Charles Caccia

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the Alliance leader would come into the House at this point on a Friday afternoon and ask a question. It tells me that the Leader of the Opposition feels his party is losing ground in this debate and an intervention is necessary.

It is very clear that the leader was not in the House when the House leader for the government, at roughly 10.40 a.m., indicated the willingness of the government to support the motion. Perhaps this is news to the member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast, otherwise he would not have made the remark that he made a moment ago.

The government is in full agreement with the motion. Everybody who could speak has spoken on behalf of the parties once. There has been a representative for each party so far, so the matter has been covered. Why drag it out ad infinitum? Why make something more out of it than there is, namely a tempest in a small teacup?

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member for Témiscamingue did not understand. I will try to make him understand that the issue is not as he has described it.

The minister recognized that he made a mistake. The Speaker of the House decided to refer the matter to the committee. The committee will review the matter and make a decision. This is where things stand now.

I find it really appalling that the member for Témiscamingue would invoke the Geneva convention and other things that have absolutely nothing to do with the mistake made by the minister.

The mistake made by the minister will be examined by the committee. That is where the matter will be settled. We must therefore move on and proceed with our work.

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I welcome your reminder and I plead guilty in that respect. I will return to the theme by concluding that there is an enormously long list of items that could take precedence over the one to which the last two hours have been devoted.

Therefore, one must conclude by asking whether there is an intelligent role for the official opposition to play in the House of Commons, whether there is a way in which this item can be disposed of in a matter of minutes so that the House can return to its normal business and not be distracted by phoney allegations and accusations that have no foundation with respect to a minister of the crown who has the respect and admiration of everyone in the House, except for a few. We need to get on with the business of the nation and demonstrate, I would hope, on the part of the opposition, that it understands its mandate is to perform a constructive role in the opposition in the best interest of the business of the country.

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, having listened to the debate for over two hours now, and having heard expressions of profound, synthetic indignation on the part of opposition members, I must conclude that we are dealing with a tempest in a very small teacup.

Not one scintilla of evidence of incompetence has been suggested by members. If anything, this is a case of work overload on the part of a very hard-working and committed minister of the crown who has the respect and support of most of his colleagues in the House, certainly on this side. He also has the respect of the entire population of Toronto who elected him as mayor. He has displayed a high level of professionalism over the years.

If anything, the minister of defence could be accused for a non-flamboyant style. If anything, he could be accused of being rather modest in his interventions and refraining from rhetoric. To suggest, as did the last speaker a few minutes ago, that this little event is a reflection on the entire government, is absolute nonsense.

It seems to me that members of the official opposition are bereft of issues of substance and are losing sight of the larger picture, the real issues of the country. It is astonishing that they would devote two valuable hours of the House to pursuing a non-matter, a non-problem that has been referred to a committee of the House, and very correctly so, for its ultimate destination and deliberation, and where I am sure it will be disposed of very quickly and effectively.

Perhaps they could find the time and energy instead to devote their attention to issues such as rising unemployment, security at our harbours and airports or perhaps issues emerging, particularly in the last few months, of climate change and the fact that at the present time we are going through a phase of persistent temperature readings that are five to seven degrees Celsius above normal. If that sounds too esoteric and difficult for hon. members, perhaps they could devote some attention to the issues of population and immigration. If that is not appealing enough, perhaps some time and effort could be devoted to the state of water quality across the country or pollution in the Great Lakes. If that is perhaps too difficult to tackle, then perhaps they could devote some time to the lack of adequate regulations in the field of aquaculture and the state of our fishery.

[Regulatory Standards, December 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in February the then auditor general, Denis Desautels, noted that there are major regulatory shortcomings in risk identification and management. He pointed to several problems: increased government reliance on industries to regulate themselves, adoption of safety standards set by other governments, increased public skepticism caused by the slashing of in house government scientific labs and reliance on researchers with links to industry.

