Debates of March 19th, 2002

Supply

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments. She is also the chair of the Liberal urban task force. She spoke about the government taking first steps in Kyoto with regard to improving our environment. The comment I would have is that the first step is taking an awfully long time. We are talking about five years of the government dragging its feet on Kyoto.

Are all the ministers of the government taking the same first step? We have had very conflicting information in the House from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment on where we are at with Kyoto. There is a very big question of whether or not the federal government is committed to ratifying Kyoto. Would the member comment on when that will be, or will we simply have to live with more task forces?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of consultation with all partners that I indicated earlier is clearly very important. I am the first one to recognize along with my colleague how frustrating it gets when we are trying to move the

Titanic.

By the same token we have to recognize how important the initiative is and how we have to make sure we bring in these initiative in a positive way. We do that in collaboration and with no intentions of having extreme negative impacts on anyone.

As we need patience to deal with these issues and want it moved along faster, we have to recognize that it will have significant impact on a variety of businesses and people. We want to make sure that we have thoroughly consulted with everyone.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member stood in the House and brought forward some good points. I have listened to a number of members across the floor today talk about the first step. It reminds me of NDP members. When they talk about the first step in world peace the first step would be to lay down our guns. I guess that is one way to have a first step toward peace, but it is also one quick way to get shot in some conflicts.

This is not really a step. It is a kick to Alberta and its economy. It is a kick that will cause nothing but grief down the road. Many countries are not signing on to Kyoto. My quick summation of it is that when other countries do not sign on, when we have ratified the agreement and when costs of production and other costs are difficult, those other countries can go into production much more easily. This will hurt our economy.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that on one side of the House we hear about a step and on the other side it is figured to be a kick.

The original agreement was signed in 1997. I made reference to moving the Titanic along. We are still moving along in the right direction, but we are trying to do it in consultation with all other partners to make sure it is the best deal we can make. We will continue on with those discussions. Hopefully they will move quickly rather than slowly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to this very important topic. I am certainly pleased the issue of the Kyoto protocol has been raised.

Personally, I hope the government will ratify the treaty. The government is going through an important consultation process which will continue. I hope it will lead to ratification by this country and many other countries.

We should reflect for a moment on what has led us to this. People have become more and more concerned in recent years about climate change, global warming and the CO

2

gases that are increasingly leading to global warming. We once had the idea that there was lots more where that came from, whether it be air or water, but it has become clear to us that these are limited things. In our lifetime we have had to question the idea that there is no end to our water and no end to our air.

I heard the member for Red Deer say that CO

2

occurs naturally, that trees consume CO

2

, as they do, and return it to the earth as carbon. That is accurate, but we have to consider the fact that we can have too much of a good thing. In other words, carbon is a necessary part of life, a necessary part of trees and of the environment but it does not mean it is impossible for us to have too much of it. It does not mean it is impossible for us as a civilization to produce too much of this gas and thereby cause real damage to our atmosphere. It does not mean our atmosphere is unlimited.

We can actually measure how much oxygen there is in the atmosphere around the world. People who have gone to the moon talk about looking at Earth and how tiny it seems to be. We can recognize that it seems awfully enormous to us but in fact there are limits to the amount of water and oxygen we have.

Going back to the matter of CO

2

, it is true also that water is essential for life. We know that. We have talked about it. We have seen it. We have looked at whether there is water on Mars. There are indications there may be ice on Mars. It is very interesting. Scientists say it may indicate that at some point there could have been or could be life on Mars.

Water is essential to us. We all need it to survive. It is essential to allow the nourishment we take in to go throughout our bodies, yet we can drown. Water can kill us.

The suggestion that we should not worry about CO

2

because it is a naturally occurring gas is ridiculous. The point is we can have too much of it. As a member said earlier, if we were put in a room with only CO

2

, we would not last very long. If we were put in a room with only water, we would not last very long. We need a balance of these elements on our planet.

It would be awful if our children or our children's children were unable to enjoy the natural beauty of our planet the way we do today.

Unlike many in the Alliance and in the PC/DRC I believe protecting our environment at a moderate cost to industry is the only responsible thing to do. We have to do this for the future. It is difficult and it will not be easy, but are we going to allow our planet to become overheated? What would that do? What would happen if the planet got hotter and hotter? In the last decade we have seen the hottest years on record.

