John Herron

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party position has always been consistent, honest and measured. I do not think any member of the NDP wants to provide an opportunity to the federal government to ratify an accord which it has no intention of ever implementing.

I do not know why the NDP wants to support the Prime Minister in the disingenuous ratification of the Kyoto accord. An accord of this nature cannot be implemented without the active participation of the provinces. We knew that on acid rain. It is the exact same toolkit we will need to implement the Kyoto accord.

We do not support the ratification of this accord without the active participation of the provinces. We do not support the ratification of the accord without Canadians knowing what behavioural expectations their national government has for them on a day to day basis.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter some comments on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to today's debate. It is probably appropriate for us to shape this debate in a current context in terms of a lot of the speculation by other members of Parliament on this particular issue.

I must say that I was completely taken aback and shocked by the revisionist words of the former finance minister, the current member for the riding of LaSalle—Émard, concerning the Kyoto protocol itself.

At the Liberal Party convention in the province of Quebec over the weekend, he mused about the fact that the federal government was completely ill-prepared to address Canada's climate change obligations.

I find it very difficult to understand why the member for LaSalle—Émard would proclaim himself to be the promoter of technological innovation when he alone, as the finance minister, had the ability to initiate tax incentives in those very sectors that he spoke about over the course of the weekend. The member for LaSalle—Émard is the person most responsible for Canada's ill-preparedness. Those incentives he spoke about are initiatives that could have been put into place as early as 1998.

Mr. Speaker, you may be quite familiar with those incentives through the course of the debate that you had and in particular in the citations from the member for Red Deer.

We have always promoted what we call a no regret strategy, a program that would be based on tax incentives for renewable sources of energy and investments in energy efficiencies. The Tories have always promoted consumer tax incentives to foster the growth of blended fuels, such as ethanol, a world loan guarantee program for the retrofit of buildings, and those kinds of investments into energy efficiency. These are all tax measures that could have been in place for the last five years. Canada could have actually moved forward in developing a progressive climate change strategy in advance.

Mr. Speaker, you may also be aware of the fact that in 2005, as part of the Kyoto agreement, Canada is to provide the international community with demonstrative evidence that our climate change strategy is in fact on track and that emissions targets under the Kyoto protocol will in fact be achieved by 2008 and 2012. These incentives that I just spoke about and that the revisionist former finance minister spoke about last weekend needed to be in place for the last five years in order for us to hit that first benchmark.

The member for LaSalle—Émard clearly had an opportunity to actually have these no regret initiatives in place. He was in charge of the tax code. He neglected to actually put these initiatives in place. It is his fault that we are in a situation right now where parliamentarians are going to be asked to blindly ratify an accord that we are not equipped to do.

Canada is the number one emitter of greenhouse gases on a per capita basis in the industrialized world. We have a moral obligation to pull our weight for a progressive country like Canada to have a progressive climate change strategy. However I want to illustrate how ill-prepared our country was benchmarked against other developed nations.

Sweden, for instance, told its European Union partners that it had concerns about the Kyoto target that the EU was proceeding toward on the basis that it had a cold climate with a large land mass relative to a small population, with an export driven and energy intensive economy. Sweden has similar characteristics to Canada, I might add. Sweden told the EU that it would accept a target similar to what the EU was pursuing but in fact it is only 20% of the reductions that the rest of the EU is doing.

Canada is Sweden too. We have accepted some of the most arduous targets that the industrialized world could ever expect a modern industrialized country to actually accept. As I have said, we need to have a progressive climate change strategy but it has to be doable. First and foremost, we cannot implement an accord of this nature without the active participation of the provinces.

I think it might be helpful for us to take a moment to reflect from an historic perspective on how we arrived here.

I am a very proud member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. I am proud of our environmental legacy and our active record on environment, from establishing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to our world leadership on eliminating ozone depleting gases to, above all, the accord we negotiated on behalf of Canada with the United States on the acid rain protocol which resulted in a 50% reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions in power generating plants. That is tangible evidence that a consensus can be reached with the provinces. In contrast we have complete acrimony at the provincial level at this moment.

In 1988 the eighteenth prime minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney, brought the international community together on the issue pertaining to greenhouse gases.

