House of Commons Hansard #8 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was research.
Rose-Marie Ur Liberal Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Lambton--Kent--Middlesex who call upon Parliament to protect children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.
Rose-Marie Ur Liberal Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Speaker, I pleased to present a second petition on behalf of the constituents of Lambton--Kent--Middlesex who call upon Parliament to protect the health of seniors and children and to save our environment by banning the disputed gas additive MMT, as it creates smog and enhances global warming.
John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today on behalf of the constituents in my riding of Fundy--Royal. Both surround the issue related to the Sharpe case in British Columbia.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to make adjustments in the Criminal Code to ensure that our children are protected from any way, shape or form related to child pornography.
Both these petitions have been duly certified by the Clerk and they are on behalf of Pastor Stephen Little from Faith Bible Baptist Fellowship in Sussex and also led by Reverend Harold Bubar from the Wesleyan Church in Norton.
Scott Reid Canadian Alliance Lanark—Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to present two petitions dealing with the subject of stem cell research. More particular, the petitioners draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that research in adult stem cells has the potential to assist in cures and therapies for a variety of debilitating illnesses.
The petitioners encourage Parliament to focus its attention upon this promising field of research and not upon embryonic stem cell research which is fraught with ethical problems.
They also point out, and this point is particularly emphasized in the petition, that embryonic stem cells will always face problems of immune rejection. The only way to avoid the immune rejection response is to transplant stem cells from the patient's own body. Such transplantations will occur from research that takes place on adult stem cells but not from research that takes place on embryonic stem cells.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I too would like to present a petition on behalf of my constituents of Mississauga South in regard to ethical stem cell research. The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that Canadians do support ethical stem cell research that already has shown encouraging potential for therapies and cures to illnesses and diseases.
They also want to point out that the non-embryonic stem cells, also known as adult stem cells, have shown significant research progress without the immune rejection or lifelong anti-rejection drug needs of embryonic stem cells.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to support legislative efforts that support adult stem cell research to find those therapies and cures.
Scott Brison Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of my constituents calling upon Parliament to take all necessary steps to protect children against pedophilia.
Lynne Yelich Canadian Alliance Blackstrap, SK
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 217 residents of Saskatchewan, wherein the petitioners call upon the House to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.
The petitioners draw attention to the House that, among other matters, the courts have not applied the current child pornography law in a way which makes it clear that such exploitation of children will always be met with swift punishment.
James Lunney Canadian Alliance Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first is related to the softwood lumber dispute. There are some seven pages of signatures. The majority come from Port Alberni which is typical of many coastal communities. Last Friday, four mills closed in Port Alberni, putting another 500 people out of work. Nobody knows when they will reopen.
The spinoff from the softwood lumber dispute is killing coastal communities. The petitioners are calling for a solution that will keep their mills open. They also call for a ban on the export of Canadian logs to the U.S. while the American tariff wall closes down our mills.
James Lunney Canadian Alliance Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, the second petition has to do with the subject of child pornography. There are 39 pages of signatures or nearly 800 signatures from Nanaimo, Nanoose, Errington, Coombs, Parksville, Qualicum Beach, Port Alberni and Bowser. They are all communities of Vancouver Island.
The petitioners are protesting that the courts are not taking sufficient efforts to enforce existing laws. They call upon Parliament to protect our children by ensuring that materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The House resumed from October 8, consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session.
Robert Lanctôt Bloc Châteauguay, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the most recent throne speech.
The throne speech we heard is not only very disappointing, it is also a rehash and it is redundant. There is nothing new in it for the public. In fact, it does not even propose a vision. After the previous throne speech, I was very disappointed. This time, I am not discouraged, but rather annoyed.
The previous throne speech was remarkable because its obvious lack of vision, but this one does not fare any better. The government not only forgot but it categorically refused to take concrete and long term measures to help all Canadians. It is sad to see that, with this speech, the government has once again managed to overlook the imperative needs of Canadians and Quebeckers.
There was reference in the speech to the fact that we live in uncertain times. This government had a duty to reassure the public, but it did just the opposite. There is nothing new and, more importantly, nothing to reassure us. In fact, the main theme of this speech is that the timeframe is extended. Everything is being postponed. Why make a commitment? This is the true redundancy in this throne speech.
