Lost his last election, in 2004, with 37% of the vote.
Citizenship Of Canada Act May 29th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, because the member alluded to that issue as well, it is in order that I address that component of the debate. Since I have not finished my debate, he was premature in judging that I would not address the other component of his debate. Only time may limit me in addressing that issue, but I intend to do it.
Let me continue my speech, Mr. Speaker. Before I was interrupted—
Citizenship Of Canada Act May 29th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments and congratulate the member for expressing with passion his belief on the legislation before us.
I have a copy of a press release from B'nai Brith Canada which says that if we adopt Motions Nos. 4 and 5 they “would make the bill more just”. B'nai Brith Canada is very careful. It believes that there is justice in this bill and that if these motions were adopted the bill would be given additional strength. I congratulate B'nai Brith Canada for giving that kind of reasoned argument and leaving the vote on this issue to the honest belief of members of parliament. There is no threat whatsoever.
I call to the attention of the House another press release from a group headed by Mr. W. Halchuk, which states that Bill C-16 is discriminatory and is based on race. It further states that if support is given to Bill C-16 consequences will be suffered and losing our seats will be more expensive than “having your nomination papers not signed”. Press releases like this from people proclaiming to champion Canadian citizenship and at the same time risking the freedom and liberty of democracy in debate could make us afraid to think. That is the very threat to Canadian citizenship.
I am an adopted citizen of Canada. I am a naturalized Canadian. My loyalty to Canada is undivided. But I believe that the proposed citizenship act, if passed, as the member for Mississauga West indicated earlier in this debate, would be a day to celebrate.
I cannot help but comment on this threat to members of parliament made by Mr. Halchuk. I would like members to listen to one more comment: “Citizenship is too important to be left up to the politicians”. What does this individual think of politicians? Like it or not, the Government of Canada and the country itself will continue to be run by politicians and we had better believe in our profession, the noble calling of politics. Threats infuse fear and they have no role in the Chamber of democracy, the House of Commons.
The member for Kitchener—Waterloo said earlier that if there is a charter violation a cost must be paid if a provision of the charter of rights and freedoms is violated. This law already exists and is subject to review by the Supreme Court of Canada. We cannot take it away. No act of parliament can take away the right of the Supreme Court of Canada to hear argument on a violation of the charter of rights and freedoms. To inject fear that it may happen is just that. It is creating a slavery of fear.
It has been argued that there is no room for appeal. Subclause 18(4) at page 8 of the bill states:
On making an order under subsection (1), the Minister shall inform the person who is the subject of the order that the order has been made—
Citizenship Of Canada Act May 29th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of my colleague. He expressed his sincere sentiments and I congratulate him for that. It is indeed a tribute to our democracy in the country, epitomized in the House of Commons.
He spoke about second class citizenship because of his feeling that there is not enough of a judicial role when citizenship may be revoked. Let me remind my colleague that citizenship at birth may not be revoked. Therefore we cannot compare citizenship by birth with citizenship acquired. By definition, what is given may be taken when the basis for it being given is proven to be false, fraud or illegal under the laws of Canada.
The reason citizenship by birth may not be revoked is that he or she is not a citizen of any other country. The naturalized citizens of Canada who have been shown, on investigation or determination by the Federal Court of Canada on the recommendation of the minister, to have violated the very laws of our country may have their citizenship revoked because there was no basis to grant it to begin with. It was done under false representation and under fraud. We must not lose sight of the presumption and the basic tenet of revocation that is based on fraud and false representation.
One cannot say that it is second class only because the process starts with the recommendation of the minister. I am a naturalized citizen of Canada and I thank Canada for the benefits given to me personally and to my family. I have four sons with my wife and they are all Canadian citizens by birth.
I would like the hon. member to consider this and comment on the fact that there is a distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship that is acquired. In terms of treatment by the court system, the leave to appeal should be available right up to the level of the Supreme Court of Canada. It is a question of trust and I will not belittle the noble calling of politics.
Natural Gas May 12th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on Motion No. 298 put forward by the hon. member for Churchill River. I thank him for bringing this matter before the House.
