Albina Guarnieri

[Firearms Registry, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the members opposite panic about losing their ammunition once the review comes to the forefront. Our goal is to deliver a gun registry that is reasonable, that all members of the House will want to support and I am confident that the member opposite will be among the first to applaud the results.

[Foreign Affairs, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we who are immigrants to Canada are shocked to find out that an immigrant can be deported.

The Deputy Prime Minister has announced the terms of reference for the public inquiry. The commission of inquiry has sufficient latitude to investigate all the facts and to present its conclusions to Canadians.

[Firearms Registry, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government's review of the gun registry is about building a better gun system. With this registry, gun advocates will ensure that they have a sustainable system and owners of guns can expect a system that listens to their legitimate concerns.

[Economic and Fiscal Update, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Finance presented his economic and fiscal update and gave us some good news.

For the sixth consecutive year, Canada will not have a deficit. We will even have a surplus that will enable us to further reduce the national debt.

Despite the unexpected challenges we have had to face, such as SARS and mad cow disease, the government has set aside $2 billion of the surplus to go to health. This is very important to us, because we wish to support the first ministers' Accord on Health Care Renewal.

Hard work by Canadians and wise financial management over the past decade have made it possible to avoid a deficit once again. Canadians have every reason to be proud because this kind of accomplishment is becoming increasingly rare in the world.

[Investment Brokers, June 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the decline of the stock market over the past several years has caused investors to become more wary of the advice they receive from their investment advisors.

Many are surprised to discover that investment advisors are paid sales commissions by fund companies to sell their products to their clients and later keep them from selling those investments. These commissions and higher ones paid to sell private placements represent a conflict of interest that investors need to be aware of.

It is time for national standards to protect investors from commission-driven advice by requiring brokers working for federally regulated financial institutions to report to their clients the commissions they receive for recommending and selling investment products. Transparency and full disclosure are essential to restore the investor confidence that our economy urgently needs.

[Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded in favour of the motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Kyoto Protocol, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Catharines.

It is a rare event when the nations of the world put aside their national interests, economic concerns and trade disputes and join forces to tackle a global challenge. Climate change caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases threatens the world's industries as well as its people.

There is now legitimate concern that agriculture, fisheries, forestry and tourism will be impacted by changing weather patterns causing floods, droughts and other climate consequences over the decades to come. There could be few greater causes for the world to pull together.

When Canada signed the Kyoto protocol in April 1998, it was touted as a global solution to a global problem. Unfortunately, it is now obvious that Kyoto is neither global nor truly the solution we had hoped for.

The Kyoto accord is now an agreement between Europe, Japan and New Zealand. The largest polluters are not participating. Countries responsible for two-thirds of the world's emissions are not part of the deal or have no emissions reduction targets. The countries with the fastest growth in emissions, China, India and the United States, are not subject to any restrictions. Even if Kyoto participants meet their targets, the impact on global warming will be insignificant over the next 50 years at least. This is well known.

What is less well known is that those Kyoto countries which are subject to emissions targets are not required to reduce their emissions as a group. This strange reality is the basis for the agreement being signed in the first place. One might have thought that an agreement to which Canada signed in 1998 might seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from 1998 levels. This of course is not the case. 1990 was the base year. It is now obvious why that is. Between 1990 and 1998, many signatories had dramatic reductions in their own emissions.

Russia had 35% less emissions in 1998 than it did in 1990. Hence, its target of zero increase actually permits it to increase its emissions by 50% from the day it signed the treaty. The other former eastern bloc countries are in similar situations.

The European Union also had members that had dramatic reductions between 1990 and 1998. Germany's absorption of East Germany and the closure of coal-fired industries reduced its emissions by 15%. The widespread conversion from coal to natural gas in the U.K. reduced its emissions by over 8%. Overall, the European Union needs to reduce its emissions by only 4% to reach its target, not that challenging for a region with a very limited population growth.

The use of 1990 rather than 1998 as a base level was an effort to reduce commitments rather than reduce emissions. The absurd result is that when we take Canada, the United States and Australia out of the treaty, the remaining Kyoto participants as a group actually signed on to increase their emissions by 16% over 1998 levels. If they do better, they can sell credits to countries that have harder targets to meet.

While the United States and Australia want no part of that bargain, Canada will ratify the deal and will commit to reducing its greenhouse gases by 16% from the levels in 1998 when we signed on originally. That is the deal. Canada reduces its emissions by 16% from 1998; the rest of the Kyoto countries can collectively increase their emissions by curiously 16%.

Today Canada's target amounts to a 25% reduction from current levels. Our greenhouse gas emissions have risen because Canada has a growing population and because we have a growing oil and gas production industry.

Every year we take in over 200,000 immigrants. This requires some 80,000 more homes, homes that need to be heated, homes that use electricity. Our economy relies on this growth. We rely on growth in our oil patch. We watch auto sales and housing starts as key economic indicators. To restrain this growth will rob us of the economic strength we need to finance the transition to cleaner fuels and greater energy efficiency.

