Marlene Jennings

[Statutory Instruments Act, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-205, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act (disallowance procedure for statutory instruments), introduced by the member for Surrey Central as Bill C-202 during the last session.

I would begin by echoing some of the comments made last June by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice when the previous bill, Bill C-202, was debated in the House. The present bill relates to the critical role that parliamentarians have to oversee the exercise of legislative powers that are delegated by Parliament. These powers are mainly delegated to government ministers, most often acting collectively in what is generally known as the governor in council. However, legislative powers are also delegated to individual ministers as well as to a wide range of other bodies.

It is important to appreciate that the delegation of power does not involve a surrender or relinquishment of power. Parliament can withdraw delegated powers at any time. It continues to be ultimately responsible for the exercise of these powers and accordingly has a mandate to monitor their exercise and ensure that they are used in a way that continues to meet the purposes for which they were delegated.

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations has performed, and continues to perform, an invaluable service to the House and the Senate, as well as to the Canadian public generally, in its review of statutory instruments made under acts of parliament. Through its careful examination of these instruments, it provides this House with valuable assistance when it comes to the oversight of delegated legislation.

Chapter 14 of the Standing Orders reinforces this oversight role. It makes provision for what is often called the disallowance procedure for statutory instruments. This procedure involves the tabling of a report by the standing joint committee containing a resolution that a statutory instrument be revoked. If the resolution is adopted, it becomes an order of the House to the government to revoke the statutory instrument in question.

To date, I believe the disallowance procedure has been used to adopt a total of eight resolutions. The fact that the government has complied with all these resolutions is clear proof that the disallowance procedure in the Standing Orders is working well.

Today we are being asked to consider a bill that would significantly extend these procedures. It would amend the Statutory Instruments Act to include disallowance procedures similar to those that, as I have just mentioned, already exist in the Standing Orders of the House.

However, there are some important differences between the current disallowance procedures and those proposed in the bill, and these differences continue to raise serious concerns that I would once again like to draw to the attention of the House.

First, the bill proposes to move beyond the traditional role of holding the government accountable to the House. It proposes to have the House revoke statutory instruments itself. Another difference is that the proposed procedures would extend to all statutory instruments and not just to those made by the government, as is the case with the procedure in the Standing Orders.

I would now like to explore these differences and indicate why they raise concerns. As I have mentioned, the procedures in the bill provide that a resolution of the House would be effective to revoke a statutory instrument. Under the existing procedures in the Standing Orders, it is up to the government to decide whether and when to revoke a statutory instrument in response to a resolution.

I believe that decisions about whether or not to revoke a statutory instrument should remain with the government. It is responsible for making the instrument and it should be responsible for revoking it. This responsibility is owed to the Canadian people as well as to the House. The government is answerable to the House for its conduct, and it is answerable to the Canadian people by vote. A procedure that removes its responsibility is antithetical to the traditions of responsible government that underlie our parliamentary institutions.

This is an argument based on principle, but I would also argue that this is an argument against the bill which is based on practicality. Revocation by parliamentary resolution raises the prospect of gaps in the law. The procedures proposed by Bill C-205 are entirely negative in their consequences. They do not, and indeed cannot, entail the enactment of provisions to replace those that are struck down.

Yet there may often be a need for regulatory measures of some sort and if the disallowed measures are not appropriate, then obviously alternative provisions are needed to replace them. Under this legislation there is no provision for alternative provisions. The development of alternative provisions, that is, alternative statutory instruments or regulations, usually requires significant capacity to develop regulatory policy as well as a familiarity with the regulated community. This requires technical expertise and consultative processes that the government is putting and has put in position and provides. This is recognized by the very fact that Parliament has indeed delegated to the government the regulatory powers in question.

A further difficulty is the timeframe for revocation that Bill C-205 would put in place. Under this legislation, a statutory instrument would be revoked 30 days after the resolution is adopted, yet often much more time is required to develop regulatory measures. The government's regulatory policy requires extensive consultation with interested persons before a regulatory proposal is adopted. Then, proposed regulations have to be published in the Canada Gazette for a minimum of 30 days to allow those interested to comment and voice their concerns. These opportunities would be completely swept away under the rigid timeframe of the procedures proposed by Bill C-205.

A second main difference between the bill and the current procedures in the Standing Orders is that the bill would extend the disallowance procedures to non-ministerial regulations. It would provide that the disallowance procedures would apply to any statutory instrument. This would include a vast number of documents, many of which are made by bodies that operate independently of the government.