In 1992 the Brian Mulroney government helped shape world leadership at the earth summit in Rio de Janeiro. Two conventions came out of that summit. The first initiative was for the signatories to develop legislation to protect the biodiversity in their jurisdiction.

Today Canada is still without endangered species legislation, over a decade since we were in Rio. In 10 years the government has failed to honour the first convention with respect to protecting endangered species legislation and has allowed that law to die three times on the Order Paper. We may be close to seeing a law passed in the Senate, a mediocre law I might add, on that initiative.

The second initiative in 1992 was a convention to develop a climate change strategy.

Our party might have been downsized a little the following year. However for the last nine years the Liberal Party of Canada has been the Government of Canada. For nine years, under the former finance minister and under this Prime Minister, we have not had any significant initiative brought forth to develop a climate change strategy. That is incredibly appalling.

The first initiative that ever took place, which related to climate change, occurred when the provinces finally got together and met in Regina on November 12, 1997. That led toward the Kyoto debate. At that time the provinces knew, before Canada went to Kyoto, that they had to have a consensus position pertaining to climate change. The provinces agreed to stabilization to 1990 levels of greenhouse gases by essentially 2010.

The very next morning the then minister of natural resources, the current Minister of Public Works, said that might be our position. The government broke faith with the provinces the very next day. That is a very sad illustration about how ill-prepared the government has been with respect to developing its climate change strategy.

When representatives came back from Kyoto, an immense amount of acrimony existed among the provinces. The premiers met at 24 Sussex Drive for dinner in late December or the front end of January to at least cool the water pertaining to this issue.

I want to cite one particular comment made by our former leader, the right hon. Jean J. Charest, with respect to the acrimony that existed between the federal government and the provinces pertaining to its deliberations after the Kyoto protocol. I quote from the December 12, 1997, Globe and Mail , in which Mr. Charest stated at that time:

I can't see how they will make this agreement happen without the active engagement of provincial governments, but now they've irritated them to the point where it's going to be very difficult.

He went on to say that the government had poisoned the well in terms of relations to the provinces. He also said that there was no evidence that Ottawa had the means to implement the accord under the new commitment without the active participation of the provinces. Nothing has changed since that initiative.

Since 1997, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has always said that we need to have a no regret strategy, an incentive based program, to get the progress going and not to worry about the targets and time lines initially but to see if we can get close to the Kyoto target. Instead, we have had a public relations program over the last number of weeks to try to fool Canadians that the Government of Canada has been working in a very collaborative manner.

To illustrate how wrong-handed the federal government has been in building consensus with the provinces, I will read from a letter on November 27 from the Premier of Newfoundland, Roger Grimes. He said:

The necessity of addressing climate change and our willingness to participate is not at issue. What is at issue is the divisive and deliberate manner in which the federal government has chosen to address climate change without full participation of the provinces and territories.

He went on to say:

Canada needs a plan that is based on the full and cooperative consultation with all jurisdictions--something that has not taken place to date.

Our leader, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, wrote to the Prime Minister last January and wanted to know what the federal government's intentions were with respect to ratification. The Prime Minister wrote back to the right hon. member on February 26. He said:

We have been working closely with the provinces and territories on climate change, both at the official and ministerial levels, and are collaborating with them on the analysis of these policy options.

That was penned by the Prime Minister of Canada. Why is the Premier of Newfoundland now saying that the federal government has had a deliberately divisive approach with respect to building a provincial consensus? Why are only two provinces out of the eight on board with the earlier ratification? He claimed that they were working closely with the provinces at that time? Clearly the Prime Minister's Office was not genuine with the right hon. member in these remarks.

It raises the very issue as to why we are having a vote on the Kyoto protocol? The parliamentary secretary of public works stated that this vote was not binding on the government. Then why have the vote?

I will explain why? The vote is about camouflage. It is to hide the fact that the government has no plan to implement the Kyoto protocol. It is meant to camouflage the statement that there is some form of a consensus in the country. In other words, the Parliament of Canada has spoken for early ratification of Kyoto to hide the fact that there is no provincial consensus.

I was embarrassed by the remarks made by the Minister of the Environment pertaining his working relationship with the provinces over the protocol itself. He said:

Have we agreed on everything? No, we have not. Is that so surprising?...I am hard pressed to remember many occasions when there has been unanimity of all 14 jurisdictions in the country on major issues which involved costs: constitutional reform, no; health care, no; and on this most complex of issues [or any other issue].

