Karen Redman

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very intently to all of the interventions that have been made on all sides of the House.

I thank my hon. colleague opposite for what I feel was quite a thoughtful intervention. He is quite right. There are scientists on all sides of the House. My hon. colleague from Peterborough has made a very impassioned intervention supporting Kyoto and the position of the government. Truly there is mixed opinion within the scientific community.

However, more than 2,000 of the world's leading climate change scientists have contributed to the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They reported in 2001 that most of the warming observed over the past 50 years is attributable to human activity. They estimate the average global surface temperature is likely to increase by 1.4°C and 5.8°C by 2100.

It is very important to look at recent science. I know that my hon. friend was reading from epochs long past. This is a current trend which is now being observed. Not only did that panel of over 2,000 of the world's outstanding scientists on climate change make this intervention, but it was also supported by many of the prestigious scientific communities around the world. Perhaps my hon. colleague would care to comment on the data by that very prestigious scientific panel.

Also companies in the west, like DuPont, Syncrude, Suncor and British Petroleum have done things that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They have found that good environmental policy is also good economics for companies. Also we are not just talking about--

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Government Response to Petitions, November 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to five petitions.

[Hazardous Products Act, November 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to respond, on behalf of the Minister of Health, to the proposals contained in Bill C-260, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act, which was tabled as a private member's bill by the hon. member for Scarborough East.

Let me start by thanking the hon. member for his hard work and thoughtful efforts in the preparation of the legislation. I am encouraged to see that members of the House are taking action to help protect the health of Canadians.

The purpose of the bill is to help reduce the number of fires ignited by carelessly handled or discarded cigarettes, thus reducing death and injury caused by these fires.

The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs has reported that from 1995 to 1999 there were at least 14,030 fires where smokers' materials were the source of ignition. These fires caused 356 fatalities, injured 1,615 people and resulted in over $223 million worth of property damage. We need to address this issue, especially when one considers that innocent bystanders, such as firefighters and children, are very often the victims of these fires.

In fact. our government has had public health strategies in place for years to protect and educate citizens about the dangers associated with fires, including those that are ignited by cigarettes.

For example, the enforcement of the hazardous products (mattresses) regulation by Health Canada ensures that mattresses that are available in Canada meet certain flammability standards, particularly with regard to ignition by cigarettes.

Similarly, through a voluntary collaboration between Health Canada and the upholstered furniture industry, we strive to ensure upholstered furniture is less prone to cigarette ignition.

These measures, coupled with public education campaigns, have decreased the number of deaths associated with cigarette ignited fires in mattresses and in furniture.

However there is merit in finding new ways to prevent such harm to Canadians and their property. Regulating the ignition propensity of cigarettes is a natural next step forward in this campaign to protect the Canadian public against fire.

Our American colleagues are currently pursuing similar action. Proposed legislation on fire safe cigarettes is currently before the United States congress. If adopted, the bill will require that all cigarettes sold in the United States meet a prescribed fire safety standard. In fact, the State of New York has already passed a bill requiring fire safety standards to be established for cigarettes, and by July 1, 2003 all cigarettes sold in New York State will have to meet these standards.

Bill C-260 aims to reduce the number of fire related deaths in Canada, over 20% of which are the result of unattended or carelessly discarded lit cigarettes. As I have indicated, we agree that this matter is worthy of investigation.

However I do have some concern in the way the bill proposes to do this. In particular, the intent of the Hazardous Products Act is to prohibit the sale and importation of hazardous or potentially hazardous products, or to make such products reasonably safe for their intended use by regulating their sale, advertising, importation and directions for use or manufacture.

There is no known way to make cigarettes safe for their intended use. In other words, the only safe cigarette is an unlit cigarette.

Setting a performance standard under the Hazardous Products Act for safe cigarette flammability criteria would contradict the intent of this act and could also detract from the departmental message that tobacco is harmful to health.

Tobacco products are far beyond being a public hazard. Smoking is an addiction that kills. Each year tobacco takes its toll on individuals and on Canada's health care system by contributing to more than 45,000 premature deaths. This is five times more than the number of premature deaths caused by murder, alcohol, car accidents and suicides combined. Of these deaths, more than 1,000 were non-smokers who died of the effects of secondhand smoke. That is why our government has taken decisive action in the form of the Tobacco Act.

This brings me to another main concern I have about Bill C-260. The current integrated approach to tobacco control works well in Canada. With direction provided by the Tobacco Act Health Canada's tobacco control program has accomplished a great deal to date in helping to curb and to reduce tobacco use among Canadians. That is why we have become a world leader on tobacco control.

Among the programs' noteworthy accomplishments is the development and the implementation of the federal tobacco control strategy, known as FTCS. This strategy includes $560 million in funding over five years to control and curb tobacco use in Canada. The FTCS embodies our belief that the most effective way to prevent and reduce tobacco use in Canada is by adopting a comprehensive, integrated and sustained approach carried out in collaboration with all partners and directed at Canadians of all ages.

It paved the way for the development of the ministerial advisory council and opened the door to improve collaboration with the provinces on tobacco related issues. The FTCS includes a long term objective: an exploration of how to mandate changes to tobacco products and reduce hazards to health.

