Debates of Oct. 24th, 2002

Supply

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the criteria in our motion today is the criteria set out by the former finance minister who most members opposite support to be the next Prime Minister. This is the criteria that comes right out of the mouth of the former finance minister.

With respect to the opposition to signing Kyoto, it does not come from just the province where I live. It comes from B.C and Ontario. It increasingly comes from the Atlantic provinces that see their only hope to get out of the have-not trap that they have been in for so many years, largely due to Liberal mismanagement, now being attacked by the Kyoto scheme.

With respect to plans, there is not one bit of cost in the Liberal plan. Not one. No one in their right mind signs a contract or any kind of a deal or buys something when they do not know what it will cost, yet the member somehow suggests that this is a worthy document to base a decision on. I beg to differ and so would Canadians.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the Kyoto protocol. All of us want a clean environment. That is clear and it is one thing on which all of us in the House can agree.

I am fortunate enough to come from an area where we do have a clean environment. We have clean air. We have clean water. We have clean land. I can walk out to the end of my driveway, stand and listen and a lot of times hear nothing, which is a nice change from being here. We want that for all Canadians. We want them to have an opportunity to live in a good environment and to be in a situation where they can be healthy. The question is how to achieve that.

We have several different options. Kyoto is one of those options. The Kyoto option has floated around here for several years. I think we need to talk about what kinds of things will work in order to improve our environment and protect it from pollution.

We are told that this is a treaty that will reduce greenhouse gases. There are two ways to reduce greenhouse gases. One is to actually reduce emissions. We can set up a program that affects the environment, reduces emissions, and gets rid of some of the pollution we are faced with. The other option, of course, is that we do not really reduce emissions much at all, but we set up a bureaucracy so that we can trade credits back and forth. We can talk about emissions, we can give them a value and swap them back and forth. We can set up a bureaucracy that can interfere with the functioning of our economy. We can set up a bureaucracy that can regulate, and poorly, as they virtually always do, the environment through government intervention.

I happen to be from Saskatchewan and am obviously not at all a supporter of our NDP government. Even it has concerns about this protocol for our part of the world. As everyone knows, Saskatchewan is agriculture based. We depend on energy in many different ways. One thing that is clear about Kyoto is that it will raise the cost of producing energy. We need to ask what the impact will be of those increasing costs of energy.

Our office was concerned about Kyoto and how it would impact agriculture, so we decided we would try to do some research to see what the government actually has done to see what effect Kyoto would have on agriculture in Canada. We looked quite extensively and in fact we could find nothing. We found that the Canadian government basically has done absolutely nothing on the impact of Kyoto on agriculture. It has done research on other things such as carbon sequestration and methane gas and that kind of thing, but nothing directly on Kyoto and agriculture. We went to the agriculture department and again we could find nothing to indicate what impact Kyoto would have on agriculture.

Interestingly enough, we were able to find a 1998 U.S. study. The U.S. had taken the time to do some studies through the American Farm Bureau and a couple of other organizations. They reached a conclusion that is frightening for Canadian producers. They said that compliance with the Kyoto protocol could increase U.S. farm production expenses by $10 billion to $20 billion annually and depress annual farm income by 24% to 48%. That is almost 50%. Higher costs of fuel oil, motor oil and fertilizer and other higher farm operating costs would also mean higher consumer food prices, greater demand for public assistance with higher costs, a decline in agricultural exports, and a wave of farm consolidations. In short, they concluded that the Kyoto protocol represents the single biggest public policy threat to the agricultural community today.

When we saw that we began to get very concerned about what impact Kyoto would have on our farmers. Surveys indicate that farmers feel that rising input costs are the number one concern in their operations. They are under a big squeeze at this time for a number of reasons across the country, but rising input costs are their number one concern.

It is imperative that the federal government provide farmers and farm families with a thorough examination of Kyoto's impact on Canadian agriculture. We need answers to some questions. The first question we need answered is this: What would be the impact of higher energy prices? Clearly if Kyoto is implemented we will see higher energy prices. That will directly affect things like fuel. Diesel fuel will be hit directly. Fertilizer costs will be hit directly. We have talked to the Canadian Fertilizer Institute, which says it will face some substantial increases. Chemical companies will face substantial increases in the costs of their products if Kyoto is implemented.

So first of all we need to know what the impact of higher energy costs will be. From that, there are a few other questions that need to be answered. We hope to bring these up again and again over the next few months so that we can get answers to them.

How much will input costs rise? The Americans are suggesting that they could rise by as much as 32%. I do not know any farmers who can survive an increase of 32% on their input costs. It would not be possible for them to continue to make a living.

We need to know what effect Kyoto would have on net farm profits. We hear that net farm income is dropping again this year, particularly on the Prairies. It basically will be a disaster in terms of net farm income there. It is dropping again. Each year it seems to be coming down. What effect would Kyoto have on net farm incomes in Saskatchewan and also in the rest of Canada?

We need to ask what the overall impact would be on annual farm income. What would be the larger effect of the resultant economic downturn in the agricultural sector? I come from a small town. It is a really vibrant community where people are trying to get ahead, working together and putting their money together to form new projects. We need to know overall what Kyoto would do to the ability to start new ventures, to work together and to create prosperity in our towns. It is bad enough that we have drought; we do not need the further effect of this. Of course the agricultural industries would be affected as well.

On the other end of the spectrum, we need to know if Kyoto would result in higher consumer food prices. If Kyoto is implemented and there are more costs on the farm, when people go to the grocery store they likely will have to pay more for their food. If they do not have to pay more for it, that means that I as a producer would get less for what I produce.

There is a second question that really does need to be answered as well, that is, what would be the impact on the non-implementing countries? How much of an advantage would our non-Kyoto competitors gain from not ratifying this protocol? Canadian farmers are already struggling. They struggle against European subsidization and they struggle against the U.S. treasury. The government does very little to help them out and if it is bringing in a protocol that could have an impact of up to 30% on net farm incomes, what will that do in terms of our farmers' competitiveness? What will be the extent of the impact on our international competitiveness? How much of a decline will there be in Canadian agricultural exports, which this entire country depends on, if we implement this protocol?

I think these are reasonable questions that we could ask of the government in order to see what in fact it would do with Kyoto in terms of agriculture.