I heard the idea across the way previously that this was happening naturally and why are we so convinced that the production of all these gases is because of human action? It is conceivable that in the course of the changing environment over millions of years, as science tells us, there have been changes in temperatures. Sometimes they have been rather swift.

When scientists in the 1970s and 1980s began to look at this question, they became concerned about it and predicted what would happen. They predicted violent weather patterns, increasing numbers of storms and so on. We are beginning to see it is not just a question of it being an accident. It is becoming more clear that it is probably being caused by human actions, that human actions are producing CO

2

and other gases. All the pollution we create is having more of an impact on the world.

We can no longer say there is lots more where that came from. We have to be concerned about what we are doing to the water in our oceans, lakes, streams and rivers, about what we are doing to our air and to our environment generally. We have to be concerned about all of those things.

For us only to consider things like job losses, the possible costs are short term. These are important considerations. We have to weigh these things as the government is doing as it considers and consults on these issues. At the same time those costs are short term when compared to the health of our planet and what is at stake for the future.

The truth of the matter which is often overlooked is that there is a real and immediate opportunity for Canada to make up ground lost to harmful industries by becoming a world leader in green industries. Areas like fuel cell technology, alternative energy and cleaner, renewable sources of power like ethanol provide bountiful opportunities for Canadian businesses already poised to take advantage of them.

As Jeff Passmore, executive vice-president of Iogen Corporation said in the Ottawa Citizen recently:

The whiners and complainers lining up against Canadian ratification of the Kyoto Protocol are masters of single ledger accounting. Whether Canada likes it or not, the world is moving in the direction of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and we can either be a participant or a non-participant in this new world. But if we choose not to participate, there will be significant economic and social penalties to pay.

The development of these green industries will undoubtedly work to counteract possible losses from lessening the use of fossil fuels. In fact, we have not heard from the Alliance or the PC/DRC on this. When they talk about the costs, we have not heard about the benefits of moving to more green industries. We have not heard about the benefits to our health. We have not heard about the benefits to our health care costs of having to pay less when dealing with respiratory illnesses and other kinds of illnesses that result from air pollution and overheating.

There has been a great increase in the heat in the last few years. Last year was the hottest year on record. When we actually say this was predicted to happen and that every year seems to be the hottest on record, we ought to get a little concerned. When is it going to happen?

I recognize that not every Canadian is seized with this issue and is convinced it is vital that we act now. More and more Canadians are becoming concerned. Year after year we see more very warm years and more causes for alarm. We recognize that yes, there have been storms in the past and that ratifying Kyoto will not prevent those storms that have already happened, but we also have to think about the future. Those storms are harbingers of things to come.

We have to consider what other storms there will be in the future and what will happen in the future if the global climate keeps heating up. What will it mean for our ability to produce food? How will we grow anything on our prairies? In the Annapolis Valley how will we grow apples if it is too hot to grow anything, if our crops cannot survive? We have to consider these vital questions.

Members across the way should know that the American senate is currently considering legislation that would put renewable fuels in all gas sold in the U.S. Would that not be a remarkable stance. That is a case where hopefully it is moving forward in the area of a renewable fuel, whether it is ethanol or other things of that nature.

To quote again from the article I mentioned earlier, it states:

The United States is already the second largest producer of renewable fuels in the world (after Brazil), consuming more than six billion litres annually in the form of ethanol.

This has created 192,000 jobs, improved the U.S. trade balance by $2 billion and provided a net annual savings to the federal treasury of $3.6 billion.

We can see that the use of ethanol and other kinds of renewable energy sources is a way for us to go. It can be a source of economic growth. It can be a counterbalance to some of the costs associated with trying to reduce our CO

2

emissions and our other emissions. We cannot just leave it at CO

2

. We have to consider the impact on our overall environment.

In southwestern Nova Scotia many of the rivers and lakes are dying. Fish cannot live in the rivers in much of my province. In fact, something like 10% of the pollution that drops in my province comes from Canada. The rest comes from the U.S.

I hope members will oppose the motion today and that the government will support ratification of the Kyoto agreement.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member.

I share the city of Halifax-Dartmouth with the member. Some say it is the tailpipe of the continent. We suffer from the smog and pollution that comes up from the eastern states. Our hospitals tell the tale. There are extremely high levels of asthma as the member across the way mentioned.

The member asked when we will correct the problem. I would like to throw the question back to him. One of the very obvious ways we could start dealing with this would be to look at fuel emissions.