Sections 61 and 62 of the Tobacco Act are consequential amendments to the Hazardous Products Act, specifically inserted to exclude the advertising, sale or importation of a tobacco product from jurisdictions of the Hazardous Products Act. For this reason it is the view of the Government of Canada that regulation of the so-called fire safe cigarettes, or more appropriately referred to as low ignition propensity cigarettes, should fall under the Tobacco Act.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Scarborough East for bringing this bill forward. His private member's bill raises many valid points about the need for measures to protect Canadians from fire hazards caused by carelessly handled or discarded cigarettes and cigars.

The question at hand is how best to proceed. Though I have expressed some concerns about accomplishing this under the Hazardous Products Act I recognize the importance of the objectives he is trying to reach. I would endorse the subject matter being sent to committee for further examination to determine the best way to achieve these worthwhile objectives.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the great interest in this debate, I would ask for unanimous consent that the House continue to sit after the ordinary time of adjournment until 10 p.m. in order to consider government order Government Business No. 9.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 28th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to edify my hon. colleague opposite. He mentioned in his discussion the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. It seemed from the way I heard his comments, and I would invite him to clarify, that perhaps it was not as objective as it might have been, because of the $250 million green enabling fund which the federation dispenses on behalf of the federal government.

I point out to my hon. colleague that this is exactly the kind of partnership in implementation that is necessary to meet the greenhouse gas reductions that are part of the Kyoto protocol. In fact, that money goes to municipalities for pilot projects that can be replicated for such projects as recycling computers. I have had people from the industry say that this is a business opportunity for them. All the projects under the municipal fund need to be replicated in other municipalities. The government is taking this challenge very seriously and is asking our partners to participate.

He also talked about industry. I point out to him that Technology Partnership Canada gives repayable grants to companies such as GFI and ATS, which are in my community. They do factory conversion kits that are deal with cutting edge technology on solar panels and how that may be used in mass transit as well as vehicles. The government has put its money where its mouth is.

He also quoted his colleague from Red Deer. While I do not have Hansard in front of me, my recollection of what he said, while I listened to him go on, was that if there was a connection between the Kyoto protocol, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and health, that perhaps he and his party would have to look again at their stance.

I point out that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions will achieve the kind of clean air quality goals that Canada has. This includes reducing emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide from emitters like thermoelectric plants, refineries and pulp and paper mills.

The targets of Kyoto and the actions that will allow us to reach those targets, which the government contends are achievable in partnership with provinces, territories, municipalities and by asking Canadians as well as large emitters to do their bit, are very achievable and will have a very positive impact on a better environment and lead to a better condition for the health of Canadians.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 28th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully and with great interest to my colleague opposite. It is good to hear that he supports the stand which has consistently been taken by the government, by our Minister of the Environment and by our entire cabinet led by the Prime Minister, and this is to ratify this very important international agreement.

I know the auto sector is very big in his area and I too have that sector in my area of Kitchener Centre. Some of those companies are on the leading edge of bringing in good environmental processes in how they manufacture cars. The government also has looked at what comes out of tailpipes.

Could my hon. colleague comment on markets like California, which have very stringent tailpipe emissions, and the fact that we are looking at harmonizing these kinds of markets and doubling the market in Canada because the number of people who live in California is roughly the same as the market in Canada? If we do not ratify Kyoto, we may have a missed opportunity.

The member also mentioned the large resource sector. I also point out that these companies have been on the leading edge. Whether we look at petroleum, Syncrude or Suncor, these are the very companies that are bringing in better environmental practices to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions because they too recognize how very important this issue is, not only for Canadians and not for today, but a global issue for generations to come.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I question my hon. colleague's phrasing of what I would assume people would think is a direct quote. I have never heard the Minister of the Environment nor the leader of the government and the Prime Minister of Canada tell anyone to stick anything in their ear.

[Four Nations Cup, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Maple Leaf will be flying proudly in my constituency as Kitchener hosts the Four Nations Cup. Tonight our nation's finest women hockey players will take to the ice as Canada and the United States face off for the first time since Canada's gold medal win in Salt Lake City.

The city of Kitchener is proud to host the Four Nations Cup that will showcase four of the world's best women's hockey countries: Canada, Finland, Sweden and the U.S.A. Women's hockey has become enormously popular in Canada. The Four Nations Cup will certainly help continue the growth of women's hockey at all levels and ultimately encourage more women to play the game.

Canada is the reigning cup champion after claiming victory at last year's Three Nations Cup in Finland. Canada has won five of the six Nation Cup championships, dating back to the inaugural event in 1996.

Kitchener is looking forward to five days of fantastic hockey. I invite everyone to take advantage of this exciting opportunity to cheer on our nation's favourite team. Go Team Canada.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, we have said two things throughout this entire negotiation, which is well over five years in the making. We have said that no region will be disproportionately burdened nor will any sector be disproportionately burdened, which is why we continue to talk to industry and to our provincial counterparts.

I will point out to the hon. member opposite that Syncrude, for example, has reduced its emissions intensity by 22% since 1990 levels and aims to attain a 45% reduction. The industry understands what we are up to.