Maurice Vellacott

[Petitions, May 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to table a petition in the French language from Quebec petitioners on the matter of marriage. The petitioners ask Parliament to reopen the question of marriage in Parliament. They ask that Parliament abrogate or amend the law on civil marriage and defend and promote marriage as the union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all other persons. It is an honour to represent these good French speaking Quebec petitioners on this important issue of marriage.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passion and the very personal, stirring stories that the member from the New Democratic Party told us today.

A lot of us know, from our own conversations and our own interactions on these things, something of the depth and serious darkness that happened in a lot of different situations. There were those who had some positive experiences, but the forced taking of children from their parents and the intergenerational breakdown that he alluded to was unfortunately too often the case.

I want to gently chide my colleague in the House today for specifically referring to that as genocide. I think he well knows the UN definition of genocide. It is a very precise definition. It is not to be used in the kind of free-handed manner that he used it here.

We do not in any way want to lessen the travesty that occurred in terms of the residential schools, nor do we want to play loose with the language and describe it as something which according to the UN definition is a different category.

I would ask for the member's response on that. I think he is probably a modest enough and a humble enough man to acknowledge that maybe he went a little too far at that point. We do not want to play loose with these words and in any way diminish the meaning of these words that are used on the international scene.

[Petitions, April 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of tabling a petition on the matter of marriage in the French language from Quebec petitioners.

These petitioners simply ask Parliament to reopen the question of marriage in Parliament and abrogate or amend the law in civil marriage and defence and promote marriage as the union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all other persons.

It is an honour to represent these French-speaking Quebec petitioners on this important subject of marriage.

[Committees of the House, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the member very quickly. The member often yells out across the floor, “They broke the law. They broke the law”.

I would ask my hon. colleague if maybe that member has not heard of civil disobedience in times past where individuals had to oppose an unjust law. I believe that morally this is an unjust law where people go off in shackles--

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to challenge him on that, and for the member who asked the question before, when he full well knows that there is a lot of support for the Conservative Party by Sikh members in the province of British Columbia. That was evidenced by the fact that prior to his election there was a member who had a great deal of support from the Sikh community, and I expect after the next election that will be the case again with a Conservative member from this side of the House for that particular riding.

Certainly, minority communities all across our country, and increasing numbers in these days, support the government. They come from parts of the world where they understand what it means to have solid values. Often they line up more with small “c” conservative values. They are hard-working, industrious and entrepreneurial people. They come into this country and they have a value base. They have a work ethic that is very much in sync with the goals and the aspirations of all Canadians that this party clearly supports.

I would ask if the member might be more accurate on the record, a little more charitable actually in his remarks, and acknowledge the fact that this party does in fact have the support of a lot of immigrant people and ethnic communities across our country instead of putting the misinformation as he did in the manner before? I would appreciate that correction, please.

[Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, February 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill and go on the record on some fairly important aspects on the issue of climate change.

Canadians told us loudly and clearly that they are concerned about the environment. During the last election, they told us that they were not satisfied with the action that the Liberals had taken, or had not taken, on a number of things, no less in this area as well, some subterfuge, some fakes they intended on this file.

In contrast, our government will be taking action, and is taking action, on both air pollution and climate change. We are committed to protecting the health of Canadians and also of our environment.

Unfortunately, Bill C-288, put forward by the member across the way, has no mechanisms for enforcement. It renders it toothless. Despite the political games of the opposition, we will not call an election over a private member's bill that has no substance and no plan. It is basically an empty motion.

The Speaker has ruled that the bill is not a money bill and, therefore, is not a matter of confidence. The bill does not require the expenditure of money and so, it accomplishes nothing.

The stated purpose in Bill C-288 is to ensure Canada takes action to meet its obligations under the Kyoto protocol. This very single focus on short term greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets is really not enough.

The clean air act, on the other hand, would provide a strong basis for taking integrated action on emissions of smog, acid rain pollutants and greenhouse gases as well, many of which come from the same industrial and transportation sources.

By tabling the clean air act, the government has clearly demonstrated that it is taking short, medium and long term action to protect the environment and human health.

Our approach is more than just a long term approach. With respect to industrial air emissions, the government has committed to determining its regulatory framework, including setting short term targets as well. Our notice of intent states that our targets will be consistent with leading environmental standards and at least as rigorous as those in the United States.

Targets for air pollutants will measurably reduce the impact on the health of Canadians. For greenhouse gases, the targets will yield a better outcome for the Canadian environment than under the plan proposed by the previous Liberal government.

Bill C-288 has a focus on the achievement of Canada's short term Kyoto target that is limited. Both its economic and environmental aspects need to be carefully examined.

