Rick Casson

[Candu Reactors, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in the 1980s the prime minister was energy minister. Back then he tried to sell Candus to Turkey, but concerns about the use of nuclear weapons scrubbed that deal.

My question is to the prime minister again. What would his friends at the land mines conference say if they knew he was selling Candus to countries that want them to make bombs?

[Candu Reactors, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday the top story in the New York Times slammed Canadian officials for selling unsafe Candu reactors to countries with despicable human rights records. The reactor we sold to India was used to explode a nuclear device. The reactor we sold to Argentina is frequently shut down for leaks. The reactor we sold to South Korea leaks heavy water.

Given these embarrassing revelations front and centre in the New York Times , will the prime minister reconsider his shady deals to China and Turkey and say “no Candu”?

[Committees Of The House, December 4th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the report which was just tabled and note that our minority report is attached to it.

The Reform Party members on the committee support the establishment of clear federal-provincial jurisdiction over environmental matters while upholding national standards.

We would like to emphasize that it is crucial to eliminate unnecessary duplication and overlap in the most cost effective manner. The more money saved by streamlining the system, the more money left to protect the environment.

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a comment and question the hon. member across.

I am on the standing committee of environment and sustainable development. Over the last while we have had numerous scientists come to us as witnesses. One of the people who came to us was a scientist from Newfoundland, an oceanographer. He had quite a different view of what was going on. He studies the oceans and he did not think that there was quite the reaction occuring in the world that others did.

One question I tried to ask most of the scientists who came to us was with today's technology and computerization and the methods we have of measuring things, if you had five or ten more years of accurate data added on to the data you already have, would this help narrow down the projections that scientists are coming up with? Would you be able to be more accurate?

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, some of the ideas we have heard tonight from the government side of the House are the kinds of things we have been asking for during the past three or four months. What are the types of programs we are going to have in place? What are we going to do? What is the government proposing to be done to meet these emissions reductions?

Any voluntary action that can be made to reduce emissions would be tremendous. My comparison of spending $4 billion to solve a $1 million problem was just a comparison. It was not right. Let us not spend a huge amount of money to solve a small problem unless we can prove that the problem needs those kinds of funds to take care of it.

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we have to keep in context the size of the problem. Canada puts out 2% of the world's emissions. Since 1990 that has grown only by 8%. It was thought it would be 13% but it has been reduced. There have been programs implemented and voluntary moves by industry.

I would like to see municipal governments more involved to get down to the grassroots people and education of our young people. We only have to look at what we are doing with recycling. The hon. member referred earlier to a couple of r s. What happened there? Everybody in this country recycles because we trained our children. If we start education with voluntary programs there is lots that can be done.

The thing we are worried about and the thing we wish would have been put to rest a long time ago by this government is the fact that we do not have a $4 billion solution to a $1 million problem. We have to make sure the reaction we come up with to this problem is somewhere close to the problem that it is intended to solve.

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we should note that it is now November 27, Thursday, and there are only nine days left between now and Kyoto.

This government has once again withheld vital information and refused to be held accountable for the position going into Kyoto. Industrialists and environmentalists alike are puzzled by this government's lack of leadership, openness and lack of consultation as it crams together a last minute position for Kyoto.

I can hardly believe, with Kyoto just a few days away, and one less now, that we are still in the dark about Canada's position. It is no wonder that public skepticism about government accountability is at an all time high.

This government reminds me somewhat of a disinterested student who rarely attends class and even when he is there, he never bothers to listen to what is being discussed until the night before the final exam when he begins to panic, wishing he had paid attention and desperately crams, trying to understand principles in the hope of scraping together a passing grade.

This government has had years to formally consult the public, environmentalists, industrialists and their provincial and municipal counterparts. But no, they decided to sit on their legally binding protocol and do nothing. From the onset, this process or lack thereof has been marred by the absence of leadership, a lack of meaningful dialogue and, most importantly, an infuriating lack of openness and consultation.

