David Anderson

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very good question. First, it is true that there are many plans in place already. Many measures have already been implemented and I salute the provinces and industries that have done this work.

However, let us not forget. He asked me if I was going to reward efforts. Perhaps he is forgetting that most of the efforts made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also maximized revenues for these companies. They are better companies today, worth more, because of what they spent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The energy efficiency of these companies has also made them more efficient from a financial perspective as well. That is one thing. We cannot ask Canadian taxpayers, we cannot use tax dollars, to pay all the people who have already clearly benefited. They cannot collect twice.

In the case of an industry that has paid and received nothing in return, we are prepared to talk with the hon. minister from Quebec, André Boisclair, or with others, or directly with industries in order to come up with something that is fair.

Of course, I would like to pay tribute to the efforts of Quebec's aluminum industry, particularly Alcan. Quebec has not been alone; my birth province, British Columbia, has also made extraordinary efforts. I salute them.

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first, I can assure him I will be there at the Halifax meeting of the JMM.

Second, with respect to the burdens, we are attempting not to get the lowest cost plan for achieving our Kyoto goal. To do that would create imbalances and uneven burdens across the country. We have therefore decided to make a more important criteria, a plan which does not disadvantage any region of the country. Therefore, the lowest cost option is not there, although of course we are trying within the constraints of having a fair plan for every region of the country. Within that constraint we are trying to have the lowest cost we can.

Third, with reference to each Canadian currently being responsible for five tonnes of carbon each, think of that. An average car weighs a tonne and each of us is responsible for five of them every year. That is what is going into the atmosphere and causing our problem. If we visualize it that way we can see that there is a major impact from a developed country such as Canada.

We have in the plan. If the hon. member will look at it, although I do not have the page reference here, he will see there an opportunity for what individual Canadians can do: having a car which gets better mileage; driving less so that they indeed improve their health by walking more. Average North Americans only walk 400 metres a day. That is very bad for their health. They should walk more. Hon. members should too, but not the one with the leg in plaster.

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

It shows how wrong the opposition is when it talks about jobs lost. That is the jobs gained in the Canadian economy in the last nine months of this year for which we have figures, in other words, from January through to September.

Members should compare those two figures. Just from the normal action of a robust economy that we have thanks to good management on this side of the House, compared to the 60,000 that I mentioned as a potential job loss before we have the increases that come, that is seven times more jobs created in the last nine months. These are real jobs. It is done in less than one-tenth of the time. If we think about it, the number of potential job losses over a decade is in fact the same as the job increases since the Speech from the Throne five weeks ago.

Impacts are modest if we choose the right tools. That is our approach and it is important to strike that balance.

The approach is based on fairness, burden sharing, and it recognizes that all segments of Canadian society must do their part. It covers all sectors: the federal government, transportation, the building sector, large industrial emitters, small business, agriculture, forestry, municipalities and consumers.

The draft plan reduces uncertainty for business while maintaining flexibility for future actions. We want to engage in intense discussions with large industrial emitters on the design of a comprehensive approach for reducing their emissions. We also want to maximize trade opportunities for Canadian goods and services, to maximize the opportunity for Canadian companies to make a business out of generating offsets and to help build an effective functioning market to allow Canadian firms to purchase permits at a reasonable price.

Targets for emissions trading, that we are currently discussing with large industrial emitters, is in the order of 55 additional megatonnes. This represents a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In order to meet this objective, we have been open to ideas on changing concepts as fundamental as the allocation of credits. Every approach has advantages, but the most important criteria will be to maintain the competitiveness of Canadian industry, to ensure that certain sectors and companies are not disadvantaged, and to allow the private sector to plan ahead.

We hope to meet these objectives through consultations and we will continue to host intense and productive exchanges until we have managed to strike the necessary balance.

Together with stakeholders, we are in the process of developing an approach that recognizes the importance of early measures and offers real incentives to reduce emissions.

The most economical approach is emission permit trading, since it uses market forces to reduce emissions cheaply and efficiently. In addition, it provides the advantage of improving productivity, which makes our economy more competitive.

Whatever method is chosen for emissions trading established in Canada, we recognize that our efforts will go much further if we coordinate our efforts with our neighbour and closest trading partner, the United States. Its decision not to ratify puts Canada in a unique situation and complex competitiveness considerations arise. The economic analysis however shows that the implications for Canadian industry are relatively modest. Canada can achieve its target at an acceptable cost and we can move ahead without the United States as we have done in the past on so many important issues.

It is true that the Bush administration has rejected the Kyoto protocol. Nevertheless, it has taken many measures to encourage its business to become more energy efficient and environmentally friendly. The United States is tightening energy efficiency standards and investing heavily in science and technology to meet the challenge of the European and Asian competition in world markets. Many state and local governments are taking even tougher environmental measures. In fact, the number of such states taking such measures has now reached 42.

Just as we did with our government in the 1990s to deal with the deficit, here we are taking a step by step approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Our goal is 240 megatonnes, or 240 million tonnes.

