Herb Dhaliwal

[Kyoto Protocol, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said that he does not support a cap and that we should not give certainty to the industry. The opposition now says that we are subsidizing.

The member should make it clear. What is the position of the Alliance Party? Does it think we should deal with security or not? He should stand up and put his position so all Canadians will know

[Kyoto Protocol, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on this extremely important topic for Canadians as well as our future generations. This is not a new topic. I have been in the House since 1993 and debate and discussions on it have been happening for many, many years. People have many concerns about it.

I remember sitting in the House when a former leader of the reform party, Preston Manning, said that the science was wrong. He said that climate change was a natural phenomenon and that it had happened for years before and really the science was not there. He said that the science did not support the position that through human activity, through the use of fossil fuels, we were increasing the temperature on Earth and therefore we were having climate change.

Canadians and the world community recognize that we have gone past that now. Every credible scientific organization has said that we are creating this problem through human activity and unless we respond as a global community, the problem will get worse and we and future generations will have serious problems. That is why the world community came together. People from every country came together because this was seen as a serious global problem. There have been many years of discussions and conference after conference after conference. Everyone understands that it is very difficult to get the world community to agree on something. To bring all the countries together and agree on something is very difficult.

However, In Kyoto it was agreed that we as a global community have to deal with the global problem of climate change. That is why they agreed on the protocol.

The developing countries have said that those in the western world, the industrialized societies that have benefited from their developments should be the first to make sure that they play a role. No one country can do it; it requires the resources of all countries, of everyone coming together. No one sector and no one individual can deal with climate change. We need to do it as a global community and we need to do it as a society.

Originally the debate was about whether there really was a climate change problem. We have gone past that now. I think that members in the House of Commons have recognized that we have a climate change problem and something needs to be done. I have heard everyone say that. Nobody disagrees with that. We have all said that there is a problem and we must respond to it. Everybody says they want to do their part.

With the Kyoto protocol we wondered whether it could be done on a voluntary basis. Did we really need an agreement for the world community to come together? Over the years it was determined that we could not do it on a voluntary basis. Therefore Kyoto developed a framework wherein all countries under the protocol would have to reduce their emissions levels by 6% below 1990 levels so that it was consistent and fair. Of course some countries have a bigger challenge depending on their own internal economies. They agreed on it.

We were there. Canada played a very important role in developing it. The government played a very important role in making sure that Canada got credit for such things as sinks, which recognize the way we manage our forestry and the way we manage our agriculture. We were able to contribute to the Kyoto protocol.

Then we had to decide whether we would be able to fulfill our requirements as a country. We wondered if it was reasonable for us to fulfill our responsibilities in dealing with climate change.

I must say that this is only the first step. This is a very small step of the many more steps required to truly deal on a long term basis with climate change. We as a country had to come together and decide if it was cost effective. Is the cost manageable for us as a country? Is it realistic? Do we have a realistic plan to deal with climate change? That was when the discussions started taking place with the provincial and territorial governments and with industry.

We had ongoing meetings with them asked them to work with us on a detailed plan to see if we could really deliver on our part of the bargain in terms of the Kyoto protocol. Provincial and federal working groups were established. They came and brought modellings. This is a very complicated issue. It is not that easy. They looked at all sorts of modelling, including macro-modelling, as to what it would cost for Canadians.

The modelling, which was done both federally and provincially, came to the agreement that the costs would be .3% to .7% of our GDP over a 10 year period of time. If we break that down on a per year basis and average it to the middle of those two numbers, which is .5%, it is about .05% a year, a number that they round off whenever they talk about growth in the economy because it is not very significant.

These numbers were developed by federal, provincial and territorial governments when they did the modelling on what it would cost the country. They did not take into consideration all the other areas such as technology which would also help us. I think Canadians would agree that the costs over a 10 year period of time, if we take the average of the two points which is .5%, is a reasonable cost for our future generations and for our children.

I, like a lot of other people, when I became of Minister of Natural Resources, had some concerns. I said that we had to do a due diligence, that we had to ensure that we had an understanding of what the costs would be, that any plan would be reasonable and would not create an unfair burden on any one part of the country or one sector of the economy. We have moved on that and for the last year we have been doing our due diligence. We have been doing our consultations. We have been looking at the modelling.

As a country, we can manage the numbers that have come out. The costs are reasonable for our future generations as well being important from a global perspective as well. We set out a detailed plan as to how we would deal with these costs, a plan that would be affordable and would outline what we could do, whether it be municipalities in terms of the building code or whether it be industry.

One of my responses as the Minister of Natural Resources is to look at the large emitters and companies. We want to ensure that they can still compete and that they can continue to sell their products to other parts of the world. We need to have a clear understanding of what it will cost the industry. We need to deal with the risks. We need to deal with the uncertainties because, as someone from the business community, I recognize that if we cannot deal with the uncertainties people will not make investments.

