David Anderson

[Natural Resources, November 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the position of the federal government is clear. We are looking at a range of measures that could help achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Where there are proposals from the provinces or from the hydro corporations of the provinces to improve transportation systems, we will certainly look at them regardless of where they come from.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I can do no better than to quote the Prime Minister, who said last night, “The Romanow Report will not gather dust on the shelf. We will move quickly”.

He went on to say, “There will be a first ministers meeting in late January to agree on a comprehensive plan to modernize medicare”.

He went on to say further, “And I can assure Canadians that after a successful meeting, we will be there with the federal share of the money to finance that long term plan”.

[The Environment, November 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as part of the Government of Canada's ongoing commitment to restore the Great Lakes basin ecosystem I announced on Monday of this week that 14 projects will be funded under the Great Lakes sustainability funding, which totals some $600,000. They include the Burlington, Hamilton and Scarborough areas. I would like to thank the members for Burlington and Scarborough East for their support.

The projects focus on restoring habitat for fish and wildlife, developing new ways of managing waste water and preventing agricultural runoff. We are doing this in partnership--

[Kyoto Protocol, November 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, at least the hon. member in this question is making it clear from his assumptions that he expects there to be ratification and that he expects us to proceed with the Kyoto agreement. At least I give him that credit, he recognizes that his party's position is wrong-headed.

As for achieving our goals, we have said repeatedly that we do not intend to purchase what he called hot air from Russia or any other country. Any purchases overseas by the corporate sector or by a government would have to be a real reduction, not something that has happened in the past by reason of a change in the economy.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member simply points out how wrong-headed the approach of the Canadian Alliance is in opposing ratification of Kyoto. If in fact we have to meet certain obligations by the year 2005, surely we should get going now instead of holding things up with filibusters.

[The Environment, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the Prime Minister takes a close and personal interest in the Kyoto file.

Furthermore, I can assure him that we do at the present time have some provinces jockeying for position. However I believe those provinces will recognize the importance of working together, as we have done for the past 5 years since Kyoto and the past 10 years since Rio.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 25th, 2002]

There seems to be an awful lot of excitement from the leader of the Conservative Party. I realize that he is taking a major departure in his party's position from past practice when he was a cabinet minister making those decisions. That said, his flip-flop should not lead him to get too excited in the House.

I quote Premier Klein of Alberta speaking in Toronto at the Empire Club. He said:

For many Canadians events of the summer and fall have made the threat of global warming seem very real.

From the drought in the west to heat waves in Ontario, Canadians have had concerns about climate change. They want their government to do something to be part of the solution.

Again, if I may quote Premier Klein, he stated:

--Canadians have the know-how and the resolve to tackle this problem.

I agree with both statements by Premier Klein. I think he has stated it well. That tells me that we are in fact closer to common ground on climate change than some of the breathless headlines about the end of our economy and the end of our country would have us believe. It tells me, just as my conversations with provincial ministers, non-governmental organizations and leaders in the private sector do, that we can and have built a plan that will work in Canada. We can get results that matter from Canadians.

We succeeded in clarifying good rules to support an effective international market in carbon permits so that countries could achieve their goals with costs as low as possible. The efforts of the United Nations to achieve flexibility and results have earned in fact global support.

As of last Friday, some 97 countries around the world have ratified or otherwise formally approved of the Kyoto protocol; and, yes, as the Prime Minister has promised, Canada will join them before the end of this year.

When I use the word we to describe what Canadian representatives did at the United Nations in Kyoto, Bonn or Marrakesh and other places, I do not mean just the Government of Canada. From the beginning of the process, we have sought to develop a collaborative relationship with many Canadian partners, both to define our strategies and to achieve results. For example: meetings with the provinces on climate change as early as 1989; regular meetings, often more than once a year, of the ministers responsible for energy and the environment in 1993; and the first ministers met to discuss climate change in 1997, both before and after the Kyoto protocol.

It was then that our government and the governments of all provinces and all territories agreed to the basic principles, which have governed our approach to developing the climate change plan for Canada ever since. One of those principles is that no region of the country should bear an unreasonable burden as a result of climate change action.

As well, substantial collaborative efforts took place at the level of ministers and official representatives. There have been six meetings of the ministers of energy and the environment over the past two and a half years.

I proposed to meet with them monthly if they were interested, and senior officials have met nearly every month for the past five years. The analysis and monitoring group has played an important role in this collaborative effort.

This team of economists from both levels of government has drawn up economic models to analyze the impacts of policies and to examine the numerous versions of policy options in order to define potential economic repercussions.

The cooperation has gone much further. Ministers and officials from the provinces and territories have been part of the Canadian delegations to the international climate change meetings, including the groundbreaking ones of Kyoto, Bonn and Marrakesh. We have regularly sought their advice and input on Canada's negotiating positions.

