House of Commons Hansard #41 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was plan.

Topics

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Stephen Harper Canadian Alliance Calgary Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is just bizarre that the minister would cite his negotiations with the provinces. Relationships with the provinces on Kyoto have totally broken down under the minister.

My second question is on relationships with the provinces. All the provinces are challenging the government's approach to Kyoto. They presented 12 principles to ensure that costs will be spread evenly between the provinces and industry. However, so far, the minister has not done anything to explain to Canadians and the provinces how the Kyoto burden will be shared between the provinces and industry.

Twice in as many months the minister was forced to cancel meetings with his provincial counterparts because of his inability to adequately inform provincial governments of his intentions.

What specific measures does the minister propose to get the provinces to accept this plan? Is it a first ministers' conference, or a meeting of environment and energy ministers?

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

David Anderson Liberal Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about the desire of the provinces to have the financial burden shared equally between provinces and the federal government. That in fact was not the request. It was in fact for the measures taken at the provincial level to be fully funded by the federal government. I am sure that he would be the first to understand how such a situation of one level of government not being responsible for raising the money, but nevertheless being responsible for spending, does lead to the very type of cost overruns that are most regrettable and we should try to avoid.

He also talked about the cancellation of meetings. Yes, it is true that one meeting of ministers, the energy and environment ministers, was delayed one week from October 21 to October 28, and subsequently a meeting of deputy ministers was delayed 10 days. However it did take place last Wednesday. Therefore it is pretty clear that we have had two meetings that were delayed relatively short periods of time and this is far from a collapse of federal-provincial relations.

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB

Mr. Speaker, the Kyoto accord is a horrible deal that will do little for the environment and will kill jobs and investment in Canada. The investment freeze has already begun. Eight of the ten provinces know this and do not want the Prime Minister to sign on without a full plan and an accurate cost estimate.

On October 28 all provinces and territories agreed on 12 points they wanted the environment minister to agree to. He rejected three of them and refused to discuss them further. Three of the western provinces will now fight this in court. The government's so-called implementation plan goes on at length about cooperation with the provinces but in reality there is little cooperation. In fact the provinces have cancelled meetings with the environment minister because he will not listen to them.

Simply put, ratifying Kyoto is not the way to go and is a dereliction of duty.

When will the Prime Minister convene a first ministers' meeting to reach a consensus on ratifying Kyoto?

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

David Anderson Liberal Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to take note of the lengthy preamble of the hon. member. He talks about the investment freeze but it was in the House that I gave the figures, in response to a question about investment freeze from the other side, which pointed out that drilling rig utilization in western Canada this year was at the highest level it has been for years. These companies have had the opportunity to consider this since the Prime Minister announced the ratification in 2002, which he did in June 2001, and since he announced it in Johannesburg two months ago. It is perfectly clear that the industry out in western Canada is continuing to expand its operations despite its alleged investment freeze.

He then goes on to the make the statement that we rejected out of hand three of the provincial proposals and refused to discuss them further. That is simply not so. We said that there were three that we could not accept immediately and that those were being discussed by the deputy ministers only last Wednesday.

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Mr. Speaker, as a party we are always offended when we see government motions for time allocation or closure, and we feel that way with regard to this one, although, as we have made very clear, we are in support of the resolution to move ahead on Kyoto and that we should do so as quickly as possible.

We are actually confronted here as a House with a government that is trying to ram this resolution through after some five years of opportunities to move the process along. At the last minute, it is caught by the Prime Minister's decisions, and we are faced with the question of why it has taken so long. What has happened from 1997 to about six months ago when the Prime Minister finally decided he would ratify Kyoto? What has the government done to work on the implementation program?

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

David Anderson Liberal Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, we have been working on that since long before. We have been working on that with the other governments of Canada, provincial and territorial. We have been doing that in fact since before Kyoto, after Rio. We have been working on it for literally years. The hon. member is aware of that.

Certainly I agree with him that a decision to have closure is not what we would prefer. However after eight days and 33 hours of debate spread over three weeks what else could we do when we have filibusters by one member of eleven and a half hours of debating time?

The Alliance Party members applauded that but that is why at some stage democracy has to proceed after an adequate time for debate.

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

Mr. Speaker, would the environment minister comment on the latest position of the former finance minister on climate change?

