John Herron

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my comment with respect to the question that was asked was that regardless of whether we were in the framework of the Kyoto protocol or not, the Government of Canada would have to have a comprehensive climate change strategy that would foster real reductions of greenhouse gases.

Our position is the Government of Canada has been grossly negligent over the last five years. To this moment it still has not been able to develop a provincial consensus. It has not even done its homework on an impact analysis that the Aussies and the Swedes did prior to Kyoto. We are still waiting for a sector by sector, province by province analysis. Until that homework is done, until it is proven that ratification makes sense or is even doable, then why would we want to ratify it?

It is incumbent on the Government of Canada to provide that plan. If that plan is reasonable and there is consensus by the provinces, then it should be considered. However without a plan blind ratification makes no sense. We are serving notice that we need to have the provinces on board and a plan in place.

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like perhaps to take a moment to advocate what we have advocated all along in terms of what should be done. I know that the chair of the environment committee is a strong environmental parliamentarian. It is possible, but maybe not probable, that he may not be here in the House of Commons by the year 2008 or 2012 when Kyoto becomes more binding. From that perspective, does he want the Government of Canada to ratify a document that it has no genuine interest in ever implementing?

We have been advocating a “no regrets” strategy all along by having massive tax incentives on renewable sources of energy, massive tax incentives fostering blended fuels such as ethanol, massive tax incentives for the R and D on energy efficiency initiatives as well as renewables in that regard and having a loan guarantee program with respect to the retrofit of buildings that the federal government would fund. These are things that would complement the initiatives brought forth by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities as well.

We have a simple position. We have never supported blind ratification. If we cannot demonstrate that we have a plan in place, tabled with the regulations about how that plan would be achieved, why would we go forward and agree with any accord or any agreement, regardless of whether it is Kyoto or any public policy decision that the Government of Canada may undertake?

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hallmark of the government over the past eight years has been its propensity to avoid dealing with difficult issues. We know as a point of fact that Canada is now falling behind in critical areas where we once led, whether it be the economy, the development of natural resources, leadership or stewardship on the environment. This is a very complex file. In true Liberal tradition, it has ducked the issue essentially for the last five years without really engaging Canadians on this particular issue of public policy.

I would like to tip my hat to the member for Red Deer for his leadership within the context of his own caucus in actually dedicating this supply day to this issue of public policy.

Having said that, I would have preferred if the wording of the amendment had gone toward a more constructive debate so that we could have actually held the government to account for its actions and we could have focused on the need to postpone any decision on ratification until Canada had developed a full implementation plan that would have included a detailed impact analysis.

The impact analysis has to be the starting point. We clearly need to ensure that a detailed impact analysis is done on a sector by sector and province by province basis before implementing any kind of strategy .

The Government of Canada should fully engage the Canadian public to inform them about what behavioural expectations the federal government would have on the Canadian populous at large.

Given the void created by the government in actually providing any kind of leadership on this issue, we have recently seen a myriad of cost analyses or projections produced by a vast array of interest groups and, quite legitimately.

Before I continue, Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for South Shore who carries the natural resource file.

Various stakeholder groups have been advocating at least two reasons for the need to have the analysis done. One reason is that having an impact analysis in terms of what a ratification plan or an implementation would be in terms of what cost that may have with respect to the economy is a reasonable question to ask. I do not think anybody would have any grave objection to that aspect of it.

The real aspect I would like to advocate is that the environmental community has no desire for the Government of Canada to merely ratify an accord that it clearly has no game plan in place or no genuine interest to ever implement in the future.

The challenge of climate change is a very difficult file for most countries to address but it is more complex in the Canadian context than in most other industrialized nations. Canada has a large land mass with a small population base that provides transportation challenges. We have a cold climate. We have an export driven, energy intensive economy.

When we look at our challenges we see other countries that are facing the same challenges. Let us look at Sweden. The Swedes are actually allowed to have a reduction rate significantly less than what we have here in Canada. They have done their homework and have convinced their EU partners that their country's circumstances make climate change a more arduous process than perhaps it would be in other EU based countries.

To state the obvious, the Government of Canada really did not have its act together prior to going to Kyoto in the first place.

I was a member of the delegation involved in the Kyoto process. On November 12 the federal government finally met with the provinces. It thought it was a good idea to get together with them. Regardless of what the national government may want to do, the provinces will have to implement any decision the federal government may take. We know in this federation that if we do not have that consensus, it is very difficult to implement anything, including this challenge on climate change.