Let me provide the House with a few examples. We have administrative agencies, such as the CRTC and the Canadian Transport Commission that, under their legislation, have the ability and the right to effect such statutory instruments or regulations. Under Bill C-205 those regulations could be revoked within 30 days of having a resolution adopted.

Our courts, one of the three pillars of a democratic society in government, make rules of procedure. They would fall under and be captured by Bill C-205. What about the separation of the judiciary and government? Not under Bill C-205.

We have aboriginal law making bodies, such as Indian bands, agricultural marketing boards and local port authorities.

Although the current disallowance procedures are appropriate for regulations made by ministers of the Crown, it is not at all clear that they would be appropriate for the wide variety of other law-making bodies that make statutory instruments.

I would like to conclude by stating that the government, as is the Minister of Justice and his cabinet colleagues, is committed to addressing the concerns raised by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations and ensuring that officials of their departments take these concerns every bit as seriously as they do.

The government is prepared to entertain any suggestion for improving the relationship between parliamentarians and the government. Lastly, it is my sincere belief that it would be far more advantageous to try to settle the concerns around delegated legislation within the framework of the existing mechanism of parliamentary scrutiny.

Lastly, if it is a Standing Order it is not court challengeable, whereas if it is a piece of legislation, it is.

[Citizens' Advisory Committees, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last week Correctional Service Canada was pleased to join with communities across the country to celebrate Citizens' Advisory Committees Awareness Week.

Across Canada more than 80 citizens' advisory committees comprised of over 500 individuals showed fellow Canadians what they do to contribute to the safety of our communities. Canadians attended open houses, visited information displays and participated in discussions about the corrections process.

We would like to thank the Canadians who took the time last week to learn more about our corrections system and the Canadians who work throughout the year as members of citizens' advisory committees.

I congratulate the Solicitor General for his support of Citizens' Advisory Committees Awareness Week. I encourage all MPs to join me in recognizing and congratulating the Canadians who make them work.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the citizens of Ottawa--Vanier have a wonderful representative in Parliament. He is passionate and well-informed. If it is an issue that he does not know about, he makes sure he gets the information.

The member said it himself. I am not in a position to answer that. I was not here, nor was the present Solicitor General at the time the whole issue of the location of the U.S. embassy was decided upon. I am not even aware of what the process is for that kind of decision.

Obviously, if it did not involve consultation with the local community, it may be of interest to look at what process exists today, whether or not that has been corrected, so that at least in the future that kind of consultation on that issue and the issue of security can also take place.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Ottawa—Vanier for his comments and his very impassioned speech on the issue of whether or not the American embassy should be located where in fact it is located.

Unfortunately I will not be able to address that issue directly. I had prepared my response on behalf of the Solicitor General based on the member's previous question which is why we are here at the late show. It dealt specifically with the issue of the security of the residents in that area and the issue of the cement barriers.

I apologize to the member, but I will try to give a full and clear response to the question that the member for Ottawa—Vanier asked in the House previously.

First of all, I would like to assure the member that the RCMP takes the security of all Canadians very seriously. Its role is in fact to ensure the security and the safety of all internationally protected persons in Canada according to domestic and international obligations. As the member for Ottawa--Vanier well knows, this includes the national capital region.

I have been advised by the RCMP that the security measures in place are commensurate with the existing threat assessment. The RCMP continually re-evaluates threat assessments and adjusts security requirements as warranted by the circumstances.

There are currently various security measures for the U.S. embassy which take into account the safety of the international community as well as the safety of the community at large. This includes measures in and around the area to control traffic.

I am also informed that the traffic rerouting on Clarence Street, as well as the barricades in question, those cement barricades that the member has referred to, provide maximum protection for this part of the city.

Following the implementation of the security measures around the U.S. embassy, the RCMP in consultation with the Ottawa police service, which is in fact responsible for the traffic flow on city streets, did meet and consult with local members of Parliament, the city of Ottawa, and the business owners and residents of lowertown in Ottawa.

I also understand that the U.S. embassy officials have also met with local residents and business owners in the area and are attempting to reach a mutually acceptable solution which will maintain security around the embassy and impede in the least possible way the lives and the businesses in that area.

