Denise Savoie

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like her to answer my question. Would it not be a better use of our time to try to solve the problem of jobs in Canada and the conditions to which certain workers, such as new immigrants or workers from abroad, are subjected than to discuss this bill which, she believes, does not really meet the needs of very many people?

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we know increasing pressure is being put on the government to have more foreign workers come to Canada. I have spoken to quite a number of people, for example foreign workers, newcomers who have come to Canada and are now involved in home care and working under very difficult circumstances, and agricultural workers. We also know there have been in deaths in British Columbia.

I am wondering what the government is going to do with foreign workers, once they are in Canada, by way of monitoring how they are treated to ensure that they are protected from abuse by employers within Canada. The law that the government is proposing is all well and good, but I am wondering what the government is actually going to do to protect newcomers and foreign workers once they are in Canada.

[Criminal Code, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to speak about programs that would help to prevent crime. This bill, as has already been said, does no more than codify already existing practices. This government slashed literacy programs and summer jobs programs. Yet, those are the very programs that would help young people who are vulnerable or at risk. Those programs would help to prevent crime and would convince young people to follow a different path.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on those cuts. The government not only slashed programs that could otherwise have been useful for creating a more inclusive society, but it is refusing to do long-term planning on literacy and it refuses to implement a long-term funding program for literacy.

[Criminal Code, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. As she said, and although we will also support it, this bill gives the impression that it will fight gun crimes more effectively. But this is not true since, as we know, judges already have a certain amount of leeway in these cases.

She also talked about how we should focus more on the causes of crimes. For example, I know that in my region, in my riding, we have been trying to obtain funding for a project that aims to help young people obtain not only basic job training, but also life skills: how to dress, how to apply for jobs. We have had many problems finding funding, from the federal government or other sources.

I think these are the types of programs that would really help keep vulnerable young people and youth at risk from joining gangs, and so forth.

I wonder if the member would have any thoughts on this type of program, which would really help prevent crimes.

[Petitions, May 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of over 200 of my constituents who are concerned about the reported killings in the Philippines.

The petitioners are calling on Parliament to have the Subcommittee on International Human Rights conduct a hearing on these political killings and to include an investigation into the risk for Canadian mining companies operating in the Philippines of becoming complicit in these political killings.

They also ask that we consider sending a joint delegation to the Philippines to convey the concerns of Canadians and, finally, to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of International Trade, and the Canadian mission at the United Nations to call for an investigation into the political killings in the Philippines by the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging that the minister has put his paper down at least for that. I am very pleased to see that.

We should all remember that the railway going across Canada was one of the infrastructures that really brought Canada together.

This is a time when provinces are struggling to address climate change. My province of British Columbia has made it a requirement that any new coal-fired plant must have zero gas emissions. I know Ontario is struggling to meet its own goals in terms of reducing pollution. An east-west grid would allow those kinds of efficiencies between provinces that are not possible at the moment.

Those are the kinds of solutions that we need to implement but the government, after a year and a half in government, has not yet taken or made any serious moves to implement. This is the basis to developing a national energy strategy. It is the most basic aspect of what would be required to get our country working together, rather than one province against another.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. If the bill is passed that is exactly what it would propose. That is exactly how it would apply. We are currently compensating the big polluters, the major emitters of pollution. For example, the government is proposing exempting the oil sands, which will continue to pollute. On the contrary, Quebec has adopted a green plan and many other provinces want to move forward. The NDP strongly supports this.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister of the Environment, instead of being disruptive, would focus on environmental solutions.

But that would be asking too much.

I was saying that German political leaders took the opportunity to build a green, lasting and strong economy. That is what Canada is not doing and should be doing. For example, Germany has become the world leader in wind energy and it plans to gradually eliminate all of its nuclear energy by 2020. Canada is going in the opposite direction.

In closing, it is not just countries, but also Canadian and U.S. companies that are calling on the government to take action in order not to miss out on this opportunity to be competitive.

For example, the CEO of the Atlanta based carpet manufacturer Interface Incorporated, Ray Anderson, has adopted incorporating energy efficiency as a fundamental tenet of business and that it can mean financial success. This is something the Conservatives do not seem to understand.

I am pleased that the NDP pushed the climate change clean air act back on the floor of the House.

Hon. members spent months developing this bill and it required much negotiation, cooperation and hard work. What we have before us now reflects the best the four parties—

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2007]

Yes, a dark place.

One would think some of the best scientific minds on this planet would have been able to shed light in the Conservative mind about the most urgent issue our generation faces. One would think the Conservatives would understand the threat to our children and the urgency to act.