The government's refusal to get together and develop workable targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions leads me to several conclusions. It never took its responsibility seriously or the government shuns accountability and it has something to hide.

Really, to present a position at an international forum without having reached consensus in the domestic arena is a recipe for conflict. It is an affront to Canadians that the government was not confident enough to sell this agreement at home, but is willing to take a secret agreement to Kyoto for the rest of the world to see.

Perhaps it would fare the government well to brush up on environmental diplomacy and maybe start relearning what it means to negotiate effective global agreements. Strategies to deal with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions must be developed with input from representatives of all levels of government, while balancing public, environmental and industrial concerns.

This government is hypocritical in its approach to environmental strategies. Why even bother to entertain the concept of environmental harmonization if in reality there is no intention of using provincial consensus for the really big issues like signing international agreements?

This government had ample opportunity in the last four years of governing to learn from the mistakes made by the Mulroney government when it signed a deal in Rio without even thinking through the method of implementation.

Those targets have come and gone with absolutely no progress being made and still the same mistakes are repeated. Evidently, issues such as consensus and feedback are not priorities with this government. If the government has not yet even hammered out realistic and achievable targets, I will presume that it has failed to work out an implementation strategy.

The tremendous responsibility associated with signing a legally binding protocol in an international forum necessitates an incredible amount of consultation, research and planning. If the government had done its homework, it would have been able to answer such crucial questions as how much the implementation of said targets will cost.

The Conference Board of Canada in its comparative review of the economic impact of greenhouse gas reductions on Canada estimates that reducing CO2 to 1990 levels will cost the average Canadian family of four between $2,000 and $3,200 each year and those estimates will be much higher in Alberta.

The Minister of the Environment has already told Canadians that this agreement will cost them money. However, Canadians still do not know what form these costs will take.

For the past eight years J. Allen Coombs, now retired chief of International Energy Markets and Environmental Emissions of Natural Resources Canada, worked on the stabilization of emissions to 1990 levels, stating that it would be virtually impossible. Canadians deserved answers months and months ago. Now, as time runs out, Canadians are more concerned than ever that this government has refused to protect their pocketbooks from arbitrary and Liberal closed door decision making.

Weeks ago President Bill Clinton put the American position out for all to see. The American government is firm on the fact that it will not participate in an agreement unless developing countries sign on, but the Liberal government remains silent. Canadian provinces have agreed that Canada should not sign on unless the majority of countries responsible for greenhouse gas emissions sign on. But the government's silence continues.

If developing countries that are responsible for 40% of the world's emissions are not participating, will the Canadian government still take part despite the lack of a level playing field?

Let me remind the government that in the next 15 years it is estimated that developing countries will be responsible for 60% of the world's emissions. Without the participation of the main players, global benefits of pollution reduction will not be achieved.

Canadians deserve to know what means of pollution reduction have been studied, whether or not voluntary incentives will be utilized or if a tax increase is the only option this government will consider.

I strongly urge the government to consider voluntary industrial incentives and for it to encourage Canadian companies to make environmental modifications within their companies.

Canadians are desperate to know just what the government has considered, what it intends to present and what it is willing to sign and under what preconditions.

The Liberal government has had ample opportunity to promote responsible energy development principles and maximize voluntary efforts within industry but chooses instead to do nothing.

Has the government decided that the co-operation and support of Canadians upon entering a legally binding protocol is no longer an issue? Has this government even got support from its own cabinet? Over the last few months contradiction after contradiction has emerged from the government side of the House.

For instance on November 12 in a last minute effort to appear diplomatic, the Minister of the Environment met with her provincial counterparts and a provincial accord was reached targeting 1990 levels by the year 2010. At first this seemed like a breakthrough until of course the Prime Minister hastily brushed it aside and made it clear he is more interested in beating out the American position and that he feels no obligation to stick to the provincial agreement.