Senior officials of the RCMP continue to work with law enforcement officials of the U.S. embassy and of the city of Ottawa with regard to this matter. They and their law enforcement partners will continue to re-evaluate the perceived threat assessment and level of security in consultation with members of the community. They will also continue to monitor the impact of the security measures on the community.

Those security measures will continue to be adjusted in response to security requirements. As I mentioned at the beginning, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on any specific security measures undertaken by the RCMP or its partners.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, there is no discrimination in terms of hiring by the RCMP. There is no race based hiring by the RCMP. There is an equity employment program and a whole process of selection that has been developed under the program.

The candidates who are selected, whether they be women, members of visible minorities or members of aboriginal communities or first nations, have qualified and proven through the entire selection process that they are qualified to be hired as RCMP agents or to be brought into the cadet program.

The hon. member for Saskatoon--Humboldt entirely misrepresents the situation. When he said that 86% of Canadians opposed race based hiring, that is probably the only thing he said that was true. However what he has not said is that when Canadians are asked if they agree with an equity employment program that will designate certain groups on the basis of previous obstacles but who have to be qualified for the jobs, they will support it and do support it.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleagues in the House know very well, the RCMP is committed to diversity, sensitivity and professionalism.

As a national police service, the RCMP recruits its personnel on a national level to address the needs of specific communities across Canada. In order to meet the evolving needs of Canada's diverse and changing society, the RCMP must be representative of the communities it serves and the overwhelming majority of Canadians agree with that premise. This representation is crucial to community policing as it will provide the RCMP with the credibility, cooperation and the insight it requires to better serve those communities.

Recruiting policies and practices remain flexible to allow the force the ability to serve its client in an effective and efficient manner while meeting its strategic priorities for all Canadians and for Canada.

The RCMP is world renowned for its high training standards and I can assure members, and particularly the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, that all RCMP applicants, including those from designated groups, must meet the same stringent entry requirements.

The RCMP police aptitude test, of which the member refers to, is only one of a number of selection tools used by the RCMP in determining the suitability of an applicant. Applicants for the cadet training program are not only chosen for their individual suitability, but also for their potential to contribute to the overall effectiveness of the organization, its community policing strategies, and its commitment to meet diverse community needs. It is the RCMP's practice to select a proportion of qualified candidates from the following groups: visible minorities, aboriginal peoples, women, and Caucasian males.

The member for Saskatoon—Humboldt is in one of those groups. I will leave it to him to define which group he belongs to.

I can assure members that the RCMP's recruiting policies allow for the selection of those individuals in Canada who possess the qualities necessary to provide the RCMP's high standard of policing services to the Canadian public.

The member talks about race based hiring. In so doing, the member defines the equity employment program and the designation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 15, as race based hiring. In fact it is not. Any equity employment program which is administered by the federal government or any federal government department is based on the premise that candidates who are selected must be qualified.

Once they have been qualified, the employer can hire or select a candidate from one of the designated groups. But those individuals, regardless whether they belong to a designated group or not, must qualify for the position. They must show that they have the academic and professional requirements as well as the aptitude. The selection process will use a variety of tools. One of the tools that the RCMP uses is the police aptitude test, but it is only one of them. When it comes to the actual hiring or selection, it uses the global result of each candidate.

[Parliamentary Internship Program, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize two groups of remarkable young Canadians.

This week, eight interns from the Ontario legislature internship program in Queen's Park have come to Parliament Hill for their annual study tour, hosted by the parliamentary internship program that places 10 young graduates here with MPs during the parliamentary year. They are intelligent, eager, bring fresh energy and ideas to Parliament and their presence here on the Hill and in Queen's Park is an asset to us all.

These interns will be Canada's leaders of tomorrow. I ask members to join me in welcoming the eight Queen's Park interns and at the same time salute the 10 interns who are currently serving with MPs on both sides of the House. I am proud that we will all benefit from their experience.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with the question asked by the hon. member from the Canadian Alliance.

I would first point out that it sounds like he did get taken in by a charlatan. I strongly recommend the next time he needs to do home repairs or car repairs that he check with the Better Business Bureau in his local municipality to ensure that the person is registered, is a qualified technician or belongs to whichever building trade, and that no complaints have been filed against the individual. He might also want to go down to the courthouse and check the small claims court to see whether or not any claims had been filed against the individual.

I can assure the member that the over 2,000 scientists and experts who were used are not charlatans. They are highly qualified people who graduated from university. In many cases they have post-doctoral degrees. They are world renowned as experts in their field.