Our approach needs to focus on the economic transformation needed for the Canadian economy that will lead to more significant and sustained reductions in pollutants. For example, we must, and we will, as a government encourage investment in improving Canadian energy and urban infrastructure.

The government wants to regulate greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions for major industrial sectors in place as soon as possible. That being said, however, the reality is it will not be possible, in practical terms, to develop requirements for both greenhouse gases and air pollutants for all industrial sectors by 2008.

Prescribing this as a deadline in the legislation, as per Bill C-288, would almost certainly open the Crown and all stakeholders to very serious difficulties.

The bill's timeline strictly limits the ability of the Minister of the Environment or any other regulating minister to consider public comments and revise draft regulations accordingly. The way of doing things, as in Bill C-288, is not reasonable and shows disregard for a meaningful public consultation process, which results then require careful consideration by the government.

Yesterday, in front of the legislative committee for Bill C-30, the Minister of the Environment made a strong statement on this government's commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. He said:

In the coming months, we will announce ambitious...targets...coming into force starting in 2010. For the first time ever, the Federal Government will regulate air pollution for major industry sectors. For the first time ever, we will regulate the fuel efficiency of motor vehicles, beginning with the 2011 model year. We will regulate energy efficiency standards and labeling requirements for a broad range of consumer and commercial products. Together, these will address about 80 percent of the energy used in homes and almost 90 percent of the energy used in commercial settings.

The challenge of meeting our Kyoto target is illustrated by the simple fact that by 2004 domestic greenhouse gas emissions had increased 27% under the Liberal government, which is the exact opposite of what should have happened.

We will not spend billions of taxpayer dollars overseas to buy credits. Instead, we will spend Canadian tax dollars here at home to make real reductions in greenhouse emissions and air pollution.

Our government is taking a new approach by integrating action on air pollution and climate change at the same time in order to protect the health of Canadians and the environment. Emissions of smog and acid rain pollutants and greenhouse gases come from many of the same industrial and transportation sources and, to be most effective, action needs to be integrated.

Regulations that address climate change in isolation could effectively force industries to invest in technologies and processes that only address greenhouse gases while locking in capital stock that continues to emit air pollutants. For that reason, our government will establish short, medium and long term reduction targets, both for air pollutants and greenhouse gases.

By taking action on greenhouse gases and air pollutants, our government will allow industry to find ways to reduce air pollutants and greenhouse gases in a way that helps industry maintain its economic competitiveness while maximizing the benefits to Canadians. Our plan will achieve concrete, tangible results through mandatory, enforceable regulations with short, medium and long term targets.

To recap, our opposition to Bill C-288 is threefold. First, this bill has a short term focus. Second, it has a single issue focus on greenhouses gases. Third, massive costs would come with this short term focus.

In our view, it is important to approach the issue in a way that will ensure reductions both of air pollutants and greenhouse gases in the short term, but that also sets the foundation for continued and more significant reductions over the long term. It is even more important that these funds be spent on improving the Canadian economy here.

Countries with targets now under the Kyoto protocol account for less than 30% of global emissions. For future international cooperation on climate change to be effective, all major emitting countries need to do their part to reduce emissions.

By 2010, developing countries are expected to contribute 45% of total greenhouse gas emissions, and China and India together will experience greater growth in emissions than all OECD countries combined.

Effective action cannot be taken, in fact, by a relatively small group of countries alone. Proponents of the Kyoto protocol would not deny the fundamental point that key developing countries must eventually participate

. Kyoto is only a first step toward a serious approach to the problem. We have been clear that Canada will work with other countries to help advance a more transformative long term approach to tackling climate change. Our actions at home will be the basis for future international cooperative efforts to address the matter of climate change.

In conclusion, Canada's clean air act goes far beyond Bill C-288 to protect the health of Canadians and our environment. We encourage the Liberals to get on board and help us get it through for the sake of Canadians and our environment.

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today. There is no doubt in my mind and in the minds of most Canadians that there is a big issue before us on the environment.

Our Conservative government clearly understands that global warming is a serious threat to the health and well-being of Canadians. They want clean water and air, and most of all they want action. They do not want just empty words that they have heard for so very long on the climate file. There is really no doubt about that fact.

The government is taking some concrete action that was already promised during our campaign last fall and in the first part of this year. We have actually followed through on some of those things already. We are moving forward with some pretty concrete and specific results.

The most obvious example of late of course is Bill C-30 which is the clean air act, which is now before a legislative committee of the House. That legislation lays out a very solid and workable plan. It makes a fundamental change in the approach of the federal government with respect to air pollution, and also greenhouse gases, a change which is vital and crucial to the health of Canadians.

We can compare that of course to the record of the previous Liberal government as it stalled on the environment over some 13 years actually. For many of those years I was there and served as a member when the stalling occurred. The Liberals racked up a lot of rhetoric, a lot of verbal diarrhea, as some would say over that time, and stalled due to a lack of realistic goals.