I can cite some particular examples where we built a consensus with the provinces. First is the environmental issue on acid rain. The Progressive Conservative Party painstakingly earned the support of every provincial and territorial jurisdiction on a bilateral basis with the result that we have an acid rain protocol where we now have a 50% reduction in SO

2

emissions from power generating plants. On environmental issues, we can do it.

Also, on trade and tax issues, we had the active participation of the provincial governments as well. That is another example of work done by the Conservative Party of Canada. We treated the provinces with respect. We saw them as partners. We knew we could not implement accords of this nature without the active participation of the provinces.

Another example is constitutional issues. I make no apology for our party's efforts regarding the constitution. Not once but twice the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada had the unanimity of the provinces leading up to the Meech Lake accord. Therefore, if we look at Meech Lake, free trade and acid rain, we can build a consensus with the provinces if we want.

This do nothing government has done what it does very well: nothing. For the last five years it has not tried to bring the provincial partners together to develop the progressive climate change strategy this country categorically needs.

I call this the camouflage debate. We will vote in Parliament to say that Parliament has spoken for early ratification, purely to camouflage the fact that the Government of Canada has no consensus with the provinces and to camouflage the fact that it still does not have an active plan.

Therefore I do not want to support an accord or a vote and play the Prime Minister's game in this regard. I do not support the blind ratification of anything, especially internationally binding agreements.

I will be very interested to hear what the former finance minister has to say on this file. I am extremely curious. I know that members of the House will ask him the following questions. If we should be investing in innovative technologies with respect to renewable sources of energy and if we want to foster growth in that sector, why did the former finance minister not use the tax code in an aggressive way to foster the use of renewable sources of energy? Why did the former finance minister not use the tax code with respect to any kind of investments of energy efficiency, such as the retrofit of buildings? Why did the former finance minister not choose to lower the excise tax on blended fuels to foster the use of blended fuels and ethanol?

That was exclusively under his purview and now we will see complete revisionism from an individual whom I call Canada's best Olympic fence sitter on just about any issue. This will be his personal best in terms of how many times he has changed his position on this issue.

Many members of the government side are saying one thing on the one hand and are going back home to their constituents and saying another thing. We know that the Minister of Health has said that she has trepidations about ratification and would not support ratification without a plan. She will have a vote. There is no plan, so one should conclude what her vote would be.

I also remember the Minister of Natural Resources making a similar comment. Above all he told the provinces that there was no time line, that we were not rushing into anything whatsoever.

We know as fact that there is no need to have ratification of this agreement at this point. We still have time to earn a consensus with the provinces. The accord does not come into place before 2003. Why is the federal government not meeting with the provinces on a first minister level and hammering out a consensus?

I have notes from provincial premiers. I quoted the Premier of Newfoundland who said he was amenable to sitting down at the table. The fact that the federal government has demonstrated disdain for working with the provinces is a particular case in point as to why there are trepidations about going forward.

I believe the role of the opposition is not just to critique. We need to propose solutions as well.

I would like to quote from our platform of November 2000. “We would foster tax incentives for renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency investments”. Tories like tax cuts and the former finance minister had an opportunity to use that initiative.

We go on to say, “We would like to foster the use of ethanol and other blended fuels by lowering the excise tax” which is another example of what the former Minister of Finance could have done.

“We would also like to have a loan guarantee program to encourage energy efficient retrofits”. A similar initiative has been proposed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. This is another example of where municipal and provincial governments are way ahead of the federal government. This government has done nothing over the last five years.

We also said that a Progressive Conservative government would lead by example in purchasing green power. There are a myriad of examples such Vision Quest, a very progressive company that produces wind power. Green power can be purchased in Calgary. The federal government has followed up on that initiative since then. Maybe some of its researchers have been perusing the odd Progressive Conservative platform on occasion.

We would also introduce provincial tax treatment in the centres for renewable sources of energy to encourage consumer and industry buy-in of clean sources of fuel and renewable clean energy.

