House of Commons Hansard #31 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was plan.

Topics

Kyoto Protocol
Oral Question Period

2:15 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Canadian Alliance

Stephen Harper Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister only dropped his conditions once he knew he would not have to face the Canadian people again. His actions are irresponsible.

Without a definitive plan there are no guarantees that our industries and businesses will be protected or remain competitive. The government is trying to deal with this is by putting out reports reassuring Canadian businesses that they will not have to meet Kyoto's punitive targets due to the lack of any implementation plan.

I ask the minister, is it true that the reason the government has failed to provide implementing legislation is because it is not serious about actually implementing the accord and meeting the targets?

Kyoto Protocol
Oral Question Period

2:15 p.m.

Victoria
B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, no, it is quite untrue.

Kyoto Protocol
Oral Question Period

2:15 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Canadian Alliance

Stephen Harper Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to seeing the minister quoted every time the government floats one of those lines.

Provinces and industry are asked to have blind faith that the accord will not bankrupt them. Yet the latest version of the government's PowerPoint presentation is devoid of any cost estimates at all or any guarantees to the provinces.

Once again, given these rumours that the government keeps floating, should Canadians assume from the government's failure to produce cost estimates that it is not serious about actually paying for and implementing the accord?

Kyoto Protocol
Oral Question Period

2:15 p.m.

Victoria
B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could not be more wrong. We fully intend to ratify the accord and meet the targets that are in the plan. We have a plan which was tabled in the House last week.

I believe that if the hon. member would read it, he would see what every other country that has looked at our work says; and that is, that we have put more detailed information before our people than any other country in the world has done.

Canada-U.S. Relations
Oral Question Period

2:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jason Kenney Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, the whole world found unacceptable the remark made by the Prime Minister's confidante, especially in a context where Canada is launching into a round of very important negotiations with the United States. I said the whole world, but that excludes Iraq, which held up the remark made by Ms. Ducros as evidence that Canada is opposing its closest ally.

If Ms. Ducros was able to recognize her error, why did the Prime Minister not accept her resignation?

Canada-U.S. Relations
Oral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Ottawa South
Ontario

Liberal

John Manley Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may quote Saddam Hussein; personally, I prefer to quote Colin Powell, who said the following:

Canadians should understand that Americans, all Americans, understand that we have no better friend, no better neighbour, no better partner in the world, than Canada.

Canada-U.S. Relations
Oral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jason Kenney Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, those words were uttered before this humiliating incident and it is Saddam Hussein's official media outlet which is now using the words of the spokesperson of the Prime Minister and of the government to insult this country.

By allowing her words to stand, by not accepting her resignation and by not apologizing for these offensive remarks, the government and the Prime Minister have indicated that this constitutes tolerable conduct on the part of their spokesperson.

Will the government not now indicate that her words are not the view of the Government of Canada and that she ought to be held accountable for this insult against the head of our major ally?

Canada-U.S. Relations
Oral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Ottawa South
Ontario

Liberal

John Manley Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, it has already been said that those are not the views of the government. Secretary of State Colin Powell stated:

There will always be some who try to find negative parts of this relationship. I have been in professional, political and military life at a senior level for the last 20 years, going on 25 years, and I can attest to the fact that we have no better friend.

Kyoto Protocol
Oral Question Period

November 25th, 2002 / 2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister pledged in this House that Canada would ratify the Kyoto protocol by the end of the year. Oddly, the government's motion, on which the House will vote, does not make any mention of the end of 2002 as the cut-off date to ratify Kyoto.

Could the minister tell us why the government chose to present a motion that frees it from it own commitment?

Kyoto Protocol
Oral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Victoria
B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, when a motion such as the one referred to by the hon. member is drafted, it can be short or it can be longer. We opted for a short one. Having said that, I can assure the hon. member that ratification will take place by the end of the year.

Kyoto Protocol
Oral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I was a negotiator for a long time. When people would tell me “This is implicit, we will do it, do not worry”, but refused to put it in writing, I knew that something was wrong and that the other side was about to renege on its commitments, that it was trying to find a way out. Adding the mention “in 2002” would not make the motion much longer. It is not about having a short or a long motion.

Again, if it is not for the purpose of backing away from its promises, why does the government refuse to specify “in 2002”?

Kyoto Protocol
Oral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Victoria
B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the mention “in 2002” is not included in the motion. However, again, I can assure the hon. member that we will ratify the Kyoto protocol by the end of the year.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on the fine interview that he did with Shelagh Rogers on his father. It was very moving.

Kyoto Protocol
Oral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, regardless of what the Minister of the Environment says, his implementation plan presented last week rejects 1990 as the reference year in favour of 2010, which comes down to giving polluters permission to continue to pollute for the next eight years.

Is the minister willing to admit that dropping 1990 as the reference year, despite his claims to the contrary, is tantamount to not acknowledging the past efforts of certain industrial sectors?

Kyoto Protocol
Oral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Victoria
B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I answered this last week. I indicated clearly that, if an industry or a company has taken steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions prior to 2010, this will be taken into consideration. The position of such a company would be protected against any economic difficulties caused by its having taken steps before the deadline.

Kyoto Protocol
Oral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, we know that most government assistance has gone to the petroleum sector. The choice of 2010 as the reference year confirms that the minister is prepared to give polluters another eight years in which to continue to pollute.

Is the minister prepared to do the same for the development of renewable energies and give them an equal share of the subsidy pie?