Bruce Hyer

[Privilege, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I had just begun to raise a question of privilege regarding a mailing that went into my riding from the member for Brandon—Souris.

I have no objection to ten percenters. They can be useful if they are honest, straightforward, and shed intelligent and thoughtful perspectives on contentious issues with honest political differences. But the thing that set this mailing apart, from the other mailings that my constituents of Thunder Bay—Superior North receive, was that this mail-out contained a falsehood, purposely meant to mislead my constituents about my personal record as their member of Parliament. It has interfered significantly with my ability to represent them.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you look into this case of spreading falsehoods about another member of Parliament, using taxpayers' money to do so, you will find that it is an egregious breach of privilege. I will explain.

This mailing was about my record on the long gun registry. In it, the member told my constituents, “Your member of Parliament worked to support the registry and end the amnesty”. Nothing could be further from the truth. As the member for Brandon—Souris well knew and well knows, I have for many years been against repealing the long gun registry. I have never worked to support the ending of the long gun registry.

In every political campaign that I have run and in between, I have never worked to end the long gun registry, and I challenge the member to come up with any instance where I have. Of course, he will find that he cannot.

To the contrary, the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar has commended me personally, and in the media, for working across party lines on her private member's bill to get rid of the long gun registry. While I also support and congratulate the member for Portage—Lisgar and her efforts to end this program and the passage of her bill, the defamatory mailing calls into question her party's desire to actually get rid of the registry and uses it as an inflammatory tool with which to attack other parties.

Mr. Speaker, I may, a minute ago, have misspoke. What I have done repeatedly is work to end the long gun registry.

I had previously and publicly stated my support for the hon. member's private member's bill. Why punish supporters of her bill in this way? If the objective is to punish and weaken those members who have stated their support for ending the long gun registry, it really calls into question the Conservatives' sincerity and whether they are really trying to scrap the long gun registry.

The defamatory mailing also states that “Instead of working to correct previous Liberal mistakes, your member of Parliament is still trying to keep the long gun registry in place”. Again, this is completely and utterly untrue, and the member for Brandon—Souris must know it. I believe it is libellous.

I do not know if the member performed due diligence in verifying what was mailed out on behalf of his office, but certainly he has a responsibility to do so if these falsehoods were cooked up in the PMO or the Conservative research bureau and sent out in his name.

It is a sad state of affairs that our fundamental and necessary mailing privileges are twisted in such a way, but this is only the continuation of a recurring and deliberate pattern of behaviour from the members opposite, one that has been growing worse over time.

Mr. Speaker, you have already ruled on a similar breach of privilege in the case of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. This ten percenter sent into my riding by the member for Brandon—Souris has libelled me, sought to damage my credibility, reputation and character, lowered the quality of debate on this important issue in the House, and sought to obscure and deny the facts of the matter.

Mr. Speaker, today I seek a ruling from you as to whether this libellous and untruthful mail-out into my riding is a breach of privilege.

[Privilege, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question of privilege in the House today.

As has been sadly the habit of members from the Conservative Party recently, the member for Brandon—Souris sent a mailing to my constituents. Now my constituents get mailings from the Conservatives and Liberals all the time, so that is not the issue as long as they are somewhat based on fact or at least opinion.

The thing that set this mailing apart from the other propaganda the Conservatives have sent to Thunder Bay—Superior North was this mailing contained an outrageous falsehood purposely meant to mislead my constituents about my personal record as their member of Parliament.

[Business of Supply, November 20th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, if we are going to worry about economic competition in the future, I suggest that we worry less about the economic competition from south of the border and worry more about the economic competition from the European Union.

Germany, Great Britain, Denmark and most of the European Union countries are doing a superb job of running ahead of us in realizing that economic development will not be versus cleaning up the environment, but closely tied to cleaning up the environment. They realize that green policies will lead to green jobs and high quality economies. We need to get on that train. It is pulling out of the station.

[Business of Supply, November 20th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, absolutely that is something that must be done on a global scale. Quite clearly, the future of Chinese decisions, actions and policies on the burning of coal are highly problematic.

However, I feel that my job, and I am sure the member feels that his job is to determine Canadian policy, not Chinese policy. When I look at the history of Canada, we have occasionally had Canadian prime ministers and Canadian leaders who have formulated our own Canadian policy and did not wait to be the last in after 192 countries have formulated their policy.

[Business of Supply, November 20th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa South said something earlier that was incorrect. He said that I had agreed with him that it would be a good idea to delay and to call more witnesses. We have been hearing from witnesses for years.

The environment committee has had about six months to call witnesses and chose not to do so until very recently. All of the witnesses are underscoring the importance of acting quickly and before Copenhagen. It is quite clear that the decision to call witnesses now is a delay tactic. I thank my colleague for the question that allowed me to clarify that.

