Debates of Oct. 24th, 2002

Supply

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we definitely do have a plan. The plan has been talked about here. We have heard members of caucus speak. We have heard the minister speak. We have heard the parliamentary secretary speak. We do have a plan. We are proceeding but we are not proceeding unilaterally. That is key here because in fact the joint ministerial meeting will be held next Monday when we hope to put the plan together. It is not a federally made plan; it is a Canadian made plan.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question in terms of competency. I understand that countries, such as France, are already below the 1990 level because they utilize atomic power. I was absolutely amazed, better put shocked, that the government did not get any credits whatsoever for the Canadian uranium industry that supplies that atomic energy to Europe. To me this speaks of incompetence. We did not get credits on natural gas exports. We did not get credits on the export of uranium to countries that are using that to get under those levels.

Would the member comment on why we are not getting any credits for the export of uranium to European countries?

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to say the government has done nothing. We worked very hard and insisted on carbon sinks and agricultural practices. That is what is important to members on this side. That is what is important for agricultural communities.

I am surprised the member does not realize this because it will have a huge impact on his riding.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. Kyoto will have a tremendous impact on farmers in our part of the country and across the country, an extremely negative impact as input costs will rise dramatically due to increases in fuel, fertilizer costs and other inputs. It will devastate the agriculture industry, yet nothing has been done by the government to even give some numbers on just how bad the impact could be.

Could the member tell us why the government is willing to implement an agreement without having any information whatsoever on how devastating this could be to the agriculture industry in the country?

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what are the costs? Right now we are in a plan which everyone has had an opportunity to look at today. We talk about the carbon costs being $10, when right now they are $5.50.

Again, with respect to the agricultural industry and the farmers, on this side of the House the member for Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant chaired the Prime Minister's task force on agriculture and farming policies. Today when we were at the briefing with the minister, one of the important things that was raised by the chair of the task force was the important opportunity for our farmers for the use of ethanol which is produced from corn. That was also raised by the member from Toronto Beaches.

Let us not say there are no opportunities for our farmers because there are. Look at the drought experienced by the farmers out west this year. That has had devastating effects on those farmers and we owe it to them to ensure that we do something so those kinds of droughts do not happen.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but note in the motion that there is reference to cost but no reference to the cost of not proceeding with Kyoto. Could the member comment on that?

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question because it is very key. We do not know what those costs are. The Prime Minister has said this is for his children, his grandchildren and his great grandchildren.

We have to preserve our planet for the future and this is the leadership we need to give now to ensure that we save our planet for future generations to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the Canadian Alliance motion on the important and fundamental issue of climate change and on the ratification and implementation of the Kyoto protocol.

When we first read the motion, we were inclined to support it, because it appeared full of good intentions and properly drafted. However, after taking an in depth look at its substance, we soon realized that it was far from reflecting the views that the Bloc Quebecois has always defended in this House, as it did with stakeholders last March regarding the ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

There are three fundamental reasons why we will vote against this motion from the Canadian Alliance this evening. First, let us look at the wording of the motion, which reads:

That, before the Kyoto Protocol is ratified by the House, there should be an implementation plan that Canadians understand, that sets out the benefits, how the targets are to be reached and its costs.

Here, in the House, we have always argued that the Kyoto protocol should be ratified at the earliest opportunity and that no conditions should be attached to this ratification, because this issue is too important for the protection of natural heritage and public health. We must proceed quickly.

Accordingly, on March 7, we set up a coalition in Quebec that included over one hundred groups from civil society, from the academic and environmental sector, and also some members of Parliament representing various political parties in this House. These groups had one thing to say and that was “That Canada should take the necessary measures to ratify the Kyoto protocol before the month of June”. This was our hope at the time.

Today, I am rather surprised by the arguments used by the government regarding this motion. When the delegation that he was heading and that I was part of was in Johannesburg, the Prime Minister of Canada stated that the government and the House would make a decision before the end of the year. The Prime Minister said in Johannesburg that the House would vote on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol before the end of this year. The motion before us today provides that the ratification of the Kyoto protocol by the House would be conditional on an implementation plan that Canadians understand.

It is clear today in the House that there is no difference between the Canadian Alliance and the member for LaSalle—Émard. The clear statement made by the member for LaSalle—Émard indicated that he wanted an implementation plan in place before proceeding with ratification. This is what the Canadian Alliance motion before us today would propose.

If the government party—and incidentally, we have not heard one word today about their intentions with respect to the motion—votes in favour of this motion this evening, this would clearly mean that the Johannesburg commitment, made some weeks ago by the Prime Minister, will have been broken. We would be back to square one.

This is not the position of the Bloc Quebecois. The position of the Bloc Quebecois calls for a quick ratification of Kyoto. The government and the Prime Minister made a commitment to have the House ratify it before the year is out and I think they must vote against this motion.

There is a second aspect. It appears that when it comes to implementation, this motion implies that the Canadian Alliance is proposing a Canadian solution to climate change, similar to what the U.S. and George W. Bush are proposing today.