In addition, the fact that regulators consider economic consequences to business when they enforce safety regulations does create a potential conflict of interest. A typical case study of the shortcomings of risk assessment is the regulatory process for approving genetically modified foods. This was exposed in a report by the Royal Society. I urge the government to implement the society's recommendations to fix the regulatory system.

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the parliamentary secretary, perish the thought that I would ever shoot the messenger. I thank him for his comprehensive reply and will only say that it is an issue on which too much talk is devoted to the costs of reducing emissions and too little energy and time are applied to the benefits.

The benefits that can accrue to the economy from a more efficient and innovative use of energy are enormous. Tremendous benefits can also accrue in the long term by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and shifting to renewable sources of energy.

In conclusion, somehow, somewhere, the federal government must give stronger leadership than it has given so far if it wants to reach the plateau necessary to ratify it earlier.

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last September I asked the Minister of Natural Resources why provincial and federal energy and environment ministers had not at that time reached an agreement on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol on climate change. I was told by the minister that the ministers were able to report on measures that would reach only about half of Canada's Kyoto targets.

Since then, however, important international negotiations on climate change have taken place. In early November a landmark agreement was reached by representatives of nearly 180 countries at the seventh conference of the United Nations climate change convention in Marrakesh. The net result is that the rules for implementation of the Kyoto protocol are now finalized and the protocol will come into force after 55 countries representing at least 55% of industrial countries' emissions have ratified it.

Here in Canada, the statements by the federal Minister of the Environment and Minister of Natural Resources still make ratification of the Kyoto protocol conditional on an agreement with the provinces. Federal and provincial energy and environment ministers plan to meet next year. Progress is slow given the fact that Canada signed the Kyoto agreement in December 1997. In addition, the uncertainty of the government's commitment to ratification is in contrast to recent developments in international negotiations on climate change. Secondly, in view of the high level of concern about the impacts of climate change shown by the insurance industry, ski resort operators, shipping companies that rely on sufficiently high levels of water and other Canadians, we therefore need domestic measures to achieve the Kyoto targets so that Canada is put in a position to ratify.

Soon the international community will be able to closely scrutinize Canada's domestic plan on climate change at the Rio Plus 10 meeting in Johannesburg next September. The next world summit on sustainable development will allow participants to look at and measure progress made since the 1992 Rio summit when Agenda 21 was agreed upon. Members should know that the United Nations convention on climate change was adopted in May 1992 and opened at the Rio summit for signature.

Without ratification, what will Canada say in Johannesburg? With this question in mind, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to assure the House and Canadians that the necessary steps are being taken to guarantee ratification of the Kyoto protocol before the Johannesburg summit and to dispel any lingering uncertainty. The security of the globe and of millions of people depend on this ratification.

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if the member for Acadie--Bathurst had listened to my speech, he would have heard me making a reference to the workers of Algoma Steel. I did ask in my intervention as to what are the measures in the budget that would help them. I admitted the fact that in this budget the social security and the environmental security dimensions are missing. I expressed the hope that in the next budget, when the economic picture will be clearer to be interpreted, those two dimensions will be addressed.

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lakeland has a very poor memory and a faulty one on top of that, because every day since we resumed in September he and his colleagues have been up asking for more expenditures here and more expenditures there. Not one day went by in question period when the official opposition members did not get up and ask the government to play a stronger role than it has so far and to spend more on specific things.

Of course if one were to add up the total cost of the requests made by the various critics on the part of the official opposition, it would be a hefty amount of money. The member for Lakeland has to realize that he cannot have it both ways. In other words, the official opposition cannot ask for greater expenditures and at the same time for reducing the budget, or it cannot ask to have more money invested in certain specific sectors and at the same time to proceed with tax reductions. These are contradictions that are available to anyone who has taken economics 101. Perhaps the member for Lakeland will one day take a course in economics and learn the basics of that fine art.

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the debate today and question periods over the last couple of months, and the requests made by the official opposition, particularly by the leader of the official opposition, one cannot help but conclude that there is a profound sense of contradiction in the position taken by the official opposition in its demands over time for greater expenditure on the part of the government, particularly with respect to national defence, security, intelligence, transport, you name it.

