Dave Chatters

[Agriculture, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the existing farm safety net programs cannot work for the current animal health crisis. The feedlot and packing industries need an immediate aid package that is bankable in days, not months. If it takes the government as long to get aid to the feedlots as it did to the lumber producers they will all be bankrupt and gone.

When will the government announce an aid package to cover the BSE disaster?

[Agriculture, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian cattle industry is facing the worst animal health crisis in the history of the industry. Having been a beef producer in my former life, my heart goes out to my constituents, neighbours, and friends who are facing the loss of their farms, feedlots and livelihoods.

If they do not regain access to the American market immediately, or if the government does not come forward with an interim aid package that is bankable within days, not months, the worst case scenario will come true. Existing farm safety net programs cannot work for extraordinary disaster in the feedlot industry where finished cattle have backed up and losses are estimated at $100 million per month.

The government must move now to show some human compassion to prevent increased human and animal suffering if this situation is allowed to continue.

[First Nations Governance Act, June 3rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and take part in this debate today because this is a such a vitally important issue. Unfortunately, I am truly disappointed with the way the government has handled the bill and this issue. I thought perhaps there really would be a change in the way the government was going to handle these affairs of aboriginal governance and that it would move forward with a more cooperative attitude, not only toward first nations but toward members of other parties in the House of Commons.

However, it truly looks like the government intends to handle this piece of legislation as it has handled the whole Indian issue for the last 150 years, and that is to make a mess of it in the worst possible way. Aboriginal people living in aboriginal communities across Canada will continue to suffer because of it. The government had an opportunity to do some things here that truly would have improved the lives of aboriginal people, but unfortunately the further we get into this it looks more and more like the government has no intention of seriously making an effort to accommodate anybody's views but its own, in spite of what the minister said when he introduced the bill and as he travelled across the country talking about introducing it at committee stage.

The minister said he would allow all parties to introduce amendments to make it a better bill, to come forward with a bill that would solve some problems and make life better for Indian people. In fact, it very much appears that this was not his intention at all. It appears that the only amendments accepted by the government are amendments put forward by the government itself, other than some minor tinkering around the edges. It was not particularly honest with regard to the parties in the House or to aboriginal people, the Assembly of First Nations and others, who protested the bill, to mislead them in the way that the government has. I am so disappointed with that, because I thought we had a chance to make some changes here.

The ombudsman clause is one example, and we will get into more depth on that in a later group of motions. Certainly I was led to believe that the government was going to listen to opposition parties and in fact introduce a national aboriginal ombudsman who would be effective and would fulfill a need for people having trouble dealing with their local aboriginal government. It appears that what we have in this bill will not do that in any way.

Right from the very beginning, the government has done what it has done for the 10 years I have been here. It moves to tackle an issue, but instead of solving problems as they appear it has a tendency to identify controversial issues and then avoid dealing with those issues.

Bill C-7 could have been a good bill had the minister lived up to his commitment of allowing changes, but it also could have been a good bill had he solved the real problem behind the bill before introducing it. The real problem, of course, is the conflict in our Constitution between the inherent right of aboriginal people and the right of the Government of Canada to legislate on behalf of aboriginal people. That is the source of the conflict behind the bill. Instead of dealing with this, the minister bypassed it and asserted his constitutional right as a minister of the crown to legislate on behalf of aboriginal people while completely disregarding the inherent right of aboriginal people. I do not know how can he possibly expect to have any kind of success in dealing with the legislation if he approaches it in that way.

Inevitably this piece of legislation, if it is rammed through this place as it inevitably will be by the look of it, without any substantive change, will end up before the Supreme Court at some point in time. I am sure that at least parts of it will be struck down by the courts and will have to be changed. On top of that, it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars for both sides to engage in that process, whereas that money could have been better used to improve the lives of aboriginal people out in the communities.

It is so unnecessary. If the government and the minister would simply sit down in an honest and open way and engage in debate to resolve those outstanding issues that need to be resolved before we can proceed to this kind of legislation, we could have some success here. Unfortunately the minister did not do that. There will be a debate some day in this country on that issue. Just as there was a debate on the sovereignty association of Quebec with the rest of Canada, there will be a debate on the issue of aboriginal sovereignty and the definition of inherent right to self-government.

