Julian Reed

[Petitions, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition containing the names of over 100 citizens of the great riding of Halton and the surrounding area petitioning the government to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

[Exporter of the Year, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, ZENON Environmental Inc. of Oakville, Ontario has been awarded the 2002 Canadian Exporter of the Year award.

Founded in 1980 by Dr. Andrew Benedek, ZENON is winning over environmentalists and investors alike with its advanced membrane products and services that improve the safety and quality of water and waste water.

Over the past three years the company has penetrated new markets in Asia, Australia and eastern Europe, establishing thousands of installations in over 30 countries while helping to safeguard the world's water supply but being virtually ignored in Canada until the Walkerton tragedy.

I have had the pleasure of touring the Oakville headquarters and talking with Dr. Benedek. I would like to add my personal congratulations on a job well done.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of attending an innovation summit as well but it did not throw all innovation on the backs of students. As a matter of fact, the process challenged business people, political people, people from all walks of life to put on their thinking caps and do some innovating of their own. Another innovation summit will be held here in Ottawa this fall.

I can tell the member that rather than laying it on the backs of students, we laid it on our own backs. We looked at what was good in our environment now and we looked at what we would need to do to move forward. That was our interpretation of innovation. The federal government has committed $3 billion to that innovation.

Talking about the cost of student tuition, I would like to remind him that we do have a $2 billion millennium scholarship fund. This not only allows students of lesser financial means to take advantage of student loan programs but the millennium fund is also there to provide some assistance.

A member of my family, who did not have the resources to complete university, completed it through the student loan program, which helped him out immensely. When I went through college I was lucky enough to earn enough money to pay my tuition, but I will admit that was many years ago and the cost of tuition was, admittedly, much less than it is now.

We have a tremendous future ahead of us. Innovation is not limited to students or universities.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I only have 10 minutes to enter into a discourse on this Speech from the Throne because it is reflective of an ongoing story that began in 1993. For the most part, the subject matter contained in it is an extension of what was begun at that time.

We have heard previous colleagues talk about the fiscal responsibility comments and the support for children which are contained in the Speech from the Throne. I would be remiss if I did not point out that because of the actions that were started in 1993, 300,000 fewer children live below the poverty line. That is an ongoing story and is an ongoing challenge that Canadians have to face. The recognition of the need to continue to support and expand the support for children is acknowledged in the Speech from the Throne.

There is also a section on the benefits of innovation. As we know, the federal government has involved itself to the tune of about $3 billion in innovation in Canada. It ties in very suitably with this new issue that has come upon us over the last 10 years but now is gaining prominence. That is the issue of climate change and the Kyoto accord. In my personal opinion, the Kyoto accord and its ratification should be considered only as baby steps in the beginning of a transformation in the way we live in this world.

I know the opposition members have taken a position of simply opposing the accord. I will deal with some of the arguments that have been put forward by them. It seems to me that some of these arguments, when examined, are pretty peripheral. For instance, one that was put up the other day was that Canada only contributes 2% of the pollution on the face of the earth and, therefore, why should we bother trying because it is only 2%?

Let me put it this way. If 50 other countries were producing only 2% and they all tackled the Kyoto issue, that would be 100% of the pollution in the country. It is sort of like saying, “Why should I ride public transit instead of driving a car? It only represents 1/27-millionth of the pollution in Canada”.

I got thinking about that as I came over from Pointe Gatineau on the bus this morning: Why am I doing this? Why do I take a bus from the airport to Parliament Hill when I come in from my constituency? Simply put, it is a time for every citizen in the country to take personal responsibility for what is happening to this globe. Surely a conversation with any insurance company will tell us about the catastrophes for which it has had to pay because of what are considered natural occurrences, whether it be hurricanes, or drought or whatever affects the lives of human beings. It is happening whether we care to acknowledge it or not.

I heard a comment from the opposition about the benefits of CO

2

, carbon dioxide. That is a very interesting one because a certain amount of carbon dioxide of course is exhaled and inhaled by growing matter on the planet. As a tree grows, during the day it gives off oxygen and then consumes carbon dioxide. It is a cycle. What we are doing as a nation or as human beings on the planet is adding to that non-cyclical carbon dioxide. It is increasing in our atmosphere every year. Some people say that is a good thing. I have heard the opposition say that.

