Gerald Keddy

[Supply, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I am able to say this, but I think the hon. member gives hypocrisy a whole new meaning. We have gone beyond what debate in this place is about.

If you want to look at our leader being there, our critic for international trade could not get in. He asked long ago to be allowed into the summit in order to be an observer and to participate in the meetings that would be held around the issues. He was not allowed in.

[Supply, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin debate, I would like you to know that I am planning to share my time with the hon. member for St. John's West.

It is a pleasure to stand today to speak to the Bloc Quebecois opposition motion that the government implement a continuous and transparent process by which parliament would be informed of the negotiations taking place with respect to the creation of a free trade agreement of the Americas, the FTAA, so that parliamentarians may debate and civil society may be consulted previous to its adoption by parliament.

Certainly this is a motion the Progressive Conservative Party supports. I would expect it is a motion that all parliamentarians in the House would support. It calls for an open and transparent process in all debate going on around and about the FTAA, and it asks that we in this place, as elected members of all the regions of Canada, be able to debate this issue. We would have not just a parliamentary committee looking at it, but we would actually be able to debate it and bring all points to the table. Everyone would be represented.

There is no steel link fence several kilometres long around the Parliament of Canada yet, so surely in this place, if nowhere else in the country, we can have free and open debate. Surely in this place we should be able to do that.

As I said, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada fully supports the Bloc opposition motion. The Liberals' transparency on trade issues has been completely non-existent in the last few years. The secrecy of the government, along with its avoidance of parliament on the issue, illustrates a demoralizing trend, which aids and abets the negative view Canadians have of government in general and, I would say, aids and abets the groups opposed to the free trade of the Americas who were in Quebec City, because they do not feel they have enough information before them to speak to this issue. They do not see any format or any vehicle through which to express their thoughts, and that is the sole responsibility of the Government of Canada. It has not provided an alternative vehicle for opposition to the FTAA.

This should not be any surprise, because the government has completely avoided any controversial issue. It does not have open debate. It does not have parliamentary committees that speak to the important issues in this country and that are actually able to come up with some concrete agreement among all the parties, between the government and all the opposition parties, which actually affects the direction the government takes.

It is also very much part of another statement. Where are the new ideas from the present Government of Canada? Where are the new ventures? Where are the bold initiatives that have been taken in this country since 1993? I would challenge the government to stand up and name them.

There will be a period at the end of my 10 minutes for questions and answers, and I would be very happy to hear about the new and bold initiatives the government has taken to assure democracy in this country, to show what it has done on the trade front and to show us examples of where the government has not only shown an understanding of the issue but has taken a leadership position on the issue.

The Quebec summit ended Sunday with 34 hemispheric leaders agreeing to pursue further free trade talks while agreeing to co-operate on a host of other issues. Those are very small steps, but I and most members of the Conservative Party think those are important steps.

Yes, we need to be better briefed. Yes, we need to have this debate in parliament. Yes, there are things wrong with the free trade agreement which we can stand to take another look at. However, those issues are the responsibility of the government.

It is the responsibility of an opposition party to continue to point them out, which we do on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, but it is for the government to respond. If we cannot get the government to move, it is very difficult to formulate new positions and for the government to take on new initiatives.

We have to ask ourselves what was accomplished at the summit of the Americas in Quebec City. There were some small things accomplished, but without question the debate here should centre around what was not accomplished. What were Canada's expectations going into the summit and what did we get accomplished coming out of the summit? That is a fair question. I would like to hear the government tell us what was accomplished at the summit.

What was accomplished for P.E.I. farmers? We know that P.E.I. farmers have not been able to ship table potatoes since October. This is fairly simple math. October shipments of potatoes from P.E.I. were stopped. In November there were no shipments, in December there were no shipments, in January there were no shipments, in February there were no shipments and in March there were no shipments. April will pass and there will be no shipments. It is unbelievable that we can take six or seven months out of an economy that is very dependent on the potato crop.

I am talking about the economy of P.E.I. We have four Liberal members of parliament. Where have they been and what have they done to promote the interests of P.E.I. and P.E.I. farmers on the potato issue? The minister of agriculture was not even able to get into the summit. We have asked questions and they have been real questions, unlike those of some of the members from the government side. He was not even able to get into the summit.

The Minister for International Trade had a meeting with the secretary of state responsible for agriculture in the United States, but the minister of agriculture for Canada could not get security clearance. That begs another question. A minister of the crown, a minister of the state in this country, cannot get into the summit of the Americas held in Quebec City. I am astounded and disgusted. It is absolutely not acceptable. It is not an acceptable practice on behalf of the government and it is not an acceptable practice in regard to the responsibility of the minister of agriculture who is in charge of agriculture and hopefully in touch with the export problems facing agriculture in this nation.

