Chris Warkentin

[Petitions, December 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is signed by 388 constituents of mine who are calling upon the government to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years old.

[Petitions, December 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions that I would like to present today.

The first one is from 568 people in Manitoba who call upon the government to make it illegal for Internet service providers to allow child pornography on their sites.

The second petition is from 209 of my constituents who are asking the government to do everything in its power to limit child abuse, child pornography and child trafficking and to ensure Internet luring does not happen.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, December 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, areas of farmland across Canada have suffered severe drought conditions this past year, including areas of my own riding of Peace River. Farmers are at their wits' end and have been forced to sell off their cattle because they are unable to feed them through this winter. They will be facing additional expenses when they have to buy replacement cattle this spring.

This situation requires that the government take action. Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House what the government is planning to do to help these farmers get back on their feet?

[Liberal Leadership Convention, December 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, no matter what their heritage, religion or social class, in my Canada everybody is welcome to be involved in political life.

During their leadership race, Liberal delegates were encouraged to not vote based on who was best for the job, but based on racist and bigoted stereotypes.

It is being widely reported today in the media that Bob Rae was a target of anti-Semitic attacks during the Liberal leadership race, motivated at least in part by the fact that his wife is Jewish.

Reports say that in an attempt to bolster another candidate, the strategists approached Rae's own wife telling her not to vote for Rae “because his wife is Jewish”. The report goes on to say that Mrs. Perly Rae informed the delegate that she in fact was that Jewish wife who was in question.

On the government side of the House, we believe in a Canada that accepts all and encourages all to be involved in politics. It is too bad that some members of the Liberal Party do not agree.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there were certainly a lot of feelings on the past vote on this issue. Obviously there was a desire to ram the issue through without having gone through the comprehensive studies that I believe are important, comprehensive studies that would have investigated the effects on children, studies like those the French government has been involved in.

Certainly I believe that is one of the issues that was certainly neglected in the past, but there was also the issue of the whipped vote. I believe that this is an issue on which Canadians must be represented. From my constituency, I have hundreds and hundreds of letters, if not thousands, that have asked me to vote in favour of this motion to reopen the definition of marriage and to bring back the traditional definition of marriage. Certainly I believe that it is important for all members of Parliament to respond to their constituents and represent them on this issue.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, obviously there is no question that the hon. member across the floor believes that children should be protected. That is why I brought this debate forward: because I do not believe that this was considered the last time it was debated in this House.

I believe that we have to reconsider why we, as Canadians, would sign on to the UN declaration in 1991, which said that we believe that all children should have the right to know their parents, both mother and father, and be raised by both their mother and their father.

To whatever extent possible, I think we need to consider what ramifications this issue might have on children. Obviously the French government believed that it was necessary to consider that issue.

Does the hon. member not believe that children have a right to know their mother and their father and the right to be raised by their mother and father?. I do not know the answer, but I am sure that if we open this issue and look at it, we will come to some conclusion on this issue.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by commending all Canadians who have had the courage and the diligence to speak to or write their member of Parliament on this particular very important issue. Regardless of their views, their responsible and diligent involvement is vital to the survival of our democracy. It is our duty as parliamentarians to give full consideration to the concerns of those who have sent us to this House to represent them. I thank the many people from Peace River who have contacted me on this issue.

Nevertheless, I recognize that what is popular certainly is not always what is right. Moreover, the fundamental human rights of an individual or a minority cannot be subject to the whims or the discretion of the majority or the vocal or powerful lobby groups.

As parliamentarians, we have a duty to seek what is true and what is just. For that, our constituents expect us to look not only to them for direction but also to the collective wisdom of those outside this brief and narrow intersection of time and space that our lives and our current culture represent.

It will be said that while older traditions provide good guidance, we cannot follow them blindly, and with this I am in full agreement. However, as a society amazed by the speed of our own technological advancement, the greater risk is that we succumb to the naive or vain assumption that revolutionary changes necessarily lead to progress.

The decadence and the decline of previous civilizations in the midst of great material prosperity should always stand as a warning to us. If we dig deep into their histories, we often find beneath the veneer of material prosperity a hollow core, the inner life having gone away.

If we look at the major world religions that still speak to the human spirit, we find that they share teachings of respect for human life and dignity and a sense of self-transcendence.

We do not have to share in these religions' premises or beliefs in order to acknowledge that many of the values they encourage and the wealth of the human experience they contain are valuable.

While we cannot impose a moral or legal code derived exclusively from a particular religious faith, neither can we dismiss reasonable ethical considerations simply because their conclusions happen to be shared by religious faiths or because the people who bring them forward are from those religions.

Given these considerations, I also wish to commend those of my colleagues on both sides of this House and on both sides of this debate who have been diligent, have asked themselves what is right, and have had the humility to seek the best advice and the courage to stand up for the best answer they have found regardless of their political or personal consequence.

