Bryon Wilfert

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the House that Bill C-15, an act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, has been passed by the Senate and will receive royal assent today.

The passing of Bill C-15 represents significant and necessary improvements to existing federal legislation that deals with marine pollution and illegal dumping of bilge oil in our oceans.

Off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador alone, over 300,000 seabirds die annually as a result of this pollution. We have a responsibility to protect our environment, both for Canadians and internationally.

Bill C-15 strengthens Canada's ability to enforce its environmental laws effectively and immediately, particularly in the exclusive economic zone.

The passing of the bill allows Canada to better protect our marine environment and send a clear message to polluters.

Bill C-15 represents the government's commitment to the protection of our environment and natural heritage now and into the future.

[Government of Canada, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about confidence, let me say that Canadians have confidence in this government because of the work we have done on the environment. They have confidence in our plan in moving forward on climate change.

The question is, why is that member not confident in Canadians and not supporting the budget, which is the greenest budget in Canadian history and which will help in the Sydney tar ponds, help deal with pollution and help deal with the health of Canadians? The real question is, what are they afraid of? We are not afraid. We are not afraid of Canadians. We are not afraid of the truth.

It is unfortunate that those members clearly have taken a different position than the majority of Canadians when it comes to the budget and investing in Canadians.

[The Environment, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we now have the most aggressive plan of the G-7 to deal with climate change.

As the member should know, this government established a partnership fund to work with provinces. This government established the fund to deal with technology.

Unfortunately, that party over there still thinks the ice age has not occurred. That party over there only wants things for Quebec. And the party over there which should be supporting it in fact is not supporting the budget.

If they want to deal with climate change, members should support the budget and we will move forward on this important policy.

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this evening to talk about this important issue for Canadians and to the government: the protection of built heritage. Canada's historic places represent the soul and the spirit of Canada. These places mark the lives and the stories of those who forged this country.

Historic places can be buildings, battlefields, lighthouses, shipwrecks, parks, archaeological sites, cultural landscapes, bridges, homes, grave sites, railway stations, historic districts, ruins, engineering wonders, schools, canals, courthouses, theatres or markets. They can be large and perfectly intact. They can be small and have only fragments of their history remaining.

What Canada's historic places require is commitment by Canadians to protect and value them. It is such a commitment that we see reflected in the bill before us today, an act to protect heritage lighthouses. The intention of Bill S-14 is to protect heritage lighthouses within the legislative authority of Parliament by providing a means for their designation as heritage lighthouses, by providing an opportunity for public consultation before authorization is given for the removal, alteration, destruction, sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of a designated heritage lighthouse and by requiring that designated heritage lighthouses be reasonably maintained.

Canada has a rich history of lighthouses associated to our strong traditions in maritime navigation. The first lighthouse in what would become Canada was at Louisbourg in August 1731 and was completed two years later. The remains of this lighthouse continue to be protected within the Fortress of Louisbourg National Historic Site.

In the 19th century the systematic lighting of Canada's coasts began in earnest and lighthouses were erected in critical locations first, then driven by vested interests like the desire to establish and keep safe a faster mail service and placed in response to calamities. Some of Canada's lighthouses mark significant engineering achievement involving innovations in lighting systems, fog signals and extraordinary construction efforts. Some exhibit exceptional esthetic qualities and some lighthouses, such as that in Peggy's Cove, have come to symbolize our country.

Lighthouses have played an important role in our development as a nation. Senator Forrestall is to be congratulated for his efforts to see that this significant building type is protected. Indeed, his perseverance in having introduced the bill on five separate occasions indicates a remarkable dedication to the protection of lighthouses.

Bill S-14 calls for the designation of heritage lighthouses by the governor in council on the recommendation of the minister and provides for public petitions to trigger the designation process. At the minister's request, the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada would be responsible for considering such lighthouses for recommendation to the minister. If the board were involved, it would be obliged to allow the public to make presentations.

Bill S-14 also provides for a system in which any person can object to proposed alterations to or for the disposal of a designated lighthouse. If this were to occur, the minister, with the advice of Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada would have to decide whether or not to authorize this action.