Indeed his concern for the environment and for the high cost of energy in some Canadian communities is truly commendable. I would however like to point the hon. member in a new direction to achieve his worthy goals. Let me explain why I cannot support the motion.
First, I share our government's belief that market forces, not government subsidies, should determine energy prices and supply without undue government involvement or bothersome regulations. This approach has served Canada well over the past decade contributing to economic growth, new jobs, increased resource royalties for provincial governments, and certainty and stability for the energy industry.
The second point of my disagreement relates to the question of federal-provincial jurisdiction. Energy distribution systems, including natural gas lines, are the responsibility of provincially regulated utilities, not the Government of Canada. While it is true some provinces have seen fit to financially support the expansion of natural gas distribution systems, others have not, including notably the hon. member's home province of Saskatchewan.
Finally, I cannot support the motion because it implies that natural gas is the only alternative to higher prices and more environmentally harmful fossil fuels. This is simply not the case.
For the past decade communities across Canada have been exploring new ways to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels, either by using energy more efficiently or by displacing fossil fuels with local renewable resources. More and more they are looking to community energy systems, networks that link environmentally sound sources of energy to space heating loads to deliver on two imperatives: the need for affordable energy and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to the global problem of climate change.
Communities are being supported in this quest by Natural Resources Canada of the Government of Canada which for several years now has been working hand in hand with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to increase awareness and use of community energy systems.
The results of this collaborative effort have been very positive. Interest in community energy systems is on the rise across Canada even in areas where natural gas is readily available. In many cases it just makes more sense economically and environmentally to develop a community energy system rather than to expand our dependence on fossil fuels.
Natural Resources Canada encourages efficiency and the use of renewable energy at all levels.
First, the individual can use current energy sources more efficiently by adopting the most efficient furnaces and keeping them well maintained and by making buildings more efficient by measures such as installing better insulation and more energy efficient windows. Individuals may also be able to use renewable energy technologies such as solar energy, wind energy or small hydro systems. The same principles can be applied at the community level where the opportunities are more diverse.
By adopting community energy systems, waste fuel from local industry or power plants can all be harnessed. By using these types of heat sources, not only are greenhouse gases reduced, but community pollution problems can also be reduced. Let me elaborate on some real examples.
Some municipalities like Charlottetown, the site of Canada's first community energy system, are burning waste wood to produce energy. This not only eliminates a waste disposal problem, it also takes advantage of a renewable energy resource. The first nations community of Grassy Narrows is using a similar approach, in this case burning wood chips harvested by band members. Other communities in the Northwest Territories and Yukon are capturing waste heat from diesel generators to provide space heating.
Another option is to use cogeneration technology to get more out of existing fossil fuel systems by combining both heat and power production.
The cities of Windsor and Sudbury have community energy systems that use this approach. Many more are jumping on the bandwagon because the systems offer benefits that are hard to ignore. They generate jobs through capital investments and keep money in the local economy by reducing the need to purchase outside energy. Moreover, they can greatly reduce or even eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, which is critically important in light of Canada's international climate change commitments.
There are many solutions to the climate change problem and all Canadians have a role to play. It is absolutely essential for governments to show leadership, including municipal governments, if Canada is to meet its Kyoto target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by the period between 2008 and 2012.
Hon. members will also be interested to know that community energy system projects are being supported through the technology early action measures initiative of the climate change action fund which was announced in the 1997 federal budget to move Canada forward in addressing climate change.
I confirm again that the federal government is very serious about meeting this target. This was made abundantly clear in the last federal budget which included more than $600 million to further our search for effective climate change solutions, including new funding of $125 million for two initiatives to help municipalities take action.
The green municipal enabling fund is a five year $25 million initiative to support cost shared energy audits and feasibility studies of projects that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air and water quality, and encourage the sustainable use of renewable and non-renewable resources.
The second initiative, the $100 million green municipal investment fund, will provide loans and loan guarantees for municipal energy efficiency measures, such as building retrofits that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Interest money that accumulates from the fund will be used to provide grants to eligible demonstration projects.