Yet the Conservatives and their friends in the oil patch dismiss the impact of our actions in Canada. They say that our emissions represent only 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but they fail to understand that we are 0.5% of the world's population.

In other words, we are a dirty bunch, spewing out four times more emissions than our share. This is not the “punching above our weight on the international scene” that most Canadians have in mind.

We are told that this is the case because of our economy, so we get rich at the expense of the environment and at the expense of the rest of the people who inhabit it. This is certainly not the role that Canadians want to play in the world. It is a disgrace.

Bill C-30 offers a real possibility for a shift in direction. We are the only western country whose emissions are still rising, and the Conservative plan does not change that until 2020.

The Conservatives have us stuck on an escalator going ever upward. We are the only western developed country whose emissions are still rising and we are looking over at everyone else who is on the escalator going down.

The environment minister has said that he understands the urgency of the situation, yet given the lack of urgency of his actions and his plan, it is clear that he does not understand. He runs around claiming that the economic sky will fall if we aggressively tackle climate change.

However, a couple of days ago, a Canadian financial leader speaking at the Rideau Club said the following about those countries and those businesses who are too slow to join the green economy. He said that “the last into this will pay through the nose”. His company, VanCity Savings, is in the process of becoming carbon neutral by 2010. What that means is the act of doing business in a way that does not contribute to global warming.

One would expect that the Conservatives, who make themselves the apostles of productivity, would understand that those who transition early to a green economy will benefit. Yet with their ludicrous, discredited, intensity based targets, they remain firmly anchored in an old way of thinking and in an old economy that separates us from the possibility of real solutions.

There are real solutions. Other countries are putting them forward. We are being left in the dust.

Our excellent NDP energy critic, the member for Western Arctic, said that “any credible plan needs to be accompanied by real investment in renewable, sustainable, and green energy”. He continued, saying, “We must develop a national energy strategy which invests in renewable energy, supports conservation and creates an east-west energy grid so Canadians can share clean energy with each other”.

That is the kind of thinking that will allow us to change paradigm. What we need is a vision for what a green economy will look like and the determination to be the first ones to get there, which is precisely what the Conservative minority lacks.

If there were genuine political will to get something done beyond the mere appearance of action, the crucial first step would be to set the necessary political signals and framework conditions to achieve a more climate friendly development in the time to come. However, that does not mean making the tar sands slightly less dirty per barrel. It means a full shift in the way we produce energy. It means making stable, long term investments in conservation and development of renewable energy sources, instead of the spontaneous flash-in-the-pan window dressing projects that were given by the Conservatives, and the Liberals before them. It requires making a transition to triple bottom line decision making where social, economic and environmental objectives are given equal weight and all decisions must meet these objectives on each front. It does not mean doing a little bit of this and a little bit of that.

This is the principle that Norway has adopted. Norway produces only 0.2% of the world's emissions, but the country's leaders understood that it was part of the global family and needed to do its part.

The five countries that produce the most emissions account for half the world's emissions. However, as the Norwegian commission on low emissions has stated, if all the countries with relatively low emission levels rely on the major producers to reduce their emissions, we will never control climate change.

We can also follow Germany's example. Years ago, German political leaders seized the opportunity to build a strong, green, sustainable economy. They had a vision of the future that is being realized today.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak about this bill, which was drafted by a committee with representation from all the opposition parties as well as the governing party. This committee was inspired by the NDP.

This bill, which the committee renamed Canada's Clean Air and Climate Change Act, offers an environmental plan that is far superior to what the Conservatives are proposing. They would have us believe that their targets will mean tough control over greenhouse gas emissions. The reality is different. The reality is that with intensity-based targets, greenhouse gas emissions will increase. That is why the committee took the Conservatives' shoddy bill and amended it to give Canadians a really effective plan. That is what Canadians want.

I condemn the government for not having the courage to introduce its own plan in the House for a debate and a vote. That is why the NDP is introducing Bill C-30 today.

To shut down this debate through procedural trickery, to bring it down from eight hours to two, is all about stifling the good ideas and progress made in Bill C-30 on an issue that Canadians are progressively increasingly concerned about. Canadians are angry about the inaction of their governments over the past decade.

For a government that purports to want to bring democracy to other countries, this action is profoundly undemocratic and disrespectful to the majority of Canadians who want real action on climate change. There is no issue about which I have received more mail from my constituents in Victoria.

This is a government that is increasingly and dangerously unwilling to accept the majority will of Parliament and of Canadians. We have seen this on committees throughout the last week.

Instead, the Conservatives jet-set around the country to introduce one idea per town, small half measures that fall far short of what is needed, without a real plan to reduce greenhouse gases.

One would think some of the best scientific minds on this planet would have been able to shed light in the Conservative mind--