Debates of Nov. 28th, 2002

Health Care

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today of tabling the document entitled “Building on Values: The Future of Health Care in Canada”.

On behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to thank Mr. Romanow for his hard work and commitment and to reassure Canadians that this report will help the government, as we work with our colleagues, to provide Canadians with a renewed health care system that is there for them when they need it.

Government Response to Petitions

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.

Committees of the House

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Finance regarding its order of reference of Tuesday, October 29, in relation to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act.

The committee has considered Bill C-3 and reports the bill without amendment.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the twelfth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership and associate membership of some standing committees of the House, and I move that it be concurred in.

Modernization Committee

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among all parties in the House of Commons and I wish to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion. For the benefit of members, it is about establishing the new modernization committee of the House of Commons. I move:

That a special committee of the House be appointed to consider and make recommendations on the modernization and improvement of the procedures of the House of Commons;

That the members of the committee shall be the Deputy Speaker, the House leaders and the caucus chairs of each of the officially recognized parties, provided that substitutions may be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided in Standing Order 114(2);

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, the chair of the committee shall be the Deputy Speaker and the vice-chairs shall be the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the House Leader of the Official Opposition;

That the committee shall have all the powers granted to standing committees in Standing Order 108 as well as the power to travel inside and outside Canada;

That the committee shall not adopt report without the unanimous agreement of all the members of the committee;

That the committee may make recommendations for changes to relevant statutes and, if it does so, such recommendations shall be deemed to have been made pursuant to an order adopted pursuant to Standing Order 68(4); and

That the committee shall present its final report no later than April 30, 2003.

[The Speaker]

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Petitions

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by people from across Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke requesting that Parliament recognize that the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College is essential to training Canadians for emergency situations, that the facility should stay in Arnprior and that the government should upgrade the facilities in order to provide the necessary training to Canadians.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have five petitions to present on three different issues. Three of the petitions concern child pornography.

Canadians are concerned that child pornography is certainly detrimental to our children and they want Parliament to protect our children by taking all the necessary legislative steps.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from people in my riding, including the municipalities and local municipal governments, saying that the tuberculosis issue in the Riding Mountain National Park needs to be taken care of and the disease eradicated from the wild herd.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my last petition concerns the fact that hundreds of Canadians suffer from diseases like multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injury. The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat these illnesses.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present this morning. The first petition is on child pornography.

They petitioners are urging Parliament 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.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has to do with stem cell research and the potential it has to assist Canadians suffering from numerous illnesses or conditions, and urges Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat these illnesses.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition calling upon the government to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Act in order that rural mail couriers would have the opportunity to collectively bargain.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from November 27 consideration of the motion.

Kyoto Protocol

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to continue to speak today about Kyoto, something we all feel strongly about. The government has decided to ram it through the House without any consultation with Canadians and it is threatening its own members with an election call if they oppose it.

I must make it clear again why I am doing this. I am doing this so Canadians would realize just how much impact this protocol would have on their very way of life, on what they do and what it would cost them. They must remember that they are being asked to change their lifestyle by reducing their use of carbon by 20%.

There is a lot of new material that we need to go through today. Many members will have the opportunity talk about Kyoto and its implications to them. The main message must be that they need to carry this issue home and tell their constituents. I will repeat for members across the way that we must get to families with kids who are trying to get their new house and who drive their kids to hockey games. We need to talk to people on fixed incomes who cannot bear the additional cost that will be put on them by probably a lot of things other than this climate change treaty.

This treaty is asking people to reduce their carbon use by 20%. However this treaty would increase their cost anywhere from 25% to possibly 100% for the very things they need to live. We need to talk to these people. We need to engage them in this issue. I urge people to talk to their members of Parliament. I hope the Prime Minister is getting 10 times the number of e-mails that we are getting so he will know how serious this issue really is.

We have talked about the loss of jobs. We have talked about the billions of dollars this can cost for simply reducing CO

2

. It is important that we get on the record Statistics Canada figures that show the situation today for monthly bills and the situation that will exist after Kyoto. These figures are averages and there are probably some mistakes in them. They are the very figures that the government should be making clear to Canadians.

I want to go through these figures province by province and I will start with the province of British Columbia. It is estimated that the average natural gas bill in British Columbia today is $80.92. After Kyoto that bill would be $129.47. We should think about that and its effect on the people we should be talking to. These are Statistics Canada and Industry Canada figures. With regard to electricity a bill of $79.33 would go up to $122.96. A gasoline bill for the average person driving to work or driving the kids to a hockey game of $142.83 per month would go up to $214.25.

