Ian MURRAY

MURRAY, Ian, B.A.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Lanark--Carleton (Ontario)
Birth Date
May 7, 1951
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Murray_(Canadian_politician)
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=0ea0492d-dce7-44a4-97a7-daaac7221b8b&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
public affairs executive

Parliamentary Career

October 25, 1993 - April 27, 1997
LIB
  Lanark--Carleton (Ontario)
June 2, 1997 - October 22, 2000
LIB
  Lanark--Carleton (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 4 of 16)


October 18, 1999

Mr. Ian Murray

Mr. Speaker, not at all. It is important to remember that until 1993 the country existed without the law my hon. colleague is referring to. The law was rushed through during the Kim Campbell government just before the 1993 election. We have to keep that in mind as we look at this issue.

As well, it is important to remember that any exploitation of children and the production and distribution of child pornography is still illegal.

I am concerned that the law may have been carelessly drafted. Apparently it is possible that if somebody has written something themselves and maintains it in their possession and it can be defined as pornographic, then they can be charged. That is not the sort of thing we are worried about in the House.

I was one of those who very early on called for the Prime Minister to address the problem created by that judicial decision in British Columbia.

I have been quite willing, though, to wait for the courts to look at it. If the problem is not resolved by the courts, I think the House should look at redrafting the legislation to make sure it is ironclad that the possession of child pornography remains a crime throughout Canada.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Speech From The Throne
Full View Permalink

October 18, 1999

Mr. Ian Murray

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that these problems did not spring up overnight.

If we look at the history of research and development expenditures in Canada, they have languished at the low end of the G-7 for many years. That is largely because of the branch plant economy we had in Canada. The brain drain problem is partly related to taxes. It is a very important component and I am pleased it is going to be addressed.

The hon. member referred to trade. It is important to look at the team Canada initiative of the Prime Minister. It has been quite effective in stimulating increased trade abroad. A lot people ridicule these trips abroad as junkets that do not accomplish anything. The fact is for years businesses have been asking ministers—

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Speech From The Throne
Full View Permalink

June 10, 1999

Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

This week the Craig family of Dunrobin, Ontario launched “Sandrine's Gift”, a campaign to raise awareness about organ donation in memory of 11 year old Sandrine Craig who died as a result of a school bus accident.

Can the minister tell the House what he is doing to promote and encourage organ donations?

Topic:   Oral Question Period
Subtopic:   Health
Full View Permalink

June 4, 1999

Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.)

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to address the motion on natural gas introduced by the hon. member for Churchill River.

It is the government's current energy policy not to fund energy megaprojects but to leave it to the competitive market to decide what goes forward and what does not. This is one reason we have difficulty in supporting the hon. member's motion.

This policy has not resulted in a stalled natural gas industry. Far from it. The result has been some very exciting private sector driven developments including the expansion of natural gas distribution and production into new previously unserviced regions.

From an energy policy point of view it would not be sensible to depart from the basic principle that the market must decide where laterals are built. However, for other non-energy policy reasons there may be programs in other departments which seek to achieve economic development or environmental or other goals through the subsidization of laterals.

I repeat what my hon. friend from Halton said earlier, that the western economic partnership agreement was a possible avenue for some federal government support in this area, but the NDP government in Saskatchewan turned it down.

I understand the hon. member's desire to ensure an environmentally friendly and secure energy source for his region. That is what Canada's approach to the complex evolving global challenge of climate change is all about. We see it as a challenge that is both environmental and economic.

The Kyoto protocol in December 1997 reaffirmed the conviction among some 160 nations that the six commonly identified greenhouse gases are accumulating in the world's atmosphere at such a rate and to such an extent that they are putting the world's future climate at risk. For Canada this could mean more severe and more frequent weather disruptions, more inland floods in some areas, more droughts in others, rising sea levels and flooded coastlines, more wind and hail and ice storms, and greater threats to public safety and economic security.

The vast majority of global scientific opinion suggests that human conduct is certainly contributing to the problem and making it worse. The protocol involved a commitment on the part of the industrialized world to bring down greenhouse gas emissions. This action is much like an insurance policy against those future risks, and just like buying insurance one cannot get the coverage one should have had after the fact.

For Canada, our Kyoto target is to get our emissions down by the period between 2008 and 2012 to 6% below the level they were at in 1990. It will not be easy. Canada's northern climate and vast distances, its increasing population and increasing reduction, and its resource based and energy intensive economy all make our commitment much more difficult to meet. If we just carry on from this point forward with no changes, business as usual, by the year 2010 Canada's greenhouse gas emissions will rise to about 25% above our Kyoto target. We obviously have to slow that trajectory, flatten it out, and then turn it downward to reach our target within about a decade.

Where we will be when it ends will depend upon how astute we were at managing our domestic climate change challenges in relation to the rest of the world. We need to marry strong environmental performance with a strong economy.

About 85% of human made emissions are related to the way we produce and consume energy. The more energy efficient we become, the fewer emissions we generate. The more we achieve in this regard through greater energy efficiency, the less we will have to rely on other means to satisfy our Kyoto protocol obligations.

Across our entire national economy, in every sector and in the individual behaviour of each one of us we must achieve energy efficiency excellence. From a government policy perspective we have thus far used a variety of tools to achieve greater energy efficiency.

For one thing, we have tried to improve our own operations within the Government of Canada. We are on track to slash our emissions by more than 20% and to reach that goal by 2005.