There are other questions that need to be raised as well, and we will talk more about them later, but the issue of carbon sequestration, carbon sinks and how the protocol mechanisms are to be implemented is something that we need to address. I understand that at the technical briefings given a couple of weeks ago the federal government basically said that it would be claiming those carbon sinks for itself. To me it seems that they are a natural resource, one that is probably in the purview of the provinces. We need to take a look at who actually should be dealing with those carbon sinks. Probably it should come right back to the farmers. They are the ones who are farming the land and growing the crops. They are the ones who should be able to access this. There is no indication that the government is going to give the farmers access.

We have three main concerns right now. The first is that this would raise the input costs for farmers. The second is that it would make us uncompetitive; an Australian study just put out states that Canada will fall further behind if we implement this in terms of competition with both Australia and the United States in agriculture. One of the concerns I have is that Russia is another one of our competitors and we are talking about using this to ship money to Russia to buy environmental credits. We would be propping up its economy at the same time that we would be destroying our own agricultural industry, which has to compete with Russia's.

In conclusion, we really do have a choice here. We can continue with Kyoto and end up seeing higher costs, with little or no emissions improvements and with money transferred out of Canada. Or we can come up with a different plan, one that will be far more successful, one that we design.

First we should sit down and domestically set the standards that we think are important and that we need to apply in this country, not just in the rural areas. like where I live, which would be affected by Kyoto, but in our cities as well. Let us set those standards. Let us set realistic goals for Canada. Let us take our own Canadian money and let us begin to use it to improve our own environment. It is crazy to talk about sending money across the world to other countries to pay for environmental credits when we can use it to improve our own environment.

Last, I would like to say that we should give our children a future. It is important. Because it is important, let us do it right.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the motion. The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill who spoke some 20 minutes ago pointed out that it is a motion taken directly from the words of the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, the former minister of finance.

I would like to encourage the opposition to continue to use members on this side to draft the motions it puts forward, because when we saw it we were surprised at how good it was. I am quite willing to accept the motion. I intend to vote for it. It is an excellent motion. The member for LaSalle—Émard should be congratulated and the opposition should be congratulated for realizing that it does not have the ability to do the things that the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard does so well.

I welcome this debate. I welcome the opportunity to speak today. In fact, what the opposition is asking the government to do in the resolution of the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard is exactly what we did today, namely, put forward a plan before the House and the people of Canada.

I do not want to suggest that it is the final plan of all time. No. As the Prime Minister made clear, it is going to be changed and modified as time goes on. As we know, we will be discussing that with the provinces and territories next Monday, again on November 21, and perhaps after that, who knows.

What we have put forward is an approach built on the best ideas to come out of the five years of constructive consultations with the provinces and territories, with private industry, with environmental groups and with the Canadian public. In fact it goes back 10 years, since we first agreed to the United Nations framework convention on climate change back in 1992, previous to this government.

We released an overview of our draft plan today so that we can engage in substantive discussions with the provinces and territories when we meet on Monday and so in fact we could have a substantive discussion this afternoon.

The elements of this document have been the basis of recent discussions with industry and stakeholders. The draft plan is about innovation and technology, energy conservation and energy efficiency. It is about all Canadians everywhere in our country. It is about all governments and industry sharing the responsibility for combating climate change. And it is about a cleaner environment and a better quality of life for Canadians and for, in particular, future generations of Canadians.

Starting in the 2003 budget and in subsequent budgets, the Government of Canada will announce investments in partnership and cooperation with the provinces, territories, municipalities, communities, aboriginals, the private sector, non-government organizations and, of course, individuals.

We have prepared a draft plan under which no one region of the country will assume an unreasonable share of the burden. This plan is in response to the unique challenges facing Canada to reduce its emissions. This plan will also promote an economy that is strong, competitive and growing.

Fighting climate change provides Canada with two opportunities to explore. State of the art technologies can help us reduce our emissions and the latest processing technology can help put us on track to reduce emissions in the long term.

Canada's investment into new technologies is starting to pay off in terms of productivity.

Thanks to our policies, we have created economic and financial stability, and we have increased funding of research and development in the country. In this context, Canadian businesses will be able to improve their productivity even more in the future.

Our approach recognizes that reducing emissions will require cost sharing among the private sector and governments. For our part, we will increase investments in innovation and technology and reallocate funds in some existing programs to climate change objectives. We will also explore promising new areas, such as renewable energy, bioproducts, bioenergy and biofuels, fuel cells and the hydrogen economy, clean coal technology and CO

2

capture and storage, distributed power systems and eco-efficient industrial processes.

We have heard a lot over the last few weeks and months from the opposition about businesses, business organizations and their lobbyists and their claim that somehow jobs will be lost. I would remind those business lobbyists that the true objective of business is of course shareholder value or what some people call profit. However, the true objective of labour unions, of the association of workers, is the number of jobs for their members, the safety of employees in the workplace and of course their pay. These are among the issues that concern unions.

I would like to salute the Canadian labour movement, in particular the Canadian Labour Congress and Ken Georgetti, its president, for the resolution it has passed and for the determination it has shown in the ratification of Kyoto. The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada and its president, Brian Payne, understand despite the fact it represents many workers up in the tar sands, in the oil patch, that the environment and job creation can go hand in hand.

I look forward to working with labour and labour representatives, particularly the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union in a partnership to anticipate changes that may occur because of Kyoto measures, to identify how we can smoothly have a transition, and of course to identify appropriate methods of training for people who may be displaced, if that is the case, or who may be moving into new technologies. It is an opportunity for the Government of Canada to work together with the labour movement, who are the people who should be and in fact are the most concerned about the jobs issue. There has been a little too much in the way of crocodile tears from lobbyists from big business on this issue.

A draft plan is aimed at ensuring that the overall economic impact of the Kyoto measures is modest and that those impacts are balanced across provinces and sectors. Decisions in our approach are based on the results of our latest modelling and the representative reference case.

The results reflect that deliberate policy choices can lead to zero and less than a cent increases in gasoline prices and only minimal cost increases for natural gas and minor decreases in the price of electricity. The modelling case leads us to see 1.26 million new jobs created by 2010 compared to 1.32 million new jobs in the business as usual scenario. That is a difference of 60,000 jobs over an eight year period, but that is without the full count of the jobs that will be created by adopting the new technologies that will be required for the climate change constrained world. To put things in perspective, I would like to suggest the number of 427,000.

[An hon. member]

Jobs lost.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

It shows how wrong the opposition is when it talks about jobs lost. That is the jobs gained in the Canadian economy in the last nine months of this year for which we have figures, in other words, from January through to September.

