House of Commons Hansard #101 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberal.

Topics

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak to this important motion. I thank my colleague from Don Valley East for her important remarks.

I would like to add to this debate by speaking positively about the future. We have had many accusations back and forth, and that is understandable I suppose. This is, I think, the meta-issue of history, of a degradation of our climate and our planet. Never before have we been so exposed to danger for actually deteriorating human life and all life on earth.

We can recall those first Apollo pictures of the earth and the images they have created in our minds of a blue and green gem floating in, for all we know, an endless infinite universe of rock and fire. That gem is unique to our knowledge, and yet we are taking a risk with it because it is not actually a gem. It is actually only an eggshell; it is not solid. It is a tiny eggshell of blue and green over rock and fire. To think that we as a species would put at risk that extraordinary unique piece of magic floating through the universe is really an existential march of folly more than we have ever seen in society.

I am very pleased that whatever shortcomings or inadequacies the government or previous governments may have taken toward environmental degradation, that we are all coming together. This motion focuses us on the opportunity to state the absolute imperative of dealing with this in the most serious possible way.

It was interesting to hear a panel of people speaking about climate change on CBC Radio's The Current this morning after the 8:30 news. These people came from business, the environmental sector and from the scientific sector. Mr. Thomas d'Aquino, who is the CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, not generally known as an eco-freak but rather known as someone who takes a very serious business-minded approach to matters, quoted Michael Porter, the Harvard competitive guru seen as the person who has the best grasp on why competitive economies are competitive around the world.

In 1990 he was commissioned by the Mulroney government and produced a report on the competitive nature of Canada. His main recommendation was that the lack of competitiveness and productivity in the Canadian economy was because our environmental standards were too low and that northern European countries, where they had higher environmental standards, were the ones that had the most competitive economies. Companies working under that sort of regulatory and fiscal regime were more competitive and more creative. They invested more in research and development. They protected themselves, for instance, from consumer boycotts that are against environmental practices that are damaging in other countries. They created spinoff technology industries that they could sell to the rest of the world.

As the world focuses more and more on the dangers of climate change, those technologies are going to be immensely important. We in Canada should be investing in those companies, as Mr. d'Aquino was recommending, and in those technologies, so that we can lead and supply the world with what is going to become and is increasingly being seen as an absolute historical imperative.

Sir Nicholas Stern, in his report that was issued a few weeks ago, compared the vastness of the economic damage that will be done if we do not deal with climate change to being greater than that of both the first and second world war. That is the scale we are talking about. It is absolutely breathtaking and it is something that we altogether as parliamentarians must take on the responsibility of solving.

We need regulatory and fiscal powers to do that. There are two critically important principles in environmental science and in fact in the whole issue of sustainability. One is the precautionary principle. I hope all of us in this House now have gotten over whatever our hesitation may have been in the past, that we have gotten beyond the notion of questioning the science of climate change.

In terms of risk assessment and dealing with risk, the precautionary principle would cause us to act positively. The consequences of severe climate change will be catastrophic even if the chance was fairly small, but in fact it is the overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence in the world that sees this as a rapidly changing climate in historical terms, with the acceleration being caused by human activity. The precautionary principle says we must act. Now it is coming into all of our consciousness that we have not acted fast enough and we are going to have to do it together.

The other principle is polluter pay as a basic bedrock principle of environmental stewardship. We simply cannot have companies or individuals any further using the atmosphere as a toxic waste dump, and we can set the example in this country. It simply cannot happen. We know, and any economist will tell us, that if we are going to have a sound working economy, we have to internalize any negative externalities that the activities of those companies or persons cause. We simply have to cost out the price of pollution. We can call it a carbon tax or costing CO2 emissions. We can call it internalizing negative externalities. We can call it whatever we want, but the point is, it is paying for the damage that is being done as we go.

The wonderful thing about that, and we have suggested in this motion a cap and trade system, is that we can actually let the market work in a way that is most efficient and effective by costing those greenhouse gas emissions. They can be capped at a reasonable point to start and then those caps can be dropped, so that people and industry have to successively reduce them over time as they develop the technology, as they rebuild their manufacturing plants, and as they add new processes.