A report recently said Canada could improve urban air quality and meet one-third of its Kyoto commitments by enacting stronger vehicle emission regulations right away. I would like to hear what kinds of means the government has to immediately work on very obvious problems such as fuel emissions and regulations around SUVs, which we have been told will not be in place for another five years.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising the questions and pointing out that these days sometimes our dear province is unfortunately referred to as the tailpipe of the continent. What is most unfortunate is not that it is said but that it seems to be reasonably accurate. The amount of emissions that arrive from the Ohio River valley and areas across the continent is cause for great concern.

On the question of the costs, it is important to recognize that we have to consider what the impacts will be. The government is consulting with the provinces and industry on how we can implement the Kyoto protocol. It is important to do that. We cannot ignore those impacts. We cannot ignore the fact that while Canadians are concerned about the environment, they are also very concerned about their families and their jobs. They are concerned about the health of their families and having clean air and also about providing their families with their needs day to day.

It is important to look at the question of fuel emissions and for ways to reduce those emissions constantly. I am confident the government will keep doing that. It is vital. There are other ways to do things in the cities.

I am a member of the urban issues task force which was referred to earlier. We are looking at a number of things which we think are important, investments that need to be made in our cities to assist them. We must make sure they are more environmentally friendly and that they operate better, that there are better transit systems. Perhaps we can encourage cities to do things in a way so that their development processes do not lead to more traffic and air pollution. There are very important things we can do in those areas.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is presentations like the one the hon. member just made that reduce the credibility of this whole argument.

This debate is about lowering the emission of greenhouse gases. Those greenhouse gases would include mainly water vapour, carbon dioxide and some other much more minor things. When members wander off and talk about water and air pollution, smog in cities and all the rest of it, it takes away from the credibility of this argument. As a matter of fact, the greenhouse industry in Canada pumps carbon dioxide into greenhouses because it makes plants grow much better.

Could the member opposite focus on the issue we are debating, which is the reduction of greenhouse gases?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, while we are talking about this it is important to focus on and mention that also as an aside. Perhaps the member did not hear all my comments.

When we talk about carbon dioxide it is clear to me that as we cut the emissions, for example from automobiles that produce carbon dioxide, we will also cut other kinds of pollutants into the atmosphere. That has a significant benefit. It is important not to ignore that benefit. It is vital that we act on those things as well.

It is not reasonable to say that we only talk about CO

2

. Certainly that is the issue of Kyoto but does that mean we as a government or we as members of parliament should ignore other air pollutants? Should we ignore the impact on respiratory illnesses? Should we ignore the impact on the ability of people to breathe and plants to survive? I do not think so.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Southeast.

During negotiations at the Kyoto protocol, Canada fought to have carbon sinks included in the wording. Apparently it wanted the 6% credit it can claim for sinks to offset the 25% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions our country has to implement by 2010. Once again the Liberal government has jumped on the easy way out with little thought as to how this would affect the people in the fields and the forests of this country. Is this yet another example of exploiting the rural areas to compensate for urban sprawl, for the pollution spewing transportation and industrial equipment of large urban areas? Perhaps.

What is a carbon sink? It is not some place in the kitchen where one's better half does the dishes. A carbon sink is a method of using plants, soil and trees to sequester, store and absorb carbon. Many environmentalists and scientists are saying it is the biggest loophole to be found in the Kyoto protocol. Why? It avoids the main issue the protocol was designed to address: reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons.

The Liberal government concluded quite cavalierly that carbon sinks are found in existing forest and prairie lands anyway and are encouraged by agricultural practices such as low tillage. Apparently, the thinking of the Canadian negotiators was that if they are there already let us take credit for them.

Yes, they are there already and they may not be a problem when they occur as a natural course of events, but what costs will there be if creating carbon sinks becomes the prime focus on our lands and forests? How much is too much when it comes to storing carbon in large amounts? Do we know? Does the government side of the House care?

When Bill Hare, climate policy director of Greenpeace International, talked of the inclusion of sinks in the protocol, he said:

If the rules of the Kyoto Protocol were to allow this kind of loophole, its environmental integrity would go out the window.

I agree.

Are we not just a little embarrassed that Canada was the country pushing for the inclusion of this so-called loophole? We did not have the nerve, as our cousins to the south did, of dropping off the protocol altogether. Instead we asked for an out without fully researching what that out might do to the future use of our lands.

