Karen Redman

[Family Literacy Day, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Family Literacy Day is a national initiative that was created by ABC Canada in 1999. Family literacy refers to the various ways families develop and use literacy skills such as reading, writing and numeracy to fulfill daily tasks and activities. ABC Canada has done a tremendous job over the years of bringing sponsors together and raising awareness of the importance of literacy.

Across Canada, literary organizations and coalitions, as well as schools and libraries, are hosting literacy themed events such as read-a-thons, reading circles, story writing contests, and celebrity readings to raise awareness about the importance of family literacy. This year, Robert Munsch, Canada's best selling children's author, has agreed to be the honourary chair of Family Literacy Day 2003.

As a former writer and a mother of four, I would ask the House to encourage all Canadians to build and share within their families the wonderful gift of literacy.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, again I appreciate the good wishes of my colleague opposite.

There are specific advantages to being inside the Kyoto protocol because 168 countries have negotiated this. Despite the fact that the United States has not been party to the ratification of Kyoto, it continues to send people to be part of the negotiations. Therefore there are advantages for Canada being part of the Kyoto protocol.

Again I would stress that in the United States, 42 of its states have regulatory regimes which are very much in line with greenhouse gas emissions. President Bush made two major announcements; one was $4.8 billion and the other was $4.6 billion. The United States is doing something.

I would draw to the attention of my hon. colleague to the fact that the premier of Ontario, my province, stood beside Mr. Klein and vilified ratification of Kyoto until we had the hydro problems. The environment minister from Ontario could have stood right beside our Minister of the Environment because all of a sudden being green to them made economic sense. It makes economic sense across Canada and for Canadians. It will be part of the government's responsibility to ensure we implement that.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the thoughtful context with which my hon. colleague has asked the question.

Kyoto could be a missed opportunity. Ratification of Kyoto is the first step. In addition to that, as a government, we must look at the tools at our disposal, and that may be regulatory, and it may be incentives that we build into our tax system.

The next piece of the Kyoto protocol and the implementation, which is probably the more interesting piece, would be found in the budget and in the regulatory regimes that we would bring forward which would impact industry.

However, I would point out to my hon. colleague that while Canada is inside Kyoto and the United States is outside Kyoto, smog and greenhouse gas emissions do not need a visa to cross the border. So his point is well taken. That is why the governors of the eastern states have formed an agreement with the maritime provinces and they are working on reaching the kind of targets that are maintained within the Kyoto protocol in reducing those greenhouse gas emissions.

I would also point out to my hon. colleague that there are international companies, like DuPont, that have brought down their greenhouse gas emissions by 85%. There are many large international corporations that voluntarily are recognizing that this is a regime that would be worldwide. As all industries that are successful, they want to be ahead of the pack and are already moving in that direction. As the government we need to continue to facilitate that in order to make jobs viable in Canada.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House as this possibly may be the last time that I will be recognized as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.

I will begin by talking about how important Kyoto is seen in my riding of Kitchener Centre, not only for the health of the people whom I represent, but truly for the health of all Canadians. The people I represent have recognized that.

Kitchener is in southern Ontario about 100 kilometres from Toronto and we are in the Montreal-Windsor corridor.

We experienced more bad air days last summer than in the history of recording of smog days by Environment Canada, as well as a record number of days over 30°C. People in my riding recognize that the climate is changing and because we are an urban centre they recognize the kind of solution that can be held out by urban transit and by better intensification of existing infrastructure.

This is why they are so supportive of the government's continued investment in infrastructure, not only because infrastructure is important in my riding of Kitchener Centre, and indeed to large urban centres right across Canada, but because one of the cornerstones of how the people in Kitchener and indeed in the Waterloo region operate is that of partnership. We were operating in partnerships long before it became the commonly used word and the approach that it is today.

In the past two budgets the government has funded four infrastructure initiatives: a $2 billion infrastructure program, a $6 million strategic highway infrastructure program, the $2 billion Canada strategic infrastructure fund, and the $6 million border infrastructure fund. All of these funds, I am proud to say, have been recognized as having value and indeed most of them have application in my riding of Kitchener Centre.

