Peter Julian

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Hamilton Centre.

I would like to begin my speech on this important motion on mandatory emission standards and talk about why voluntary emission standards have not worked. We have seen this in other areas as well.

We have seen it in the voluntary program for energy efficient homes, a program that was started in 1982 and that members of the government raised a number of times in the debate today. That program to promote energy efficient homes, which was started in the 1980s through a voluntary program, has resulted in less than 10,000 R-2000 energy efficient homes actually being built over a 20 year period. That means about .6% of Canada's new housing starts have involved these energy efficient homes. In other words, that is a failure rate of over 99%.

Let us talk about voluntary standards in another sector, which is voluntary greenhouse gas reduction efforts announced with loud acclaim by the Liberal government in 1995. Companies were invited to report greenhouse gas emissions and actions taken to reduce them. At the end of 1999 there were 1,000 companies registered with these voluntary standards. Only 10% of the companies that registered actually provided detailed greenhouse gas information. In other words, the failure rate of those voluntary standards was 90%.

We have talked today and other hon. colleagues have raised the fact that we have had a total failure by the Liberal government to actually deal with greenhouse gas emissions. The supposed plan that was put into place was supposed to result in a 20% reduction and we have actually seen a 20% increase. Today members of the government seem to be proud of that deplorable fact that our greenhouse gases have actually gone up when their plan called for a reduction.

What should be a source of shame to all members in all corners of the House is that the OECD has indicated, for 25 environmental indicators, Canada's overall ranking to be 28th out of 29 OECD nations. So much for success on the environmental front. So much for success in putting the plan into effect. We are 28th out of 29 and members of the Liberal government are actually proud of that fact. It is deplorable and that is why the NDP and the member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley, who is very concerned about our environmental future as a nation, brought forward this motion today. Canadians are crying out for decisive government action in this area.

We have seen Liberal failures. I would like to talk about the Conservatives for just a moment because it is unclear exactly what position they are taking this time. My colleague from New Westminster--Coquitlam did mention that he could support the motion. Certainly, coming from the area that he does, neighbouring my riding of Burnaby--New Westminster, I can understand he is aware of the concern about the growing pollution problems.

However, two other members, the member for Oshawa and the member for Essex, actually said they would be opposing this motion. If so, obviously neither the member for Oshawa nor the member for Essex actually had their speech vetted by the leader of the Conservative Party because this is what the leader of the Conservative Party said in the last election. This comes from the public domain, the CTV website. The leader of the Conservative Party told supporters during the election campaign last June that the Tories would pass a new clean air bill that would include mandatory limits on emissions, with targeted levels.

Very clearly, we have the leader of the Conservative Party, who obviously did not vet the speeches from the member for Oshawa or the member for Essex, speaking in favour of mandatory emissions. That is not all. We have the environment critic from the Conservative Party making the commitment again in the June 28 election to regulate fuel economy in automobiles in order to attain 25% improvement in efficiency.

What we have are members of the Conservative Party saying very clearly in an election campaign that they supported mandatory emissions, and some members at least of the same Conservative Party are now, after the election is finished and obviously after the voters have chosen, saying that they oppose mandatory emissions.

What is wrong with this picture? I think it would be charitable at best to say it is deceptive to support mandatory emissions during an election campaign and then not support them in this House when the time comes to actually make a decision and support the Canadian environment.

I would also like to mention that the Conservative environment critic said that the position on mandatory fuel efficiency was party policy. This was in a reply to a questionnaire sent to the Sierra Club of Canada. Clearly, we have failure on the government's part. We have some incoherence from the official opposition.

What do Canadians say? In a poll that was done last year just prior to the election, and that is perhaps why at least in two corners of this House there was lip service paid to the environment, 94% of Canadians showed support for fuel economy. In other words, 94% of Canadians supported mandatory fuel efficiency regulations, including requiring better mileage and lowering greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian cars and trucks. We are talking about a widespread consensus within the Canadian population that this has to happen.

I would suggest woe is the member of Parliament who comes away from this House having voted against what 94% of Canadians support. In the next election, whether that is in a month or a year, those kinds of issues will be part of the public domain. Woe to those who go against what they committed to as members of the Conservative Party or as members of the Liberal Party in the last election.

Since there is widespread Canadian support right across the country, including British Columbia, it is obvious that Canadians understand what is at stake.

The B.C. Medical Association estimates 2,000 premature deaths per year in British Columbia each year as a result of air pollution. In Ontario, 20% of hospital admissions for infants under the age of one for bronchitis and pneumonia can be attributed to smog. We are not talking about a small issue. We are talking about an issue that Canadians understand. Canadians understand the consequences of not acting.

We have already talked about voluntary standards being a failure. Let us talk a bit about what has succeeded in the past. The NDP government in British Columbia put in place a clean air program. That program up until the year 2000 succeeded in reducing common air contaminants by 40% over the period of the clean air program. It actually succeeded in reducing per capita emission reduction by 60%. What we saw was clear action by the provincial NDP government in British Columbia. It succeeded in having a substantial impact on the state of air in British Columbia, particularly in the Lower Mainland.

