House of Commons Hansard #16 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was foundation.
John McCallum Liberal Markham, ON
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—
Presence In GalleryOral Question Period
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.
John McCallum Liberal Markham, ON
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.
Jason Kenney Canadian Alliance Calgary Southeast, AB
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—
Presence In GalleryOral Question Period
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.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
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?
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
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.
Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
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.
Jim Gouk Canadian Alliance Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC
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.
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)
Janko Peric Liberal Cambridge, ON
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-271, an act respecting education benefits for spouses and children of certain deceased federal enforcement officials.
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)
Jay Hill Canadian Alliance Prince George—Peace River, BC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-272, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (child adoption expenses).
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)
Colleen Beaumier Liberal Brampton West—Mississauga, ON
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.
Diane Ablonczy Canadian Alliance Calgary Nose Hill, AB
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 PaperRoutine Proceedings
February 19th, 2001 / 3:15 p.m.
Scarborough—Rouge River Ontario
Liberal
Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Request For Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
I have received a notice of motion pursuant to Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for Mercier.
Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC
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.
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.
Request For Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings
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.
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.
Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON
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.
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.
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.
Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology ActGovernment Orders
Canadian Alliance
Gary Lunn Canadian Alliance Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
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.
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?
Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON
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.