Obviously the border infrastructure funds did not directly deal with businesses in Kitchener Centre except that by streamlining border access and ability to move goods and people across the border it made good business sense for Kitchener Centre.

Kyoto is something that the people of Kitchener recognize.

I have been told in no uncertain terms by many people, not the least of whom is the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce, that they have no desire to see the government go back into deficit. I must agree with them and my colleague who spoke previously commented on the fact that it was the good fiscal management which we demonstrated over our tenure as government that enabled us to do the kind of investment we have done through the infrastructure fund.

We are committed to continue that kind of balance in our fiscal structure as a government. That is why we have restored the $3 billion contingency reserve and the economic prudence which has been the cornerstone of allowing us to wrestle down a $43 billion deficit which we inherited, and not only move from deficit but indeed to an era of surpluses.

We have worked with the chief economists of Canada's chartered banks and three lending forecasting firms to ensure that the average private sector forecast is reasonable when used for planning purposes. We would continue to make budget decisions on a rolling two year horizon so that we would not commit to spending resources we do not have.

The people I represent have good fiscal management in their homes and do not spend more money than they take in. They expect no less from the government and we remain committed to that.

I already mentioned the infrastructure program and what a great bonus it has been to the people of Kitchener Centre and Waterloo region. For years we have also invested in technology and research and that too has had an incredible benefit, not only for creating jobs in the Kitchener-Waterloo region and across Canada, but also in finding green solutions to technological and environmental questions.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to technology partnership grants which are offered through Industry Canada. I can think of four or five industries in my region that have been able to avail themselves of technology that was on the cutting edge, that needed to be developed, and was commercially viable.

We have seen great gains, whether it is ATS, GFI, IMS and many other companies. Those are a few that come to mind when I think of companies that have been on the cutting edge of great technology. They have kept bright minds in Canada and created jobs in our community.

Research and development is one of the key investment tools that we have used in our budgets in restoring fiscal balance in Canada. We have spent in 2001-02 an estimated $4.6 billion. This is the highest level ever. In addition, we have provided $1.5 billion in investment tax credits annually to Canadian businesses in order to perform their own research and development.

Nearly $3.5 billion since 1997 has gone into the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and Genome Canada. This is good news for Canadians. We used to often hear about the brain drain. It is this kind of investment which would keep those bright minds and that fantastic technology in Canada, working for Canadians, but also creating a market for export.

Over $1.4 billion annually has been invested in university based research through the federal granting councils supporting researchers and graduate students. We have seen this kind of benefit in my region where we have the University of Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University and one of the finest community colleges in Canada, Conestoga College. These are the kinds of investments that those sectors are telling me to continue because they provide funding for graduate students.

We have looked at providing some of the costs of the overhead of providing computers and the infrastructure costs that are necessary. We are looking at a deficit of university professors that is global within the next 10 years. We need to act now and by investing in research and development we can help address that. We can help keep the best and bright minds here. We can create new technology which leads to new jobs. We can bring forward our green agenda, which is so important to the people I represent, as well as Canadians right across this fine country.

We have invested $2 billion annually on research in federal laboratories, including about $6 million for the National Research Council to support the health and safety of Canadians, as well as strengthening the regional clusters of excellence. It is important to recognize that when we work at the federal level we need to come to these solutions with a pan-Canadian point of view.

I am a great fan of working in partnership and listening to ideas, whether they are at the regional, provincial or municipal level, that help lead to the kind of solutions that are necessary.

I must tell the House that homelessness is a huge issue. Members on this side of the House brought forward this issue to the government and continue to say that it is something we care about. We said it was a federal problem and if we did not want to own the whole solution we had to provide leadership. I am proud to stand here and tell the House that the supporting communities initiatives project invested money in my region. One of the reasons it was able to invest the money was because the social planning councils locally had done all the statistical backup to justify the fact that we had urgent needs for people who were homeless in Kitchener.

Our region has 450,000 people and perhaps that does not sound huge. However, we are the largest urban centre in the Waterloo region. We had many of the homeless gravitating to downtown Kitchener. SCPI funding helped us create shelters for homeless people throughout the region. It provided services for people in other urban centres, as well as the balance between rural and urban needs.

