House of Commons Hansard #14 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was accord.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, both in this House and at the summit in Johannesburg, the Prime Minister made a solemn commitment to ensure that Canada would ratify the Kyoto protocol by the end of 2002.
Today, I would like the Minister of the Environment to tell us—I do not want to hear about hopes and objectives, I want a firm commitment—if, following a vote in this House, Canada will ratify Kyoto.
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, to be precise, that is what the Prime Minister said in Johannesburg, that we would bring forward here in this House a resolution on the issue of ratifying the Kyoto protocol and have a debate. That is what he said.
I can assure the hon. member that, following a good debate in this House and a vote, which might be 80% in favour of ratification, we will have, I think, the protocol ratified by the end of the year.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, there is lot of double talk in the minister's answer.
A commitment was made to ratify Kyoto in 2002, and there is another commitment to have a vote in this House. I would simply ask him this. Will a vote be held by the end of 2002, followed by the ratification of the Kyoto protocol also by the end of 2002? Will Kyoto be ratified this year, in 2002, following a vote, yes or no?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is putting me in a pretty difficult position. I am a member of the House of Commons, and there are 300 other members.
The Prime Minister said he welcomed the input of everyone in this House. It is not my place to say that he will ignore this input and the decision of the House. As far as I am concerned, if it were up to me, the hon. member knows full well what that decision would be.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, Quebec produces 12.5% of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, and has 24% of the total population of Canada. In other words, its present performance is far better, given past efforts in this connection.
Will the Minister of the Environment admit that the sectoral approach for which he has opted, rather than a territorial one, penalizes Quebec, does not take past efforts into consideration and will put a far greater burden proportionally on Quebec businesses to reach the objective Canada must meet?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is forgetting that a litre of gas used in a vehicle in the province of Quebec has exactly the same effect on the atmosphere as a litre of gas used in a vehicle in the province of Alberta. The impact on the atmosphere is the same. It is not a matter of just taking the figures, reducing them and saying there is equality.
No, the circumstances of each industry must be taken into consideration, whether in the province of Quebec, the province of Alberta, or any other province.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, if Quebec were a sovereign country, its emission reduction objective would not be disproportionate and the objective for the rest of Canada would in turn be far higher. That is the reality.
Will the minister admit that his sectoral approach clearly places Quebec—which has already made its own efforts and done its own homework—at a disadvantage, and gives an advantage to the Canadian provinces that have not in the past made the same efforts as Quebec?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the advantages for the province of Quebec of membership in a confederation with the other provinces are clear.
What we are going to do in the debates with all the provinces, Quebec included, is to try to create a plan that does not give any one region an unfair advantage over the others. This is very clear.
This is what we are going to do, and since the province of Quebec is, fortunately, among the provinces of Canada, it will enjoy that protection.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, I would like sincerely to congratulate the government on finally tabling its climate change draft plan.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, no buts: We can get to the details of the plan but for now the next step, the principal step, is to get on with ratifying Kyoto.
Will the government commit to bring in a motion on Kyoto next week following the environment ministers meeting so that the House can vote on ratification?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the prospect of imminent retirement from the leadership of the New Democratic Party is certainly focusing the hon. member's mind in a way which I find very attractive.
I would agree with her that after an appropriate discussion with the provinces and territories, which will take place on October 28, and after we have had an opportunity of working with them over the next three weeks, and after we have had the second JMM, on November 21, I believe, we will then be in a position to have an excellent debate in the House.
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that we have been waiting for five years for the government to finally put Kyoto before the House. The time is over. It has the plan. It is having the meeting next week. Will it commit next week to bring that resolution before the House so that we can vote on it and get on with implementation?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I have stressed in the House, and will stress again, the importance of having this as a made in Canada plan, where all provinces and territories take part in creating it.
The New Democratic Party governing the province of Saskatchewan has reservations and concerns. I want to make sure we discuss with it what I believe are its ill-founded concerns and that we manage to create something that will give it a level of comfort, so that not only the federal NDP but also the provincial party governing Saskatchewan will be in favour of what we ultimately arrive at.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Kyoto document is silent on the impact on each province, it is silent on sectors and it is silent on costs. Canadians know nothing more about Kyoto today than we did before this vague plan was published.
My question is for the acting Prime Minister. Why not empower Parliament to find the facts that the government will not present?
Motion No. 82 is on the order paper. It would set up a special joint committee to determine the impacts of Kyoto and to look at alternatives. Will the government accept that motion and refer this plan immediately to the special joint committee so Canadians can have the facts before we are called upon--
Kyoto ProtocolOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. government House leader and Minister of State.
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I find it unusual that the leader of that party would see it appropriate to discuss private members' business while asking the government, when most people in this House, particularly the people on this side of the House, consider private members' business to be free votes.
John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Speaker, the government's draft document to implement the Kyoto protocol falls far short of even reasonable expectations. This pathetic, paltry excuse for a plan is absent of any costs and falls 60 megatonnes short of our commitment under Kyoto.
If the provinces reject the plan when they meet next week, is it the federal government's intention to go ahead without them, without their support and without their consent?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, there are various rules against hypothetical questions in the House.
All I can say to the hon. member is that if, if, if the situation arises, if, if, if, as he suggests, then we are going to have a debate in this House and he will be quite at liberty to give his views at that time as to whether we should or should not.
Dave Chatters Canadian Alliance Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, since the Kyoto process first began in Japan, the government, the Prime Minister and at least two cabinet ministers have promised credit for early action for voluntary emission reductions.
Could the Minister of Natural Resources confirm that these companies that accepted the government's promise will receive credit under this latest plan?
Herb Dhaliwal LiberalMinister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, we have been consulting with industry. We know that it has some legitimate concerns. We want to make sure that we deal with those concerns in the final plan in terms of dealing with that uncertainty, in dealing with making sure that we deal with the early action that some companies have taken so that they are not disadvantaged in any way.
That consultation is continuing because they have some real, legitimate concerns we need to deal with, and because we want to make sure that investment stays in Canada and that we continue to be competitive with our partners.
Dave Chatters Canadian Alliance Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, that truly was a hypothetical answer.
I know for a fact that promises mean little to the government. Many corporations and municipalities have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on early action because they believed that the government would keep its promise.
Why is there no reference to credit for early volunteer actions in this latest fantasy plan?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised an important issue which we think should be discussed fully.
The fact is many companies have taken early action and made more money as a result. Should we be giving them taxpayers' money that could go to other uses when in fact the companies have become more profitable because of the measures they have taken?
This is the type of dilemma that the hon. member should put his mind to and discuss more fully during the debate that we are having this afternoon. It is not that easy to work this out on a general rule.
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, in the plan proposed this morning to meet the Kyoto objectives, one quarter of the effort could depend on credits for exporting green energy sources.
How can the government think it realistic to base 25% of Canada's efforts on a measure that has was not accepted during the Kyoto negotiations?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the plan contains a variety of means to reach the final 60 megatonnes. Exporting clean energy is one of them.
I agree with the hon. member. We do have problems in this respect internationally, but it is very important to point out that by exporting clean energy, we will be reducing greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere. Even if this happens in the United States or in another country, it is very important to do so. In fact, this is the very goal of the Kyoto protocol and the Rio convention.