The effect of the bill would be to protect a great number of lighthouses which do not currently enjoy protection through a new designation program. It would place new obligations on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada to administer this program, establish new powers for the minister responsible for bill over his colleagues who hold lighthouses in their departmental portfolios, and require maintenance of any designated structure.

Such obligations come with a price. It is for this reason that the hon. colleague has asked for a point of order regarding whether the bill constitutes a money bill. Bill S-14 would create a program, the lighthouse protection program, which does not exist today.

The associated implementation costs are unavoidable and it is estimated it would cost around $235 million over five years and more than $18 million per year ongoing. My hon. colleague has acted in the public interest in seeking confirmation of the financial prerogative of the Crown.

In light of such expenditures, the government must ask whether a program such as proposed in Bill S-14 is the most efficient and effective way to protect built heritage.

Although the Government of Canada supports the principles behind Bill S-14, and I would underline that we support the principles, we remain concerned that the bill deals only with one type of heritage building.

Lighthouses are a significant building type, without doubt, but so are churches, grain elevators, post offices and museums. I listed quite a number of buildings at the beginning. In supporting Bill S-14, the groundwork is laid for similar costly bills relating to other heritage building types.

The Government of Canada is committed to the protection of built heritage. In the October 2004 Speech from the Throne, the government committed to “foster cultural institutions and policies that aspire to excellence”. We also committed “to be unwavering in the application of fiscal discipline”.

In order to make the bill more fiscally responsible and to align it with sound policy for heritage institutions, the government will propose a number of amendments. These amendments will seek to streamline the administrative process associated with the bill and invest in those areas which will have the greatest impact on protecting the most significant lighthouses in Canada.

The bill, as drafted, sets a lofty benchmark for the protection of built heritage. In a world of unlimited resources, it would be ideal. However, there are currently many competing demands on the public purse and broad protection for many buildings is not possible. As the Auditor General observed in her 2003 report on the Protection of Cultural Heritage in the Federal Government, lighthouses are already well represented among buildings with heritage designations, while proliferating designations threaten the survival of all heritage buildings. We cannot, unfortunately save them all.

The government has analysed the needs of built heritage in Canada in great detail over the past few years and has developed proposals that would respond to these needs.

For many years, Canada has lagged behind other G-8 nations and its own provincial and territorial governments in the protection of historic places. I have certainly talked about this issue before.

In 2002 a public discussion document was released providing an overview of possible legislation to protect built heritage under federal jurisdiction. This paper set out proposals for new legislation to ensure that the Government of Canada would have the tools needed to address gaps in federal heritage protection and to ensure that it could fulfill its stewardship responsibilities for the historic places that it owned.

Consultations have taken place and Parks Canada continues to develop legislative proposals. These proposals would provide legal protection for all historic places on federal lands and for archaeological resources on or under federal lands and waters. The proposed legislation would also formally recognize the Canadian Register of Historic Places and commit the government to the agreed upon conservation standards and guidelines.

The proposed legislation will require the Government of Canada to ensure that its national historic sites and “classified” buildings, those designated to be of utmost historic importance to Canadians, are appropriately maintained and protected. If sold or leased out, specific legal instruments will be put in place to ensure that the building will continue to receive the same high level of conservation protection. This includes 27 lighthouses that are currently covered by these two types of designation.

In the case of “recognized” buildings, the proposed legislation will encourage the use of standards and guidelines and require departments, agencies and crown corporations to take into account the heritage status of the building. Ninety three lighthouses are currently designated as “recognized”.

These legislative proposals are only one aspect of the government's response to the needs of built heritage. A small portion of historic places in Canada are owned by the federal government, so cooperation with others is key. This requires participation by individuals, corporations and other orders of government.

The historic places initiative, which is extremely important, is based on the acknowledgement that government alone cannot save all buildings and other historic places. The keystone of the initiative is a broad national coalition with provinces, territories and municipalities coupled equally with valuable collaboration involving aboriginal peoples and heritage experts.

Budget 2005 commits $46 million over the next five years to continue to implement the core programs of the historic places initiative, a budget which I hope all members in the House will support.