That is why when we look at the polls in B.C., the New Democratic Party is leading. Since then, of course, we have stumbled backwards under the Gordon Campbell Liberals. I think British Columbians are feeling this issue as strongly as any other Canadians and will be voting accordingly in the election to be held in May of this year.

Given that the clean air act brought in by the B.C. NDP government was able to actually reduce the smog provoking emissions, what do we have to contend with when we talk about greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emissions? In the Greater Vancouver Regional District, part of which I represent, we are looking now at 17,766,109 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. This is up from 12 billion in 1995. If we do not take action, that situation will get worse.

That is why the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley as well as the member for Toronto—Danforth, our leader, and members of Parliament for Windsor—Tecumseh and for Windsor West have been pushing a green car strategy. We believe in a green car strategy. We believe in saving Canadian jobs by expanding our technology and dealing with this worldwide trend and we will continue to that.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I found the comment of the Minister of Natural Resources that he is inspired by the work of the Minister of the Environment very interesting. We have a 20% increase in greenhouse emissions when the plan calls for a 20% decrease. If that is inspiring, then obviously he is inspired by failure.

He also talked about momentum. We actually have an increase in emissions. In Ontario, 20% of hospital admissions for bronchitis in children under the age of one can be attributed to smog.

In terms of the energy efficient homes that he talked about, fewer than 10,000 homes have been constructed. That is less than 0.6% of new housing starts in Canada.

There is no momentum, unless we are talking about momentum backward, going down the slope.

I would like the minister to comment specifically on this failure of any sort of real presence in energy efficiency of homes, the failure to deal with smog and the failure to deal with greenhouse gases.

[Auditor General's Report, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General made it crystal clear in her report today that the government is hiding from the Auditor General unaccountable foundation money.

Eleven recommendations were made by her and seven were rejected by the government. So much for working with Sheila.

We have seen the sponsorship scandal. Instead of allowing the Auditor General to protect Canadians in all areas of federal funding, the government is stonewalling.

Will the Prime Minister commit today to end the flim-flam and make these foundations fully accountable to the Auditor General, to Parliament and to the Canadian people?

[Department of International Trade Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver East for a very eloquent presentation on the reasons why Bill C-31 is inappropriate. I thought some of her comments were very pertinent to the debate.

Being a fellow member of Parliament from British Columbia, the hon. member and I have seen the actions of the B.C. Liberal government over the last four years with a constant restructuring, pulling apart and tossing together of ministries. I would like her to comment on that.

Another comment she made that was extremely relevant and pertinent had to do with the outsourcing of jobs. She mentioned the member for Timmins—James Bay who brought forward the Canadian flag lapel pins that were being manufactured offshore.

We heard the Minister of International Trade this week actually encouraging corporations to employ people outside the country. He said that we would not weep if there were lost Canadian jobs. However a member of the government earlier in the debate said that he thought, in some sort of weird physics lesson, that for every action there was an equal and opposite reaction.

If that were the case we would not have seen the 40,000 lost jobs in the textile and clothing industry under the Liberal government's watch. We would not have seen the 20,000 lost jobs in the softwood lumber industry under the Liberal government's watch. We would not have seen the constant degradation in the quality of jobs that we have seen in this country over the past 12 years where there are fewer and fewer workers having access to pension benefits and fewer people having full time jobs. Jobs are becoming increasingly temporary.

I would like the hon. member to comment on those two things, the administrative chaos that she has lived through as a member representing British Columbia with the provincial government, and second, the comment that somehow jobs are not being lost when we know for a fact that they are.

[Patent Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, without taking all the time remaining to me, I would like to get to my conclusion.

In my speech on this important bill, I mentioned all the contributions made by the hon. member for Windsor West to the former Bill C-9. It is a very important act, which, as we know, is affected by Bill C-29.

Bill C-29, an act to amend the Patent Act does speak to pharmaceutical patents, but in addition—and that is unfortunate—it amends former the Bill C-9, to which the hon. member for Windsor West contributed so much. As we know, Bill C-9 deals with the entire question of AIDS, which is rampant in Africa and causing a crisis all across it.

What is so unfortunate about Bill C-29? It modifies former Bill C-9 and the government is, in a way, eliminating the fact that representatives of the Senate can sit on the advisory committee that will, in fact, be making decisions about which pharmaceuticals will be on the list of drugs available for export.

Because of that, we are somewhat hesitant to give our support to Bill C-29. It is unfortunate because the primary goal of the bill as it now appears, was not to make these changes to the former Bill C-9.

At the same time, it is very important to emphasize that we consider former Bill C-9 extremely useful in resolving or beginning to resolve the crisis in Africa. Since the regulations will not come into force for several years—and even though Africa cannot wait—we must wait in order to be able to help Africans to the fullest.

