Debates of Nov. 26th, 2002

Canada-U.S. Relations

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the director of communications, in what was a private discussion with a journalist, was defending the President of the United States. The hon. member was not there. He is very smart to know what happened there when the only people who know about what was discussed are the director of communications and the other reporter who, under his ethics rules, decided that he would not talk about a private conversation. That is not the standard that is acceptable to every press reporter.

The environment

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

Mr. Speaker, what is not acceptable are the constant anti-American remarks that have come from the government.

Despite heavy lobbying from the Prime Minister, all provinces agreed yesterday to boycott further discussions on the Kyoto accord. The federal government continues to charge ahead, even though all provinces are denouncing the federal approach to this issue.

What concrete changes specifically has the Prime Minister offered to the provinces to bring them back to the table?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, what we want to do in proceeding with Kyoto is to give certainty to the sector. What the opposition is doing is trying to drag its feet and maintain uncertainty for years and years to come.

The fact is that we have decided to proceed. As far as the provinces and the private sector, to focus on the issues, the provinces have put 12 conditions in a communication to us. I reported to the Premier of New Brunswick that nine of them were acceptable, two others could be improved upon and there might be one that would be a serious problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, something is wrong here if the Prime Minister is trying to stop the uncertainty, because billions of dollars of investment have been put on hold precisely because of his rush to ratify.

The government knows it will need provincial cooperation to implement Kyoto, but yesterday the Liberal Premier of B.C. said this:

There was an opportunity to work with the provinces--we have asked for that for months--and in fact the federal government decided it couldn't work with the provinces, for whatever reason.

Why has the federal government decided that it will go it alone and not work with the provinces on Kyoto?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have had dozens and dozens of meetings with officials and ministers since the Kyoto agreement trying to make progress. It was always postponement, postponement and postponement. The time has come and it is between now and the end of the year.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a commitment to ratify Kyoto in 2002. However, the motion being debated here in the House makes no mention of the 2002 deadline. Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment said that the reason for this was to keep the motion from being too long, which is totally preposterous.

Is the real reason not that the member for LaSalle—Émard wants to delay ratification, and that he has more influence in the Liberal caucus than the Prime Minister?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had listened to the answer I gave earlier, he would know that I said the Kyoto protocol would be ratified before the end of the year.

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

Mr. Speaker, if that is true, why is the date not included? Why is it not mentioned in the motion? Why refuse to mention it, if not to leave an out to satisfy the provinces that pollute, such as Alberta, and to be able to do as he did with the GST, which is to say one thing and do another?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, which was adopted by the House of Commons, we clearly said that we would ratify the Kyoto protocol this year, before the end of 2002. I have repeated this in the House dozens of times and I am repeating it again now. What more does the member want? It will be done. We will vote on it in the coming days, before the end of the year, once the debate is finished, if they allow a debate. If not, we will ratify it. The debate is a courtesy. The government can act without a debate in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised on several occasions to ratify Kyoto by the end of the year. That is precisely what he told us.

Why, then, is he refusing to include a specific date in the motion to be voted on in the House? We are asking the Prime Minister to keep his word and, once and for all, to include a date in the motion.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this is a motion that was drafted in advance. He ought to listen to the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister speaks. I cannot give a clearer explanation. The vote will be held, if the opposition lets us hold one, within the next few days. Anyway, the government can act on its own, and ratification will take place before December 31 of the year 2-0-0-2.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to refuse to amend his motion by including a specific date.

Can the Prime Minister prove to us that his reluctance to include a specific date in the Kyoto motion is not the result of secret agreements made with polluters behind our backs?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, all they have to do is move an amendment—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Some hon. members]

We can't.

[An hon. member]

And we will vote in favour of it.

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

I cannot make it any clearer. Whether or not it is in the resolution, when the Prime Minister has been saying in the House of Commons for weeks, and when it is in the Speech from the Throne, that we are going to ratify the Kyoto protocol before the end of the year 2-0-0-2, I trust that the hon. member can understand that the government is speaking fairly clearly.

Persons with Disabilities

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday the House voted 234 to 0 to support an NDP motion that the finance minister withdraw regressive changes that had been proposed regarding the disability tax credit.

These changes were seen as a callous attack on tens of thousands of disabled Canadians who were afraid they would be ineligible for this modest tax credit. Now that the vote has passed Canadians are confused and seeking clarification.

My question for the finance minister is, will he withdraw the proposed changes to the disability tax credit in light of last week's vote?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, let me first of all be clear that the objective of the proposed amendments was, very specifically, not to reduce the government's support for persons with disabilities. Rather it was to ensure that it goes to the persons who most need it, which is in line with the intention of the disability tax credit.

However, a number of people have been very concerned about the proposed amendments. I have asked my officials to meet with the representatives of the disabled community to hear their concerns and to ensure that proposed amendments will not have unintended consequences.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that response will be very disconcerting to the people who have made calls to our offices and I am sure all MPs' offices. They are concerned about the impact of all this.

Let me specifically ask the finance minister what the timeframe is for those proposals for the people most affected by this disability tax credit?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, just so that we are clear what we are talking about here. We are talking about the effect of the Hamilton decision which strictly affected some people who may have certain dietary restrictions which may cause them to apply for the disability tax credit. That is specifically what we are referring to.

We are working as quickly as possible with representatives of the disabled community. We hope that we can give them the required clarification very quickly.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's environment minister confirmed to journalists that when it comes to Kyoto, Ottawa “acknowledges the possibility of signing bilateral agreements that will respect provincial jurisdiction”.

Prior to giving their approval for ratification, Quebeckers deserve to know exactly what it involves.

Can the Prime Minister confirm unequivocally his intention to negotiate a bilateral agreement with Quebec? Will this option also be offered to the other provinces?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this highly complex file involves the interests of the provincial governments and those of various industries in each of the provinces. We are in contact with the various industrial sectors and the provinces.

This treaty will come into effect in the year 2012. We plan to conclude agreements with anyone required to ensure that by 2012, the objectives of the treaty are respected by all of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, no guarantee.

The Prime Minister insists that the federal government will proceed before January 1 with Kyoto even if the provinces continue to object. Under our Constitution Canada cannot make Kyoto work without the provinces. For example, meeting Kyoto targets would require the use of credits related to carbon sinks and emissions trading.

Is the government confident that it has the constitutional authority to introduce those systems on its own without provincial cooperation? Has the government sought a specific legal opinion identifying this authority and will it table that opinion?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have the authority.