Our first step, the action plan 2000 of two years ago, takes us one-third of the way. I should say that it started two years ago and that one-third is comfortably on target. The second step announced today will take us to another 100 megatonnes, totalling 75% of our target. We have quite a number of options, which are listed in the paper that was released today, to choose from to achieve the remaining 60 megatonne gap from our target, the third step of our climate action plan. The decision on that will be driven by shared experiences, by collaboration and by capitalizing on new technologies.

Our draft plan uses conservative numbers to calculate the megatonnes for each step in our approach. The draft plan does not include the actions, for example, that the provinces and territories are expected to take on their own, though they will of course be part of the national total. We believe they will be taking action and we believe it will be substantial.

It does not take into account the benefits of the 10-year infrastructure plan that was announced in the Speech from the Throne, nor does it include current and future research and development planned over the next 10 years by the government. We believe that these will also make an important contribution to the next phase.

We recognize that industry, its products and processes are the result of a stable and substantial public need and support. We believe that consumers will choose a more energy efficient future and we will help both the producers and the consumers in this regard. We believe that communities and municipalities will choose a more energy efficient future and we will help them too. Of course we will continue our international negotiations for cleaner energy exports. We believe that they are important in attacking the overall problem, the global problem of climate change.

Our approach recognizes there are uncertainties in the future, including changes in the emissions profile, in technology and in the international environment.

Before year end, the Parliament of Canada has to vote on ratification of the Kyoto protocol. Both the House of Commons and the Senate will have a say.

The draft plan we have presented today will help inform parliamentarians on this most important debate.

We have listened to the concerns of the provinces and industries since publication of our discussion paper last May and have readjusted our proposals to minimize the economic impact on the regions and on specific sectors of our economy.

We want to know if we have struck the right balance on burden sharing, costs and responsibilities. We want to know if the plan adequately engages Canadians. We want to know if the mix of measures and instruments proposes is right. We want to know that we have a plan that adequately captures the many opportunities in the new lower carbon global economy that is so important to Canada.

This is yet another opportunity for the many voices in the climate change debate to be heard. We must all work to meet our Kyoto commitments.

I point out that this issue is not entirely economic, although I have stressed economic matters in my speech so far. It is an issue of tremendous importance to the future of the country and to our children, their children and children well beyond them. It is an issue where many of the measures that we intend to put in place over the next 10 years to the end of the first Kyoto period will not in fact benefit many of us in this chamber in a direct sense, but it will be something that will improve the future of our children and their children. That is why Canadians from coast to coast to coast realize the importance of this issue.

Canadians know and understand, as science has told them, that the impact of climate change measures is likely to be severe in many parts of the world, more severe than here and indeed in some parts of the world the expected crop losses may well be 40%; some parts of southern Africa and southern Asia.

Canadians know they also have a responsibility not just to their own children but to future generations of the world. They know it is important for us to take measures, measures which are well within our ability, measures which will not affect our standard of living, which will not affect our competitiveness but which will in turn have an important impact on future generations here and elsewhere in the world.

It is for that reason that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are asking us to assume our responsibilities, do the right thing and ratify the convention of Kyoto.

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the motion. The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill who spoke some 20 minutes ago pointed out that it is a motion taken directly from the words of the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, the former minister of finance.

I would like to encourage the opposition to continue to use members on this side to draft the motions it puts forward, because when we saw it we were surprised at how good it was. I am quite willing to accept the motion. I intend to vote for it. It is an excellent motion. The member for LaSalle—Émard should be congratulated and the opposition should be congratulated for realizing that it does not have the ability to do the things that the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard does so well.

I welcome this debate. I welcome the opportunity to speak today. In fact, what the opposition is asking the government to do in the resolution of the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard is exactly what we did today, namely, put forward a plan before the House and the people of Canada.

I do not want to suggest that it is the final plan of all time. No. As the Prime Minister made clear, it is going to be changed and modified as time goes on. As we know, we will be discussing that with the provinces and territories next Monday, again on November 21, and perhaps after that, who knows.

What we have put forward is an approach built on the best ideas to come out of the five years of constructive consultations with the provinces and territories, with private industry, with environmental groups and with the Canadian public. In fact it goes back 10 years, since we first agreed to the United Nations framework convention on climate change back in 1992, previous to this government.

We released an overview of our draft plan today so that we can engage in substantive discussions with the provinces and territories when we meet on Monday and so in fact we could have a substantive discussion this afternoon.

The elements of this document have been the basis of recent discussions with industry and stakeholders. The draft plan is about innovation and technology, energy conservation and energy efficiency. It is about all Canadians everywhere in our country. It is about all governments and industry sharing the responsibility for combating climate change. And it is about a cleaner environment and a better quality of life for Canadians and for, in particular, future generations of Canadians.

Starting in the 2003 budget and in subsequent budgets, the Government of Canada will announce investments in partnership and cooperation with the provinces, territories, municipalities, communities, aboriginals, the private sector, non-government organizations and, of course, individuals.

