Speech - December 11th, 2002

KYOTO DEBATE

 Mr. Wall: — Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be able to participate in this debate on this very important resolution and the amendment put forward by the official opposition by the member for Thunder Creek. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks though, I do want to welcome and congratulate the new member for Kindersley — welcome him to our caucus and to this legislature. He has already acquitted himself very, very well in terms of the work that we do as a caucus, and including our committee work and indeed was able to participate in his first standing committee meeting of the Crown Corporations Committee two weeks ago where we were asking some important questions — some on Kyoto in fact that week when SaskPower officials were there. And it’s certainly a pleasure for us to welcome him to the legislature in the first session of what will no doubt be a very long and rewarding career. Mr. Speaker, when I was contemplating what it was that I wanted to add to this debate — and there’s been much said; I’ve tried to listen closely to the comments from my own colleagues and from those of the government — but when contemplating what I would say today in regards to this resolution I did want to focus, Mr. Speaker, if I could, on the impact of this particular Protocol and the impact of this debate on my constituency.

Mr. Speaker, we’re very fortunate in the constituency of Swift Current to have a very strong and vibrant oil and gas community. That particular sector of our economy in Swift Current contributes mightily to the success that we have. And even when times are a little thin — and for the most part those have been NDP times over the last 10 years — when times are a little thin in terms of the economy of Swift Current and area, we have at the least been able to rely on a strong and robust oil and gas sector. Mr. Speaker, we have a number of entrepreneurs, oil and gas entrepreneurs who have chosen to make Swift Current a home and I should pay tribute to them at the outset of these remarks, Mr. Speaker. We’ve had some changes in our oil and gas industry of late. For the most part by the way, Mr. Speaker, it’s service companies, oil and gas service companies that we lay claim to in Swift Current and area. We’d like there to be more production companies in Swift Current and we’re hopeful that with the changes that we’ll be able to make, and because of the work of our energy critic, the member for Thunder Creek, that due to the changes we’ll be able to make in government we may be able to attract some producers as well to join the many service companies that are in Swift Current. I want to congratulate one company in particular that’s the product of an acquisition or a merger. There were two very dynamic service companies in Swift Current. One was Diamond oil well servicing, headed up by some young and aggressive and very solid entrepreneurs — one of whom I went to school with in Swift Current, and moved away for a time to Alberta and has come back to operate an oil service company. Mr. Speaker, I should point out that for Diamond, their head office is in Swift Current and they have a shop in Medicine Hat as well. So there’s a company doing work in Alberta. The other . . . there’s many, but probably the other major service company is a company called Sage Oil Well Services — and they’ve been in Swift Current for years and years — started by a number of individuals and not the least were Ted Hanlon and Len Stein, who was also the mayor of Swift Current for some considerable period of time. Anyway, those two companies have come together to form a very strong and dynamic oil servicing company. And that particular new company and many, and I would say almost all of the other oil and gas service companies in Swift Current, are very, very, very concerned about the Kyoto Protocol. They are paying attention to the debate here. And of course they were paying disappointed but close attention to the vote yesterday in the House of Commons to ratify the accord. Mr. Speaker, they are the employer of so many young people, the employers of so many young people in our community. I take a look at the parents of many of the friends of my children in elementary school, and so many of them are working either indirectly or directly as a result of the presence of a strong oil and gas sector in our community.