He spoke in the House during this debate on the need to have tax incentives for renewable sources of energy, energy efficiency initiatives and ethanol blended fuels. We all know that all these initiatives were directly under his purview when he was finance minister over the last five years. Therefore my question is quite simple. Who was the roadblock to implementing initiatives of that nature? Was it the Prime Minister, the finance minister or simply the environment minister who just did not have the courage to actually push the issue forward in cabinet?

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

David Anderson Liberal Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware of the measures that were put forward in the last budget of the former finance minister with respect to renewable energy. He did not bother to mention them of course but he is well aware of the $260 million that was put aside in the budget for that.

The former minister of finance had four points with respect to ratification: First, to maintain a strong and growing economy, for which I agree; second, maintain a climate of investment certainty, which is why we must have a decision on Kyoto, so that we get the certainty, and I agree; third, to reject the hot air credit purchases and invest in environmental technologies in Canada. Yes, I have said that we will not be purchasing this so-called Russian or eastern European hot air. The fourth point was to maintain openness and transparency in discussion with Canadians, which is precisely what we have been doing continuously.

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:25 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

James Moore Canadian Alliance Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This is a very important public policy question that is very complex and we have the arrogance of the government in invoking closure again. When we look at the Liberal Party on arrogance it is like looking at the Grand Canyon. It is this big fact of nature that we cannot help but stare at.

The reality is that with the Kyoto accord two lines on a graph are crossing. There is rising public understanding of the Kyoto accord, and as people understand it more and more, people are liking it less and less. As more people are understanding it and fewer are liking it, the government has now decided to invoke closure.

Does the Minister of the Environment not understand what he is doing to the problems of national unity, to the problems of alienation, to the problems in western Canada and to the problems of economic development by invoking Kyoto without consulting the provinces? The government is doing this to give the Prime Minister a legacy and it is totally irresponsible in regard to the prospects of national unity. Why is the environment minister invoking closure and ramming through Kyoto without properly consulting--

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

December 9th, 2002 / 12:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Please address your comments to the Chair.

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

David Anderson Liberal Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member asks why we are invoking closure at this time. That is because we have had an extensive debate, with one member of his party taking a full 11 and a half hours in which he repeated himself time after time.

If the House is to have filibusters, the only logical option is for the government side to from time to time put in closure motions of this type.

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

James Rajotte Canadian Alliance Edmonton Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, Industry Canada recently released a report on the devastating effect Kyoto will have on certain sectors. The government tried to back away from this report when it saw the disturbing results.

The report indicated that Canadians can expect the following economic impacts over the long term: a 13% reduction in the agriculture industry; a 37% reduction in the iron industry; a 45% reduction in the coal industry; a 34% reduction in the petroleum industry; a 32% reduction in the electricity industry; and a 25% reduction in the chemical industry. The list goes on and on.

These are not our numbers. It is an Industry Canada report saying this. Canadians want to know this information, but are being denied this information by the government, which is hiding any information that contradicts what it is stating.

Could the minister explain, in the government's blind rush toward ratification, what steps it will take to implement Kyoto without harming these industries to ensure that these industries are not devastated by the minister's foolhardy plan?

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

David Anderson Liberal Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member forgets to point out or does not point out that the industry study in question was done before we had an international agreement with respect to credits for sinks and before we had any plan in place. It is based on assumptions which are simply no longer true today, such as Canada being the only country to ratify.

There have been plenty of studies done on various scenarios, but picking one based on a scenario situation which now does not exist is not the way of advancing intelligent discussion of the Kyoto accord.

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:30 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that we have always been in favour of a quick ratification of the Kyoto protocol. However, we cannot support such a motion for closure, which would fundamentally interfere with debate.

Earlier, the minister told us about investments in renewable energies. But the reality is different. From 1970 to 1999, $66 billion were invested in the oil industry, compared to a measly $329 million in renewable energies.

Will the minister admit that we cannot simply be content with ratifying the Kyoto protocol, but that we must go further? We must invest one dollar in the renewable energies industry for each dollar invested in the oil industry. This is the only satisfactory way to implement the Kyoto protocol in Canada.

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

David Anderson Liberal Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the principle mentioned by the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie. It is true that we must go further. The hon. member indicated a specific means, that is levelling the playing field between the oil and gas sector, and the other industries involved in renewable energies. I do not know if that is the best solution. However, the main point and the principle raised by the hon. member is that we must go much further as regards renewable energies. I fully agree with him.