We have prepared a draft plan under which no one region of the country will assume an unreasonable share of the burden. This plan is in response to the unique challenges facing Canada to reduce its emissions. This plan will also promote an economy that is strong, competitive and growing.

Fighting climate change provides Canada with two opportunities to explore. State of the art technologies can help us reduce our emissions and the latest processing technology can help put us on track to reduce emissions in the long term.

Canada's investment into new technologies is starting to pay off in terms of productivity.

Thanks to our policies, we have created economic and financial stability, and we have increased funding of research and development in the country. In this context, Canadian businesses will be able to improve their productivity even more in the future.

Our approach recognizes that reducing emissions will require cost sharing among the private sector and governments. For our part, we will increase investments in innovation and technology and reallocate funds in some existing programs to climate change objectives. We will also explore promising new areas, such as renewable energy, bioproducts, bioenergy and biofuels, fuel cells and the hydrogen economy, clean coal technology and CO

2

capture and storage, distributed power systems and eco-efficient industrial processes.

We have heard a lot over the last few weeks and months from the opposition about businesses, business organizations and their lobbyists and their claim that somehow jobs will be lost. I would remind those business lobbyists that the true objective of business is of course shareholder value or what some people call profit. However, the true objective of labour unions, of the association of workers, is the number of jobs for their members, the safety of employees in the workplace and of course their pay. These are among the issues that concern unions.

I would like to salute the Canadian labour movement, in particular the Canadian Labour Congress and Ken Georgetti, its president, for the resolution it has passed and for the determination it has shown in the ratification of Kyoto. The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada and its president, Brian Payne, understand despite the fact it represents many workers up in the tar sands, in the oil patch, that the environment and job creation can go hand in hand.

I look forward to working with labour and labour representatives, particularly the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union in a partnership to anticipate changes that may occur because of Kyoto measures, to identify how we can smoothly have a transition, and of course to identify appropriate methods of training for people who may be displaced, if that is the case, or who may be moving into new technologies. It is an opportunity for the Government of Canada to work together with the labour movement, who are the people who should be and in fact are the most concerned about the jobs issue. There has been a little too much in the way of crocodile tears from lobbyists from big business on this issue.

A draft plan is aimed at ensuring that the overall economic impact of the Kyoto measures is modest and that those impacts are balanced across provinces and sectors. Decisions in our approach are based on the results of our latest modelling and the representative reference case.

The results reflect that deliberate policy choices can lead to zero and less than a cent increases in gasoline prices and only minimal cost increases for natural gas and minor decreases in the price of electricity. The modelling case leads us to see 1.26 million new jobs created by 2010 compared to 1.32 million new jobs in the business as usual scenario. That is a difference of 60,000 jobs over an eight year period, but that is without the full count of the jobs that will be created by adopting the new technologies that will be required for the climate change constrained world. To put things in perspective, I would like to suggest the number of 427,000.

[Kyoto Protocol, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the measures taken so far by the province of Quebec and other provinces to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, have been quite considerable. I commend the provinces and industries that have taken steps.

At the same time, what we need is a system that applies the same rules across the country. We do not, for instance, want different rules from province to province for the lumber industry, since it operates in all ten provinces.

That is the reason we feel it is better to go by industrial sector rather than province. We are prepared to discuss this, prepared to speak about it with—

[Kyoto Protocol, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a sensible man. He has made an important point. Yes, if there is an increase in polluting energy, it should be taken into account, not only for Canada, but for all countries around the world.

[Kyoto Protocol, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the plan contains a variety of means to reach the final 60 megatonnes. Exporting clean energy is one of them.

I agree with the hon. member. We do have problems in this respect internationally, but it is very important to point out that by exporting clean energy, we will be reducing greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere. Even if this happens in the United States or in another country, it is very important to do so. In fact, this is the very goal of the Kyoto protocol and the Rio convention.

[Kyoto Protocol, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised an important issue which we think should be discussed fully.

The fact is many companies have taken early action and made more money as a result. Should we be giving them taxpayers' money that could go to other uses when in fact the companies have become more profitable because of the measures they have taken?

This is the type of dilemma that the hon. member should put his mind to and discuss more fully during the debate that we are having this afternoon. It is not that easy to work this out on a general rule.

[Kyoto Protocol, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there are various rules against hypothetical questions in the House.

All I can say to the hon. member is that if, if, if the situation arises, if, if, if, as he suggests, then we are going to have a debate in this House and he will be quite at liberty to give his views at that time as to whether we should or should not.

[Kyoto Protocol, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have stressed in the House, and will stress again, the importance of having this as a made in Canada plan, where all provinces and territories take part in creating it.

The New Democratic Party governing the province of Saskatchewan has reservations and concerns. I want to make sure we discuss with it what I believe are its ill-founded concerns and that we manage to create something that will give it a level of comfort, so that not only the federal NDP but also the provincial party governing Saskatchewan will be in favour of what we ultimately arrive at.