This government refuses to co-operate with Canadians on all fronts. It has refused to engage in an open and meaningful democratic dialogue.

In conclusion, the position to be tabled in Kyoto on December 1 will be the product of closed backroom politics. Unfortunately Canadians will likely pay the price for this government's lack of democratic consultation.

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the member that my background is in municipal politics. I came through that route to this House. That level of government is closest to the people. We are with them every day. We are not removed from them.

I have always had the feeling that the government which is closest to the people should be the government to deal with them. The government that is most able to deliver whatever service it is, whether it be a social service or a matter having to do with interprovincial trade, should be the government to handle it. I agree with the member that barriers to interprovincial trade is another debate entirely.

There should be a strong central government in Canada to handle national issues, such as defence. However, services should be moved down the line into the provincial realm and even into the municipal realm.

We have municipal councils and governments in this country which can handle a lot of the services which are required. They know the people, they—

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

I think that is what we are trying to get across here. It is that we are not all the same. Every province has its own uniqueness. We are saying that we would like to give the provinces the powers to develop those differences and that uniqueness while staying in Canada.

As the hon. member said, I certainly would not support any move for Canada to join the United States. That is a poor analogy.

We are saying that we are different. Let us give the provinces the power and ability to enhance those differences while staying in Canada.

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Yellowhead.

The importance of today's motion on national unity is like no other. As this country approaches the beginning of a new millennium, we are increasingly being faced with growing concerns of global proportions, and now more than ever Canada is being asked to play a leadership role in many international organizations and treaties.

From our peacekeeping missions to banning land mines, Canadians have often been hailed for showing leadership. Just yesterday in the House we showed how this country can work together when we dealt with the land mines issue. There was unity within this House.

All these great accomplishments will lose their significance if we are unable to keep this country united. The world has often looked to Canadians for help in restoring peace to troubled nations. But we will be risking this international profile if we cannot manage to put an end to divisive thinking and begin reshaping our federation with one goal in mind, national unity from coast to coast to coast.

Since the signing of Confederation the dynamics of our federation have been tried and tested many times. Our system of federalism has served us well over the last 100 years. However, dynamics change over time and, like the old family car that has safely carried us on many long cross-Canada trips, an overhaul is needed. Keep in mind that the body of this old car is classic and irreplaceable. We have been emotionally attached to it but it is unable in its present condition to get us where we need to go.

Long overdue is the time for tune-ups. In fact, we know we were wrong to not fine tune the old jalopy on a regular basis and now we are faced with two choices. We can put it out to pasture and watch it rust or we can rebuild the framework, overhaul the system to get it running smoother and better than ever.

Last September nine provincial premiers and two territorial leaders started rebuilding the framework of that irreplaceable classic. The work of the provincial premiers is a good first step toward real progress on national unity.

Meech Lake and Charlottetown rejected equality of citizens and provinces and did not solicit the genuine input of grassroots Canadians.

The Calgary declaration, on the other hand, puts the equality of citizens and provinces and the need to engage Canadians in national dialogue front and centre. The Calgary declaration is not carved in stone but rather is open to changes that may emerge from extensive consultation.

In the past the differences between the provinces and the people have been magnified and we have forgotten some very crucial similarities. For example, regardless of culture and language we all want the best for our children. We all want them to grow up in a country free of political division.

It is a shame that the separatists in Quebec are trying to keep Quebeckers from participating in this meaningful consultation process. This is a great disservice to our fellow Canadians in Quebec. Their input is vital to the process and we want to hear what Quebeckers have to say as we begin this renewal of federalism.

Obvious is the reason the separatist Government of Quebec has chosen not to participate. Any constructive means to solve our unity disputes would douse the fire of separatism, leaving the separatists without a mandate.

Now is the time for Canadians to reach out to one another and embrace our diversity. Unique, yes. Distinct, yes. Equal, yes. We have always accepted that Quebec is unique. However, we believe that all provinces are unique in their own right. We favour a rebalancing of federal-provincial powers to ensure that each province is allowed to nourish its distinctiveness while the federal government's powers are strengthened in the areas of national concern.