[Business of Supply, November 20th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hard-working member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

I am delighted to speak in support of the motion from my hon. colleagues on federal climate change policy. It has become blatantly obvious to Canadians and the international community that the Conservative government has no plan for the future on climate change. It is especially important that this Parliament fill the void in leadership by proposing real solutions.

The motion has three parts, but the first and third parts really flow from the second part. The first part says we should commit to proposing targets that reduce absolute greenhouse gas pollution to 25% lower than 1990 levels, not 2006 ridiculous levels, by 2020. This is, of course, the same 2020 target in my private member's bill, Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act, which has unfortunately been stalled in committee for some time now by the Liberals and the Conservatives.

This target is the logical extension of the temperature limit, which is the second part of the motion. The science has become very clear recently that we must avoid a 2°C increase from pre-industrial levels if we are to escape catastrophic climate effects.

In order to check temperature increases, 99% of scientists tell us that we need to stabilize the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere at no more than 400 parts per million. Incidentally, we are already basically at 390 parts per million today.

The third and last part of the motion is about supporting developing countries in their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and adapt to the damaging effects of climate change. While that is very vague, I can certainly see that supporting others is integral to pulling our own weight to reduce global emissions.

A ton of carbon pollution reduced in a developing country is like a ton reduced here as far the climate is concerned. This could represent the greatest economic opportunity since the second world war to export Canadian technology and business know-how abroad. It would be a sort of environmental Marshall plan.

Other countries have already seen the potential of being leaders rather than laggards versus the bleak economic future of business as usual. In fact, at this point, delay is economically irresponsible. We know that former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern has reported that the cost of inaction would be far higher than action. Unchecked emissions would cost us as much as 20% of global GDP per year, whereas the cost of bold action to reduce emissions could be limited to less than one-tenth of that on average. It does not take an economist to see which option is more affordable.

Here in Canada the recent TD Bank study by Jaccard and Associates shows that even with firm targets, such as the 25% 2020 target in Bill C-311, Canada would still be able to surpass the 2% annual growth led by Alberta.

Canadians have not seen any economic modelling of this type from our federal government. Why not? Not planning economically for something of this colossal magnitude is planning to fail and is grossly negligent. Perhaps the government has done the modelling but is reluctant to release its study. Canadians deserve to see what the government has, if the government has it.

We have just spent billions on corporate tax cuts and on the recent economic downturn, but the government has yet to seriously address the much more costly and damaging climate crisis. It has admitted it has no plan and no targets going into the Copenhagen summit next month. In fact, the Minister of the Environment said just this week that the government will wait to regulate greenhouse gas pollution until the United States takes action and until the global climate action deal is first reached by 192 other countries. We will be the last in. Talk about lack of leadership.

Years ago the government promised a plan would be in place and working by this year. Then it was delayed, but a plan was to at least be published by January 2009, then by the beginning of next year. Now it will not even be until perhaps late 2010 and more likely 2011. The minister admitted that under the American timetable, people will not even see regulations take effect until as late as 2016. No wonder our government has so little credibility on the international stage anymore. No wonder countries walk out when Canadian representatives take the podium on the world stage.

The principal reason the environment minister now gives for avoiding setting targets today is that we should wait until other countries set theirs so ours are not drastically different.

The environment minister's logic has not held back the EU. Yesterday the European Union's new ambassador appeared before the House environmental committee on Bill C-311. He testified that the EU has already set firm, science based targets like a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas pollution over 1990 not 2006 levels by 2020 and are willing to go up to 30% if countries like Canada step up to the plate with an ambitious agreement at Copenhagen.

The high commissioner for the United Kingdom also appeared before that committee yesterday and showed that prosperity and ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas pollution was not just possible but that it was already happening in Britain.

The U.K. has already adopted targets like those in the Climate Change Accountability Act, but instead of just 20% over 1990 levels by 2020, it has committed to a 34% reduction in law. It has already achieved today a 21% reduction. More than a million homes are powered by wind alone in Great Britain. Almost a million Britons are employed in the new green economy there. The Brits see that reducing greenhouse gases is not a cost but a huge economic opportunity.

Instead of avoiding responsibility to cut carbon pollution as our Prime Minister has done, Prime Minister Brown said this year that “a vast expansion” of carbon-cutting technologies was in fact crucial to their economic recovery.

It is not surprising that Great Britain should be enthusiastic about reducing its emissions, after all, it is fundamentally about increasing efficiency. It is about using less energy and less resources for more goods and better services that the country produces. That is good for business and necessary for prosperity. The U.K. knows that there is not much of a future left in the Canadian Conservative business as usual process of wasting energy.

So the British government has already adopted this target and is well on its way to meeting it and beating it. In fact, this is the more cautious plan in the U.K. The opposition Tories there are demanding even more ambitious action yet. Conservatives in our country would do well to take their climate cues from their British brethren rather than the Bush era conservatives south of us.

