James Rajotte

[Government Loans, October 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, three industry ministers have assured the House that the loans made by Technology Partnerships Canada would be repaid. Now we learn that Industry Canada's own documents reveal that, at best, only one-third of the loans will be recovered.

Will the government finally come clean with taxpayers on this corporate welfare scheme?

[Lobbyists Registration Act, October 25th, 2002]

In June 2001, the unanimous second recommendation of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology was that:

--the Act be amended to create a new office, which shall have the exclusive responsibility of investigating and reporting to Parliament on alleged violations of the Lobbyists Code of Conduct

The member says it is nonsense that the ethics counsellor is perceived as not being independent. Then why did government members agree to that unanimous recommendation as well? Why is that not acted on in this piece of legislation.

I know some government members will say that the creation of the new independent ethics commissioner will address that. That remains to be seen. I will keep an open mind on that. However when I read through the bill itself I got the impression that it was referring very much to the old ethics counsellor and was not taking into account the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister proposed somewhat of a more independent ethics commissioner. At least the Liberals should look at making the legislation compare with each other.

My second main point is that we have all these regulations forcing lobbyists to register. That is fine. We have no problem with that, but we need to ensure that there is an effective mechanism in place. Democracy Watch is one group that points to many examples in which that effective mechanism is not in place, and we need to have that.

The final issue I want to raise is the fact that the bill should really be a separate bill dealing with lobbyist registration. It should not be part of the ethics package because the bill simply does not address the ethical issues and problems raised by the situations of the former solicitor general, the former defence minister and the two past public works ministers. If government members believe that this legislation will deal with those ethical situations, I would like them to explain it, because when I go through the bill, those situations do not seem to be addressed at all. It is incumbent upon the current government to address those current ethical problems. Beyond that, the bill and the entire ethics package does not address what I see as a systemic problem with ethics and with the government.

In a society in which politicians will determine who will succeed in business and who will fail, to me corruption is inevitable and endemic. There is just no way to escape that. We have to snip the tie there between government and corporations.

As long as governments are involved in all major economic decisions and active players in the management of the economy, there will be tremendous pressures upon legitimate businesses to curry favour with key players in the government. That is simply a reality to ensure their success or their survival.

I would like to finish up with a quote from someone whom I think has written very astutely on the ethics problems of the government in a very responsible way, Andrew Coyne. In an article in National Post , he said:

--the whole system is one big conflict of interest--a political conflict of interest. It is not necessary to show that any specific act of government was made in exchange for any specific political contribution. It is enough that a reasonable person might suspect the two were linked

He went on to say:

Hence the case for a...model of reform...that does not seek merely to police the relationship between government and private interests, but to disentangle them altogether--to “snip the wires” of money and influence that lead between them, in both directions.

Therefore we are obviously supportive of the government's intent to move this to committee before second reading, because we look forward to proposing a lot of substantive amendments there. We appreciate some of the amendments made and some of the responses to the committee, but we do want Canadians to know that we very much see this as incomplete. We very much see the ethics package as a whole as incomplete. We do not want this seen as part of a new ethics package. We want this seen as what it is. It is a response to the committee report of June 2001.

Most of all we want to ensure that we deal with the ethical situations that have been presented to us in the last year and a half. However we also want to see, particularly with regard to this legislation, an effective mechanism to deal with the registration of lobbyists. It is fine to have all sorts of regulations stipulating that lobbyists must register but we need to ensure that there is an effective mechanism in place to ensure compliance with the system.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, October 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-15, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act. First, I would like to go through exactly what this bill would do. Second, I will offer some specific comments and then address some general issues with the ethics package as a whole.

What will this do? First, it would remove the expression “attempt to influence” from the Lobbyists Registration Act to make clear that all communications covered by the legislation constitute lobbying and therefore require registration. That seems very reasonable to us.

Second, it would clarify that registration is not required for simple inquiries or administrative requests for information, again a reasonable amendment.

Third, it would clarify that lobbying occurs when a public office-holder initiates contact with anyone who could be lobbying the public office-holder, or his or her organization. This applies to all forms of communication and is in response to a recommendation by the standing committee report of June 2001, again a sensible amendment.

Fourth, it would require the ethics counsellor to notify the appropriate police authorities if, in the conducting of an investigation into an alleged breach of the lobbyists code of conduct, he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence has been committed.

