House of Commons Hansard #29 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was vote.
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, what we want to do, and this is very clear in the plan tabled in the House this morning, is to recognize what companies have done since 1990. These companies will be protected from economic problems, since they acted sooner than other companies.
We have no intention of lumping everyone together. Where there is a problem, we will resolve it.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, they will not resolve anything. By setting 2010 as the reference year, the government is telling those companies that pollute “Continue to pollute until 2010; it will be all the easier to reduce pollution then, since you will have polluted more than you should have”.
Does the minister realize that greenhouse gas emissions will not diminish, but that, on the contrary, they will increase until 2010, and this will hurt those who have made efforts? The reference year will not be 1990; the government is allowing people to pollute until 2010. This is what it is proposing.
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the situation presented by the hon. member is precisely the reason why we must have a policy that is flexible and that takes into consideration the examples that he just gave the House. There is no question of having inflexible rules, under which everything would be black or white. Each individual situation must be examined on its own merits.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, in response to a question we put to him on Monday concerning the subsidizing of alternative energies, the Minister of the Environment suggested we wait, because the matter would no doubt be taken into consideration in the discussion on what will be in the budget next February.
If the Minister of the Environment was serious about his answer, how can he explain that nothing substantial can be found in the plan on subsidies for developing alternative energies, and wind energy in particular?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I see no contradiction between what I said the other day and what is in the document in question. Yes, there will be fiscal measures in the budget that the Minister of Finance will table, perhaps in February, perhaps in March; I do not know when it will be tabled, but it will include such actions. What we are planning to have, generally speaking, as a blueprint for the future, for the next ten years, is in the document I tabled today.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, in the minister's plan, the more a province has been polluting, the less it will be penalized in terms of job creation. Moreover, the plan provides for subsidies for hydrocarbon producers, to help them meet their targets.
In all fairness, could the minister promise that for every dollar spent on hydrocarbons, an equal amount will be spent to support the development of renewable energies?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the balance between the renewable sector and the non-renewable sector is very important. The hon. member has definitely put forward a very interesting point of view which should be taken into consideration and discussed.
That is being discussed in the meetings of the federal government, the territories and the provinces. It is being discussed among ourselves, the governments in Canada, and with industry.
I certainly hope the hon. member will take the opportunity next week to discuss that very issue here in the chamber.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, New Democrats stand four-square with Canadians behind Kyoto ratification, but under today's proposal the Canadian coal and oil industries would be subsidized with free permits to continue their polluting ways.
Canadian families would receive minor subsidies that would not even include the cost of better home insulation. In contrast, oil and coal companies would receive emissions credits covering 85% of any increase in their emissions.
Why is the federal government rewarding coal and oil producers for increasing greenhouse gas emissions?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting point of view. The balance between certain sectors of the economy is very important and we have tried to get the best balance we can.
We certainly expect other people from different political parties and different regions of the country to take different points of view. I would simply remind the hon. member who, when she was a member of the Nova Scotia legislature, tried so hard to be the poster girl of the coal industry that perhaps it is not exactly the way she described it.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, 22 years ago I led the fight in Nova Scotia to get on with clean coal technology.
It is not a question of a point of view, it is a fact that the federal proposal subsidizes coal and oil production. To add insult to injury, this is being done to benefit energy exports, not even to meet our own energy needs.
Why are Canadians being asked to subsidize an increase in greenhouse gas emissions for the benefit of coal and oil exports? Does the government stand with Canadians who want to reduce emissions or stand with coal and oil companies who want to drive emissions up so they can export their coal and oil?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on the very clear contradiction between what the hon. lady is saying now and what she said, and I have the quotes from Hansard , in the Nova Scotia legislature. I can assure her they are night and day; they are totally different positions.
The member of course is not the only one who has flipped and flopped on this particular issue. I am expecting more from the Conservatives in just a moment. I will tell her that it is a difficult balance and we look forward to having her reasoned contribution to the debate in the next few days.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, the government has yet another scheme about Kyoto. This is not a plan, it is a con game.
Ottawa says it is based on consultation with the provinces, yet Nova Scotia says this latest version reflects contempt and disdain. Saskatchewan says the plan is being rammed down the throats in Saskatchewan.
This is a profound invasion of the constitutional jurisdictions of the provinces. The federal government has either rejected or changed 10 of the 12 principles proposed by the provinces.
Why does the government refuse to work honestly with the provinces on climate change?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that needs international cooperation. It cannot be dealt with on only a provincial basis.
If I may quote a distinguished Canadian, he said:
We need new international legal mechanisms to forge global cooperation to protect and restore the atmospheric life support system.
He went on to say:
The only effective way these and other international issues can be addressed is through concerted international action and agreement.
I am trying to implement the legacy of Prime Minister Mulroney.
Kyoto ProtocolOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order. I realize this is a week where that answer might be apt but we have to have some order in the House so we can hear the question from the right hon. member for Calgary Centre who has the floor.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, first he makes sexist comments about the leader of the New Democratic Party and then he tries to associate himself with a prime minister far more successful than any he has served with.
My question however is for the acting prime minister--
Kyoto ProtocolOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order. I cannot hear the right hon. member for Calgary Centre. I know some hon. members may be unsympathetic, but he might say something out of order and then there would be real trouble. The right hon. member for Calgary Centre has the floor and we will hear him. Order.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
My question for the acting prime minister is not about the Prime Minister but about the people who owe their positions to him.
Does the government deny that at the NATO summit a senior Canadian official referred to the President of the United States as a moron? If such a comment was made to the press, will the government name the official in question and reprimand the official in question?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, I will not comment on anonymous sources in the newspaper.
The fact of the matter is we have a very healthy relationship with the United States. The fact is that there is respect and when we have differences, we have differences. Unlike the government of which the right hon. member was part of, we are not toadies to the Americans and they respect us for our independence.
John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday we witnessed a startling and potentially dangerous breach of security during the unveiling of the portrait of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney.
There are conflicting reports as to how the individual gained entry to the place that should have been under strict and tight security. One report alleges the active participation of the office of the government House leader in helping the individual gain access.
Can the government House leader confirm the truth of this allegation?
Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is rather unusual to have one spokesperson for the board asking the other spokesperson for the board a question on behalf of the board's activity.
However, on behalf of the Board of Internal Economy let me assure the House that the disruption at the unveiling of former Prime Minister Mulroney's portrait on Tuesday of this week was completely unacceptable. That the intruder passed through three occasions of screening that day provides little comfort in light of what followed. The fact that the intruder was able to gain access to the event and get close enough to pose a risk to the current and former prime ministers is cause for concern and appropriate action.
John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
Mr. Speaker, there are conflicting reports and there seems to be much ducking and scrambling for cover. There are allegations as to who was to blame and who was less than alert.
This matter is far too serious and the repercussions could have been so tragic that the House must know all the facts. The House must be assured that something like this will never happen again.
I ask the government House leader, would he agree to refer this matter to the procedure and House affairs committee so that all individuals involved and those alleged to have been involved can be called to testify under oath?
Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Mr. Speaker, in this regard the Board of Internal Economy did review the situation yesterday. It is regrettable that the member could not be there. The board directed the Sergeant-at-Arms to undertake additional measures to ensure that such a situation does not happen again.
I am not prepared to discuss the details of additional security measures as that might serve as a source of information to others who would seek to evade them.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, the government's assistance plan for the softwood lumber industry is inadequate.
The government announced the initial phase, but since then there has been not a single word. Yet everyone acknowledges that additional concrete measures are needed to provide companies with some prompt assistance.
When is the minister going to announce phase two of his aid program? Time is of the essence.