David Anderson

[The Environment, May 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a press release back in 1997 following the Kyoto agreement stated that the first ministers agreed to establish a process in advance of Canada's ratification of the Kyoto protocol that will examine the consequences of Kyoto and provide for full participation of the provincial and territorial governments with the federal government in any implementation and management of the protocol.

We are following a plan laid out some years ago by a joint decision of the Prime Minister and the premiers of the provinces and territories. I fail to see how there has been any change in what I have just read out.

[Kyoto Protocol, May 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when the information from the federal-provincial-territorial committee is made public, which we expect to be in very short order, then there will be a number of options considered by Canadians from coast to coast.

We fully expect all sorts of other organizations, be they from industry or the provinces, also to put forward their views as to what makes an appropriate way for Canada to achieve its goals, which were made back in 1997.

No doubt, there will be many plans, many approaches and many suggestions and we will welcome all of them.

[Kyoto Protocol, May 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, not at all. I have made clear on many occasions in the House the government's position. Further, we intend to proceed as we indicated back in 1997 when all first ministers, including the Prime Minister and also the Premier of Alberta, made it clear what the approach should be in handling the issue of ratification of Kyoto. We are doing that, exactly as planned some years ago. We are right on track.

I applaud the hon. member for his interest in the subject, but there is no change on the government side in terms of position.

[Kyoto Protocol, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada's intention is very clear. It is well known and has been stated by the Prime Minister.

We want to have effective consultations to thoroughly examine issues with the provinces, territories, affected industries and the general public. We must have a plan whereby no region of the country is going to be more affected than others. This is very clear, this is the government's position. The Minister of Industry and all the other ministers subscribe to it.

[The Environment, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member was absent or preoccupied at the time but the first question I answered today was exactly the government's position, which is the position of the Minister of Industry and every other minister that surrounds me here on the floor of the House. It is the position of the Prime Minister.

That is, we will make our decision on ratification following extensive consultations with the provinces and territories, following discussions with industry, following discussions with environmental organizations and the general public. We will do it in a way that does not disadvantage any region of the country.

[The Environment, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, advances in technology and innovation are very much what the climate change measures are all about. Efforts to increase energy efficiency, which have been done by many companies worldwide, particularly the United States, have resulted in substantial savings and substantial improvements in their position in the technological sense. They have greatly improved their chances for success in competition in the future.

The hon. member should pay a little more attention to what he is talking about.

[The Environment, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has listed many complaints that he has against the Kyoto agreement. Maybe they can be discussed tomorrow in the House when we have a debate on it.

All I can suggest to him is if we do not stay under the Kyoto process, we will not be able to use some of the Kyoto mechanisms. These are opportunities overseas to reduce the cost to Canadian industry of meeting our target. These may turn out to be valuable to us. We should not exclude that possibility simply on a rant by the hon. member.

[The Environment, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be well aware that we are currently embarking on discussions with a number of other parties, the provinces and territories, industry groups, NGOs and of course Canadians generally. The purpose is to develop a plan to meet our target with respect to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Obviously it is a made in Canada plan because we are making it, this government, the others I have described and of course the other industry players. It is quite straightforward.

[Kyoto Protocol, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the position of the government is the same as I have indicated to the House earlier. The hon. member may have troubles but we do not. We have the position that we will deal with the consultations. We will have the consultations later this year. We will have consultations with industry, with interest groups and with the general public.

We will devise a plan in consultation and in a co-operative way that will not penalize any region of the country. That has been our plan all along. There is no change, none whatsoever, and the hon. member should know that.

[Kyoto Protocol, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Industry has made very clear today and on previous occasions, his position is exactly that of the Prime Minister and the government. That position is very clear too. That position is that we will have full consultation with provinces, with territories, with interest groups and with industry that might be affected. At the same time we will have a plan put together that does not penalize or disadvantage any region of the country.

When we have had that debate and discussion, then the government will be in a position to make up its mind on the question of ratification.