Debates of Dec. 9th, 2002

Kyoto Protocol

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, on October 24 the government voted unanimously on an Alliance motion that required a full implementation plan outlining the costs and the impacts. What have we seen? Nothing but a slide show: no cost, no plan, no legislation.

What are the minister's own cabinet colleagues saying? The member for Edmonton West said, “An awful lot of countries have ratified Kyoto without a plan and that to me is irresponsible and frightening”. The member for Vancouver South--Burnaby said, “It makes no sense to sign a contract before we understand its full impacts”. Of course there is the member for LaSalle—Émard, who said, “...before there is a vote we have to have a plan. And it has to be a plan that Canadians can understand. One that sets out the benefits, one that sets out exactly how we're going to hit the targets and one that sets out the costs”.

The minister continues to stand up and deny Canadians their right to find out what the costs are. He refuses to tell us. He says, trust me, believe in me. We have seen what happens when Canadians do that: a billion dollars on the gun registry and more scandals.

Why should one single Canadian trust the government on the future after its dismal, pitiful record?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has a real problem. Having decided that there is no plan, he therefore has taken no time to read the plan.

[An hon. member]

This isn't a plan.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Order. It makes it very difficult for the Chair to hear the answer of the hon. member. The hon. Minister of the Environment.

[An hon. member]

Where's the plan?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

The hon. member for Saanich--Gulf Islands, who is still shouting after your warning, Madam Speaker, has failed to understand that there is a plan. If he looks at page 31 he will see listed in the body of it the information concerning illustrative costs for selected industries, et cetera. If he turns to the annex on pages 57 to 67, he will find 10 pages dealing with cost analysis. He will also learn that the basis for the cost analysis was done by agreement with the provinces and territories and that all 14 governments agreed to the approach for analyzing costs.

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

Madam Speaker, regarding the minister's implementation plan for the Kyoto protocol, I have in my hands a document detailing changes in emissions between 1990 and 2010 for various industries.

For thermal electricity, the increase is 47%; for fossil fuel, 131%; for tar sands, 310%; and for manufacturing, 3%. I would remind the minister that manufacturing is the cornerstone of Quebec's economy.

Will the minister recognize the fact that placing the same burden on the fossil fuel industry as on manufacturing would mean penalizing Quebec, without consideration for its past performance?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked about various burdens, but the burden must be considered in a specific context. How can any industry reduce greenhouse gas? It is not simply a matter of level. It is a matter of knowing what that industry can do to reduce its emissions.

This is a difficult decision. Obviously, we did this for the heating oil industry. It was beneficial for that industry.

I am waiting for other industries to indicate that they also have special interests that must be considered. It is clear that we did a few things for the oil industry, including a 300% increase in tar sands production and a 400% increase in production off the coasts of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, the environment minister says that he and his government are real good financial managers. Do members know that is what the justice minister said to us about the gun registry? There are 500 times increased costs due to the gun registry.

Here we have a minister that stands up and says he has a plan and he has illustrative cost estimates for industry. How can anyone in Canada trust that sort of jargon?

Let us now go from this portion of the debate, the portion of the debate that talks about the ratification of Kyoto, and let us talk about the next step after the government's rush to ratify, and that is implementation. What is the environment minister's first step in implementation of this gross mistake for Canada?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the first steps will of course be to continue with the discussions we are currently having with the provinces and territories to ensure that we do in fact move forward collectively as 14 governments, and to continue with the discussions we are having with industry which, as the hon. member is well aware, took place as recently as last weekend.

We will continue with that to ensure that what we do has minimum impact upon the economic future of Canada and achieves the goal of greenhouse gas reductions at the minimum cost to the Canadian economy.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, the government has now established itself as the most undemocratic ruling party in Canadian history. It has shut down debate on issues that are important to Canadians some 80 times, and today marks number 81.

The choking off of debate today is the latest example of the disrespect the government has for Canadians, their jobs, their opportunities and their futures. Furthermore Canadians, the provinces and industry, have no idea what the actual cost of the Prime Minister's so-called green legacy would be.

Public support for the latest Liberal debacle is falling faster than a finance minister from the Peace Tower. Is this not the real reason the government decided to use closure today, and end the debate before there is no support left out in the real world for the latest Liberal debacle?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether that is just an assertion of the hon. member or a question. I will take it as a question.

We decided to proceed with ratification in the year 2002. That decision was made in June 2001, some 18 months ago. There is nothing rushed about this. It was confirmed that there would be a debate and a vote in the House. That was confirmed two months ago. As has been mentioned frequently it is not essential prior to ratification but it is important to have the views of members.

I wish to comment on the original point of the hon. member. When we have one member out of the 301 members of the House speaking for eleven and a half hours in debate, it is a filibuster.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Yes, the Alliance members applaud the filibuster. They like the filibuster because they know the inevitable result of a filibuster must be a time allocation motion like the one we are discussing at this time.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

There is no more time for questions and comments, unless the House would like to give unanimous consent for one more question.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Bakopanos)]

It being 12:48 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the main motion before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.