Debates of Nov. 22nd, 2002

Canada-U.S. Relations

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a finely crafted non-denial coming from the communications director, but the problem is that the attitude reflected in her remarks betrays that of the entire Liberal Party.

I have here a mailing from the Liberal member for Durham who says that the United States poses a bigger security threat to Canada than Iraq.

Is not the real reason the government is defending this disgraced communications director that her sentiments precisely reflect the anti-Americanism of the Liberal Party of Canada?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, this is typical of how the Alliance does business. They want to talk about allegations about statements made with respect to the President of the United States by someone in the Canadian delegation.

They do not want to focus on the achievements of the summit at Prague. They do not want to talk about all those new nations, those former communist nations that have joined the alliance. They do not want to talk about the unanimous support of the UN resolution with respect to Iraq. They do not want to talk about the establishment of a NATO response force.

These people do not want to talk about the real issues that Canadian people are concerned about.

Kyoto Protocol

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we learned this morning that the federal government did not include in its motion a commitment to ratify Kyoto before the year 2002 is out.

Yet, the objective of Kyoto is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Since 1990, certain provinces, particularly Quebec, have made a considerable effort to do so. However, by choosing 2010 as the reference year, the federal government is deliberately choosing to ignore these efforts for the benefit of the oil industry alone.

Why is the government backing down—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of the Environment.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in the Government of Canada's position. We support ratification. Indeed, I hope and expect Kyoto to be ratified before the year is out.

Yesterday, we indicated in the plan we tabled in the House that no industry or company would be penalized for measures they took prior to the protocol entering into effect.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the minister says, “I hope”, clearly he has not read his own motion, which does not specify any date for ratification. Therefore, the plan he tabled makes no sense whatsoever.

Why ask those who have already made an effort since 1990 to take on the additional burden of those who wantonly polluted in the past and will be able to continue to do so with the government's blessing until 2010?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we have to distinguish between two things. First, there is the issue of ratification. A motion was moved yesterday in my name by my hon. colleague, the government House leader. Then there is the plan to reach our Kyoto objectives.

These are two separate things and there will be a vote before year's end on the first issue. We will work together with the provinces and territories to improve the plan that was tabled yesterday. We will listen to their suggestions for the lowest cost solution with the greatest benefits.

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

Mr. Speaker, the polluter pay principle is a fundamental one as far as the environment is concerned. This means that the one who has caused the damage pays the bill. With his plan, the minister is abandoning this principle and telling us that it is the ones who have already made the greatest effort who are going to bear the brunt of the costs.

Can the Minister of the Environment deny that, by giving carte blanche to polluters until 2010, under his plan, he has abandoned the polluter pay principle? I invite him to provide proof to the contrary.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it is always hard to provide negative proof. Nevertheless, in response to the question raised by the hon. member, it is clearly indicated in the plan that no industry that has taken measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be disadvantaged for so doing because of the timing of those measures.

The plan makes this very clear.

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

Mr. Speaker, I invite the minister to read his so-called plan. With his so-called plan, the government is abandoning forever the principle of polluter pay, and abetting the oil industry.

Does the minister not understand that the true principle that must apply where greenhouse gas emissions are concerned is that the biggest polluters must pay the biggest share of the bill?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, in a plan as complicated as Kyoto, a plan that applies to all of Canada, all of the industries, all of the provinces, and all of the territories, it is certain that there cannot be one principle, one single principle, ignoring all others, which are also important.

The hon. member is forgetting the principle we set out in the plan, that no region would be disadvantaged. This principle was accepted by the Province of Quebec, and all the other provinces, some years ago.

Housing

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today, on National Housing Day, tens of thousands of homeless Canadians are lining up for shelters, sleeping in doorways, freezing, suffering from TB and hungry. Homelessness funds are now being stretched to fund food banks and soup kitchens.

By any measure, the government has failed both on the emergency and the long term housing needs of Canadians. Will the minister have the guts to stand up today and admit this failure and commit the resources that are necessary to produce the 30,000 units of affordable housing that are needed to meet the housing needs of Canadians? Will the minister have the guts or admit the failure and to produce--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member, I think, knows this word is not one that is commonly used and I would discourage its use in the House. The hon. Minister of Transport.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I could be criticized for many things but the kinds of things the hon. member asks of me I can tell her I have in great quantity. I could tell her that we have no hesitation in defending what we have done for the homeless and for housing in this country.