We in the Bloc Quebecois believe that what is needed is an international solution to deal with climate change. This international solution depends on the speedy ratification of the Kyoto protocol, because we believe there are internal mechanisms that have allowed the Government of Canada to obtain significant concessions from the international community.

As part of its implementation of the protocol, the Government of Canada will be able to incorporate 52 megatonnes for carbon sinks into the 6% reduction objective. Emissions credits, which can be traded on the market, have been established. Green development methods have been integrated into the Kyoto protocol. There are joint mechanisms.

We believe that Canada has already managed to obtain significant concessions from the international community. The way to fight climate change now is by respecting the fundamentals of the Kyoto protocol, in other words, by respecting the mechanisms contained in the protocol.

I will, if I may, express my disappointment with respect to the plan, or the overview of an action plan, unveiled this morning by the minister. A three-step action plan is proposed.

The first consists in reducing emissions by 80 megatonnes based on the 2000-01 budget. Naturally, the investments would be incorporated into renewable energies. Even if we had always wanted more of previous budgets to be earmarked for green energy—and still do—we can be happy with this.

The problem lies in steps two and three of the minister's action plan. He proposes a 100 megatonne reduction in Canadian emissions based on a sectorial distribution that is unfair to Quebec, one that will give heavy greenhouse gas emitters, the western oil industry in particular, an opportunity to increase emissions by close to 14%, while a heavier burden will be imposed on the Quebec manufacturing sector, which has already succeeded in reducing its emissions. A heavier burden as well will be placed on the Canadian forestry industry, which has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 19% since 1990.

These industries, which have made efforts, would be penalized by a federal implementation plan. This we cannot accept, nor can we accept that a heavier emissions burden be imposed on Quebec when Alberta and the west are the ones that have not done their bit.

It is worth keeping in mind that, in Canada, two provinces have drafted and implemented action plans for climate change: Quebec and Manitoba. When one has a precise action plan with clear objectives, those objectives can be attained. The proof: between 1990 and 2000, Quebec reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 1%, while the west allowed its to increase.

Quebec is responsible for 12.5% of the greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, while it contains 24% of the population.

How can we accept that, based on a distribution we would like to think was equitable, the polluter pay principle would not be applied?

Moreover, today, in the third phase of its implementation plan, the Canadian government announced that it hopes to get 60 megatonnes through clean energy export credits. This is strictly a virtual concept, a concept that is being developed by senior federal officials. This is a concept that is not approved by the international community and that is not recognized in the Kyoto protocol. Today, Canada is hoping to apply a Canadian solution by incorporating a concept of clean energy exports that is not recognized by the international community.

We believe that the implementation plan is unfair and unworkable because it is based on premises that are not recognized in the Kyoto protocol. There is a risk that, in the end, the international community will not recognize the clean energy export credits for the reductions and the objective of 200 megatonnes that Canada pledged to achieve.

With the plan that was just presented, Canada would, in the end, fall far short of the objectives set for it by the international community. Therefore, we believe that we must use all the means provided in the Kyoto protocol, from carbon sinks to the development of clean modes of energy, not to mention the exchange of credits and a true reduction of emissions at source. This is how a true reduction in greenhouse gases will be achieved in Canada.

Today however, the government presents us with a sectoral plan that will penalize Quebec. Yet studies are available, which show that a territorial application of the Kyoto protocol in Canada is possible. This is a model that was developed in Europe, and agreed on by 15 sovereign nations of the European Union one year after the protocol was signed. This model could be applied in Quebec. Internal studies at the Department of the Environment show that, applied to Quebec, this three-pronged territorial model would be fair to those provinces that have done outstanding work in this regard.

How is it that 15 sovereign nations of the European Union can, within a year, come to an agreement on an approach to sharing the responsibilities arising from the Kyoto objective, and we cannot? This goes to show the extent to which this federation is not working. If Quebec was a sovereign nation, Kyoto would probably have been ratified. I repeat, Kyoto would have been ratified.

What does this mean? Countries like Quebec would have been able to avail themselves of the mechanisms contained in the protocol. Quebec could have taken advantage of the carbon sinks and emission trading credits. It could have used the clean development route or the joint approach.

Today instead we find ourselves paralyzed by a federal government that makes decisions based on a single region of Canada, and a single industry, and in the process penalizes Quebec, which has been making efforts since 1990. Let the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs rise in this House today and tell me, if he dares, that this approach to sharing Kyoto within the federation is fair and equitable.

We will demonstrate that implementing Kyoto will cost the aluminum industry in Quebec $4.73, while it will cost the Canadian oil industry only 3 cents. Is that a fair and equitable sharing of the Kyoto objective? Is that in keeping with the polluter pays principle endorsed by the Canadian government in Rio in 1992?

International conventions cannot be signed, and then the opposite action taken. People demand a certain consistency in policy. Today we have proof that the Canadian federation is not working. We will say that as often as necessary for as long as possible. We will ask the European Union if it believes that this is a fair distribution. We will ask all those countries that have decided to implement it whether they find the Canadian method fair and equitable.

We will, nevertheless, continue to support ratification of the Kyoto protocol. We continue to do so, because Quebec is acting as a responsible state, and has passed a motion in the National Assembly, with the unanimous support of all parties. All of us, whether Liberal, ADQ or PQ, want to see Canada assume its responsibilities.

