Michelle Rempel

[Parliament of Canada Act, November 2nd, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am here to speak today to Bill C-306, introduced by the member for Pontiac, which addresses changes in the political affiliations of members of Parliament, or more commonly known as floor crossing. The bill would require the resignation of a member of Parliament and a subsequent byelection if the member crosses the floor to sit as a member of a different political party.

While I understand that the goal of this bill would be to ensure that a member's decision to cross the floor is endorsed by a member's constituents, the result of it would be simple. This bill would seriously undermine the independence of members of this House and I do not think that is something we should encourage or support.

This bill would have some practical negative consequences. The bill would impose restrictions upon members who wish to express a different position than the one endorsed by a majority of their caucus. This bill would also impede members of Parliament in representing the interests of their constituents, which is one of the fundamental duties under our Constitution.

I want to briefly go over the details of this bill and then explain in more detail why I believe restrictions on floor crossings would not fit with our Westminster parliamentary system and are inadvisable.

Bill C-306 would require a byelection whenever members join a different registered party than the one that has endorsed them for the previous election or if they were elected as independent candidates during the previous election and subsequently join a political party. However, Bill C-306 would not require a byelection when members leave or are expelled from their caucus to sit as independents, leave their party to form a new party that does not yet have registered party status under the Elections Canada Act or, and I stress, two parties that have registered status under the Elections Canada Act merge. According to the Elections Canada Act, a party obtains registered party status when it endorses at least one candidate for an election, provided it has made the proper application to the Chief Electoral Officer at least 60 days before the issue of writs for that election.

So here are the details. I have some concerns about the technical wording of the bill and not only with its principles. I will speak a bit about the bill's reference to registered parties. Our party system plays a fundamental role in our democracy but, in fact, there are a few statutory provisions regulating the role of political parties in Parliament itself, including the Parliament of Canada Act which Bill C-306 would modify.

In contrast, the roles, rights and obligations of individual members of Parliament are well established in Canada's legislation whereby members of Parliament are central actors in our Westminster system of government. Practically, the caucus system in our Parliament is joined with, but distinct from, the registered party system.

Bill C-306 would go against existing rules and traditions by allowing the party machinery to take precedence over individual rights and responsibilities of each member of Parliament and their caucus choices. This does not correspond to our system of government. As I stated earlier, I believe Bill C-306 would have negative and undesirable consequences on the roles of members of Parliament.

In effect, the bill would require members who fundamentally disagree with their caucus or with the leader of their party to resign their seat or to sit as independents. However, it would blur the line between party membership and caucus membership. Such restrictions would strengthen the control of political parties over individual members by bolstering a party's threat of expulsion in order to maintain party discipline and limit the representative role of members.

Therefore, the bill could discourage elected representatives from expressing their views in caucus debates and encourage party leaders to act without regard to their caucus members' best interests.

We should remember that members of Parliament have three competing but equally important representative roles in Parliament. They are to represent the interests and opinions of their constituents, to present their personal views and judgments, and to support and promote their political parties and party leaders.

By seeking to punish members of Parliament who disagree with their parties so fundamentally that they decide to change their political affiliation, the bill would focus exclusively on the party role of members. This would be detrimental to the individual roles of members, including their duties to act as trustees of the public interest and that of their constituents.

Moreover, the decision to cross the floor cannot be taken lightly. It is an important decision, often with significant consequences.

Of the six members who have crossed the floor since the 2004 election, only one has managed to be re-elected in a subsequent election as an independent candidate. The same premise applies to members of Parliament who have decided to leave or who were expelled from their caucus to sit as independent members. Of the six members who left their caucus to sit as independent members since the 2004 election, only one was re-elected in a subsequent election. What does this mean?

Members are subject to scrutiny by the public, by the media, by parliamentary colleagues, and most importantly, by their voters, their constituents back at home in the next general election. Therefore, I believe this bill is unnecessary as it is that court of opinion by which members are truly judged. To emphasize, general elections themselves are the appropriate mechanism to hold members of Parliament accountable for their actions.

