• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 138 Ï NUMBER 035 Ï 2nd SESSION Ï 37th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, November 29, 2002 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire´´ at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 2041 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, November 29, 2002 The House met at 10 a.m. government released last week is certainly an improvement on the earlier version. [Translation] Prayers Governments around the world need to reduce greenhouse gases. We have all seen the evidence of climate change: temperature change, and an increase in the number of natural disasters, including GOVERNMENT ORDERS flooding, ice storms and drought. Ï (1005) There is clearly a cost associated with these phenomena. One [English] might initially think that reducing or eliminating greenhouse gas NUCLEAR SAFETY AND CONTROL ACT emissions would benefit Canada's agriculture sector—although this sector has been noticeably silent on this matter. The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-4, an act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, as reported (without [English] amendment) from the committee. Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (for the Minister of Natural Resources) We need to take action on greenhouse gases. The question before moved that the bill be concurred in. us is whether or not the Kyoto accord is the right mechanism for Canada to achieve this objective. There is absolutely no point, in my The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? opinion, in signing the Kyoto accord if Canada cannot meet the Some hon. members: Agreed. targets and timetable implicit in the accord, that is, the lowering of greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Some hon. members: No. This is an ambitious undertaking and perhaps why the current Canadian plan is still short by 60 megatonnes out of a total of 240 The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say megatonnes that Canada must achieve by the agreed date. yea. Why sign an agreement if the objectives cannot be achieved? To Some hon. members: Yea. show leadership? To demonstrate environmental sensitivity? This is The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay. not enough in my view. We should sign the accord if it makes sense for Canada and if, and only if, we can achieve the commitments we Some hon. members: Nay. undertake within the accord. Otherwise, a strictly made in Canada solution is required. The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. And more than five members having risen: Canada seems to be leading with her chin on greenhouse gases. The U.S. government is not proceeding with the Kyoto accord. The The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands Kyoto targets for the Europeans are hardly stretch targets for them. deferred until Monday, December 2 at the ordinary hour of daily The closure of a number of outdated and environmentally insensitive adjournment. factories, in what used to be East Germany and a conversion of coal fired plants in Great Britain to gas fired plants, means that moving from the 1990 levels to the 2008-2012 targets would not be as *** demanding for the Europeans as it would for Canada. In a sense it is KYOTO PROTOCOL easier for them to achieve their commitments under Kyoto. The House resumed from November 28 consideration of the Then we have countries like China, Russia and others which are motion and of the amendment. major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. They would be Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would required to do nothing until 2012. Even then it would be difficult for like to support the ratification of the Kyoto accord, but I do have the international community to force these countries to honour their some concerns. The updated climate change plan for Canada that our commitments beginning in 2012. 2042 COMMONS DEBATES November 29, 2002 Government Orders What are we left with? The Americans with a made in U.S.A. Second, some of the knowledge and equipment would need to be solution, the Europeans with a made in Europe approach and the imported, which certainly does nothing to stimulate job creation in Chinese, Russians and others with an approach to Kyoto that meets Canada. their needs, and Canada marches on convinced that we must ratify the Kyoto accord. I would prefer a made in Canada solution. [English] The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance visited Calgary recently as part of our prebudget consultations. I asked business leaders there whether they believed that a negotiated Third, we were told in Calgary that a number of clients in Canada solution to Kyoto was possible in Canada, that is, a negotiating set of are currently employing state of the art emissions reducing greenhouse gas reduction targets somewhere between those outlined technologies. The Kyoto targets they would be handed would in the Kyoto accord and some stretch targets for Canada, beyond require these plants to go beyond where they are today with the latest those initially payable by the provinces and industry. The response technology. What are they supposed to do other than buy emissions was yes, such a result was possible in their view. We should strive credits at a cost? for this. Should we be concerned that the U.S. government will not ratify Certainly improving energy efficiency and conservation is a Kyoto? We should not be afraid to embark on a path that is different laudable goal that we should strive for in Canada. Improvements in from our U.S. neighbours, certainly not. But we cannot ignore their these areas would be good for the environment and the economy. position on this important matter because 87% of our exports are to Not all emissions reducing enhancements would result in productiv- the U.S. market. ity enhancements. There would be a cost associated with their implementation and in many cases with no corresponding economic As an Ontario MP I am concerned that companies in my province benefit. Environmental benefits are positive by themselves but we and indeed across Canada which are competing with companies in should not delude ourselves about the economic consequences of our the U.S.A. would have greenhouse gas emission reduction targets actions. that exceed those of their competition across the border. Will their added costs impact their competitiveness and risk plant closures and job losses? We are told that although the U.S. government is not Reducing greenhouse gas emissions would require changes in ratifying the Kyoto accord, many U.S. states are taking action on behaviour by Canadian businesses and consumers. I am not sure that greenhouse gases, states like Oregon, Massachusetts, New Hamp- Canadians would support ratification of the Kyoto accord until they shire and California. understand it. While I understand the need to avoid paralysis by analysis, what do I tell companies in my riding of Etobicoke North which are Fully 28% of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada are derived shipping most of their production to Michigan or New York? What from the transportation sector, that is, emissions from cars, trucks, are those states doing? Will the companies in Etobicoke North be at airplanes, trains and others. We would need to deal with this by a competitive disadvantage and have to cut jobs or shut down? travelling less in traditional modes and using more public transport, Surely these are important questions. which would be a good thing, and by employing different fuels that The free trade agreement and NAFTA resulted in some major may cost more, by driving vehicles that use less fuel, and by taking a industrial dislocation in my riding of Etobicoke North, and in the variety of actions with these in concert with one another. Would this rush to sign and implement that agreement there were few, if any, happen naturally and without any cost? No, it would not and mechanisms to assist employers and employees during the transition Canadians need to understand this. period. We are told that ratifying the Kyoto accord would result in Canada Ï (1015) becoming more innovative. It would accelerate the development and adoption of new low emissions technologies. This in itself would [Translation] result in new economic activity, we are told, and productivity enhancements and would offset many of the negative impacts on the so-called old economy. Our government will need to provide policies, signals, incentives Ï (1010) and disincentives to facilitate these changes. Some of these will be incorporated into the February 2003 budget—and therein lies the [Translation] rub. Well, certainly some of these developments will occur. However, we must recognize four important points. We do not, and cannot, know what these will be until the budget is FIrst, there is a considerable gestation period between the time tabled. Many of these economic instruments will determine whether that technologies are identified and the time that they are or not we have a chance to meet the Kyoto targets. We are being commercialized—often up to ten years. In other words, this pushes asked, however, to approve the ratification of the Kyoto accord in us to 2012 for some of these ideas to be implemented. advance of the budget. November 29, 2002 COMMONS DEBATES 2043 Government Orders [English] Ï (1020) Many less onerous solutions to the problems associated with Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I noticed greenhouse gas emissions are being ignored by governments at all my colleague went to considerable lengths to refer to greenhouse levels.

Load more

  90

Copy Link