Some scientists have indicated that the maintaining of carbon sink forests for long periods will be difficult. David O. Hall says that although trees and other forms of biomass can act as carbon sinks at maturity, they must eventually be used as a source of fuel or timber product as the carbon will be lost through decay or naturally occurring forest fires.

Where will the drive to create these carbon sinks stop? Will the government encourage clear cutting of old growth forests so that it may claim extra carbon credits from the resulting reforestation? With everything else that has been thrown at our forest industry, what is one more environmental component to deal with? Is that the thinking?

With regard to our farmers, what reward will they get for participating in the storage of carbons on their lands? Many farmers out there, as the agriculture committee heard in its travels across the country, are dealing with an increase in pressure from a variety of sources. Whether it is encroaching urban development, difficulty with crown land issues or adhering to the strict fisheries and oceans codes regarding streams, it is all time taken away from the production of the food necessary to feed this country. When they try to help the environment by such methods as organic farming and integrated production, both of which are good for the environment, society and the economy, are they rewarded? No. We slap more regulations on their operations.

The whole concept of sinks was hotly debated at the Kyoto negotiations. In 1999 the topic closed down talks being held in the Hague. The idea was objected to by those countries that believe we need to do something to eliminate the greenhouse gases that are being created by all of us. Canada chose to support the sinks, thereby creating a way to bypass the intent of the protocol. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister even associated the ratification of Kyoto with the importance of clean air. This is a ridiculous argument.

Kyoto is designed primarily to control CO

2

emissions. Unlike nitric oxides, sulphur dioxide and soot, CO

2

is not a pollutant. Indeed, it is the very elixir of life. It is the primary nutrient of plants, and without its warming effect earth would be stuck in a perpetual ice age. A far better way to control real pollution would be to expand upon targeted and far less expensive pollution control programs, or in other words, use some common sense.

No one seems sure what stockpiling of carbon dioxide in plants and soil eventually will do to our ecosystems. Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of fossil fuel combustion, volcanoes and rotting vegetation as well as breathing. Carbon dioxide pollution has been on the rise since humans moved away from the rural lifestyle and embraced the industrial age.

Now we are asking those in rural communities to fix the mess urban sprawl has created. Considering how we treat our farmers when they ask for assistance or how we treat our forest workers when they are attacked by foreign lobby groups, do we now have the nerve to ask them to rescue us?

In addition to asking the hewers of wood and the tillers of the land to carry the burden of stored carbons, there is also the concept of storing carbons under the sea, an idea that could have a great impact on our fish farmers. Science News magazine says that many of the proposed biological storage schemes may have short term benefits at best and some may actually spawn huge problems of their own.

If we decide to use the oceans as a large carbon reservoir, what happens to the micro-organisms called phytoplankton? These tiny creatures live near the surface of the ocean and form a broad base of the ocean's food supply. They also serve as a biological pump. They take in carbon dioxide as they grow. Those that do not get eaten carry the carbon they have absorbed to the bottom of the ocean when they die. There, if undisturbed, they form a layer that eventually turns into limestone sediment. Has anyone researched what the addition of 10%, 25% or 50% more carbon will do to this delicate balance?

As my colleagues have indicated, the Kyoto protocol is not the answer to our environmental woes. We need to address the gas emissions, not avoid them by sweeping the offending gases under the rug.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in reference to the remarks of the member opposite, one of the things that often has puzzled me in the debate around CO

2

is that we seem to miss out on methane gas from time to time. As I understand it, methane gas is perhaps 20 or 21 times more damaging than CO

2

in terms of the ozone layer and greenhouse gases.

If we look around Canada, we see all these landfills. If a landfill does not have a ducting system underneath to suck out the methane, the methane travels up into the atmosphere. It can cause incredible damage to the ozone layer. In fact in Toronto, where my riding is, there was a proposal to haul garbage to northern Ontario and put it in a big hole without any ducting or piping system to capture the methane. That methane would have risen up into the atmosphere.

I am wondering if the member opposite is aware of the technologies that can convert municipal solid waste into electricity and avoid the release of methane and whether she thinks that would be a less painful route on which to proceed.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. The city of Edmonton actually is addressing some of the concerns he has raised today.

On the subject of methane gas, we are in partial agreement. I believe that the member's government should be helping out. It should be giving grants for that kind of research. That is the key here: research and development. We need to find solutions and they need to be practical solutions.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I too was listening intently to the speech just given by the Alliance member. I am a little puzzled and I would ask her to reconcile the two points of views that I hear her putting forward.