Here are some specific comments. Obviously the bill is in response to the standing committee report of June 2001 and is primarily administrative. It would remove the exception for communications made in response to requests by public office-holders, which we support. It would also provide that communications that are restricted to requests for information are not subject to the act. The enactment would require lobbyists to file a return for every six months and opposes new registration obligations on in-house lobbyists for corporations.

We should point out that the bill would make a number of minor improvements to the Lobbyists Registration Act based on a parliamentary study conducted in 2001. It would improve the communications between the lobbyists registration branch and those who are registered. We would highlight at this point that the bill will go to committee before second reading, which is certainly a positive sign. However at this point section 7, subparagraph (1)(a)(v) does not refer to the wording of government contracts directly and we would like the committee to look at that.

I have three points I want to make that relate not only to this bill but to the entire ethics package. In particular the bill is not and should not be presented as a part of a new ethics package. The reality is that the committee studied this and produced a report in June 2001. The government response was by former industry minister Tobin in November 2001. At that time he stated very clearly that he would amend the Lobbyists Registration Act to deal with the committee's recommendations.

This bill deals with those promised amendments and the government is being a little disingenuous by saying that this is part of its new ethics package. The fact is since former minister Tobin was considering this, I hardly see how the government can present this as part of a new ethics package.

My second point is that the bill does not deal with the main criticism of the laws and regulations concerning lobbyists; that is, that there is not an effective mechanism in place to enforce the code. We heard over and over again at committee that while we had all these regulations saying that they must register, there was no effective enforcement or any consequences of not registering. Therefore what is the motivation to register other than a person's good will?

We have some concerns. This shows that the legislation was drafted before because of the way it refers to the ethics counsellor in this piece of legislation specifically. The ethics counsellor, Howard Wilson, enforces the lobbyists code which requires that lobbyists follow the registration act. There were obvious questions, even from government members of that committee, about the effectiveness of Mr. Wilson's ability to enforce this code because of his perceived lack on independence from the Prime Minister, as was stated by many witnesses and many members before the committee at that time.

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, we should recognize the fact that the implications of Kyoto go well beyond the oil and gas industry. The majority of the impact will be felt outside the oil and gas producing provinces. As even government ministers have said, 80% of it is through consumption. There is a lot of consumption of greenhouse gases certainly in the central provinces.

In terms of responsibility of countries, we do have a responsibility to address environmental problems but we have a greater responsibility to address issues like SO

2

, as well as nitrous oxide in our air that actually does cause smog. We have a responsibility and we as a nation ought to do what we did on the acid rain accord, which is to approach the Americans and sign a continental agreement to address those two issues. It is clear, and I think any scientist would say that those emissions certainly are more harmful than CO

2

. There is a big debate about what should be done about CO

2

It is incumbent upon us to see what we can do to reduce our own effects and to leave less of a footprint on the environment. That does not happen, in my view, through things like ratifying the Kyoto accord. No one has convinced me that by ratifying the Kyoto accord the footprint that we leave on our own natural environment will be any less than what it is today.

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I should point out that I always enjoy the questions from the member for Yukon. They are very well thought out.

On the questions about any benefits or cost savings from Kyoto, the fact of the matter is that with the lack of a credible plan by the federal government, that is very hard to answer.

Part of the issue, and I want to raise this in response to the question, is that many companies such as Suncor, have already made some dramatic reductions in their emissions intensity. They have already done so because it is in their economic interest to try to release as little as energy as possible in their economic process.

I toured the oil sands this summer and they said over and over again that they are working to reduce their emissions intensity. The problem is that the emissions are up overall because production is up so much. If they want to cut their emissions as a gross total, they will have to ramp down their production by 20% to 30%. We could allow them time to reduce their emissions, particularly Suncor, whose SO

2

emissions have been reduced dramatically over the past five years. We have that happening through economic growth. We do not impoverish our way to a clean environment; we do it through innovation and growth which allows that technological change to occur.

In terms of answering any e-mails from people who support Kyoto, I am very honest about the fact that I oppose Kyoto. I do what I tried to do in the first part of my speech which is to lay out what the accord is and what are some of the details of the accord but then I state very clearly that I oppose it and I give the reason. My responsibility as a parliamentarian is to be as honest with people as possible. I also refer them to government websites and the climate change website and others so they can get that perspective.

In terms of the farm issue, my family's farm is in Wainwright. It is very unfortunate for members on the other side to tell western farmers that the drought situation is caused by not implementing Kyoto. That is really dangerous and demagogic. There has been no linkage in all the research that I have done to prove that human action on greenhouse gases caused the drought that happened last summer in western Canada. Why did the drought happen in the 1930s in western Canada? Was that a cause of human action on the climate?

For the people who say that, I talk about people's livelihoods out west, and they should really prove some linkage before they start throwing out statements like that.

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour today to speak to our supply day motion on the Kyoto accord. The motion states:

That, before the Kyoto Protocol is ratified by the House, there should be an implementation plan that Canadians understand, that sets out the benefits, how the targets are to be reached and its costs.

In my speech I want to analyze this accord and break it down as to what it is exactly. We hear a lot of passionate dialogue from both sides, but it is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to truly do some thinking and break down the accord.

What exactly is the Kyoto accord and why was it signed? The Kyoto accord was an agreement designed and negotiated in 1997. It was designed to force certain nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. By signing the agreement Canada committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels. The motivation for the accord is that many scientists believe that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, caused by human activity, are at least partly responsible for climate change and global warming in ways harmful to humans on a global scale.

We should distinguish always between global warming and climate change. We must however recognize that there are differences in the scientific community about whether global warming is taking place. We must recognize that there are further differences within the community as to the causes of that warming, how much is due to human activity, and we must recognize that there are differences as to the affects of that warming on our climate.

I am not a scientist and not qualified to distinguish between which climatologist is right on which side. It is something that speaks to the fact that we should institute a parliamentary office of science and technology that reports to Parliament to help us in these matters.

It is essential for us to recognize, and I am glad one of the hon. members on the other side recognized it, that there is not a scientific consensus on these issues and we cannot pretend it is science on one side and one premier on the other. It is foolish and wrong to do that.

If we want to examine the accord itself we should recognize the accord was signed by industrialized nations. In order for Kyoto to have a status of international law a minimum of 55 developed countries representing 55 emissions from industrialized nations must ratify the accord. It is important to keep in mind that so-called developing nations like China and India, who produce approximately 45% of man-made greenhouse gases, are exempt from Kyoto. There are no limits in this accord on the amount of CO

2

they can produce.

If we look at who has ratified it, it is the European Union. If we look at the amounts it has to reduce by, it is certainly not as much as Canada and the fact is that its growth and population rate is stagnant. Those are factors we must consider when we look at this.

If we look at who has not ratified Kyoto, but who initially did sign on, there are two examples. Both the United States and Australia have refused to sign the accord. The result of their decisions is that the accord must be ratified by both Russia and Canada in order for it to take affect. Russia has postponed its decision on ratification until next year.

It is important for us to explain to people that if Russia does not sign, the accord will fail regardless of what Canada does, but if Russia does sign then obviously Canada's 2% will be required to meet that 55% hurdle.

It is interesting to hear some members on the government side talk about President Bush and his motivation for not ratifying the accord. The fact of the matter is that it was debated and discussed before a U.S. senate hearing, a hearing unlike in Canada, where witnesses had to take an oath before the hearing. At the end of those hearings the senate voted on the issue. The senate vote was 95 to 0 against.

For people to say that it is President Bush and his ties to the oil industry is factually incorrect. Why would people like Ted Kennedy, a strong environmentalist, vote against this accord in the senate? It is because of the evidence presented before the committee. We should keep that in mind and not simply say it was because of one certain person's ties to a certain industry.

We should keep in mind why Australia, which as my previous colleague pointed out, negotiated an increase in emissions over 1990 levels. Prime Minister John Howard said:

The reason it is not in Australia's interests to ratify the Kyoto Protocol is that because the arrangements are currently, and are likely under present settings to continue to exclude both developing countries and the United States, for us to ratify the protocol would cost us jobs and damage our industry. That is why the Australian government will continue to oppose ratification.

Even more important than the question of who has or who has not ratified the accord is by how much do other nations have to reduce their emissions? During the negotiations in 1997 the European Union and Russia already knew that they were in a position to meet their emission targets that they were signing off on. Further more, nations such as China, India, Brazil and Mexico were not even covered by this stage of the Kyoto accord and were not obliged to make any reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions.

Therefore, given these factors, will Kyoto result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions? According to one United Nations estimate even full compliance with the Kyoto accord will only slow the increase of greenhouse gases and worldwide production will still be 30% higher in 2012 than it was in 1990. Again, this is another fact that must be put on the table.

How does the accord apply specifically to Canada? Canada is responsible for 2.2% of the world's emissions, admittedly one of the bigger emitters proportionately. There are certain factors which make this so: a growing population, a cold climate, a large geographic land mass and a resource based economy. We must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels, but that means, depending on whose figures we trust, 23% to 30% below present day or 2012 levels.