We are talking about three things here: natural gas, electricity and gasoline. We are talking about things that the government is asking Canadians to reduce by 20%. It is telling people to reduce their driving by 10%. Interestingly enough, just for the record, with regard to the car count, there are four minister's cars outside the House of Commons at this point in time and one of them is running. It happens to be the environment minister's car. That talks about commitment. We would not want the environment minister to get cold when he goes out to his car.

In Alberta the bill of $83.50 for natural gas would go to $133.60. Electricity would go from $71.58 to $110.95 and gasoline would go from $157.41 to $236.12. I think average Canadians are getting the message that there would be increases.

Let us go on to Saskatchewan. Natural gas at $79.75 for the average bill would go to $127.60. Electricity would go from $80.50 to $124.78 and gasoline would go from $155.41 to $233.12.

We could work these out on a yearly basis with other taxes that Canadians pay but it shows what we are going after. We are using Statistics Canada numbers to come up with these figures. That is the important thing to remember. They do not come from a special interest group.

In Manitoba natural gas would go from $76.25 to $122.00. Electricity would go from $83.33 to $129.16 and gasoline would go from $155.03 to $233.00.

Let us go on to Ontario. Many people in Ontario say that they do not think they would be affected much. For example, the Syncrude tar sands project, 60% of the manufacturing jobs are in Ontario. How can they possibly think they would not be affected? Their jobs would be affected. Natural gas would go from $91.33 to $146.13. So far, the biggest impact would be on the people of Ontario. Their electricity bill go from $91.16 to $141.30 and their gasoline would go from $169.92 to $254.88, according to Statistics Canada figures.

People can say that their situation is different because they do not drive far to work. However, I found a lot of people in Ontario that drive a long way to work compared with my standard where I live. I live eight minutes from my office. How many people watching this and thinking about these figures live eight minutes from their office? I know lots of people who live an hour from their office. They should think about their gasoline bill from these Statistics Canada figures.

Let us go on to Quebec where natural gas or fuel oil would go from $61.75 to $98.80. The electricity bill of $106.00 would go to $164.30. It is less of an increase because of hydro and so on, but it would still be an increase. Gasoline would go from $162.50 to $243.75.

In New Brunswick natural gas and fuel oil would go from $70.17 to $112.27. The electricity bill would go from $135.50 to $210.03 and gasoline would go from $189.00 to $283.50.

In Nova Scotia natural gas or fuel oil would go from $99.58 to $159.33. Electricity would go from $96.42 to $149.45 and gasoline would go from $173.00 to $259.50.

In Prince Edward Island natural gas or fuel oil is very expensive. It would go from $114.00 to $182.40 under Kyoto. Electricity would go from $74.33 to $115.21 and gasoline would go from $193.42 to $290.13.

In Newfoundland natural gas and fuel oil would go from $98.17 to $157.07. Electricity would go from $118.83 to $184.19 and gasoline would go from $162.83 to $244.25.

Mr. Speaker, can you see what is happening? Can you see why we have to do this sort of thing to show Canadians that it would cost them. There is a cost to Kyoto and they desperately need to realize that.

People out there might be saying that those are averages and asking where the figures came from. Those figures came from Statistics Canada. I guess we have to believe that department. They are the government's figures. If our researchers and I were able to come up with these figures, why could the government not include them in its plans for the Kyoto protocol? It is pretty obvious. The Prime Minister and the environment minister are saying that it would not cost very much and people in Canada would not notice much change. The Prime Minister in waiting is saying that if it would affect Canadians very much, we would not implement it.

Well, it would impact all Canadians a lot. It would impact my children and grandchildren a lot. The government says there is no impact and that it would not impact one province over another. When I look at the actual figures what am I to assume? I assume that the government either does not know, does not care, or is deceiving Canadians. Why would the government do something like that? That is the big question. The only thing I can possibly see is a legacy question. If one were to leave one's successor with enough bad things, then it would destroy him as well.

A lot of politicians will have a lot of trouble with those figures. Trying to convince Canadians that we voted for something that did that to them without telling them I think would put us in a pretty terrible position come next election time. That is really what it is all about.

I also have figures that I would like to share with the House because there are some variations and maybe some people could not relate to the provincial numbers. Statistics Canada breaks this down by city. I do not want to deal with every city in Canada, but let me deal with just a few of them so we drive the message home to people.