She talks about greenhouse gas emissions as largely an urban issue and the fact that we are looking at sinks in agricultural practices as a way, in her words, to sweep it under the rug. Yet at the Kyoto protocol negotiations in Bonn, Germany, Canada was not alone. Canada was part of an umbrella group with Australia, Japan and Great Britain. We were looking at the kind of flexibility needed in order to ratify Kyoto and make it workable. Indeed, rather than pitting rural and urban Canada against each other we were looking at some kind of indication as to how we could reach those goals realistically.

Carbon sinks are not tree museums. There is an acknowledgement that we will have to figure out how to deal with this as we go along.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I did not actually hear a question, but I will address some of what was said. My understanding is that European countries signed the Kyoto agreement under the understanding that Canada was to use these sinks. That is what they are using, but just because Europe went that way does not make it right. It does not change anything that I talked about with regard to the sinks. It is the wrong way to approach this. The fear is that we will be using old growth to keep these levels up to meet the protocol. It is the wrong way to do it. We need to use common sense in this entire issue.

Yes, there are all kinds of carbon dioxide producers, including breath, but what we have to concentrate on is what is happening in the major cities in transportation. We need to look at research and development for alternative fuels. Those are the kinds of things on which we should concentrate our energy if we really want to change this world and make it better.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on the opposition motion which I would like to read again into the record. It states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, or bind Canada to its emissions reduction quotas, since:

(a) Canada’s principal economic competitor, the United States, together with most of the world’s developing countries, would not be bound by the Protocol’s emission reduction quotas;

(b) ratification of the Protocol would impose massive costs on the Canadian economy and result in severe job loss; and

(c) the Kyoto Protocol would do little or nothing to benefit the environment.

Colleagues of mine have already addressed various aspects of this. I, as finance critic, have a particular concern about the enormous devastating, not potential but very real, and concrete economic consequences of this utopian scheme should it be imposed on our economy.

Sources, including the Government of Canada's own Department of Industry, the government of Alberta, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association, and various private sector and non-partisan think tanks have all made assessments of the cost to our economy at reducing emission targets as outlined in the Kyoto protocol. All agreed the cost would be massive to our economy. It could be as much as 5% of our gross domestic product, could result in as many as 400,000 jobs lost across the country, 70,000 alone in my province of Alberta, and would deal a crippling blow to our economy's efforts to become more productive and competitive.

In the past 10 years Canada has seen its relative ranking as a productive and competitive economy slide against those of other developed countries. If we were to ratify we would be giving a free pass to countries, including Mexico, our NAFTA partner, including the People's Republic of China, the largest major developing economy in the world, to continue emitting enormous pollutants through carbon emissions where they would not be bound to the targets included in this agreement.

Colleagues of mine have already addressed these issues and others will throughout the course of the day. I must say that I turn with some great interest to my friends in the Progressive Conservative Party. I understand that they intend to vote in support of this motion. I will be interested to see if they do so. If they do it will be totally contradictory to everything they have stated on the record as a matter of policy in this place and in federal politics since the Kyoto deal became an issue in 1997.

It is shocking of the environment critic of the Tory Party, and I hear one of the Tory members who was elected as an Alliance MP heckling. I hope she is uncomfortable with the fact that she now belongs to a party which has consistently for five years supported the economy destroying policy of Kyoto.

I do not invent this position. I have looked at all of the statements of that party's critic for the environment, and in fact its leader, and its previous leader. I will ask the Tory member for South Surrey--White Rock--Langley to listen to what her own environment critic has to say. At an environment committee meeting in 1997 he said “we need drastic initiatives or policy changes in order for us to get any hope for civilization by the year 2010”.

If there is to be any hope for civilization eight years from now we need drastic initiatives or policy changes. The member for Surrey South--White Rock--Langley, the environment critic, said that five years ago. The same member also said that Canada should still proceed with its own initiatives with respect to developing its own implementation program to meet the Kyoto objectives if the deal did not go through. What he said five years ago was that if Kyoto was not agreed to, which is still a possibility that 59 countries do not ratify it, Canada ought to proceed to getting to the 1990 targets by the year 2010 anyway.

His party signed on to the recommendations, of the environment committee in that year, whereas the official opposition at that time issued a dissenting report drawing on the excellent presentation before the House at that time by the then member for Calgary Southwest.