Addressing the issue, let us look at who has been establishing that greenhouse gases are causing climate change. The targets that have been set in the Kyoto protocol will in fact reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will improve the lives and health of hundreds of millions of people around the world and millions of people here in Canada.

Over 10 years ago the United Nations environment program and the World Meteorological Organization--they are pretty credible--established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC recently completed an assessment of global climate change involving 2,500 scientists and scholars from around the world. Their assessment concluded that human activities are changing the climate and that the changes consistent with climate change are already occurring in areas of the planet.

The IPCC conclusions have been endorsed by more than 100 Nobel laureates, by 17 national scientific academies and by most of the world's governments, including the United States. Did members hear right? The United States recognizes that there is climate change and that climate change is caused in large part by greenhouse gas emissions. I do not think the Canadian Alliance is aware of that. Let us also look at a couple of other facts.

What are some of the activities that contribute to climate change as established by these experts? One, the activities that contribute to climate change also contribute to smog. Clean air and climate change are linked by transportation, electric power generation and the oil and gas sectors. These sectors are major emitters of both greenhouse gases and air pollutants.

Actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will help achieve Canada's clean air goals. This includes reducing emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxides from emitters like thermoelectricity plants, refineries, and pulp and paper mills; reducing traffic congestion in our cities; and reducing emissions from homes and buildings.

Fossil fuel combustion accounts for 80% of the greenhouse gas emissions and for 85% of nitrogen oxides. About 35% of primary emissions of fine particulate matter are linked to aggravated heart and lung diseases such as asthma, bronchitis and emphysema. They are also due to fossil fuel combustion. Fossil fuel combustion also accounts for about 40% of emissions of sulphur dioxides which contribute to particulate formation and acid rain.

The case has been clearly made by the experts. I am not an expert. I have not trained in these areas, but I have enough sense to look up the credentials of those who are considered experts in order to determine whether or not they are. There are thousands of scientists who have signed on and support the ratification of Kyoto. The government will ratify Kyoto before the end of 2002.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, 12 minutes is not a lot, but I will try to condense all I want to say on this matter of ratifying the Kyoto protocol into that amount of time.

I would like to address several myths that opponents to the ratification of the Kyoto protocol have been disseminating in the pubic and even in the House.

Myth number one is that we have not consulted with industry and the provinces on Kyoto. The fact is that since 1997 under the national climate change process the federal government has worked with more than 450 experts from different levels of government, industry, academia and non-governmental organizations. These experts who have been consulted have produced tens of thousands of pages of analysis. They have spent thousands of hours in ministerial meetings, public consultations and technical workshops.

As well, stakeholder meetings were held in every province and territory in Canada in 2000 and then again in 2002. During the 2002 stakeholder meetings, over 600 experts from across Canada, including 152 from civil society, 232 from industry, and 186 from provincial, territorial and federal governments, were consulted on Canada's plan to implement the Kyoto protocol. Through these consultations, the federal government has learned that stakeholders want as much flexibility as possible to decide for themselves how best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That debunks myth number one.

Myth number two is that the Kyoto protocol will irrevocably harm the Canadian economy. It is the myth that the Kyoto protocol will cost Canadians their jobs. Over the past 10 or 12 years, there have been various estimates of what ratifying the Kyoto protocol will mean for the Canadian economy. The most credible numbers come from the analysis and modelling working group, or AMG, of the national climate change process, the process I just talked about.

The AMG is comprised, as I mentioned previously, of officials from every province and territory, and it also consults widely with experts from industry, academia and the environmental community. Its most recent analysis indicates that when Canada ratifies Kyoto, Canada's GDP will be 30.4% bigger in 2012 instead of 31% bigger. In other words, we may forgo $17.2 billion of growth over 10 years, or about $24 per year per Canadian. These estimates of AMG have focused on cost. They have not, however, examined the positive impact: increased rates of investment, innovation and efficiency as a result of implementation of the Kyoto protocol in Canada. Let us look at that.

It was reported on September 25, 2002, that implementing Kyoto in Canada could cost 200,000 jobs. This estimate is close to the high range of potential effects on employment recorded by the AMG in the discussion paper on Canada's contribution to addressing climate change. It is important to be clear. This is not 200,000 jobs lost. Rather, it is 200,000 jobs, and that is only the estimated high end, that will not be created over the next 10 years. To put this in perspective, Statistics Canada reported that 59,000 jobs were created this past August alone. Already this year 386,000 new jobs have been created in Canada. As well, this estimate of 200,000 jobs not created between now and 2012 does not consider the creation of new jobs as a result of our innovative actions to stop climate change.