Members should compare those two figures. Just from the normal action of a robust economy that we have thanks to good management on this side of the House, compared to the 60,000 that I mentioned as a potential job loss before we have the increases that come, that is seven times more jobs created in the last nine months. These are real jobs. It is done in less than one-tenth of the time. If we think about it, the number of potential job losses over a decade is in fact the same as the job increases since the Speech from the Throne five weeks ago.

Impacts are modest if we choose the right tools. That is our approach and it is important to strike that balance.

The approach is based on fairness, burden sharing, and it recognizes that all segments of Canadian society must do their part. It covers all sectors: the federal government, transportation, the building sector, large industrial emitters, small business, agriculture, forestry, municipalities and consumers.

The draft plan reduces uncertainty for business while maintaining flexibility for future actions. We want to engage in intense discussions with large industrial emitters on the design of a comprehensive approach for reducing their emissions. We also want to maximize trade opportunities for Canadian goods and services, to maximize the opportunity for Canadian companies to make a business out of generating offsets and to help build an effective functioning market to allow Canadian firms to purchase permits at a reasonable price.

Targets for emissions trading, that we are currently discussing with large industrial emitters, is in the order of 55 additional megatonnes. This represents a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In order to meet this objective, we have been open to ideas on changing concepts as fundamental as the allocation of credits. Every approach has advantages, but the most important criteria will be to maintain the competitiveness of Canadian industry, to ensure that certain sectors and companies are not disadvantaged, and to allow the private sector to plan ahead.

We hope to meet these objectives through consultations and we will continue to host intense and productive exchanges until we have managed to strike the necessary balance.

Together with stakeholders, we are in the process of developing an approach that recognizes the importance of early measures and offers real incentives to reduce emissions.

The most economical approach is emission permit trading, since it uses market forces to reduce emissions cheaply and efficiently. In addition, it provides the advantage of improving productivity, which makes our economy more competitive.

Whatever method is chosen for emissions trading established in Canada, we recognize that our efforts will go much further if we coordinate our efforts with our neighbour and closest trading partner, the United States. Its decision not to ratify puts Canada in a unique situation and complex competitiveness considerations arise. The economic analysis however shows that the implications for Canadian industry are relatively modest. Canada can achieve its target at an acceptable cost and we can move ahead without the United States as we have done in the past on so many important issues.

It is true that the Bush administration has rejected the Kyoto protocol. Nevertheless, it has taken many measures to encourage its business to become more energy efficient and environmentally friendly. The United States is tightening energy efficiency standards and investing heavily in science and technology to meet the challenge of the European and Asian competition in world markets. Many state and local governments are taking even tougher environmental measures. In fact, the number of such states taking such measures has now reached 42.

Just as we did with our government in the 1990s to deal with the deficit, here we are taking a step by step approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Our goal is 240 megatonnes, or 240 million tonnes.

Our first step, the action plan 2000 of two years ago, takes us one-third of the way. I should say that it started two years ago and that one-third is comfortably on target. The second step announced today will take us to another 100 megatonnes, totalling 75% of our target. We have quite a number of options, which are listed in the paper that was released today, to choose from to achieve the remaining 60 megatonne gap from our target, the third step of our climate action plan. The decision on that will be driven by shared experiences, by collaboration and by capitalizing on new technologies.

Our draft plan uses conservative numbers to calculate the megatonnes for each step in our approach. The draft plan does not include the actions, for example, that the provinces and territories are expected to take on their own, though they will of course be part of the national total. We believe they will be taking action and we believe it will be substantial.

It does not take into account the benefits of the 10-year infrastructure plan that was announced in the Speech from the Throne, nor does it include current and future research and development planned over the next 10 years by the government. We believe that these will also make an important contribution to the next phase.

We recognize that industry, its products and processes are the result of a stable and substantial public need and support. We believe that consumers will choose a more energy efficient future and we will help both the producers and the consumers in this regard. We believe that communities and municipalities will choose a more energy efficient future and we will help them too. Of course we will continue our international negotiations for cleaner energy exports. We believe that they are important in attacking the overall problem, the global problem of climate change.

Our approach recognizes there are uncertainties in the future, including changes in the emissions profile, in technology and in the international environment.

Before year end, the Parliament of Canada has to vote on ratification of the Kyoto protocol. Both the House of Commons and the Senate will have a say.

The draft plan we have presented today will help inform parliamentarians on this most important debate.

We have listened to the concerns of the provinces and industries since publication of our discussion paper last May and have readjusted our proposals to minimize the economic impact on the regions and on specific sectors of our economy.

We want to know if we have struck the right balance on burden sharing, costs and responsibilities. We want to know if the plan adequately engages Canadians. We want to know if the mix of measures and instruments proposes is right. We want to know that we have a plan that adequately captures the many opportunities in the new lower carbon global economy that is so important to Canada.

This is yet another opportunity for the many voices in the climate change debate to be heard. We must all work to meet our Kyoto commitments.

I point out that this issue is not entirely economic, although I have stressed economic matters in my speech so far. It is an issue of tremendous importance to the future of the country and to our children, their children and children well beyond them. It is an issue where many of the measures that we intend to put in place over the next 10 years to the end of the first Kyoto period will not in fact benefit many of us in this chamber in a direct sense, but it will be something that will improve the future of our children and their children. That is why Canadians from coast to coast to coast realize the importance of this issue.

Canadians know and understand, as science has told them, that the impact of climate change measures is likely to be severe in many parts of the world, more severe than here and indeed in some parts of the world the expected crop losses may well be 40%; some parts of southern Africa and southern Asia.

Canadians know they also have a responsibility not just to their own children but to future generations of the world. They know it is important for us to take measures, measures which are well within our ability, measures which will not affect our standard of living, which will not affect our competitiveness but which will in turn have an important impact on future generations here and elsewhere in the world.

It is for that reason that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are asking us to assume our responsibilities, do the right thing and ratify the convention of Kyoto.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have three questions.

First, some of the provinces are reporting that the minister will not be attending the meeting on Monday.

Second, 75% of CO

2

emissions are through consumption, not through production. Does that mean that the costs will be borne in about that ratio by consumers? When will the minister tell us what those costs will be?

Third, Canadians are being asked to reduce their emissions by one tonne of the five tonnes that they produce in a year. That is a 20% reduction. When will Canadians understand what exactly that means?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I can assure him I will be there at the Halifax meeting of the JMM.