The Tory Party signed on to recommendations, including that the Prime Minister assume responsibility of implementing Canada's climate change commitment in Kyoto. It was very clear, in black and white. It included that Quebec tax expenditures and other subsidies to the fossil fuel industry be gradually eliminated. What was meant by that? Finally, the committee recommended that the federal government initiate a discussion and consultative process to ensure efficient and full implementation of the Canadian commitment at Kyoto.

That is the record. I turn to remarks the member made in 1998 in the House. Usually when he is expostulating his environmental scaremongering he does so in the relative obscurity of committee where he does not think that sensible people like those involved in the energy industry will see where his party stands. He said that he believed categorically in the science of climate change. Well, there is enormous evidence that there is no categorical, conclusive evidence on that front.

Polyvalente La Samare in Plessisville

[Gérard Binet, Liberal, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to pay tribute to young people in the riding of Lotbinière--L'Érable. On March 21, 22 and 23, a theatre group from Polyvalente La Samare in Plessisville will be presenting its 14th production.

The Ensemble theatre company was started at the Plessisville comprehensive school in 1988 by its community and spiritual awareness department. It has nearly 100 members between the ages of 14 and 17, and its mission is to raise awareness of certain social and human realities.

The group promotes values dear to the hearts of Canadians: tolerance, respect, justice and solidarity.

The young performers are noteworthy for their leadership and the good examples they set both in school and in the community. Through theatre, song and dance, this is a generation of young people who are expressing a vision of a better society.

These young people are being trained to be responsible and committed members of their community. Congratulations to these young people of Lotbinière--L'Érable.

Agriculture

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a breakdown in communication between the federal and provincial Liberals. In Saskatchewan, the Liberal leader is saying there is indeed federal money available for drought stricken farmers.

If the federal agriculture minister's own provincial colleague maintains that there is money for farmers, why does the government continue to refuse to help? Last year the Saskatchewan government asked for $250 million in additional assistance. The government delivered a paltry $1.5 million. Considering the devastating effect of the current drought in Western Canada, this was a slap in the face to farmers.

The government's own provincial colleague declares there is federal money available. When will the agriculture minister do the right thing, the civilized thing, and deliver working agricultural programs that are adequately funded to suffering Saskatchewan farm families?

The Environment

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, ratifying the Kyoto protocol will result in energy efficiency, innovation and conservation to Canada's great economic advantage. Rather than talking about the cost of ratifying Kyoto we should act because of the increasing cost of inaction.

Current temperature levels several degrees above normal accompanied by floods and ice storms are causing economic damage to many sectors including the shipping, insurance and tourism industries.

In addition, farmers and ranchers face severe economic damage because of droughts. Droughts also lead to more frequent forest fires. Thus, the cost of inaction is overtaking the cost of ratifying Kyoto. Industry Canada reports that $7 billion in economic activities can be generated by the ratification of Kyoto. By contrast, the projections made by the petroleum association, Esso, the BCNI and the chamber of commerce are wrong and misleading.

The benefits from energy efficiency and innovation are enormous. Let us catch up with the technological progress and the economic opportunities before the cost of inaction becomes too great.

Johnny Lombardi

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the passing of a remarkable man, Johnny Lombardi, founder of CHIN radio and TV.

I knew Johnny Lombardi very well and his wonderful family. Indeed, it seemed that everyone in Toronto knew him or at least knew his name. Johnny Lombardi led the way in broadcasting in Canada in a manner that embodies the very heart of our nation. As an immigrant he understood the cultural diversity of Canada and through radio and TV gave our multicultural communities a public voice.

Johnny Lombardi built a broadcasting empire based on talent, energy, drive and passion. He was passionate about broadcasting but was equally passionate about Canada and served them both with honour and dignity. Johnny has left a legacy that will continue so that hundreds of Canadians who arrive here from all over the world can enjoy the voice of this nation for many years to come.

We express our deepest regrets to the Lombardi family.

Foreign Affairs

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on January 27, 2001, Catherine MacLean and Catherine Doré, both of Ottawa--Vanier, were hit by a drunk driver while walking on an Ottawa sidewalk. Catherine MacLean lost her life, tragically, and Catherine Doré was seriously injured.

A Russian diplomat, Andrei Knyazev, was at the wheel of the vehicle involved. We have learned today that this same individual has been found guilty and sentenced to four years detention in a Russian penal colony.