We believe that the Kyoto protocol ought to be ratified. The effect of the motion before us today is to create a major loophole for the government, by not having it seek a vote on ratification of the protocol here in this House.

For example, the hon. member spoke of the throne speech and its reference to the government's commitment to introduce a motion on ratification of the Kyoto protocol before the end of the year. A few weeks prior to that, the Prime Minister announced before the international community that the House will be voting on the Kyoto protocol before the end of the year.

What we want to see, what we would have liked to have seen in this motion, is a clarification of this deadline. What we would have liked even more is a clarification of the fundamental difference between Kyoto ratification and Kyoto implementation.

More than 85% of Quebeckers, more than 90% even, are in favour of ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Even in some of the western provinces, there is a majority—a slim one, of course, someone might point out—but nevertheless a small majority of the public is in favour of ratification of the Kyoto protocol. Even in Ontario, where the current government is caught between a population that wants ratification and the problem of implementation by the federal government, there is a strong desire to get on with ratification.

I have barely two minutes left to say that there are basically three reasons why we will not support this motion. First, we think that it does not reflect the commitment made by the Prime Minister in Johannesburg, to the effect that the House would ratify the Kyoto protocol by the end of this year.

Second, we would have liked to see an important distinction made between implementation and ratification, primarily because this House decided to use an approach that is consistent with that of Quebec, where the coalition expressed its support for speedy ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

We were in favour of speedy ratification of the Kyoto protocol a year ago, we are today and we will continue to be tomorrow.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Bloc Quebecois member. The Canadian Alliance tells us that Kyoto has nothing to do with the health of Canadians. I would like to know whether the hon. member shares this view, or if he has a different opinion on this issue.

If we ratify the Kyoto protocol, will this make a difference for the health of Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, the question my colleague raises is an important one. The Alliance and opponents of Kyoto often fail to include costs that are not purely economic. Sure, there are economic advantages to ignoring Kyoto, but there are also social costs involved. There are health costs.

I would like to cite a Canadian study that indicates that the social benefits in improved public health would be in the order of $500 million per year. There are definite advantages for our health care system if we ratify the Kyoto protocol. We need to think of more than just the short term results. We need to consider the future of climate change with a long-term vision, not only with a short-term vision. Though there may be job loss, there will also be job creation.

We have an obligation to think of the results that will be dealt with by future generations, in other words protecting our natural heritage. We know that the ice storm in Quebec cost insurance companies $3 billion. The Saguenay floods also entailed significant costs. I think it is our responsiblitiy to include not only all of the costs, but also the benefits for industry and all sectors of the economy in Canada and Quebec. We must not base our assessment of the impact of the Kyoto protocol on one single industry, Alberta's oil industry.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on his remarks; he is doing an outstanding job on environmental issues. I also congratulate him on his participation in our youth forum, where he explained the whole Kyoto issue to the young people.

This is a very important agreement, and the lack of government involvement is deplorable. I find it sad because such involvement is essential. Commitment should have been made long ago. In Quebec, we take our job seriously.

I would like the hon. member to touch on this briefly. He knows full well that research on electric vehicles is underway and that we do things differently back home. Perhaps he could expand on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that a broad debate is in order on the issue of climate change. Ratification of the Kyoto protocol must also be seen as a golden opportunity to develop areas of economic activity in Quebec and Canada that we would never have dared develop without such a protocol. Kyoto is but a step toward developing areas that can be used to promote sustainable development.

I will remind hon. members that we have a great wind energy potential in Canada, and that 60% of this potential is in Quebec, most of which is on the North Shore, and in the Gaspé and Lower St. Lawrence regions. Here is a golden opportunity to develop our resource regions, to ensure that our energy resources—wind energy in this instance—can be developed. These are developing areas that are creating jobs, but more importantly, we must develop these industries of the future for Quebec.

We must ensure that the expertise we develop in Quebec can be exported worldwide, not only to reduce emission rates in Quebec but also to possibly take advantage of the joint mechanisms contained in the Kyoto protocol. We are being given a golden opportunity to be winners. This is what ratifying Kyoto would do for us.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I wish thank my hon. friend for his intervention. I am a little puzzled by a message that seems to be subliminally put into a lot of the questions that he and his colleagues have been posing this morning. They feel that the government is not participating fully enough in today's debate.

I have represented the government at some of the negotiations of the Kyoto protocol. Our Minister of the Environment was there, holding a significant lead role. The provincial ministers of the environment from Quebec, Alberta and Ontario were actually at the one last summer in Bonn.

Surely, the member opposite recognizes the value of participation of all members of the House. I have heard many excellent interventions, from different perspectives, by my colleagues right across Canada.

As enthusiastic as he is about ratification of the Kyoto protocol, I am somewhat puzzled by the provincial environment minister's desire to go on a different path. Surely, the kind of things he is talking about call for a pan-Canadian plan, which is exactly what the government has been consulting on with Canadians from coast to coast to coast for the last five years.