We started meeting with the large emitters and they said that they had a number of concerns. One was they wanted certainty on the quantity. They wanted to know exactly what large emitters and industries we would be required to do. They did not want to hear it would be one figure one day and another in two years time. We said that was a very good point. What we have done is given them the certainty. We have said that the large emitters will be required to do their part by reducing by 55 megatonnes.

They also said that they needed assurance that they would have some flexibility because different sectors would be affected differently. We asked how we could deal with a situation that did not affect everyone and they asked for that flexibility.

We have said yes. If we want to do covenants, which is something other countries have done, such as Britain, we are willing to leave the door open to that. We are willing to sit down and discuss covenants so we have the flexibility to deal with the different needs of the different sectors and different industries. We have said clearly in our plan that covenants are something we are willing to sit down and discuss.

The third item they were very concerned with was if the price per tonne of carbon was way above the cost of what we were predicting. The government had said that it thought the costs would be between $5 and $10 a tonne for carbon. Many of our models are based on moving from $10 to higher levels, but we essentially have said as a government that we think it will stay that way.

Industry said that it thought it would be a lot higher and that their numbers were different. They said that if the federal government thought it would be within that range, then the government should give the industry some certainty and if the price was higher, the government should give industry some certainty.

Just today I announced that we would cap it at $15 per tonne. We are very confident, because the international community has shown what it could be and we believe that it can be done within that. This is another uncertainty. The business community had some legitimate and bona fide concerns. As a government, we sat down, we listened to its views and we responded.

We also said that some companies did a lot of work in the past and that we should recognize that. We have said that we would ensure that if companies have done work in the past, they will not be disadvantaged in any way. Companies have done it in some ways because it benefits them and it makes good business sense.

I remember in the 1980s, when I was in the business world, we converted our fleet to propane. Why? We were saving 50% on fuel every month, our payback was a period of 12 to 18 months and there was a reduction in maintenance costs. That is why we had people on alternative fuels, natural gas and propane. It helped to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and also helped our environment. It was also good business, where businesses were saving money, were becoming more efficient and energy was being used more effectively.

We have tried to listen to the industry and we have responded in a way that will deal with the uncertainties and the risk.

There are a lot of opportunities, as well. Too often we have not talked about the opportunities for Canadian businesses. Let me outline some of those.

In British Columbia, we have Ballard Fuel Cells which is one of the leading companies in the world on fuel cells. Whether it is in vehicles or in stationary energy, we have a source of energy that does not pollute; the end outcome at the pipe is just water. We are leading in that area. This will create new opportunities.

Another example is Westport Innovations. I visited its facilities recently. It was stated in the paper that just recently it entered into a contract with China to convert its diesel buses to liquefied natural gas. This is a Canadian company, competing with the best in the world, and China picked it to convert its diesel buses. We can assure there will be Canadian companies out there that will be taking advantage of this.

General Hydrogen Corporation was started by one of the most renowned scientists in the world, Mr. Ballard. He was recently given an international award. He is working on how we can develop a hydrogen infrastructure.

If we look at Canadian companies, many of them can take advantage of these opportunities.

The federal government has already made a huge commitment of $1.6 billion on behalf of Canadians to ensure that we start to do the work. Let me give an example. Just in terms of wind energy, I announced earlier this year $260 million to ensure that we take advantage of wind energy and that we encourage Canadians companies to look at alternative forms of energy.

Some companies already have moved ahead even before we vote on ratification. For example, stated in the energy plan of the province of British Columbia is that 50% of its new energy needs will come from renewable sources. Originally it was 10%.

We have companies, provinces, municipalities and Canadians recognizing that if we all do our part we can contribute to the global community in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and play our role. We have tabled a detailed plan that outlines how we will accomplish that.

I am confident that when Canadians are engaged they will want to fulfill their duties to future generations, to their children and their grandchildren to ensure that we do not take away from their quality of life or their opportunities. That is the fundamental reason why I got into politics, to ensure that my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren would have the same opportunities and that we would never take away from those opportunities or their quality of life in the future. Kyoto is all about that. It is about the future and our future generations. It is about a global problem that needs global action.

As a Canadian, I am very proud that we are taking a leadership role. I am very proud of what we are doing as a government in supporting this. I know that decades in the future when we look back we will say that we did the right thing for our future generations and we did the right things to ensure that we played our role to deal with climate change.

I am proud of what we have done as a government and what we have accomplished in the years. I will be proud to vote in favour of Kyoto in tomorrow's vote.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we have been working with industry closely to ensure that we deal with the risks and uncertainties that exist in Kyoto. We want to ensure that we protect jobs and protect investment in Canada. By dealing with the risks by saying that we will cap at $15 a tonne carbon, we are ensuring that investment will stay in Canada and that jobs will protected.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we have been working closely with industry. There were three important issues we had to deal with. The first one was to give them certainty on quantity. Second, we had to make sure that we gave flexibility to the covenant. Third, on the price, we have capped that at $15 a tonne. The opposition members have stood up every day and told us to deal with those risks on price but now they have changed their minds. Now they are saying we are subsidizing it.

