Paul Martin

[Oaths of Office, February 2nd, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-1, respecting the administration of oaths of office.

(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to make it clear that I thought the member's question was an important one, one of the best that has been put on that side of the House. I answered it by making it clear--

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure again to respond to the hon. member for Medicine Hat. Unfortunately he has not changed his habits. He continues to get his facts wrong.

The Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health have said, and I have certainly said it here in my remarks, that no implementation plan should be developed that in any way discriminates against an existing industry or a region of the country. That is the fact. I do not believe that the hon. member in the House should be creating investment uncertainty. What we require is investment certainty and that is the objective here.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the first member's question, I was at Rio in 1992 and implementation plans should have been put in place. The Tories refused to do it. Let the hon. member stand and say why that was not more important.

In terms of the second question, I have made it clear in my remarks that this is a huge national challenge that must be met by the whole country. A substantial portion of the development of new technologies would go a long way but it is not the whole answer. All Canadians must come together. Where Canadians would require help, they would get it.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the two companies that he mentioned ceased their operations a very long time ago. Perhaps he should review his notes. However, the fundamental point, is that first, the member is advocating discrimination against western Canada's oil industry even though we just said that we have no intention of doing that.

Second, why does the member not talk about the opportunity of investing in green technology, investing in the future? Why does he not talk about this government's programs that are already investing in renewable technologies? Why does he not mention, for example, the studies that indicate that by 2020, 2030, we can lower our greenhouse gas emissions drastically by investing in these technologies?

Why does he not look to the future? Because the Bloc Quebecois is disconnected from the Quebec and Canadian reality.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment made it clear with certainty what would be forthcoming. He made it clear that nothing would be done to inhibit the growth of the tar sands and the oil and gas industry in western Canada. The Minister of Health, speaking as an Albertan, has also made it clear. In fact, what the hon. member is doing is raising problems that do not exist. What he is doing is damaging the investment climate.

The government has made it clear and I said in my remarks that there would be no acts of discrimination against western Canada, against Alberta or against the oil and gas industry. The real difference between both of us is that this side of the House believes that international solutions must find international agreements. We understand that one country cannot act alone and that there would no acts of discrimination against western Canada. The hon. member should not raise this kind of fear.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan.

The process that has given rise to the Kyoto protocol began at the Earth Summit, which I attended, in Rio de Janeiro in November 1992. In spite of its flaws, Kyoto is an important step along the way to a better environment. Furthermore, I believe international challenges require international solutions. Therefore I will support the resolution.

That being said, I do have problems with how the process around Canada's intended ratification has unfolded. Canadians deserve to know that in order to meet our Kyoto commitments as a nation, we will have to introduce fundamental changes in the way we manage our economy and in the way we live our lives.

Furthermore, it is important to recognize that the nature of the debate in Canada's federation must change. The old dynamic of Ottawa and the provinces pitted against each other has no place in the great national challenge that lies ahead of us. Thus, we must begin to think anew and act together.

It is in this context that I would address the issue that will now be of the greatest importance: the development of the plan that follows Canada's ratification. Let me set out certain principles that I believe will be key to that plan.

First, we need to maintain a strong and growing economy. Furthermore, there must be equitable cost sharing. We must not allow our implementation plan to damage segments of our industrial base or to disadvantage certain provinces or regions.

We have been down this road in the past and we cannot allow history to repeat itself. Western Canada should never again have to endure made in Ottawa discrimination. Atlantic Canada should not have its dreams of new economic opportunity put on hold just as they are about to be realized.

Second, we must maintain a climate of investment certainty. We cannot allow our efforts on emissions reduction to become a decade-long game of Russian roulette where industry is never quite certain what the government might do next. We need to cap the exposure of Canadian business on a sector by sector basis and ensure that we do not handcuff the ability of our companies to grow and to create jobs.

Third, we must reject outright the purchase of hot air credits from abroad. Canadian dollars are better invested in meaningful emissions reduction technologies here in Canada.

We must remember that the Kyoto targets cannot be our end game. The year 2012 is but a signpost to a world of inevitable change. Energy consumption in developing countries such as China, India and Brazil is growing at unprecedented rates.

Their emissions will inundate our planet's atmosphere in a matter of generations if they are not provided with the technological means to reduce them.

