Aileen Carroll

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, indeed Canada's greenhouse gas emissions represent 2% of the global emissions. We have been very much a part of multilateral efforts and treaties that address worldwide dilemmas. We are committed to this process.

If this process is allowed to crumble, the possibility of which exists if a requisite number of signatories representing a certain percentage of the greenhouse gas emissions do not sign, we realize what it would be like to recommence a process, whether it is 2% or 20%, that is vital to our health, to our children, to our north and to all of the global ecology to which I referred.

With regard to finding some scientists who for a variety of reasons have declined to accept what is worldwide accepted science, I will listen to the hon. member pick out one or two. It goes without saying that they do not belong to the flat earth society but frankly, the preponderance of national academies of science, the top people in the world and the data is there. There are none so deaf as those who will not listen.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I just wish to say I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Kitchener--Waterloo.

The essential ingredients of engaging the threat of climate change and committing to a remedy are threefold: first, an understanding that the science is real; second, the corollary of seeing through the misinformation and hyperbole that has been employed to blur these realities; and, third, seeing the growth potential and advantages that current and future engagement of the Kyoto process presents.

The science itself is not in doubt. The conclusions that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the main national academies of science, including that of the United States, represent a broad international consensus with little serious dissent. Indeed, the latest findings of the IPCC show that the expected range of temperature change is greater than previously envisioned, that human activities are directly attributable to helping cause the climate change phenomenon and that climate change will, for the most part, have negative impact on the global ecosystem and the human race, particularly those most vulnerable and least responsible for it: Canada's Arctic, small island states and the sub-Saharan.

In Canada the effects have been marked and will become more so: more severe weather events; lowered fresh water level; droughts; sea level rise on all three coasts; longer and more intense heat waves with worse air pollution; and corresponding increase in heat related illness, to name but a few. These realities fly in the face of those who have chosen to balk at the need to address climate change and instead have elected to obfuscate and at times fearmonger with so-called economic forecasts that have no basis in research or fact.

As an example, in a major announcement made in March 2002, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce claimed “Canada's GDP would drop by up to 2.5% in 2010 under the Kyoto Protocol”, but cited no study to back up this number.

In September 2002, at the news conference to launch the “Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions”, the chamber's president made the groundless statement that Kyoto would “destroy the economy”. She cited no study to back up this claim. This is the “Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions”; some responsible, some solutions.

These dynamics underscore in some way the difficulty of communicating climate change. Sir Crispin Tickell, now at Harvard, has put it this way.

He first references those who are in the state of denial, “There are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear”. I think we can safely include therein these irresponsible naysayers who forecast doom and destruction.

He draws a comparison to the beginning of the 19th century, when everyone knew that slavery was wrong. There was a tacit conspiracy to do little or nothing about it. Too many interests were at stake. Leadership, public agitation and a few visible disasters were needed to bring slavery to an end. It also needed morality and a sense of public and private responsibility.

I think his analogy is excellent. Today as we debate the ratification of the Kyoto protocol, we are indeed encountering vested interests, but the leadership of this Prime Minister and this government is clear. We do acknowledge the need for public and private responsibility and the commitment to combat climate change. We realize the need to ratify the Kyoto protocol and thereby engage the mechanism that will help us accomplish this task.

Sir Crispin spoke of the need for public agitation as an ingredient necessary to turn a society and an economy from a routine course to a challenging new redirected course. The public agitation we are experiencing and the engagement of Canadians in the Kyoto debate is exactly what is needed.

Canadians are concerned about their country and their planet. They know we play within a global ecosystem that is seriously stressed by greenhouse gas emissions. They intend to be part of the solution and no longer part of the problem. They are not deterred by naysayers and doomsayers. They strongly support the Kyoto protocol as a logical first step to addressing the damage human activities have wrought.

As I mentioned at the outset, I would like to speak, with what time remains, on the growth potential and the advantages, as well as the economic realities of the implementation of the Kyoto protocol and our plan to achieve Canada's objective. I am indebted to the Pembina Institute for much of this research.