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

Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, we have always advocated a territorially based approach on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. It is ironic to see that the federal government, which, for years, has urged the provinces to develop an action plan on climate change and set objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, is now telling them that what it asked them to do a few years ago, namely to adopt a provincial action plan, would not be taken into consideration in the implementation of the Kyoto protocol.

Again, and the parliamentary secretary is well aware of that, in July 2001, a 160-page document that is available on the Internet talked about implementing in Canada the European model on greenhouse gas emissions. This model, which is implemented in Europe, could very well be used in Quebec. The 15 member countries of the European Union agreed on this model within one year.

How can we expect to arrive at an approach that is equitable? Can we agree that Quebec's economic structure is not the same as Alberta's economic structure? Can we agree that energy efficiency in Quebec is not the same as in Alberta? Can we agree that the Canadian climate is not the same all across the land? Can we put in place equitable parameters that would take into account Quebec's past efforts?

There are manufacturing industries and businesses, particularly aluminum smelters, that have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions in recent years and are now asked to make additional efforts, with the result that total cost amounts to $4.73 and that a 3 cent fee or levy is imposed on the oil industry. This goes against the polluter pay principle agreed to in 1992, in Rio, by Canada.

This is what we are asking. We are asking that the government apply this principle in the pursuit of our objective under Kyoto.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre.

When we look at the motion that is before the House today we must appreciate that behind it are a number of different agendas. What those agendas reflect from the various parts of the House and the various political parties are strategies that have been deployed by all of the parties for some period of time.

I want to go through those strategies from the perspective of the various political parties as I see them. We have the strategy of the mover of the motion and his party which is one of delay, a delay that will allow that party, the Ralph Kleins of the world, following the lead of the Americans, President Bush and his cadre, the fossil fuel industry and frankly a whole bunch of other fearmongerers who are spreading and attempting to expand on the spread of fear across the country of what Kyoto might mean in its implementation. That clearly is their strategy.

Then we have the strategy of the government which, to be fair to it and to be accurate, is a non-strategy. It has been since 1996 when we committed as a country, the first country in the world, that in principle we would adopt and implement Kyoto.

Here we are six years later almost to the day and we still do not have the vote before the House to ratify Kyoto. This is a classic case of bungling on the part of the government that has given the official opposition and its allies all sorts of targets to shoot at.

Then we have a third strategy which is that of the federal New Democrats, a number of the environmental groups, the Bloc Quebecois and a number of members of the business community, which have said that we must ratify Kyoto, we must do it as quickly as possible and we must move on with implementation.

That strategy was being deployed in the early part of this year with a number of coalitions that came together at that time to pressure the government to stop bungling, delaying, and ignoring its responsibilities, and to get on with ratifying Kyoto and get on with the implementation.

It finally culminated in Johannesburg. I was in Johannesburg with a number of other members and listened to the Prime Minister tell the international community clearly and unequivocally that by the end of the year Kyoto would be before the House for ratification. He made the very clear statement as well, although implied but very clear, that the government would be supporting the ratification of Kyoto.

We still have not seen that resolution. We are still expecting the Prime Minister to comply with the statements he made to the international community in Johannesburg and put that resolution before the House before the end of the year and get it passed.

It is obvious from my comments that we will be voting against the opposition motion because it is only for the purpose of delay. We have heard from the Leader of the Opposition that this is not about waiting and seeing what the plan is going to be like. The motion is about delay because the members of the official opposition are absolutely opposed to Kyoto. That has to be clear. They do not want it and they will never change their position. Again, this motion is all about delay.

It does not matter what is in the plan or how extensive, detailed or favourable the implementation plan is to that political party. It will still vote against Kyoto. There can be no doubt about that.

It is rather interesting to listen to some of the commentaries and questions we have had from the Alliance Party, which are clearly questions and commentaries that indicate its opposition to Kyoto. At the same time we have members of that party in British Columbia who are actively involved in opposing what is an integral part of the American energy policy, which is to build over the next decade some 2,000 fossil fuel fired plants in the United States. A number of those will have their air pollution, toxins and smog dumped into Canada because of prevailing winds. British Columbia is one of the areas and my home riding of Windsor, Ontario is the greatest beneficiary of that policy.

Members of the Alliance are out on the streets demonstrating. We do not see that too often with that party. They are organizing their communities against that, yet they are here in the House opposing Kyoto. Let me say to them that if they were serious about concerns for their communities, they should be supporting Kyoto.

The other point I want to make about the delay that is incumbent in this motion is that we have had way too much of that. As a result we have had some serious negative consequences to the economy of the country. As we try to deal with developing some alternative energy sources we buy technology from elsewhere in the world because we have been so slow and laggard in developing our own.

I was in Calgary this summer. The city of Calgary has, for its public mass transit system, done an excellent job of creating a scenario that has all of the energy for that public transit system coming from wind power, with no assistance by the provincial government. This was all done at the municipal level. I was speaking to the representative from the company that supplies the power out of Pincher Creek. He told me that this was costing between 5% and 10% more because we had to buy the windmills and the generators offshore from Denmark and Germany.

