Debates of Feb. 28th, 2002

The Environment

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the government is blindly heading toward implementing the Kyoto treaty without any concern about what it will cost Canadian families in their everyday lives. In addition to the 450,000 job loss Canadian manufacturers warn that implementing Kyoto would cost the average Canadian double for electricity, 80% more for gasoline and 60% more for natural gas.

How much more does the Deputy Prime Minister expect Canadians to pay to finance an agreement that will do little to improve our environment?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has failed to understand that the studies upon which the report for the manufacturing association based itself were done before the American decision with respect to Kyoto and before the Marrakesh agreement.

There are new studies coming out which have been jointly prepared by federal, provincial and territorial officials with the assistance of the private sector. We expect further information in approximately a couple of months. I suggest that he waits until we get that information before continuing with these scare stories in the House.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate he calls the Canadian Manufacturers' Association scare-mongers, but let me quote from the government's own reports, Industry Canada's reports that state Kyoto will cost Canadians up to $75 billion in lost revenue and tens of thousands of jobs. That is the government, yet the government has no detailed plan for implementation, no proof it will work and no guarantee the U.S. will enact it.

The natural resources minister, the minister's colleague, said “I wouldn't sign a contract in business unless I knew exactly what it meant”, but that is exactly what the government is doing.

Will the environment minister still insist on ratifying the Kyoto treaty if it means losing hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada and forgoing millions and billions in lost revenue?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has once again misrepresented a study done for the industry department.

It is a working paper. It is working paper number 34. There are 33 others before it. It states “If such a domestic implementation scheme is adopted, the cost of compliance for Canada is estimated to be modest”. It goes on to state that “If the Kyoto Protocol is implemented with significant international trading, the importantnegative sectoral impacts largely disappear”.

That is the study he is quoting from.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is just great at picking out his quotes.

Let us talk about a letter he wrote to his cabinet colleagues, urging them to use electrical or natural gas powered vehicles as their ministerial cars to set an example for Canadians on Kyoto.

I understand that none of them have acted on his request. The Liberal government talks the talk but will not drive the drive.

How can the Prime Minister or the Minister of the Environment expect Canadians to sacrifice so much for the sake of Kyoto when their own ministers will not even trade in their taxpayer funded cars for environmentally friendly vehicles?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the hon. Leader of the Opposition who follows the leader of the opposition who was first here in the Reform Party and who played such a hypocritical game with respect to government supplied vehicles, to raise the point that he too has a government car and it too is not a hybrid vehicle.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment should also know that when our present leader was minister of the environment in B.C. he drove a natural gas car and that he has sent a formal letter requesting an environmentally friendly car here, which has not been acted on.

The Prime Minister apparently is not aware of the difference between pollution and greenhouse gas emissions regulated by Kyoto. Kyoto is about reducing CO

2

levels. Canadian sources of air pollution, CO

2

emissions, can be removed much less expensively than by Kyoto.

Why is the government committed to using the political approach--

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of the Environment.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look into the issue of the hon. Leader of the Opposition's car, but the trouble is they rotate through that chair so quickly it is extremely hard to keep track.

With respect to the natural gas that is being discussed on the other side, admitted on the other side, perhaps, I can tell the hon. member that in fact there are a number of greenhouse gases. I believe the generally accepted number is six of which CO

2

certainly is one.

Kyoto is designed to deal with basically CO

2

and other greenhouse gas emissions.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government seems to think that climate change on the prairies is due to increases in CO

2

. Let me provide some facts.

Records show that the driest five year period in southern Alberta was from 1906 to 1910. The driest 10 year period in the last hundred years was from 1903 to 1913.

If Sir Wilfrid Laurier had signed a Kyoto type of accord in 1910, does the Prime Minister really believe that these droughts would not have happened?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question illustrates the problem the Alliance Party has with the Kyoto accord. We are dealing in the Kyoto accord with a global problem, but of course only a small part of one province is what he thinks about. He cannot see a global problem beyond a small part of one province.

Whatever might have happened in 1912, and the member might have been in the House at that time but I certainly was not, I can tell him now that the consensus of scientific opinion is that this century has been the warmest century of the millennium. The last decade was the warmest decade of the century, and 1999 and 2001 have been the warmest two years.

Foreign Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we learned that a Department of Foreign Affairs representative, who was present at the Tampa Bay command centre, had known since January 25 that Canadian troops had captured prisoners in Afghanistan.

Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs stand by his version that he and his department did not learn until January 29 that prisoners had been captured?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that in the passing of information on January 29 to the command centre, perhaps additional information was obtained by the foreign affairs representative on that occasion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was addressing the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I was talking about one of his subordinates. The Minister of Foreign Affairs told us that he heard about this on the 29th. We now know—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

If he would listen to me instead of repeating the Minister of National Defence's answer, it would be more helpful.

We are now told that it was January 25. I put the question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who said in the House that it was only on the 29th, not the 25th, that he learned of it.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the leader of the Bloc Quebecois is dealing with an item that is before a standing committee of the House. It is my understanding that a full explanation with respect to that matter was provided to the committee today and the matter was entirely cleared up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to a statement made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs here in the House. I know that there is a cover-up, but the Minister of National Defence and the government House leader are the ones answering.

I am addressing the individual who was recently appointed. Surely one of the things he was appointed to do was answer a few questions here in the House. My question for him is this. It was here in the House and not in committee that he told us, “It was on January 29 that I and my department learned that Canadian troops had taken prisoners in Afghanistan”. Now, we are told that a Department of Foreign Affairs representative knew this on the 25th.

Will he rise in his place and say something?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the leader of the Bloc Quebecois to refer to the proceedings of the standing committee that is dealing with this matter, where he will find an entire explanation of the situation to which he refers. It is in the minutes of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind the government House leader that I am referring to a statement made here in the House by the silent Minister of Foreign Affairs, the one who thought he was so smart and who is now hiding.

Does he still stand by his statement that it was on January 29 that he and his department learned that Canadian troops had taken prisoners in Afghanistan? Has he had the time to think while three others answered before him? Will he have an answer? I am talking about a cover-up.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I stand by the statement I made to the House earlier, as the member said.

Equalization Payments

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

I am sure the Minister of Finance would agree with me that the federal government should not act in a way that causes fiscal instability in the provinces. Recently announced changes to the equalization formula pose that very serious threat to a number of provinces. The province of Quebec, for instance, has expressed concerns.

Is the Minister of Finance prepared to review the changes to that formula, given the serious impact it would have on some provinces, with a view to either changing them or ameliorating them in some way so that fiscal stability in the affected provinces can be maintained?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a number of very important questions.

We have decided to ask the provinces to meet with us as to whether methodological changes when brought in should be brought in either in the middle or only at the end of the term. Statistics Canada has also said that important methodological changes will not be introduced unless there has been a full consultation with all of the provinces concerned.

Under these particular circumstances it would appear that a full consultation was not held. Under those circumstances, we have decided to spread this out--

[An hon. member]

Time.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

This is important, Mr. Speaker, but I will answer in the supplementary.