So when the Kyoto accord debate ramped up in the country and when it became clear that this government was going to be sending mixed messages on the issue, I made a point of contacting them, as many of those oil and gas service companies I could by way of a letter. And I just highlighted what it was we knew about the Kyoto Protocol and about its failings, and also about this government’s position on the accord. And I enclosed with that letter a petition and encouraged them to have that petition signed by employees or friends or themselves, if they had a concern. And I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the response has been overwhelming — the number of petitions we have received in our office and have had the chance to present them in this legislature, at least a few them. And their concerns are the concerns that you’ve heard from this side of the House. Their concerns though also, Mr. Speaker, are the concerns that you heard raised even by our Minister of Industry in the province — concerns I would say not shared frankly by many of his caucus colleagues, but concerns that he has made a valiant effort to try to put forward in this debate and in handling this particular file as a minister. In the letter that I sent out to our oil and gas people in Swift Current, Mr. Speaker, we began the letter by highlighting . . . or rather we ended the letter I think is how it turned out in the end, by highlighting a quote from a CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) Saskatchewan Web site dated October 28, 2002. And CBC was trying to characterize where the Premier stands on the issue of Kyoto. And I’m quoting their Web site, Mr. Speaker. Their Web site says: Calvert says he supports Kyoto in principle. Calvert says he does not support Alberta’s court challenge to Ottawa’s proposed ratification of the deal. Combine that statement with the fact that the previous speaker, the member for Nutana, came out in the Leader-Post and The StarPhoenix, I believe on October 18, strongly supporting and calling on her government to ratify Kyoto, and she was joined in that position by the member for Greystone. How in the world can the oil and gas community of this province, those that create so many jobs, those that attract so much investment, those that pay so many taxes — corporate income taxes and capital taxes and are the reason why employees can pay income tax and sales tax — how in the world can those oil and gas companies have any comfort at all with this government that they are united with respect to the need to send out a strong signal of support for their industry when senior members of their caucus, members who have been in the NDP cabinet, come out and say that Kyoto is fine; ratify it — take the blind leap of faith, notwithstanding that we don’t know how this will be implemented — notwithstanding any of that, ratify it. That’s what those members said. Combine that with what the Premier of the province of Saskatchewan said, which is that he likes Kyoto in principle and that he wouldn’t join any sort of a court challenge put forward by the province of Alberta and then ask yourself, Mr. Speaker, why those business men and women in this province, in my hometown, with all of their employees, would have any faith at all that an NDP government was interested in their issue, was interested in defending them, that an NDP government was prepared to fight for them. Mr. Speaker, they don’t believe it. That’s why they signed the petition. Our petition basically calls on this government to stiffen its resolve. But as you’ve heard from the previous speaker, far from that this NDP government is very wishy-washy on this issue. And it isn’t the only oil and gas issue they’ve been wishy-washy on. You know, Mr. Speaker, earlier this fall the Minister of Industry made an announcement about oil royalties. And the original announcement I think portrayed something much greater than what we actually got, but nonetheless you could argue that in some respects it was a step in the right direction and to that extent the opposition said . . . gave the minister credit. But do you know what happened shortly after that, Mr. Speaker? The same member that just spoke, the member from Nutana, again commented in the media that . . . or at least questioned the wisdom of cutting royalties in the oil and gas sector, once again sending the mixed message to the oil and gas industry in Swift Current and in southwest Saskatchewan and across the province. And the mixed message is, is that there’s one minister — apparently one minister — that’s prepared to recognize the importance of this industry and maybe fight for it, although now he’s going to be supporting a very much watered down NDP resolution. But at least they would have had some hope before. And then all of the other comments, including the Premier’s comments and comments from senior members of the legislature from that side of the House, that would give the industry in Swift Current every reason to believe that this government doesn’t feel comfortable in its support of the oil and gas industry. And we see it time and time again. We also see it on the issue of uranium, frankly. On one hand you have some members paying lip service to companies like COGEMA and Cameco. But we know, Mr. Speaker, that members across the way, senior members across the way would rather that the province had nothing to do with the development of uranium. They would rather that the province had nothing to do with the jobs and the economic impact that can come from that industry. We’ve had mixed messages from this government. They pay lip service on one hand to the industry. But we know that the left wing of their party that frankly seems to be running the show these days, including on the issue of Kyoto, that send the mixed messages to the people of the province. And that’s also why, Mr. Speaker, even though they’ve heard from the Minister of Industry and others, that’s why the oil and gas industry in this province doesn’t trust them. They don’t trust them, Mr. Speaker. That’s why areas that have the oil and gas industry in their constituencies vote for the Saskatchewan Party, Mr. Speaker; that’s why they’re going to continue to vote for the Saskatchewan Party — because they don’t trust them. This government appears very willing to cash the cheques that the oil and gas industry sends in. You know, Mr. Speaker, in . . . since 1998, Swift Current area, the southwest area as defined by Energy and Mines or what used to be Energy and Mines, sent in $80 million in land sales revenue to this government . . . 