According to the Library of Parliament, there have been approximately 194 floor crossings since Confederation. The floor crossing tradition reflects the importance of preserving the independence and mobility of members of Parliament to vote with their feet when they feel it is in the best interests of their constituents or the country to do so.

None of our provinces require a byelection when a member of their legislative assembly changes political affiliations, although Manitoba requires members who leave their caucus to sit as independent members until the end of their terms. Moreover, crossing the floor exists in other Westminster parliamentary systems. The United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand do not currently impose restrictions on floor crossings.

When New Zealand went through a transition period from the first past the post electoral system to a mixed member proportional system, it had passed legislation to prevent floor crossings as a temporary measure in 2001. However, it did not renew these provisions after the 2005 election as they turned out to be ineffective.

This is consistent with the fact that laws banning floor crossing are rare in established democracies, but common in nascent democracies where they are defended as temporary measures designed to consolidate a parliamentary system. We are certainly not in that position here in Canada, nor are our peer countries. I simply cannot see the need for the provisions of this bill.

In conclusion, party affiliation is certainly an important factor when Canadians cast their vote, but they also expect elected representatives to act according to their convictions when they represent local interests at the national level. Ultimately, members are held accountable by their constituents at the next election. Therefore, I encourage all members to opposed Bill C-306

[November 1st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, Environment Canada will keep up its monitoring of ozone in the upper atmosphere. Environment Canada will not close the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre. Canada will continue to be a world leader in ozone monitoring, as it has been since 1966.

[November 1st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, my Liberal colleague is hardly in a position to criticize our government's plan as it was the previous Liberal government that signed grand international accords but took little action. In contrast, our government has a tangible plan to address climate change that balances the need to protect our environment and economic growth.

With regard to ozone, to repeat what has been said several times in this House, Environment Canada will not close the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre. Measuring ozone in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as stratospheric ozone, is an international obligation required under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer under the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.

When it comes to atmospheric ozone science, Canada has been and continues to be a global leader. Since 1966, ozone has been measured from Resolute Bay in Canada. This represents the longest record of ozone observation in the Arctic anywhere in the world. Many of the ozone measurements used globally today were pioneered by Canadians. Changing the way ozone is monitored in Canada does not mean that Canada's ability to monitor ozone would be degraded.

Currently, Environment Canada uses two methods to measure ozone: the Brewer network and the ozonesonde network.

However, just because something is the status quo does not mean it is the best way of doing things. Science and technology improves over time; this is a fact.

The current plan for ozone monitoring is that Environment Canada is to integrate and optimize the two existing ozone networks. This will allow Environment Canada to deliver sound science, while also remaining within budget.

Ozone networking data from Canada are shared with the world via the World Meteorological Organization. In addition, Canada has maintained the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre for many years. The WMO supplies the data to other weather centres and agencies in Europe and the U.S.

To be clear, Environment Canada is not closing the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre.

Integrating ozone monitoring networks and changing the management of the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre will mean reducing the number of employees dedicated to ozone science. However, Environment Canada staff would remain dedicated to both these activities and to achieving quality results.

To reiterate, Environment Canada will continue to measure ozone.

[October 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, again, the money provided to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency through budget 2007 was provided to be cognizant of the fact that we needed to have increased capacity for certain programs that were coming up.

These programs were time limited and that is why the sunsetting funds were put into place. That is also why we are reviewing them. Many different programs across government have sunsetting clauses because we are responsible to review these programs, to be wise stewards of taxpayers' dollars.

Just to clarify, I disagree with my colleague's stance that this is a cut because we have not made a decision on whether or not to review this funding. We are doing our job as government to review the efficacy of this and whether or not we need continued funding.