In many ways the area that I come from poignantly represents the kind of strengths as well as the stresses and challenges that Canada is going through as a nation. We have the urban and rural pulls, as well as the fact that we are moving from a manufacturing base to a high tech sector.

We need to continue to have an urban strategy that highlights the initiatives that are important to Kitchener. The infrastructure partnerships are critical, and we have mentioned those in the Speech from the Throne. This budget would continue along the commitments that the government has made and would further strengthen communities such as Kitchener Centre.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clear the air for those who believe that the Kyoto protocol has nothing to do with pollution. The primary objective in ratifying the Kyoto protocol is to fight climate change. However, there are important additional benefits associated with our actions. Improving air quality is an important ancillary benefit.

Burning fossil fuels results in greenhouse gas emissions, but it also results in emissions of: nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds that are at the heart of smog in communities and regions right across Canada; particulate matter, which scientific and medical experts clearly link to heart and lung diseases like asthma, bronchitis and emphysema; and many more emissions, including those related to acid rain and other environmental issues.

Over the next 20 years our plan will help Canada enjoy cleaner air and more smog free days. It will help avoid premature deaths, cases of chronic bronchitis, asthma symptom days and many emergency visits. The Kyoto protocol will indeed contribute to cleaner air in Canada.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to this very important issue.

The public debate has been very useful. It really brings into focus something on which all Canadians need to focus. All sides of the House have had an opportunity to speak and I would like to hearken back for a moment to the hon. member for Red Deer who claimed at great length--and I do not have to remind anyone in the House at what length he did go on--that the action on climate change would not help address Canada's other environmental issues. On this, as well as on so much more, he simply missed the mark. I am pleased to have the opportunity to stand and correct some of this misinformation because I hear some of his colleagues repeating this misinformation.

Once again he showed Canadians why they should not trust his party on environmental issues. I could go through the work that the government is doing across the environmental agenda to point out how empty his claims truly are but, like Canadians, I will not be fooled by his focus on anything else other than the real issue. The real issue is achieving clear, timely action on climate change.

Since the hon. member is knowledgeable about science, as he went on to point out in his remarks, I am sure he will not mind if I try to help him understand why some of his fundamental points in his speech were wrong. He claimed that action on climate change would not help Canada get cleaner air. I would like to quote him. He said in the House:

Kyoto is not about those smog days in Toronto. It is not about particulate matter. It is not about all those other things that we call smog. The government conveniently has meshed those two together, and I believe the people in Toronto think that Kyoto is a solution to those smog days.

On this matter, as well as on so many more, the hon. member is just plain wrong.

Let me comment first on what causes smog so that the Alliance can be clear on the scientific facts. Then I want to discuss why the kind of inaction on climate change that the Alliance would like to see would mean more smog days. Finally I would like to point out how the “Climate Change Plan for Canada”, that the government tabled in the House, will address, not just our climate change priorities but will also make a real difference to cleaner air.

Let me start with what causes smog. Simply put, if we burn fossil fuels we get many different kinds of emissions. Nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds are two types of these emissions. These emissions can also come from other sources but scientists estimate that about 90% of nitrogen oxide emissions arise from fossil fuel combustion. If we add sunlight and heat to nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compounds we get ground level ozone. That ground level ozone is the primary ingredient of smog. The hotter it gets the more smog we are likely to suffer.

There are many other emissions as fossil fuel burns. For example, there is fine particulate matter, of which our learned colleague from Red Deer spoke. That fine particulate matter is linked to heart and lung diseases such as asthma, bronchitis and emphysema. About 35% of primary emissions of fine particulate matter is due to fossil fuel combustion. We get many more emissions, including those related to acid rain and other environmental issues, but I believe I have made my point.

I will summarize in this way. If we burn fossil fuels we get the substances that are at the heart of smog in communities and regions right across Canada. We get substances that scientific and medical experts clearly link to heart and lung diseases, and we get other contributions to other environmental concerns.