Parks Canada is also implementing the commercial heritage properties incentive fund announced in 2003.

The government remains committed to the overall objectives of Bill S-14, the protection of iconic and treasured examples of Canada's built heritage, found from coast to coast.

We are interested in preservation and the amendments we will present will try and redefine, to some degree, this initiative. We support the principles that are outlined here. We look forward to further discussion on this and working with the member opposite in ensuring that lighthouses, among other important treasures of this country, are protected.

[Richmond Hill, May 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, after 30 years of service as chief administrative officer for the Town of Richmond Hill, Dave Weldon will be retiring at the end of May.

During his tenure, the town staff has increased from approximately 80 to 600 people. Growth has been the mainstay during much of this period. Under his calm and professional approach, the town has thrived. His ability to make people feel at ease and also his ability to critically analyze issues have been important in helping to guide and to respond to matters ranging from development to economic growth and transportation concerns.

Leadership, the ability to articulate what the objectives are and instilling confidence in employees are what Dave is famous for. Having spent 12 years on Richmond Hill council, I can testify to his encouraging manner and the respect that he has from elected officials and staff.

As member of Parliament for Richmond Hill, I would like to wish Dave, his wife Carol and their children the very best in the future.

[ALS Society of Canada, May 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the tremendous work of the ALS Society of Canada. The ALS Society of Canada, founded in 1977, is the only national voluntary health organization dedicated solely to the fight against ALS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease.

The ALS Society is the leading not for profit health organization working nationwide to fund ALS research and work to improve the quality of life for Canadians affected by this disease.

Imagine not being able to walk, write, smile, talk, eat and sometimes breathe on one's own and yet the mind usually remains intact with senses unaffected. This is what having ALS is like for 3,000 Canadians who live with this disease. Two to three Canadians a day die of ALS. There is no treatment for ALS and no known cure, yet. Ninety per cent of Canadians diagnosed with ALS die within two to five years.

Volunteers and staff of the ALS Society participate in annual fundraising events, including Walk for ALS, Hike for ALS and the Concert of Hope, to create public awareness about the disease and raise funds to find a cure.

I urge all Canadians to donate to their local chapters of ALS so that the dream of finding a cure can become a reality.

[Kyoto Protocol, May 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that climate change is one of the most significant environmental and sustainable development challenges that we face as a country. Certainly the establishment and ratification of the Kyoto protocol is the only global mechanism with targets to reduce GHG emissions. That is why we signed it and that is why we ratified it in December 2002.

I have listened to the member, who does not reject categorically the role of the Government of Canada in dealing with the province of Quebec, nor should she. Clearly the government cannot and does not support this motion, for a number of reasons. Our climate change plan is fair and equitable and we will implement it in a manner that is clearly fair and equitable for all Canadians.

I am pleased to debate this motion because it provides me with an opportunity to encourage the active engagement of the province of Quebec and other provinces and territories in the implementation of a national plan to honour our Kyoto commitments and address climate change over the long term. We will not advance our economic and environmental agenda by arguing over compensation for resource endowments and past investment decisions that were taken in a highly different context; this only stands to benefit adversity.

Canada's Kyoto target is challenging. However, we have many advantages that will help us rise to this challenge. The Government of Canada is committed to the transformative, long term change required to make deep reductions in GHG emissions while ensuring continued economic growth. In achieving that transformation, we believe we must meet our Kyoto target while maintaining a productive and growing economy. I do not think anyone in the House would disagree with that.

Our 2005 climate change plan, “Moving Forward on Climate Change--A Plan for Honouring our Kyoto Commitment”, was announced on April 13. It is built on six key elements: competitive and sustainable industries for the 21st century; harnessing market forces; a partnership among Canada's governments; engaged citizens; sustainable agriculture and forest sectors; and sustainable cities and communities.

Our climate change plan will also contribute significantly to cleaner air for Canada's cities. It will enhance biodiversity. It will help preserve wild spaces and generally improve the quality of life for all Canadians. It is estimated that the approaches outlined in the plan, with an associated federal investment in the range of $10 billion through 2012, could reduce emissions to the level to meet Canada's Kyoto commitments.