There seems to have been an amazing discovery by the official opposition that there is a role for government to play, after having criticized, until very recently, the presence of government in all walks of life. We have seen almost a conversion on the road to Damascus on the part of the official opposition. It finally has discovered that actually there is a role for government to play, and not only that but that government should be spending more money.

We have heard this trend since parliament resumed sitting in the fall. This trend is so strong it almost leads us to believe there may even be an element bordering on hypocrisy. One cannot ask the government to do more and demand greater expenditure, as the official opposition has done, and then criticize the government for spending too much, as we have heard in the last 24 hours. In the last 24 hours we heard only complaints that the government is overspending.

Half an hour ago in the Chamber we heard the leader of the official opposition reveal his vision about Canada's economic future which is limited virtually to a vision of reducing the debt. That seems to be the major overriding preoccupation of the official opposition as represented by its leader.

One has to ask whether the opposition can have it both ways, whether it can continue to blame government spending and at the same time request the government to do more in specific fields as chosen by the official opposition. Obviously this kind of contradiction does not help the consistency of the position taken by the official opposition since being elected to that role. It is no wonder the official opposition will remain where it is at the rate it proceeds to elaborate on the role of government. It expects the government to spend when there is a crisis, but at budget time it criticizes the government for doing its duty, namely protecting the public and the public interest.

The main theme of the leader of the official opposition this afternoon has been a repeated desire, almost an obsession, with the elimination of the debt. I am very glad the government has not dealt with the reduction of the debt in the budget. Anyone with a minimum understanding of what the gross domestic product is all about would know that the gross domestic product, namely the economy of the country, keeps growing from year to year, sometimes at 3%, sometimes at 1%, sometimes in between, but the economic pie keeps growing.

Instead the debt remains at a certain amount. In proportion to the gross domestic product or in relation to the economic pie of the country, it is becoming less and less. This means that as the years go by and as the economy grows the weight of the debt over the entire economic pie will become smaller and smaller. For that reason, therefore, I am glad that in the budget no resources were devoted to the debt.

In addition I am also glad that there was no further reduction of taxes. As a government we saw a decision made in the last budget to reduce taxes to the tune of $100 billion over the next five years. This is a considerable commitment and a considerable amount of revenue lost for very good reason: to stimulate the economy. It is there and will certainly serve the purpose, but it is $100 billion which the government does not have to perform its tasks, duties and role.

The budget is very strong on national security, and so it should be. However one has to note at the same time that it is not strong on social, environmental or climate security. I would like to think there are measures in the budget which could help the workers at Algoma steel, for instance, and those who are becoming unemployed because of globalization and other competitive economic measures that are mercilessly affecting a large number of Canadian workers. It is therefore a gap which I would consider to be a temporary one.

Conditions made it necessary for the Minister of Finance to produce a short term budget in anticipation of the fact that once it is clear the strength of the economy will pick up, particularly south of the border, it will then be possible to produce a long term budget containing the dimensions that are missing in the budget today.

In particular I mention the fact that the predominant issue in the international scene when it comes to climate change, namely the ratification of the Kyoto agreement, requires a number of changes to our taxation system and, in particular, an appreciation of the fact that we need to encourage the development of alternatives to fossil fuels.

I am referring to various products such as ethanol, hydrogen and other means of producing energy that require a shift in Canada's taxation system so as to prepare the country for the reduction of dependence on fossil fuels and the adoption of new forms of energy which will make it possible in the long term to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to achieve the targets we intend to arrive at by the year 2010.

That task is not a minor one and does require, from the perspective of the Kyoto agreement and the climate change challenge, taxation measures to be taken very early to obtain the desired results.

Each of the number of issues that the leader of the official opposition has raised deserves a lengthy rebuttal. For instance, he proclaimed the desire for capital gains tax to be further reduced.

Mr. Speaker, I can see that you are indicating that my time is up. I will have to leave it to another colleague of mine to continue with the rebuttal of the official opposition's speech.