Joe Volpe

[Petitions, October 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a series of petitions duly certified according to the appropriate standing order. There are some 50,000 drawn from my riding and other areas in and around the great metropolis of Toronto and they express the concerns of many of our citizens regarding marriage. I will read their petition: “Whereas marriage is the best foundation for families and the raising of children--

[Petitions, June 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it may come as a bit of surprise that even though I support the positions that have been enunciated with respect to Bill C-250, I am actually going to present a petition on something else.

Pursuant to Standing Order 36 the petition is certified correct as to form and content. To illustrate the cooperative manner of members in the House, this petition relates to an initiative undertaken by a member of the opposition with respect to herbal care products.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that Canadians deserve freedom of choice in health care products, that herbs, dietary supplements and other traditional natural health products should be properly classified as food and not arbitrarily as drugs and that the weight of modern scientific evidence confirms the mitigation and prevention of many diseases and disorders through the judicious use of natural health products.

The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to support Bill C-420, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.

[Petitions, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present another petition related to military action in Afghanistan. I am pleased to present it to the House.

[Petitions, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present the following petition in its correct form and content regarding child pornography.

Several constituents from both my riding and other places appeal to the House and petition Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia and sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking about challenge my hon. colleague was thinking about leadership. The two are not necessarily at odds with each other because the decision presents a challenge. I indicated what some of those challenges were and the fact that decisions that would be made may require all of us to come up with a “how to” plan, not a “what to” plan because that has already been decided. That is not dangerous.

A “how to” plan would involve a strategy for maintaining competitiveness in the environment in which we operate, a political and economic involvement. That is not dangerous. There is no dissonance with leadership there.

The hon. colleague makes reference to whether we are heading in the right direction or not. There are members on this side of the House who have paid great attention to this issue. My colleague from Stoney Creek set out a few examples of a strategy where Canadians would be able to maintain their dominant position in a relatively wealthy environment. What we need to do is to take a look at challenges as not being dissonant with competitiveness.

What we need to do is to take into consideration the interests of Canada as an industrial interest and as a home for Canadians who are looking for not only this direction, because we are back to the “what to”, but as a place where Canadians can maintain a competitive environment.

We need the “how to” process where we would not only protect but nurture and encourage our industries, where we would not only protect our resources but nurture innovation, and where we would not only take a look at the conditions that we currently have in terms of the consumption of energy resources but where we could renew them, make them sustainable and make them exporters of the innovation.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague who just finished his speech on the merits of the Kyoto protocol. He obviously speaks with a great deal of experience, having been the spokesperson for and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. I know him to be a member who studies a subject thoroughly and who gives it much thought and consideration.

Therefore, I am happy to add my voice to those in the House who believe that the Kyoto protocol should be a fait accompli.

It is that. I have listened to debate among members in the House who have a genuine and deep-seated commitment to the benefit of Canada and all Canadians. When we speak about Kyoto, I note that some of my colleagues address this with the fervour that in the past some of us might have addressed a philosophical or religious attachment to a particular thing. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact we have needed that kind of attachment to move things along.

Today, in a much more secular environment, we address this as sort of political will. Perhaps we are in a period of political correctness. Be it as it may, we are today in a position where those who have been looking to Canada for leadership on the environmental issues we can rightfully say, “Here we are. We are providing such leadership”.

The facts would seem to bear that out. Canada, as an industrialized nation, is responsible for only 2% of emissions that contribute to climate change, the so-called greenhouse gases. However we are a very small player on the pollution index and we are attempting to make a big dent in the way that the world will respond to this challenge.

I know that my colleague who just spoke would say to everybody in the House, and I dare say without presumption to those who sit in judgment on what we will do, that this is a challenge for each and every one of us. It is no longer an issue for us in the House that we will or will not accept Kyoto, because we will. It is there, it is a question of ratification and it is out of our hands. Much as many of us would like to think differently, we are all participants in a system that recognizes the nature of hierarchical decision making. We have already in this Parliament devolved to the executive the authority to ratify international accords, international protocols and international treaties, and so it should be. Here I would reflect on my colleague that we are happy to see that the leadership of this House has determined that ratifying Kyoto is a good thing.

