David Anderson

[Privilege, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as it is I who they are criticizing for the notice, first, as soon as we have material that is available, we try to make it available as soon as possible to members on both sides of the House. They are now complaining about the fact that as soon as we had the material available we made it available to them with briefings to boot; not just giving them the document. We could do it differently, but the complaint would then come that we were holding material back and not making it public to members on either side of the House.

It is one of these situations where basically it is pretty easy to criticize one way or the other. We are damned if we do and damned if we do not. However, if the hon. member who is now leaving the chamber would like to have further briefings on this and further information about it, we would be happy to provide that to her.

There are certain practical reasons for getting material in the hands of members as soon as we can. That is a courtesy. It is not in fact treating them with disrespect. If they do not want it, they do not have to come. I do not know whether she came or not. However I do know government members were briefed in much the same time, in fact, I think about a half hour earlier and they had much the same notice.

Were all of them able to get there? Of course not, but that is understood with all the work we do around the House. As the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast has made clear, we have many other demands on our time. I recognize that and it is possible that people would like to have it at a different time. I will be happy, if the hon. member who has raised the complaint would like it, to give her further briefings.

For those who could get there, it is important for her to understand that we gave the briefing just as soon as we could. We did not hold back on documents, which is exactly the type of criticism that she would level had we in fact adopted the very proposal that she has put before us today.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly want to have continuous discussions with the provinces as we have had for the last five years, in fact 10 years with the five years before the Kyoto agreement.

We want to continue to have that cooperative approach of 14 governments which has essentially marked this whole debate over the last few years. We think that is important.

We regret the fact that Alberta pulled out from co-chairing. Alberta and the federal government were co-chairing up to this summer. We regret that but we hope we can bring Alberta back in.

Certainly I am willing and my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources is willing to meet with our provincial counterparts at any time, anywhere.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made an error in his preamble. This is not a new report. It is in fact quite an old report. It occurred before the discussions 18 months ago in Bonn and also those a year ago in Marrakesh. It does not take into account either the sinks issue or the clean development mechanisms issue negotiated at those two meetings. It does not, for example, take into account the emissions trading system.

It essentially was an academic exercise of two people within that department. It was not expected to be or designed to be a modelling of the plan that we have before us now.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that needs international cooperation. It cannot be dealt with on only a provincial basis.

If I may quote a distinguished Canadian, he said:

We need new international legal mechanisms to forge global cooperation to protect and restore the atmospheric life support system.

He went on to say:

The only effective way these and other international issues can be addressed is through concerted international action and agreement.

I am trying to implement the legacy of Prime Minister Mulroney.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on the very clear contradiction between what the hon. lady is saying now and what she said, and I have the quotes from Hansard , in the Nova Scotia legislature. I can assure her they are night and day; they are totally different positions.

The member of course is not the only one who has flipped and flopped on this particular issue. I am expecting more from the Conservatives in just a moment. I will tell her that it is a difficult balance and we look forward to having her reasoned contribution to the debate in the next few days.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting point of view. The balance between certain sectors of the economy is very important and we have tried to get the best balance we can.

We certainly expect other people from different political parties and different regions of the country to take different points of view. I would simply remind the hon. member who, when she was a member of the Nova Scotia legislature, tried so hard to be the poster girl of the coal industry that perhaps it is not exactly the way she described it.

[The Environment, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the balance between the renewable sector and the non-renewable sector is very important. The hon. member has definitely put forward a very interesting point of view which should be taken into consideration and discussed.

That is being discussed in the meetings of the federal government, the territories and the provinces. It is being discussed among ourselves, the governments in Canada, and with industry.

I certainly hope the hon. member will take the opportunity next week to discuss that very issue here in the chamber.

[The Environment, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I see no contradiction between what I said the other day and what is in the document in question. Yes, there will be fiscal measures in the budget that the Minister of Finance will table, perhaps in February, perhaps in March; I do not know when it will be tabled, but it will include such actions. What we are planning to have, generally speaking, as a blueprint for the future, for the next ten years, is in the document I tabled today.

[The Environment, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the situation presented by the hon. member is precisely the reason why we must have a policy that is flexible and that takes into consideration the examples that he just gave the House. There is no question of having inflexible rules, under which everything would be black or white. Each individual situation must be examined on its own merits.

[The Environment, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, what we want to do, and this is very clear in the plan tabled in the House this morning, is to recognize what companies have done since 1990. These companies will be protected from economic problems, since they acted sooner than other companies.

We have no intention of lumping everyone together. Where there is a problem, we will resolve it.