I would like to challenge any member of the opposition to something today. I would like them to sit for an hour in a room filled with carbon dioxide. If they come out of it alive, I will give them a month's salary. They know very well that if they are faced with high levels of carbon dioxide in the air they will die. This is one of the manifestations of climate change which we are witnessing.

They tell us that it is impossible to meet Kyoto targets. Let me suggest that they are right, without imagination. They are right, without innovation. They are right, if there is no vision. They are right, if there is no creativity. They are certainly right, if there is no willingness to participate.

That is why I am so enthusiastic about endorsing what is perhaps largely symbolic and is only the beginning of a journey. However I want to challenge Canadians. I want to challenge their imagination, their vision, their creativity and their willingness. As a government, we are actively challenging their ability to innovate. This is where we have to go and where we certainly can go.

History has shown that humans usually do not change their behaviour pattern very much unless there is a perceived crisis. In the 1970s I can recall when there was an oil “crisis” in the ability or the desire of OPEC to deliver oil to North America. It resulted in escalating prices of crude oil. Many of us can remember that. Some of my colleagues are too young to remember it. I can remember when oil hit $50 a barrel on the Chicago spot the prediction was that it would go to $120 a barrel. What happened? It precipitated the biggest voluntary conservation effort ever in North America.

Today we have a crisis which is coming upon us gradually; it is not acute. However, when 1,800 people die prematurely in Ontario every year, I would challenge it and say, if that happened with airplane crashes, not one airplane would fly in Canada until that problem was sorted out.

That is our challenge. That is the challenge facing Canadians and the whole world. Canada has the ability through its innovation, vision, creativity and willingness to become the world leader in this quest.

[Iraq, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great concern that I rise for the first time in this second session of the 37th Parliament.

Over the summer many people in my riding made a point of telling me how concerned they were with the level of conflict in the Middle East. The situation with Iraq has become dangerous waters and the United Nations is facing one of its greatest tests. The UN represents a dream, a dream of a world without the scourge of war.

Canada has been determined to ensure that Iraq meets its United Nations disarmament obligations. We must continue to work through the UN and understand the danger posed by unilateral action in the Middle East. We must not abandon the UN. We must work collectively for the world we want and the pursuit of peace.

[Petitions, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have, from 45 constituents, concerns child pornography. It is essentially the same petition that has been presented three times already in the House today. The petitioners call upon parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

[Petitions, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions. The first one concerns rural mail carriers. The petitioners call upon parliament to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which would then allow collective bargaining.

[Soccer, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the first Under-19 Women's World Soccer Championship will be held here in Canada. Awarded by the Fédération internationale de football association, this prestigious event will run from August 17 to September 1 in Edmonton, Vancouver and Victoria.

It is an opportunity to hold a new event for a sport whose popularity is increasing steadily. It is also very exciting to see that another high visibility sport event has been awarded to Vancouver which we hope will be the future site of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. As host country Canada will field a team that will proudly represent us at this first Under-19 Women's World Soccer Championship.

I congratulate the Canadian Soccer Association and the organizing committee under the leadership of Mr. Jim Fleming who will be responsible for hosting this wonderful event in Canada.

[Species at Risk Act, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, considering that the debate has gone through clauses and so on, I would like to begin by making a remark in response to the member for Red Deer.

I was listening with great attention to what he had to say today about compensation, which is a huge issue for many of us in the House. If I heard him correctly, and I hope I did not, he suggested that the elimination of Motion No. 109 in the bill would somehow eliminate any attempt at compensation in the bill.

The fact is that the reverse is true. If the hon. member were to reread the bill he would find that the elimination of Motion No. 109 means that the government shall make regulations. It is very clear.

I will give him the benefit of not comprehending what is in the bill because I know, as a colleague working on the committee, that we all worked together with the best of intentions. I would hope that perhaps he could correct that at some later time.

One party complains that the compensation scheme will leave landowners stranded. Another party says that the compensation is outrageous and it should be done away with altogether. From one side we heard that the stick in the proposed bill is too soft a stick and that there is too much wiggle room for violators. On the other we hear that it is coercive and that it will not work.

