David Anderson

[The Environment, April 18th, 2002]

Naturally, Mr. Speaker, there are many ways to help the economy to grow and reduce greenhouse gases at the same time.

We on this side have often said that it is very important to realize that reducing greenhouse gases does not always have a negative impact on the economy.

[The Environment, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Transport and I are trying as hard as we can to find ways of reducing greenhouse gases.

The hon. member's suggestion will be looked at closely. Railway equipment must be periodically renewed.

We will examine all the circumstances before taking any decision.

[The Environment, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the position of the Canadian government is very clear. The Prime Minister of Canada told the House on April 16, “We plan on doing everything we can to ratify the Kyoto protocol”, but “We will not make any decision without taking into consideration the views of the provinces and the private sector”.

[The Environment, April 17th, 2002]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, and I should add that the Government of Canada expects that tomorrow we will have a clear rejection by the United States senate of the proposal to drill on the 1002 lands of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The protection of the Porcupine River caribou herd is critical to the culture of the Gwich'in people and drilling in the calving grounds of this herd would pose risks to that herd and would be a serious mistake. I should add that this position had been made to the government of the United States and to individual legislatures of the United States by members of the government, the member for Yukon and many others at every possible occasion.

[The Environment, April 16th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thought that I and other members of the House, particularly the Prime Minister, had explained in detail the approach that we intend to take.

We believe that we can discuss fully the implications of the ratification with the provinces, with the territories, with the affected industries and with the Canadian public and we intend to do so. We also intend to have a plan in place that does not penalize any province or territory or any region in the country unduly. Finally, we intend to make sure that in that debate the issue of clean energy exports figures prominently because we think that is very important.

The process is there, the science is clear and I suggest that the hon. member take part in it.

[The Environment, April 16th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, putting aside the wildly extravagant language of the hon. member's introduction to the question, let me suggest to him that the science process works when we of course have debate between scientists, so we always expect some level of contradiction. Indeed, contrarians are encouraged in the scientific process so that all aspects are explored.

Nevertheless, on the climate change issue there is a clear consensus of climatologists and other people involved in the specialties surrounding climate change that, one, we are seeing climate change and, two, it is the result of human activity.

[The Environment, April 16th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and the government House leader, when he was the Minister of Natural Resources, explained clearly that we included $260 million in tax benefits in the last budget for renewable energy. This is a fair amount of money set aside for renewable energy. If a company is looking for a benefit, there is no doubt about where it should focus its attention.

[The Environment, April 16th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have often explained to the House, in response to questions from the Bloc Quebecois and other opposition parties, that we are spending almost $2 billion on greenhouse gas emissions alone, not to mention other measures we are going to take in connection with energy and the environment.

The government House leader and myself are in the process of implementing action plan 2000. There are therefore billions of dollars for reducing greenhouse gases.

[The Environment, April 16th, 2002]

Of course, the principle has been accepted, Mr. Speaker. That is why we signed the Kyoto agreement in 1997.

Ratification, however, is quite another thing. Canada never ratifies anything without consultations with those affected. It never ratifies without having everything in place.

I must also point out that it is the Bloc Quebecois member who is calling for a change in the Government of Canada's policy, and the Prime Minister who is continuing with the same policy we have had for months. The policy they want is to have no consultation whatsoever with the provinces, but instead a unilateral decision to—

[The Environment, April 16th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stated clearly last year, and even before that, that the ratification of Kyoto depends on consultation with the provinces, with the territories and with other affected parties.

There has been no change in the position of the Prime Minister, which he has stated again this very day. I do not understand in the least why the hon. member indicates that consultations with the provinces must be abandoned, when energy is one of the things which come under provincial jurisdiction, at least certain aspects of it.

Why create problems with the provinces as the member is trying to do?