Conservatives in the U.S., as here, have tried to make the environment the enemy of the economy and in doing so condemn them both to decline. They have used this excuse to delay action for decades.

The Conservative government here continues to delay, even to this day. To continue in this way in the face of so much overwhelming evidence, ignoring the demands of both industry and Canadians alike, is irresponsible to the point of being criminal.

We are now skating very close to the edge. We have little margin for error left and little time. The government should know that past that tipping point, over that cliff to climate chaos, lies economic ruin as well. There can be no prosperity on a dying planet.

If we harmonize the two, the environment and the economy, realizing that new economic opportunities and green industries will emerge if we fulfill our environmental obligations as other countries are doing, we will open up the possibility of a richer, more sustainable and fairer world for us all and a more prosperous Canada with new green jobs.

Decisive targets, policies and action on energy policy will create jobs across Canada, including in Thunder Bay where Bombardier can and will build the trains of the future or the giant windmills that we need.

The forestry and mining industries have already met the 2020 targets in Bill C-311 and in this motion.

There is something else that must be reconciled with climate change that the government has virtually ignored. Climate change poses the greatest threat to Canadian security and international security since the cold war.

It is not only Arctic sovereignty we are talking about, although that is significant enough, but spreading pests, drought and desertification, among other things, will result in an acute and permanent global food supply crisis. Canadian crops will suffer too. The geopolitical consequences of this alone are huge, including in North America. Water will be much scarcer for much of the world but overabundant on many coasts where regions and entire countries will be flooded.

For every degree the global temperature rises so do the mass migrations of people, the number of failed and failing states, and wars.

Britain now sees climate change as its number one national security priority. The United States military takes climate change seriously too. Even the youngest schoolchildren seem to know what the government does not, which is that controlling climate change is vital to the health of our planet and civilization. Lack of strong action to defend Canada's long-term economic prosperity and our very security—

[Business of Supply, November 20th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I found the speech by the hon. member for Ottawa South to be quite eloquent. He is quite eloquent sometimes. However, sometimes his actions are not consistent with his pretty words. I am a little disappointed at the hypocrisy that I find implicit in contrasting what he said today and has said on other occasions with the actions that the Liberals have taken in general, and that he has taken in particular.

Over 13 years the Liberals did sign Kyoto but also they made no plan, they had no success in curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, they grew by about 30% during their reign. The hon. member, as a member of the environment committee and as the environment critic for his party recommended to his party that it delay the vote on Bill C-311 until after Copenhagen. The Liberal Party could have chosen to have helped that bill to pass so we would be sending clear direction and clear messages to Copenhagen.

Why did the member vote to delay Bill C-311 until after Copenhagen and why are his actions inconsistent with his pretty words?

[Petitions, November 20th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of hundreds of members of over 50 first nations from across Ontario including nine in my riding of Thunder Bay—Superior North. They are rightly concerned with verified reports that the Ministry of Indian and Northern Affairs is considering removing the post-secondary student support program from first nations management and to place it under the Canada student loans program or similar third party. This would turn the grants given under this program into loans, saddling many of our most underfunded students with a debt. It would also remove our first nations from management of their own academic support funds specifically promised in at least six treaties and historically provided to all first nation students.

The petitioners urge the government to confirm the programs as permanent first nations community level funded programs and take immediate action on the recommendations of the February 2007 report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

[Business of Supply, November 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I was dismayed to once again hear a reiteration of the rubber stamp approach to policy in one more area by the Conservatives, who rubber stamp U.S. policies. Years ago, they wanted to rubber stamp the policy of going into Iraq. They have been rubber stamping the U.S. policy of going into Afghanistan and staying there. Now, they want to rubber stamp the policy of waiting to see exactly what the Americans will do and do not quite do as much here in Canada.

I will limit myself to one specific question that really has me scratching my head. The hon. member talked about clean coal. That is an oxymoron if I have ever heard one. Apparently, there is hope about the emerging technology of carbon sequestration. If carbon sequestration can work, that is great. Many scientists and I are dubious, but if it can work, that is great.

If carbon sequestration is so likely to be successful in sufficiently reducing greenhouse gases and work well, then why are the Conservatives so nervous about applying it and committing to it to actually reach the minimum targets recommended by scientists from around the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by 2020?

[Business of Supply, November 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very thoughtful and very forward-thinking comments today on his motion.

I would like to ask him a simple question. Perhaps he could say a bit more about how the Conservatives want to wait primarily for the United States and also would like us to be last of all the 192 countries around the world. It seems that they want to see where the political winds are blowing across the entire planet before they worry about the winds of climate change. Does this make sense?

I would love to hear the member's thoughts on why the Conservatives are taking this reactive rather than proactive approach.