David Anderson

[The Environment, April 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I forget the number of times I have told the Alliance Party that there is a federal-provincial-territorial working group, including every province, every territory and the federal government, which will be reporting on the issue of costs with respect to Kyoto some time at the end of this month or early next month. Obviously until that report comes out, the government is taking no position on costs and the words of the Minister of Industry are absolutely correct. We should indeed get that information from a working group that is not of the government but is of the provinces and the territories as well. When we get that we will be in a position to go further and decide on our decision.

[The Environment, April 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the position of the Government of Canada is clear. It was stated in the House this week by the Prime Minister and that is the position of all the ministers of the crown. It is that we would like to ratify Kyoto this year, but we will not make the decision on ratification until such time as we have had full consultations with the provinces and territories, our partners, and also with the industry that is affected and the general public.

Further, there would of course be no ratification decision until such time as we have a plan in place that does not adversely disadvantage any particular region of the country. That is the position of every member of this government.

[The Environment, April 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the position of the government--

[The Environment, April 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to know that a decision to purchase rail equipment is not just up to the Government of Canada. A number of factors must be taken into consideration.

At this stage, all I can tell the hon. member is that, yes, we are taking into consideration the impact of greenhouse gases and all other factors. However, this is primarily a business decision.

[The Environment, April 19th, 2002]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I answered a similar question from the Bloc Quebecois.

Yes, it is true that it is possible to benefit the environment by reducing greenhouse gases and, at the same time, to have economic growth. I am very pleased that the member has noted that it is possible to have both.

But there are also other factors which must be taken into consideration before a railway company can change its system of locomotive engines. I expect a decision which takes into account all the important factors.

[The Environment, April 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I genuinely appreciate the support of the Alliance Party in increasing expenditures in this area of Department of Fisheries and Oceans activities and Department of Transport activities. I genuinely appreciate that because it is important and it is enormously expensive to have surveillance of every one of those ships crossing the Atlantic and going into American ports that come so close to the coast of Newfoundland.

He is correct: The mortality of seabirds is quite unacceptable to Canada. That said, I am very pleased to report that the last time we took a ship to court, which was quite recently, the fine was dramatically higher than previously. The judicial system is beginning to recognize the importance--

[The Environment, April 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the basic approach of reducing greenhouse gases is to substitute low emission fuels for the higher emission fuels. Natural gas and of course electricity are at the top of the list. The prospect for the gas industry as a result of this approach is of course expansion, not contraction.

[The Environment, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure none of us would suggest that you would create a nightmare of any type whatsoever and certainly not a bureaucratic one.

What I will suggest to the hon. member is this: that if we can achieve what we are seeking with respect to clean energy exports it is very advantageous for the province of Alberta. I would add that last weekend the environment minister of the province of Alberta pointed out how important this was and how wrong the European commissioner on environment is. Now I discover the Alliance is supporting the European commissioner on the environment. It is an extraordinary position.

[The Environment, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the position of the Alliance Party is extraordinary. Here we are attempting to get credits for gas exported from the province of Alberta, the province of British Columbia and the province of Nova Scotia so that we can in fact continue to supply the American market with gas from Canada because it does replace far more difficult fuels, namely coal from Virginia, Colorado and Wyoming, which in fact creates much greater emissions.

I cannot understand why the hon. member would want us to reduce the opportunities for exports from Alberta, from British Columbia and from, of course, Nova Scotia.

[The Environment, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could repeat in English what I said earlier in French and quote the position of the federal Government of Canada put forward in the House two days ago, and that is “We plan on doing everything we can to ratify the Kyoto protocol...”. That is a quote. The second quote is “We will not make any decision without taking into consideration the views of the provinces and the private sector”, and third, “...we would work to ratify it”, the protocol, “in 2002”. Those are quotes from the leader of the government. That is the position of the Government of Canada.