We can use the market to cost it and then a trading system can allow companies that can easily reduce GHGs, because of their procedures or because of their technologies, to get credit for it and to sell that credit to other companies that can take longer times perhaps to replace their capital equipment. That is a reasonable way to do it, but it can actually start accelerating very quickly.

We can also, and this is immensely important, use fiscal mechanisms to determine behaviour and incent proper behaviour. We can have tax shifting. We want to make it neutral but we can do it in a fair way. We can take away incentives that cause bad behaviour, polluting behaviour by taxing it, or removing the tax benefit and putting the tax benefits on the development of renewable energy technologies. We can use incentives and disincentives in a very effective way.

Certainly, in North America and increasingly in China and India, we know that vehicle emissions are a major cause of pollution and greenhouse gases. California has just announced the highest levels of vehicle emission standards in the world. We can go to that level. If they can do it in California, we can do it here. There is a way that we can actually do that without crippling or damaging the automobile industry and of course that is an important part of the Canadian economy. By what is called niching, we can cause automobile manufacturers to make a certain proportion of models of their automobile production low or no emission vehicles, but they can spread the cost of developing that technology across their whole manufacturing units. And over time, of course, those percentages would have to increase.

Those are some ideas for us to positively go ahead, and I look forward to comments and questions from colleagues.

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Bloc

Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC

Mr. Speaker, I liked how my Liberal colleague said that environmental standards in Canada were too low. I would like him to tell us what environmental standards he was referring to and how they could be improved in the case of the oil sands. On that point, the former Liberal minister at the time said that it was very difficult to slow down an economy that was starting up, and that in any developed country this kind of economic development could not be stopped.

In the case of the oil sands, could the member tell us what environmental standards should be raised, and how?

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is a critically important. I suggest this standard. Today we could go to zero CO2 emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, from the tar sands simply by regulation. The science is available in Canada today because of previous investments by the former Liberal government in research and development into carbon capture and sequestration. We have the technology today and the costs are manageable to go into carbon capture and sequestration on an industrial scale. This could be done immediately. That is the type of standard to which we have to look.

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right to point out that we need to work together in the House to tackle this very important issue. However, he knows that his own Liberal Party has decided to put politics ahead of real action on the environment, by working with the Bloc to drag out committee hearings on Bill C-30 for another two months. This means the clean air legislation cannot pass before the federal budget, which will obviously be a confidence vote that could mean another election.

It is one thing that the previous Liberal government did not get the job done when it had 13 years, mostly in majority as my colleague pointed out, to accomplish virtually anything it wanted. It is far worse, though, that the Liberals are trying to correct their mistake by holding up legislation that would fix the problems they created.

What does the member have to say about the roadblocks his party is putting up, for purely political reasons at committee?

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member has brought up this issue of roadblocks. In fact, we have all the legislative tools we need right now, through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, to regulate greenhouse emissions. Therefore, who is holding up what?

Second, with regard to this mantra of 13 years, 11 years in majority, I repeat the observation from my colleague, the member for Don Valley East. The Liberal government was left with deficits of $42 billion a year from the previous Conservative government. It took five years or more to get in touch with that. We have had seven or eight straight surplus budgets, with $60 billion paid down on the national debt. It put us in a position--

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member was just getting into the issue that there were certain things in this world we could not stop by passing something today and then it coming to a slamming halt. It applies to a $42 billion deficit that has to reverse over two, three, four years. It also, I assume, refers to the generation of greenhouse gases particularly, as an example the significant growth in the oil sands, which has a dramatic impact on the current and projected levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

Could the member amplify on that?

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, it takes time to develop and invest in technology, which has been done. I mentioned carbon sequestration and capture as a technology that was developed through public investment in the country, when we had the financial resources to do it. It takes time to turn it around.

When we look at project green, the 2005 Liberal budget, which had $5 billion of additional money to go in a number of directions, that built the framework and the first phase of successive years, going up to 2012, of meeting Kyoto targets.

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Brossard—La Prairie.

I am pleased to speak today to the motion addressing climate change and the Kyoto protocol, particularly because I am a member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and we have spent the last three months examining the question of oil sands development in Alberta.

We did a serious study of this, in the course of which we held 29 meetings and heard nearly 100 witnesses. As part of that committee's work I even had an opportunity to visit an oil sands development site, Fort McMurray. I was able to get a concrete idea of the scope of that development and its effects on the environment in that part of the country.