So, the fundamental question is how the world will meet this challenge , and in this context, how Canada will turn itself into the most energy efficient, technologically advanced economy among nations.

The answer, no doubt, will be found in clean energies, green infrastructure, more liveable cities, and ultimately, wherever our technological ingenuity guides us.

The choice before us is unequivocal. Either Canada will be a follower or it will be a leader in the global movement for the less carbon intensive economy. Canada is well positioned to succeed in this new world; to build on our indepth expertise and energy production and distribution; to point the way toward the future environmental action that promises remarkable economic advantage; and to show the world how it can be done. The choice is ours.

We must recognize as well that technology alone is not a panacea to the climate change challenge. There is no silver bullet. Our targets would require a conscious and focused effort on the part of all Canadians. We must be realistic and honest about the extent of the challenge before us and about what we are asking of each other.

Thus the fourth principle I propose as we develop the implementation plan is one of embodying the greatest degree of openness and transparency.

I support this resolution, but I do not agree with the way it has come into being. Canadians have the right to expect better in the future. Combating climate change would be a huge national undertaking. As we move forward we must do more to inform and engage the public from coast to coast to coast. To that end, allow me to make two specific proposals.

First, we must have a revitalized process going forward. The government must reach out. Earlier this year I spoke about the importance of citizen engagement, the role of Parliament and parliamentarians in the development of public policy, and the furtherance of national debate. The design of the various Kyoto implementation strategies is a prime example of where such involvement can pay huge dividends. If there are regional sensitivities, then who better than the members of Parliament sent here from all regions to review the plan? If there is a need for greater national understanding, then who better than those elected to stand on the national stage to help bring it into being?

Accordingly, in order to hear from Canadians and to offer the House further input, the current implementation plan should be brought before a special parliamentary committee. The committee should have the opportunity to hold full national hearings and offer recommendations for improvement by no later than early spring 2003. The same process of parliamentary hearings should be followed as the plan evolves. By demystifying the content and consequences of Kyoto, such a process should lead to a better plan. At a minimum it would create greater understanding. Ideally it would lead to a stronger consensus.

The second proposal would ensure that Canada is indeed positioned at the forefront in the development of green technologies. We must meet opportunity with action. I spoke earlier about the advantages Canada has in developing new approaches and techniques. They are very real, but we have only scratched the surface of our potential. To get where we must from here, we need to make the economics of early endeavour more attractive. All this would cost money. That is the scarcest of all resources. Therefore, let us set some of it aside now.

The government has stated a number of times in the past that it intends to sell its remaining shares in Petro-Canada. My proposal would be, when this occurs, to set aside in existing investment vehicles the estimated $1.5 billion in profit, a one time surplus item, so that it could be dedicated to enhancing our ability to develop the environmental technologies of tomorrow.

In conclusion, our task is now to go further than the debate surrounding the ratification of Kyoto. The moment has come to charge ourselves with putting it in place. We cannot allow ourselves to miss this chance. Our success in this area will be measured by our ability to transform challenges into opportunities.

We must address these challenges in a concerted fashion with the provinces, municipalities, the private sector, and relevant NGOs. We must define clear objectives as part of an equally clear plan. We must work together, in a spirit of unity and mutual respect, regarding the obligations and constraints that will be required of each of us. And all of this, while putting our technological ingenuity to work. It is in this way that we will take on the great challenge of climate change. A challenge that concerns not only us, but the future of generations that follow us.

[Main Estimates, 2002-2003, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on this particular piece of legislation I wish to be recorded as voting with the government.

[Government Contracts, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Groupe Everest was already there. It had won an open competition long before the memo.

The simple fact is that we now see the difference between the Alliance members and ourselves. We are recommending an open process, a transparent process with as many bidders as possible right across the country from coast to coast to coast. That is how we would award contracts. They would let their fingers do the walking.

[Government Contracts, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in 1993 when we took office the very important Canada savings bond program was in fact in slow motion, if not on the skids. It was in desperate need of revitalization. That was my opinion, the opinion of the department and that of most outside observers.

One of the important ways in which one does this is to increase the professionalism of the services that are being provided for it. What was recommended in the memo was that we go to as open and transparent a bidding process with as many bidders as possible. That is what the memo recommended and that is good policy.