Karen Redman

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am very heartened to hear my colleagues across the way embrace Kyoto the way they are. My hon. colleague covered the fact that basically that Canadians are in tune with the government and the government has listened to Canadians. They know what Kyoto is about, that it is good for us today and that it will be good for generations to come.

He made a very good point when he talked about workers in factories recognizing there would be a technology change of which they could be a part. Truly Kyoto could be a lost opportunity if Canada does not get in line and decide that we will be at the cutting edge of this.

Could my hon. colleague comment on some of the changes that have happened? Indeed, in the resource sector we have BP, Shell and many Canadian companies that recognize this is the way of the future. We also have Technology Partnership Canada and the Canada Foundation for Innovation and through those the government is helping facilitate the very kinds of technological advances that will lead to new jobs being kept in Canada. Could my colleague comment on that?

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I wish thank my hon. friend for his intervention. I am a little puzzled by a message that seems to be subliminally put into a lot of the questions that he and his colleagues have been posing this morning. They feel that the government is not participating fully enough in today's debate.

I have represented the government at some of the negotiations of the Kyoto protocol. Our Minister of the Environment was there, holding a significant lead role. The provincial ministers of the environment from Quebec, Alberta and Ontario were actually at the one last summer in Bonn.

Surely, the member opposite recognizes the value of participation of all members of the House. I have heard many excellent interventions, from different perspectives, by my colleagues right across Canada.

As enthusiastic as he is about ratification of the Kyoto protocol, I am somewhat puzzled by the provincial environment minister's desire to go on a different path. Surely, the kind of things he is talking about call for a pan-Canadian plan, which is exactly what the government has been consulting on with Canadians from coast to coast to coast for the last five years.

[The Environment, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a report of the Government of Canada entitled “Achieving Our Commitments Together: Climate Change Draft Plan Overview”.

[Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to raise the issue of the pertinence of my hon. colleague's comments to the YESEAA bill.

[NATO Jet Pilot Program, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and ask the House to join me in recognizing the accomplishments of a remarkable young woman from Kitchener Centre, Kareen Mamo. Kareen has recently become the first woman fighter jet pilot to graduate from NATO flying training in Canada.

Kareen grew up and attended school in Kitchener. It was through the Air Cadets that she first developed a love for flying and decided to become a pilot. Her fascination with flying landed her with military jets and she entered the four phase international NATO training program in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.

Last week, Kareen, two fellow Canadians, as well as pilots from the U.K., Denmark, Italy and Singapore joined an elite group of military jet pilots with a promotion from officer cadet to captain in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. Next, she will move to Cold Lake, Alberta where she will fly an F18 Hornet. Once that course is completed she will be only the fourth Canadian woman in 10 years to qualify as a fighter pilot.

I ask the House to join me in congratulating Kareen Mamo on her successful graduation from this elite NATO jet pilot program.

[Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am addressing my remarks on the motion to reinstate the proposed species at risk bill, which was passed in the House of Commons this past June.

It is important that we remember the success of the House in bringing together this effective piece of legislation. It is also important that we remember the thorough work done by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development that went into this piece of legislation.

The government has worked to develop legislation on species at risk for no less than nine years. There is an overwhelming amount of public support in Canada for national legislation to protect endangered species, and Canadians firmly believe that no species should become extinct because of human activity.

The species at risk bill has a broad base of support. That support includes environmental organizations, the agricultural as well as resource sectors, and the aboriginal peoples of Canada. These are not always traditional partners. When we see support from so many diverse groups and individuals we know we have done it right.

I remind hon. members that there were more than 150 consultative sessions that went into this piece of legislation. There were many motions and several drafts. Through it all we listened, we revised, we studied and then we refined.

We now have a policy that is based on what we heard. It is a proposal that makes sense. More important than anything else, not only is it good legislation, but it is doable legislation. It fits in with other laws and commitments on behalf of the government. We should be looking to move forward on this successful venture.

We must remember that this proposal is designed not only to ensure species at risk and their critical habitat are protected, but also to aid in the recovery of the habitat in the species.

This proposal is one of an overall strategy for the protection of species at risk. It is a strategy that is already a success. The reason we have species at risk in Canada is because the people on the land, the farmers, ranchers, fishers, the big resource users such as the forestry industry, are practising good management practices which are allowing species to continue to exist.

In addition to the legislation, the strategy includes stewardship, and the accord for the protection of species at risk. That accord is an agreement between the federal government, the provinces and territories.

This proposal helps to fulfil the promises that we have made under that accord, just as many of the provinces and territories have fulfilled theirs. We must not, and we will not, take less or ask less of ourselves than we did of our provincial and territorial partners.

The legislation is designed to meet the federal responsibilities under the accord. Other jurisdictions are doing their part. We have here a vital complementary component to do the work being done by other levels of government.

Canada's first peoples place a great deal of importance on this proposed act. They have made good suggestions which were incorporated into the legislation. We need their ongoing involvement, their significant commitment, as well as their knowledge to be successful. That is why the proposed species at risk bill would establish a national aboriginal council concerning species at risk.

This proposal builds on the partnership approach. It reinforces a made in Canada approach. It is strong, balanced and appropriate legislation for Canada. It emphasizes, first and foremost, a cooperative approach that respects the constitutional spirit of our country.