I must also say shame on any of us who put our own political and personal interests ahead of those of our fellow citizens, especially those who are the most vulnerable: our children and our children's children.

Shame on any of us who denigrate or dismiss the contribution of our fellow citizens on either side of this issue simply because they are guided in their consideration by their religious faith. If the reasons they put forward are reasonable, let us listen to them, whether we share their religious faith or not. To do otherwise would clearly demonstrate a lack of objectivity, if not radical bigotry.

For those of my colleagues whose opinion differs from mine, I wish to briefly outline why I consider it vital that we give full consideration to this matter and further reconsideration to the issue of marriage, despite the divisiveness that it might bring.

First, however, I should note that this would not be the first time the House has reconsidered this issue. On June 8, 1999, the House voted overwhelmingly, 216 to 55, to maintain the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Second, I should add that this is not necessarily the last time that our society will consider this issue. Within months of Parliament's 1999 vote, lower court rulings extended the definition of marriage to include same sex relationships, but in 2003 the government of the day decided to stop the appeals process on the issue, essentially tying the hands of Parliament and the Supreme Court of Canada on being able to reinforce the 1999 decision in the House. Although the justice committee conducted cross-Canada hearings on the issue in 2003, it never reported those findings back to the House.

When consultations were cut short, the Canadian Parliament voted to change the definition of marriage. In that vote, many members of the House were forced to follow a party line. Moreover, many members of the House made decisions and still maintain their positions based on a mistaken assumption that the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of same sex marriage.

Even this week, I have heard the same misleading references to the need for the use of the notwithstanding clause should the current legislation be revisited. The Supreme Court has never stated that preserving marriage as a union between one man and one woman contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While lower courts have made rulings on this matter, these rulings have never been tested at the Supreme Court level.

Most important, none of the lower court rulings have considered children's rights. Moreover, there was no mention of children in the previous government's reference to the Supreme Court and none in the reply. Thus, the marriage law was changed without giving any consideration whatsoever to the rights of children.

In stark contrast, the French National Assembly studied this matter at great length and published a 450 page report in January of this year that took a position opposite to Canada's. It did so exclusively to protect the rights of children. It cited the UN convention on the rights of children, signed by Canada in 1991, which clearly states that, to the extent possible, every child has the right to know and be raised by its mother and its father.

This summer, something happened to me that changed my life. I became a father. I am sure that I do not have to tell members that when a new life comes into one's home, everything changes. Suddenly the most important thing in my life is the protection of my daughter.

I know that any parent in this chamber tonight can relate to the fact that when we bring a new child home from the hospital, the main preoccupation of any new parents is to protect that child from any harm, real or imagined. I have to say that for the first number of weeks I was a little nuts. There was no question that my daughter was my pride and my joy and any thought that she might come into harm's way ripped my heart out.

That is why, as a new member of Parliament who was not here for the last debate, I cannot believe that the previous government never considered the effects that this decision might have on our nation's children. In its haste to push the issue through, the previous government forgot to consider the impact that this change might have on our children. There was no study done. There were no meetings held. No experts were called as far our children and the rights of children were concerned.

I do not mind if hon. members call me a paranoid new father, but I strongly believe that we have a responsibility to the most vulnerable and the most valuable citizens to at least consider what is in their best interests. There has to be a collective desire. Where is our collective desire to ask the questions that need to be asked? Other countries have done so. Why cannot we?

I would ask my fellow parliamentarians, my colleagues who are also parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, to join with me and ponder why we do not have the time to consider our children. I am not asking for a divisive debate. I am not asking for long and drawn-out consideration. I am simply asking for a chance for our children to be represented in the discussion. It was missed the last time this issue was brought to the House for debate. We have to rectify that by opening up this issue, like France did, and examining the impact that this change may have on future generations.

In the same way that my heart is dedicated to ensuring that my child is protected, our collective heart should be set on ensuring that our nation's children are given a voice in this debate.

[Justice, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the police, the Ontario attorney general, victims and ordinary Canadians have called for a tougher bail scheme for criminals who commit firearms offences.

During the last election, the Conservative Party promised to impose a reverse onus on bail for gun crimes, a promise that was copied by the Liberal Party and the NDP. Today we took action on this issue.

Could the Minister of Justice please tell the House why this bill is important and why it is required to ensure the safety of Canadians first and foremost?

[Children's Fitness Tax Credit, November 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the children's fitness tax credit is part of the Government of Canada's commitment to maintaining the health of Canadians, specifically to address the negative impact of declining levels of physical activity among our children.

Canada's new government is keeping its promise. An expert panel set up by the Minister of Finance has released its report to the government. During its consultations, the expert panel travelled right across Canada listening to a broad range of stakeholders. The panel found out that many of these children will benefit greatly from this new tax credit.