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Charlie Penson Canadian Alliance Peace River, AB

Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with investor confidence or, in this case, the lack of investor confidence.

A recent survey of Wall Street investment fund managers shows that foreign investor confidence in Canada's oil and gas sector would be crippled by Kyoto. Of those who have an interest in Canada's energy sector, 90% said the industry would be hurt, while 60% said they would re-evaluate investing in Canada's energy sector.

In the Liberal government's race toward ratification it has failed to alleviate the fears of those investors, both Canadian and foreign. The extra costs the energy sector will face under Kyoto will not promote investor confidence. Not only will foreign investment be threatened by Kyoto, but Canadian investment threatens to go south.

I would like to ask the minister what specific steps he and his government have taken to try to ensure that foreign investment will remain in Canada during this period.

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

David Anderson Liberal Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, we have in fact guaranteed for the major emitters that there will be a 55 megatonne cap. We have, as indicated in this morning's Globe and Mail , entered into discussions with them with respect to a cap on price of carbon, so it is quite clear that we have been working with the large emitters, including the oil and gas sector, for quite some time to deal with some of the uncertainties which they have indicated they have concerns over and to make sure that those uncertainties are reduced to the minimum.

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Dave Chatters Canadian Alliance Athabasca, AB

Mr. Speaker, the government would have us believe that no one region or industry sector in Canada would be unduly burdened by its made in Japan Kyoto scheme. In spite of the minister's promises to use taxpayers' dollars to lighten the burden of industry, here are the facts. In Alberta, TrueNorth, Petro-Canada, Husky Oil, EnCana, Nexen, ConocoPhillips and Canadian Natural Resources Limited have either limited or cancelled plans for new development and expansion because of Kyoto.

Petro-Canada's chief executive officer, Ron Brenneman, has stated that “Canada must provide opportunities” to keep Canadian investment from heading south. I will quote him: “It is so easy to screw up and the Kyoto protocol is an example of how Canada could screw it up”. He has also stated that the Kyoto protocol is clearly discouraging investment in Canada. In light of the devastation that Kyoto is already having on investment in Alberta, what specific steps is the government going to take, starting today, to keep investment, energy investment in particular, in Canada?

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

David Anderson Liberal Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, I indicated in the answer to the previous question some of the measures that are being taken.

I point out to the hon. member that the major problem we currently face in the tar sands development is cost overruns. These cost overruns are going up to 70% of original estimate. That is the major issue. Second, there is the uncertainty over price, uncertainty that is exacerbated by concern over what is happening in the Middle East.

These are major issues, and unless they are taken into account, to simply list what is probably the least important of issues affecting them is just simply not a rational approach to what is indeed, for the energy companies concerned, an issue of taking everything into consideration. That has been shown time after time by the business pages and by the statements by the energy spokespersons themselves.

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

Madam Speaker, it makes no sense to blindly ratify any accord without knowing the impacts. Moreover, it is disingenuous to ratify an accord when the government knows it cannot even do it, because it cannot implement an accord of this nature without the active participation of the provinces. That is what we did when we painstakingly earned bilateral agreements when we were able to build a provincial consensus on acid rain.

My question is for the environment minister. Before the government proceeds with any kind of an implementation strategy, given that it has sat on its hands for the last five years, will the government commit to developing a bilateral agreement with each and every province before it implements any kind of program?

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

David Anderson Liberal Victoria, BC

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has raised the issue of agreements with each and every province. We know full well that if we guarantee to pick up the bill for everything they do in the climate change area, we will get their agreement, each and every one in turn.

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:35 p.m.

An hon. member

There is only one taxpayer.

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

David Anderson Liberal Victoria, BC

But as the Alliance members are now shouting out, there is only one taxpayer.

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:35 p.m.

An hon. member

You got it.

Kyoto ProtocolPrivate Members' Business

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

David Anderson Liberal Victoria, BC

Got it, and this is the problem with the Conservative member's approach, that is, it is quite easy to get agreement as long as one gives away the shop. We do not intend to do that. We have to protect the Canadian taxpayer.

We believe there should be a common movement forward by all 14 governments. We intend to negotiate agreements that are fair to all concerned and that also at the same time do not penalize any section of the country unduly.