Just to be perfectly clear, the 43% is not a cut because it was part of a natural sunsetting clause. We are in the process of reviewing that right now.

[October 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I actually share my colleague's viewpoint and I know our government does as well, in acknowledging that protecting our environment is important.

That is why we have taken concrete action on protecting Canada's environment. We are also cognizant of the fact that we need to do that within a framework of protecting Canada's fragile economic recovery.

Again, I am in agreement with the member in sharing that effective and timely environmental assessment through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is very important for our country, especially with regard to ensuring sustainable economic growth for Canada.

I hope the member shares our view that we are also responsible for ensuring that we are wise stewards of taxpayers' dollars. With specific regard to her question around the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, which was the content of the question put to the House on the order paper, any suggestion that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is being cut by 43% is highly misleading.

As the member opposite may remember, the president of the CEAA, Ms. Elaine Feldman, appeared at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on October 25, 2011. Referring to the 43% difference in funding reported by CEAA, Ms. Feldman said, “These are not cuts”.

To continue dealing in fact-based information, in 2007 under the cabinet directive on improving the performance of the regulatory system for major resource projects, CEAA took on additional responsibilities for environmental assessment and aboriginal consultations.

To meet these responsibilities, the agency was allocated $11 million per year for five years. An additional $2.3 million per year has been provided for aboriginal consultations associated with review panels. Five years have now nearly passed and these funds are due to sunset at the end of fiscal year 2010-11.

The 43% difference my colleague referred in funding at issue here are in fact sunsetting funds. These are term defined funds due to sunset at the end of this fiscal year. For that reason, the agency has projected a decrease in the agency's budget if the sunsetting funds are not renewed.

Just to be clear to the House and to answer my colleague's question, a decision regarding whether or not to renew these sunsetting funds has not been made yet. The agency's funding has not been cut.

[October 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, since there were so many things in that question, I will stick to the question asked about ozone science. I want to make this crystal clear. Repeating what we have said over and over again, Canada has banned ozone-depleting chemicals. We will continue to monitor the ozone, and the ozone data centre will continue to operate.

I would like to ask the member opposite to support our plan to continue to monitor ozone. It is focused on ensuring Canada's excellent track record in this area is maintained in a cost-effective and efficient way.

[October 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians can be proud of the contributions that Environment Canada scientists make to independent studies and policy development and to protecting Canada's environment.

Contrary to what the opposition would like to have this House believe, Environment Canada is more than committed to ensuring the continued engagement of stakeholders in international regulatory policy processes. We are strongly committed to protecting Canada's natural heritage, even in difficult economic times.

We are also committed to ensuring hard-earned taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, which is in stark contrast to how the opposition would have us proceed. That is why we are reviewing government spending commitments on a regular cycle to ensure they are effective and efficient, respond to the core priorities of the Canadian government and are in line with our federal responsibilities.

With regard to ozone, our government is strongly committed to protecting Canada's environment, as I have said. That is why our plan is to ensure that Canada's strong track record in the area of atmospheric ozone measurement continues to deliver sound science within budget.

As we have said repeatedly in this House, we will continue to both effectively and efficiently monitor ozone. The World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre, which is considered to be world class, will continue to operate.

As well, we will continue to effectively and efficiently make best use of taxpayer dollars.

[Breast Density Awareness Act, October 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, first, I thank my colleagues for their excellent debate on this issue this morning.

I rise today to address Bill C-314, an act respecting the awareness of screening among women with dense breast tissue. I thank my colleague, the member for Barrie, for bringing this important bill forward.

As October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, it is time to draw attention to breast cancer and to raise awareness of this important health issue affecting Canadians.

Statistics tell us that breast cancer is the most common form of cancer among Canadian women. One in nine women will be diagnosed with the disease.

Those statistics are more than just numbers. They represent women whose lives are affected by breast cancer. They are wives, mothers, daughters and friends. This year it is estimated that thousands of women across the country will be diagnosed with breast cancer and that approximately 5,000 women will die from the disease.