The children's fitness tax credit will encourage more children to be physically active and help parents with the costs of organized fitness activities. This is a good news story for all Canadian families.

[Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, our government does not support Bill C-298 for a number of reasons, some of which my colleague has already touched upon.

On July 1, Environment Canada established a quick management strategy for PFOS, which proposes that these substances be added to the prohibition of certain toxic substance regulations. This strategy would meet the intent of the private member's bill by prohibiting the manufacture, use, sale and import of the products containing PFOS. Effectively, the process already in place by the government's actions will meet the spirit and the intent of virtual elimination more quickly than what is being proposed by Bill C-298.

At the first hour of debate for Bill C-298 on June 15, the hon. member for Beaches—East York expressed concerns that the government's response on PFOS should be speedy and adequate. The hon. member suggested that this would not be achieved through existing regulatory processes.

I would like to explain that the current time clock requirements, as established legally under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act by the Government of Canada, under the current regulatory process, if a substance has been found to be a toxin through a screening assessment, and when that substance has been proposed for addition on the list of toxic substances, a proposed regulation or instrument establishing the preventive or controlled actions for managing the substance must be developed within 24 months. Within these 24 months, the proposal must be established in the Canada Gazette Part I for a 60 day comment period. Once proposed, the minister has a further 18 months to finalize the regulation or instrument.

As members can see, the minister's obligation under the Environmental Protection Act is to act in a timely manner to control the toxic substance. However, let me clarify that the government intends to act much faster than the maximum time frames prescribed by CEPA.

As I mentioned earlier, the government published a risk management strategy on July 1 which outlines the government's intention to develop a regulation under CEPA to prohibit PFOS in Canada. The next step is the regulatory process that will publish proposed regulations in Part I of the Canada Gazette, which the government intends to do by December. Following the mandatory 60 day consultation period after the publication of the proposed regulations, the government will work to finalize the regulations on PFOS so that they are in place as quickly as possible.

In the case of PFOS, the enactment of Bill C-298 would require the Minister of the Environment to add PFOS to the virtual elimination list of CEPA within nine months of coming into force. At that time, the minister must prescribe the quantity and concentration of PFOS that may be released into the environment in order to achieve virtual elimination. After a further nine months, the release concentration would be set out in regulation.

Effectively, Bill C-298 is proposing an additional 18 month timeline. That is longer than what is required by the regulatory process that is already underway by this government.

Virtual elimination has a specific meaning under CEPA as laid out in section 65(2). It is the reduction of releases to the environment of a substance to a level below which this release cannot be accurately measured. Virtual elimination specifically applies to the release of a substance as a result of human activities and does not apply to the presence of a substance.

Technically, the implementation of regulations controlling the release of PFOS into the environment would be problematic. This is due to the non-quantifiable sources such as landfills and sewage treatment plants. The availability and the cost of end of pipe technology that would be required to be used by landfills and sewage treatment plants to control PFOS is still unknown.

Furthermore, the cornerstone of CEPA is pollution prevention that encourages reduction of pollutants at the source. Developing PFOS release regulations for landfills and sewage treatment plants is placing the burden of reducing emissions on the provinces and on the municipalities. The government is working on regulations for PFOS that would address the source of these chemicals; that is, the manufacture, import, sale and use here in Canada.

The prohibition of PFOS at the source will ultimately result in the reduction of releases at landfills and sewage treatment plants.

In addition, the proposal to regulate the concentration of PFOS released from municipal landfills and waste water treatment facilities would require careful analysis to identify the availability of technology to capture or reduce PFOS from these sources and to determine if a release concentration regulation is the most practical and cost effective means of protecting the environment.

As such, Bill C-298 would not likely expedite the current regulatory process but may in fact obstruct it further.

It is expected that the actions as proposed in the risk management strategy published by the Department of the Environment on July 1, will achieve the same results as virtual elimination to protect the environment and will meet the spirit of the bill through the prohibition of the manufacture, use, sale and import of these substances and these products or formulations containing these substances.

Furthermore, it is expected that the regulations currently being developed by the government to prohibit PFOS will be completed quicker than what is being proposed in Bill C-298.

The proposed risk management strategy also completed the required 60 day consultation period with stakeholders. Stakeholders, including public, industry, non-governmental organizations and provincial and territorial governments, used this formal opportunity to provide comment. Stakeholders will have additional opportunities to provide input on the proposed regulations for PFOS which are expected to be published in December.

In addition, Canada's actions on PFOS are in step and consistent with international actions and activities. Canada's proposed actions also include working with international partners for a harmonized approach to manage the international issues surrounding PFOS as a persistent and organic pollutant, POP, as well as conducting environmental and biota monitoring to ensure that Canada's risk management strategy objectives are indeed met.

It is clear, therefore, that all of these proposed actions together will achieve the objective of virtual elimination as proposed by the private member's bill as effectively as possible under the current legislative and regulatory process.