Have we agreed on everything? No, we have not. Is that so surprising? No, it is not. I am hard pressed to remember many occasions when there has been unanimity of all 14 jurisdictions in the country on major issues which involved costs: constitutional reform, no; health care, no; and on this most complex of issues it is no different.

While there will always be ongoing discussions about how much different levels of government should pay for shared responsibilities, our government will do its part to address climate change and we will do what we can to build a workable solution with the provinces and territories. That same commitment to collaboration is true with many other partners in Canada.

We have consulted widely with industries to determine how to move forward on our international commitments in ways that would have the least negative impact on our job growth and our overall economic performance.

We have offered specific proposals and then refined and adjusted them to take new information into account. We have accepted and respected the contribution that experts who know an industry well can provide. We have done the same with all sectors of the Canadian economy.

We are working with representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress, particularly the communications, energy and paperworkers' union to address the concerns of the labour movement and on behalf of their members, the presidents of both organizations, Ken Georgetti and Brian Payne have shown great leadership on the climate change issue.

We have worked with Canada's municipal governments, 100 of which have passed resolutions in support of the Kyoto protocol. Many of them are using the green municipal funds that we set aside in the last two budgets. For example, many cities are testing greenhouse gas emission reduction ideas such as tapping methane from landfill sites and using that gas to generate electricity.

I could go on about this collaboration but the point is clear. Just as all Canadians have to be part of the solution to climate change, all sectors of society need to be engaged in mapping out and delivering on the solutions, and they are.

Perhaps some of the best evidence of this commitment to moving forward together, this desire to build consensus, is the process that led to the tabling of the climate change plan for Canada in the House last week. The plan is comprehensive, it is supported by extensive analysis and yes, it is detailed.

It builds on more than 30 specific measures from action plan 2000 by adding many more that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many of the measures and the emission reductions associated with them have been developed on the basis of the work of the 16 issues tables. Those issues tables, the technical name for them, were in fact committees of some 450 experts that included business, academic, government and non-government representatives. They worked for almost three years analyzing and developing their proposals.

The plan contains measures that will reduce emissions from transportation, housing, commercial and institutional buildings, large industrial emitters, small and medium businesses, agriculture, forestry and landfills. This will be accomplished through international investments coupled with the efforts of all Canadians.

The plan contains modeling impact data for the nine key sectors of our economy, as well as a more detailed impact analysis of the 12 sectors of the economy involved in energy production or heavy energy consumption.

The plan contains gross domestic product impact and job growth analysis for Canada and for the provinces and territories. The basic conclusions are as follows.

We have designed a plan that will have modest impacts on the overall economic growth. The economy will grow by 17.5% over the next eight years under the plan compared to an expected 18% if we do nothing to address climate change.

There will be little impact on growth. There may be 60,000 fewer jobs created over the next eight years, but given the rate at which we are creating jobs now, this is equivalent to a delay in job creation of five weeks spread over that 10 years.

There will be no appreciable impact on the average personal disposable income of Canadians. Any changes in energy prices resulting from the plan will be quite small.

The plan will have a balanced impact across the country and will meet the commitment of the first ministers that no region should bear an unreasonable burden.

Beyond that, I will leave it for others to comment on the specifics of the plan and on the actions that we are taking. I will leave the health benefits and the benefits to our cities of the actions we will take. I will leave it for others to comment on our efforts to develop a balanced and fair plan that will keep the door open for jobs at all regions and across our economy.

I do want to make clear, and take a moment or two to note that we have been working with partners and we have listened to our partners.

From the time we published our document on the options for a strategy on climate change in May of this year, to the publication of our draft plan in October, and the release of the official plan last week, we have listened and responded.

We reviewed the draft of our plan based on the concerns that were voiced, such as the need for greater certainty for business and greater clarity regarding our partnership commitments.

Many of the best examples relate to the views and concerns of industry and how to treat large industrial emitters. Based on those concerns, large industry will be asked for no more than 55 million tonnes in reductions. We will work with them to provide protection against sustained high prices for carbon on the markets. We will continue to work with them to design a system that will not disadvantage those firms that have taken early action.

There is one other major point I want to make about the climate change plan for Canada and that is the place of innovation in our plans.

I have been involved in environmental issues for more than three decades. I recall the days when those of us who wanted to see a cleaner, healthier environment were classed as the hopeless enemies of progress by those who were very comfortable with business as usual.

The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard made much the same point back in 1990 when he said, “Canada continues to regard environmental protection as a cost and really does not understand the benefits that lie therein. It does not understand that you have a far more competitive economy if you have lowered your fuel costs and if you have gone to renewable resources. The benefits have to do with a more productive and a happier population”.