Second, with respect to the burdens, we are attempting not to get the lowest cost plan for achieving our Kyoto goal. To do that would create imbalances and uneven burdens across the country. We have therefore decided to make a more important criteria, a plan which does not disadvantage any region of the country. Therefore, the lowest cost option is not there, although of course we are trying within the constraints of having a fair plan for every region of the country. Within that constraint we are trying to have the lowest cost we can.

Third, with reference to each Canadian currently being responsible for five tonnes of carbon each, think of that. An average car weighs a tonne and each of us is responsible for five of them every year. That is what is going into the atmosphere and causing our problem. If we visualize it that way we can see that there is a major impact from a developed country such as Canada.

We have in the plan. If the hon. member will look at it, although I do not have the page reference here, he will see there an opportunity for what individual Canadians can do: having a car which gets better mileage; driving less so that they indeed improve their health by walking more. Average North Americans only walk 400 metres a day. That is very bad for their health. They should walk more. Hon. members should too, but not the one with the leg in plaster.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the references to fairness and equity do not ring true coming from the minister.

Is the minister aware that there are provinces that have put action plans on climate change into place, and have made considerable efforts?

Is the minister aware that there are industries, the Quebec aluminum industry for example, which have made considerable efforts? I am thinking of such companies as Alma, in the county of Jonquière.

Is he aware that the forest industry, for example, has cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 19% since 1990? Basically, is he prepared to reward past efforts, to take them into consideration?

How can he explain to us that the intensity factor used in the calculations and the division of efforts is not 1990 but 2012?

How can he explain that, if past efforts are being rewarded, the intensity factor used in the calculations for the decision is not 1990 but 2012?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very good question. First, it is true that there are many plans in place already. Many measures have already been implemented and I salute the provinces and industries that have done this work.

However, let us not forget. He asked me if I was going to reward efforts. Perhaps he is forgetting that most of the efforts made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also maximized revenues for these companies. They are better companies today, worth more, because of what they spent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The energy efficiency of these companies has also made them more efficient from a financial perspective as well. That is one thing. We cannot ask Canadian taxpayers, we cannot use tax dollars, to pay all the people who have already clearly benefited. They cannot collect twice.

In the case of an industry that has paid and received nothing in return, we are prepared to talk with the hon. minister from Quebec, André Boisclair, or with others, or directly with industries in order to come up with something that is fair.

Of course, I would like to pay tribute to the efforts of Quebec's aluminum industry, particularly Alcan. Quebec has not been alone; my birth province, British Columbia, has also made extraordinary efforts. I salute them.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has made a great deal about having consulted widely with industry over the past five years. If this is true, then I wonder what kind of consultation has been going on because there are still so many questions being asked by industry about the Kyoto protocol. For instance, NorskeCanada president, Russ Horner, said at the Vancouver Board of Trade yesterday that:

British Columbia's pulp and paper industry could be wiped out by American producers if Canada signs the Kyoto Accord and the U.S. doesn't...

But if other nations don't sign and Canadian industry is required to pay a carbon tax, “You might as well ship the fibre south of the border and manufacture in the United States.

I am particularly concerned about this captain of industry making that kind of statement because NorskeCanada happens to be the biggest employer in my riding.

The Minister of the Environment is also not telling us that the support of Kyoto by Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada is conditional. Its support is conditional because it demands $1 billion to deal with the consequences of Kyoto. It sees that Kyoto is going to hurt. The union acknowledges a large cost and it wants government to pay for it.

Some of those people work in the mill in my riding. When they go to buy homes, they check out the costs to ensure they know how much they will be paying for them. How can we expect the provinces, industry, workers of this country to buy the plan when they do not really know the cost?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting with the president of the union in question only yesterday. We had an extensive discussion. I am quite sure if he wanted a billion dollars from the Government of Canada he would have suggested it at that time. He made no such request. In fact, from that meeting, it was proposed, and I cannot say whether it was him or me, that we have a joint approach of his union and the Government of Canada, and any other union that wants to join forces, so that we could anticipate any potential problems.

The difficulty we have now is that we really do not see where job losses will occur. In the modelling it does not show up. Therefore, we will have an ongoing approach with him to ensure we follow this in case there could be some way where labour is affected.

With respect to the company in question, I have to say to industry that the time is over for this type of alarmist talk. What they are doing is driving down the value of Canadian companies and impacting upon the investment climate for Canadian companies overseas. I asked them not to do this because this type of extreme statement is simply wrong.

Today we put out figures which show very minor costs for certain industries under the most likely scenario. For industry to keep talking about this being a killer of jobs, only suggests to investors overseas that the Canadian industry is not a good place to invest. I wish they would stop.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise with the Minister of the Environment the question of timing for the ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

The Liberal government has dropped the ball on Kyoto and is running to catch up as we speak. By delaying ratification, the government is actually ceding the agenda to members of the Alliance who are obviously opposed in principle to the ratification of Kyoto. It is not about the plan. It is not about specifics. They are opposed specifically to ratification.

Why delay ratification when he is only allowing the opponents of Kyoto to gather momentum to try to stop the ratification of this protocol? Why not, after this coming Monday's meeting on Kyoto, come to the House with a motion for ratification by the Parliament of Canada?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, may I correct the hon. member's memory of what the Prime Minister said in June of last year in Italy at the G-8 leaders meeting. He said that 2002 was the target year.

It is true we have delayed the meeting that is taking place next Monday, one week from last Monday, but that is the only delay there has been. We did it for a very legitimate reason, to get more comments, advice and involvement of the business sector.

There is no change in this. If I adopted her suggestion that we should play on the times to try and avoid a full debate, she is wrong. We are winning that debate because the Canadian people are with us. Overwhelmingly Canadians support ratification of Kyoto.

I fail to see why we have these nervous Nellies in the NDP who say that only if we rig the system could we possibly win. We will win this argument hands down because we are doing the right thing for future generations.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate. It is a pleasure to have listened to the Minister of the Environment. I noticed at the start of his speech he talked about our motion as being borrowed from the former minister of finance. I want to say to him that we agree with those comments made by the former minister of finance.