In the meantime, we keep stumbling along and poisoning the well, so to speak, in our relationship with aboriginal people, to the point where it is almost impossible to accomplish anything meaningful with first nations across the country. That really is unfortunate.

Anyway, having rambled on about the general meaning of the bill, I would like to make a few comments about this group of amendments. There are a couple of points that need to be made about these amendments.

The first amendment was proposed by the government itself. The bill originally required the band codes to be presented to the band membership 15 days before a vote so the members could look at the codes and make a decision, before the vote was prepared, to accept or reject the codes. The minister himself removed the entire clause in this amendment. There were other amendments to extend the 15 days, but it kind of blew me away that the minister took out what I saw as a chance for accountability to band members. The minister totally removed the clause, which does not make a lot of sense to me.

An amendment was proposed by our party to delete clause 11 in its entirety. It deals with the creation of a band appointed ombudsman. As I suggested earlier, from the very beginning the government promised the creation of a national office of aboriginal ombudsman, which would hear complaints from members who were having trouble dealing with their band and band bylaws and so on and so forth. The government apparently intends to introduce such an office, but with such restrictions that it will be totally meaningless.

For one thing, the government's version of the created office would require band members to go through the process of approaching the locally appointed ombudsman and then proceeding through a series of hoops before they can get to the national ombudsman. That would make it totally ineffective, simply because if that has to happen that particular member will be so intimidated by that time there is no way it is going to be effective. Of course the office of the national ombudsman in the legislation as it now stands will provide an opportunity to actually hide any complaints rather than make them public and deal with them.

I certainly will talk a lot more about the office of the ombudsman in another group of amendments, because it is my big issue in the bill. I thought it was vitally important, but now I think it has been totally neutered in the bill and will be useless.

[Petitions, June 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition today on behalf of the Muslim community in Fort McMurray. It is protesting the war in Iraq and urging the Canadian government to urge the United States to pull its troops out of the country and get on with the humanitarian efforts to rebuild the country.

[Pipelines, May 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is vitally important to Canada's petrochemical industry that it has market access to northern gas. What is the natural resources minister doing to modernize the 1977 northern pipeline treaty to guarantee Canada that access?

[Pipelines, May 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are hearing mixed messages from the government on the proposed northern gas pipeline. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development offered to finance pipeline development in the MacKenzie Valley, yet at the same time, the Minister of Natural Resources is attacking the U.S. incentives for pipeline development and saying Canadians do not fund pipelines.

What is the Canadian position on financing the northern pipeline?

[Question No. 198, May 26th, 2003]

Concerning the pesticide approval process at the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, PMRA: ( a ) why does it take Canada significantly longer to approve and review pesticides and herbicides than the United States; ( b ) is there any specific part of the approval process that is a roadblock; ( c ) what is the step-by-step description of the pesticide approval process; ( d ) what is the average length of time it takes at each step; ( e ) what is PMRA's target length of time for each step; and ( f ) has the approval process been any faster with the establishment of the new ombudsman?

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, April 10th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to address Bill C-9 and this first group of amendments to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, or CEAA.

The bill is a result of the mandatory five year review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. While I was not part of the committee process, it is extraordinary to me that the government would introduce such a volume of amendments at report stage. Perhaps the standing committee thought it was the master of its own destiny and did something with the bill and now the government must fix it to suit itself.

The amendments in this group are almost exclusively government amendments to the bill and that seems a little curious after it has been through the clause by clause committee process.

The government failed to allow all of CEAA to be reviewed and limited debate on a number of important aspects of environmental assessment including the advancement of adaptive management techniques. This is regrettable and certainly was a big issue with some companies in my riding that were looking for movement from the government on that issue.

However, there are improvements to the bill which were passed in committee. They must be recognized and appreciated for the improvements they bring to the bill.

The bill has positives but they are clearly not entirely the answer. The amendments the government has put forward at report stage are no different. Some of the amendments are needed as last minute improvements to language and small technicalities. Others are designed to subvert the intent of the work of the committee.

The Canadian Alliance takes great exception and objects strongly to these tactics by the government. The Alliance opposes amendments designed to limit reporting by the government or any amendment designed to reduce transparency that was proposed by the committee.