The November 12 accord, I will call it, was agreed to by the provinces. There was a consensus so that the Government of Canada could at least go to Kyoto and say that we at least had our subnational governments on board. What happened? The very next morning the Globe and Mail quoted the Minister of Natural Resources as saying that may be our position.

We got off to this process in a very haphazard way that really betrayed the trust of the provinces. We went to Kyoto without any plan for implementation and really without any target or timeline. We were there to sort of take orders per se. Immediately upon return from Kyoto, Ralph Klein, the premier of the province of Alberta, said quite clearly that this accord, which was agreed to by Canada, in no way reflected the Canadian position that was established in Regina. That was said on December 12, 1997. The Alberta environment minister, Ty Lund, also said at that time that only with governments working co-operatively in partnership with industry, environmental groups and individual Canadians could we reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases and that together we could address our international commitments in such a way that no region or sector would be asked to bear an unreasonable share of the burden.

The Alberta government has actually led our nation in moving the yardstick in reducing greenhouse gases by some of the issues it has brought forward under the best efforts regime.

That is what the Government of Canada should have been doing for the last five years. It has been five years and we still do not have a provincial consensus.

I pay tribute to the member for Athabasca who asked a question in question period yesterday. It was a very simple and genuine question. He asked if the Government of Canada would agree to have a consensus reached with the provinces before ratification. In the view of the Progressive Conservative Party this is a necessary component before even considering ratification.

We know there is a lot of trepidation within the Canadian populace at large. There is a legitimate fear by individuals who live in western Canada and even in the east where there is a petrochemical industry in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland offshore. The last thing they want from the government is another national energy program. Without knowing what the rules and regulations will be on an implementation strategy and without having that impact analysis done sector by sector and province by province, it is totally legitimate for these individuals to be concerned in that way.

Industry is indeed willing to do its part. The Canadian manufacturers and exporters and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers have really stepped up to the plate to take a constructive approach as opposed to a mere rant. They have taken the position that they are willing to do their part if the government tells them what the rules are, but they need to be assured that the objectives are achievable and will not wreak havoc with their economy.

I wish to reiterate quite clearly that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has not been in favour of blind ratification without having the proper homework done, without having a provincial consensus reached in advance and without having a detailed impact analysis done industry by industry, sector by sector.

I heard the member from the Bloc's interpretation of the motion. We are taking the liberty to say that how we interpret the vote today is that we would have preferred that the homework had been done, with an impact analysis, sector by sector, province by province, and it has not, so we will be supporting the Canadian Alliance motion today.

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I can demonstrate how void the government has been when it comes to taking action on this file or actually providing any kind of leadership.

The member said that the government has been vigorous in engaging industry on this issue and wanted to reward early action taken by industry. For instance, the CME has advised Canadians that greenhouse gas emissions already have been reduced by 2% below 1990 levels. Industry has done this on its own. Could the member actually name just one regulation or one incentive whereby the government actually fostered an industrial response to greenhouse gases?

On November 2, 1999, the Minister of Natural Resources stated:

Mr. Speaker, Canada has engaged the active assistance of the provinces--

I doubt that.

--environmental organizations and the private sector all across the country in developing a Kyoto implementation plan. The work is going ahead with a great deal of vigour.

It has been three years since that statement so my question is quite simple. Could he name one regulation whereby industry actually can state that it really knows the rules of early action and engagement on this file? Just one.

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, why are we having this particular debate today? Is it because the government for the last five years has done nothing to have an informed debate on whether we are capable of meeting our greenhouse gas target under the Kyoto protocol? I have a simple question for the hon. member. All members in this Chamber should agree, before having mere blind ratification, about what the Government of Canada may or may not be getting this country into.

Would it not make sense for us to ensure to Canadians that we carry out a sector by sector analysis, a province by province analysis and that a full scale debate take place from coast to coast to coast on what behavioural expectations the national government may have upon them? Should those three analyses not be done prior to ratification?

[Education, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to welcome the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations to Ottawa as it begins its lobby week. The non-partisan organization represents 310,000 post-secondary students across Canada.

Tuition rates have increased 126% in the last decade quadrupling student debt loads, a situation worsened by the government's insufficient student loans program. The government is indenturing an entire generation of students who on average are owing $20,000 in debt before completing university.