We would also like to conclude sector by sector agreements with industry to set targets to reduce emissions, to work with industry. We have always said that we need to reward industry for early action. In fact, we even asked questions on November 2, 1999.

[Worldwide All-News Television Network, November 27th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to make some remarks with regard to Motion No. 141. The motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in conjunction [I believe that is a very co-operative approach] with the Government of Quebec and the other partners in the Francophonie, give consideration [that is a word of moderation] to the creation of a world-wide all-news television network.

I would say to the hon. member for Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier that New Brunswick is an equal partner within the Canadian context and the Francophonie. I assume that he recognizes one of those partners to be his neighbouring province of New Brunswick which is the province I reside in.

In this era of media concentration, the idea is entrenched in the Canadian psyche that the more perspectives we can have that would disseminate news and information regardless of what language they are distributed in is a positive initiative.

As a founding partner of the Francophonie, and as a representative of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada which was instrumental in the establishment of the Francophonie, my view is that this initiative deserves consideration. I think that is what the member for Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier is advocating. A prudent approach should be taken. My colleague from the Bloc sits on the standing committee on official languages. It may be a reasonable approach to have this committee study the issue itself as to whether this is the track our nation should take.

We know there are intrinsic advantages, not just from a cultural perspective but economically as well, of maintaining the French language within the international community. The Francophonie has provided us with a forum to reach out and speak to nations. Other nations do not have the same kind of inroads from a north south perspective.

As the critic on official languages for the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada this type of initiative speaks to the same spirit of the strong institution that we have in Radio Canada International. There is a level of expertise there. Perhaps there could be some form of joint venture done in conjunction with France, Quebec and New Brunswick. I am quite comfortable going down that track.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, I will be supporting the motion by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has stated that he does not need a provincial consensus to ratify Kyoto. The government knows it cannot implement the accord without the active participation of the provinces. Brian Mulroney was able to reach a consensus with the provinces on acid rain. Brian Mulroney was able to reach a consensus on free trade.

The first lesson in federal-provincial relations 101 is to get the first ministers together. The PM said that it was not a bad strategy to receive a premier who has asked to be seen. Why is it a good strategy to meet with two premiers when 13 leaders are demanding a first ministers meeting?

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that a lot of this debate, for individuals who are not involved in the parliamentary process on a day to day basis, may be seen to be very much inside baseball. They do not necessarily know what we are concerned about.

If there is one issue of parliamentary reform that needs to be addressed it is restoring the power of the purse. That is what we are here to do to a large degree, to keep the government to account. It is up to the parliamentarians to keep the government in check with respect to the power of the purse.

Last spring, with only one single vote, without even a debate, we deemed nearly $160 billion of supply. That is incredibly shameful. We need to ensure that ministers know what is going on in their own departments. We have a proposal that would address that particular issue. House of Commons rules regarding supply must be changed. For example, in the period between March and June of each year, a fixed number of hours, say 160 hours, 40 sittings at 4 hours, Monday to Thursday, mainly in the evenings, would be spent in committee of the whole. The estimates of four departments and agencies, to be determined by the opposition, would be examined with no time limit and in any one case the response of the ministers would be required to defend or explain their spending estimates.

This would remove any incentive for the government to pressure committees not to meet on estimates. It would leave in place the provision for committees to examine estimates should they wish. It would require all ministers to prepare for examination because they would not know until the last minute if they were being summoned to the committee of the whole. It would provide for televised viewing, as was mentioned by the member for Peterborough.

The role of parliamentarians needs to be enhanced and the first place to do that is here, not in this democracy by press conference that is done outside the chamber. All ministers in the executive branch are responsible to Parliament. This is where all new initiatives should begin and be disseminated. We have a moral obligation to be informed on actions of the Government of Canada. Without that firsthand interaction with the ministers it simply cannot take place.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to state for the record that I know the member for Peterborough generally wants to be a steward for increasing the parliamentary process. I would be comfortable with both of the suggestions he made.

The point with respect to televising committee meetings indeed has merit as does the capacity to define a more flexible situation so that those committees can travel to get a perspective from a regional basis on proposed Government of Canada legislation.

I listened to the hon. House leader's so-called parliamentary reform initiatives. The initiatives would essentially make it easier to apply votes, reinstate government bills and institute electronic voting. They would make it easier for the executive branch and not empower Parliament. To raise the threshold from 20 to 25 members to block a consent vote would make it again easier for the executive branch and not easier for parliamentarians themselves.

