next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
[Following is an exchange taken from the Debates of the Senate of June 9, 1998]: Debates of the Senate, June 9, 1998 6. The Environment 6.1 Ratification and Signing of Kyoto Agreement on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Linked to Stand of United States-Government Position Hon. Ron Ghitter: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Last week, the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources had an opportunity to visit Washington. It was a wonderful opportunity to meet with a wide variety of groups, particularly relating to the Kyoto agreement. I am sure honourable senators who have been to many of these meetings will agree with me that the position of the United States of America is that Kyoto is dead. From the point of view of the Presidency and the White House staff with whom we met, it is clear that the President would not even risk taking that agreement to the Senate for at least another two years, if then. If that is the case, and I believe it is the case, is it still the position of the Government of Canada that they will not ratify Kyoto until the United States does so? Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, that is my understanding. That was an agreement reached in consultation with all of the provinces. Senator Ghitter: Honourable senators, would it not be more advisable to have another strategy because, after all, there is work to be done, there is organization to be accomplished, and there is a serious problem out there. I do not think it is appropriate or advisable for the government to hide behind the skirts of the United States of America and blame their lack of action on them. Is it not time we had a made-in-Canada policy to ratify Kyoto and get on with it, rather than sitting back and blaming the Americans? Senator Graham: It is not a question of ratification; it is a question of signing. I understand that signing the protocol meant that Canada was willing to consider ratification, and that we would not take any action in the meantime that would undermine the protocol. However, Canada would be legally bound by the protocol only after ratification. I want to assure all honourable senators that discussions are continuing between the federal government, the ministers responsible and the provincial governments to further activity on this particular front. Senator Ghitter: Does that mean that, notwithstanding the lack of ratification by Canada of the protocol or of the accord in Kyoto, it is the intention of the Government of Canada to meet the disciplines within the Kyoto accord, and then meet the guidelines and the reduction in emissions by the year 2010, as was agreed? Senator Graham: As my honourable friend knows, the federal and provincial energy and environment ministers met in Toronto late in April. They agreed on a consultation process to develop a national implementation strategy by the end of 1999. As I mentioned before, the provinces have been kept fully informed. They were quite aware that Canada was signing the protocol, and that was done with the agreement of all the provinces concerned.
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects