Debates of April 20th, 2005

Criminal Code

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are clearly answers in this program. We have to look at each jurisdiction and each area across this country.

As far as we are concerned, when a company is doing research in technology that money does not get repaid in one year, two years or three years. It is the development of a product. It is that product going to market. It is the whole operation of the corporate interests of this company.

If we look at the investment that we have done this year alone with Ford, with General Motors, if we look at the investment with internationals I mentioned, if we look at our BlackBerry operations and research investment there, we know that those corporations put products on the market but it might take several years, and we do not require them to pay back. But the TPC program is only a loan to the corporations. They do pay back the money eventually, but in the early years, it may be five years, six years or seven years before they are ready to pay that money back.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on February 18, I questioned the environment minister specifically about Canada giving billions of tax dollars to developing countries to in essence send taxpayers' moneys up in smoke in developing countries' smokestacks. The minister's response was unacceptable. I will quote that response today:

We will do it despite the opposition, which does not understand the link between the environment and the economy. The opposition does not understand that in global warming there is the word “global”.

Let me say that I understand what global means, but what the government is saying and what this minister was saying is this: in other words, no matter what the elected representatives of this country say, including me and including the members on this side of the House, no matter what we say, the Liberals are going to do it anyway. They are going to ignore the will of the people and the will of those elected representatives in making those decisions.

The Conservative Party does understand what will happen to Canada's economy if the Liberals fully implement Kyoto. Let me provide a little bit of background.

The Kyoto protocol, which of course was completed in December 1997 after nothing being done for several years, requires 55 countries, representing 55% of the emissions, to reduce greenhouse gases, to agree to do so. For Canada, our commitment is 6% below the 1990 level. We have to reach that by 2008-12.

It is estimated that in 2005 we must reduce our emissions by 270 to 300 megatonnes. What do those numbers mean? They mean a lot of things. They mean that this is going to hurt taxpayers a lot. There is going to be a lot of pain to reach these numbers for the Liberal government. Since 1990, in fact, because of the Liberals' inaction on this file and some growth in the economic sector of Canada's different industries, we have increased by nearly 30% our greenhouse gas emissions.

There has been no implementation by the Liberal government, no action up to this time, and now we are faced with emission problems and, quite frankly, a serious situation that, in my opinion and the opinion of many economists, is going to cripple our economy.

Recent studies actually indicate that Canadians will pay 100% more for electricity if the Kyoto plan is implemented and 60% more for natural gas. Indeed, we are already seeing an increase in gasoline prices at the pump. It is expected by some experts that we will see an 80% increase in gasoline prices as a result of the Kyoto implementation. Again, I say “ouch”. It is going to hurt a lot.

Economists say that this could even lead to a recession. Canada's buoyant economy will end up falling into the pit of recession. As a result, our economy obviously will lose many jobs and we will have serious problems.

I would like to talk briefly on what I am most concerned about. When we fall into a recession, as most countries do, the first things that are chopped are the environmental programs that have been implemented. I am concerned with that because we have a lot of problems in Canada's environment today. We need to protect and clean up our rivers. We need to clean up our lakes. We need to clean up our land sites; we have something like 30,000 contaminated sites in Canada that need to be cleaned up. There is absolutely no action on these.

I am concerned that the implementation of this Kyoto bill will actually work in reverse. Not only is it going to devastate the jobs and the economy of Canada, but it is also going to cut where we need the most action. We need action on the hands-on environment.

Even the government's own officials have admitted that the cost of Kyoto compliance will be at least $10 billion, not the original $5 billion that the Liberal government said it would cost.

My question is this. How can this government assure taxpayers that Liberal bungles will not cost us billions upon billions of dollars more and how is the government going to make sure we do not lapse into a recession?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed with my hon. colleague's comments. I found him to be a very engaging individual on the committee. This is an individual whose party is not sure from day to day whether it supports or does not support the Kyoto plan. In fact, I am sure it is a question that has caused the member and his party to suffer back spasms from all the flipping to and fro on whether it supports Kyoto.

The member and his party have no faith in Canadians. We announced on April 13 the most aggressive and detailed plan on climate change of all the G-8 countries. I point out that the government believes in a market based approach that is critical to integrating climate change conditions in the day to day decisions of Canada's citizens.

Let us take the climate fund as an example. It is a very important item in the budget implementation bill which Parliament needs to pass. It is a market based, result oriented mechanism to encourage emission reduction initiatives.

This transformative institution will probably be the most important element of our climate change plan. This fund will generate domestic emission reductions beyond any previous estimates and the amount of domestic emissions reductions will depend, of course, on the success of the fund.

We know Canadians are entrepreneurs and that they can move forward in this area. We expect Canadians will respond, in fact we are starting to see it now with all sorts of inventive ways of dealing with the issue of climate change.