Let me go back and look at the science of climate change just for a moment. What does the consensus among scientific experts say about climate change? Their analysis and the evidence they have gathered says that as we burn fossil fuels we add to the emissions of greenhouse gases that help enable our atmosphere to trap heat. Their analysis, in fact, says that fossil fuel combustion accounts for more than 80% of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions from actions by people. That combustion happens as we use coal, oil products and natural gas in our industries. It happens as we use fossil fuels to move people and goods. It happens as we use those fuels for heat and light, as well as other uses.

What does that have to do with clean air, the Alliance members may ask. As the Alliance does so very often, it is missing the big picture, and there are two major elements in the big picture.

First, if we experience continued climate change, we will experience higher average temperatures. Add more heat from a rising average temperature to more ground level ozone, which is what we will get if the Alliance has its way, and we will have more smog. It is that simple.

The second element of the big picture that the Alliance is not getting is that clean air goals and climate change goals have one important element in common: emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Once again, it is that simple.

I would also like to correct the assertion that I heard just a few minutes ago by the members opposite saying that this was just about CO

2

. Carbon dioxide represents about 78% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon dioxide is not the only gas that contributes to climate change. There are six gases in the Kyoto basket: methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride. These other gases are important in terms of climate change because of their global warming potential.

The “Climate Change Plan for Canada” recognizes this reality even if the official opposition does not. The plan proposes for a national goal: for Canadians to contribute in a more sophisticated and efficient way as consumers and producers of energy in the world and leaders in the development of new, cleaner technologies. It recognizes that we can get more out of the energy that we use.

Let me offer some examples. The plan includes a focus on renewable energy sources, such as wind energy. Those will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will not add to the chemical mix that leads to smog.

It looks to support for clean coal technologies that will eliminate all emissions from coal. That would mean the greenhouse gas emissions and the emissions that lead to smog.

The plan recognizes the value of improving the impact of transportation on fossil fuel use. It anticipates more focus on improved urban transit, and not just urban transit in general but the use of ethanol fuel that would create fewer greenhouse gas emissions and fewer of the other emissions associated with smog and fine particulate matter.

It is the same across the board.

Canada can take action to reduce, make cleaner and more efficient our use of fossil fuels in electricity generation as well as building operations. That will help us reach our climate change goals. It will help us reach our air quality goals and address the rising incidence of asthma and other respiratory diseases.

I want to make one last point now that we have had a little bit of a science lesson.

Some people have claimed that we should do nothing about climate change because the impacts seem too far off in the future for them. They are not particularly interested in the benefits to their children or their grandchildren. I urge them to focus on the more immediate health and environmental benefits of reducing air pollution that will come with the climate change plan for Canada.

As we move forward we will be able to add other actions that will cut emissions of particulate matter. We will be able to add to those actions when we address ground level ozone. All of this means that we will, in part, generate significant health benefits for Canadians much more quickly.

Let me quote the member for Red Deer who told the House:

There has been a real skilful job of mixing health and Kyoto, of mixing pollution and Kyoto. It has been very well done. Most people really do believe that signing Kyoto will have major health results.

On that point, he is actually correct. Canadians do believe that signing Kyoto will have health results, and Canadians are right, which is why I will gladly support this motion. I urge all my colleagues on all sides of the House to support the motion.

This plan is anchored in past successes and builds on our current strengths. It is a vision of responsible, innovative and high efficiency society. These goals are achievable and Canadians will achieve them.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, December 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, Environment Canada recently received a formal complaint about the fish plant from the Conservation Council of New Brunswick. Environment Canada's policy is to follow up automatically when a formal complaint is received. A re-inspection has already been carried out.

A range of options is available to enforce subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act. The goal is to solve the problem. In this case a decision was made to warn the company and then work with the company and the provincial government to find a solution, but this is a first step and does not preclude other action.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, December 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, many questions have arisen regarding odours in the town of Lamèque, New Brunswick. Environment Canada is aware of these concerns and takes them very seriously.

The odours in Lamèque appear to be the indirect result of nutrient and organic matter being discharged into the Bay of Lamèque from a variety of sources over a period of many years. Furthermore, these nutrients, acting like a fertilizer, promote the growth of algae and other marine plants. Eventually, bacteria and organisms responsible for decomposing sediment and organic matter cause a reduction in the oxygen in the receiving waters and create odorous gases. This process is further enhanced when tides and currents are not strong enough to promote adequate flushing.