Under the most likely implementation scenario, as jointly developed by federal and provincial governments after extensive consultation with industry, Canada's GDP would be just 0.4% smaller with Kyoto than without. This means Kyoto would reduce Canada's projected GDP growth during the current decade from 30% to 29.5%. No province would suffer an impact on GDP greater than 0.5%. Disposable household income would be unaffected by Kyoto. Between now and 2010 Canada would create 1.26 million jobs with Kyoto, compared to 1.32 million without Kyoto. Gasoline prices would be unaffected, while natural gas prices would be 8% higher with Kyoto than without. The cost of producing a barrel of oil would rise by just a few cents. Let us keep in mind that the current cost is $25 U.S. per barrel.

The economic model that produces that scenario, as other economic models, fails to include these essential considerations.

First, the cost of not acting to protect the climate, although the costs of inaction are difficult to estimate, extreme weather events like drought and floods, projected to become more frequent if climate change continues unchecked, routinely cost Canada billions of dollars.

Second, the health co-benefits from reduced air pollution are estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Third, there are vast opportunities in technological innovation in a low carbon economy. Kyoto implementation will benefit industries specializing in energy efficient buildings, transportation and industrial equipment, as well as alternative fuels and low impact renewable energy, the world's fastest growing sources of energy.

History has shown that when faced with a major challenge and allowed flexibility in meeting it, the private and public sectors exhibit an enormous capacity for technological innovation to solve the problems more quickly and at a lower cost than forecast. Look back at the Montreal protocol on ozone, the horrors but the necessities and what happened as a result of World War II and the Apollo Space Program.

Innovation is the most fundamental driver of economic growth and the Kyoto protocol can play a major role in stimulating it.

I fear I am almost out of time but I would have also liked to have addressed the Kyoto architecture and the Kyoto mechanisms in particular, such as international emissions trading, which are only available to us as signatories and are important for the House to be cognizant of.

One last point is that the Canadian public is engaged in this debate. That is vital and it is exciting. We have their attention and we must keep it as the implementation of Kyoto will involve every one of us, and Kyoto is just the beginning.

[Justice, November 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada, with particular reference to a sentence of stoning passed on a woman in Nigeria, has been very forceful and very outspoken in expressing our strong disregard for that kind of action.

We have been very much reassured by the remarks of the President of Nigeria that the appeal will not succeed and in fact that kind of punishment will not be meted out.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Yukon our party has more questions than I have answers in that regard. Historically when people came to this place, to serve their constituencies and the people of Canada, they had to cope with the amount of information that comes when one is in charge of foreign affairs, defence, health, immigration and all of the issues. However, never has any generation of members of Parliament lived in an information driven era such as the one we live in today.

It becomes increasingly difficult as we get into this important discussion of reform. We want to enhance our committees. We want them to be able to input the process, to bring all the collective wisdom and experience that they hear from Canadians and organizations, to develop the best public policy they can. That is what should come out of committees. It is bringing information to the House where colleagues have been caught up in processes dealing with human resources development or defence.

How do we inform one another, even if we all survive the information process that the member so accurately described, to be able to, at the last post, share the fruits of our labour so that we are able to inform our colleagues of the good job we have done and why they should support us on both sides of the House in what we have brought forward. It is no small task that we have engaged.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the people have the opportunity to vote for whomever they want to at the time of the election. What we are discussing here is how a person is chosen to represent the party. Having been involved in one of those contests, as I am sure my hon. opponent has, I probably found it a tougher job and I worked harder, spoke to more people and put myself forward in more venues than I did even when I ran in the election. Largely I am comfortable with that. I am being frank, and I can say that I have always had some difficulties with affirmative action. I see the upside and yet I am concerned about the downside. I think that is factoring into this from the hon. member's perspective. I do not think I have anything more to share on that.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. First, I would say that in my experience appointments have been the exception rather than the rule. I understand why they were made in some cases, when there was an attempt on the part of the Prime Minister or other prime ministers to create a balance in gender or in cultural groups that have come to Canada so that the House reflects our diversity. I can see the motivation. I think that most likely, to be frank, it should be used as a last resort, because if we step back further from the House into the nomination process that is a very important part of what we are trying to accomplish. I would say that in my experience it has been the exception rather than the rule.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind comments and I am also grateful for the insights that he shared earlier today. I did not hear all of them, but I think he has given a good précis for me to respond to.

Once we build in an enhanced role for our committees, and once we send to committees legislation after first reading or in draft form, so that what we hear from our witnesses, the reports we study and the homework we do, which is very important to the task we have, once we have that ability to get in on the ground level, that in and of itself will diminish some of the partisanship. It will not be an easy task.