Members on this side, members of conservative-minded thinking, are not afraid to work with other parties in the House of Commons or across Canada when they have good ideas. I might mention to the Minister of the Environment that it is not unlike when I was the minister of the environment in British Columbia. I hired the present Minister of the Environment to write a report for our department because it was something in which he was a specialist. He did a good job but certainly if I were Minister of the Environment of Canada, I would not be hiring him on this file because I think he has gotten carried away on an international issue that is not going to do a good job for Canada.

It is our fervent hope that Canadians will soon realize the government is leading them down the path to national financial ruin. The Kyoto accord will go down in Canadian history as the ruinous legacy of the Liberal Prime Minister and his party if the Liberals use their majority to push this accord on Canadians. When Canadians recognize the danger in this reckless and ill-conceived scheme, they will make it clear to all members of Parliament that supporting the Kyoto accord will end their political careers. They will have a wide selection of politicians to choose from because only the Alliance Party stands in opposition to this abomination.

This is bad legislation. It is bad for Canada, bad for families, bad for seniors living on fixed incomes and bad for our economic future. It is bad as well for British Columbia. That is the province on which I want to focus today, not only as a member of Parliament from British Columbia but as a member who was a former minister of the environment in the province of British Columbia.

The member for Victoria will have some explaining to do if he has the courage to campaign for election again. He will have to explain why he pushed the Kyoto accord, knowing that the cost of heating the average home will rise by $50 or more a month. He will have to explain why people on fixed incomes will be forced to choose between heat and food. The member for Vancouver Centre will have to answer the same question when she faces angry voters. Will she give them advice on how to eat less or live colder? The minister says that is alarmist but it is not. It is a fact.

I want to mention an incident in my own past to indicate our own deep concern over the environment in western Canada. When Ralph Klein was the environment minister in Alberta, he introduced the toughest legislation regulating pulp mill emissions ever seen in Canada, if not in North America. Not many eastern or central Canadians remember that, but I do because I was minister of the environment of British Columbia.

I was so impressed by that legislation that as environment minister for British Columbia I attempted to adopt it word for word. Tragically, the premier of British Columbia refused to agree to let me take that legislation and make it law. It did pass cabinet but after cabinet approval, the premier refused to sign the order in council. I did the honourable thing and resigned as minister of the environment.

The Liberals should pay heed. Sometimes cabinet ministers leave because they are honourable, not because they did something dishonourable.

I think too that all members who support Kyoto should be prepared to explain to British Columbians why they are in such haste to support something that will do so much damage. They should tell parents in the suburbs why they will have to get out of bed two hours earlier in the morning to get their hockey and soccer players to the rinks and fields on public transit. The simple fact is there are no feasible or cost effective alternatives to the use of motor vehicles for passenger transportation and the movement of goods in many parts of British Columbia.

The NDP and the Liberals want to shut down British Columbia and that is not acceptable to British Columbians. Canadians should understand they are being sold down the river of no return on Kyoto.

Let me explain it in the words of the member for Sarnia--Lambton, a very good Liberal colleague in the House and an outspoken one on issues of importance. He said that he regrets supporting the firearms registry. Expert testimony said that the registry would cost only $85 million and check the flow of weapons to criminals. The cost is now over $1 billion and the ones being checked are innocent and law-abiding Canadian sports people. That is from a Liberal member.

Canadians should keep in mind as they call their members of Parliament to express outrage and opposition to the Kyoto accord that the Liberals say it will not cost much at all. We just heard the minister say that, but that is what the Liberals said about firearms registration and they were out in their estimates by over 1,000%.

That is what we have to realize in this House when we hear the Minister of the Environment talk about dollars. There are experts from universities across Canada talking about what this will do to Canada. We just cannot take the government's word.

Look what happened with the firearms registration. Whether one likes it or dislikes it, the fact is the costs are $900 million more than the government thought it would cost and it is still going up, and it is still not registering all the guns. In reality when we look at what is happening across Canada, we are not any better off than when the government started the whole thing.

All members in this place should heed the words of the member for Sarnia—Lambton. What guarantee is there that Kyoto will not run into the tens of billions with all the lost investment, the higher taxes, higher consumer prices, higher food costs when all the hidden expenses are totalled up?

I have some advice for Canadians. Invest in horses. If the majority across the way forces passage of the Kyoto accord, people will need horses to pull their cars and plows because of the cost of gasoline. I would only suggest that they stockpile what the horses leave behind. They could use it as ammunition when the Liberals, New Democrats and Conservatives come looking for votes and brag about supporting Kyoto.

The Alliance Party is the only party that stands in opposition to this flawed and dangerous scheme. In British Columbia our devastated logging industry will suffer even more and what do the Liberals and New Democrats do? They support Kyoto no matter what the impact would be on the lives of the people who live in my beautiful province.

The fishing industry will suffer from skyrocketing fuel prices and fuel taxes, and Liberals and Democrats do not care. Our fruit growers, dairy farmers and ranchers will suffer, yet the Liberals and New Democrats laugh and shrug. There will be no offshore oil and gas industry. That would be a tragedy because it might have helped offset the losses suffered because of the bungling by the government on the softwood lumber issue.

It is true. Liberals and New Democrats do not care how much people will be hurt. I hope every voter in British Columbia whoever wasted a vote on those parties will learn from Kyoto and say never, never again.

One hundred years ago we had politicians who had national dreams. Today we have Liberals, New Democrats and Conservatives who support international schemes. The Kyoto accord is an international scheme to transfer the wealth from Canada to third world countries that will not sign the Kyoto accord. It is a cruel fraud the government perpetrates under the guise of reversing climate change.

Canadians should make it clear that they will not accept this dangerous effect to their economic well-being.

I speak with as much sarcasm as I can muster to those Liberals, New Democrats and Progressive Conservatives for watching and laughing as Kyoto destroys my home province of British Columbia, and whatever the Liberals, New Democrats and Progressive Conservatives support, they certainly will be punished by the voters in the next election.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, I tried to understand the moral of the tale of when he was an environment minister. As I understood it, he was happy and wished to imitate Ralph Klein as a tough environment minister in producing higher standards in an industry which was polluting: pulp and paper. He was sad that it did not go through.

The first question would be, how did it work out? Did all of those companies in Alberta go broke or did they do okay? If they did okay, that is the same thing we are trying to do in Kyoto. We are trying to make industrial processes more efficient and less energy consuming. What is wrong with that? I would like a response to that.

The second thing I would like an answer on is the reference to transport. There was the implication that people taking their kids to hockey games would take two hours longer because they could not get a bus.