Together these funds will act as a catalyst for implementing new community energy system projects as well as other energy efficiency measures. They are expected to leverage concrete investments from municipal, provincial and territorial governments as well as the private sector.
The recent federal budget goes further by including measures to make it more attractive for the private sector to become involved in community energy systems. We have the manufacturing and processing tax rate reduction, thus lowering the tax rate on private businesses on the sale of steam. We have the capital cost allowance for district energy systems and we will be able to increase that from 4% to 8%, which means that private companies can write off their investment faster. These new budget provisions will add momentum to the growing interest in community energy systems.
In conclusion, many parts of the country do not have access to natural gas networks and the cost of bringing in distribution lines is prohibitive. Community energy systems can ensure more efficient and environmentally acceptable use of energy in these communities, while helping to keep energy dollars in the local economy.
In other areas, natural gas and electricity infrastructures are overloaded. They simply cannot keep up with the demand. Community energy systems can alleviate some of the pressure on these networks by producing electricity locally, making constructive use of rejected heat that might otherwise be wasted, or using local mill wastes to displace space heating from electricity, oil or gas.
I disagree with the motion but I commend the member for the goals and objectives of his motion. I hope he will discuss the initiative of the federal government with the leadership of his community and thereby we can go in a common direction.
Petitions May 12th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of my constituents which references Bill C-23. The petitioners wish to affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation to ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
I received the petition after the bill had passed the House. However, I would like to inform my constituents that, indeed, paragraph 1.1 of the amended legislation passed by the House states:
For greater certainty, the amendments made by this Act do not affect the meaning of the word “marriage”, that is, the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mother's Day May 12th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, this Sunday is Mother's Day. Each of us in our unique way will pay special tribute to our own mother and greet other mothers as well. We do so to celebrate the beauty and heroism of motherhood.
Our mothers carried us in their wombs and brought us into this world. They laboured to instil creativity in our minds and kindness in our hearts.
Mothers are the fountain of their children's virtues, the pillar of strength when children are in sorrow and the wellspring of inspiration when sons and daughters share their joy and success. Mothers perpetuate humanity.
This Sunday, whether our mothers have gone to the great beyond and live on in our memories or whether our mothers are in our homes now, to them we say, “I love you, Mother. I love you very much”.
Health April 13th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, constituents of Winnipeg North—St. Paul would like to know what the Canadian health care system will look like in the future and how Canadians, through their federal, provincial and territorial governments, will pay for the system.
We have yet to hear whether all health ministers in the country, at their recent meeting, came to an agreement. My constituents are not interested in federal-provincial disputes, but cry out for co-operative leadership.
Medicare remains the number one priority of all Canadians. They would like to be assured that the five principles of universality, portability, comprehensiveness, accessibility and not-for-profit public administration will continue to prevail.
We owe our constituents a duty to state where we stand on the issue. Let additional new federal funding be coupled with home care and pharmacare as vital components of a renewed medicare, to ensure its sustainability in the future. This let us pledge to Canadians.
Treasury Board April 11th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Today we are in the midst of National Volunteer Week. In the last throne speech, the Government of Canada expressed the commitment to establish a new creative partnership with the voluntary sector. What has the Government of Canada done to fulfill this commitment?
Health Care April 7th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, medicare, the crown jewel of our social programs, faces the challenges of an aging population, costly diagnostic and treatment modalities, long waiting lists, crowded emergency rooms and overburdened doctors and nurses.
We need an integrated health care system where hospital care, community care, home care, pharmacare, primary care, illness prevention and health promotion are seen as a continuum. This is best achieved within the five principles of the Canada Health Act, not by creating a private for profit system.
The Government of Canada has guaranteed more funding to renew medicare. But money alone and a renewed vision without a plan are romantic at best. A modernized plan without a renewed vision is simply rearranging the existing order of things.
May provincial and territorial governments work with the Government of Canada to effect a plan of action and achieve a renewed vision of medicare for the 21st century.
Division No. 1260 April 4th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was tied up with a constituent. I would like on this motion to vote with the government, of course.