Dave Chatters

[Foreign Affairs, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not need a lot of legal doublespeak. Canadians want to know the truth.

Under U.S. law it is illegal to export plutonium to Canada without an agreement in place. Is there such an agreement in place today?

[Foreign Affairs, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Minister of Foreign Affairs told Canadians not to worry, that there was no agreement for Canada to accept U.S. plutonium exports.

Both sides in this issue agree that plutonium could start arriving in Canada as early as next month. Under U.S. law it is illegal for plutonium to be exported to Canada without an agreement in place.

Has this government signed an agreement to accept U.S. plutonium?

[Plutonium, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the United States has already completed full environmental impact studies and full public consultation. Where are our environmental impact studies? Where are the details of the agreement? Where are our public consultations?

[Plutonium, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, at the 1996 Moscow summit the Prime Minister made an impromptu offer to accept weapons grade plutonium for destruction in Canada. The United States says it is ready to start exporting this weapons grade plutonium to Canada as early as next month. When was the Prime Minister planning to tell Canadians this plutonium is on its way?

[Energy Efficiency Strategy, December 8th, 1998]

Yes, the issue is motherhood and apple pie. It is pretty difficult to say that it is wrong. The idea has a lot of merit, but I have some concerns with the member's motion and the federal building initiative it is based on.

I recognize and I applaud the hon. member who presented the motion on his demonstrated commitment to the issue and his efforts in working in energy efficient strategies for many years in his home province of Manitoba.

While I have some reservations regarding the simplicity of the motion and the specific program, the FBI the member endorses, I agree there certainly is a need in the country for his comprehensive energy efficiency strategy.

The development of long term strategies is one of the government's demonstrated weaknesses. One has to look for evidence only to its handling of the Kyoto conference last December, the issue of gasoline standards in Canada and certainly the issue of air quality standards in Canada.

The Kyoto example is certainly one of the better examples. Canadians everywhere were imploring the government to make its position and strategy known prior to going to Kyoto and this information was still unavailable right up to the day the delegation left for the summit. It was apparent that the government had no clear strategy going into the conference and was watching for other countries to lead.

Now, a full year later, even after Rio, the government still has no concrete plans or strategy for the implementation of the commitments made at Kyoto. Throughout the entire process the government presented a one-sided argument in an effort to sway public opinion.

While it was widely agreed that the measures needed to be taken and some commitments made, Canadians were only given half the information and were not and have not been invited to participate in the process. If this government is to develop a comprehensive energy efficiency strategy, as I believe it should, it must engage Canadians and open up the process so that Canadians get the full and honest picture of the benefits and costs.

This leads me to my first concern with this motion. The member for Winnipeg Centre endorses a retrofitting program called the federal building initiative. Through this program federal departments may retrofit federal buildings for greater energy efficiency. Departments pay the cost of the renovations out of the savings on energy bills over a negotiated pay-back period. At first glance this program seems ideal and it certainly does have merit. It would lead one to say “What is holding us back? Why are we not going at this full bore?”

However, it is impossible to make a fair assessment when only half of the information is available and has been presented.

Despite my interest in energy efficiency and my role as the natural resources critic for the opposition caucus, I have been able to get only very limited information about this program.

If the program is successful and worthy of Canadian support, why is more information not being made available? Too often the government aggressively promotes a program, only to ignore it after implementation or to provide only information that it deems to be supportive while it suppresses all other information. Programs fail to live up to expectations and are therefore kept from the public spotlight. Canadians deserve more in the way of feedback and regular updates on the success or failures of programs that cost millions of taxpayers' dollars.

When I began researching this program I asked for a cost breakdown of one or two examples of contracts that we might examine to assess it. I was curious about the size of the profit margin that would be incentive enough for a private sector energy service company to enter into a contract in which it is not paid in full for up to eight years. It was a simple enough request, but I have not yet received an adequate response.

I also requested complete information on the specific retrofitting projects identified as the government's success stories on its natural resources web site which other members have referred to. Three such examples were listed on the web page alone with the annual savings reaped by retrofitting each facility. I was informed that a case study exists about one of the facilities, but I have yet to see that study in any detail. We were provided with only three pieces of information. The total annual savings were $880,000 on that particular project, the amount of the contract was $6.1 million and the pay-back period was 7.1 years.

I am hesitant to endorse this program until I have received more information about it. However, gathering information has certainly proved to be an onerous task.

I therefore have to question how the public can fairly assess such a program when information is so difficult to obtain. I can only assume that they will base their assessment on the relatively few facts provided by the government, thus making their judgment on partial information.

This is a prime example of the lack of government transparency that is to be avoided in the development and implementation of a comprehensive energy efficiency strategy. The federal building initiative may be a raging success or it may be an abysmal flop for all we know from the information we seem to be able to get on it. Either way there needs to be greater public accountability through detailed reports showing the progress of the program.