After serving his sentence, he will not be allowed to drive for three years. He must also pay the travel expenses of the members of the MacLean and Doré families who attended the trial in Moscow.

Mr. Knyazev's sentence will not lessen the loss of Ms. MacLean nor will it take away the injuries suffered by Mrs. Doré. However, I am certain that the residents of the national capital region are pleased that justice is being served.

I congratulate the Department of Foreign Affairs, the current minister and the immediate past minister for their total and constant support to the families involved in this matter.

Social Development Fund

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the UN conference on the funding of development, which the Prime Minister will attend, began yesterday in Monterrey. We are urging the Prime Minister to promote the idea of a development fund for the Americas, as are doing Mexico's president, Vicente Fox, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and the Quebec government.

On Friday, in Mexico, the Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas, or FIPA, unanimously passed a resolution to promote a social development fund to build social infrastructures that would reduce the gap between the very rich and the very poor. The support of the Bloc Quebecois and of the Quebec civil society was stressed by the Mexican delegation that made the proposal.

The resolution adopted by the parliamentarians representing 23 countries of the Americas will be sent to the Monterrey conference. The Prime Minister of Canada must seize this opportunity. The have nations of the Americas have a responsibility to work to eliminate social and economic inequalities.

Should the Government of Canada oppose the creation of this development fund, it would not show the solidarity that it is supposed to show to its partners from the Americas.

Charles Scriver

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a resident of my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Dr. Charles Scriver, who is a researcher emeritus in human genetics, was just inducted in the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame, and I am taking this opportunity to pay tribute to him here in the House.

Dr. Scriver is recognized worldwide for his active involvement in the field of applied and clinical genetics research. His work has focused on children and infants and his discoveries have been invaluable in improving the conditions of children nationally and internationally. Dr. Scriver is also the founder of the DeBelle Laboratory in Biochemical Genetics at the Montreal Children's Hospital.

It is a privilege and honour to pay tribute to such a distinguished man of science and to congratulate him on having been inducted in the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame.

Dalton Camp

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, remembering Dalton Camp is what Canadians are doing today in every nook and cranny of this country which Dalton loved so passionately and so vehemently.

A staunchly partisan figure in earlier life Dalton left partisan politics behind to become a distinguished political commentator and a respected voice for progressive wisdom. With wit and insight, eloquence and ferocity Dalton strove to bring to bear on public life values embraced by Canadians.

In an era where cynicism about politics is too common Dalton spoke in favour of public service, celebrated citizens' participation and championed vigorous public discourse. Dalton's philosophy is best remembered in his own words, “Do what you think you have to do. Do it the best you can. And never look back.”

On behalf of the New Democratic Party I extend heartfelt condolences to Dalton's family. It is a privilege to count myself and my partner, David, among his host of friends. Our grief is shared by Canadians across the country as we say farewell to Dalton.

Veterans Affairs

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the French government is reviewing plans to build a third airport for the city of Paris on the battlefields in the Somme area. The proposed airport will disturb the resting place of more than 1,200 soldiers who died fighting in the great wars.

The graves of 412 Canadian soldiers, almost one-third of the marked graves which includes a Victoria Cross recipient, will be affected by the proposed airport.

Should this plan go ahead, regardless of where the airport is located, the airport will be on sacred land where the cemeteries sit, as it will be placed over the bodies of thousands of unknown soldiers.

I am happy to hear that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is committed to fight against the airports planned location.

This plan should stop in the planning stages. I would encourage the Minister of Veterans Affairs, in co-operation with the War Graves Commission and other affected Commonwealth countries, to make this a top priority.

Urban expansion is an issue that affects cities around the world but there is only one Somme battlefield and the marked and unmarked graves of thousands of soldiers should be left to rest in peace.

Drug Safety

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago today, 15 year old Vanessa Young collapsed and died in front of her father. The Oakville teenager had been taking Prepulsid, an anti-heartburn drug that had already been linked to 80 deaths in the United States and 25 deaths in Canada.

CBC Marketplace warned about Prepulsid back in 1999. Health Canada knew about the concerns in 1996.

A coroner's inquest into Vanessa's death heard about serious problems in adverse drug reporting schemes at Health Canada. The failure to adequately inform doctors and patients about associated risks was highlighted.

The jury recommended one year ago that a joint body be created to review and monitor drug safety in Canada.

We are calling for an independent drug safety agency. The government's inaction has left a trail of deaths. The time for action has long since passed. Human lives are in the balance.