The Progressive Conservative Party's 2000 election platform focused on the need for the federal government to be a leader in dealing with this national tragedy. Today I am tabling two motions designed to put money directly back in the pockets of students. The first calls for the elimination of the taxable status of scholarships and the second calls for a tax credit based on the repayment of Canada student loans.

Let every member of the House speak up for post-secondary education, and let us extend a very warm welcome to the students of CASA.

[Petitions, March 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today on behalf of the constituents of the riding I represent of Fundy--Royal. This petition has been duly certified by the House.

The petition calls upon the House of Commons, through Transport Canada and VIA Rail, to restore passenger train service linking Saint John and Fredericton, westward through that great town of McAdam, New Brunswick, where my dad is from, through Sherbrooke to Montreal and east through Moncton to Halifax.

The petitioners notes that this train link, which was discontinued in 1994, had 66% occupancy. Options for public transportation should be the focus of government attention, and it is my pleasure to present this petition at this time.

[Cenotaphs, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the words we just heard a few minutes ago from the hon. member for Saint John are a testament to the passion she delivers on a federal perspective in defending veterans' rights and ensuring that their needs are addressed. That is why I started my comments referring to the member for Saint John and why I want to conclude in the same manner.

The issue I am addressing is that as parliamentarians we have a federal responsibility within our ridings each November 11 to attend Remembrance Day ceremonies. We recite the words “Lest we forget” and it is in that very spirit that I am concerned particularly about the rural communities that may not have the critical mass of a tax base, or the critical mass within the local legion, to ensure that those cenotaphs are maintained. There is not a more daunting responsibility a member of parliament can have throughout the context of a year than to participate in Remembrance Day ceremonies.

I have not experienced anything more moving in this Chamber, as a member of parliament, and I trust you may recall the very incident yourself, Mr. Speaker, when in 1997 to my left stood one or two dozen World War I veterans in the galleries. I recall the baby was 99 years old and the elder statesman was around 102. They stood proud in the Chamber and I remember it as a very moving experience. As parliamentarians we must do everything we can to ensure that the legacy they put forth of freedom, human rights and peace is maintained. It is in that spirit that the motion I put forward is made.

The hon. parliamentary secretary stated that it is very broad. It is intended to be that way to afford the Government of Canada some flexibility. One of the options before the Government of Canada is a cost sharing mechanism as the member for Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore advocated. It could be a small fund into which the municipalities that are most in need could tap into. It does not have to be that substantial, perhaps just $1 million. It could be an endowment administered by veterans' organizations throughout the country. I am not putting the Government of Canada in a particular box in terms of what it actually should do.

Normally at this juncture members usually ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable. In this circumstance I will not do that because the spirit of the debate was carried out in this regard. The purpose of private members' motions or bills is to help educate the public of the need to change a perspective of public policy, to occasionally embarrass the government for not going in a certain direction, and to keep an issue alive or promote an issue to affect a change.

I will take the parliamentary secretary and the minister at their word that they have been seized with this particular issue. As opposed to making the issue votable I have accomplished what I wanted to do here this evening. I say to the parliamentary secretary when he meets with his minister that the spirit of the Chamber was clearly for the Government of Canada to do something.

We do not care necessarily how large the initial contribution is but it is a direction that we think the government should take. In remembering our veterans from coast to coast to coast, in ensuring that the living legacies and stark reminders of our wars and conflicts are maintained in a proper way and that there is a fund to be levered, we can pay tribute to not only the veterans in our own ridings but to the dozen World War I veterans who were here in 1997.

I am thankful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I thank the Government of Canada for its initial comments. Let us all collectively do the right thing and get the job done.

[Cenotaphs, February 26th, 2002]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should establish a fund to maintain local cenotaphs now in a state of abandonment or poor maintenance.

Mr. Speaker, I have the opportunity to speak on this private member's motion today and clearly if there is an issue that transcends party lines it is this one. It is a motion for parliamentarians to come together and help ensure that we have the appropriate respect for the veterans of our country and that monuments known on a daily level as cenotaphs are provided the financial resources with which to be maintained so that we can indeed honour the legacy of our veterans.

I would like to share one aspect of the issue before I go into the actual content of my motion and that is that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and its DR cousins are steadfast supporters of the contributions made by our veterans, whether they be in the first world war, the second world war, the Korean war, through a peacekeeping operation or at any time our troops have been deployed, including, obviously, to Afghanistan. One of the reasons our party has been identified so well is due to the contribution made by the deputy leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the member for Saint John, in keeping veterans' issues at the forefront. It is my privilege today to follow in her footsteps.