The public is well aware of the reason why everything is being postponed. This government cannot even manage and govern the way it should, because of an internal leadership crisis. We now know that the Prime Minister will resign. Has the leadership race begun, yes or no? We see that the race is on right here in front of us, in this chamber.
The speech indicates that the federal government will continue to work with its allies to ensure the safety and security of Canadians and Quebeckers. For several months now, we have seen that the attempt to ensure our protection has been detrimental to our freedom and our democracy.
I am annoyed by the fact that, in this speech, the government is not proposing anything better than continuing on the same path of denying rights and freedoms.
They only talk about the priorities we can afford. But the Liberals were elected because of the commitments they made on those so-called priorities. What are we to conclude? That their commitments were nothing but empty words? How can a government that passes itself off as strong and successful back away from its promises? I think the government missed a unique opportunity to make good on its commitments and promises. We should not underestimate the public. We have to respect the people and meet their expectations and their needs.
We can only conclude that the government has no real governance program, no real vision in terms of public affairs management. For instance, an internal investigation carried out at Public Works and Government Services showed some wrongdoing in most large contracts awarded to communications firms. However, the report that could shed, for us and for the population, some light on this situation has yet to be tabled.
I do want to remind the House that 13 contracts were referred to the RCMP for criminal investigation. Also, indications of wrongdoing were found in at least 130 contracts awarded by the department, that is 20% of all contracts awarded under the sponsorship program. It is important, however, to point out that these 130 contracts accounted for 80% of the value of all the sponsorships during the three year period under investigation. Imagine that. There is a problem, there was some wrongdoing in 20% of the contracts. But that 20% accounted for 80% of all the money handed out under the program.
From the beginning of this story, each new piece of information has given us one more reason to doubt the transparency of this government and has confirmed that the Bloc Quebecois is right about the need to hold an independent public inquiry.
Today again, during oral question period, it has come out, in connection with questions asked by myself, that a former Groupaction vice-president has finally opened Pandora's box. This is all connected to the statement by Mr. Guité that there is a political connection between these communication companies and the government. It is necessary for the government to immediately launch an independent public inquiry into this sponsorship program.
The people of Quebec are entitled to know what went on. In the coming months, we will continue to call for an independent public inquiry in order to get to the bottom of this.
There is one other truly shameful example. As I have said, I cannot help but regret the total absence of any commitment on the part of the Liberal government to keeping its promises. In the last campaign, the government made a great deal of its promise to build two bridges in connection with highway 30. Unfortunately, that promise quickly turned into a mere commitment to do the work.
Still today, they are saying that it is a priority, that something will be done soon. Last week, the MInister of Transport responded to our query by saying that it is currently carrying out environmental studies. Signature of a memorandum of agreement with Quebec is far from a reality, although Quebec has been ready to sign since January 2001.
When will this government come up with the necessary funds to keep its promise to finish highway 30 and build those bridges?
There is no longer any doubt about it, the government has no intention of investing in Quebec, as promised two years ago. It is, therefore, up to the Bloc Quebecois to keep after the government about following through on its promises. That is what we have done so far and what we will continue to do, for as long as it takes.
The Bloc Quebecois has questioned the government about this on numerous occasions, and every time we have been given evasive answers.
In the House on October 1 of this year, the Minister of Transport told us there would soon be an agreement with the government of Quebec and the private sector. He did not, however, specify the timeframe nor the intention of signing the agreement in question. I can well understand how confused the public must be hearing such double-speak, and I can understand as well that some people are getting bitter about this backing down.
One day, the government tells us that the extension of highway 30 and the building of two bridges are priorities, but the next day, it is a total void. Who can we trust? Certainly not this government. Certainly not those who have reduced this promise to a work commitment, and certainly not those who have so casually put aside the development of a region and the development of all of Quebec as a a priority. It is incredible that they make such promises and fail to keep them. We hear that environmental studies have just begun. In Quebec City, we are ready. I ask the federal government to put some money in.
I remember very well that, in the last throne speech, the strategic infrastructure fund was created. We know where the government got the money. The money was taken from the surplus. We know that, in March 2002, there was a surplus of almost $10 billion. Until the last minute, we asked that money be put into the strategic infrastructure fund to finalize highway 30, but none was.
My colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques is also still waiting for money from the fund to finalize highway 185. This is a matter that should not be forgotten. However, to come back to highway 30, the promise that was made should not be forgotten either.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks made by the member for Châteauguay. I see that solidarity is very important, and this kind of solidarity exists between our ridings. We were both victims of the same thing in our ridings. Promises were made in the 2000 election campaign with regard to federal contributions to the highway system. Both regions were promised massive investments. We are talking here about huge amounts of money that are necessary for highway improvement. However, two years later, that money has yet to be found. It is a bit of an odd situation.
I would also like to say a few words about the concern expressed by the member for Châteauguay with respect to inquiries. How will the issue of political responsibility in the sponsorship scandal be resolved? Today, we are being told that these inquiries can be conducted by the RCMP.
I would like to ask the member for Châteauguay if he thinks that the government's position seems to be that the RCMP will now conduct political inquiries in Canada. Does the government want to turn the RCMP into a political police because it has to conduct inquiries on the political implication of certain people in the system?
I would like to hear what my colleague from Châteauguay has to say on that subject. Is there not another solution than that of an independent public inquiry to clarify these issues? Even though it conducts the best police investigations in the world, the RCMP is not mandated to conduct inquiries into the political behaviour of the government. This must be done at another level that is totally independent from the government.
I would like my colleague from Châteauguay to share his views on that.
Robert Lanctôt Bloc Châteauguay, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
Today we heard a ridiculous answer regarding this ridiculous situation. We are calling for a public inquiry that would be transparent and independent to look into all the problems associated with the sponsorship program. We heard the comments made by the former vice-president of Groupaction on a Montreal television station. Now we are being told that these matters are the subject of a police inquiry, which will become a judicial inquiry.
However, a police and judicial inquiry is not a political inquiry. The RCMP's mandate will not be changed to transform this police inquiry into a political inquiry. If a conflict of interest does exist, then we are not talking about a political inquiry, but about a police and judicial inquiry.
The problem is this. When there start to be serious connections, the only way for the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada to realize how complex and strong the connections are between the politicians and these communications firms is to simply and immediately set up a public, independent and transparent inquiry. Every time we raise this issue, we are told “A police investigation is under way”.
Let us not forget, as I mentioned earlier, that there were irregularities in 130 contracts. That is the figure we have? Again, the internal report prepared by Public Works and Government Services was not made public.
In other words, we are dealing with the same people who carried out the internal investigation in 2000, and nothing has happened. The opposition, especially the Bloc Quebecois, and even the media had to carry out their own investigations before the government decided to act.
The people watching us have seen several heads roll. I will not go over the list of ministers who were brought down. Another minister was linked to this issue and he cannot tell us that he is not aware of the situation. When we started to ask questions after his appointment, we gave him enough time to look into this. But all he is doing right now is referring the contracts to the RCMP and setting up internal investigations.
Yesterday, the day before and last week, we heard from the vice-president of Groupaction and from Mr. Charles Guité that the Prime Minister's office was involved. This speaks for itself.
We need a public, independent and transparent inquiry. Only then will the people of Quebec and of Canada find out what really happened.
John McKay Liberal Scarborough East, ON
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate. This is a great opportunity to respond to the Speech from the Throne. There are a number of really good initiatives in the speech. The Prime Minister in his wisdom has laid out some direction and encouragement, which I think Canadians need to take note of.
In the few minutes available to me, if I may, I will talk about one aspect, which is the environment and the challenge of climate change. We have had quite a summer in Canada. In Alberta and parts of Saskatchewan we have witnessed very severe drought conditions. In southern Manitoba we have had flooding. In southern Ontario we had an extended hot and dry summer. Average Canadians, much like those of us in here, feel there is something wrong about the weather but they are not quite sure of the cause, because respected scientists dispute the cyclical patterns of weather.
There does, however, seem to be mounting evidence that there is an accelerated rate of change which will result in exponential impacts beyond straight line graphs. Heretofore we thought that weather change would go up slightly or in a straight line fashion. In fact, the effects start to heap on the effects and the result is that it ceases to be a straight line graph and we end up having accelerated change in weather patterns, which gives respected scientists and ordinary Canadians alike cause to be concerned.