For instance, Industry Canada estimates that if Canada ratifies the Kyoto protocol, investment in renewable energy could grow fifteen-fold, to over $7 billion per year. Ontario Premier Ernie Eves recently stated, “I'm not planning on losing any jobs in the province as a result of any reduction of greenhouse gas emissions”, and acknowledged that Kyoto could end up boosting the economy in the long run through the development and use of environmentally friendly technologies. Those are the words of Premier Ernie Eves, not necessarily the biggest friend to the environment and to the ratification of Kyoto.

Several innovative companies see action to fight climate change as an economic opportunity. For example Sterling Pulp Chemicals Limited has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by almost 95% in its facility in Buckingham, Quebec, by turning waste into fuel. After an initial investment of $1.1 million, the company now enjoys a $2.28 million per year saving in lower energy costs.

Clearly, fighting climate change can be both: good for the environment and good for profits.

Let us look at the oil and gas industry. There are major oil and gas companies that also recognize the economic benefits of fighting climate change. British Petroleum and Royal Dutch/Shell have made a long term commitment to make the transition out of fossil fuels and are spending large amounts of money on renewable energy. BP's new slogan is “Beyond Petroleum”. BP has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 9 megatonnes in just three years and has added $650 million U.S. to the value of its operations through energy efficiency.

Action to reduce climate change and action to implement the Kyoto protocol in Canada will have a beneficial impact on industry and on our economy.

Let me come back to the so-called job losses. Who says that ratification of Kyoto is going to involve or necessarily create job losses? Let us see what some people who disagree have to say. The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, CEP, called for the federal government to provide transitional funding for ratification. Energy workers support Kyoto. It is the corporate executives, or rather some corporate executives and politicians like Ralph Klein and unfortunately like hon. members on the opposite side of the House who belong to the Canadian Alliance, who are raising the alarm about jobs.

It is also important to look at general trends in the oil and gas sector. Although the fossil fuel industry has experienced massive production increases over the past recent years, more than 80,000 Canadian jobs were lost in this sector over the last 10 years. These cuts were made for profit, not to stem environmental problems, and there was no national outcry and certainly no lobbying by Ralph Klein or by the Canadian Alliance about these job losses.

I find that interesting. When job losses are created solely out of the profit motive, there is no outcry, but if there is a potential that job creation growth might not be as big as we expect over the next 10 years, and not that it is negative growth, but not as big as we expect, there is an outcry on the part of the Canadian Alliance, the hon. member for Red Deer and Ralph Klein and his cohorts.

Canadians want ratification of Kyoto. Quebeckers want ratification of Kyoto. Montrealers want ratification of Kyoto. The residents of my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine want ratification of Kyoto and we do not want it in 10 years from now. We want it before the end of this year, that is, before December 31, 2002.

That is the commitment the right hon. Prime Minister has made and that is what we will do. The House of Commons will support ratification. I will support it. I have supported it from the very beginning. I will continue to support it.

After we have supported it, I will be rolling up my sleeves, as hundreds of thousands of Canadians, millions of Canadians, will be doing, to do my part in achieving the targets that we will have committed to under the Kyoto protocol accord. I will do it, my colleagues on this side of the House will do it, and a significant number of my colleagues on the other side of the House will do it as well, like the members of the NDP caucus.

Let me close by saying that the Kyoto protocol will be ratified before the end of this year and it will be a good thing for Canada. It will spur economic development and it will improve the health of every Canadian.

[Landmines, November 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the House that next week we will mark the fifth anniversary of the signing of the Ottawa convention banning anti-personnel mines.

Tomorrow, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Cooperation will participate in a plaque unveiling ceremony in the Lester B. Pearson building. This plaque will be a permanent reminder of the leading role that Canada played in this historic treaty. This event will also mark the opening of an international symposium organized by Mine Action Canada.

A hundred and thirty countries have ratified the landmines treaty and, partly with the help of a $72 million grant from CIDA, millions of hectares of land have been cleared of mines. We must remember, however, that the tragedy of anti-personnel landmines has not ended. They continue to kill indiscriminately long after the conflicts themselves have ended. We must remember that in countries which have not yet been cleared of landmines they continue to pose a major obstacle to physical and economic reconstruction.