The rising tide of public opinion, scientific evidence and demonstrated results have changed the attitude described in that quote. Canadians now know that a healthy environment is important. They believe that we could have a robust economy and an environment that we could enjoy as well.

Over time, people in business have discovered that they can bring the same power of innovation to environmental challenges that they have brought to their other business challenges. Governments such as our own have focused on setting realistic goals, as we have here, and then giving business the room to find the solutions that would deliver results more efficiently.

We are one of the richest countries in the world. We have the OECD's best performing economy, with projections from the OECD that Canada will stay in first place for years to come.

We have some of the best universities in the world and they in turn have some of the best minds.

We have companies that have shown what they can do when they turn their attention to solving problems. We have already seen that with climate change. Companies that want to get ahead of the curve are finding strategies that do get results for the environment and for their bottom line.

Many companies are making the first important step of making their operations more efficient when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. DaimlerChrysler Canada has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions for each vehicle it manufactures by 42%. DuPont Canada set a 10 year goal that would reduce energy use by 25% per unit. It reached that goal in less than half the time it had put aside to do so. Syncrude Canada has reduced greenhouse gas emissions per barrel of production by 26% since 1988.

That paves the way for the next step, which is to cut total emissions through wise energy use. We have examples such as Weyerhaeuser Canada's Prince Albert, Saskatchewan plant which is energy self-sufficient and which has dramatically cut its greenhouse gas emissions. Interface Inc. reduced energy consumption at its Belleville, Ontario plant by more than 35% between 1993 and 1997 while production increased 58%. Mountain Equipment Co-op's new store here in Ottawa has reduced its energy consumption by over 50%.

The point is simple. Canadian business can do it and Canadian businesses are doing it.

Our job is to develop strategies to support the power of innovation in our business and research communities. During my travels across Canada, I saw how Canadian companies and researchers can innovate. I saw all of the means at our disposal to fight climate change and set an example for the whole world. All of this has led me to firmly believe that we can make the best of these changes to create a healthier environment and a stronger economy.

May I say a few words about the role of Parliament. Members from all parties in the House were part of the Canadian delegation to the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. That was where the United Nations framework convention on climate change was finalized and opened for signature. Members of Parliament were at Johannesburg two months ago for the Rio plus 10 conference. Members of Parliament have been part of our delegations to many of the international negotiating sessions between those two events.

The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and its predecessors have, on numerous occasions, assessed the situation and options available to Canada. Members began this work in 1989. They published an interim report the following year, in 1990, and a final report in 1991. Incidentally, the title of the interim report published some 11 years ago was “No Time to Lose: the Challenge of Global Warming”.

Individual members on both sides of the House and certainly members of the government caucus have made their own important contributions to this issue and to our thinking of it.

I can say that I have appreciated the show of support and indeed there has been some none too subtle pressure associated with it most of the time. In fact, only three weeks ago seven members of the Liberal caucus stood outside these doors and had a press conference stating their wish that the Government of Canada ratify the protocol.

That is what Canadians expect of their representatives here in Ottawa. They look to their members of Parliament to speak on behalf of the communities that the MPs represent, but they also expect their members of Parliament to think about the national interest. That is what we are doing here today. We are making decisions in the national interest for decades to come.

We cannot forever continue to indulge in the polemics of paralysis of talking about decisions instead of making them. Yes, we represent individual ridings, but this is the place where we must ultimately ask what is best for Canada and what is best for future generations of Canadians. Indeed, the question really is what is best for the world.

Let me say I am glad that we can count on the support of the New Democratic Party for this motion. In the same way, I appreciate the support that I anticipate from the Bloc Quebecois.

I should also point out that the entrenched opposition of the Canadian Alliance comes as no surprise. Speaking as a British Columbian who has been a member of both my provincial legislature and the federal Parliament, I accept no lectures from the official opposition on western perspectives. To the extent that the Alliance has a coherent view on this issue, it appears to be driven by the most parochial perspective possible.

Given a chance to show national perspective, the official opposition in this national Parliament once again shows that it is just not up to the mark. The Alliance just cannot reach out to the vast majority of Canadians throughout the country who recognize that climate change is a real issue that requires real action. Instead, we get a parochial view of one segment of one industry. There is no national vision, no understanding of the constructive role that Canada can and should play.

I have left the Progressive Conservatives until the last, not just because the right hon. leader of the Progressive Conservatives was so noisy earlier on in my speech. Whatever he may think about former Prime Minister Mulroney, Prime Minister Mulroney grasped the importance of the climate change issue early. In that, Mr. Mulroney showed leadership. In fact, let me remind the Tory caucus and the current Tory leader that Prime Minister Mulroney got it right when he said in 1992:

No country, acting alone, can meet this global challenge. We will only solve these problems by cooperating with others.