Budget 2005 laid the foundation for our plan and took an important step in providing the resources to it. In fact, some said it should have been announced on St. Patrick's Day because it is the greenest budget in Canadian history. I am surprised that members of the Bloc are not supporting the budget given the fact that they continually talk about the need to address climate change. We have a budget that has those economic instruments to deal with it and yet they say they cannot support the budget. They cannot have it both ways.

Clearly the funding in budget 2005 proposes: a minimum of $1 billion for the climate fund; $250 million for the partnership fund, with the possibility that the funding could grow to $2 billion to $3 billion over the next decade; $200 million for the wind power production incentive; $100 million for the renewable power production incentive; $300 million for tax incentives for efficient and renewable energy generation; and $2 billion for the existing climate change programs.

The climate and partnership funds will be central elements for the emission reduction approach. Some of my colleagues in the conservative alliance of course do not believe in climate change and therefore clearly do not support it, but then again, some of them do not know that the ice age occurred so I am not surprised that they do not support climate change. The reality is that Canadians know about climate change. No matter what heckling I get from that side, the reality is that Canadians support the government on this very important issue. Clearly the hot air coming from that side does not make it any less important for Canadians.

Both funds will be geared toward levering good ideas and providing targeted support to projects that achieve verifiable emission reductions. The climate fund will operate on a competitive bid basis and will pay for actual reductions achieved. It will operate and encourage emission reductions in all sectors of the economy. The partnership fund will be tied to the negotiation of memoranda of understanding with provinces and territories and actions that are agreed to will be cost shared. This is something I am sure will be of interest to our colleagues in the Bloc.

Negotiations on a memorandum of understanding have started with the Province of Quebec and I want them to proceed as expeditiously as possible. The Minister of the Environment is keenly committed to achieving a successful outcome in that regard.

The large final emitter system will enable Canada's largest emitters to contribute to national climate change objectives in a manner that facilitates growth and competitiveness. An agreement with the automobile manufacturers and importers will see technological advancement realize substantial emission reductions from that sector.

The one tonne challenge will build on work to date to increase awareness, knowledge, commitment and action by Canadians and will actively promote opportunities presented by the climate fund and other initiatives in the plan.

The 2005 plan builds on the 2002 climate change plan for Canada and the $3.7 billion investment to address climate change that the Government of Canada has made since the Kyoto protocol was concluded in December 1997.

The technology investment fund will be self-funded by large final emitters as one of the means of meeting their emission reduction targets. The fund will be used to develop and commercialize Canadian technologies to enable substantial emission reductions over the long term.

The partnership fund will support the development and implementation of effective greenhouse mitigation projects between all orders of government across this country. We recognize that provinces, territories and communities must play a central role if we are to meet our national objectives.

To this end, the government will reach new agreements and strengthen existing memoranda of understanding on climate change with each province and territory in determining strategic investments for emission reductions and economic growth, which I think again addresses some of the issues that have been raised by members of the Bloc.

The partnership fund will support cost-shared investments between orders of government for major technology and infrastructure investments. These projects could include clean coal, carbon dioxide capture and storage, cellulosic ethanol, extending the interprovincial electricity distribution network to liberate new hydro electric investments, which we have talked about in the House before, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba being examples, and green municipal infrastructure, including better public transit. Smaller investments in energy efficiency and energy conservation could be equally included in the scope of investment criteria.

The memoranda of understanding will be the basis for cooperative action to reduce emissions within the Kyoto timeframe as well as in the medium and longer terms.

Having each province pursue its own climate change strategy would lead to higher overall costs for compliance than a nationally led strategy, misplaced and underperforming GHG mitigation investments, and would unnecessarily create a large degree of uncertainty for the private sector, which would further reduce levels of investment, employment and a deteriorating degree of competitiveness among advanced economics.

Quebec, given its relatively low greenhouse gas emission rate per capital, would have less mitigation burden than many other provinces. Quebec would be treated fairly and equitably in the process.