In Toronto, we had pretty well lousy air for most of the summer. It was hot, sticky and polluted. Hospital admissions were up and puffers sold briskly. That brings me to the subject of Kyoto. A lot of people seem to think that if we sign Kyoto suddenly the air will be clean, the sun will shine and all will be right with the world. Regrettably, however, that is not true.
Kyoto is a treaty that is designed to deal with CO
2
emissions and, while polluting in and of themselves, they are by no means the only contributor to smog. Smog is made up of a lot of things, not only CO
2
. Even if today we were able to magically cleanse the air of CO
2
emissions, we would still have a significant smog problem in Toronto.
The treaty is designed to reduce emissions and therefore reduce the effect of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere. That in turn would reduce the environment in which smog is created, but it would not eliminate smog in and of itself. Unfortunately, even if the treaty were implemented and had an impact, it would not have a huge impact on cities like Toronto. Half of our emissions come from across the U.S. border. Canada's entire emissions constitute only 2% of the world's total. So it is important to remember that even if Kyoto were implemented today, Toronto's air would not be substantially different. So why forge ahead? Why put the treaty in front of Parliament for ratification?
The simple answer is that we are part of the world community. Because we are part of the world community, we cannot carry on doing what we are doing. We cannot continue to send these kinds of CO
2
emissions up into the atmosphere without some major, significant impact upon our environment.
At one level Kyoto is about the environment, but at another it is really about an economic impact and a wealth redistribution. Unfortunately, we have enough alarmists on both sides of the debate to scare us into apocalyptic paralysis. It makes it very difficult to see the truth and to respond in any rational form.
While the environmental impact of such a treaty may be modest, we also have to ask ourselves whether the economic impact will also be modest. The answer seems to be that it depends. That is not a very satisfactory answer at this stage, but it really does depend. It gets very difficult for the government to lay out a plan because it really depends on a whole bunch of variables that are not easily quantifiable.
In some manner, it becomes almost an article of faith. Is one a Kyoto believer or a Kyoto atheist? Personally I am more in the category of agnostic, which I think is probably an atheist without any courage. It appears to depend on the mixture of regulations, incentives and new technologies.
Let me give the House a picture of what Canada is facing and then talk about some of the representations that have been made to me over the course of the summer by very able people and which I hope may set us upon a path of enlightened self-interest.
Kyoto requires Canada to reduce its emissions to 6% below the 1990 levels. That means 240 megatonnes of CO
2
. About 50 megatonnes will be taken care of by current programs and another 24 megatonnes by carbon sinks. That leaves a shortfall of about 165 megatonnes and this is where it gets controversial.
The first controversy is the credit for clean fossil fuel exports such as natural gas. In other words, the argument is that if we export clean fuels, why should we not get the credit for it? I suppose the counter argument, though, is that if we export dirty fuels such as coal then possibly we should be penalized.
What our target will be will depend on the outcome of that debate and those negotiations. The gap between 165 megatonnes and the argument about whether we get credits for these fuel exports is quite substantial. It is the difference between 165 megatonnes and 96 megatonnes.
The second controversy is the pace of economic growth. If the economy leaps ahead, way beyond predictions, then the CO
2
emissions will actually increase and all of our assumptions will be skewered. Similarly, if the economy does not grow at predicted rates, the burden of Kyoto will become even more than it is presently predicted to be.
The third controversy is in the wild and whacky world of trading emissions. The genius of Kyoto is that it forces CO
2
emissions into the bottom line. Every country and every company, one way or another, is going to have to account for the cost of its emissions. Some will be able to research their way out of the problem by actual emissions reductions, but some will have to trade their way out and purchase credits either domestically or internationally. This will lead to some bizarre consequences. Domestically, companies will have to purchase credits from companies that have credits even if that means feeding the competition's bottom line.
Good, we might say. Not always. Without credits, some companies are simply not viable. It actually may end up distorting another market by propping up a company that is otherwise not viable and should have been out of business years ago but survives because it has credits to sell. How much sense does that make?
Internationally, it is even crazier. Our companies or Canada as a nation will have to go on the open market and buy credits from countries like Russia or Mexico, both of which will have credits to sell even though in the case of Russia it is arguably the most environmentally degraded country in the world. We also know about Russia's somewhat casual regard for government integrity and the rule of law. The likelihood is that we will be buying our credits from the Russian mafia to meet our Kyoto requirements. How much of that money do we think will actually go to environmental cleanup or the re-industrialization of Russia? Try to explain that to the ladies in the church basement.