We now know clearly that accelerating the development of this resource will increase greenhouse gases exponentially, and this will take us even farther from meeting the objectives in the Kyoto protocol, which is binding on Canada as a result of its ratification on December 17, 2002.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Johanne Gélinas, told us, on January 18, it is very doubtful whether the reduction we have committed to under the Kyoto protocol can be achieved, unless the oil sands issue is considered a high priority and tackled head on. She also said that whatever measures the federal government may put in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, if the question of the oil sands is not addressed, all these efforts will have no effect, because the increase will continue exponentially.

Before proceeding, I would like to add a brief comment more directly related to Quebec. While the oil industry is said to contribute significantly to the economy of Alberta, its contribution to the economy of Quebec is less obvious. That industry alone is responsible for half of the increase in greenhouse gases since 1990.

Rising exports are causing the dollar to go up, and this in turn causes problems for the manufacturing industry as a whole. The never-ending increases in the price of fuel cost our economy dearly. In other words, what happens is a transfer of wealth from the economy as a whole to the oil industry, and the best way to remedy that problem is to make the oil companies contribute, through the tax system.

Before proceeding, I would like to remind this House of what this motion says:

That, in the opinion of this House:

(a) there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the world's climate is changing as a result of human activity and this poses the most serious ecological threat of our time;

(b) the government must reconfirm Canada’s commitment to honour the principles and targets of the Kyoto Protocol in their entirety;

(c) the government must create and publish a credible plan to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions to meet Canada's Kyoto commitments;

(d) the government must a establish a 'cap and trade' emission reductions system and regulations for industry; and

(e) the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is available immediately to launch the necessary action.

I would remind the House that the Liberal motion before us today is in many ways a duplicate of the Bloc Québécois motion, which called for an effective and equitable plan for complying with the Kyoto protocol, and was passed in the House of Commons on May 16, 2006.

At the same time, it is unfortunate that, in less than a year, two motions addressing the Kyoto protocol have been debated in this House. This is a rather clear sign that the current Conservative government refuses to recognize climate change and does not feel bound by Kyoto. These debates are necessary because the Conservative government does not get it.

During the break, I met several primary school students and the first questions they asked me were: Why doesn't the government like the Kyoto protocol?

Why does he not understand that this is about our future, and that the most important thing we have to do is protect the environment?

Citizens have also contacted me about this issue. It makes no sense to them that politicians are still debating the importance of environmental issues, because it is perfectly obvious to everyone that climate change is threatening our planet and that the environment is in trouble.

It is perfectly clear to the Bloc, and that is why we made this issue a priority years ago. It is clear to us that humans are playing a major role in greenhouse gas emissions and that we are therefore very much to blame for climate change.

That is why we recognize that we have to act immediately and that is why we are constantly pressuring the current government—as we did the former government—to take concrete action. Speeches are all well and good, but our fellow citizens are demanding action. Seventy-six per cent of Quebeckers think that the government should do whatever is necessary to meet the Kyoto targets. We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet the Kyoto targets. Period. The people know it and the Bloc Québécois knows it, but the current and former governments do not seem to be clued in.

Everyone knows that the Conservative government is against the Kyoto protocol, which is not particularly surprising, given what the current Prime Minister said in 2002 when he was leader of the Canadian Alliance. He said:

Implementing Kyoto will cripple the oil and gas industry. Workers and consumers everywhere in Canada will lose. There are no Canadian winners under the Kyoto accord.

At that time, the priorities of the Alberta member for Calgary Southwest, now the Prime Minister, were obvious. The Minister of Natural Resources is in the same camp; this is what he said as a member of the opposition on December 3, 2002:

—I will start off with a very bold statement, that Kyoto should not be ratified. It is based on uncertain science with new doubts coming to light almost daily. It is based on poor economic models which hide the serious damage that will occur to Canada's economy.

On October 9, 2002, he said:

Kyoto will damage our industry but not rescue our environment. It is the worst of both worlds. Working Canadians simply cannot afford to lose $40 billion in such a pointless exercise.

It is not hard to see where the current Minister of Natural Resources' priorities lie when he talks about “our industry” and “losing $40 billion”.