I rise today to speak on an issue that touches Canadians from coast to coast and forms a central part of what it means to be Canadian. A large part of what it means to be Canadian lies in our history, in the legacy of our veterans who fought in all the wars and conflicts. That legacy is continuing today as I speak. Canadian men and women are serving around the world, including taking part in a very dangerous mission in Afghanistan. At a time like this it is hard not to think about the millions of Canadian men and women who have served overseas in protecting the freedom and basic human rights of people around the world.

In the wake of September 11, we must more than ever before strengthen our resolve to be Canadians and realize that our liberties must be protected as they have been in the past, thanks to the millions of Canadian men and women who devoted themselves to the cause.

This was the spirit behind my private member's motion, which states simply:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should establish a fund to maintain local cenotaphs now in a state of abandonment or poor maintenance.

We need to remember and honour our Canadian heroes throughout the year, not only on November 11. Cenotaphs are stark reminders of the horrors of war and the courage and bravery of those who fought in the conflicts.

Several cenotaphs in Canada are in very bad shape and need urgent repair. As Canadians, every year we pledge to never forget what happened. Therefore, it is important to honour our commitment to integrate into our daily lives the legacy left to us by our veterans.

Cenotaphs are monuments to the untold sacrifices made by those who paid the ultimate price. We need to ensure that cenotaphs in communities across Canada are well maintained.

Let me tell the House about one cenotaph that is part of my own personal heritage in the community of Anagance, a small village midway between Moncton and Sussex in the riding of Fundy--Royal. Like other communities across Canada, Anagance is home to a cenotaph listing the names of local boys who gave their lives in the world wars. I will paraphrase from a document from a Moncton Times transcript. Some research was done on the names on that very cenotaph. Douglas Smith was a wireless operator who perished in Europe on his first flight when his bomber was shot down. Alden Nickerson flew 29 bombing raids before his aircraft was shot down. They are two of the names on this cenotaph that stands behind the United Church in Anagance.

The cenotaph in Anagance is among thousands that shifting populations and time threaten to forget. The Anagance cenotaph, like others across Canada, belongs to the Royal Canadian Legion and the local municipality. With dwindling membership, the local legion finds it difficult to maintain. The maintenance of cenotaphs may not be as difficult in some of our larger urban areas, the cities or larger towns, given that our population has become more suburbanized or urbanized, but I think we need to ensure that the federal government provides another vehicle through which people can lever funds to ensure that we maintain the legacy of these cenotaphs.

I would like to share with hon. members the comments of one of my constituents, Mr. Granville Jennings, the president of the Rothesay Legion. He stated in an e-mail sent to me that the reality is that there is a decline in the number of veterans to whom the government must send veterans allowance cheques. He advocates that these funds be redirected to look after their living memory, those very cenotaphs.

He also let me know that Legion magazine, which is published regularly, used to have a page or two of obituaries. However, this publication no longer lists the names of veterans who have passed away. The reason is quite simple, he said. The magazine would be nothing more than a list of veterans who have died. Within a decade there will be hardly any living veterans from World War I, World War II and the Korean war.

He said that the least we could do is have an ongoing maintenance program for cenotaphs so that the smaller legions in municipalities that do not have those funds themselves could tap into those resources and maintain their cenotaphs.

I must make one particular comment and I hope that all members of the House are listening, particularly the government member who will speak to the motion very shortly. I must say that I was completely heartened and very pleased by the language used recently by the Minister of Veterans Affairs when his department was seized with this issue in response to this private member's motion. He made a very non-partisan, very constructive reply and I would like to quote what he said in a recent interview in the New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal . He stated:

There is an eagerness on the part of all of us to look into this in a very positive way and see in what way we could participate.

He understands that those 6,000 cenotaphs from coast to coast to coast are living legacies, monuments, shrines to veterans who put the common causes of peace, freedom and human rights above all else and who died in defence of those very values.

It is the minimum that we owe our veterans. I know that many a member of parliament, particularly in rural ridings, has been approached by legions and municipalities and has been told that it is pretty tough to lever the funds to maintain these structures, the stonework in particular.