That was one issue. No headway was made on it. The Prime Minister's blatant and ineffectual reference to patates au gratin is an insult to P.E.I. potato farmers and to Canadians and parliamentarians in general.

Where was the issue of water? What discussion occurred on water? The Prime Minister made a reference to water and hydroelectric power and said there would be more energy available for the United States. Immediately following the Prime Minister's statement, the premier of Newfoundland said it would not be happening, that the negotiations had not reached that point yet and that there is no agreement with Quebec to transport power through Quebec. This was phenomenal.

With respect to softwood lumber, the maritime accord was not recognized by the government. It allowed a five year agreement to lapse and did not do any work to prevent the lapse of that agreement. What work the government did do was too little too late and ineffectual. Now we are facing countervail charges nationwide, excluding the maritimes. We are facing anti-dumping charges nationwide. We will see some Canadian mills facing anti-dumping charges, with the extreme risk of complete bankruptcy. This is not an issue that the government can afford to look the other way on. This is not an issue that the government can say free trade will deal with. This is an issue that we should have been talking about with the Americans two years ago.

The present government feels it does not have a government in the United States that it can deal with constructively on most issues, but that is no excuse for not dealing with the issue. One deals with whoever is in power in a democratically elected country.

Where is our agreement on energy? Where is our agreement on water? What pressure did we put on the United States to meet its commitments at Kyoto? We have a huge and complicated issue on free trade of the Americas.

I am sharing my time with the hon. member for St. John's West. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, but I do not agree with him. If the intent of the legislation is to be clear on the limitation of funding, the legislation should clearly state that and not leave it up to the board of directors.

Regarding the fact that some projects may require 100% funding, such as projects that would be under the purview of hospitals and universities where limited funding is available from other sources, they would still be available for funding under the agreements I have listed.

Although I did not add them up, there was somewhere around $3.5 billion or $4 billion worth of additional government funding available from other projects. In no way would any good project need to be turned down on the basis that it could not be funded 100%, because there would be funding available from other sources which could take up that other 50% or 75% that may be required.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-4, the Canada foundation for sustainable development technology act.

The premise of the legislation is that it will establish a foundation to fund innovative projects, primarily within the areas of climate change and air quality. This is a premise that the PC Party supports.

We all know that Canada made a strong commitment at Kyoto to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and put into place measures to help reduce the impact of climate change.

In fact it was the Conservative government, in 1992 at Rio, which first established a strong position respecting the environment, one that the current government has allowed to lapse.

The legislation before us fails in its effort to improve the environment and to bring forward new sustainable development technology. The fault is not with the premise of the bill but with the specifics or lack thereof.

The bill clearly states that the foundation would be established with an initial fund of $100 million. Although the fund may be increased over time, it is unlikely that it is the government's intention to do this. That would be determined based on the success of the foundation to meet its objectives. However I question how the foundation would determine whether its objectives are being met.

The amendment put forward in committee whereby the foundation would be required to submit detailed reports on specific projects, namely the extent to which they were successful in meeting their goals, was denied. At most steps in the process the government has refused to accept amendments from any of the opposition parties.

It has been a very trying job in committee listening to government deliberations and listening to it defending its position on particular aspects of the bill. If all parties had gone to committee with an open mind, the bill could have been improved. The Conservative Party would have supported it along with the NDP, the Bloc and the Canadian Alliance.

We are left with legislation that promotes sustainable development but without guidelines in place to allow the foundation to determine whether those objectives are being met. There are some air quality issues that are difficult to accurately measure, but that does not mean there should be no standard in place to do it.

The government has been widely criticized by the auditor general for its lack of accountability on various projects or programs. Too little information is being made available regarding the spending of public funds. Yet the government will continue the tradition with the legislation.

Another amendment that would have improved the legislation proposed that access to information be applied to the foundation. That amendment as well as the one I just mentioned would have improved the accountability and openness of the foundation and would have allowed an unbiased view of the projects. It would have enabled the foundation to better determine whether it was meeting its objectives. Without such requirements in place, the foundation becomes yet another institution which allows the government to give out money as it pleases.

We all recognize that some projects would fail. Not every project, in particular those that promote new technology and innovative ideas, would be able to overcome obstacles and setbacks. That is understood and it is not the objective of accountability and quantitative reviews to restrict projects or call into question their ability to succeed.

Furthermore, if it is impossible to quantify the ways in which a project could reduce greenhouse gases to improve air quality, it is not to say that such a project is not good. There should be overall guidelines in place, at least general guidelines, to allow the foundation to achieve some level of accountability for public funds.