Programming stages of bills was mentioned. Is that fast-tracking legislation? It would take away parliamentary debate making it easier for the executive branch and not for Parliament. Having time allocation with respect to amendments at the committee level would make it easier for the executive branch and not for Parliament.

The two initiatives that the member for Peterborough spoke about would move the yardstick. He is trying to help the parliamentary process, but the initiatives encapsulated in the House leader's speech have nothing to do with parliamentary reform and empowering Parliament as opposed to just giving additional powers to the executive branch.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up from where I left off last evening with respect to the report on democratic reform that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada voted on and adopted at a convention in Edmonton this past August.

I would like to raise a very important issue. We had a situation a few moments ago where the Government of Canada exhibited a complete and unfettered disrespect for parliamentarians and Parliament itself. An announcement was made, with respect to a very significant aspect of business of the Government of Canada, on the closure of the cod fishery. Parliamentarians were not given the courtesy of the minister explaining to us first in this place as to why the Government of Canada was taking that action. The members of Parliament who represent those areas affected should have had an opportunity to hear it directly from the minister in this chamber.

The Speaker just made a comment that he did not know the details of the announcement by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The reason for that, Mr. Speaker, is that you, as well as fellow parliamentarians, as a colleague, were not provided the opportunity to hear that information firsthand so that you could make a learned decision about whether an emergency debate was required.

On this day above all days it is a shameful disregard for Parliament, given the fact that today's business before the House is designed to empower Parliament, to have parliamentary reform which will make the work of parliamentarians even that much more meaningful.

Also today the Government of Canada tabled a document with respect to the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. I would not call it a plan because it is not very comprehensive. Again, the minister met with government members and provided a briefing. Opposition members were provided a briefing with officials, and we commend those officials for their due diligence.

Regarding accountability to parliamentarians, whether government members or opposition members, the minimum the members should have, on the most pressing domestic issues from a pan-Canadian basis, is the courtesy of having ministerial contact, and I would say that an announcement of that nature should be done in this place.

I would like to comment on a couple of the issues which I spoke to last evening.

With respect to the relationship between Parliament and the courts themselves, in recent years some Canadians have become concerned about the appearance that courts have encroached upon the supremacy of the Canadian Parliament by reading into our laws interpretations that appear to be inconsistent with or outside the intended laws when passed by Parliament. This appears to many to be a violation of the basic constitutional principle that Parliament makes the laws, the executive implements them and the courts interpret them. The roots of this perception of judicial activism is that the 1982 Constitutional Act included, for the first time in Canada, a constitutional entrenchment guarantee of civil rights through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We arbitrarily bash the courts because we do not like some decisions they have taken. We think there is a responsibility on behalf of Parliament that if an interpretation has been made, which is outside of the will of what Parliament had intended, there has to be a method to rectify that situation. Therefore we have three proposals that would address that aspect and I will read them into the record as follows.

First is that we should have pre-legislation review to ensure that Parliament clearly specifies within each statute the intent of that statute and obtains independent legal advice on the charter compatibility of the bills before they leave Parliament in the first place. It is almost like a pre-emptive strike that we do not have these constitutional challenges.

Second, we should establish a judicial review committee of Parliament to prepare an appropriate response to those court decisions which Parliament believes should be addressed through legislation.

Third, the name and qualifications of any person proposed for appointment by the Prime Minister to the Supreme Court shall be presented to Parliament which shall after debate make a recommendation on the suitability of the nominee's candidacy. This vote shall be conducted and communicated to the governor in council prior to any such appointment being made.

I believe these three initiatives would help enhance the rights between Parliament and the courts. If we look at the issue pertaining to child pornography, it might be a very solid example. Obviously one aspect of the Sharpe decision by the Supreme Court, in the view of most parliamentarians, is an unacceptable loophole that could expose our most vulnerable population, our children, to heinous acts related to child pornography. If we had a judicial committee of Parliament set in place that would provide us with the opportunity to address that court decision with legislation, we could fast track it to remedy that problem.

Our report is also to restore the confidence of Canadians in their political institution and to involve our fellow citizens more closely in the functioning of their Parliament.

