House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2019, with 34% of the vote.
Kyoto Protocol March 30th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks us to do something about Kyoto. In fact we are. We are investing over $1.1 billion in climate change solutions.
We will also continue to work with all our international partners to put together an international arrangement that works. We obviously disagree with President Bush's decision and we will work very hard to obtain an international consensus to bring down greenhouse gases and mitigate the problem of climate change.
Kyoto Protocol March 30th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, Canada is very seriously pursuing its international obligations. We negotiated with respect to the Kyoto protocol. We have been very active in the years since Kyoto in not only elaborating upon the international implementation mechanisms but taking action at home in Canada.
Last year in the budget of February and the mini budget in October we committed $1.1 billion over the next five years, which will eliminate 65 megatons of carbon dioxide from our atmosphere.
Natural Resources March 30th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, there is no energy crisis in Canada. We are blessed with enormous assets: conventional fossil fuels, hydro power, heavy oil, the oil sands, new frontiers in the north Atlantic and in the Arctic, plus nuclear, plus a growing portfolio of renewable and alternative fuels, new technologies like fuel cells, and the best energy brain power in the world.
We do not have a crisis but we do have an enormous opportunity to seize that opportunity. We are not pursuing a North American energy policy. We are pursuing the expansion and successful functioning of energy markets in the Canadian interest.
Natural Resources March 30th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada still believes very much in the principles that are contained in the Kyoto protocol.
We signed that protocol in 1998. We have been working assiduously to see that its terms are implemented. Just last year, for example, we invested $1.1 billion to pursue all the initiatives, some 400 initiatives, to implement the principles of the Kyoto protocol.
Natural Resources March 30th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the position taken by the Government of Canada with respect to the development of our natural resources is a position that is based entirely upon the principles of sustainable development. That means the effective integration of economic, environmental and social considerations.
We have enormous resources to develop. They can be developed to the great advantage of Canadians in terms of jobs and growth and investment, but we will do so very squarely protecting the interests of our environment, our social concerns and, in northern Canada particularly, the concerns of aboriginal Canadians.
Division No. 58 March 28th, 2001
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in with a further amendment.
Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act March 28th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain what Motion No. 8 standing in my name is all about with respect to Bill C-4.
It is a consequential and technical amendment. The clause was amended when the bill was before committee. The clause allows members of the foundation to select an auditor at the annual meeting of the members, thereby alleviating the need to hold a separate meeting to appoint the auditor.
The new language of clause 26(1), as amended in committee, is as follows:
At the first meeting of the members, and in any subsequent fiscal year at the annual meeting, the members shall appoint an auditor for.
Upon reviewing the bill and after the committee had finished its work, it became apparent that a consequential amendment was required in subclause 26(3) to make subclause 26(3) consistent with the change made in committee to subclause 26(1).
Accordingly Motion No. 8 now before the House dealing with subclause 26(3) is that consequential amendment to make sure subclause 26(3) at report stage is consistent with the change made during committee hearings to subclause 26(1). It is not a substantive amendment but obviously the two subclauses have to be consistent.
Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act March 28th, 2001
moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-4, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 10 and 11 on page 15 with the following:
“(3) If an auditor is not appointed at the annual general meeting in any fiscal year, the”
Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act March 28th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the House is once again considering Bill C-4 at report stage. A number of amendments were suggested subsequent to the work on the bill in committee.
We are dealing with motions that the Chair has designated as Group No. 2, specifically Motions Nos. 3 and 4 moved by the member for South Shore, in an effort to provide more restrictions in the bill to the terms of office of the directors.
I will deal with those specific points in just a moment, but I wish to make a couple of observations in response to the hon. member from the Bloc who has just spoken. Her criticisms of Bill C-4 were not in terms of what the bill is trying to achieve with respect to sustainable development.
As I understood them, they were twofold: first, there had not been ample consultation with all other players and stakeholders, particularly the provinces and, second, the foundation being proposed in some way duplicates that which is already in place in some provinces, most especially the province of Quebec. With the greatest of respect, neither of those criticisms is valid.
I say this for these reasons. First, Bill C-4 and all other measures included in Government of Canada action plan 2000 and identified in the budget of February 2000 with respect to climate change flow from over two years of the most comprehensive, open, transparent and inclusive consultation there has ever been on an environmental and developmental topic.
Members will recall that the Kyoto conference occurred in December 1997. In a meeting with the Prime Minister not more than 48 hours after the conclusion of the Kyoto protocol, the provinces insisted that there be a very thorough process of consultation. It would specifically include the provinces, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, the scientific community, the municipalities, and virtually all Canadians to fully scope out what the climate change issue was and what the implications of the Kyoto accord would be.