The member worries about recessions. The only major recessions we have ever had in this country have been under Conservative governments, not under Liberal governments. The member may be confused. This government has had eight balanced budgets or better for the first time in the history of Canada since 1867. Canada is the only G-7 state paying off the national debt.

I have to say that I am concerned that the Conservative Party has not agreed to support a plan that would move this country forward in meeting its Kyoto commitments. In fact, on the international front the climate fund will invest internationally in recognizing Kyoto emissions reductions where credits are verifiable, not in Russian hot air.

I would also point out to the hon. member that the technology that will be developed and is being developed in this country will be used in places such as China, Japan and other places. For example, in Japan, which I am very familiar with, in terms of contaminated sites, and in the Yangtze Valley and the Guangdong region of China where coal fired plants are being used, it is our technology that will be used over there.

We are investing both at home to deal with our emission issues and abroad. I would think the member would welcome that. It supports Canadian business, technology and know-how. The Prime Minister has made it very clear from the beginning that we will not buy hot air. As I have often said in the House, we will not be buying it from the Russians or from anybody else in eastern Europe. We also will not be buying it from that party over there either.

What the member has to do is get behind us. He has to say that he has faith in Canadians and that we can move forward. This will not cripple the economy. We know that green technologies produce jobs and opportunities. It is the Minister of the Environment who said on day one that a competitive economy and the environment were not mutually exclusive. They can work together. No minister has said it better than the Minister of the Environment in terms of pushing that file forward.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand why the hon. member does not want to buy hot air over here. It is because there is none available. I, quite frankly, would suggest that the monopoly on hot air in the House is from the other side.

As far as supporting Kyoto at this stage, again with the democratic deficit what choice do we have? The Liberal government signed an international treaty binding us to terms on which we had no input.

With regard to the one tonne challenge and the things they have implemented, Canadians are running out and trying to lose weight. That is what they think the one tonne challenge means.

The Liberals are talking about a market based system. The market base will be subsidized by the government. The government will subsidize industry to implement this plan. The current rates that are set in Europe are far in excess of what the supplemental plan will be for the Liberal government.

If the member thinks that the economy is set from year to year and that it reacts from year to year on the basis of what the Liberals do, he has another thought coming. The Conservative governments in history have set the stage for the Liberal government to run us into--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Again, Mr. Speaker, the member unfortunately has it wrong. It was the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, who I know is still lurking in the background over there. In 1992, he signed onto the issue of Rio with the Rio accord.

Second, on recessions, we were the ones who in 1993 inherited a $42.5 billion Conservative debt. It is this government and this party that have moved this country forward with the support of Canadians. I would challenge anyone on that side to say otherwise. It is this government that has tapped into the entrepreneurship of Canadians.

I have more faith in Canadians than the members on the other side do. I and my colleagues on this side believe that we are going to meet our climate change responsibilities and we are going to do it because we have an effective plan. Because the Ministers of the Environment, Natural Resources and Industry moved this file forward, we have a plan that is going to work.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk about immobilizers. An immobilizer is an electronic device in motor vehicles, in cars and trucks, that keeps them from being started unless one has the proper key. About 65% of the vehicles manufactured and sold in Canada now have immobilizers.

This is something I have been working on for about the last five years. I presented a bill to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and it ended up here in Parliament. I am really glad that an announcement was made just recently that as of September 1, 2007, there will be immobilizers in all new vehicles registered in Canada. That is very exciting.

However, what I want to speak about today is the immobilizers that we are going to be approving. Will they work? We want Canadians to be safe. People rely on Canada. If Canada says that a thing is safe, if the government says that vehicle or that appliance is safe, there is a trust, or there should be.

We should make sure that what we are approving and requiring is safe and effective. There is a Canadian standard, which is one of the top standards in the world. In fact, Transport Canada officials went to Europe and spoke in favour of the Canadian standard of immobilizers because it is the best in the world. There is an inferior standard, which is the European standard. There are some manufacturers that use the European standard.

Here is what I am asking for and what I am hoping to get an answer to. Why would we approve a European standard to be used in Canada when a Canadian standard is the standard that Transport Canada was arguing for when its officials went over to Europe?

Auto crime costs Canadians about $1 billion a year. About 35 people will die this year due to an auto thief driving a stolen vehicle. It has a huge impact on our society. Hundreds of people are injured every year by thieves driving a stolen vehicle.

I have some examples. In Windsor: “Woman killed by a stolen car, a tragedy”. That was just on March 14. I have another: “High-speed crash, auto thief kills young woman”.

This example is a tragedy in Richmond, British Columbia, with a 32 year old victim. He was a youth pastor. He was a gifted pianist. He was killed by a car thief rushing through Richmond.

Another one is a tragedy in Maple Ridge. The article states that “a driver...dragged a gas station attendant seven kilometres to his death under a stolen vehicle...he said he could hear the guy screaming under the car”.

“What kind of person could do that?” said the victim's cousin. “They have to have absolutely no conscience”.