I will begin with Victoria, and the member for Victoria just happens to be the environment minister. How are his constituents going to feel when they find out that their member agreed to taking an average natural gas fuel oil price of $54.42, which is low, to $87.07? The electricity bill in Victoria would go from $78.58 to $121.80. Gasoline would go from $130.92 to $196.38.

What will people say about their member of Parliament who supported this, tried to ram it through the House, tried to ratify it by the end of the year, and threatened that we would have an election if we did not vote for it? How will the electorate feel when it finds out that its member was the one who did that?

That should be good for opposition parties, but I want members to know that they have been warned another way. They should think about the next election and they should think about justifying Kyoto and what it means to them.

Vancouver is a major city. Natural gas would go from $96.25 to $154.00. Electricity would go from $85.50 to $132.53 under Kyoto and gasoline would go from $150.00 to $225.00.

My daughter and son-in-law have two young boys, a two year old and a five year old. The husband works in downtown Vancouver. He is a paramedic there. Our daughter is a nurse. She drives every day and takes the kids to a sitter and out to activities afterward. I know that they spend more than $150 on gas now. I know that they are having a tough time meeting all their bills and all their commitments. They bought a house and have payments on the house. They are trying to give the kids every opportunity they can. The five year old goes to kindergarten and loves it. The two year old has to go to the sitter. Let us say that a gas bill is $150 and would go up to $225. I think their gas bill is $300, so it would go to $500. That probably is just about enough to literally bankrupt them.

That is what the Kyoto accord is all about. That is what the government refuses to talk about. It refuses to put a cost on it. It refuses to talk about implementation. This is where the rubber hits the road. This is where real Canadians are at. This is where the costs are going to be, so why would we ram this through?

Let us move on to places in Alberta. If in Calgary the bill is $86.50 for natural gas, it would go up to $138. The electricity bill would go from $67.92 to $105.28. We must remember that Alberta has a lot of coal generated electricity and the stations are going to have to be retrofitted and changed to natural gas. Not only will that natural gas have to be used to provide power for Albertans, it will not be for sale to the U.S., which means it will not add to the GDP, which means it will not be taxed by the federal government and which means that the revenue for the federal government is going to go down dramatically. I suppose, while the government talks about this feel good plan, that it will shut down the tar sands as well. That is literally bigger than Saudi Arabia. It adds to the Canadian GDP and is the reason why Alberta sends such large transfer payments to the rest of Canada.

We must remember that from those tar sands 60% of the jobs generated are in Ontario. Can we see why the people are so upset? Can we see why they are trying to tell the government that? Yesterday I read out comments from every province as to why they all are so upset about this and not on side.

Let us turn now to Saskatoon. It is $74 for natural gas today and will be $118.40 tomorrow. Electricity is at $76.33 and it will be $118.31. Gasoline is at $163.17 and will go up to $244.76.

I do not want to stand up in the House a year, two years or five years from now and say that there was a speech given back in November 2002 that told the House all about these price increases. I do not want to say “I told you so”. I do not want to do that. That is the last thing that I want to accomplish. What I want to accomplish now is to show that this is what is going to happen, so that people can react to this and let their members of Parliament know that they do not want to bull ahead with this until they know what the exact costs are, until we know how the government is going to implement it and how it is going to impact on them.

Let us go on to Winnipeg, where the Manitoba government supports this, sort of. Yesterday the House heard quotes from Mr. Sale and, boy, that is support as long as the federal government is prepared to provide a lot of money for Manitoba's hydroelectricity and get it into the Ontario power grid. That is real environmental support. Really, economics is the cause, nothing else, and I am talking economics today.

Let us look at Winnipeg, where natural gas and fuel oil costs would go from $82.75 to $132.40, electricity costs from $66.92 to $103.73, and gasoline from $143.58 to $215.37. These are Statistics Canada figures broken down city by city and province by province. It is going to cost all Canadians. Do they know it? Are their members of Parliament telling them? That is the very purpose of what we are trying to do here.

Let us look at Toronto. In Toronto the average natural gas fuel oil cost is $102.92 and will go to $164.67; electricity is $87.42 and will go to $135.50; gasoline is $188.83 and will go to $283.25. That is in Toronto where people drive further than a lot of us do. Yes, the government says it will put in more rapid transit and will spend more money. If we are going to spend more money, I would like to ask our finance critic if he thinks there will be billions of dollars to be spent on all of this. After we are finished with health care, I do not really know that this will be the case.

