Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2002

Kyoto Protocol

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking with the provinces at this time. We have to prepare a plan that will be implemented over a period of 10 years. It has to be ready by 2012. We are talking with the provinces at this moment and the industry. We are making progress but we have to ratify it at one time. We will ratify it and it will have 10 years to be implemented

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, since the government does not have any idea where it is going, instead of a plan on Kyoto, all the government has floated is a roomful of hot air trial balloons.

It has been forced to admit that Kyoto would cost between $5 billion and $25 billion and eliminate between 60,000 and 250,000 jobs. That was while it was claiming we would get credit for clean energy exports to the United States.

Now that the minister has finally admitted we will get no such credit, will the minister tell us how much higher he projects the cost of Kyoto will be?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken once again. We have said all along that the issue of clean energy exports is very important because it actually reduces the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which is the objective of the Rio convention and the Kyoto protocol.

It is very important for the world to do this and countries understand that. However, in Delhi we are going to have difficulty negotiating it. We have said that all along and we are just going to continue. We have other fallback positions. We will continue to push this issue because it is very important for the atmosphere.

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, that answer was so typical of the minister, to insult the knowledge of the questioner and then have absolutely no information himself.

The government is admitting that at least one-quarter of our CO

2

reductions will not actually be made but will have to be paid for out of so-called emissions trading permits from other countries. Since no market for such permits exists, how can the government have any idea what they will cost?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the confusion in the hon. Leader of the Opposition's mind is clear from what he suggested and what he said today.

He is now quoting figures with respect to a plan which he says we do not have. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot say on the one hand that there is no plan and on the other that he knows the exact details and the percentages of the plan that we have.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government is building its Kyoto proposal on the assumption that there will be an emissions trading market where Canada will pay billions of dollars to countries such as Russia for emissions credits.

Russia emits six times the CO

2

that Canada does. How will sending billions of Canadian tax dollars to Russia help the environment?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, once again we have speculation on the part of the opposition. We have no intention of carrying out the type of practice that the member suggested, none whatsoever.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister had an opportunity to clarify my comments and he never did a thing.

The fact of the matter is that this emissions trading market may never exist. That would mean Kyoto would cost billions of dollars more than the billions that he has already said it is going to cost.

Does the Prime Minister know how much Kyoto will cost in the absence of an emissions trading market?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, once again the premise of the question is supported by a series of incorrect statements.

The emissions trading system we are talking about is called domestic emissions trading. As far as I know, Russia is not a province of Canada and therefore does not take part in domestic emissions trading.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of the Environment stated that the most important principle, as far as he was concerned, was that no region be adversely affected by the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. The fact of the matter is that, in the past, regardless of the environment, economic development has benefited some at the expense of others.

Now that we can see the extent of the damage done, is the Minister of the Environment suggesting that those who polluted less should pay for the irresponsible approach to development of others?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a point which is very important to us—having a system that does not adversely affect any region of the country.

At the same time, the hon. member must realize that steps are being taken, both by the provinces and by industries, which have already improved the situation as far as greenhouse gas emissions are concerned.

This must taken into account, but it is a topic of discussion between us, the ten provinces and the three territories.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what the minister is basically telling us is that everyone will pay the same, even those who have already paid and put in the necessary efforts, and this will make things fair and square. He is attempting to sidestep the issue.

There is a fundamental principle that should guide us collectively and individually and that is the polluter pays principle. Will this principle, and this principle alone, be at the very heart of the implementation of Kyoto?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, our policy is that no region of the country will be adversely affected by the plan we will be presenting.

If the hon. member has an example of an adverse effect, I hope he will take part in the debate, because that is what we want to prevent. We want something that everyone considers reasonable.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the past the federal government invested $66 billion in gas and oil in Alberta and Newfoundland, and $6 billion in the nuclear industry in Ontario. It might be worth pointing out that Quebec paid for 25% of these investments while receiving nothing for the development of its hydroelectric system.

Are we to take it from the minister's message that all this should be forgotten, that those who received no subsidies in the past have not only to pay, but to pay twice as much?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking whether past expenditures to create systems which pollute less than other existing systems in the country are to be forgotten.

My answer is no, they are not. The various provincial situations need to be taken into consideration. It is very important for there to be a frank and honest debate on these issues. Otherwise we will end up with a system which adversely affects one or another region of the country.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have just seen what the federal government has given in the past to Alberta, Newfoundland and Ontario. Now that the damage is known, they are proposing an unfair plan that could add 3 cents a barrel to the price of producing oil, and $4.73 a tonne to the price of producing aluminum.

How can the minister justify an approach which is so unfair to those who have already made a huge effort and, what is more, without a single subsidy?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, in the past, the federal government has expended moneys from time to time, as well as creating taxation systems that have been very favourable to one or another region of the country.

Sometimes that region has been the province of Quebec, sometimes the maritimes. He is right about that. Sometimes it has been Alberta. It has been done and must be taken into consideration. We want to have a plan that does not adversely affect any region of the country and is fair to everyone.

The Environment

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the environment commissioner has documented that the government is more consumed with public relations than with genuine progress when it comes to the environment.

Thirteen years ago alarm bells sounded on federal contaminated sites, yet today the government cannot even tell us how many sites are still contaminated. We are talking about 3,600 toxic time bombs ticking across the country under the government's watch.

What do we have? There is no plan for the federal government to clean up its own backyard. What is the government waiting for?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has only partially put the case correctly to the House.

The fact is that we have had programs in place which have been spending approximately $100 million a year to clean up contaminated sites. Yes, we have focused on some of the most difficult and problematic areas. It is true that there are some areas of northern Canada where there may be one barrel with a minor amount of fuel in it which still counts as a contaminated site.

We have not done everything that we need to do in this area. That is why the Speech from the Throne said that we intend to do more.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the fiscal deficit come hell or high water strategy sure is not matched when it comes to reducing the environmental deficit. The environment minister said himself that his government is not well funded. Well, he can say that again. The government wants to look like a tree but it smells like a sewer.

Why is there no plan: first, on Kyoto and now, on contaminated sites cleanup? Or is the plan to have no plan?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is very colourful in her descriptions but I think she should remember that in fact it is not possible to continue at levels of expenditure which would constantly put a government in deficit.

It has been a tough job to bring the government into a surplus position so we can pay down the debt on the financial side. It is true that we still have environmental objectives to be met. That is why the Speech from the Throne so clearly emphasized the environment, and why the public has been so responsive to that speech.

Solicitor General of Canada

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister yet made a decision on the conduct of the Solicitor General, and has the Solicitor General resigned?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago I received a letter from the Solicitor General and with great regret, I have accepted his resignation.

In the case involving Mr. Nicholson, the ethics counsellor said that the Solicitor General had not broken any guidelines but that in the case--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

I'm reporting what he said.

In the case of a public institution owned by the provincial government, the ethics counsellor said that he should not have intervened. To that, the minister disagreed and said that he was resigning because he did not want to defend himself in the House of Commons. He wants to defend himself outside the House of Commons. It is not because he wants to keep his seat, it is--