I do not know where she was when we announced $753 million for the homeless and $680 million for housing. Has she read the throne speech that recommits us to affordable housing in key markets across the country? She has not done her homework. She does not know the facts. She should congratulate the government for the great job that we have done.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have read every single thing that the government has put out. The failure here is that what is written on paper has not been translated into helping homeless Canadians or building the housing.

This is the one year anniversary of the housing agreement. The government has produced only 200 units outside of Quebec. Half of the provinces have even cut money for spending on housing.

Why has the government failed to enforce the housing agreement for which the minister is allegedly so proud? Why has he failed homeless Canadians? Why has he not produced the housing? Is 200 housing units a record that the minister is proud of?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I should say that the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the homeless initiative, has done an outstanding job across the country working with municipalities and the provinces. She has great credibility. We are making progress in dealing with this terrible social dilemma of our time.

However, with respect to the housing agreements, the hon. member should give recognition to the fact that we have signed agreements with 10 out of the 13 jurisdictions, that they are now in force and that housing units are coming on stream.

We have a good record in this field.

Canada-U.S. Relations

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

Mr. Speaker, the double standard has become the trademark of this disintegrating government.

In 1997 the Prime Minister removed Canada's ambassador to Mexico when the ambassador criticized corruption in Mexico. This session so far he has fired from cabinet the hon. members from Beaches—East York, York Centre and Cardigan despite their protests they had done nothing wrong. Career diplomats and elected MPs get fired but the Prime Minister's personal friend, an unelected adviser, is protected.

How does the government defend this blatant double standard?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue to read from a statement of Ms. Ducros. She said:

If I made comments in the context of what I understood to be a private conversation, I regret that they have attracted so much media attention. I accept full responsibility for them and I sincerely apologize.So as not to have this matter overshadow the Prime Minister’s important work here at the Summit I have offered him my resignation.

The Prime Minister has refused to accept her resignation.

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

Mr. Speaker, and there is the double standard.

Francie Ducros' only status is that she speaks for the Prime Minister. This is at a time when Canada is trying to convince the Americans that any war on Iraq should be conducted under UN auspices. We are trying to protect Canadian farmers against U.S. subsidies. We are trying to resolve the softwood lumber dispute. We need the cooperation of the elected president whom the Prime Minister's spokesperson calls “a moron”.

Why is protecting Francie Ducros more important than protecting Canadian farmers or protecting the Canadian softwood lumber industry?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, as usual the right hon. member gets involved in extraneous issues.

The fact is that the Prime Minister has spoken about his support of the president and his friendship with the president, and that these events in no way will have any impact on any dealings between the two countries.

Kyoto Protocol

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government tabled its latest Kyoto plan yesterday. The reworked numbers are unbelievable, not credible and totally unacceptable to all Canadians.

The provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland are upset. They want into this process.

Why is the government in such a rush to complete the Prime Minister's legacy? Why are we not abiding by the concept that this is a Confederation? These provinces do have equal status, believe it or not.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, there is no sudden rush. We have been working on this issue since the Rio meeting back in 1992. We of course have had the agreement that Canada entered into at that time with other countries refined at the Kyoto meeting in 1997.

We have been working consistently with the provinces and territories. The federal government and the government of Alberta were co-chairs of the 14 government processes up until last summer when Alberta pulled out. Since then, Alberta has consistently attempted to adjourn every meeting we have had.

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government knows that it must have the cooperation of the provinces to be successful in reaching its target with the Kyoto plan. This make them pay but no say approach is doomed for failure.

Forget about a plan. The government process already has derailed before the process even began.

I ask the minister, what will it be, provincial cooperation or provincial alienation?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's understanding of what has taken place is simply wrong.

The fact is that we have been working with the provinces and the territories. All 14 governments have been working together. We have been doing it for more than a decade. It goes back to 1979. In the last five years, in particular since Kyoto, we have had close working relations with them.

It is certainly true that when the plan for implementation is being put forward, every province wants the burden to be borne by a province on either side or perhaps even further away than that. That is understandable. Provinces will be--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Joliette.