Preston Manning

[The Environment, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, what is responsible is going and signing a treaty when you do not what is in it, you do not know what it will cost and you do not know how you will pay for it.

The Liberal political minister for Alberta was very quiet in the House yesterday but outside in the lobby she was quite talkative. She told reporters that the Liberals have not ruled out a gasoline tax. She even reminded Canadians that Liberals increased the gasoline tax 1.5 cents a litre several years ago.

I ask the prime minister—

[The Environment, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between carbon taxes and gasoline taxes. My question was not that difficult. Either the prime minister knows how he is going to pay for this Kyoto deal and he is keeping it as a Christmas present for Canadians or he does not know. And if he does not know, he should say so.

Economists have said the Kyoto deal, only 27 days away, could add up to 10 cents, 20 cents or 30 cents for a litre of gasoline.

Here it is again. Do not run away, do not make excuses and do not change the subject. Will there be a jump at the pump to pay for the Kyoto deal?

[The Environment, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians heard about the prime minister's speech last night they were more interested in what he did not say than what he did say. When the prime minister spoke about the Kyoto deal he did not rule out a gasoline tax to pay for it.

My question is very straightforward. Will the prime minister rule out any jump at the pump?

[Points Of Order, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The issue we are getting at here is accountability of ministers. I think your initial instincts on how to handle the situation were correct.

The minister we are discussing is represented in Alberta as both the Minister of Justice and as the senior Alberta minister in cabinet. Albertans are invited to make representations to that minister on all kinds of issues and that minister is used to deliver all kinds of messages in Alberta on behalf of the government that are outside her portfolio.

We know that all kinds of Albertans have made representations to the government through that minister on the issue of global warming, gas taxes, energy taxes, emissions and greenhouse taxes. We believe it is therefore appropriate to hold the minister accountable in that role in the House as well as for her formal portfolio.

If the minister wanted to say in response to our questions that she has passed those representations on, that she has taken this position herself, that she has attempted to reconcile these positions in this way, or if she chose to say nothing, that is her prerogative. However, we feel we at least have the right to hold her accountable for that other administrative position which she is purported to have in the province of Alberta.

[Environment, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, let the record show that the senior minister from Alberta has nothing to say.

[Environment, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I could argue that this issue has a legal dimension and therefore might come within the purview of the minister. This issue more importantly is a balancing issue. We are trying to balance interests, an economic interest and an environmental interest. We are trying to balance the interests of different provinces. This minister is in a position to represent those interests.

My question—

[Environment, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we are not satisfied with the silence of the senior minister from Alberta on an issue of concern to the—

[Environment, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are looking for answers on the economic implications, the job implications and the tax implications of the positions the environment minister is taking to Kyoto. The finance department has the capacity to run those numbers. It can run scenarios on all the options the minister is looking at.

Again I ask a question of the finance minister. Is it not his obligation to the House to tell us how much what the environment minister is proposing is going to cost and how we are going to pay for it?

[Environment, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot understand first the silence of the minister and now the waffling of the minister.

Environmental interest groups are offering their speculation as to what this deal will cost. The industry interests have offered their speculation. The think-tanks have offered their calculations, but it is the finance department that will have to actually calculate the cost of positions the minister is taking in Kyoto and how we will pay for it.

I repeat my question. How much is the Kyoto deal going to cost and how are we going to pay for it?

[Environment, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, normally the finance minister is one of the more talkative ministers in the House. He rarely misses a chance to be on his feet, particularly when the prime minister is away, but throughout the whole debate on the Kyoto emissions treaty he has been strangely silent. That is unacceptable in that the Kyoto deal could cost ordinary families thousands of dollars.

My question today is not for the prime minister or for the environment minister. It is for the finance minister. How much is the Kyoto deal going to cost and how are we going to pay for it?