Let us move on to Quebec City or Montreal. Looking at Montreal, it costs $74.42 for natural gas or fuel oil and will go to $119.07; electricity is $103.16 and will go to $159.90; gasoline is $155.42 and will go to $233.13. In Quebec City natural gas is $58.75 and will go to $90.80; electricity is $99.83 and will go to $154.74; gasoline is $143.75 and will go to $215.63.

I know these figures are a little boring, but let us move on to Newfoundland, where right now natural gas or fuel oil costs $110.83 and will go to $177.33; electricity is $125.08 and will go to $193.87; gasoline is $159.17 and under Kyoto will go to $238.76.

Those are the Statistics Canada figures. Those are the numbers that Canadians are not being told about. Canadians have a right to know what it is going to cost, how it is going to be implemented, which industries will be targeted, because targets are talked about, and how we are going to do all of this. Where are we going to get the money to pay initiatives and incentives? Where are we going to do it? Yes, we should do something. Everyone has said that over and over. Ad nauseam, people have agreed that we should do something.

What I am afraid of most in the whole Kyoto protocol debate is that we will have a Prime Minister who is leaving and does not care, who will ratify it, put his name on it, look good internationally and say “I delivered Kyoto”. That will be his legacy, just as Mr. Mulroney's legacy is the GST, just as Mr. Trudeau's legacy is the national energy program, bilingualism and so on. They have had legacies, all right, and the Prime Minister's legacy will be Kyoto. I just do not think he realizes what kind of legacy that is going to be for him and what Canadians are going to think of that.

Then we have a Prime Minister in waiting. He says we can ratify it and he thinks maybe he might vote to ratify it. He says if it is going to hurt us at all we will not go ahead with it. One more time for the record, Mr. Speaker, and you could probably say this with me in unison because you have heard it, according to the Marrakesh accord, nations who ratify Kyoto but do not meet their targets in round one by 2012 are penalized another 30% in emissions cuts. In addition, such nations cannot sell carbon credits in round two. The accord goes on to say that countries are given 90 days and if they cannot achieve the targets they can buy credits.

If our finance critic happens to be the finance minister in 2012, he is going to be faced, as will the government, with coming up with billions of dollars to send to places like Russia to buy credits so we can get into round two of Kyoto. We must remember that round one is going to deliver only a 5% reduction of CO

2

in the world, because developing countries are not part of it and the U.S. is not part of it and because so many countries have realized the economic hit and have said they could not be part of this.

There are penalties. No one can stand up and say in honesty that we will ratify this and then maybe not deliver on implementation, because there are penalties.

[An hon. member]

That is irresponsible.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

It is totally irresponsible that Canadians are not told this and given the facts and figures before we get into this.

I want to again emphasize the sad state that we are in. I have reviewed this file and I reviewed the first file. We have analyzed it clause by clause and have said what a disaster it is. We have now seen what it is going to cost Canadians. We see the Prime Minister saying that if Liberal members do not vote for it he will call an election and they will be stuck with him for four more years. That is quite a threat. Given Kyoto versus that, it appears that some of them will hold their noses and vote for it, but they will have to justify in the next election why they did.

We have a front-runner for Prime Minister who says he will ratify it, that it is not such a big deal, that if it is going to hurt us economically we will just ditch it and ignore it. Yes, we will ignore it like the other 200 treaties we have signed since 1992.

Mr. Speaker, if I have not made it clear enough to him, to you, to the House and to the Canadian public that there are penalties, I cannot make it any clearer. I could read the Kyoto protocol into the minutes but I trust that is not necessary. I encourage people to look at the Kyoto protocol on the web, to really look it, and see that there are penalties if we do not live up to it.

I also want to say that across the country in town halls from Victoria to Halifax I have heard the message, “What is Kyoto? The government has not informed us about what it is”. People ask how it will affect them. They say that the government says it will not affect them much. If that list of numbers that I just went through does not convince them it is going to have an effect, let me say that is going to have an effect on gas, the vehicles they drive, the speed they drive them at and the size they are, and they will not be able to leave them running. There will probably be some kind of exhaust police. It will affect people's home heating, their electricity and their very way of life and the very standard of living that we are so proud of in our country. I believe this issue is as important as the health care issue should be to Canadians but the government has kept it hidden. Hopefully this has helped draw more attention to it.