I also have some concerns with the tendering process espoused by the federal buildings initiative. Through this program federal departments are given significant freedom in choosing an energy service company to retrofit their buildings. Unlike other government contracts, the awarding of a retrofit contract is not based on the lowest bid. Departments must take a number of factors into account and may place emphasis where they see fit. Energy service companies must be chosen from a qualified bidders list kept by Natural Resources Canada.

These features of the tendering process blow the doors wide open to patronage, whereby contracts can and likely will be awarded to friends of the government. To avoid or at least to minimize patronage it is necessary to open up the tendering process.

That being said, I would like to express my general skepticism regarding motions and bills introduced by the members of the New Democratic Party.

As a young man I was searching for a home for my political ideology and I looked at the NDP philosophy. It certainly appeals to many Canadians. However, assessing any political ideology is like the retrofit program: if we only get half the story it is pretty hard to make an intelligent and informed decision. Certainly the NDP motion that we are dealing with today fits into that category. Every Canadian wants to live in a free society with zero unemployment, a healthy environment with no poverty. All Canadians share those ideals.

However, I fear that these ideals are in direct conflict with the realities of the day. That is not to say that we should abandon those ideals, but we should be working toward the ideal while recognizing the reality.

Canada does not have a bottomless pit of money to finance government programs and initiatives. All programs come at a cost to Canadians. There are no free rides. In many cases the cost may be worth it, but that does not mean the financial side of the program can be ignored.

The motion points to job creation and the development of high-tech expertise through an energy efficiency strategy. It was my hope upon reading the motion that the member for Winnipeg Centre was talking about jobs created naturally in the private sector, not through substantial investment by the federal government.

Contrary to my hope, in a report prepared by the member, to which he referred, “A Brighter Future: Energy Efficiency and Jobs in Manitoba”, the member for Winnipeg Centre advocates federal funding in a number of areas, but particularly in training workers for the conservation industry.

The motion also calls for the development of high-tech expertise. Again I hope that the member for Winnipeg Centre is talking about encouraging private sector investment in research and development. However, if he is talking about government investment, it is very important that Canadians get a good return on their money.

If high-tech expertise is to be developed through government investment, that expertise must not be patented and sold by the private sector with no return to the taxpayers of Canada. I think the term is intellectual property.

Having expressed all of those reservations, this issue is motherhood and apple pie and certainly our caucus will be supporting the motion when it comes to a vote. However, I would like some of the issues which I brought forward to be addressed.

[Energy Efficiency Strategy, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the two previous speakers I cannot for the life of me understand why every small business and homeowner in the country is not busy retrofitting their homes for energy efficiency.

[Natural Resources, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it will be a bleak Christmas this year for communities and families working in Canada's natural resource sector. Many farmers are facing bankruptcy and foreclosure as a result of the collapse of the commodities markets and the government's don't worry, be happy attitude.

World oil surpluses are at record highs while prices are at near record lows, creating a very uncertain future for those employed in the oil industry. Canada's world class miners have to go to Chile and Peru if they want to work in their industry. The Canadian forest industry is facing an unemployment crisis with more mills closing every day while the government continues to do nothing more than talk about solutions.

It will be a bleak Christmas for many Canadians working in the natural resources industries. We can only hope that the new year will bring less talk and more action from the government on behalf of these industries which represent the backbone of the Canadian economy.

[Privilege, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I along with some of my colleagues attended the meeting in question. I listened to the entire debate. My member's statement reflected my understanding of what the two members were saying. I stick with that position.

[Gasoline, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, how are Canadians to understand the Liberal policy on Canadian gasoline content?

First during the debate in the House on manganese octane enhancement, the Minister of Industry advocated the necessity for the harmonization of gasoline in the North American market. Now we have the Minister of the Environment dramatically cutting sulphur levels with no regard for the American position. Fantastic Liberal logic.

What makes matters worse is that this Liberal logic will eliminate independent gasoline stations in Ontario, force the closure of Canadian refineries, reduce competition in the retail gasoline market and, according to the chairman of the Liberal committee on gas pricing, the member for Pickering—Ajax-Uxbridge, will mean a 15 cent per litre increase in gas prices.

Will this government ever get its act together and decide on a single reasonable position on gasoline quality in Canada?

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-48, the marine conservation area act. Like the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage I believe that Canada has a national and international obligation to protect and conserve marine areas representative of Canada's 29 marine regions.

I recognize that such conservation efforts are necessary to ensure the future existence and enjoyment of these marine areas, and I support the concept behind the bill. I also support the polluter pay principle included in the bill.

However I have several major concerns with the bill. The first is with the structure and wording of the legislation. The second is with the potential impact of the legislation on natural resource development. As natural resource critic I want to address those concerns.

I will begin with my concerns regarding the structure and wording of the bill. Specifically I am concerned about the existence of three Henry VIII clauses which would allow the government to circumvent parliament. In contrast to the government's position, I am a firm believer in the parliamentary process. I am disturbed by the way the bill attempts to avoid the parliamentary process.

In its summary of the bill the Department of Canadian Heritage stated that the proposed legislation required that any proposed amendment to the schedules to establish or enlarge a marine conservation area or reserve should be subject to scrutiny by parliament. However, the summary failed to mention the constraints placed on this scrutiny.