This problem appears to have intensified over the past few years due in part to warm temperatures and a lack of precipitation during the summers. Algae blooms and odours intensify with the increasing ambient temperature.

In the late 1980s it was believed that the odours were being generated by two main sources: odours from the decaying algae and exposed mud flats as described above; and odours resulting from the operation of a local fish meal plant, known as l'Association Coopérative des Pêcheurs de l'Île.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the fish meal plant installed new scrubbing equipment. Shortly after that, concerns from the public about the odours decreased significantly.

However, there was a complaint in the summer of 2001 and it was followed up by Environment Canada along with the New Brunswick department of environment as well as the local government. There was a joint survey in late September of that year. The survey confirmed a high level of organic matter and nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, in the bay along with low dissolved oxygen levels in the receiving waters. This indicated a stressed ecosystem.

The fish plant effluent analysis, although in compliance with federal guidelines insofar as screening criteria, was found to be acutely lethal to fish. Based on that information, Environment Canada took action by issuing a Fisheries Act warning letter to the company on December 7, 2001. The company was put on notice that it was in violation of the Fisheries Act.

L'Association Coopérative des Pêcheurs de l'Île acknowledged that it was discharging effluent from its fishing processing operations. The company acknowledged that it may be a contributor to the nutrient and organic loading to the bay but pointed out that other local sources were also responsible.

Nevertheless the company took steps in cooperation with our department and provincial authorities to reduce its discharge into the bay. To date, the company has carried out some in plant process changes. These pollution prevention measures include reducing water consumption, recycling water within the plant, separating solids and wastes in the processing tables rather than flushing them down the drains, and installing new screens and removal systems for fish wastes.

In the interim, the town of Lamèque is working with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on proposed projects to help minimize the odour problem. A working group with members from Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the New Brunswick environment, agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture departments and local government has been formed to assess the issues of effluent quality, odour control and algae growth in Lamèque Bay. It is normal procedure to follow up and monitor actions taken to correct a problem that has been identified.

Even though Environment Canada is working with the company to encourage a solution, this does not preclude enforcement action. Environment Canada will continue to work diligently with the province of New Brunswick to secure improved conditions in Lamèque Bay in compliance with the Fisheries Act.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address a matter of great interest to all members of the House and specifically to my hon. colleague opposite, and that is the fact that greenhouse gas emissions are indeed a global issue and not something that just an individual country needs to be concerned with.

I know that the governors of the eastern states have entered into a bilateral agreement with our maritime provinces in looking at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, 42 states have brought in regulatory regimes that are very much harmonized with the kind of initiative of reducing greenhouse gas emissions that Canada is undertaking with its provinces and territories.

I wonder if he would like to comment on the fact that indeed, as much as President Bush may have backed away from the Kyoto protocol, the states in America and Americans themselves recognize what Canadians do and that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a very important global issue.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, is this not a fascinating debate? I listened for 11 hours to my colleague across the way, the member for Red Deer, and now I hear his caucus colleagues using a false logic that, in my view, defies explanation.

I hear my colleague opposite talking about the regulatory regime that is coming into place in the United States and I hear him talking about incentives that are happening in the United States. These are the very instruments that we will use in Canada to help reach our greenhouse gas emission reductions under Kyoto and yet he uses that as an excuse to say that we ought not to ratify Kyoto when Canadians understand why we need to ratify. Quite frankly, Canadians like to breathe. They realize by reducing greenhouse gas emissions we will have better air quality, and it speaks to more than just CO

2

Our plan targets 35% ethanol and gasoline supply. This is good for farmers. The member opposite himself said that. We will stimulate new income sources for farmers as well as other sectors. For example, corn and wheat account, respectively, for 73% and 20% of the current feedstock for ethanol production. Our plan's 35% target for ethanol and gasoline will create a demand for 150 million additional bushels of corn to produce the necessary ethanol.

My hon. colleague says that we do not need regulation and that we will not be able to bring in enough incentives. Those are the kinds of arguments I hear him using for not ratifying Kyoto, when the very fact that if we look right across Canada, whether it is the Ballard Power Systems, Shell Canada or TransAlta, companies that he--