House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was respect.

Last in Parliament October 2019, as Liberal MP for Regina—Wascana (Saskatchewan)

Lost his last election, in 2019, with 34% of the vote.

Statements in the House

The Environment December 2nd, 1997

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member I think misunderstands the legal process that is followed here.

First of all, the parties have to arrive at a consensus in Kyoto about the commitments to which they are prepared to make legal obligations. Then there is the signature process. Then there is a ratification process. Then there is a coming into force process.

So what the Minister of the Environment has said and what I have said are completely consistent. The hon. gentleman just does not understand the process.

The Environment December 1st, 1997

Mr. Speaker, all elements mentioned by the hon. gentleman may well be part of an implementation package.

We will work on that package immediately after Kyoto in consultation with provinces and otherwise. He should know that my department is already investing $70 million a year in efforts directed toward the climate change issue.

In the 1997 budget that was increased by a further $20 million a year. We are hopeful that innovations like the Ballard fuel cell, the separation of carbon dioxide, the deal between Petro-Canada and IOGEN, and all these new technology innovations will create jobs.

Kyoto Summit December 1st, 1997

Mr. Speaker, there will be a variety of means by which parliament and Canadians generally will be able to monitor progress toward the implementation of any agreement flowing out of Kyoto.

The hon. gentleman has made a suggestion that we should look at. I can also tell him that the Energy Council of Canada, the National Round Table on Environment and the Economy, and a whole variety of other groups and organizations are very anxious to participate in building the solutions and in monitoring the process.

Kyoto Summit December 1st, 1997

Mr. Speaker, we have indicated to all the provinces, business, industry and environmental organizations, in fact all stakeholders, that they are invited and welcome to participate with us in the development and finalization of the implementation plan.

From day one we have adopted an inclusive, collaborative approach. Most of the stakeholders have responded positively. We expect that by the end of the day we will have all Canadians inside the tent working constructively on solutions.

Government Buildings November 28th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, the idea is by no means postponed.

The federal buildings initiative is an ongoing effort of the government to encourage greater energy conservation in the construction and the operation of federal government buildings.

Over the last number of years we made considerable progress in achieving energy savings from a cost point of view and also improvements in the greenhouse gas performance. That program is ongoing and it will continue to be ongoing with announcements one after the other.

The Environment November 26th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I should comment on the biological theories of either party in the opposition. I think they are perfectly capable of demonstrating their abilities in one way or the other in that regard.

However, partisanship aside, the only point I would like to make is that this issue is real and it is serious. It demands real and serious attention. I hope that all members of the House, members of the other place and all Canadians will address it in that spirit so that we can at Kyoto and beyond Kyoto arrive at results that are good for our country and good in terms of our responsibility in the global community.

The Environment November 26th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, on the basic questions of can Canadians as individuals make a difference, I think the answer to that is profoundly, yes. Indeed, when we hear some of the debate we may get the impression that the big enemy or the bad culprit is the upstream oil and gas industry in the country. In fact, on the production side with respect to oil and gas, that sector would account for roughly 15% or 16% of emissions overall.

The largest part of the challenge here is not on the production side of the equation, it is on the use and the application side of the equation. It is obviously necessary, important and possible for all players, whether they are in business or industry or in their own private residences, in community groups and organizations to participate and to make a very large difference.

The hon. member referred to one very useful example. There are literally thousands of examples across the country where Canadians as individuals may be well ahead of their political process in grappling with the issue and developing innovative ideas that can truly make a contribution.

I think it is important for us, as we have already begun to do, to make a complete inventory of all of those initiatives, to determine to what extent those initiatives can move forward and be successful on their own foundation without any kind of stimulation or encouragement and where, in the appropriate circumstances, would there need to be some kind of incentive that might come through the government sector or through a collaborative effort among organizations in the private sector.

I think we will need a mix of instruments, some of them voluntary, some brought about by incentives and other forms of encouragement so that all Canadians can be actively engaged in building solutions. I think those individuals to whom the member just referred who are already active in this field in the city of Toronto deserve a great deal of praise and commendation.

In appropriate circumstances, yes, I believe there is a role for government incentives to encourage further and greater progress in that direction.

The Environment November 26th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this special debate on climate change. I am glad to have an opportunity to say a few words and to hear what other members of the House have to say as well. I hope our overall discussion this evening will be useful, constructive and realistic.

This debate is really another step among many, another phase in the ongoing public dialogue on the issue of climate change in which many Canadians have been thoughtfully engaged for a long time. Scientists, environmental experts, non-governmental organizations, think tanks, business leaders, industrial organizations, municipalities, federal, provincial and territorial officials, government ministers at all levels, individual citizens and consumers have all been advancing ideas and debating possible solutions. Our government has been participating throughout.

Many different and sometimes conflicting points of view have been put forward but despite the intensity of feelings on various sides, for the most part all of those participating in the public debate have tried to be reasoned and helpful. I hope that spirit can prevail in this House as well.

We do not need histrionics and hyperbole. We do not need the verbal excesses and abuses which too often prevail in Parliament. What we do need is careful thought, common sense, a sense of common purpose and the will to pull together in a real and serious way to address what most of the world has identified as a genuine problem demanding an effective global solution.