Recently the General Motors representatives were in my office. I thought they had a fairly enlightened approach, but they also had a very realistic approach. As we know GM is a very important company, both internationally and in the economies of Ontario and Canada. GM will be faced with Kyoto. Of course any company immediately asks what this will cost, what the targets will be and how we will achieve those targets.
The setting of the targets will have to be fairly nuanced. If we set it too high, GM may ask itself why it does not build those trucks or cars in the United States and then ship them back to Canada. If the target is too low then it is business as usual and the goal of Kyoto will not be achieved. It becomes a bit of a bean-counter's delight. If the target is x million dollars, GM can do several things: research and application of the research, which is good; retrofit car factories, which sounds good; move to Michigan, which does not sound so good; get government credits and grants, which can be good or bad; buy credits from the Russian mafia, which is not so good; or buy credits from Mexico, which is not so good either. It is reasonable to expect that GM will act in its own self-interest. Unfortunately, that may or may not coincide with Canada's self-interest.
Let me give another example. Suncor is a large company involved in the tar sands. Members may or may not know that Suncor is a large retailer of gasoline in Ontario. It has 16% of the Ontario market. It is also the only retailer in Ontario that ethanolizes its gas. Every litre we buy at a Sunoco station has 10% ethanol in it. For the purposes of emissions that is the equivalent of removing 20,000 cars a day from Ontario's roads. It is very significant and is something to be pursued because transportation is the second largest source of Ontario's emissions after the pollution from the United States is accounted for.
Ethanolizing fuel is a very attractive idea. We should just ask the farmers, who would love to sell more product to Suncor. It is a win-win situation. It does something for the environment, we have happy farmers, and it is a good alternative technology. But here is where it gets tricky. At the present time Sunoco is able to add its voluntary 10% ethanol because of the forgiveness of excise tax. However, if we mandate a level of 5% or 2% or whatever, the price of the product will immediately shoot up because refining capacity and resource capacity will have to be created.
The result would be that Suncor would have to import more corn from places like Iowa and reduce its voluntary commitment down to the mandated level, i.e. from 10% down to 5% or 2%, as the case may be. If the mandated level were to be 5% ethanol, for the purposes of emissions that would be the equivalent of Suncor putting 10,000 cars back on the road. So much for good corporate citizenship. Importing from the U.S. to meet our Kyoto requirements is, I am sure we all agree, quite ironic, and putting 10,000 cars back on the road for the purposes of emissions makes no sense at all.
I have indicated that I am an agnostic because frankly I do not know how the concerns of General Motors and Suncor will be addressed. May I emphasize that in both instances they want to be Kyoto compliant? They are very concerned.
Another example is that of a chemical based industry in my riding. It does about $1 billion a year in business and accounts for about 500 to 700 employees, with 70% of its product exported. That is not insignificant. The company wants to know how the Kyoto guidelines will apply to it. It is heavily into research and development because, frankly, it costs money to shoot the emissions up through the smokestacks. However, it is getting to the point where cost effective research gains are getting to be more and more difficult to come by. The company is worried that it will have to buy emissions credits.
Where will the company get the money to buy emissions credits? Presumably from all areas of the company, including the research budget.
How ironic that research into emissions reductions will be curtailed by the necessity of purchasing credits from the Russian mafia.
That brings me to another problem. All these companies in my riding are branch offices. Canada will be the only country in the western hemisphere to be under Kyoto obligations. It is very difficult to understand how, in the short term at least, that will help with our competitiveness.
My colleagues think that we can be faster, smarter and cleaner. I hope they are right. Unfortunately, corporate Canada's productivity numbers do not support such an optimistic blind faith. I am still an agnostic.
I have another example. Members may or may not be aware that Ontario Hydro is on its way to privatization. It does seem to be something of shall we say a jerky road, but one thing we know as consumers is that as of last month our bills are a great deal higher.
Ontario Hydro basically generates its electricity from four or five sources: hydro, which of course is water and gravity; nuclear; natural gas; coal; and alternative sources. The cheapest form of electricity obviously is hydro but hydro is limited in Ontario so there will not be any more significant capacity brought on stream through hydro.