How will we achieve these targets? That is what the motion is about today. That is what is so disappointing about the document that was hastily produced this morning. There is still no implementation plan nor cost analysis. Even the government's own suggestions as to what it would do from a public policy standpoint does not include the costs attached to that. How can we as parliamentarians or Canadians expect to either ratify or not ratify the accord when the government is not even providing those costs?

Other colleagues have talked about the emissions credits. The Minister of the Environment has said that we should receive credits toward our Kyoto reduction targets by exporting clean energy, such as natural gas and hydroelectric power, to the United States. This notion has been rejected twice by the Europeans and they show no sign of wanting to reopen or negotiate this section of the agreement.

The Prime Minister has stated publicly that we can be flexible in meeting our targets because we have until 2012 to meet our obligations. That is frankly not true. Article 3 of the accord states that the overall emissions of greenhouse gases must be, in Canada's case, 6% below 1990 levels as an average between 2008 and 2012. We do not have until 2012 to develop an implementation plan. Even further each nation must have made demonstrable progress on commitments by 2005 which is coming upon us very quickly.

What are the costs of implementing Kyoto? The estimates vary widely. The Alberta government estimates over $33 billion each year. The federal government did estimate $16.5 billion and 200,000 lost jobs. However there are even fights within the government departments themselves, between environment and natural resources, over the figures. The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters have estimated at least 450,000 jobs lost in the manufacturing sector alone.

There is another cost that I want to raise which may be a greater cost as it pertains to lost investment and opportunities because of the uncertainty caused by the lack of a plan by the federal government to implement this accord. When businesses and investors do not know how the accord will affect them, it creates uncertainty and they withdraw their funds.

We have the Minister of Natural Resources stating publicly that we will get credit for clean energy exports. This has been denied twice. We have the Prime Minister stating that we have time to be flexible when we do not. This is unsettling to investors and entrepreneurs.

That is why the Canadian Alliance opposes this accord. That is why we are proposing the motion today which states that we must have these full costs known before we have a vote on ratification.

It is incumbent upon us to be clear on why we oppose Kyoto. We oppose it because our major trading partners, such as the U.S. and Mexico, will not be subject to the accord. If Kyoto were ratified, Canada would be the only industrialized nation in the western hemisphere to have to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to any great extent. We oppose it because major emitters, like China and India, will not have to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions at all. In fact, they can increase them and there are no restrictions on them at all.

There is no credible plan by the federal government on how to implement this. Last, it is very questionable and we believe this accord does not really address preserving our environment because it is not an environmental accord. It is incumbent upon us as the opposition to not just have a debate between Kyoto and no Kyoto--

[Kyoto Protocol, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that did not address my question at all. There are more concerns from more provinces. Nova Scotia's Premier John Hamm has said that implementation could threaten his province's oil and gas industry. Yesterday Ontario's Premier Ernie Eves rejected Kyoto, saying that his province would develop its own emissions reduction strategy.

True to form, this morning's cut-and-paste mystery meat scheme has satisfied no one, no provincial premier. I ask again, clearly, is it the intention of the government to impose Kyoto on the provinces without their agreement?

[Kyoto Protocol, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the provincial coalition against ratification of Kyoto is growing each day.

Newfoundland and Labrador's premier said that his province will pay a high price in terms of jobs lost and lost economic opportunities if Kyoto is ratified. B.C.'s premier also has grave concerns about the fact that his province seems to be taking a greater hit in terms of job loss and GDP.

Clearly, is it the intention of the government to ratify Kyoto and to impose Kyoto on the provinces without their consent?

[Kyoto Protocol, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, if Canada ratifies the Kyoto accord it will be the only major industrialized nation in the Americas to have to reduce its emissions. Brazil, Chile and Mexico are not forced to reduce their emissions and the United States has refused to sign the accord. This obviously would put Canada at a disadvantage with our major trading partners. It would dramatically impact our quality of life because our well-being is so dependent upon our exports.

Why is Canada going to be the only industrialized major nation in the Americas to have to live under the accord? I would like the Minister of Industry to finally stand in the House and state where he stands on this accord and why he is not listening to the concerns of the industries in Canada.

[Kyoto Protocol, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the coalition of industries in Canada who oppose the Kyoto accord is growing each and every day. The steel producers are opposed because of its impact on jobs and economic growth. Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters has estimated that at least 450,000 jobs will be lost in the manufacturing sector alone.

My question is for the Minister of Industry. Why is the government continuing to ignore the concerns of our industries in Canada on this issue?