Speaking of funds brings me to another problem with the legislation, another area where a lack of detail prevents me from supporting the bill. It is one more example of inconsistency between what the minister said about the legislation when it was introduced in the House and what is actually entailed in the legislation.

As I mentioned, the foundation would be funded with $100 million of taxpayer money. When the minister appeared in committee he continually stated that it would be the intention of the foundation to leverage projects on a 1:4 basis. In other words, the foundation would provide 25% of the total funding required to bring a project to fruition and other private or public sources could be accessed to supply the remaining 75%. In no way is that an inconceivable or unnecessarily restrictive objective.

There are many other government programs available to help fund projects such as the ones that would be considered by the foundation.

I have a list of other public programs. There is the annual allocation of $58 million for the energy research and development program. On March 8 the Minister of Industry announced $62 million in scholarship and fellowship funding to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. On March 12 there was an announcement of funding of $73 million for four new networks of centres of excellence.

The budget of the Canada foundation for innovation is $2.4 billion, plus a recent addition of $750 million announced by the government on March 6. Technology partnerships annual allocation is $300 million. The industrial research assistance program annual allocation is $7 million. Technology early action measures allocation is $57 million. What the list shows is that there are other avenues available for funding for sustainable development projects.

It does not mean that the legislation is redundant. It means that there was ample opportunity for the government to set out specific limits on funding flowing from the foundation. With other options available, the government did not have to worry about funding a project at 100%. The minister said that the object would be to fund projects at 25%, and yet nowhere in the legislation is there any mention of any sort of limits.

I proposed an amendment at committee stage that would have established a limit of 50% funding although the minister had been indicating at the time that the $100 million would be leveraged into $400 million. The amendment proposed a 50% limit so that the board of directors of the foundation would not be unduly restricted or bound by unnecessary limitations. The amendment would have established a guideline for the board, one that was consistent with the intent of the bill as the minister outlined. The amendment was voted down.

The lack of detail within the legislation may be dismissed. The government may say that the legislation should not needlessly restrict the board of the foundation. It is an example of sloppy legislation, one that is loosely worded and open to misuse.

I also proposed in committee an amendment which was successfully adopted with the support of Liberal members of the committee. The amendment changed the date on which the legislation would take effect. As it was worded, the provisions of the act could come into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the governor in council. It meant that the government could choose to implement certain sections of the act while allowing other sections to be implemented at later dates or not at all.

It also meant that the government could choose not to have the Official Languages Act apply or maybe it would not require annual reports by the foundation to parliament. Such a provision opened the process to abuse. It is one more example of the original looseness of the legislation. While the clause has been amended, other clauses have not.

I do not wish to give the impression that the PC Party does not support the objectives of the bill. Improving air quality and reducing the impact of climate change are objectives that all Canadians support. There are numerous alternative sources for fuel that need to be advanced, particularly as the world continues to deplete its oil and gas reserves. These fuel sources are not only slowly disappearing, but their environmental impact is causing undesirable consequences.

Canada has been a world leader in such areas as fuel cells and solar energy. These are areas that need to be developed so that the ideas and technologies can be applied in the marketplace, even at national and international levels. The Ballard fuel cell is one of the more recognized examples of Canada's innovative leading edge in this area.

One of the parts of the legislation that I appreciate is that the ideas generated with the assistance of funding from the foundation are to be widely applied in the interest of improving air quality for all Canadians. It means that if there can be broad application of the technology or other uses of the idea then it should be promoted since the overall goal is to improve air quality across the country. That is one reason the foundation would assist with the development of projects.

While it is admirable and something that the PC Party supports, I refer back to the way the legislation has been crafted. The legislation states that at the time of dissolution of the foundation any money remaining would be divided among the projects currently being funded.

While it may sound reasonable at first glance, it is really saying that a project may receive unneeded money simply because it is still considered an active file at the time the foundation ceases to exist, when and if that ever occurs. Understanding that there is no sunset clause in the legislation, the legislation could conceivably go on forever. A project that has received funding may at a latter part of its development no longer require money, but because it is still one of the foundation's projects it would receive a portion of the unused funds.

I am not suggesting it will happen but it could happen. The foundation could literally have tens of millions of dollars on its books and 12 or 50 projects. The money by law would be legally divided among those projects, whether or not they required additional funds. As long as they are open files they would get a portion of those funds.

I proposed an amendment in committee to the clause that would have seen the money revert to the government at the termination of the foundation. Canadian taxpayers would get back any money that had not been allocated at the time the foundation terminated. It would make sense since taxpayers would have contributed to the original funding of the foundation. Therefore any leftover funds should revert to the government. Again the amendment was voted down.