In the past politicians have shortchanged Quebeckers with one word phrases in an attempt to appease their dissatisfaction with the federation. Why not give them the tools they require to strengthen their culture? The only stipulation we request is that those same tools be made available to all provinces to use in areas that matter most to them.

Let me emphasize that granting provinces more control over the development of their distinctiveness and the concept of equality are not on opposite ends of the spectrum. In the process of rebuilding the federation, just as the old classic family car needs an overhaul, a realignment of powers of the federal and provincial governments is needed. Instead of focusing on purely symbolic one word phrases which politicians time and again refuse to accurately define, we should focus on presenting provinces with the tools needed to develop that which makes them unique.

The concept of equality does not mean that everyone is the same. At the risk of oversimplifying the situation let me use another analogy. In a classroom if a teacher hands out identical boxes of supplies to each student and tells them they are to make a project using those supplies, it stands to reason that no two projects will be identical. The creative processes vary from student to student as each places different importance on how to use the supplies based on each student's vision of what their project will encompass.

In the federation equal does not necessitate identical. It would be unrealistic to expect the provinces to exercise their powers uniformly. Rather, the provinces will have equal powers to try what is best suited for their traditions, their character, their education, social services, and the list goes on, all the while keeping in mind adherence to national standards guidelines. Canadians need to feel free to come forward and offer solutions and ideas on how to improve the federation and how their province should diversify and nurture its distinctiveness.

It would be wise for all levels of government to view the separatist movement in Quebec as a wake-up call to improve our federal system. In the spirit of co-operation that was demonstrated in the Calgary declaration, respecting differences and allowing provinces more power to develop their unique societies will foster unity in this country.

Earlier today a member of the Bloc stated that western Canada could not handle Quebec's distinctiveness. I encourage the member of the Bloc to listen to what we are saying. We are well aware that the Bloc and the Parti Quebecois are determined to undermine any national unity plan because that would put an end to their singularly divisive political agenda. I encourage that member of the Bloc to visit our province. He will be pleasantly surprised to find out that we embrace our differences. Perhaps he might like to visit some of our francophone communities.

In my constituency of Lethbridge our school system has a very strong French immersion program. It began in 1975 and continues to teach children the beauty of distinctiveness, distinctive culture and the value of learning new languages, including French.

I recently received a letter from the mayor of Lethbridge regarding a set of resolutions formed by the city council of Lethbridge on the issue of the possibility of Quebec's seceding from the federation. The Lethbridge municipal council has taken an interest in this issue because its sister city is Saint-Laurent, Quebec.

The positive relationship between Lethbridge and Saint Laurent has steadily grown over the years, highlighted by youth, cultural and linguistic exchange programs. As we face the possibility of yet another referendum it is now more significant than ever to reach out to our respective sister cities and remind our fellow Canadians how much we cherish their friendships and the friendships that have developed from these exchanges.

With most of this discussion of separatism focusing on our differences it is imperative that we regain perspective and remember how much we share in common.

The responsibility of conveying this commonality must also be shared by federal, provincial and municipal representatives as well as with individual Canadians who wish to help keep this great country united.

I commend the city council of Lethbridge for presenting such positive resolutions and for acting to help its fellow Canadians in Quebec who wish only for improvements to the federation and not for separation.

In a recent poll in my constituency over 80% of respondents believe that making federal institutions more accountable is the best route to solving Canadian national unity problems. Nearly two-thirds who responded agreed that realigning more powers to the provinces, precisely what Quebec has long asked for, is the key to keeping this country together.

I feel strongly that if we persevere to keep Canada united we will indeed enter the 21st century with new found confidence and prosperity.

I urge all Canadians to contact their municipal, provincial and federal representatives and to continue communicating with our sisters and brothers in Quebec. Let us keep our Canadian family together once and for all.