Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to ask the minister questions?
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 76% of the vote.
Kyoto Protocol November 25th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to ask the minister questions?
Points of Order November 25th, 2002
It's just a matter of honesty.
Points of Order November 25th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I would like to contribute to my leader's point of order with regard to the tabling of the Kyoto accord.
I would like to caution the government about observing procedural matters. It is our responsibility to ensure that procedural requirements are observed since the courts have the legal power to enquire into the procedural history of any matter that has been dealt with by Parliament. On page 186 of Joseph Maingot's second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada it states:
It is said that “the courts might be effective in ensuring the observance of procedural requirements...”
When we knowingly cast doubt upon the legitimacy of our proceedings we place the entire institution under a cloud. As the House is aware, international co-operation was established under the 1992 United Nations framework convention on climate change and the Kyoto protocol of 1997, named after the city in Japan where the agreement was negotiated.
This all began in 1988 when the intergovernmental panel on climate change established internationally agreed upon assessments of the science of climate change, including causes, impacts and possible responses.
On September 2, 2002, the Prime Minister announced at the world summit on sustainable development that the Parliament of Canada would be asked to vote on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol before the end of the year. The Speech from the Throne on September 30, 2002, also referred to the introduction of a parliamentary resolution before the end of the year.
While the federal executive has the authority to sign or ratify any international treaty the authority to implement it must be found within domestic Canadian constitutional law.
All legislative power in Canada is divided between the federal and provincial governments. If the two levels of government agree to implement Kyoto or any other treaty, they can do so. However previous environmental treaties and agreements have generally been implemented through legitimate federal-provincial co-operation.
The government is faced with many obstacles with the Kyoto protocol: constitutional obstacles, procedural obstacles and political obstacles. We need to see the treaty before we can properly address the procedural and political obstacles. Political arguments and constitutional arguments will continue to be made in the weeks and months ahead. We need to settle the procedural requirements before proceeding with the motion to ratify the Kyoto protocol.
The procedural arguments made by the Leader of the Opposition are well taken. We must ensure that the House observe the procedural necessities involved with such a treaty.
In order to consider a treaty that must be ratified the federal government must have the domestic constitutional jurisdiction to either undertake the required actions or to pass the required legislation. The government must respect the convention that the treaty be tabled in the House so that members, as legislators, can completely consider the ratification, implementation and financial aspects of the treaty. The House is not prepared to sign a blank cheque.
It has been demonstrated that the motion to ratify the Kyoto protocol is out of order for at least two reasons: it violates a previous order of the House; and it violates the convention that requires the treaty to be tabled in the House. Our whip will rise later on a separate point of order.
Kyoto Protocol November 18th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has refused to meet with the premiers on Kyoto. Now the environment minister is turning his back on the provinces. All they want are assurances that this ill-conceived deal will not destroy their economies. They want this minister to promise, before they agree to meet him, that he will look at those 12 points.
Will the environment minister agree to incorporate the ideas of the provinces into the Kyoto plan before it is brought before the House?
Kyoto Protocol November 18th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the next joint ministers meeting to develop a made in Canada alternative to Kyoto is scheduled for this Thursday. The current federal plan is nothing more than a powder-puff PowerPoint presentation with which provinces want nothing to do. The provinces have 12 conditions to which they are asking the federal government to agree.
Will the environment minister agree to all 12 conditions put forward by the provinces?
Kyoto Protocol November 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, industry says that those figures are totally unrealistic, that it could not possibly get to those figures.
The environment minister produced a PowerPoint presentation in preparation for the meeting several weeks ago in Halifax with the environment and energy ministers. The presentation was long on fluffy rhetoric and very short on detail.
Could the minister advise the House if he will be providing details on the costs, details on the implementation plan and details on accompanying legislation for the meeting with the provinces on November 21?
Kyoto Protocol November 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the environment minister have often stood in the House and said that Kyoto will have little cost effect on most Canadians. They have used figures like 3¢ a barrel for conventional oil and 13¢ a barrel for oil sands recovery.
Will the environment minister today stand in the House and agree to provide Canadians with a written warranty that the federal government will pay any costs in excess of these fictitious figures?
Kyoto Protocol November 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, here is what the vice-president of the University of Alberta said. We reconfirmed this with her just recently. She said:
It is [the environment minister's] panel. They have selected the participants. We are not co-hosting it. It is important as an academic institution we provide a balanced forum when we choose to co-host.
Why is the environment minister afraid to have both sides of the issue?
Kyoto Protocol November 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment just cannot stand dissenting opinions on Kyoto. When the University of Alberta wanted a balanced panel to speak about Kyoto, the environment minister refused. He does not want Canadians to hear both sides of the story.
Is the environment minister's Kyoto position so weak that he cannot stand to have Canadians hear both sides of the issue?
Petitions November 1st, 2002
The second petition, Madam Speaker, calls upon Parliament to enact legislation to modernize the employment insurance program according to the plan proposed by the Canadian Labour Congress.