I think the industry will be very interested to see how the member and the Leader of the Opposition keep changing their position every single day.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, today we have capped a price for industry. It is something we have been working with for many, many months to say that the cost would not go beyond $15 a tonne. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition just a few minutes ago said that we are now subsidizing the industry, when he stood up every day here saying that we should protect industry and make sure that we deal with the risks and uncertainties. Now he is saying we are subsidizing it. What is it? The members of the opposition should make up their minds.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, December 3rd, 2002]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on the third reading of Bill C-4, an act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

Bill C-4 is a one clause bill which clarifies the wording in subsection 46(3) of the act. Subsection 46(3), as currently worded, has had the consequence of extending the potential obligation for site remediation, in the unlikely event contamination occurs, beyond the owners and managers to private sector lending institutions. This has in turn deterred private sector financial houses from lending to the nuclear industry.

Under the current wording of subsection 46(3), the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has the authority to order the owner or occupant of, or any other person with a right to or interest in, to take prescribed measures to reduce the level of radioactive contamination. The proposed amendment clarifies the subsection by deleting the words “person with a right to or interest in” and replacing them with the words “person who has the management and control of”.

Under the amended subsection 46(3), owners, operators or managers of nuclear facilities would still be liable for cleanup.

With regard to lenders, the amendment would quantify their risk. If Bill C-4 is enacted, a lender would stand to lose, at most, no more than the moneys advanced. The lender would not face a potential unlimited liability. However, a lender who went into management and control of a nuclear facility would be within the reach of this subsection. Canadian law generally limits lender liability to those with charge, management or control of secured assets.

Some members of the opposition have alleged that the bill represents a change in government policy. The answer is no. The change contemplated by the amendment would simply put the nuclear industry on an equal footing with other industrial and power generation sectors. No other industrial sector or power generation sector is encumbered by a federal provision of this nature that discourages access to bank lending.

Loans may be needed by the industry to refurbish, modernize and extend the life of nuclear power plants. The nuclear industry must have access to commercial credit to finance its needs, like any other sector. This amendment would allow the nuclear industry to attract market capital.

Bill C-4 is not and should not be misconstrued as a measure to provide favourable treatment to the nuclear industry. As I have already emphasized, there is no similar federal requirement for other industries. Amending subsection 46(3) would remove an anomaly which is keeping banks away from lending to the nuclear sector in order to avoid assuming potentially unlimited liability. Limiting liability to the owner, occupant or those who have management and control is normal practice in federal environmental law. Canadian law generally limits lender liability to those with management or control of secured assets.

I want to assure the House that Canada has a stringent regulatory regime for the nuclear industry. This would continue to be the case after this amendment. Canada's regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, or CNSC, would retain sufficient authority to protect health, safety, security and the environment.

The regulations of the CNSC require licence applicants to submit information on the effects of their operations on the environment. This information is used by the commission, in consultation with other federal and provincial regulatory bodies, to establish the operating parameters for a nuclear facility. The CNSC has a compliance program in place that confirms that these parameters are observed.

There are tough sanctions for offences under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. It is an offence to fail to comply with any condition of a licence. The CNSC can also suspend, revoke or amend a licence if conditions are not met. Licences can include the requirement for a financial guarantee to cover contingencies that may arise.

The issue before us is not the safety of Canadian nuclear plants. Canada has in place a stringent safety regime under the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The Canadian nuclear industry has a very strong safety record.

The issue before us is access to financing, financing that owners and operators of nuclear facilities may wish to seek to retrofit or modernize nuclear facilities and at the same time meet the stringent safety requirements of Canada's nuclear regulator.

I also would like to thank all hon. members and ask them to join me in supporting Bill C-4.

[Softwood Lumber, November 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member first should recognize what the government has done. We have put in $340 million to help industry and to help workers.

Let me just outline it for the hon. member: $71 million to assist displaced workers; $110 million for community adjustment; $40 million for the pine beetle; $25 million for R and D; $20 million for the advocacy program; $45 million for market diversification, and we can go on and on.

[Softwood Lumber, November 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's question. As he knows, this file is a work in progress. It is in the interests of both Canada and the U.S. to resolve this issue, and my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, is working every single day. It is our priority for the government to resolve it. It is in the interests of both the U.S. and us to resolve it.

Meanwhile we are supporting our workers and industry and it is a work in progress. If we need to do more we have said we will, but let the opportunity be there that we try to resolve it first, and if we cannot we will do more.

[Softwood Lumber, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member raised my trip to India. I would add that we were able to support and promote our forest products. I was able to visit a major sport centre that used Canadian wood. A company that was with us signed a one-half million dollar contract to sell wood from Canada. We are working for Canadians to sell forest products around the world.

[Softwood Lumber, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his interest in this area and his good work on the forest problem we have with the U.S.

First, we have taken a number of steps. We have invested in research and development, as well as looked for new markets. The total package is more than $340 million. We have also said that this is the window of opportunity to get an agreement with the Americans. If we do not do it in the next four or five months, we have an opportunity to do more and we will if it is necessary.