On the positive side Bill C-9 would create a Canadian environmental assessment registry which would provide more public access to documents surrounding a project through an online database. A coordinator position would be created to administer this registry.

The committee often made positive improvements to Bill C-9 despite the best wishes of the government and the PMO. I assume that those improvements are being corrected to the government's satisfaction.

Here are some of the improvements. First, new scoping provisions would begin before a project is approved. These provisions would assist both project proponents and other interested groups to have a better understanding of the full scope of the project prior to submissions or objections being made. This transparency should increase trust between the groups that have traditionally clashed over environmental issues.

Second, the online registry would be improved to provide more and better information and to ensure that those without Internet access could still obtain the information they sought. However, certain government amendments would seek to subtly reduce some aspects of this transparency and we oppose such attempts.

The third improvement concerns the inclusion of reasonable time limits for the release of documentation. The Alliance amendments were accepted to ensure that the information posted on the registry would be timely and available to answer any concerns before significant issues develop.

Fourth, the legislation would automatically be reviewed in seven years. The review would be conducted by a committee which would allow the whole act to be opened up for improvements, not just sections that the government would deem important, as occurred in this round.

On the negative side the review is critical given the flaws that remain in the act following the review process.

First, crown corporations have been exempted from coverage under CEAA and over the next three years would be allowed to create separate regulations governing environmental assessments. The government did not adequately explain why separate regulatory regimes should be needed for any but a handful of crown corporations. The government should have provided a list of crown corporations requiring exemption with the reasons why. This was never done.

Second, Bill C-9 would amend the act to allow the minister to revisit an environmental assessment and return to the public for further consultations prior to issuing a decision statement. This could allow the minister to delay issuance of a decision statement simply because an issue was politically sensitive. Such discretionary power could be open to political abuse.

Third, the Alliance lobbied to provide municipal and local land use authorities equal input into the assessment process as would be enjoyed by first nations bands. Municipal governments could be affected by federal projects near or in their jurisdictions. They should have an equal right to express their concerns within the assessment process. Sadly, they do not.

Despite these concerns, the Canadian Alliance always seeks to balance environmental preservation and economic development. We support a timely, single window approval process with enforceable environmental regulations and meaningful penalties. While by no means perfect, Bill C-9 would amend the CEAA in a positive way in this respect by encouraging partnerships with interested parties on all projects. It is a step toward streamlining the approval process and providing proponents and interested parties access to needed information.

Between now and the next review of CEAA, the Canadian Alliance will be watching closely to see how the changes put forward in Bill C-9 would affect environmental assessment in Canada so that we can take the next step and improve upon the process. Environmental protection and the needs of industry must be meshed and both viewpoints must be considered in this process.

We reluctantly support Bill C-9 in the interest of compromise so that the reasonable amendments won in committee will not have been won in vain.

[Automotive Pollution Reduction Act, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate on Bill C-235.

Philosophically I do not have a lot of problems with what the bill is proposing. It is fancied up a little in the sense that it proposes oxygenating fuel, which is just another way of saying blending ethanol with gasoline, and for the government to promote or to legislate the mandatory use of ethanol in gasoline. I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing.

What it boils down to is whether the taxpayers and the drivers of automobiles in this country are willing to pay the costs to make that process economically viable. From all indications I have seen, especially over the last year with gasoline prices, the public seems to be extremely sensitive to gasoline prices and I really doubt that they are willing to spend the kind of money to fill the tanks in their cars that would be required to produce a viable ethanol industry.

Quite frankly, the ethanol industry could not survive in Canada without the excise tax subsidy that it enjoys today. Even with that subsidy it is only marginally viable and is very dependent on the cost of the feed stock going into the ethanol plant, whether that be grain, fibre or crop residue of some kind.

Unless the plant can access those feed stocks at an extremely low price, the plant just cannot be economical. Certainly with crop residues on the prairies, we are looking at $70 or $80 a tonne for residue straw from the crop. Iogen Corporation, the pilot project right here in Ottawa that is making ethanol out of grain straw, certainly cannot pay that kind of money and it has been very upfront about that.