80 . . . it was about $88 million. You know what they’re starting to ask now, Mr. Speaker, after sending all of these cheques in to this NDP government, helping them to balance . . . or at least at one point balance their budget, but helping to keep their deficit to about a half a billion dollars? After all of that, Mr. Speaker, they’re wondering why in the world is this government sending mixed messages on Kyoto when the government understands what it could do to that industry, Mr. Speaker. They understand what this accord will do to the industry. Well the Minister of the Environment says there are no mixed messages. Then why won’t he and his colleagues stand up and send a united message that they oppose the ratification of Kyoto, Mr. Speaker? Why don’t they support our amendment? All he’s got to do is stand up and vote for our amendment then and that would be a clear message to the oil and gas industry that we oppose . . . they oppose the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.He can’t have it both ways. He can’t snipe from the sidelines, Mr. Speaker, and say there is no mixed message while his Premier, the member from Nutana, and the member for Greystone send out mixed messages to the industry. He can’t have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. And if you want to get an idea, Mr. Speaker, there was a letter to the editor in The Southwest Booster called “Kyoto and needed action ”. That’s our local paper and it’s about Kyoto. And the author of this letter, Mr. Speaker, by all accounts, apparently is considering or is already a candidate for the NDP nomination, the provincial nomination. And here’s what he says, Mr. Speaker. He frankly thinks that Kyoto should be ratified. He agrees with the member for Greystone and the member for Nutana and other members of the NDP that think it should simply be ratified. In his letter, Mr. Speaker, here’s how he characterizes those who are very wary of Kyoto, who don’t agree that we should ratify the accord. And I quote. He says: The short-sighted, myopic view of conservative fossil fuel dinosaurs like Wall are little more than the traditional opposition to change that will benefit humanity. Fossil fuel dinosaurs, Mr. Speaker. So I guess this young NDP individual isn’t just referring to myself. I guess he’s referring to the very same oil and gas companies, the same entrepreneurs that every day risk dollars and risk investment to create jobs and to bring taxes to the government’s treasury. They’re all fossil fuel dinosaurs, Mr. Speaker. If you want to get to the truth of what this government thinks of the oil and gas sector, it’s right here in this letter. They think that they’re fossil fuel dinosaurs. They’re happy to cash the cheques and keep their deficit to about a half a billion dollars by cashing their cheques. They’re happy to take $88 million out of Swift Current in land sales alone, Mr. Speaker; and by the way, not return even a single dime towards a new hospital — not a single dime. They’re happy to do that. But here’s what they think of them. They think that they’re fossil fuel dinosaurs. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you this side of the House understands that those men and women that are creating those jobs and paying those taxes are the only reason in this . . . one of the only reasons that we still have a chance in this province to recover from six decades of socialism. That’s what we understand on this side of the House.

Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Wall: — Mr. Speaker, I think other colleagues have highlighted as well the impact of Kyoto in terms of our electricity bill, that bills will increase by 25 per cent or more. Mr. Speaker, they understand that IPSCO’s talking about leaving the province of Saskatchewan and moving to the province of Alberta. And you know, Mr. Speaker, I think they also understand that Kyoto could cost, according to studies, every family $2,700 per year. And I also think people do understand that we need, we do need to take a look at the issue of greenhouse gases. We do need a made-in-Canada and a made-in-Saskatchewan solution. We do need to be serious about the issue. But, Mr. Speaker, what they also need to hear from their government is that the government understands that killing the goose that’s laying the only golden egg they’ve got going for them right now is no way to afford, for government to afford the kinds of environmental measures that can in fact meaningfully clean up the environment here in Saskatchewan and across Canada. And so, Mr. Speaker, because it would . . . because the Kyoto Protocol holds so much potential harm and danger for my constituents, the people who gave me their trust to represent their views, I will be supporting the amendment that was put forward by the member for Thunder Creek and seconded by the member of Carrot River Valley. And, Mr. Speaker, because it’s a wishy-washy, indefinite statement from the government, I will be opposing the NDP’s resolution on this issue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.