David Anderson

[The Environment, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has only partially put the case correctly to the House.

The fact is that we have had programs in place which have been spending approximately $100 million a year to clean up contaminated sites. Yes, we have focused on some of the most difficult and problematic areas. It is true that there are some areas of northern Canada where there may be one barrel with a minor amount of fuel in it which still counts as a contaminated site.

We have not done everything that we need to do in this area. That is why the Speech from the Throne said that we intend to do more.

[Kyoto Protocol, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in the past, the federal government has expended moneys from time to time, as well as creating taxation systems that have been very favourable to one or another region of the country.

Sometimes that region has been the province of Quebec, sometimes the maritimes. He is right about that. Sometimes it has been Alberta. It has been done and must be taken into consideration. We want to have a plan that does not adversely affect any region of the country and is fair to everyone.

[Kyoto Protocol, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking whether past expenditures to create systems which pollute less than other existing systems in the country are to be forgotten.

My answer is no, they are not. The various provincial situations need to be taken into consideration. It is very important for there to be a frank and honest debate on these issues. Otherwise we will end up with a system which adversely affects one or another region of the country.

[Kyoto Protocol, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, our policy is that no region of the country will be adversely affected by the plan we will be presenting.

If the hon. member has an example of an adverse effect, I hope he will take part in the debate, because that is what we want to prevent. We want something that everyone considers reasonable.

[Kyoto Protocol, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a point which is very important to us—having a system that does not adversely affect any region of the country.

At the same time, the hon. member must realize that steps are being taken, both by the provinces and by industries, which have already improved the situation as far as greenhouse gas emissions are concerned.

This must taken into account, but it is a topic of discussion between us, the ten provinces and the three territories.

[Kyoto Protocol, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, once again the premise of the question is supported by a series of incorrect statements.

The emissions trading system we are talking about is called domestic emissions trading. As far as I know, Russia is not a province of Canada and therefore does not take part in domestic emissions trading.

[Kyoto Protocol, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, once again we have speculation on the part of the opposition. We have no intention of carrying out the type of practice that the member suggested, none whatsoever.

[Kyoto Protocol, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the confusion in the hon. Leader of the Opposition's mind is clear from what he suggested and what he said today.

He is now quoting figures with respect to a plan which he says we do not have. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot say on the one hand that there is no plan and on the other that he knows the exact details and the percentages of the plan that we have.

[Kyoto Protocol, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken once again. We have said all along that the issue of clean energy exports is very important because it actually reduces the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which is the objective of the Rio convention and the Kyoto protocol.

It is very important for the world to do this and countries understand that. However, in Delhi we are going to have difficulty negotiating it. We have said that all along and we are just going to continue. We have other fallback positions. We will continue to push this issue because it is very important for the atmosphere.

[Kyoto Protocol, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would think, and I hope the hon. member will think about this himself, that the council of the City of Hamilton, steel city in Canada, would pay particular attention to the issue he has raised. Yet the Hamilton city council has endorsed ratification of the Kyoto pact.

In addition, he might consider that the people who are most concerned about jobs in this country are the labour unions not the business community. They also have endorsed ratification of the Kyoto accord.