It is the same story with regard to solar power. Japan has leapfrogged us and is now the leading country in the world in that technology. In another five years we will have to buy the technology from Japan rather than having developed it here and be able to export that technology to other parts of the world. We are losing our priority with regard to developing a hydrogen economy. We are losing that to the U.S. and other parts of the world, again Japan and Germany.

In terms of ratifying Kyoto, we have a responsibility at the international level in two respects. First, we have made a commitment. The international community is expecting us to do this because we have committed. We have lost a lot of credibility in the international community around environmental matters. We do not need to perpetuate that type of conduct. Second, we owe every other resident of this planet a moral duty to ratify Kyoto and to begin to implement it as rapidly as possible.

We do not live in isolation, not like the Americans who think they can stay away from Kyoto and somehow the rest of the world will not be affected. That is not the case and it will not be the case if we do that. We have a moral responsibility to them. We have promised it to them and we have to go ahead with it with no further delays.

As I said earlier, we definitely will vote against this motion today. We will continue to press the government to get a resolution before the House that will ratify Kyoto.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work done by my colleague, the member for Windsor--St. Clair. I want to pursue with him the issue of the impact of greenhouse emissions on human health.

This morning we heard the Alliance Party and the member for Red Deer suggest that there is no link between greenhouse gas emissions and ill health. That was an unbelievable statement in the face of evidence that has been documented repeatedly and has evoked strong statements from the Canadian Medical Association.

I would like the member for Windsor--St. Clair to clarify the science on this very important issue. I want him to comment on the fact that although the federal government appears to be committed to moving toward signing Kyoto, it has been negligent in terms of outlining the impact on human health. The Minister of Health seems to be more concerned about the impact on oil and gas companies and has very little to say about the impact on health and well-being.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects to the science which the opponents to Kyoto want to ignore.

The reality is that carbon dioxide is part of smog. We know that because we see how dramatically the smog levels climb in the summer when it is particularly hot. That is because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for longer periods of time when the temperature is hot.

While it is there, it also holds other toxins in the atmosphere. It absorbs them. If I can say it this way, it is like a sponge or a magnet. It brings toxins in and keeps them in the air that we breathe for a longer period of time as a result.

Obviously, that air we breathe and those toxins along with the carbon dioxide get into our lungs. That is why there are so many severe problems with asthma. My area of the world is the asthma capital of Canada because my area has so much air pollution, including carbon dioxide that comes across from the American side of the border.

The other part that is ignored by those people who oppose Kyoto and say it has nothing to do with health is that as we do the cleanup, as we eliminate carbon dioxide, we will be eliminating other toxins. For instance, as we stop burning coal, we will be reducing the amount of mercury that gets into the atmosphere because coal gives off mercury as well as some other toxins when it is burned. When we stop burning that coal, those toxins will be out of the atmosphere as well. Those are two points that they miss.

With regard to the other part of the question about the Minister of Health who has been very silent, I remember asking her a question in the House earlier this year and getting a blank stare from her. The question was about the costs of not implementing Kyoto, the $500 million that it is costing us right now annually in extra health care costs. Are we taking that into account? I do not think she knew that was the cost of health care because we have not cleaned up our atmosphere.

The Canadian Medical Association and the Ontario Medical Association are saying that if we fully implement Kyoto, not only will there be dollar savings but of course much more important, there will be savings in ill health and the loss of life. In my home province alone, 1,900 lives a year end prematurely because of the pollution in the atmosphere, a good deal of which is related to the burning of fossil fuel.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is only 30 seconds left. I do not think in fairness to the debate that I can ask for a question and an answer, so I will resume debate and extend that period slightly longer.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join this important debate on Kyoto. I thank the official opposition for choosing this as the subject matter today. It gives many of us the opportunity to voice our concerns with Kyoto and to voice our concerns with its position on Kyoto. That is what it boils down to.

I also thank the hon. member for Windsor--St. Clair for sharing his time with me and for using the first 10 minutes of our 20-minute spot to dispel some of the myths that seem to be clouding the debate around Kyoto.

I have said in previous speeches that I think the hon. member for Red Deer must have the toughest job in Canada right now because he is the guy who is trying to explain to Canadians what the Canadian Alliance position is on Kyoto. A couple of years ago the Alliance started out in complete denial. It was the flat earth society saying there was no global warming. It moved on from that position to agree that perhaps there was some global warming but the science surrounding the conclusions was flawed so it still could not accept it. Frankly it has been a moving target ever since. It is difficult for some of us who are interested in the issue to follow where the Alliance is on a day to day basis but I do admire the dance that the member does.

I am here to bring another perspective to the debate. One of the most prevalent myths about Kyoto is that it is going to kill Canadian jobs. Ironically, the third largest private sector union in the country, which is in fact the union dealing with energy workers, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, at its convention recently very publicly passed a resolution calling upon the federal government to ratify Kyoto. It called for a just transition in case there are jobs affected.

The union itself, as the union representing the very workers who could stand to be affected, is not afraid of Kyoto. In fact it is looking at opportunities stemming from ratifying Kyoto and meeting our commitments under Kyoto. Perhaps that is one more sacred cow to the flat earth people's argument gourd, to mix metaphors.