There are no doubt opportunities for Quebec, in partnership with the Government of Canada, to reduce energy and environmental costs through smart investments that result in improved levels of competitiveness, greater levels of consumer and investor confidence and enhanced levels of comfort and security.

[Committees of the House, April 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the member, who was part of the Mulroney fiasco for 10 years, could stand up and say that. As a former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I know that the government under Mulroney did nothing for infrastructure, nothing. The member says they will put in a new plan. If it is like the old plan, it will be nothing. The cupboard will be bare.

That member and his party have never, ever supported cities and communities in Canada. We have had numerous infrastructure programs. In fact, this government, and I would take it to the people, has done more for communities and cities than any government in history.

I want to ask the member this. What new plan does he have given the fact that his party voted against the gas tax and the fact that his party has never supported infrastructure? How can he stand up and say such nonsense to Canadians with a straight face ?

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 2005]

Again, Mr. Speaker, the member unfortunately has it wrong. It was the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, who I know is still lurking in the background over there. In 1992, he signed onto the issue of Rio with the Rio accord.

Second, on recessions, we were the ones who in 1993 inherited a $42.5 billion Conservative debt. It is this government and this party that have moved this country forward with the support of Canadians. I would challenge anyone on that side to say otherwise. It is this government that has tapped into the entrepreneurship of Canadians.

I have more faith in Canadians than the members on the other side do. I and my colleagues on this side believe that we are going to meet our climate change responsibilities and we are going to do it because we have an effective plan. Because the Ministers of the Environment, Natural Resources and Industry moved this file forward, we have a plan that is going to work.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed with my hon. colleague's comments. I found him to be a very engaging individual on the committee. This is an individual whose party is not sure from day to day whether it supports or does not support the Kyoto plan. In fact, I am sure it is a question that has caused the member and his party to suffer back spasms from all the flipping to and fro on whether it supports Kyoto.

The member and his party have no faith in Canadians. We announced on April 13 the most aggressive and detailed plan on climate change of all the G-8 countries. I point out that the government believes in a market based approach that is critical to integrating climate change conditions in the day to day decisions of Canada's citizens.

Let us take the climate fund as an example. It is a very important item in the budget implementation bill which Parliament needs to pass. It is a market based, result oriented mechanism to encourage emission reduction initiatives.

This transformative institution will probably be the most important element of our climate change plan. This fund will generate domestic emission reductions beyond any previous estimates and the amount of domestic emissions reductions will depend, of course, on the success of the fund.

We know Canadians are entrepreneurs and that they can move forward in this area. We expect Canadians will respond, in fact we are starting to see it now with all sorts of inventive ways of dealing with the issue of climate change.

The member worries about recessions. The only major recessions we have ever had in this country have been under Conservative governments, not under Liberal governments. The member may be confused. This government has had eight balanced budgets or better for the first time in the history of Canada since 1867. Canada is the only G-7 state paying off the national debt.

I have to say that I am concerned that the Conservative Party has not agreed to support a plan that would move this country forward in meeting its Kyoto commitments. In fact, on the international front the climate fund will invest internationally in recognizing Kyoto emissions reductions where credits are verifiable, not in Russian hot air.

I would also point out to the hon. member that the technology that will be developed and is being developed in this country will be used in places such as China, Japan and other places. For example, in Japan, which I am very familiar with, in terms of contaminated sites, and in the Yangtze Valley and the Guangdong region of China where coal fired plants are being used, it is our technology that will be used over there.

We are investing both at home to deal with our emission issues and abroad. I would think the member would welcome that. It supports Canadian business, technology and know-how. The Prime Minister has made it very clear from the beginning that we will not buy hot air. As I have often said in the House, we will not be buying it from the Russians or from anybody else in eastern Europe. We also will not be buying it from that party over there either.

What the member has to do is get behind us. He has to say that he has faith in Canadians and that we can move forward. This will not cripple the economy. We know that green technologies produce jobs and opportunities. It is the Minister of the Environment who said on day one that a competitive economy and the environment were not mutually exclusive. They can work together. No minister has said it better than the Minister of the Environment in terms of pushing that file forward.