There are really two components to that. Why is it not possible for this society of ours in North America to make more efficient vehicles in terms of fuel consumption? We found out when we had an energy crisis in the late 1970s that we could do so. We had huge improvements in passenger vehicles. Why can we not continue to do that?

As the member comes from British Columbia, this would be a good question for the former minister. Why is it that we cannot indeed support on the other side of the equation more efficient buses of the sort that would be powered by Ballard fuel cells, whose fuel cells are made in Burnaby, British Columbia? What is it about the hon. member that prevents him from seeing both the economic benefits and the innovation opportunities and why does he not join the parade?

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question because it shows me that the member does not understand what he is talking about with regard to Kyoto. That is exactly what we are talking about. We are talking about finding more efficient buses in Canada, not signing some phony international document that is going to do nothing for Canadians.

When I was minister of the environment in British Columbia an order in council was signed indicating that no more buses would be run by diesel fuel. They would all be run by natural gas to improve our environment. Who changed that? The NDP when it got in. The NDP said it would be too expensive so the buses went back to using diesel fuel and polluting the air.

The member talked about Ralph Klein and B.C. Yes, what we did was tough on industry, but what we did was force industry to bring in lower emissions. It worked very well. The Kyoto accord does not do that.

The effort we are putting into Kyoto should be put into working with industry in Canada to have better functioning plants. We should be looking at helping people insulate their homes in a better way so we do not get greenhouse gas emissions.

We do not have to sign this phony agreement. Why are the Americans not signing this agreement? Those members from central Canada do not understand that they are going to pay dearly when they cannot compete with the Americans across the border. They are going to pay dearly when the Americans drill their oil and gas wells right across the border from Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario because they will not have the same rules we will be under. That is what some of those members do not understand.

I agree with them with regard to cars. There are a lot of companies, not just Ballard, that do great work on cars. Why do Liberal backbenchers not tell their ministers to stop driving their big limousines and get into some environmentally friendly cars? Only two ministers out of 30 are driving environmentally friendly cars. What kind of government is that? It is trying to sell Kyoto to the Canadian people and its own ministers will not get into something environmentally friendly.

We talk about new and improved technology. We must encourage people in industry to look at technology. A company in Canada was making a product that could be put in garages so that people could drive their cars and fill them up with natural gas overnight. It was sold back to the Americans because there was no control help at all from any of the provincial or federal governments. The company did not want any financial help. It wanted regulatory help. That is not happening in this country.

Where is the government in providing assistance and making sure we can get hydrogen into gas stations and other areas across Canada? It is all part of the oil and gas industry. It will not hurt any of them. All of that technology is good.

Kyoto does just the opposite. It allows us to kick money outside the country to Russia and other countries which is stupid, phony and dumb. Let us start acting as smart Canadians with our smart industries and make sure the environment is a lot better. Let us get some leadership from a government whose members still like to drive limousines instead of cars that will not pollute the environment.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Far be it from me to make a partisan comment but I must admit that I am pleased to see the hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast well on his way to a positive mend.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands, Kyoto protocol.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Kyoto accord has been a matter that has divided both ordinary Canadians and the elected officials who represent them.

At the beginning of public debate on this accord the issues were simplified and indeed oversimplified by the proponents of Kyoto. Pro-Kyoto was thought to mean equal to pro-environment. Being anti-Kyoto meant that one did not care about the environment. However, as the weeks and months have gone on, it has become clear that this false and simplistic dichotomy does not reflect reality.

Canadians have begun to realize that their elected representatives are being asked to support an international accord that, if ratified, would have significant ramifications on our economy, our industry and our way of life without having any indication of how the accord would be implemented. There is no clear plan, there are no details and there is no price tag.

Canadians clearly believe that this is an unreasonable request for the government to make of the elected representatives in the House. This belief is indicated in the recent poll showing that while 74% of Canadians support Kyoto and its implementation, the same poll shows that 78% say that the government needs to spend more time investigating the cost and impact of the Kyoto accord before implementing it.

The Liberal government's draft plan that was hastily released this morning just before the debate began is no plan at all. It is a weak outline that still does not report the costs of implementing Kyoto and contains no comprehensive details.

This so-called draft plan in fact simply indicates what we already knew, which is that the government has no plan at all. Clearly the government decided for political reasons to push Kyoto through without consulting Canadians, without consulting the provinces and without consulting its own staff about the development of an implementation plan. Apparently the government thought it could simply figure out the details after the fact.

Although most provinces initially express support for the accord, that support has dropped recently to only one province, my home province of Manitoba.

Manitoba hopes that credits for its hydroelectric power will prove to be an economic benefit for its economy. The provincial government has estimated that it can achieve at least a quarter of its greenhouse gas reductions through credits through the export of hydroelectricity.

Unfortunately for Manitoba, its plan to receive credits for hydroelectricity is opposed by the European countries which state that such a change means renegotiating the entire accord.

Although the draft plan released this morning assumes that these kinds of credits will be approved, there are no guarantees that Canada will be able to convince other ratifying countries to accept them.

Manitoba officials are also banking on the federal government providing “clear evidence of significant environmental health benefits” as well as “reasonable economic assumptions and a cost benefit analysis”. I have a feeling that once our provincial officials find out that the federal government has not got its facts straight, has not got a plan, has not got any details and has not got a price tag for this accord, they will think very seriously about withdrawing support for this accord.

The economic forecasts of Kyoto's impact vary greatly. It is clear that it would be considerable. Even taking into account the perceived benefits, the cost would be well over $1,000 per year for every man, woman and child in Canada. Recent studies indicate that Canadians would pay up to 100% more for electricity, up to 60% more for natural gas and up to 80% more for gasoline if the accord is implemented. The average Canadian household would face costs of about $30,000 just to refurbish their homes to meet Kyoto's stringent restrictions.

Specifically in Manitoba, the average cost to every household has been estimated to be almost $500 every single month. In some lower income families that would be up to one-third or more of their entire household earnings.

The government is asking for a blank cheque from citizens without anyone, including the elected representatives in the House, having any idea how much the cheque will be written for.

I would also like to touch briefly on the issues of provincial--federal jurisdiction.

In many areas of government, Liberal ministers have demonstrated their habit of failing to cooperate or consult with the provinces. We have seen it over the years with health care, and I have seen it personally through the development of the Youth Criminal Justice Act which replaced the Young Offenders Act. The lack of consultations with the provinces and the refusal of the federal government to shoulder its share of the financial burden has resulted in a great deal of lost faith between the two levels of government.