The other discussion that needs to ensue, and I did not engage it tonight because we are all trying to get in our timelines, is how committee members should be selected. Some have proposed that instead of the government House leaders it should in fact be the caucuses that should interview and talk to the members and find out what special interests and expertise people have. They would be the people to do it. I have not thought enough about that.

In many ways what we are doing here is bringing forth ideas that we hope this committee will seize upon, while admitting that we have not thought everything through. It is a very serious process and nothing should be changed until it has been thought through. Once those kinds of changes have come to the committee format, then the dynamics the hon. member has described will alter in the direction for which he is hoping.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that I take very seriously the opportunity to engage in this debate. What I only regret is that, with the pace all of us work, sometimes we do not have the time to gather all our thoughts of a number of years and present them in the House. I take the task very seriously and I consider this opportunity a privilege.

One concern I have, which leads me to conclude that parliamentary reform is very important, is the serious decline in voter turnout. During the last election we saw approximately 60% of Canadians exercise their franchise. Even worse, a lower percentage of young people are exercising their franchise. It is my belief and contention that the reason they have declined to do so is that they have stopped believing they influence the governance of their country. They do not consider that who they select and send to Ottawa will be able to give input to the process and therefore convey their convictions about public policy. That in and of itself should trigger a need to look at parliamentary reform.

After five years as a member of Parliament, I too have experienced the frustration of attempting to give input and influence that said development of public policy. From a personal level, that motivates me to join my colleagues on both sides of the House in the discussion and debate that we now have before us.

It is not an easy task. Some very renowned Canadian academics have articulated the need for parliamentary reform and proposed a methodology. In the process they have provided excellent insight into this complex and formidable task.

It cannot be done in a haphazard or incremental manner. However lodged we may be now in what appears to be an increasing, perhaps outmoded format, the process of change must be balanced. It must be interwoven. If we move too quickly in one direction, we risk altering the entire system in a way that will have an adverse effect on the desired outcome, the desired outcome being the modernization of our parliamentary process.

What do I think is key in what needs to be done? It is the need to enhance committees. It is in committees that we as MPs do our best work and work that is often disregarded.

To enhance committees, we need to see the referral of legislation after first reading. Some ministers have on occasion, if not commonly, done so in draft form. Then MPs and Canadians can develop legislation. If we wait until after second reading, the legislation has already been passed by a majority in the House in principle. Going to committee after first reading allows an engagement process. This is somewhat denied if we go there later on.

The engagement of citizens is an important factor in allowing them to understand the government agenda and to convey their public interest. These are the two ingredients of the development of good laws and public policy.

The strength of a committee is its openness in hearing from citizens and their organizations. Only when we enhance committees will we be able to find a commonly articulated level that will allow Canadians to represent a diverse country. It is not easy to find a public policy that fits all parts of this great country.

To develop that commonalty, we need openness and we need the ability to allow witnesses to truly have input. While it exists now insofar as bringing witnesses to Ottawa or taking our committees to the citizens, I do not think what they say, what we hear and what we propose is adequately incorporated into the final product.

In addition to the committee changes, I would suggest changes in the methods here in the House of Commons, because debate on the floor of the House of Commons, in my view, rarely plays such a role as committees could in the enhancement of the format.

Regarding committee membership and chairs, we certainly have had considerable discussion in recent times, as to whether or not the chair should be voted on by the members and indeed whether or not that vote should take place in secrecy. I would suggest that this too is an area in which we have to move in a measured way. That is to say, it is more important to first enhance the role of our committees than to decide whether or not we should elect a chair. While I think the latter is worthwhile, I am not at all convinced that a secret ballot is necessary. Again, at the outset a secret ballot may allow members a freedom they feel they do not now enjoy, I would certainly hope that we would evolve away from choosing secrecy as we have enhanced our committees and we see parliamentary reform in total as a move forward in the direction many of us want to see it going.

Mostly what needs to be considered is that the role of the House of Commons is twofold. First, the House of Commons controls the public purse. Second, the role of the House of Commons is to hold the government accountable. Over many years the executive branch has taken off while the House of Commons has stood still. House of Commons control over the executive is virtually limited to the draconian measure of a vote of non-confidence. The Canadian executive branch therefore wields near total power in Parliament. The Prime Minister and the cabinet make most policy decisions and in fact within the Canadian system the Prime Minister is indeed far more than primus inter pares, first among equals.