Action taken by the Conservative government proves that its newly found interest in the environment is nothing more than pretense. The government is reinstating programs that it suspended, or even abolished, when it came to power, labelling them as inefficient. The Prime Minister has never wanted to give Quebec the $328 million needed for the Government of Quebec to attain the Kyoto objectives in its territory.

By digging in its heels and rejecting the protocol, the government lost face with countries that had ratified the Kyoto protocol. It refuses to establish clear targets even though the oil industry is asking for them. I quote Suncor's Stephen Kaufman:

Our comments regarding legislative provisions were that a policy to reduce carbon monoxide must be established with specific targets for emission reductions for the entire economy.

In closing, we will support the Liberal Party's motion as long as the credible plan called for includes the demands of the Bloc Québécois, that is respect for the Kyoto targets, a territorial approach—because Quebec already has its own greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan—, establishing a carbon exchange in Montreal and the $328 million needed by Quebec to attain its objective of reducing emissions to 6% below 1990 levels.

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Before questions and comments, I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received, which is as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

February 1, 2007

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 1st day of February, 2007, at 11:36 a.m.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila-Marie Cook

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bill assented to is Bill C-3, An Act respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another Act.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry. I am having a hard time understanding her position. She mentioned in her speech that 76% of Quebeckers wanted the government to take effective measures against greenhouse gases. I wonder what her party did in 13 years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, since emission levels rose by 35% during that time. If her party really wants to take action on the environment instead of supporting endless motions, what is she willing to do? Is she willing to set partisan politics aside and support the clean air and climate change bill our government has introduced to put an end to the alarming rise in greenhouse gas emissions?

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his question. Our message is that the Bloc Québécois is recommending and asking that the government set targets so that all the stakeholders can do their part.

It is not the Bloc's idea to call for targets in order to establish a carbon exchange in Montreal, for example. I will quote Rob Seeley, vice-president, sustainability and regulatory affairs, with Albian Sands Energy Inc. This man works in the oil industry, and he says:

—as the government goes forward and makes regulations with respect to greenhouse gases, it should consider what we would call market mechanisms in these regulations. The regulations need to be appropriate, but at the end, I think industry is preferable to what we call market mechanisms that would have emissions trading, and therefore reductions in CO2 could be considered as offsets. It's another way of funding or financing these kinds of investments.

I take a great interest in everything the Minister of Natural Resources writes and says, because I am the natural resources critic. As he himself said in the Winter 2006 issue of Canadian Natural Gas, “I do believe that while the government can offer support, it is the marketplace that drives and demands—.”

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

We will continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Yukon.

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, as I think most members in the House know, climate change is occurring faster in the Yukon, the northwestern part of the Arctic, than any other part of the world. It is like the canary in a coal mine. It has very dangerous effects.

To work on that, the federal government has been funding an excellent institution, the Northern Climate ExChange. It is centred in Whitehorse but covers the entire Arctic for some programs. It does excellent work and makes suggestions on adaptation, but the Conservative government has cancelled it. It is going to let it expire on March 31, unless we hear some news. The employees are getting ready for layoffs.

I would like to know if the Bloc Québécois would support the members of the House who think it is very important to have institutions like that one which fight climate change and which do such an excellent job, with northern scientists and staff. Would the Bloc support having the funding reinstated on March 31?

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question. I am not familiar with the issue raised.

However, I can say that the Bloc Québécois will fight to bring to an end the tax breaks given to oil companies, particularly the accelerated capital cost allowance for oil sands.

In view of anticipated investments of $31 billion by 2008, my colleague surely realizes that the oil companies will be able to write off an additional $15 billion over three years and not pay taxes on it.

The Conservative government is in a hurry to set targets so that the industry and the important players can take concrete action and invest their money in tackling climate change, which has a serious impact on our environment and our entire planet.

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her thoughtful intervention in this important debate.

The reality is there is a significant change in the mix of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada particularly as it relates to the oil sands. The production of oil in the oil sands has increased dramatically, whereas in the United States it has been relatively flat and in the Middle East it has gone down. Relative to other countries, our performance on Kyoto targets relative to the targets of 6% below 1990 levels continues to grow. That is the fact, but does the member and her party believe that Kyoto is still a target worth pursuing with all of the energies that we have in the best interests of our children and grandchildren?

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I believe that the Bloc Québécois position is quite clear in this regard. We must do everything possible to achieve the objectives of the Kyoto protocol. These are attainable if the government takes concrete action to achieve real, tangible results.