I believe that over the many years and three manifestations of the bill we have actually come up with the Canadian thing. It has involved a good deal of compromise and understanding on the part of everyone but we believe we have something that will at last be workable. I am not talking about a lot of compromises. It is a matter of balance.

The standing committee worked very hard on this over many years. Well over 300 motions were considered and over 120 amendments were passed. The government should be commended for its commitment to work with landowners, land users and resource users in the protection of species at risk.

The promise made by the Minister of the Environment to make compensation regulations shortly after proclamation and the subsequent withdrawal of Motion No. 109 is reflective of this commitment. I say to my hon. friends who are so upset about compensation that they should reread the bill so they can fully understand what is in it.

Motion No. 109 concerned clause 64 which provided for compensation. The effect of withdrawing the motion was that the governor in council will now be required to make regulations necessary for the provision of compensation under the act.

Bill C-5 is built on the principle of co-operation first. We are committed to a co-operative approach. Through the accord for the protection of species at risk signed in 1996 with the provinces and territories, we have already made it quite clear that we agree that co-operation is the way to get things done. After all, laws do not protect species, people protect species.

The protection of species at risk is the responsibility of every Canadian, whether they be rural or urban Canadians. We all have an impact on species and we should all be conscious of that.

There have been enough successes under the accord to show that our approach is right. We studied the United States and its legislation, held up as an example by those who support a different kind of approach, one that is more coercive. What we found was a backlog of court cases and a lot of will. That is not Canadian. It does not fit with our constitution. It is not who we are and it is not how we do things.

The policy development for this bill has taken nearly nine years. We have learned through trial and error and through study and research that the co-operative approach is the one we must lean on, the one we must foster, the one that each amendment must support.

We will see evidence of this in the government motions on voluntary measures to encourage landowners to protect critical habitat. I must commend the landowners in the country who have taken that to heart and are doing so much already.

This means too that scientists identify the critical habitat and activities that could destroy it and pass this along to landowners to try to find common sense solutions to preserve it. We are not living in a dreamworld here. We know there will be times, and we hope that they are few, when voluntary measures will not work. In that case the government will step in quickly and act decisively.

The legislation contains the steps to prohibit activities that could destroy the critical habitat of endangered species. It focuses on building co-operation rather than attempting to coerce action by Canadians. In other words, we are not going to clog the courtrooms and give rise to a new specialty of law if habitat in Canada goes unprotected.

We are going to work to get things done and quickly.This means getting out there on the land, on the waters, in the forests and on the shorelines.

A new general prohibition against any activities that may “adversely affect” critical habitat under federal jurisdiction for these reasons is not acceptable. We cannot have scientists' decisions triggering legal prohibitions. This both removes government's accountability as well as the incentive for stewardship as the first course of action.

The government has to protect critical habitat in its own jurisdiction. The government motions strengthen protection of critical habitat under federal authority.

We are moving to automatically protect critical habitat in national parks, marine protected areas, migratory bird sanctuaries and national wildlife areas.

To further strengthen the protection of critical habitat in other areas of federal jurisdiction, we are proposing mandatory protection if critical habitat is not protected through voluntary or other means within 180 days of identification. The timeline of 180 days provides an opportunity for those using the land or resources to voluntarily protect the critical habitat. At the same time, this approach ensures that critical habitat is protected in a timely manner.

The government and our partners will be working with those who use lands in federal jurisdiction to come up with voluntary measures to protect critical habitat. We are going to work as hard as we can to get stewardship arrangements into place to protect critical habitat within the timeframe.

The government is also proposing that the bill will require all federal ministers who are authorized under other federal acts to issue permits or licences for an activity to consider whether those activities could result in destruction of critical habitat prior to issuing the permits and licences.

The co-operative approach has won the support of many people. They have had a bit of trouble being heard but they are out there and they are already at work. We must ensure the approach we put forward continues a co-operative approach with these partners.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my hon. friend realizes that the reason for introducing these amendments at this time is that for the first time in the history of Canada nuclear power will be controlled privately. Prior to this, clauses of this nature were not necessary because funding did not come from private sources.

Does my hon. friend understand that? It is not that the bill was imperfect but simply that this is the first time in our history that funding will come from private sources. These amendments would allow the lender to not be liable but would still keep liability with the generating company and, in the case of Ontario, with the government of Ontario as the backstop for liability.