The proposal to have governments legislate or mandate whatever that level of ethanol would be is really not possible until there is the amount of ethanol produced in this country to make it possible. That would be a huge amount of ethanol and that will only happen when the economics are right and plants can produce the ethanol and make a dollar at it and I think we are a way from that.

There are other problems with the ethanol industry that bear looking at. The member is quite right in saying that there is some reduction in tailpipe emissions in pollution over pure gasoline to gasoline that is blended with ethanol. At a 10% blend that gain is relatively small. If one looks at the complete cycle in the production of ethanol as well as tailpipe emissions, the gain for the environment is relatively small.

There are some real problems to overcome in the industry before the member's idea could really become a reality. There are certainly other technologies on the way that are equally as attractive as ethanol. Perhaps the economics may turn out to be better as well. In the full life cycle, the amount of energy it takes to produce a litre of ethanol has to be taken into account when looking at the savings for the environment or for human health.

Ethanol is a difficult product to blend with gasoline. Where gasoline generally can be moved all across the country through pipelines at a relatively small cost, that is not the case with ethanol. The alcohol, which ethanol essentially is, has a tendency to separate from the gasoline in the pipeline and does not make transportation by pipeline possible. Therefore it requires that the ethanol be trucked from the point of production to the point of sale. Again, we have to figure in the pollution caused by the trucking of the ethanol versus transporting ethanol by pipeline.

There is another big issue. If governments are going to consider mandating or legislating a minimum amount of ethanol blend in gasoline, governments will have to look at the whole issue of government taxation on gasoline, whether that be blended gasoline or straight fossil fuel gasoline.

Last summer government taxation on gasoline was a big issue across the country. Even some service stations now are advertising their tax exempt price on gasoline and then adding the tax on at the till. People are absolutely shocked to find, depending on where the price of gas is, that almost half the price of a litre of gasoline is tax.

If the government is going to be serious about this issue and promotes the use of ethanol without those dreaded subsidies which the member presenting the bill continuously talks about in the fossil fuel industry, if we are going to produce a viable industry that can stand on its own without subsidization, then we have to look at how that product is taxed at the pump.

That is where we could make the product more attractive. It could be made attractive enough to consumers so that they would be willing to use the blended gasoline rather than straight gasoline. We have not seen any willingness on the part of government to reduce taxes on gasoline. In fact the opposite has probably been true rather than a willingness to reduce taxes.

I receive letters in my office all the time from constituents and people across the country who have discovered that as the cost of gasoline rises, the amount of tax on the gasoline also rises. The GST is based on a percentage and it is added on after the provincial and federal excise taxes. It is a tax on a tax. Most consumers find that very offensive. The government has to do something about that if it is going to be serious about promoting this new kind of fuel.

As I said before, there are other technologies that are as attractive or more attractive than ethanol. Biodiesel and even the diesel technologies that exist in Europe are so far ahead of where we are in North America. There is a huge potential for them as a bridge between gasoline and diesel into the new technologies of hydrogen that are around the corner in this country. We could make huge gains and huge improvements in pollution levels with biodiesel. The technology to capture the particulate exhaust from diesel trucks is there now. We could take huge advantage of that and I think the economics are more realistic.

The other one is hydrogen and the hydrogen fuel cell car. The technology is certainly there. We just have to figure out a way to produce and store the hydrogen and to put it into the tank so that it is safe to transport in a car or truck. That technology is virtually pollution free, producing nothing but pure drinking water out the tailpipe.

The bill has its merits and its idea is laudable, to reduce pollution and improve human health. However, I think there are other technologies that we should look at.

[Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries in my riding for winning a national leadership award from Canada's climate change voluntary challenge at a ceremony here in Ottawa on March 25.

This award recognizes the outstanding efforts of Canadian companies in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and this is only their second year in the program. Their tremendous achievement has seen a reduction of 36% in carbon emissions. This is a prime example of what industry is willing to do to meet the challenge of climate change.

Compare that to the government's record since Canada signed the Kyoto agreement six years ago. With this budget, over $3 billion will have been spent and no plan, just television advertising trying to convince skeptical Canadians that Kyoto is the right choice.

The government has a less than stellar record when meeting its own targets. Where is the government fleet conversion or the federal building retrofit projects? Why is the government not bragging about those programs?