The previous Liberal government stalled because a timid government was unwilling to step up and accept its responsibility in concrete terms for fear of giving offence to others. It stalled as well because of the clear failure to accept that simple truth that Canadians already know. Canadians cannot be healthy without clean air.

The Liberal regime may not have been willing to act, but the Conservative government certainly is and is committed to do that in very practical and concrete ways. The government respects the objectives and principles of the Kyoto protocol. We are committed to making some real progress toward achieving those objectives.

However, we do face a challenge and I think we need to be honest to admit that, a challenge made greater by the inaction of the previous Liberal government as it failed to set up and then to follow up with clear priorities for greenhouse gases and air pollution reductions.

The path toward a new and a more realistic approach requires an approach that we have started through, in fact, the clean air act. It requires an approach based on targets that will mean immediate and also long term health benefits for all Canadians.

It is important to understand that the government is looking at clean air in a comprehensive way. We believe that we can ensure that Canadians receive health benefits from cleaner air now and we can take actions that will address also the longer term issues of climate change.

I want to comment a bit on the health considerations of our actions because this is where it really gets down to each one of us. The health of Canadians has been the focus of the government since the very beginning. Beyond the legitimate focus of our government, our partners and Canadians on health care, we understand the need to be concerned about the many determinants of an individual's health, such as genetics and behaviour. Air quality is also a big part of that.

For decades scientists have assembled and gathered evidence together on the health effects of air pollution, not just the killer smogs off in London and Los Angeles in the past but right now in our major cities across Canada as well. They know that air pollution causes premature mortality, hospital visits, lung cancer, and cardiac and respiratory illnesses. They know that air pollution results in increased absenteeism from school and work. Outdoor air pollution in Canadian cities also contributes to some 5,900 deaths per year from stroke, cardiac and lung disease. That impact is not evenly distributed throughout our society among Canadians but rather, air pollution has its greatest impact on children, the elderly and also the very frail.

In fact, in Toronto during the summer, smog is a factor in 35% of acute respiratory hospital admissions in children under the age of two. Individuals with diabetes, asthma, emphysema, heart disease, and circulatory disease are at greater risk on days when air pollution is high.

Those statistics have more than personal impacts. They have impacts on our health care system and our economy. In fact, in Ontario alone the costs of lost productivity due to air pollution are estimated to be some billion dollars per year.

I think Canadians understand this. In fact, more than half of Canadians believe that air pollution will eventually have a negative impact on their very own health. A full third of Canadians believe that air pollution has already had some kind of an impact upon them.

The Conservative Party believes that these Canadians are right. We believe the scientists are right. The government introduced Bill C-30 to address these concerns. That is why the government is charting a new and dynamic path.

The government introduced Bill C-30 to kick-start effective action that was so lacking until now. On this issue, as on so many others, we know that effective action is possible if there is a will. We know that taking--

[The Environment, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, two days ago, Dr. Gordon McBean revealed that when he briefed the Liberal cabinet in 2002 on climate change and Kyoto, an unnamed Liberal cabinet minister opposed taking any action, suggesting that the Liberals did not care about climate change, but only cared about doing things that would help them win an election.

Given his bragging record about the environment, will the new Liberal leader, who would have been at that cabinet meeting as the intergovernmental affairs minister, tell Canadians which Liberal cabinet minister made that remark? Was it one of the former Liberal cabinet ministers that he brags are still a part of his caucus?

Canadians would like to know who is this unnamed former Liberal cabinet minister who did not care about climate change, and if he is now the leader of the Liberal Party or one of his trusted shadow cabinet members.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I must draw this to the attention of my hon. colleague's and other members of the House. Every member of the House, even those elected as recently as January, have already been present for quite a number of motions asking to bring in legislation. They are called ways and means motions and every member in the House has been here for numerous of those. The hon. member, who is a long-serving member, has also been here for those.

I realize we do not all read books, but I am informed that is the express intent of a ways and means motion. It is asks permission to bring in legislation, and we have all been here for that. Even the recently elected MPs as of January have been present for numerous ways and means motions, and that is the very intent of what we have before us this evening.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I feel that the hon. member across the way and I are on the same wavelength in respect to this issue and the fundamental importance of heterosexual traditional marriage.

It seems to me to some degree he is twisting himself into a bit of a pretzel here by complicating the issue, and I say that respectfully. I appeal to my colleague to simplify the issue. Why did the member opposite not propose an amendment? If the member is sincere in wanting to get an adjustment so that it would be more palatable to him, then he has the option of moving an amendment. I leave it with the member. I ask him not to unduly complicate the issue for himself.