Another tool is the provision of accurate information with which people can make informed decisions about energy use. The EnerGuide label is a good illustration. A third tool is peer group challenges like VCR Inc., the voluntary challenge registry program where industries and businesses pledge to improve their performances and report their progress in a tangible and public way.

There are incentives like Natural Resources Canada's commercial buildings program which is putting up some cash to encourage developers and builders to incorporate best practices from the ground up.

Hand in hand with these tools we must achieve a faster rate of new technology development and timely deployment of new technology. This is a key underpinning for everything else.

Consider an innovation like the Solarwall developed by Conserval Engineering, a new solar based energy saving technique for large building ventilation systems. It requires modestly increased construction costs one time but it generates significant savings in ongoing operating costs year after year, a more efficient ventilation system, fewer greenhouse gas emissions and a growing market across North America and around the world.

We must build our capacity for efficiency innovation within government labs, in academic institutions and in the private sector and we must put that new knowledge to work quickly in the marketplace. For our part federally, we are moving in that direction, specifically in each of our last three federal budgets.

Within Natural Resources Canada about $100 million each year is normally invested in the search for climate change solutions. Other federal departments add another $50 million annually. The 1998 federal budget contributed a further $150 million over three years to our climate change action fund. Altogether the annual federal financial commitment is now at $200 million.

There is no one single silver bullet solution to the global climate change challenge. We cannot expect to get everything we will need from energy efficiency and technology alone. Among other things, we must take greater advantage of the diversified mix of energy sources with which we have been blessed, such as hydro, solar, wind, earth and bioenergy. We need progress on a range of other issues such as recycling in the metals industry, municipal landfill management, and biotechnologies that can save energy and agriculture.

We need to strongly engage the enthusiastic participation of the average Canadian consumer. Taken together our collective behaviour can make a big difference. We need to focus on how to get more and more people to think globally about a profound problem like climate change and act locally to do something meaningful about it through their own energy efficiency.

These and a host of other issues are currently being assessed through our national climate change consultative process. It is a very transparent and inclusive process involving more than 450 people representing every dimension of Canadian life working through a series of 16 issue tables. We will start to hear their detailed advice this summer.

The bottom line of all this is there is no one answer.

As we open the 21st century we must establish Canada as the world's smartest natural resources steward, developer, user and exporter, as the most high tech, the most socially responsible and environmentally friendly, as the most productive and competitive. With respect to energy in particular we need to be the very best, the most intelligent, innovative and efficient at finding, developing, producing, delivering, consuming and exporting the world's most sophisticated and diversified energy products, skills, services and science.

I believe that is a worthy Canadian ambition.

Topic:   Private Members' Business
Subtopic:   Natural Gas
Full View Permalink

May 31, 1999

Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the report stage debate on Bill C-32, legislation that proposes renewal of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The 10 minutes available to me in this part of the debate are not enough to describe fully the many advantages of the legislation. They do provide, however, sufficient time to outline 20 ways in which the bill is a significant improvement over the existing act, 20 ways in which the legislation will mean better protection of the environment and the health of Canadians.

(1) the bill makes pollution prevention the cornerstone of the new act and provides authority to require pollution prevention plans for toxic substances.

(2) under the legislation all 23,000 substances in Canada will be examined to determine if they are toxic.

(3) Bill C-32 puts in place deadlines for taking action to prevent pollution from toxic substances.

(4) the most dangerous toxic substances will be virtually eliminated.

(5) the bill will provide the environment minister with the power to require industry to prepare and implement emergency preparedness plans for toxic substances.

(6) the legislation requires that the government conduct research on hormone disrupting substances, something that the ministers of environment and health already acted on last week with investments under the toxic substances research initiative.

(7) it expands the minister's information gathering powers to support scientific research on environmental problems.

(8) it will promote greater public participation through a new Internet based environmental registry of CEPA information.

(9) citizens will also have a new right to sue if government fails to enforce CEPA and it results in significant harm to the environment.

(10) the bill requires the establishment of the national pollutants release inventory and guarantees that Canadians will be able to get information about pollution in their communities.

(11) in recognition of aboriginal self-government aboriginal governments will have representatives on the national advisory committee alongside provinces and territories.

(12) the bill expands the authority to require cleaner fuels, meaning cleaner air in Canadian cities.

(13) the legislation transfers authority to set engine emission standards for new motor vehicles from the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and expands it to cover other types of engines such as those in off-road vehicles and lawn mowers.

(14) protecting the environment is a global issue. It is therefore essential for Canada to meets its international environmental commitments. The bill provides authority to implement our obligations under the Basel convention on the control of transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and their disposal.

(15) it will allow Canada to put in place a more stringent regime for ocean disposal in accordance with the 1996 protocol to the convention on the prevention of marine pollution by the dumping of wastes and other matter.

(16) Bill C-32 contains authority to implement the convention on prior informed consent for hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade.

(17) it also provides new authority to require pollution prevention plans for Canadian sources of international air and water pollution where another Canadian government is unwilling or unable to deal with the pollution source.

(18) to ensure that the law is obeyed, Bill C-32 provides peace officer status for our enforcement officers.

(19) it also gives enforcement officers the power to issue on the spot orders to stop violations and prevent pollution.

(20) the bill contains an innovative alternative dispute resolution mechanism to avoid costly court procedures.

These are 20 good reasons why I support Bill C-32. They are 20 reasons why all members should support the bill. Most important, this list of improvements outlines 20 ways in which the environment and health of Canadians will be better protected under Bill C-32.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999
Full View Permalink