We are convinced that the initiatives we are proposing in this context will strengthen parliamentary democracy.

To conclude, there is a myriad of initiatives that Parliament could undertake. We believe the Government of Canada is not taking steps forward that would empower parliamentarians, empower committees and make a stronger parliamentary process.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the consent of the Chamber to use my full 20 minutes.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my full time on debate. I would like to use my 20 minutes to discuss a very important issue that is on the minds of Canadians, which is that of parliamentary reform, democratic reform not only in this chamber, but also in the provincial chambers.

I bring to the attention of the House that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada took this work of parliamentary reform seriously. We earnestly worked to develop a concrete list of proposals that Parliament should consider adopting. These proposals would empower parliamentary committees, empower individual MPs, empower the parliamentary process itself, renew the Senate and restore democracy to our most important institution, that being the Parliament of Canada.

Canada today has the forms but not the substance of parliamentary democracy. Over a period of more than 30 years cabinet has gradually slipped away from its parliamentary moorings, from its real accountability to Parliament. In all the commentary in this so-called elected dictatorship, one important point gets overlooked, which is that the current Prime Minister has no more legal or constitutional power over the House of Commons than had Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier or John Diefenbaker. The Commons has no less authority over the executive government than it ever had.

The solution to our problem lies with the members of the House of Commons themselves. They have the power to take back their rights and exercise them on behalf of the people who elected them.

The proposals the Progressive Conservative Party voted on at the convention in Edmonton relate to the House of Commons. They could be put into effect either by changing the rules, the standing orders, or by legislation that Parliament itself could enact. All it would take is a government committed to implement these changes, or backbenchers, opposition members and government private members who are bloody minded enough to push the changes through.

The federal Progressive Conservative Party wants to lead the way in revitalizing parliamentary democracy. That is what we did at our Edmonton convention. We borrowed and adapted some ideas of direct citizen involvement that have been utilized in the Scottish parliament and perhaps in the U.K. government. Essentially we have put forth a concrete list of proposals that would empower individual parliamentarians through enhancing parliamentary committees.

The Westminster and Canadian systems allow for a strong united executive government exercising real powers, but really accountable and responsible to the representatives of the people in Parliament. Strong government makes a strong Parliament with a strong democracy.

Without having to trace the history of the past 30 or 40 years, Canadians know that over that period executive government has relentlessly accumulated power. It has found ways to circumvent Parliament, which sadly in practice has become weaker, programmed to the convenience of the executive government.

We propose that Parliament could directly and fairly quickly make changes that would weed out this interference from the parliamentary process. The report that we tabled greatly limits the imposition of whips and House leaders to discipline and use party solidarity on virtually every vote in the House of Commons. The report we tabled last summer in Edmonton would make it more difficult for any Prime Minister to brandish the confidence weapon and threaten his followers with an election according to his mood swings.

The report that we presented would have Parliament legislate an ethics code for senators and members of the Commons, with special and more stringent provisions for ministers and parliamentary secretaries. Parliament would appoint an ethics commissioner who would report to us.

A year ago more than $160 billion in spending estimates was deemed to have been approved in a procedural shortcut involving one vote in the Commons without any committee having opened a book on the spending procedures. Progressive Conservative members of Parliament stood up in protest.

A few months ago the Auditor General gave chapter one of her report the heading “Placing the Public's Money Beyond Parliament's Reach”. That says it all. Our report would go some way to restoring the power of the purse to the House of Commons, the ancient and fundamental power by which Parliament traditionally held the government to account.

I would like to take this opportunity to go into detail on the specifics of the report itself. There are essentially 14 chapters in the document, ranging from free votes to revitalizing Commons committees, and codes of ethics for parliamentarians, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. I would like to touch on a few of these initiatives.

One of our proposals under the chapter entitled “Free Votes, Confidence Votes and Party Discipline” is that free votes especially on amendments to government bills and at third reading stage of bills should be the norm rather than the exception. The extravagant and unwarranted use by government of the confidence convention with its threat of dissolution and a new election in the event of losing a vote would essentially be eradicated.