With the United States outside the deal, Canada is certain to suffer competitive consequences of any Kyoto measures that result in higher costs to producers or manufacturers.

The government has published a plan with some ideas as to how we might hope to meet our national targets. The total cost to Canadians of this revolutionary reduction in carbon emissions is predicted to be a rounding error in our GDP. We need a parliamentary review of our implementation plan to fully assess what this program will cost Canadians as consumers and taxpayers, something which our former finance minister has advocated religiously and which the Leader of the Opposition has failed to remember in his listing of what the finance minister has or has not said.

We need to determine whether the predicted economic benefits of energy efficiency can make a measurable difference nationwide. We need to identify all the industry sectors which may be most impacted. Most important, we have to let Canadians understand what we are committing to on their behalf. That has always been the role of Parliament and its committees: to guard the public purse and inform Canadians about what their government is doing.

Last Monday the Minister of Industry leapt before the cameras to lash out against the prudence of parliamentary committees studying government plans. He said:

I don't think that we can approach public life by saying every time there is a difficult decision to make, we'll send it to a committee. Sometimes you have to decide and sometimes everybody won't like it, but that's just too bad. You've got to make up your mind.

So said the minister. It is poetic justice that the very next day the Auditor General reported on a previous occasion when the minister voiced such an opinion.

The minister had promised Canadians that the gun registry would cost some $2 million net to taxpayers. Sheila Fraser reported that in fact it burned an $860 million hole in taxpayers' pockets, an error of some 40,000%. Yes, sometimes we just have to decide, but sometimes we should also make the right decisions, decisions that do not result in the worst cost overrun that the Auditor General has seen in her professional life.

One has to wonder what might have happened had there been a more careful review of cost assumptions. Had we known the true costs, we might have had the choice of whether we wanted to spend $100 million a year on a database or, for about the same amount of money, invest in 1,000 more police officers to target organized crime, parole violators or illegal guns. Canadians should have had that choice.

We did learn that legislating platitudes without a well studied plan can be devastating to taxpayers who are left with the bill. Only an independent and thorough assessment of our Kyoto plan can give us the confidence in the cost estimates. Only by knowing the costs can we determine what else we might have been able to achieve for Canadians with the same amount of money.

Canada must do its part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We should invest in our future environment. We should invest in cleaner fuels and innovative ways to improve energy efficiency. We should aim to reach our Kyoto targets whether we are part of a treaty or not. We have a responsibility to ensure that Canadian inaction is in no way responsible for the future consequences of global warming.

We also have a responsibility to be honest with Canadians about the costs. We should know how many dollars will be sent to Russia to buy credits and how many jobs will be lost in the United States where emissions targets will not be a burden on industry. In essence, we need a fully detailed plan that would survive the scrutiny of a parliamentary committee and stand the test of time.

Kyoto is both a noble path and a blind alley. A parliamentary committee should be asked to light the way for Canadians.

[Old Age Security, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the fifth actuarial report on old age security was tabled in the House. We learned that our old age security payments will increase from $25 billion to $93 billion annually in just 25 years.

These payments to nearly eight million retired Canadians will be made from general tax revenue. The cost of OAS will grow almost 40% faster than total employment earnings.

Having conquered the challenge of the deficit, it is time that we begin setting aside part of our current surplus to pay for future retirement costs and prevent destructive tax increases or cuts in our seniors' benefits.

Canadians who have paid a lifetime of taxes deserve and expect that their old age security will be secured by government foresight.

[Health, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last week the government of Ontario announced that heart surgery programs in the cities of London and Ottawa will be terminated and children will be shifted to Toronto for treatment. Some parents now face a four hour commute to be near their critically ill children, adding even more financial and emotional strain on already challenged families.

These are parents who are struggling to keep jobs and businesses while trying to be at the side of a sick family member. The closure of these regional heart surgery centres is just the latest evidence that health services in Ontario are failing to give proper regard to the needs of patients' families.

I would ask our Minister of Health to register her objection to these closures and to investigate ways the federal government can ensure that Canadians are not kept at an unreasonable distance from critical health services.

[Jim Coutts, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today a great Liberal who made an indelible contribution to the success of the Pearson and Trudeau governments will be honoured with the Order of Canada.

Nanton born Jim Coutts was principal secretary to Prime Minister Trudeau during the years that defined our Liberal concept of social justice. In the time that I worked for Jim in 1983 and 1984 he demonstrated a genuine connection with the struggles of people trying to get a foothold in the country and become contributors to the economy.

His personal efforts and many charitable pursuits evidenced that the public policies he propelled were motivated by human concerns more than politics. In his book A Canada that works for everyone: changing the way we look at our future , he wrote in 1984:

There is an opportunity this year to examine two of our most fundamental national concerns: How to make the economic pie bigger and how to divide a bigger pie more fairly.

These goals defined his political party and continue to resonate today.