The legislation delegates responsibility for the raising of objections to schedule amendments to the standing committee. The committee has only 20 sitting days after the tabling of the amendment to put forth a motion in objection to the amendment. We all know the results of the Liberal majority in each and every one of the standing committees of parliament and what the government whip does to the decisions of those committees.

If 21 days elapse without any objection the amendments can be made by order in council. If a motion is put forth, the motion is debated for no more than three hours before the House confirms or rejects the committee's objections. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the bill allow the government to side step the usual legislative process.

The fact that similar Henry VIII clauses exist in national parks does not make the circumvention of parliament any more acceptable either in this bill or in any number of other bills the government has introduced in this parliament and in the previous parliament.

This aspect of the legislation is particularly suspect as the schedules referred to in these clauses are now empty. The government has put forth the names of five areas already targeted as future marine conservation areas under the act. Therefore I am as curious as I am sure others are why these five areas are not included in the schedule attached to the bill. I can only conclude that they were purposely omitted to prevent full debate on the legislation which might include a controversial debate on the proposed areas.

This brings me to my second concern regarding the impact of the legislation on current and future natural resources development. Clause 13 states that no person shall explore for or exploit hydrocarbons, minerals, aggregates or any inorganic matter within a marine conservation area.

While I understand the necessity of this clause for the sake of environmental protection, I am troubled by the extent of the proposed areas. If each area under consideration is successfully designated through order in council as a marine conservation area, the entire coastline of Canada extending some distance inland and a considerable distance into the offshore area, including a number of already proven mineral rich inland areas, will be covered under the act.

The legislation proposes to prevent all future mining and oil and gas drilling projects along the entire coastline of Canada. This is absolutely unacceptable in light of the fact that Canada is already one of the least mining friendly countries in this hemisphere. Under the legislation projects like Hibernia, Terra Nova and Sable Island would not be allowed to exist. The opportunities that these projects are providing to Atlantic Canadians simply would be disallowed. That is absolutely unacceptable and quite irresponsible on the part of the government.

Future mining areas have already been barred on large sections of land because of the settlement of native land claims. By removing the possibility of resource development along the coastline the government is potentially crippling the future of resource industries in Canada.

The legislation is set up in a such way that it is very difficult to remove portions of the conservation area from the act. It takes only an order in council to add a conservation area. The legislation requires an act of parliament for no net loss, swapping or removal of a portion of a marine conservation area.

This requirement will have serious impacts on natural resource industries. If a marine conservation area proves in future to be a valuable and bountiful source of yet undiscovered natural resources, it will be very difficult to have the boundaries of the conservation area redrawn to exclude the area containing the resources.

I might remind the House that there are a number of areas on all coasts of Canada which potentially hold huge natural resource deposits, both fossil fuel and mineral deposits that could some day potentially be mined.

I am concerned by the ease with which each new marine conservation area can be created and the difficulty involved in removing it from that marine conservation area. By setting up the legislation in this way more area than necessary may be included initially and cannot be freed from the legislation without enormous difficulty.

This major obstacle to future development will undoubtedly impact on our energy and resource independence. This leads into the last point I wish to make. The act is clearly intended to fulfil preservationist and not conservationist objectives. While these objectives may be noble, as I stated in my initial comment they are hardly the usual objectives for a national park or historic heritage site. National parks normally allow relatively free public access.

The legislation requires authorization by permit for any activities in the area or reserves. The bill aims to establish marine conservation areas and reserves under the authority of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the minister chiefly responsible for national parks.

As the legislation's aims are clearly environmental it would be more appropriate to establish authority under the Minister of the Environment. The legislation could then be evaluated by members of the House as well as members of the public for what it is, environmental legislation.

I reiterate that I support the goals of the legislation. Too often Reform members of parliament are portrayed as enemies of the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am a firm believer in conservation and responsible development. I understand the necessity for environmental responsibility.

Canada's biodiversity is one of the many things that makes our nation unique. I support the concept of sustainable development and preservation of Canada's natural environment for this and future generations.

I also advocate participation in the world community of agreements. I commend the government on the inclusion of the polluter pay principle in the legislation although I have some doubts regarding its resolve to enforce this principle.

Unfortunately I cannot support the bill. My colleagues and I want to see parliament restored as the supreme body responsible for the creation and interpretation of Canadian law. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 subvert parliament's law making role and therefore contradict this fundamental belief.

For this and other reasons as previously presented I reject the legislation and encourage other members of the House to do the same, to simply stop for a moment and look at the possibilities for future job and wealth creation in the development of Canada's offshore resources.

In my opinion it has not been the development of our natural resources either offshore or onshore that has endangered, as some of my colleagues talked about, the fish habitat in Canada's oceans. It has simply been poor management and overfishing, not resource development.

It is perfectly reasonable to expect that Canada can develop its natural resources offshore, off all Canada's shores, in an environmentally responsible manner and at the same time preserve the biodiversity and the environment that exist there.