Whether we would agree or disagree, as some people in the House would position themselves, we cannot change that. Should we? Certainly our vote in the House will not make a difference. I do not mean to be dismissive in that regard, but I do want to reinforce that. The challenge for all of us is not whether we can bring forward all the data that we think our scientists can provide us so that we can look good in making an argument for or against ratification. Those arguments have been made. They have been eloquent. Some of them have been compelling and many of them have been persuasive. Obviously they have persuaded those who will make the decision on our behalf.

I think most of us have come to grips with the fact that a particular philosophical position has already won the day. I do not know of anybody, certainly not on this side of the House and maybe not on the other side of the House, who does not want to make a contribution to a cleaner environment and to diminish the potential for ruining an environment down the road. If such a member exists in the House, please stand up and advise all Canadians of his or her position. Seeing none, I will continue.

The challenge then is that we ought to engage in a discussion about an implementation process. Let us acknowledge what has happened and what is happening and let us engage ourselves in an implementation process that will take into consideration all those dynamics that make us a separate, distinct sovereign country and that afford us as Canadians all those advantages that we say will accrue to all humankind as a result of our ratification of Kyoto and as a result of the leadership that we will provide.

It is leadership, because so far the countries that have ratified Kyoto account for only 37.4% of all the greenhouse gas emissions. Members have already said that this would not be a binding protocol unless 55% of the countries in the world responsible for 55% of the overall emissions sign on. We would contribute an additional 2% to that 37.4%.

If I were a cynic I would say it would not happen no matter what we do, but I am not. We are providing leadership. By our signature and ratification we would hopefully bring other nations along with us, particularly some of the more polluting countries. I am thinking of one now that is responsible for over 17%. It is probably waiting for us to make a decision.

It is important for us to think in terms of an implementation program that is consistent with the objectives of the philosophical position of the environmental position that we are advancing. The implementation program should not diminish the intensity of our drive nor the value of our leadership by engaging in exercises that merely shift some of the obligation without bringing any actual benefit to Canada. If we are not going to diminish the amount of greenhouse gases or pollutants in Canada then we are diminishing that drive and that leadership.

One of the principles we should be looking toward is a position that is uniquely Canadian, taking into consideration the sectoral requirements of all Canadians in this vast territory which is geographically bigger than all of Europe, and much more challenging. It is much more challenging because geographically we have differences in resources and consumption.

We need to take those differences into consideration. We need to make those investments in technology and innovation that allow us to meet our own objectives here, domestically. We need to keep in mind the competitive nature of our society, our industries and our sectors. We need to ensure that we engage all of those jurisdictions and all of those industries that are going to be part and parcel of a solution. We need not engage in any exercise that would pit one Canadian versus another, one industry versus another, or one jurisdiction versus another.

The political environment is uniquely suited to establish the kind of implementation program and oversight program that would make us all proud as Canadians that we ratified Kyoto.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Canada-China Legislative Association regarding the fifth bilateral meeting held in China in May, 2002.

[The Middle East, April 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Mississauga South and other colleagues who have preceded me for their thoughtful and measured observations on what is clearly a most disagreeable set of circumstances in another part of the world.

When I think of the intervention made by my hon. colleague I am thankful that many here have resisted the opportunity to cast blame and aspersions on people, places, circumstances and entire societies. There is blame enough to go around. This is not one of those circumstances where those who want to will not be able to find someone to blame.

Tonight's debate was not designed to give people an opportunity to do anything other than examine the issues and facts that pertain specifically to Canada. It pertains not merely to what Canada has done in the Middle East to promote peace and the betterment of society whether it be Palestinian, Israeli or other. It pertains not merely to the development of a political process in a far away place that has enormous implications for us all. The debate is designed to give us an opportunity to recall that ours is a society that hopes for, works for and breeds peace, acceptance and harmony everywhere.

These values are at great risk today not just in the Middle East but here in Canada. The events there are spilling over into our own society. Inhabitants of our own country which has been the lighthouse of these values are witnessing great acts of intolerance verging on despair, disdain and a lack of respect for the position of others. It has become an opportunity for Canadians to witness intolerance in our own midst. We have seen the emergence of acts of violence, vandalism and intolerance in our midst. Intolerance is the word that best fits as we become completely immersed in the lives, history and destiny of people in the Middle East.