What changes can be brought about to shift power back to Parliament, bringing about a far better balanced relationship between the legislature and the executive? One proposal that I think has considerable merit is the Westminster system's concept or usage of a three-line vote. It has been proposed in a talk given by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard in another venue, but I think it is very worthwhile for this new committee on modernization to consider. The three-line vote consists of the following: a one-line vote would not be a confidence measure and members of Parliament would be free to vote as they chose; a two-line vote would include a strong policy recommendation to government members, but would still not be considered a matter of confidence; and three-line votes would be restricted to key matters such as the budget, with MPs indeed being expected to vote on party lines as it would be considered an issue of confidence in the government.

Finally, although there are many other priority items, the all important matter of control over the public purse is one of the greatest and most important powers of the House of Commons. The budget process, however, such as it is, I think is chiefly meaningless. The majority of MPs are totally confused by the estimates, part I, part II, and part III, and it is easy to get caught up in performance indicators. Instead, we need a process that is far more accessible and far more user friendly, and done not by the government but by the House of Commons. A well considered proposal, brought forward by an academic as well, recommends that the House of Commons pick two or three departments annually and do a precise and indepth review instead of endeavouring to review all departments every year. In my view, this proposal bears considerable merit and should be considered by the committee as it looks at the report we are sending to it.

The Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons has to be enhanced right from the beginning, because it is undertaking the task that we are all attempting to give input to today, as we tried to yesterday. So in my view the committee must be free to listen to Canadians in a manner that not many committees have attempted to do. If this process of modernization and reform of Parliament is not an open, public, consultative one, it is doomed to failure. It is an oxymoron. This committee, as constructed, must make itself very available to Canadians, to the young people who do not bother to vote, to the interest groups that feel they have tried to give input, unsuccessfully, to public policy development, and to the members of Parliament who think that they too could do a better job.

I commend the members of the committee to their task. While I recommend this openness and this consultative approach, I believe too that it must have a time line. It cannot be open ended. All of us are coming to a sense that changes, real changes, must be made, but they must be made in the balanced way that I believe I and other colleagues have recommended.

I have said elsewhere that when I was elected to come to Parliament and my colleagues were elected to come here and represent their constituents, we were chosen partly because of the parties we represent and partly because of many determinants. But I am of the firm belief that I was chosen to bring to the process my judgment, my critical analysis and my particular life skills. I do not feel that with the system as it now exists I am able to do that, to use them to their fullest. Indeed, at the end of three or four years we will be judged on whether we did or did not do that and that is the essence of the democracy we are discussing today.

In order to do what we have been tasked to do, we need to enhance our role in committees, we have to enhance the committees themselves, and we need to enhance this place where it is a privilege to stand and speak.

There have been other suggestions. One that has been brought forward and that we need to think about and debate, and which has been mentioned in other venues, is whether or not appointments to the Supreme Court should be reviewed by a legislative committee. From my perspective, they should not. I have a very firm belief in the separation of three powers: the judiciary, the executive and the legislature. I think we would risk slipping into the circus of our neighbours to the south when it comes to the kind of appointments to the American supreme court we have watched in the past, if we think we can bring that in and slide the appointment process across into the legislature. At the current time, it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister. Perhaps we should consider whether that prerogative should be more broadly expanded to include cabinet.

These are the kinds of issues that I think we all have the brains and talents to discuss well.

Finally, I too, as do many of my colleagues, strongly support an ethics counsellor responsible to Parliament, just one person in one office, overseeing the House, the senate and the cabinet.

[Terrorism, November 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first I was referring to the hon. member's haste rather than to the substance of the matter.

We take the substance of this very seriously. We do not have court documents. We have a newspaper article. According to what we can ascertain, the fact of the matter is the Americans triggered this just yesterday, and the United Nations is immediately acting on it.

When they list, this automatically triggers a Canadian listing. I do not think we can do more than that at this time.

[Terrorism, November 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has acted just as decisively as other nations. We have listed 366 organizations and are currently sharing that information with our international allies.

The United States just listed this organization yesterday. It has submitted the name to the United Nations. When the United Nations responds, we also will quickly trigger into our legislation exactly what it has done.

I would suggest that the hon. member keep his shirt on.