Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that the amendment proposed by the House leader of the official opposition certainly would be acceptable to us.
There was a question raised by the parliamentary secretary as to whether the other place would agree. We should not assume it would not. Certainly if we took an act of leadership here, there are plenty of indications that the other place would follow, so that in itself is not an objection to the House of Commons moving on that.
I was interested when the parliamentary secretary said the government was going to be seeking a legal opinion on the constitutionality of its acting alone. That must indicate it has some reservations about that. I certainly do. I think it is an open question. In fact, it is not a legal question at all. It is a very practical question.
We can have the jurisdiction set out. The practical question is, can we make this work? The reality is that in a country like this, where the Constitution is not perfect and does not reflect reality precisely, unless we have agreement between levels of government, we are not going to be able to give effect to things that we might be able to agree on.
I was very interested in the parliamentary secretary's selective chronology. I am extremely proud that it was a government of which I was part that took the initiative at Rio. In fact, when one looks back at most of the environmental progress made in the country, it was made by the government of that day.
We faced major issues. There is no question that we took initiatives then that provided Canada with an opportunity to go to Kyoto in 1997 with an agreed position that could have made a constructive contribution to dealing with greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, the government of the day broke the agreement it had with the provinces and did not take advantage of that opportunity.
I was somewhat taken aback by the comments of the Bloc Quebecois member, for two reasons.
First, I think that he was not accurate regarding the Halifax conference, because participants did not support ratification. The hon. member was silent on the issue of ratification. He did mention the disagreements with the plan, and there are a number of them. Allow me to quote, for example, a letter from Quebec minister Boisclair to federal authorities:
The impacts of this plan will be particularly disadvantageous for Quebec, where the manufacturing sector is very active--
He goes on to say:
I am flabbergasted to see the treatment that your government is about to give to Quebec--
Finally, he says:
Today, I am asking you to make representations to your government, so that it changes its plan--
I do not know why or how the Bloc Quebecois, here in the House, can support a blind approach, when the government of its own province is trying to know the details before there is a Canadian consensus.
I agree that the two things are different, but they both need to be spelled out, to be supported by facts. Here, we do not have the facts we need to make an educated decision.
Quebec has taken exception to the plan. Several other provinces have taken exception to the plan or to ratification. Most provinces have: Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. There is no consensus on this plan from the provinces that in many cases will have to give effect to its implementation.
The question here really is this: Should we ratify something when there is so much uncertainty about what the consequences would be? Do we not have a higher duty to know what we are doing before we sign on to a ratification?
I was very struck by the observation of the member for Winnipeg North Centre who made the point that we are dealing with a time squeeze. When she talked of a time squeeze, she talked about the calendar by which nations sign on, or do not, to the international accord. That is one of the things we have to consider.
But the other thing we have to consider is, when will we be acting here in Parliament? We know that the implementation legislation will not be available to Parliament for another four or five months, so why are we rushing to meet the Prime Minister's deadline? Why are we rushing to make a decision by December when he cannot get an implementation bill in here before March or April? Why should we not wait to see the facts before we are asked to make a decision on ratification? That really is the question. Why are this Parliament and the public being asked to make decisions without the facts?
The parliamentary secretary quoted the Prime Minister as saying that we have no choice. I hear the echo of the 1984 election campaign in regard to having no choice. I remember John Turner saying that we have no choice. He lost an election over that.
Democracy is about choice. Democracy is about making informed choices. Parliament cannot make informed choices unless we have more facts than we have available to us right now. The question is, how will we use the time before Parliament has to decide? Will we go on ignoring the provinces, allowing splits to develop, which could, as I said earlier, have political implications that none of us want to see? Or will we take the responsibility that is uniquely before us now to have Parliament step in where the government has not acted, to allow us to make decisions based on facts?
I see you are properly restless, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for the opportunity and I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to hear the debate.
I rather wish, as all members do who introduce private members' bills, that there had been a vote on this because I think we would have found support for the motion had there been a vote on all sides of the House, but I thank the House for its indulgence.