We need to condemn without equivocation any transgressions of Canadian values not only here on Canadian soil but everywhere. Everywhere is an easy thing to condemn because we do not think of the problem as being our own. It is someone else. It is another place that is not as capable as our own society of dealing with the concept of working co-operatively and collaboratively with other people.

Canadians value diversity. We value co-operation. We cannot do without it. I dare say most other people cannot either, but each place in the world has its own history and development. I will not speak from a position of moral superiority because we do not have that. However we need to be able to say some things cannot be accepted in our own society. Outrageous behaviour on our own part, even by people like myself in parliament, cannot be accepted by us, by this place or by our colleagues because of the implications for the rest of society. When Canadians expect parliament to be a place that reflects Canadian values we should exemplify those values.

People ask us as members of parliament what can be done to resolve situations in places like the Middle East. It can be done by example. Some colleagues who spoke before me enumerated Canadian contributions in the Middle East. They demonstrated the way Canadians have gone to the assistance of Palestinians and Israelis.

My hon. colleagues are right. The Canadian position has always been proactive. We try to accomplish what we can by our actions and not just our words. However we need the words. We need to be able to say the right things. We need to be able to lay the groundwork for what our actions must demonstrate more vividly.

We have been doing that. To establish that kind of groundwork and understand what is going on someplace else we need to understand what the impact will be on Canadians, the people who have done their utmost to develop the country to ensure our society is the hallmark of the values I indicated earlier.

Sadly, citizens of Canada and in my own constituency in Toronto feel more isolated now than ever before. It is probably a reflection of the connection so many Canadians feel to the Middle East and in particular to Israel. Why? It is not because Canada is taking one side or another. It is because so many Canadian citizens have friends and family in the Middle East. Israel has become a spiritual and cultural metropolis for all of them. It is where they see their ancestry, history, destiny and lives develop. It does not make them any less Canadian. They enrich our society. They express their views. We are thankful for that. We owe them what we owe all Canadians: the respect associated with appreciating their position.

People have talked in the House about terrorism. They have talked about what is right. They have talked about Israel's right to exist. These are all valuable and valid points of view. We must unequivocally make a decision. Do we accept Israel's right to exist behind safe, secure and recognized borders? If we believe that and urge everyone else to believe it, and if other people in the Middle East including the Palestinians accept it, discussions of peace can make sense.

As a Canadian 8,000 miles away I am not in a position to make judgments. All I know is that like all states we as a country stand behind those with whom we have an agenda to go forward. Canada's agenda is to promote the rule of law, democracy and respect. We have those interests. We have commercial interests as well but I do not want to be crass. We protect our interests and stand by those who move along the same agenda. We call those people our friends.

For this member of parliament, this is a time to stand beside those in a moment of trouble, extreme violence and uncertainty. They need to know that those who have proclaimed the words of friendship, rule of law and democracy are with them even though the times are tough.

[Johnny Lombardi, March 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Johnny Lombardi, king of Little Italy, impresario extraordinaire, father of multicultural broadcasting and president of CHIN Radio/TV International passed away yesterday.

Johnny was an integral part of the transformation of urban society in post-war southern Ontario. His radio station, home to broadcasting in 30 different languages, gave voice to the marginalized and served to give newcomers a sense of comfort and familiarity in a new and often strange land. Those programs not only served to acclimatize and integrate people into the Canadian mainstream, but they also helped launch Canadian talent in music and the arts.

His contributions earned him the Order of Canada yet he remained humble and accessible in his success. He was a vigorous participant in any and all community events to which he was invited. He was a good friend to many. His children and family would and should be proud.

My wife and my family join me, as I am sure does the House, in mourning the passing of a great Canadian.

[Supply, March 12th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You are well aware, Madam Speaker, of the procedures in the House and some of the protocols about attendance and absenteeism, et cetera and the pressures on all members of parliament for their attendance within the House. I find it troublesome that the member who is speaking would draw the attention of members and all viewers to the absence of some of our members and would berate us while he in fact is only accompanied by one member of his party.