Mr. Mulroney was right and I said that in the House last week. What we are doing in this debate today is moving forward on a policy approach which he began.

I ask the Progressive Conservatives in the House, how will they handle the legacy of the former prime minister and their former leader? While the antipathy of the present leader of the Conservative Party to Mr. Mulroney is well known, let me make it clear that he too as foreign affairs minister in the Mulroney government was very much part of those climate change decisions before 1993. He too is on the record as supporting his government's position and in support of the United Nations framework convention on climate change.

Are we to see yet again another of his famous flip-flops as he chases after the Alliance position once more? I hope not because certainly the Progressive Conservative Party deserves better.

The impressive and growing weight of scientific evidence says that we must take action on climate change, not some day, not in the future, but now and not through half measures but in a comprehensive way. It must not be based on what is convenient but based on stretching our imagination and our capabilities.

Our government is determined to build on the record of action that gets results. We are committed to actions that will enhance the quality of life for Canadians and people around the world. This will be a national effort. To get it we will continue to seek out the common ground with provinces and territories, business, the labour movement, the academic community and our colleges and universities, church groups, environmental groups and most important with the Canadian people. We will continue to listen to how we can reach our international commitments more effectively.

It is time for us to turn the page on the issue of ratification. It is time for us to move on to getting real results in real timeframes.

I am proud to move the adoption of this resolution and ask this House to urge the government to ratify the Kyoto protocol now.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I was quoting the provisions of the convention that was signed on by Prime Minister Mulroney and ratified by the Government of Canada in 1992.

When we consider the words of that convention, it is clear that we are currently bound, and I quote again, “to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” by reason of a decision of the Government of Canada 10 years ago.

There was some belief at that time that the approach should be voluntary but that was quickly discovered to be an approach that did not work. Therefore there were some who said at the time that there should be a more assertive and decisive approach and that Canada should lead the way.

The spokesperson for those who back in 1992 wanted a more vigorous approach, and is still a member of the House, was the member for LaSalle--Émard. Back then he was the party's environment critic. He said at that time:

We can begin by pressing for an international convention to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 20%...We should set an example by exceeding that target at home.

Events have shown that our colleague was prescient in seeing the need for clear targets and seeing the need for determined action.

Just as he has said in the House, as we have heard him often say over the last nine years, that we should have rolling and realistic targets that keep people's feet to the fire in the fight against deficits, so he perceived 10 years ago, before many others did, that a voluntary approach on climate change with distant targets simply would not work. He understood the need to focus the mind.

In the mid-1990s, realizing the need for a more concerted effort, the UN decided to again bring the world community together in its negotiating rooms. The negotiations culminated in the Kyoto protocol in 1997.

At Kyoto our Prime Minister decided that Canada would aim for a 6% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by the 2008 to 2012, the first Kyoto period, that is to have emissions at 94% of the 1990 level of those years.

Over the next four years, governments worked out a detailed implementation regime which was finalized during the meetings in Bonn and Marrakesh in 2001. During those negotiations, Canada was at the forefront of the group of countries that wanted a results oriented approach to meet the new international targets.

We succeeded in getting recognition for the role of well managed forests and agricultural lands, the role that they play in absorbing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, which had the effect of bringing our target to the 1990 level, exactly where the premiers, including Premier Ralph Klein of Alberta, had agreed it should be back in 1997. He in fact--

[Kyoto Protocol, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I do not as yet recollect having mentioned a plan, but we tabled a plan in the House on Thursday, November 21 and I believe copies were sent to every member of Parliament. If by any chance the hon. member lost his, we can get him another one. This is not part of my presentation so far. I will get into that. The hon. member is anticipating what I have here.

The international scientific community has been working to understand climate change for decades, largely through the United Nations' institutions and processes. Canada has shown leadership in that effort from the very start. In fact, the first major international conference on climate change took place in Toronto. Canada welcomed 300 policy-makers, scientists and leaders from business and environmental groups from 46 countries at that Toronto meeting in 1988. That started the process which led to the United Nations framework convention on climate change.

Under the personal leadership and interest of Prime Minister Mulroney, Canada was deeply involved in those negotiations. We signed the Rio convention in 1992 and, yes, we ratified that convention in December of the same year. I trust the hon. member and leader of the Conservative Party remembers these events.

It is worth quoting what the Mulroney government ratified 10 years ago and what we are still bound to today. That document which is the Rio convention reads:

The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is not adequate, of course, as he now so differs with his previous boss, but the animosity between these two gentlemen is well known. I think it should not impact upon what we should do in terms of policy here in 2002 in the Government of Canada.

In any event, let me return: The probability analysis suggests that there is some one in ten--