The climate change challenge is especially perplexing for Canada because of some of the unique and, ironically, some of the most desirable features of our country, features like the sheer size of our land mass, the long distances and the tough topography over which we must transport our people and goods, the extremes of our weather conditions from 40° below to more than 40° above, our resource based, energy intensive and export oriented economy, an economy which is growing faster than the rest of the industrialized world, our record setting exports and our growth in population, the second highest growth rate among all developed countries.

Each of these Canadian characteristics contributes more to our national total of greenhouse gas emissions which in turn contributes to that discernible negative impact upon the climate which can be attributed to human conduct.

In coming to grips with greenhouse gases and climate change, we in Canada have a difficult circle to square but that does not mean that we can ignore or deny the problem. We cannot shrink from the challenge or shirk the responsibility.

I heard the Leader of the Opposition tonight spend a good deal of his time condemning the national and international science upon which the concern about global warming is based. The only logical extension of his reasoning is that Canada should go to Kyoto to prevent any agreement from being reached or, if one is reached, Canada according to him should opt out.

He may or may not agree with the science, but does he seriously contend that Canada can simply stand aside? Ours is a more open society, a more open economy than most others in the world. We are more dependent upon world trade and global economics than almost any other industrialized country. Forty per cent of our gross domestic product is derived from exports. Eighty per cent of our trade is with the United States.

There is global momentum toward an outcome in Kyoto, an agreement including the United States. In the face of that thrust, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, we do not have the luxury of simply holding up our hand and hollering “whoa”. We cannot say “Stop the world, I want to get off”. What we need to do is to try our best to be constructively influential, to achieve the best possible result in Kyoto in concert with the rest of the world, a result that works for Canada and one that works for the globe.

I am very pleased that the provinces and territories have adopted a constructive attitude in common cause to achieve that kind of outcome. They have been very much involved with the Government of Canada in consultations over the last many months, not the least of which was the joint meeting of federal, provincial and territorial energy and environment ministers in Regina last month.

The provinces and territories have acknowledged that Canada needs to be part of a realistic global agreement on climate change. They have agreed that based upon the current understanding of Canadian circumstances and the current understanding of the state of international negotiations, it is reasonable to seek to reduce aggregate greenhouse gas emissions in Canada back to 1990 levels by approximately the year 2010.

The provinces and territories also agreed that it is desirable to do better than that if at all possible. They have emphasized the need for flexibility, flexibility to take into account the inevitable give and take, the ebb and flow that is inherent in international negotiations and flexibility in terms of implementation techniques and methodologies.

The provinces and territories also agreed on a collaborative and inclusive approach on implementation. We need to make a solid, comprehensive team Canada effort. We must all strive to be part of the solution. We must all work very closely together as partners. That is the provincial attitude overall and it is helpful.

A great many in the private sector, in business and industry have also worked very hard to be helpful and constructive. They have not buried their heads in the sand. They have not tried to deny reality. They have offered useful ideas and advice and they have started to take concrete actions within their own sectors, organizations and companies to reduce emission levels and move forward.

The private sector, the provinces and territories, a broad range of other stakeholders, indeed all Canadians have been invited to work closely with us to build together a sound and sensible implementation plan for the Kyoto agreement.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly reaffirmed that we are not interested in a carbon tax. We are not interested in seeing any province or region or sector bearing a disproportionate burden. However, we are keenly interested in greater energy efficiency for vehicles, homes, buildings and industrial processes. We are interested in the greater and more cost effective applications of renewable and alternative energy sources.

Just this week a groundbreaking agreement between Petro-Canada and Iogen Corporation will help us to move in that direction.

We are interested in the implementation of co-generation projects and their integration into power grids. We are interested in the very substantial acceleration of science and technology, commercialization and transfer, projects like the Ballard fuel cell, for example.

We are interested in the use of joint implementation schemes with other nations. We are interested in the creation of credits and the trading of credits to recognize our relatively cleaner and lower carbon exports and our advanced technology. We are interested in the broadening, deepening and strengthening of the self-initiated measures launched and pursued by business and industry.

These and perhaps other measures are likely to be part of the overall package. Through extensive and exhaustive consultations, both within Canada and abroad, we have built a platform for the kind of meaningful partnerships that we will need in spades after Kyoto to deliver on our commitments. We have positioned our country to build bridges of consensus internationally to facilitate an agreement when the end game of the global negotiations beings in earnest about 10 days from now.

We want a deal that works. We want a deal that makes sense both environmentally and economically. We want a deal that transforms problems and challenges into opportunities for jobs and growth, for technological sophistication and for trade. We want a deal that is right for Canada and a deal that is right for the world.

It is with that conviction and determination that we go to Kyoto a week from now to make a real difference for Canada and the world.

Mining November 26th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, mining in Canada employs about 350,000 people. It is the economic backbone of some 150 communities. It contributes $24 billion to our economy and generates about $40 billion worth of exports.

Government actions in support of mining in Canada include the success we have had in shaving four points off interest rates and the fact that we are supporting world class science and technology, particularly in the field of geoscience.

We have made our commitments to federal regulatory streamlining. We issued guidelines for greater certainty into the regulatory process. The list goes on and we will continue in that vein.

The Environment November 20th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's information is factually incorrect. Since the late 1980s the amount of direct spending by the Government of Canada in relation to the energy sector has dropped dramatically. In our last two budgets, 1996 and 1997, we substantially enhanced the amount of resources dedicated to renewable energy, energy efficiency and alternative sources. The hon. gentleman should catch up with the facts.