In our case, this will come about with the measures recommended by the Bloc Québécois, such as the territorial approach, the carbon exchange—

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

We have now reached the time for statements by members.

The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.

TaxationStatements By Members

February 1st, 2007 / 1:55 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, as Canadians enter that much maligned time of year known as tax season, an unfamiliar sensation will accompany the process of filing one's tax returns, a feeling of relief. Canada finally has a government that recognizes the best place to keep Canadians' hard-earned money is in the pockets of Canadians, not in the hands of government.

Many new measures have come into effect that will significantly reduce the tax burden for Canadians, including: a permanent reduction in the lowest personal income tax rate; increases to both the basic personal and age credit amounts; new tax credits for children's fitness and public transit passes; the landmark decision of this Conservative government to allow income splitting for pensioners; and so much more.

Canadians should get used to the feeling of tax relief come tax time because this government, unlike the tax and spend and tax again Liberals, is committed to reducing the tax burden for hard-working Canadians.

Black History MonthStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON

Mr. Speaker, February is Black History Month. This is a time to celebrate the many achievements and contributions of black Canadians who have done so much to make Canada the culturally diverse, compassionate and prosperous nation that we know today. It is also an opportunity for the majority of Canadians to learn more about the experiences of black Canadians in our society and the vital role that community has played throughout our history.

Every year Canadians are invited to take part in festivities that commemorate the legacy of black Canadians past and present during Black History Month. This is a time to celebrate their many contributions which have allowed Canada to become the multicultural and diverse nation it is today.

Let us all join together this month and celebrate Black History Month.

The EnvironmentStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, this week an important conference on climate change is being held in Paris, where hundreds of experts on the subject will be meeting to publish a comprehensive analysis of the situation. Given the urgent need for action and the planetary challenge that climate change represents, I invite you to take part in a broad mobilization to make our environmental concerns known.

The action is simple: today, from 7:55 to 8 p.m., give the planet five minutes of respite by turning off our electrical gadgets and lights. Not only will we save electricity, but doing this will have a symbolic effect so that we can make the world's great decision-makers aware of the urgency of the situation.

I invite all members of the public to take part in this, a big initiative that calls for a very small action. The way for us to preserve our planet is to stand together and make ourselves heard. After all, this is a planetary problem, and the environment knows no borders.

Black History MonthStatements By Members

2 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Mr. Speaker, as you have heard in the House already, February is Black History Month.

Black Canadians have long been at the forefront of Canada's successes as a nation at home and abroad. Ordinary hard-working Canadians, such as the railway porters, have played a major role in the struggle for equality and black rights. Through their unions black porters were at the forefront as community leaders fighting for employment equity and human rights.

My hometown, Hamilton, has seen many important milestones for black Canadians over the years.

John C. Holland was the first African Canadian to win an award for his humanitarian work, receiving the City of Hamilton's Citizen of the Year award in 1953.

Canada's first vice-regal appointment of a person of black heritage was Hamilton's much respected Lincoln Alexander in 1985. Linc, as he is warmly known in Hamilton, was also the first black member of Parliament and Canadian cabinet minister. Black Canadians are musicians, athletes, civil rights champions, writers, bankers, politicians, workers and philanthropists.

I will be celebrating Black History Month in Hamilton. I invite all members of the House to take the time this month to remember and celebrate the achievements--

Black History MonthStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

The hon. member for Kamloops--Thompson--Cariboo.

Human RightsStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Conservative

Betty Hinton Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, Ms. Nazanin Afshin-Jam, an exceptional young Canadian woman, led an international campaign to free Nazanin Mahabad Fatehi, the Iranian teenager who was condemned to death for defending herself and her niece from attempted rape by three men.

Ms. Afshin-Jam's efforts included public rallies and speeches, international media and a worldwide petition signed by over 354,000 people.

Yesterday, thanks in large part to this international pressure, Ms. Fatehi was released from Evin prison in Iran and reunited with her family.

To quote Ms. Afshin-Jam:

Action can be taken, and the power of the individual is so strong that you can make a difference, so much so that you can have influence in saving a human life.

I hope that all colleagues join with me in congratulating Nazanin for her efforts, and that we not forget the 23 other youths currently on death row in Iran.