The just transition movement is gaining momentum. I myself in a previous incarnation as a union leader did some research regarding the members whom I represented in the carpenters union. At one time it was heresy to speak against building more generating stations or more power plants because we wanted those jobs. We were compelled to do some research to separate the myth from the reality.

We found that if we commit ourselves to demand side management instead of supply side management of our energy resources, there is three to seven times the number of person years of employment, in other words, if we could embrace the idea that a unit of energy harvested from the existing system is exactly the same as a unit of energy generated at a generating plant except for a number of important things. For one thing, it creates three to seven times the number of jobs to generate. Also it is available and online immediately instead of borrowing billions of dollars on the open market to build a new nuclear power plant and then waiting seven years for the plant to be built before we get our first unit of energy. The very minute I undertake a conservation measure, that unit of energy is online and available on sale to someone else. Plus, and this is a big plus, if we consider demand side management, we actually reduce the operating costs for the user by 30% to 50%.

Government is a prime consumer of energy. If we embrace energy efficiency, we can reduce our operating costs by 40% thus further mitigating any financial impact we may have appreciated by this change in lifestyle. That is what we are selling here, a change in lifestyle.

The last and most important thing, if we embrace demand side management and energy efficiency, it reduces hundreds of thousands of tonnes, megatonnes of harmful greenhouse gas emissions.

That is the difference between harvesting a unit of energy from the existing system through demand side management measures and generating a new unit of energy, whether it be in the tar sands, the coal mines, the oil wells or even a hydroelectric unit of energy which is cleaner but still has an environmental impact.

We have to get our minds around those things as we move from the most consumptive energy users in the world to efficiency. Canada uses more energy per capita than any other country in the world. I think Kyoto is doing us a favour because it is driving us toward efficiency.

How many people in the House of Commons have an energy efficient shower head in their bathroom? For $12 we can buy an energy efficient shower head and it will save $190 a year. That is the figure the hon. member for Windsor West cited; I have heard $75 a year in energy costs for a $12 purchase. We all know that if we put $12 down, we save $75 a year. Not every Canadian has one of those shower units in their washrooms yet. They should have. Maybe by our debating this in the House of Commons today, more will.

Something as simple as a computerized thermostat on the wall of our home will automatically turn down the temperature at night to a comfortable 18 or 19 degrees. In case we forget to turn down the thermostat at night when we go to bed, it does it automatically. It can save $300 a year and it costs $30 to install.

We can extrapolate that logic in the whole public works and government services regime in view of the fact that we own 68,000 buildings in this country. I hope this debate today and our ratifying Kyoto will finally motivate the government to seriously undertake an energy retrofit of all the federally owned buildings as a pilot project. It could be a demonstration project to show the private sector what can be done and to dispel even further the fearmongering that exists around Kyoto.

We should embrace Kyoto. We are being pushed in a direction we should be going in voluntarily. We have waited a little too long and now we have to do it. For a while it was a good idea. Now it is an essential idea.

We have already heard in today's speeches and we will probably hear again later today about the thousands of jobs lost, et cetera. The very workers who stand to be affected are members of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union. I was at the convention in Toronto when it passed a resolution. I can even read the resolution if time permits. It calls on government to ratify Kyoto and calls upon government to meet the Kyoto targets. Those workers are not afraid of this, so why should we be afraid?

I represented the carpenters union. Those workers are no longer afraid of the idea of greening. They recognize there is more job creation potential in green technology than there is in the old smokestack industries of building more and more generating stations. That is not even taking into consideration the valid point made by the member for Windsor--St. Clair.

There is also the idea that we could be developing the technology here and marketing it around the world. We could be a centre of excellence for energy efficiency. What more appropriate country in the world to become a centre of excellence for energy efficiency than the most energy consumptive country in the world in a cold northern climate?

We can meet our Kyoto targets without freezing in the dark. We can meet our Kyoto targets without costing thousands of jobs. We believe that if we do embrace Kyoto, we are opening a new door to a whole new era for Canadian workers, because we are only just beginning to explore the wonderful energy efficient ideas that are out there.

Already Canada produces the best windows in the world. We export triple pane windows with argon gas sealed units that are state of the art, the best in the world. We have only scratched the surface of those industries. We also have some of the best thermostat control units in the world. We export them around the world. Those are just the very beginning. I repeat that there is as many as seven times the person years of employment in demand side management and energy efficiency as there is in supply side management or the generating of units of energy through generating stations.

The workers involved and their unions and representatives are not afraid of Kyoto. Why are we hearing from the Canadian Alliance and some of the opponents to Kyoto that they are afraid we will lose thousands of jobs. If we were progressive and looking forward, we would embrace this opportunity to move into a whole new era of energy efficiency in the country.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am very heartened to hear my colleagues across the way embrace Kyoto the way they are. My hon. colleague covered the fact that basically that Canadians are in tune with the government and the government has listened to Canadians. They know what Kyoto is about, that it is good for us today and that it will be good for generations to come.

He made a very good point when he talked about workers in factories recognizing there would be a technology change of which they could be a part. Truly Kyoto could be a lost opportunity if Canada does not get in line and decide that we will be at the cutting edge of this.