For this reason we will support Bill C-29 only bring about the implementation of the regulations of former Bill C-9 as quickly as possible, so that we will finally be able to help the people of Africa, who need it so much.

[Patent Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-29.

I will start by coming back to the work that the member for Windsor West did on the initial legislation. The initial regulations were badly flawed, I think it is fair to say, in the original bill that was proposed. The member for Windsor West, who is a member of the NDP caucus, submitted over 100 amendments and was instrumental in improving the bill. We can take some comfort in that many of the worst aspects in the original legislation have been improved.

The government was forced to present substantial amendments to the bill. The amendments eliminated the first right of refusal clause and extended eligibility to other developing countries. Amendments by the member for Windsor West also forced the establishment of an advisory committee; placed humanitarian reasons before economic considerations in an appeal of the royalty rate; added a key fixed dose combination drug for the treatment of tuberculosis; and added East Timor to the list of eligible countries. These were all passed.

Effectively he presented a series of amendments that helped to improve the basic legislation. Some amendments were not accepted, such as the amendments on alpacas and others. The basic issue is that a bill that was presented to the House was improved through the actions of a member who was able to bring in improvements at the committee level and also push the government to improve it.

That is the role we play in this Parliament. As a minority Parliament members have perhaps more input than they would normally have. Very clearly in this case a single member was able to force improvements to the legislation. What has happened here is perhaps one of the better sides of how a minority Parliament can work effectively. Members have now been working together since the beginning of October when this session of Parliament opened. Members from all sides have been able to contribute to the debate.

In this particular case, we are talking about an amendment that deals in the longer term with the crisis in Africa and helps to provide the HIV-AIDS drugs to people who sorely need them. We know the crisis that exists. Many of us have seen the devastation of HIV-AIDS in villages in Africa.

Stephen Lewis, a former NDP leader In Ontario, has spoken on this subject extremely eloquently. He has spoken about the devastation in communities. He has spoken of the orphans in villages. Their parents have passed away and there are millions of orphans as a result of this pandemic. It is crucial that we start to flow drugs to those individuals, the villages, communities and countries that have been affected by the pandemic.

[Patent Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Churchill for her intervention which as always was very succinct, to the point and effective. I know she is aware that there were significant amendments brought forward by the member for Windsor West who improved what was a badly flawed bill in the beginning. Does she have any comments about the role that the member for Windsor West played in the improvement of the original bill?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 10th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the comments by the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan in this extremely important debate on the future of health care were very thoughtful. I was particularly touched by her comments around the possibility of big box, credit card, for profit health care coming to Canada given that the Liberal government has not applied for a WTO exemption on health care.

We already know that a number of the more right wing provincial governments, such as what we have seen in British Columbia, are moving in that direction. We have also seen the tragic consequences of this in the United States. The most expensive health care system in the world leaves 60 million Americans with no health care coverage at all. As we know from a study just last week, more than half the bankruptcies in the United States are caused by this lack of having a solid public medicare system.

My question to the member is the following given that Canadians are very concerned about this and given that, as in most areas, the Liberal government has not responded to Canadians' interests but has been more interested in Bay Street's interests than main street interests. Now that the member is the new health critic for the New Democratic Party, has she seen any movement from the government to actually respect Canadians' wishes to maintain a strong and viable public health care system?

[Department of International Trade Act, February 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins--James Bay is absolutely right. There is a direction and that direction is south and offshore. The direction is loss of jobs. The direction is not respecting human rights and not pushing or having any sort of evaluation of foreign purchase of Canadian companies. We have seen 11,000 companies in Canada absorbed over the past 15 years, and they have been absorbed without any debate, without any sort of verification of whether it is in the interest of Canadians.

This is the sellout of Canada. He is absolutely right. There seems to be a direction, the selling out of jobs, the selling out of our resources, the selling out of our companies, and this has to stop. We will continue to raise these issues in the House.

[Department of International Trade Act, February 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Joliette for his question. There is a definite problem with the present structure. In my opinion, however, things would be even worse if changes were made or these two departments were divided, which is precisely what the bill is about.

The problem is that NGOs do not seem to get any hearing from the government, even if they do ask for help, and that is a pity. WIth a minority government, however, there is more chance of getting our opinions across, but the reality is that when human rights and the environment are on the agenda, not only in Canada but elsewhere, both international trade and foreign policy are involved.

We cannot have two different departments going in two different directions. WIth such a division, it would be even harder for the NGOs to make themselves heard.

Issues relating to human rights, the environment and social development involve aspects that are extremely important and ought to be looked at as a whole as far as foreign policy is concerned.

What is more, and this is something that ought to make all members here and all Canadians feel ashamed: yesterday 29,000 children died from disease, starvation and the lack of safe drinking water. Today, another 29,000 will die, as will that same number again tomorrow. This is a huge problem, and Canadians have a duty to set things in motion to improve this situation.

I believe that it will be harder to do this if there are two different departments going into two different directions.