I believe the motion itself is non-threatening. It calls on the Government of Canada to establish a fund. It does not have to be a comprehensive fund to maintain all of them, but it would provide a place where municipalities or regions could make application to lever funds to maintain these structures, which is something they should do because it is the right thing.

I tip my hat to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I am very pleased with his early comments in this regard. I have another quote from a recent New Brunswick newspaper article which I will paraphrase with a little liberty. Essentially he said that if it meant he had to go to cabinet to look for new funds he was willing to consider that. I am very pleased that this is one of his interactions on a motion brought forth by the opposition. If this is a testament to how he will handle veterans issues, then I applaud his efforts.

[Species at Risk Act, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in the Group No. 3 round of amendments but before I do so it would be completely inappropriate if I did not compliment you on the extraordinary Latin you advanced in the House yesterday evening.

We in my party have a problem with four principal planks of Bill C-5. First, the compensatory regime lacks clarity. If the government had its act together it would simultaneously table the regulations.

Second, the bill would not provide for mandatory protection of critical habitat on federal lands. How does the government have the moral suasion to deal with private and provincial lands when the minister is of the opinion that it should not look after its own backyard?

Third, transboundary species such as migratory birds are not included in the bill. That is a serious mistake.

Fourth, leading to your latin lesson of yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I find it odd that we are debating whether the list of species at risk should be determined by science or politics. Social and economic implications should come into play in the recovery plan but we should not hide behind the list. Is it not ironic that the some 233 species listed yesterday are being accepted automatically by the Government of Canada but it will not have scientific listing in the future? If it was good for 233 species at one pop why would it not be good on an ongoing basis? The government has contradicted itself 233 times in the bill.

I will speak to the motions we have in play in this group. I will start with Motion No. 5, a motion proposed by the Canadian Alliance. It aims to remove the capacity of the federal government to protect aquatic species. That should be maintained under the purview of the federal government, so Motion No. 5 is not worthy of support.

The Progressive Conservative Party and our DR cousins will support Motions Nos. 7 and 8, the government technical amendments. We have no problem in that regard.

We wholeheartedly have a problem with government Motions Nos. 9 and 10. The government is trying to gut a provision the committee made that would have protected a subspecies of the endangered species community. The amendment would have used a more biologically accepted term by adding the words variety or genetically distinct. This is the language utilized by COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, which thought it was a step in the right direction.

Certain species have evolved over time and through natural selection into different species, whether different communities of wolves or the ponies that live on Sable Island. These animals have developed into genetically distinct species in their own right and their biodiversity should be maintained. The Government of Canada is removing an amendment the New Democrats, the Progressive Conservatives and a myriad of learned Liberal MPs supported. It has chosen to capitulate, gut a good provision and insult the good work of the committee.

Motion No. 14 is an amendment we have a problem with in the same regard. We will therefore not be supporting Motion No. 14.

We will not be supporting Motion No. 15. The hon. member is advocating that the phrase take social and economic implications into account. This speaks to the purpose of the act which is quite clear: to protect endangered species. We should be talking about the bill's socio-economic implications and recovery plans but we should not distract from its primary purpose.

We are on board with the government's technical amendment in Motion No. 19 which would clear up some language.

Motion No. 30 is a technical amendment which we support. We also support Motion No. 32, Motion No. 34 which is a government amendment, and Motion No. 36.

We have a serious problem with Motion No. 35. It would take back one of the principal benchmarks of the Government of Canada with respect to the listing provision that says the government must comment on whether or not species would be added within a six month time frame.

It is quite shameful that the government is gutting this amendment that was passed by members of the committee including New Democrats and Liberals. A compromise amendment was supported by the Canadian Alliance although I may want to check my facts. The government is gutting a provision it could have kept instead of capitulating to backroom bureaucrats who thought for some reason that gutting it was a better way to go. It is an insult to the democratically elected individuals who spent a lot of time at the committee level reviewing those aspects of the bill.

Motion No. 66 is the one we have a major problem with. It would change a clause that deals with enabling legislation to give the competent minister the capacity to make interim measures. It would enable the minister to make interim calls about whether or not a species was at risk. It would give ministers the capacity to protect habitat on an emergency basis. It would enable them to do these things but does not say they would have to. The government has said no, we do not want any responsibility whatsoever so we will take out the provision.

There are other amendments in the group but we in my party think Motion No. 66 is the greatest problem. The provision it proposes to change was supported in committee by members on both sides of the Chamber. It is quite sad that the government has decided to gut it.