The Government of Canada agreed with that initiative and in the spring 1998 the consultation process began. It involved at least 16 different issue tables. It involved over 400 Canadians from every province and territory. It involved all municipalities that wanted to be involved, as well as scientific and non-governmental organizations. It included every dimension of Canadian life from coast to coast to coast. It was open, transparent, inclusive and comprehensive.
The idea for the sustainable development technology fund flowed from that process, which went on for the better part of two years. It cannot be said that there was not ample consultation. There was fulsome and very strong consultation which most definitely included the Government of Quebec and a whole range of non-governmental interest in the province of Quebec.
The proposed sustainable development technology foundation does not duplicate work that is already being undertaken by somebody else in some other jurisdiction. We have been very careful in defining the role of the new foundation. It is filling a gap in the innovation chain. It is not duplicating or overlapping with something that is already there. It is filling a gap that is problematic at the present time. There is common agreement among our private sector stakeholders that the gap needs to be filled and the foundation is the preferred method of filling that gap.
We have continuity from the very early stages of abstract and pure science through all the intermediate stages where that science becomes more defined and more applied, to the final end of the process where it is commercialized and put to work in the economy. This new fund and the new foundation will not cause an overlap or a duplication with something that somebody else is already doing in some other jurisdiction.
What it does is that it adds new funding to help us all meet the challenge of sustainable development. All federal, provincial and territorial ministers of energy and the environment, all those in the private sector that we consulted, the environmental organizations and the scientific community, would all agree that if there is one thing we need from all sources, federal, provincial and territorial with the private sector, is more money into the equation to help us find those sustainable development solutions.
We are not overlapping. We are not duplicating. We are acting on the basis of ample consultation, bringing another $100 million to the equation to help solve the challenges of sustainable development for the future.
When we have an absolute shortage of funding, adding another $100 million to the overall pot does not constitute overlap or duplication. It represents a very solid investment toward a larger solution.
Specifically on the points raised by the member for South Shore in Motions Nos. 3 and 4, Motion No. 3 is essentially aimed at staggering terms of office and Motion No. 4 is aimed at limiting the time in office that any particular director can serve.
While I recognize what the hon. gentleman is trying to accomplish, I respectfully suggest that the language already in Bill C-4 provides flexibility for the ongoing board of directors to function in a most appropriate way and that the restrictions and the meaning proposed by the member for South Shore would really be counterproductive.
We cannot determine the value of directors in advance by arbitrarily saying that they will only have good ideas, that they will only serve in a proper fashion for one term and that then they will be burned out and we should cast them aside and get somebody else.
While it is desirable to have turnover, new blood and new ideas brought into the equation, it is better to leave Bill C-4 in the form as it presently stands, which provides flexibility in dealing with the terms of directors rather than trying to precisely describe when a particular director must leave office.
Directors who serve well, that bring energy, ideas, vitality and enthusiasm to their task, ought to continue, and perhaps indefinitely. They do not run out of ideas because they serve a certain number of terms or reach a certain age. These people may want to leave after one term. They may want to continue for three or four. We need to retain the flexibility to capture their maximum vitality rather than try to prescribe and limit in advance.
I simply do not accept the notion that we necessarily have to say in the legislation that they should be turfed out at a certain point. The legislation provides flexibility. It provides for appointment and then the possibility of reappointment.
Obviously at the time of reappointment an assessment would be made as to whether the person wants to continue and whether in the view of the responsible government of the day the person is making a valuable contribution that ought to be continued. It is proper to leave it flexible on that basis so that there can be rejuvenation from time to time and that those who are making valuable contributions can continue for the long term.
On the point about staggering, I certainly agree with the objective that we do not want all the directors coming and going at the same time. Obviously we would have to reinvent the wheel with each new board of directors every time.
That is a reasonable proposition. My only comment would be that the staggering of terms is already possible under Bill C-4 as it is currently drafted. Therefore specifically Motion No. 3 is unnecessary because the foundation already has the flexibility that is required to stagger the terms.
The Environment March 27th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the principle of carbon sinks is embedded in the Kyoto protocol itself. The Canadian position with respect to carbon sinks in either agriculture or forestry is squarely based upon sound science.
The hon. gentleman sitting next to the leader of the NDP, coming from Saskatchewan, should know that the very best science in the world on sinks comes from Saskatchewan. He should be proud to stand up for that, to think of the world.