Now we see the same pattern emerge with respect to the Kyoto accord.

The Prime Minister had promised that Kyoto would not be signed without the support of all the provinces. He had promised that no one region would be left with the burden of Kyoto. However, by committing to ratify Kyoto by the end of the year, it is obvious to Canadians that the Prime Minister will do none of these things.

The regulation of emissions effects many areas of provincial jurisdiction. These include laws regarding property and civil rights and the use and conservation of non-renewable natural resources.

The Prime Minister has shown his disregard for the provinces by failing to consult with the premiers who want to see a better plan with open, transparent consultations.

Under this accord our provincial governments may be forced to shoulder increased taxes and new fines in addition to the hardships caused to the individual citizens who pay the taxes. It is only fair that they know what to expect before buying on to this agreement.

The Liberal government has failed to meet the standards of public debate and public disclosure on Kyoto. These were provided for both the free trade agreement and the Charlottetown accord, but somehow the government does not think the standard applies in the case of Kyoto.

The continual failure of the federal government to provide important details of an implementation plan does not serve the interests of democracy, it does not serve our economic security and, above all, it does not serve the search for effective measures to protect our precious environment.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the opposition for a very productive motion. I do not see why everyone in the House could not support the motion. I hope this is a new sign of constructive opposition day motions.

As a preamble to my question I want to mention some of the input I have had from my riding, which, I believe as in all ridings, is mixed. Of course chambers of commerce have some concern. I know they will appreciate the motion. The motion today is the position I have been taking since the summer.

There is a lot of mining resource extraction in my riding and so any petroleum effects will be important. In fact yesterday the Mining Association of Canada asked me about a plan and it is great that it has been released today.

However, on the other side, I have had overwhelming input from first nations and many citizens. Obviously there has been physical evidence. People who were depending on ice river crossings cannot get home now. Many buildings that have been permanently frozen in permafrost for decades are now melting at great expense. The Yukon Medical Association is also concerned and it wants us to speedily ratify Kyoto.

I have two questions. The member was quite concerned about costs and gave a number on one side of the balance sheet, but, as he said, he would like good debate. On the other side of the balance sheet , I wonder if he could outline a few of the costs if we do not sign Kyoto because I am sure no one would disagree that there are some.

The second question is as follows. Once again he said that he wanted public debate and democracy. A lot of the Alliance members, just like us, will have received a lot of letters asking us to ratify Kyoto. I would like to know, in his spirit of public debate, what he replies to those people who have asked him to support Kyoto.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, those are in fact good questions. What are the costs of not signing? I think that is central to the entire issue. What are the costs of the accord? We simply do not know. We cannot answer that question without having some indication from the government as to what its implementation plan is.

I think Canadians are good stewards of the environment and that is why there is this initial indication of support for the Kyoto environment. However there is a great concern about the cost of the accord and the cost of not supporting it.

In terms of not supporting it, I have tried to actually figure out what would be the benefits of the accord. If this is simply a transfer of wealth to other countries that do not need to comply with the requirements, then, on a global basis, there would be no benefit and as a result it would be an unfair cost to Canadian taxpayers.

I would encourage the member, as a member of the Liberal caucus in the House, to encourage the Minister of the Environment to think carefully before he proceeds with this commitment to an artificial deadline imposed by a lame duck Prime Minister who wants to leave a legacy beyond the corruption and graft that we have seen over the last number of months. Let us forget about that deadline. Let us get the facts on the table. I think Canadians are prepared, as the polls indicate, to wait to see what the costs are and indeed what the benefits are.

As indicated, my home province of Manitoba indicates support but its support is based on an assumption that simply does not appear in the accord.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Provencher might be interested in hearing a Manitoba government news release as of today, October 24, that Minister Sale, the energy, science and technology minister, and Minister Ashton, the conservation minister, will be in Ontario today meeting with environmental groups and with federal ministers in anticipation of the national meeting that will be undertaken by the Minister of the Environment.

However, what I would like to point out to him is that they are featuring a Energy Probe Research poll done in Manitoba. Mr. Ashton notes that 64% of Manitobans surveyed supported the ratification of Kyoto while 17% were opposed and 21% were undecided. That is a significant number.

In addition, nearly half of the respondents, 49%, fully believe that the Kyoto protocol represents an economic opportunity for Canada, not an economic liability. Therefore, unless an overwhelming number of the 17% live in the hon. member's riding, I would suggest that a lot of people who support Kyoto live in the hon. member's riding.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the poll somewhat surprises me given that about a month ago the support in Manitoba was over 80% and then the Ipsos-Reid poll indicated support at 74%. Now the support is at 65%.

What the polling indicates is not only an overall lack of confidence in the accord and that support is beginning to drop, but the Ipsos-Reid poll indicates that 78% of Manitobans want the government to investigate the cost of implementing the accord and the impact of implementing the accord.

I support what my constituents are saying. They want to know the facts and they want to know the costs. If we had those facts and those costs before us here then we would be able to debate this in an intelligent manner. However we cannot debate it without the availability of those facts.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague and friend from Lac-Saint-Louis.

Having heard the debate so far it is back to the basics. I assumed that many of the points which have been registered for such a long time were taken for granted but they have not been.

I want to dwell on the science of the matter, the economic costs, the issue of ratifying now, the question of whether this is a made in Canada plan and finally, the connection between greenhouse gases and other forms of pollutants.

The Leader of the Opposition said something quite incredible today. He said that climate change was not a problem yet, not a problem today. Dare I ask what planet the Leader of the Opposition is living on? Has he looked out the window lately in Alberta and seen the drought? If he lived in the Arctic and looked out the window this summer he would have seen how the ice had failed to re-form because of the heating of the climate. If he lived in Europe and looked out the window this summer he would have seen the flood waters rising, as the German weather office said, attributable to climate change. If he lived in Asia and looked out the window he would have seen this amazing pile of crud two miles up in the sky contributed to in part by climate change and global warming. It would seem that the evidence of the senses would be overwhelming, but even if that failed it seems to me that the evidence of the science itself is overwhelming.

We know that the 20th century was the warmest in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,000 years. The 1990s have been the warmest decade on record and this year alone has been the warmest year on record so far. One can look out the window in downtown Toronto to see the number of smog days which is contributed to directly by climate change.