Could my hon. colleague comment on some of the changes that have happened? Indeed, in the resource sector we have BP, Shell and many Canadian companies that recognize this is the way of the future. We also have Technology Partnership Canada and the Canada Foundation for Innovation and through those the government is helping facilitate the very kinds of technological advances that will lead to new jobs being kept in Canada. Could my colleague comment on that?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member raising those important issues. I believe the first point she made was that she was heartened to hear people on this side of the House interested in and understanding Kyoto. She went on to say that most Canadians in fact do understand the principles of Kyoto and why it is so important.

What she failed to say and what I will add, it seems that the only people who do not understand or embrace Kyoto are those people sitting on the benches on my side of the House, the members of the Canadian Alliance. When we survey Canadians, they understand. When we survey the other opposition parties, they understand. Therefore there is one very small segment of society, the members of the Canadian Alliance and perhaps the few people they represent who do not.

In the second point the member made, even the oil industry, the industries that will be affected, have recognized that change is necessary and they are willing to embrace change and make the necessary changes without the accompanying fearmongering et cetera. This is not something that people are concerned about to the point that we would believe if we listened to members of the Canadian Alliance.

The point is well taken that Canadians are ready, they embrace change, they understand Kyoto, and the Canadian industry is willing to be innovative and to respond and meet that challenge.

We see Kyoto as an opportunity, not a problem.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the NDP said that we do not understand Kyoto. I will ask him if he understands some of the basic concepts of Kyoto because I believe that Kyoto is one of the greatest attempts by the government to hoodwink the Canadian people.

How does the hon. member think Kyoto will deal with the polluting of our streams, the poisoning of our soil, acid rain and pollutants in the air, given that the target of Kyoto is strictly or primarily CO

2

, a naturally occurring element, not a pollutant and that man-made CO

2

is less than half of one per cent of the total amount of CO

2

generated by this planet? What difference does he think it will make by reducing a certain percentage of that? If we were to totally eliminate man-made CO

2

, we are talking about less than half of one per cent. That is from the leading Ph.D. climatologist in the country. Further, 97% of the greenhouse effect on our atmosphere is water vapour.

What exactly is the Kyoto accord supposed to do and how will it deal with pollution because that is the buzzword that everybody keeps throwing out to try to scare or shame Canadians into signing onto something that will do absolutely nothing in terms of pollution in the country?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in 1993 I was part of the global climate change task force that toured five different cities across the country. We were dealing with Rio at that time. Those very questions were asked because that was how primitive the debate was at that time. We were at the infancy of the debate and starting to draw attention to climate change. I think the global climate change task force came away satisfied that the issues of climate change and global warming had a secondary impact and that was the air pollution side. There were two parallel tracks.

One of the recommended methodologies by which Canada will meet its Kyoto targets will be to look at the urban transit strategy. The emissions that will be avoided by a rapid transit urban strategy will include, not only CO

2

, but also other poisonous hydrocarbons such as mercury. A number of pollutants will be eliminated as we seek to reduce other greenhouse gas emissions. Poisons will be reduced in concert with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

I hope that answers some of the hon. member's questions.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to join my colleagues in the House in debating the motion before us today. I would like to use the motion itself as a framework for the remarks I will be making. It states:

That, before the Kyoto Protocol is ratified by the House, there should be an implementation plan that Canadians understand...

I would have said with which they are fully engaged. It goes on:

--that sets out the benefits, how the targets are to be reached and its costs.

It seems to be a very measured motion. That is a minimum that we owe Canadians. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has full intention of supporting this motion. It is incredibly measured, but the words of this motion are the words of the member of Parliament for LaSalle—Émard. It will be very curious how members of Parliament on the other side of this chamber proceed on this and whether they will support what I consider to be a very reasonable approach.

It also reflects the Progressive Conservative position on climate change, and that is we categorically do not support the blind ratification of a legally binding accord. The minimum we owe Canadians is a comprehensive plan that has a sector by sector analysis, broken down province by province, that ultimately evolves with the provincial consensus in the agreement and that Canadians really understand what behavioural expectations their national government has for them. That is a reasonable approach. This is a legally binding accord.

Reference was made a little earlier to Rex Murphy, a political commentator. He wondered why the provinces were not on board?” The analogy was that the provinces could not find the ship. The Liberal government has been bungling this file more than half a decade.

Illustration of that very issue is that our Kyoto target of minus 6% below 1990 level between 2008-2012 is a reduction of 240 megatonnes. We also know that the Minister of the Environment on the front end of September stated that the target was to make it 170 megatonnes, then try to renegotiate it at the eleventh hour. That type of Anderson accounting is the type of initiative that means we plan to ratify an accord as a nation, then not keep our word. Blind ratification is irresponsible. It sullies our reputation as a nation if we go forward with what I would deem to be disingenuous ratification in that regard.

I want to highlight a couple of illustrations about how ad hoc the government's approach has been in this calendar year on developing the implementation plan with respect the Kyoto accord itself. We all know less than a month ago cabinet was supposed to meet to see this so-called peekaboo plan so it could endorse it. Then there was no plan. In fact the Prime Minister, when he spoke to an audience in Calgary the week before, said that we would have a plan. Then he said that we would have a plan sometime between now and 2008-12.