Another chapter is that members of Parliament themselves be assigned to committees by a vote of the House. Once there, they would be permanent and would serve until prorogation of that session of Parliament. A member of Parliament must co-sign any whip's notice for his or her removal from the committee. We could do away with the ugly spectre of a member of Parliament who was inclined to vote for a particular motion being tapped on the shoulder by a staffer from the whip's office and told to move on because someone else was taking his or her place. We saw this occur on countless occasions in the environment committee.

We also proposed that committee chairs and vice-chairs be elected by secret ballot by members on the committee. That particular issue has become increasingly more in vogue today than it was only a few weeks ago. It was an initiative we brought forward in a proposal last spring and was voted on by members of the Progressive Conservative Party last August.

We also propose, in order to provide a broader perspective at the committee level, that opposition parties should have a share of the committee chairmanships that is roughly equal to their share of seats in the House. This would be negotiated among the House leaders. The other place follows a similar route. I encourage the House of Commons to go down that track and allocate the chairmanships proportionately to the number of seats that the parties have in the House of Commons itself.

We also advocate that parliamentary secretaries and other MPs in receipt of extra pay, such as whips and caucus chairs, should generally not be eligible for membership on standing committees. Those standing committees should be there for parliamentarians and not merely there as a process to carry out the wishes of the executive branch of the government itself.

We advocate that when their bills and amendments are discussed, the ministers should be required to remain at committees while the witnesses are heard. In particular, ministers must be present for clause by clause consideration of their bills.

We also call for the establishment of a code of ethics system for parliamentarians to discipline parliamentarians for particular infractions. Our proposal essentially reads as follows:

Parliament should legislate a code of ethical standards for members of Parliament and senators, including particular and more stringent provisions for ministers of the crown and parliamentary secretaries, and create an “ethics commissioner” to be an independent officer of Parliament with authority to monitor compliance, investigate alleged breaches and report to either or both Houses as applicable.

The essence of this is to adopt what other professions do, whether it be the medical community or the legal community. No one likes being dragged before an audience of their peers and their peers would have a chance to make a determination about what particular sanction could actually be taken.

The ethics commissioner would report his or her findings to Parliament. Parliament would set up a discipline and ethics committee to decide what sanctions would be appropriate based on the recommendations of the ethics commissioner. Sanctions would include censure; fines; suspension, with or without pay; and declaring a member's seat to be vacant, which could trigger a byelection.

We also are advocating that we need to address the loophole that we have in legislative federalism. This really speaks to the Kyoto debate that we are going through right now. Hardly a week goes by without a meeting of 14 federal, provincial or territorial cabinet ministers in one part of the country or another, whether it is agriculture, environment, finance, health or justice. Under the present government, these meetings, like first minister's meetings, are held behind closed doors. On their agendas we have no idea what they are going to discuss in advance more often than not. Decisions involving billions of dollars of taxpayer money are made on policy and programs between these different levels of government, yet Parliament is not in the loop.

We are advocating that Parliament have a briefing session before any of these conferences between the federal, provincial and territorial cabinet ministers are held so that Parliament can understand what is being debated and potentially what is at stake, and that we provide some insight. Having that more constructive approach would have paid huge dividends in building a broader consensus with respect to climate change.

The government must, in advance of any federal, provincial and territorial meeting, table the agenda in Parliament together with a statement of the federal position on the major issues facing the conference. At that same time there must be an opportunity for opposition critics to express their views and to question the responsible minister. It is a very prudent approach for us given the nature of our federation itself. The same process must be respected immediately upon the conclusion of intergovernmental affairs ministers meetings.

I also would like to touch very briefly on Senate reform. I also would like to use my full 20 minutes, if I can. The House empowered British Columbia to be a separate region for the purposes of a constitutional veto. Ontario has 24 Senate seats and Quebec has 24. I see no reason for B.C. not to be granted 24 Senate seats as well if we consider it an equal region, as well as the western provinces. Those are elements that are in this document.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, for months the government has insisted it has a plan to implement Kyoto, but it keeps hiding the details. The Prime Minister will not even meet with the premiers to discuss the plan.

Earlier this week the leader of the government in the other place revealed that the enabling legislation to implement Kyoto will only come to Parliament probably in the spring.

If the government already has a plan, why not bring the legislation to the House immediately so that we can have a real debate on Kyoto prior to ratification?