The science is overwhelming. Who says so? Not just me, but over 1,000 of the world's top scientists and over 100 Nobel laureates. Who says no? Ralph Klein says no. He is not alone. He has a complicit coterie of desperate demagogues from the petroleum club and they are the gang of polluters. Of course they do not want to clean up. It is much easier not to.

Therefore whom do we trust on this issue? Whom do we trust on the science? Do we trust Ralph Klein, the scientist? Do we trust the polluters? Do we trust the editorial board of the National Post ? God forbid I used to be its editor. Or, do we trust the scientists?

The second point is the costs. The most credible modelling of the costs, of economic growth and job creation over 10 years indicates that the impacts are minimal. Who says so? The analysis and modelling group which is made up of officials from the Government of Canada, every territory, province and industrial sector. That is who says so, including officials from the Government of Alberta. This is the most credible group and they say so. No other group comes close.

By the worse case, over a 10 year period there will be a total reduction in the increase of jobs of 200,000 over 10 years; that is 20,000 jobs a year.

The Minister of the Environment said that over the past nine months the Canadian economy this year alone added 427,000 jobs. Therefore, what is the problem?

The member for Calgary--Nose Hill asked: Whom are Canadians to believe? Whom are they to trust?

I ask: Do we trust the outlandish scaremongering Premier of Alberta with his whacko figure in yesterday's speech, not in the text, of $27 billion a year additional costs substantiated by nobody, or do we trust the ANG, the people who actually got together on a collaborative basis? Whom do we trust indeed?

Third, why should we ratify now? We have been consulting with the provinces and the industrial sectors since 1997. This year alone there have been stakeholder meetings with 600 experts from across Canada including 232 from industry and 186 from government and we are having more meetings. I say enough already. We have had the consultation. What do members mean when they say they have not been consulted? We have consulted to death. It is time to get on with it.

Do members think that in 1939, at the outbreak of World War II, we stood in the House and said that we have a problem admittedly, but we cannot go to war until we know the final cost, job loss figures and the plan for the next 10 years? We would not have done it.

When the challenge is big enough, we must step up to the plate and say we will do it and get on with it. Either we believe it is true, that it is a problem, or we do not. If we believe it is true we must act and then figure out as we go along how we will do it.

There is the issue of the made in Canada plan. Of course this is a made in Canada plan. These are made in Canada targets. This is a made in Canada consultation. This is a made in Canada plan that was issued today. It involves the provinces, federal government, territories and industry. If we want something different, do we think that a country will be better off with a bunch of balkanized plans made in Alberta, Calgary or Ontario? This is a country for Pete's sake. That is why we have countries in the first place, to pull it together, to respond to great national crises, and to be there when the international community asks where is Canada. That is why we have a country. That is why we have a made in Canada plan and that is what we are doing.

The whole question has been raised and confused by the opposition party that there is no connection between climate change, global warming and pollution. Here is the connection. Increased temperatures lead to formation of more ground level ozone and smog which sears the tissues of the lungs. Warmer, moister air masses move more slowly and will reduce the dispersal of air pollutants thereby increasing the concentration of pollutants over major cities.

Sustained hot spells and heat emergencies, such as those seen in Chicago and Toronto for the first time last year, increase the stress on the human body and make it harder for elderly people, the frail and small children to cope with the effects of air pollution. Lower flows of water in lakes and rivers caused by heat waves and droughts can lead to poor water quality and an increase in water borne diseases.

This is sustained by the work being done by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development which talks about the ancillary benefits of worrying about climate change:

In most cases, policies to abate or otherwise reduce GHG emissions lead to lower energy use and to changes in the energy mix towards cleaner fuels. This reduces local air pollutants, leading to lower morbidity and mortality from pollution, better visibility, higher crop yields and less damage to structures (through the reduction of acidrain). Additional benefits can include reduced urban congestion; lower noise levels and possibly roadaccident fatalities as a consequence of lower vehicle-miles travelled; and reduced soil loss and erosionthrough increased tree farming.

What do members mean that there is no connection? Of course, there is a connection. As we contemplate what will be perhaps the greatest debate that this country will see on our watch as politicians, Canadians will be asking where were members on this, which side of history were we on because we had better be on this side. If anyone thinks this is true, if the scientists have it right, then for the sake of the future of our children and our children's children, we must ratify.

We must get on with this. We cannot go on consulting to death. We must change things. That is what we are here for and we cannot do it piecemeal. That is what we have a country for. For all of our children, for all of our heritage, and for all of our future, let us ratify.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I address the question, the member who just spoke may want to contemplate a response to something he said. Just yesterday, Liberal members bristled and some ran from the House when a passing reference was made about some of their colleagues' pictures being found in various institutions around the country. This member just made a reflection on an elected premier of our country known as the most populist of all premiers as a desperate demagogue. I wonder if he would want to, in his response to my question, reconsider and perhaps address that, especially if somebody is not here to defend himself.

The member was talking about climate change and he made a millennial reference. Climate change of course has taken place down through history from times of warmth and times of cold. We know that the Vikings, for example, when they came in the first journeys over a thousand years ago talked about Newfoundland. They did not call it that at the time, they referred to it as Vinland because it was so warm, there were vines growing and it was quite a warm area. By the time John Cabot and others came here, it had radically changed.

Can the member tell us what the influences were down through the ages for climate change, and in those periods of climate change were there people, other than in literally volcanic situations, who were having their lungs seared, and were there other such cataclysmic changes where suddenly people were dropping dead? What were the significant factors leading to climate change down through the ages?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me respond to both parts of the question.

Did I refer to the Premier of Alberta as a desperate demagogue? No. I referred to his complicit coterie of desperate demagogues from the petroleum club. That was the exact phrase. I will not withdraw the remarks of the irresponsible oil patch which has failed to recognize, even within its own ranks, the virtuous BP, Shell Oil, and Suncor, by scaremongering in a group I referred to as a coterie.

On the question of the science, I was lucky, in a previous life, to work with the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and I was attached to the Earth Sciences Program, so I have some passing knowledge of the matter to which the hon. member refers.

Of course there has been climate change over the years which is not the result of human activity. The difference is that when we impose on the long-term climate change pattern, which certainly exists, human activity has the effect of increasing the rate of change. That is why the carbon story is so important for the last three centuries. We have records on carbon going back 430,000 years, thanks to the ice caps and so on. There is no doubt that human activity, our activity, has increased the rate of change.