David Anderson

[Excise Act, 2001, March 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am just wondering if it is relevant at all to note that it was the government members who opposed the request.

[Agriculture, March 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, at least I am glad that the hon. member has returned to the hog farms because the issue is really important. I think he should understand that we have a responsibility, when agricultural practices are adopted, to ensure that human health, as well as the environment and the health of animals, is protected. That is our point. That is what we are trying to do.

With respect to ammonia dissolved in water, yes, there is a process under CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and we are working through that. However, I can assure him that everything being done is based entirely on science.

[Agriculture, March 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the preface to the hon. member's question is full of inaccuracies. I can assure him that it is not our intention to target the agricultural sector specifically.

However, no doubt the hon. member has read the Walkerton report. When we have issues such as Walkerton, and when we have issues such as the disposal of agricultural manure which could affect human health, I think he would agree we have a responsibility on this side of the House to protect Canadians from health risks from the agricultural industry or any other industry.

[The Environment, March 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the hon. member, who has in fact gone to one of the conferences of parties, one of the international meetings on climate change, missed the point that in fact the first Kyoto period, from 2008 to 2012 is just that, the first Kyoto period.

Of course for us to deal effectively with climate change, as the distinguished scientist who was speaking yesterday made perfectly clear, it will have to be followed by subsequent actions and subsequent periods where we also take measures to combat greenhouse gas emissions.

[The Environment, March 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken. We have said consistently that we have an uphill battle to persuade other nations to accept the concept of clean energy exports. That is why we had the meeting in Calgary some months ago, which, I might add, was very successful and where the international committee was surprised at how good the case is for clean energy exports, and it is why we will have another meeting in Whistler in May for exactly the same purpose.

However, he is certainly correct that we have work to do to persuade the international community that clean energy exports are an important part of meeting the goal of--

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is an important one. I am amazed the Alliance has managed to filibuster its own motion on an opposition day, a motion critical of the government.

The Alliance motion is based on three premises, all of which are flawed. First, with respect to the United States, Ambassador Cellucci said today in the

Globe and Mail:

A major component of our international (and continental) effort will be co-operation with Canada. On March 7, the United States and Canada announced an agreement to expand and intensify our existing bilateral efforts to address global climate change...This can benefit both our environments and both our economies. I look forward to working closely with Canada's political leadership to see that North America is as innovative in addressing climate change as it always has been in responding to global environmental and economic challenges.

The ambassador reaffirmed the president's commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions. The article reads:

--Mr. Bush reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its central goal, to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate.

The United States is taking action. As the ambassador has made abundantly clear, we are working extremely closely with them. I will skip the remaining paragraphs of the ambassador's interesting article. However I urge all hon. members to read it.

Second, the motion makes flawed assumptions about the costs of ratifying the protocol.

In recent months, there has been a wide range of estimates thrown around regarding the impacts of ratification on the Canadian economy. Many of the estimates were built on old data and old assumptions, and not on the most recent elements of Canadian plans or the Bonn and Marrakesh agreements.

This part of the motion focused solely on out of date studies and costs which are irrelevant to the issues we must face tomorrow. The federal provincial territorial Analysis and Modeling Group of the National Climate Change Process co-chaired by the federal and Alberta governments is working to complete its analysis of the economic costs and benefits of the Kyoto protocol. As I said in question period in response to a question from the Alliance, we expect to have its results at the end of April or early May. They will provide the most current understanding of the issue.

This is why the motion is so inopportune at this time. As we have said time after time, we are waiting for the federal provincial territorial group to finish its work. We cannot come to the same conclusions as the Alliance motion because the work has not yet been completed.

We should recognize that a number of companies have done excellent work in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and thus the threat of climate change. British Petroleum has reduced emissions between 8% and 10% over the last four years. According to the British deputy prime minister the value of the company went up 640 million pounds in the same period. It is not impossible.

The scaremongers in the Canadian Alliance who assume Canadian companies are incapable of competing with international companies deny we can do what other nations can. However Canadian corporations are doing just that. There are many examples. Alcan is one. It is doing a great job.

Third, the motion says Kyoto would do little or nothing for the environment. That is rubbish. It is an international agreement involving about 179 countries. It is the first step in the process of reversing a trend which has been taking place for the last 200 years. It is vital that we start now.

[The Environment, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the critical words of the hon. member's question are “at this time”. He knows, because it has been said in the House time after time, that there is a federal-provincial-territorial working group of officials involving 14 governments looking at the impact of implementing Kyoto on the Canadian economy and other matters.

If he is willing to wait until this group of federal-provincial-territorial officials do their work, he will find out what they come up with. That is expected at the end of next month or early in May.

[The Environment, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the type of question that has come up in the House during their opposition day debate on Kyoto, which we are having today. Unfortunately the member is mixed up as to what part of the day he is in.

On climate change and on the report I tabled in the House yesterday, there is a variety of analyses done by a number of international agencies ranging from New Zealand to Australia to Holland. The hon. member dismisses them all as being irrelevant. I suggest he look at them a little more carefully. Not everyone everywhere happens to be as consistently wrong as he is.

[Kyoto Protocol, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to table today, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), a summary document of various studies on the Kyoto agreement. The document is entitled, “Costs of Kyoto—What we Know”.

May I stress that this document is not the conclusions of the federal, provincial, territorial task force currently working on analyzing this very subject.

[The Environment, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the work is being done by a joint group of provinces, territories and the federal government. We will continue to operate in that way.

With regard to commitments with respect to ratification, the government has time after time committed itself to two things: first, to having full consultation with the provinces and territories, interested stakeholders and the public at large prior to a decision on ratification; and, second, to having a plan in place which does not unfairly penalize any region of the country. Those are our preconditions for a ratification decision.