Thankfully research is providing answers to many questions regarding breast cancer. We are learning more about prevention, risk factors and treatments. Our government's investments into health research through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research support scientific discoveries regarding all types of cancers including breast cancer. We are learning more about the early detection of breast cancer.

The bill focuses on raising awareness regarding breast density and its effects on breast cancer screening. It emphasizes the importance of this issue in an effort to help women and their doctors make well-informed decisions with regard to breast cancer screening.

Why is that important? More than ever before Canadians are taking an active role in their health and require good information to support that role. Canadians need information on what has been proven as well as what is not yet well understood. Only then can they weigh the risks and benefits of the different courses of action.

As well, the Internet revolution allows Canadians to find a great deal of information on health topics. It also means Canadians are faced with the difficulty of deciding what is accurate, inaccurate, important or misleading.

Therefore, providing accurate information to Canadians will increase their awareness and help them make well-informed decisions.

There is a great deal of information available on breast cancer and breast cancer screening which addresses the particular issue of breast density and its implications on breast cancer screening.

A mammogram is an X-ray taken of the breast and is used as a screening method for breast cancer. However, for women with dense breast tissue it can be more difficult for this method to detect small changes that could denote cancer.

Canada's breast cancer screening programs are delivered by the provincial and territorial governments under their jurisdiction for health care delivery. These excellent programs operate according to the highest standards. The federal government is helping breast cancer screening programs through investments made in the Canadian breast cancer screening initiative. This initiative measures the performance of breast cancer screening programs across the country. The information is used by those programs to improve the services they provide to Canadian women.

We are also assisting breast cancer screening programs in sharing their best practices. A key feature of these programs is the important information they provide to women on all aspects of breast cancer screening including breast density. That way we can build on the good work that is already under way.

National non-governmental organizations and their volunteers also play integral roles in raising awareness. The bill recognizes the important role of organizations, such as the Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, as well as numerous other women's health organizations. All of these organizations work to promote cancer prevention, early detection, effective treatments and research. They also provide education and awareness programs and work to improve the quality of life for those living with breast cancer.

The fact that so many Canadian organizations and programs already provide high quality information to women on breast cancer reflects upon the dedication that exists with regard to this enormous health challenge. Researchers, doctors, nurses and provincial and territorial cancer agencies are committed to reducing the rates of breast cancer.

Our government's investment in the Canadian strategy for cancer control and its implementation by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer is part of this national commitment. As its name implies, the partnership is working across the country to speed up the use of effective approaches to cancer prevention and control so that all Canadians will benefit. It is helping to fill gaps, build new models and expand existing programs where needed. Cancer screening is one of the partnership's priorities and its work to provide information to Canadians is consistent with the intent of the bill. The renewed investment in the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer announced by our Prime Minister in March will help that excellent work that is under way continue.

We have much to build on and many best practices to apply as we continue to support Canadian women in accessing the information they need to make decisions on their health. Of course, our efforts are in line with the role of the federal government in supporting health research and identifying best practices in creating partnerships and of promoting the health of Canadians.

In closing, Bill C-314 encourages the Government of Canada to use existing initiatives to raise awareness of breast density in the context of breast cancer screening. This is important for Canadian women.

I sincerely hope we have the support of all members in this House for this important bill.

[The Environment, October 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we provided additional funding to this agency in budget 2007. It was a five-year funding process, which we are reviewing right now, and we look forward to the committee's findings.

[The Environment, October 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, our government is taking concrete action to protect Canada's environment. With regard to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, budget 2007 provided $11 million in additional funding for the agency to take on more responsibilities related to the review of major resource projects.

The agency was one of six departments funded to deliver on a new government mandate to improve the regulatory process for major resource projects. The funding was time limited so that the government could assess at the end of the five years whether it was generating the intended results. We look forward to the findings of this committee.