The proposed law is flexible enough to meet the needs of any endangered species, be it a bird, fish, animal or plant. It is flexible enough to enlist the participation of farmers, fishermen, trappers, mining companies, private landowners and each of the provinces and territories. Finally, the law ensures that each species at risk would receive the government's attention and that decisions would be made in a transparent and accountable way.

It is important to get the legislative framework in place and get on with the job. It is important to recognize our responsibilities and establish legislation. Just last week the newspapers carried a story of the spotted owls and the fact that some of them were going to be sequestered in cages over the winter because we did not have the legislation in place to help contribute to protect the species. Yet there were still forestry practices continuing on and some of the very habitat that they depend on was being cut down.

We must remember there are strong provisions in the law for protection, for sound science and for the cooperation of landowners, territories, aboriginal peoples, the resource sector and conservation organizations. Clearly we need all parties involved to make the legislation work.

The House of Commons and the standing committee have spent nearly 60 sessions on the bill. There has been much attention and much debate. Members of Parliament have spent 200 hours on the formal consideration of the bill's contents. Report stage debate took 10 separate days. Every reasonable effort has been made to accommodate diverse views.

We have the best legislation that we can design and it meets the needs of a wide variety of interests. It is time to move forward and get to work to meet our federal obligations to use our balanced approach on the ground where it can make a difference.

Part of the legislation that we are considering before the House to reinstate previous legislation also deals with Bill C-19, which is the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This is an important tool that has gone through lengthy consultations and has received consideration by the committee. The Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development is ready to deal with it. By supporting this act before Parliament we will be able to get on with that important work, to continue to refine an already important tool in the basket available to the Government of Canada. It will help ensure that environmental assessments are done in a timely fashion to ensure that we are protecting one of our most precious resources, which is our environment.

I support reinstating the proposed species at risk act as well as the environmental assessment act, and I urge all members of the House to support this important motion as we move forward in issues that matter to Canadians.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pose a question to my hon. colleague, who is the Alliance critic on the environment committee. I find his comments somewhat surprising because I know that in his heart he is an environmentalist and it is good to have his hard work on the environment committee.

This past summer, on behalf of the Minister of the Environment, I was able to make an announcement of $7.9 million into an organization called Fluxnet. It is doing the necessary scientific research to look at good agricultural practices, indeed to look at the very question the member raised in his comments, which is how we deal appropriately with carbon sinks. Clearly, the geography of Canada is somewhat unique. I commend the Minister of the Environment for taking an active and indeed a leadership role during the Kyoto protocol negotiations.

I would ask the member to comment on the fact that we have been consulting since 1997 with all of the stakeholders, including industry, some of which he referred to. Indeed, there are industries that are already ahead of the government in looking at how they can key into this new technology, as well as the new commerce and the potential of carbon trading that we are looking at.

There are four proposals put out by the Canadian government which can be picked up on the environment website. We will be coming out shortly with one of those in order to receive comments. I believe it was of the order of 2,500 people who were involved in the consultations that the member depicted as being very closed. I would see that as being fairly embracing.

I ask the member opposite, in the face of all of these efforts and the fact that I know he is a father and a grandfather, how can he justify not acting on this very important issue?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, one of the joys of being a member in the House is listening to a diversity of views. I cannot help but react to some of the comments made by my hon. colleague.

We, as members in the House, are many things. One thing I am, beside being the member of Parliament for Kitchener Centre, is the mother of four children. I take some exception when I hear my colleague opposite talk about parents being parents and being allowed to be in the home.

Would my hon. colleague comment on the fact that there are parents who wear many hats today and the role of government should be to offer the best support and the most variety of choices to parents or families who choose to have children?

As a matter of fact, the bulk of the tax cuts that this government has brought in, through good fiscal management, have been targeted at these very families with children. The government realizes that its proper role is to afford choice to families and to look at the kind of support it can provide many to people in the community who happen to be mothers or people in the workforce who are looking after aging and ailing family members.

There are a couple of inaccuracies that I would also like to correct. The hon. colleague talked about a motion that was brought forward regarding child pornography. Clearly, no member in this House would defend child pornography. I would remind my hon. colleague that the offer was made for a slight word change and he could have had unanimous consent for that motion, but his party chose to play politics with a very important issue.

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for that thoughtful question. Clearly I believe that terrorism and the rule of law is something that needs to be dealt with in the international scene. We have the United Nations and the United Nations Security Council to do that.

I know my hon. colleague and myself, as well as many colleagues on the other side, have had the opportunity to deal in international conferences representing Canada. I think back to this past month when I was in Namibia at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference and heard Canada being held out as a model in looking for international involvement and in countries looking for leadership. This can only happen in the context of a multilateral event.

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague sensed the fact that I am looking for solutions rather than problems.

Clearly September 11 showed all of us that terrorism knows no boundaries and there are no walls that we can build high enough or strong enough. It is something which we have to deal with, in partnership with the rest of the world. The United States itself acknowledged that need was there after September 11.

In the context of the United Nations and the Security Council looking for a resolution and due process, I would point out to my hon. colleague that one of the tools of terrorism throughout the world, other than just chemical weapons of mass destruction, is corruption.

A colleague in the member's own caucus was talking about the 10 richest families getting rich while people suffered. We have to deal with the rule of law and we have to protect human rights. That is something that needs to be done in an international context and we have the United Nations Security Council in which to do it.