing clause by clause work on legislation, when every day that the committee meets one has to speak against and vote against the government's position. Sometimes there may be one Liberal colleague who supports one's point of view, and sometimes there may be two, but oftentimes one is in a very lonely position, because although other members certainly have the right to make decisions as to how they vote a lot of pressure is put on members to vote according to what the government has in mind on a particular item.

So when we take a look at the real application of what happens with the open ballot versus the secret ballot, it does not encourage a healthy democratic process. There are individuals around the globe who have fought fiercely to have the right for a secret ballot so that they can protect themselves and vote their wishes. Indeed, it has been mentioned that we vote for our Speaker through secret ballot. I might add that we vote for caucus chairs by secret ballot as well. I think there are very good reasons why it is necessary that secret ballots must be used in certain situations, particularly in this situation.

I would be happy if parliamentary standing committees could openly choose chairs and vice-chairs but that is not the current state. We must take a look at the secret ballot as a transition stage, a first step to encouraging a healthier democratic process within Parliament.

I also have something I wanted to raise in the House. The last time the chair and the vice-chair of the parliamentary Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development was chosen was by secret ballot. Indeed there was unanimous consent by the parliamentary standing committee because the committee itself recognized that this was an important initiative. It was an important way to practice parliamentary democracy. As a result, our chair, the hon. member for Davenport, was chosen through secret ballot and I, the vice-chair on the government side, was chosen by secret ballot and the opposition vice-chair was chosen by secret ballot. What happened? Did the committee work stop? Did we fall into chaos? No, we resumed our work.

It is important for people who are watching to know, because they may not have the opportunity to see how parliamentarians work in committee on a regular basis, that it enhanced our ability and our working relationship in committee. We may get up in the House and from time to time disagree on issues, perhaps in a partisan way. People watching question period can see how partisan members can be in question period and how they can attack each other on the issues.

However I must say that work that is done in committee, particularly the environment committee, when we are working with the opposition, is done in a non partisan way. It is a healthy relationship except of course when one is a government member disagreeing with the government's position, which of course is another issue.

I would like to add that when I first rose in this place to give my maiden speech I talked about Parliament as an evolving place, that it is dynamic. It is a living institution. The other point that I made was that as members of Parliament we merely pass through this place. When we look at the history of parliament compared to our tenure, and whether our tenure is only for a short two-year or four-year term or whether it is a 40 year commitment to public life, it is so insignificant. We merely pass through this place.

When we pass through this place it is incumbent on us to understand that times change and that the institution of Parliament must change as well. We, representing our constituents and the people of Canada, have a responsibility to participate and to encourage that change. It is not just the opposition and some of us on the government side that feel there is a time for change, but certainly the public also feels it.

On this particular issue the public has recognized that there is a time for change and there is a time to further enhance the democratization of Parliament. One of the best ways we can do this, one of first steps we can take on this evolving road to further enhancing the democratic state of Parliament is the election of chairs and vice-chairs by secret ballot. I encourage all members to support this initiative.