For the purposes of Kyoto emissions, nuclear power is probably the best alternative because it has no emissions of CO
2
. However, as we well know, there are other problems.
One-third of OPG's capacity is due to fossil fuels and that accounts for 7% of Ontario's emissions. Ontario Hydro is in a very difficult situation because it does need to address the fossil fuels. It cannot really turn to nuclear as a viable alternative. Hydro does not have a greater capacity available to it. Alternative sources, which we all hope for, such as windmills and things of that nature, can address part of the problem but not nearly all of the problem.
Finally, the economic modelling suggests that Canada's economy will be 0.6% smaller in 2012 if Kyoto is adopted. This does not sound like a great deal of money but it translates into $7.2 billion over 10 years. In Ontario's case, its economy will be reduced by 0.4%. Members will have to pardon me but I am from Missouri when it comes to economic modelling.
The finance department projections, for instance, going forward one year, are very suspect, let alone 10 year projections. For instance, the economists that the minister of finance turned to last year to project as to the economic growth in Canada for the year 2002 predicted that Canada's economy would grow between 1.1% and 1.5%.
The numbers are almost in and in fact the economy grew at something in the order of 3.3% to 3.5%.
John McKay Liberal Scarborough East, ON
My hon. colleague says bravo and we all applaud the strength of the Canadian economy. Put two economists in a room and we will probably get three opinions. It is sort of the same with politicians.
Many of the assumptions are necessarily unknowable, particularly with those new technologies that are coming on stream.
In summary, climate change appears to be on us. The problem is that Kyoto may not do what Canadians expect it to do, namely, to reduce smog. It may reduce conditions that create smog but it will not necessarily reduce smog. This is an economic treaty as much as it is an environmental treaty. There needs to be a mixture of incentives, credits and tax concerns.
The matter of the law of unintended consequences prevails in all matters. It is very hard to produce a clear and precise plan because so many of the variables are unknown. There is a tremendous upside to this treaty.
I think the Prime Minister has done us a great favour and has shown terrific political courage in putting this issue into the Speech from the Throne. If he had not set this target, I do not think any of us would be here today debating the matter.
Rick Casson Canadian Alliance Lethbridge, AB
Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the comments made by the member for Scarborough East and we need to deal with a few things.
If the U.S. is not going to be involved in this treaty, what effect will that have on our economy? What exactly does non-compliance mean? What is the penalty to a country that does not comply with this treaty? Regarding the purchase of credits, would it not be better to take the money that is going to be sent outside of Canada to reduce emissions in foreign countries and spend it in Canada and thereby have a Canada made solution to this issue?
John McKay Liberal Scarborough East, ON
Madam Speaker, I will answer my colleague's questions in the reverse order.
I think the purchase of credits is the absolute last thing we want to do. The last thing we want to purchase is an international credit because the money is gone. Domestically that is not a terrific idea either but at least the money is staying in the country. I agree with my colleague on that point.
With regard to non-compliance and what it will actually mean, the treaty will mean nothing whatsoever for countries that do not sign. However for those countries that do sign the treaty the non-compliance provision presumably will have some financial penalty to it but I am not aware of what the exact penalty might be.
His other question concerned the effect on our economy if the United States did not sign. As I said in my speech, Canada at this point will be the only country in the western hemisphere that will have signed the treaty. That will create some difficulties for us, although, interestingly, both Michigan and California are ahead of the federal government and ahead of the Bush administration in terms of expecting Kyoto compliance with respect to a lot of the things they are doing. It may be Kyoto by the back door rather than Kyoto by the front door.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Madam Speaker, I note that my hon. colleague dealt with the Kyoto accord but I would like to ask him another question with regard to the Speech from the Throne.
Reference was made in the throne speech to the possible decriminalization of marijuana. This would be one of the biggest mistakes Canada could ever make for our young people.
I worked with young people. I took some of them out of the alleyways and brought them into the building in which I was working. I talked to 32 young students who told me they were being given marijuana to smoke during their lunch hour.
About four Christmas Eve's ago a young man came to my door and thanked me for taking him out of the alleyway. He said that if I had not done that for him he would still be on cocaine. He told me that his mom and dad asked him to thank me.
Decriminalizing marijuana would be a very dangerous way to go with our young people. What does my hon. colleague think about the possible decriminalization of marijuana in Canada?