People ask if it is going to help the environment. “Is little Johnny's asthma going to be better because of this?”, they ask. We need to deal with two things. We need to deal with Kyoto, which deals only with climate change, global warming and CO

2

, as well as what Canadians desperately want us to deal with, which is the whole area of pollution.

The government has set an example of its standards. I will use the Fraser Valley as an example. There is a power plant being built on the border, with 12 more proposed, and the government has not even bothered to intervene. I intervened in Washington State on behalf of our party to tell the people in the U.S., in Washington State, that it was wrong, that they could not send us their pollution, they could not send us their sewage and they could not run their power lines down the centre of Abbotsford. They cannot pollute what is already the second most polluted environment in Canada. They cannot put that power plant there.

Why are the power lines running down into Abbotsford? I love this one: because it is too dangerous so there is a law in Washington State that does not allow power lines over inhabited areas. But they are going to put them right down the centre of Abbotsford. The prevailing wind blows that pollution into a u-shaped air-shed. Where is the federal government on this? It was not in Washington State for the hearings. It was not in Abbotsford for the hearings this past month. It did not go to the NEB. I was refused intervener status by the NEB because I did not live in B.C. I was intervening on behalf of the Canadian people and I was refused intervener status.

Where was the government on that? It is responsible for the air. Where was the environment minister? Why was he not there? Why was the Department of the Environment not there? His answer is that they had observers. What good are observers? We are observing them right now as well and they are getting a failing grade. They ask if it will help the environment. We have heard the answer to that.

The fourth question is this. Is there a better way? There is a much better way. Conservation is part of that better way. Transitional fuels are part of that better way. The exciting area of alternate energy is part of that better way. It is not economical today but, as has been pointed out over the last few days, somewhere between 2030, 2040 and 2050 it will be economical. We should be on the cutting edge but we are not. We are asked to ratify a Kyoto protocol which will do nothing to help our environment or to put us as leaders.

The government's failure then is to consult with Canadians. Its failure is to communicate and cooperate with the provinces. Eight out of ten provinces are totally opposed to the ratification bill. The business community is opposed to it. Canadian manufacturers, the chambers of commerce and the small business owners across the country are opposed to ratification without a plan, without a cost, without an implementation plan and without knowing how it will affect them.

An investment freeze is occurring. People are not spending money in the fourth quarter of their budgets because of this. Generally business has slowed down. Canadians are not informed and cooperating. The provinces and businesses are not on side.

To sum up: we do not have a plan; we do not know what it will cost; and the government does not know how will implement it. We have evaluated plan one and plan two, the government's so-called plans, and they are a bunch of fluff words, a powder-puff PowerPoint presentation. It is the only way to describe this thing. It will not work. It cannot work. It will cost Canadians jobs. It will raise the costs of fuel, heating and electricity.

Again, we must stand up in this place for single moms, for parents who are raising their families and for the people on fixed incomes. With our demographics the way they are, people on fixed incomes are only increasing.

What is the rush? In 1992 why did the government sign onto this climate change concept of the UN, then sign onto Kyoto in 1997 with no plan, with no economic impact and with no understanding. Now all of a sudden, since September 3, we have been in this panicked rush to get this ratified.

What have we been doing for those 10 years? Why does the government have to rush through this when the implications are so great for every Canadian? I am afraid Canadians do not understand that. I certainly do not understand that. I do not know why it cannot go to the committee and why we cannot call witnesses. That is how we normally proceed when we sign onto something. Let us bring in witnesses on all sides and through those witnesses we will become better informed, Canadians will become better informed, industry will have input, Canadians will have input, scientists will have input and politicians will have input. Then we can move ahead with a plan that has been thoroughly discussed and thoroughly analyzed.

Why did we not start this in 1998? Why are we doing this so rapidly? In effect the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment have stood up and said “You can talk all you want, we do not have to listen to any of you. We do not have to listen to what this House says. You guys in our party, if you don't vote for this, your stuck with me for four more years; stick that in your ear”. That is what he is saying.

What kind of democracy is that? We are asking Canadians--

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I question my hon. colleague's phrasing of what I would assume people would think is a direct quote. I have never heard the Minister of the Environment nor the leader of the government and the Prime Minister of Canada tell anyone to stick anything in their ear.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

This is very difficult for the Chair to comment upon because we would have to verify the records to see if the minister has indeed said that. I do not think this is a point of order because no rule of procedure has been broken here. Therefore I have to rule that it is not a point of order but I guess your message has been made.