Our typical auto thief is a 27 year old male addicted to crystal meth. He is stealing the car to commit another crime and has 14 prior criminal convictions. That is from a recent study.

The people who are stealing the cars are dangerous people. We need to have immobilizers in the vehicles to protect Canadians so Canadians do not get killed.

Through attrition, as the vehicles that do not have immobilizers come off the road and these new ones come out, Canadians will be protected, so I applaud the efforts, but what I am asking is, why not use the Canadian standard that is effective? The European standard is not effective.

The Cadillac Escalade tops the list for vehicles that are being stolen. General Motors said, “While we regret any vehicle being stolen, this is clear evidence that the Cadillac Escalade is in high demand”. The Escalade comes with standard various anti-theft pieces of equipment. It comes with a European immobilizer. It is at the top of the list. It is easy to steal and that is why these people are stealing them.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, in October 2000 the council of ministers approved an extension of the road safety vision and priorities to 2010.

The renewed program features a quantitative national target, a 30% decrease in the number of motorists killed or seriously injured. The renewed program targets several program areas, such as wearing seat belts, reducing impaired driving, increased commercial vehicle safety, and improving the driving skills of young Canadians.

Jurisdictionally all levels of government are involved. At the federal level new vehicle safety standards pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act play an important role. Some of these standards relate to vehicle theft.

Vehicle theft is a serious concern for Canadians. Vehicle theft affects all of us. As insurance rates rise, everyone loses. Over 170,000 vehicles are stolen each year in Canada, more than 460 vehicles each day. According to Statistics Canada, since 1988 the rate of motor vehicle theft has grown a dramatic 71%, including over 9% in 1996 alone.

Generally, motor vehicles are stolen either for profit or for convenience. There are many innocent victims when a vehicle is stolen. The owner, the insurance company and subsequent owners who unknowingly purchase stolen vehicles or stolen vehicle parts all experience a loss. More important, theft by young offenders frequently leads to collisions resulting in serious injuries or death.

Studies funded by Transport Canada indicate that vehicle theft is a serious road safety issue resulting in approximately 20 fatalities per year.

The department has been working on several fronts to help combat vehicle theft. In addition to the introduction of immobilization systems, the department has been instrumental in setting up procedures to assist in controlling the exchange of vehicle registrations for vehicles that are imported into Canada. This precludes the registration number of a vehicle that was destroyed in a collision from being applied to a stolen vehicle.

With these procedures, it is now possible for the provinces and territories to verify whether the registration number of an imported vehicle has been taken from a destroyed vehicle.

Transport Canada has also recently introduced requirements for the vehicle identification number plate to be permanently affixed to the vehicle. This action was a result of concerns expressed by the insurance industry regarding the ease with which vehicle identification number plates can be moved from one vehicle to another. It is expected that both the procedural changes noted and the permanent plate application will assist in reducing vehicle theft for profit.

Youth vehicle theft is a significant road safety concern. Youth theft poses a significant safety risk, as young people are more likely to engage in risky behaviour.

The department's research indicates that the installation of immobilization systems, which make it difficult for the car engine to be started without the proper disabling device, will reduce vehicle theft. Thus Transport Canada has introduced, under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the requirements that new vehicles be equipped with immobilization systems by September 1, 2007.

The anti-theft requirements include the option for the manufacturers to install immobilization systems meeting either the Underwriters Laboratory of Canada or the international United Nations standard. While the Canadian standard is perceived by some to be superior, the department is of the opinion that the international standard offers equivalent vehicle theft protection.

There is a wide misunderstanding among stakeholders that there are significant differences between the two standards. There are not. This misunderstanding exists from conversations.

Mr. Speaker, I know my time is up. I look forward to discussing this issue further.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if I bought a toaster or another electrical appliance, I would know it would not electrocute me because it would have a ULC sticker on it. It is a safety standard.

It is the same with immobilizers. Canadians are trusting that when we have immobilizers, they will be effective. The European standard is not effective. That is why the Insurance Bureau of Canada does not recognize the European standard. That is why the Cadillac Escalade is being stolen. It has a European standard. Thieves can steal that type of car in seconds because it does not have an effective immobilizer.

I appreciate the speech from my colleague, but it did not answer the question. The question is, why would we use an inferior European standard? The Insurance Bureau of Canada and insurance companies right across the country are saying that it is not effective and we should not use it. Why would we permit the use of an ineffective standard? Let us go Canadian.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I did not have a chance to finish my whole speech, but allow me to do that and I think my hon. colleague will understand where I am coming from.

The two standards are not different. The misunderstanding exists as many are not aware that the international standard has been amended recently with the most stringent requirements. In addition to introducing the latest more stringent version, the department has added other requirements, thus aligning the effectiveness of the Canadian and international standards.

We are moving to have safer vehicles. I am sure that my colleague across the way will want to join us in making sure that Canadians are safe.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:52 p.m.)