It is important to understand that it is not inconceivable to be dealing with tens of millions of dollars, perhaps even $100 million. There is no limit on the amount that has to be in the foundation, if and when it is dissolved.

There is nothing in the legislation that would prevent the government from providing new funds at any time to the foundation. There is an unrestricted ability for the government to increase the moneys available to the foundation without any guideline in the legislation covering such actions.

It is another example of how little control the legislation would have on how the government manipulates the foundation. The PC Party would tend to support legislation aimed at improving air quality, promoting sustainable energy and developing new technologies. It is the sloppiness of the legislation that prevents me from supporting the bill.

I will now review what is lacking in the legislation. First, there are no controls on spending. Nowhere in the legislation is there a limit on the amount of money the government plans to put into the foundation over the long term. More important, there is a limit on the amount of money that would be provided for specific projects. Even though the minister stated that the foundation would likely provide one-quarter of the necessary funding, nothing was mentioned in the legislation to provide guidelines to the directors.

Second, the foundation is not open to access to information inquiries or to review by the auditor general. Third, the bill lacks clearly defined terms for directors, something that I tried to address through amendments. These are all problems that could easily have been addressed by the government in the legislation.

It is disappointing not to be able to speak in favour of the legislation. Sustainable energy is something that we all need to strive to achieve, particularly given the fact that fossil fuel supplies are decreasing. Moving to fuel cells or using existing fuel sources and more environmentally friendly ways are goals that we should all support if we want to improve air quality.

It is the job of the opposition parties to improve legislation where necessary. In this case the legislation needs to be amended. We have tried to do that. Unfortunately we were unable to improve the legislation to the point where the PC Party could support it.

[Education, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Yarmouth-Shelburne Community Learning Centres and the Yarmouth Chamber of Commerce are the winning partnership for Nova Scotia in the Royal Bank partners in education awards category of the Conference Board of Canada's national partners in education awards.

The Yarmouth-Shelburne Community Learning Centres are a partnership of Yarmouth Chamber of Commerce, the Nova Scotia Community College, the Yarmouth County Learning Network, the Shelburne County Learning Network, community services and the Department of Education.

The centres offer academic upgrading on a year round basis to persons 18 years of age and older, along with life skills and job readiness training. Access to computer labs and classrooms is available to individuals and non-profit organizations for evening use on a non-fee basis, ensuring that Canada's youth and adults are learning the right skills for today's and tomorrow's world of work. I extend congratulations to all on a job well done.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, April 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I think I have about 30 seconds left to add a few comments today. It would certainly be a mistake if I did not take full advantage of the minute and 30 seconds or so that I have today to speak at least briefly to the bill being debated.

I appreciate the fact that we will be able to come back to the bill at another time, shorten our speaking points a bit and be able to get another kick at the proverbial can.

We in the Conservative Party would applaud a number of things in Bill C-4. The whole idea of sustainable development and a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are commendable projects that everyone in parliament would tend to support.

Unfortunately, it is the legislation itself. It is how it is worded. It is how it is crafted. It is the fact that there is not a sunset clause in it. It is the fact that there is no accountability. It is the fact that the auditor general is not able to look at the books.

There are a number of things wrong with this particular piece of legislation that could have been corrected at committee and report stage. Government members failed to do that. We have a better piece of legislation than we had to begin with. It did a slightly better job but it did not go all the way. For that reason, we certainly cannot support this piece of legislation. It is my understanding that the rest of the opposition parties cannot support it either.

I will be more than happy to continue and debate this on another day at another time.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, April 5th, 2001]

We only have 20 minutes. Now we get into trouble. It is a slippery slope.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, April 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will take my two minutes to thank you for asking. If we will be able to debate the bill when it comes back to the House, I would certainly take my 40 minutes at that time.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, April 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, before I start to debate I would like to raise a point of order. You recognized me to speak earlier and I sat down because the Bloc member had not actually put his name on the debate schedule. I believe I did have the floor.

I would like to have my 15 minutes to speak. I am the only opposition member of parliament who has an amendment to the bill. I feel I have some things to add to the debate on the bill. I would ask unanimous consent of the House to finish my comments.

[Lumber Industry, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of ACOA was wrong when he stated the Maritime Lumber Bureau's monitoring system did not apply to all lumber exports from Atlantic Canada. He was wrong when he stated that the new export compliance measures would benefit maritime mills.

How could the minister think that needless duplication of paperwork and an increase in a fee schedule from $2 per load to $25 per load would benefit maritime mills?