We also know that even last evening after many of our hard-working staff had finally gone home, in this instance my staff had gone home, a notice of a briefing was sent out at 7:35 p.m. The government had finally developed some form of a plan, put the work together in a PowerPoint presentation and members of Parliament were informed that there would be a briefing this morning at 9:30. Anybody can understand that kind of last minute planning really does not show a lot of good faith.

This is not just recent history. The Government of Canada went to Kyoto without a plan, without a target or a timeline to speak of. It was one of the most ill-prepared governments at the summit. I had the privilege of attending that summit, however I was very saddened by how ill-prepared our government was as compared to the rest of the industrialized nations which are members of this particular accord itself.

We all understand where things started to unravel. On November 12, 1997, the provinces finally met and handed the government a consensus. They agreed to stabilization levels of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by a certain target; it was heading toward 2010. The very next morning the then minister of natural resources said that might or might not be our target.

It really broke faith with the provinces from that point on, so much so that the provinces and parliamentarians began to assault the then minister of environment, the hon. Christine Stewart, on the fact that her government had not provided her with a comprehensive approach in terms of what it was doing. I do not blame her individually in that regard. The government said that Minister Stewart would be empowered to negotiate the international aspects of climate change in the Kyoto protocol and the Minister of Natural Resources would be responsible for domestic implementation.

That so-called strategy has gone by the wayside because we have not even heard from the Minister of Natural Resources on this file and it has been usurped by the Minister of the Environment who has been Canada's lone spokesperson, although he does have a multiple level of positions in terms of what our target is, whether it is 240 megatonnes or 170. This depends on who one is speaking to on any particular day.

I would like to make one clear comment though. A progressive country like Canada must have a progressive climate change strategy. Canadians produce the highest amount of greenhouse gases, on a per capita basis, of all industrialized nations. We contribute 2% of the problem in this world of in excess of 6 billion persons. With 30 million persons, we contribute 2% of the world's greenhouse gases.

The objective of reducing greenhouse gases is not being challenged. Canada must ensure that it does its share to achieve net and constant reductions, because it produces more greenhouse gases per capita than any other OECD country, 2% of world's greenhouse gas emissions.

As an illustration of how other countries were more prepared than Canada was in that regard, the Swedes, for instance, went to the European Union and said that it was a cold climate country with an export driven, energy intensive economy and a large land mass relative to a small population. It added that with an export driven, energy intensive economy, it was tougher for it to make the target.

Sweden only has a 20% reduction of what the rest of the EU is doing. It had done its homework. It was a tougher role for the Swedes to fulfil than the rest of the European nations. Sweden's circumstances were taken into account. Canada, in contrast, had no plan, no modelling to that effect, the same way the Swedes and the Aussies had done in that regard.

The science is clear. Climate change is happening. The world community must put its shoulder to the wheel to ensure that it reverses this particular trend. We must also ensure that we have a plan we can live up to and that we honour our word. If we merely ratify an accord that we do not implement, we dishonour our nation, and it becomes a disingenuous ratification in that regard.

We get nowhere challenging the science. An argument can be made, and I have made it in the past, that one of the reasons the Government of Canada is ill-prepared is that it has taken a similar position as that of the leader of the opposition in 1997, Mr. Manning, when he took the approach of fighting the science of climate change. This has been, in more recent days, replicated by some members of the Canadian Alliance but not all. If we go down that track it irradicates our capacity to ask those heartfelt questions to keep the government accountable, and to assist with a plan if we do not believe that there is even a problem.

On the science issue I would like to add this aspect. Carbon dioxide itself may not be a pollutant that can cause an effect on human health on its own. However every activity of an industrial nature that produces CO

2

also produces other gases which are greenhouse gases and, in particular, contribute to smog and pollution, such as nitrogen oxide. Therefore, investing in public transportation does prevent pollution, such as nitrogen oxide, and also reduces carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.

This reflects the essence of what the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has advocated all along. Our members have advocated what we term as a no regret strategy of initiatives we should be doing anyway: massive tax incentives for the research and development of renewable sources of energy; tax incentives and R and D on energy efficiency initiatives; and similar incentives of that nature with respect to the utilization of renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency itself.

We advocated in our platform of 2000, and it was highlighted by the member from Winnipeg Centre as well, that the Government of Canada implement a program to retrofit federal government buildings within its own capital budget. Not only would that have an immense payback to the taxpayer, it would also show that the federal government is willing to lead by example.

We have also called for the Government of Canada to adopt a higher emphasis on blended fuels.

These are elements that the Government of Canada is now talking about. However, every one of these initiatives could have been put in place in January of 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 or 2002. The Government of Canada has been asleep at the switch. None of these initiatives were put in place. Most of these are financial instruments, tax incentives. It would not cost the Government of Canada anything to speak of, given that there is so little industry in those sectors right now and we are not foregoing any revenues that the treasury is now taking in. Almost every one of these initiatives was in the purview of the then Minister of Finance, the member of Parliament for LaSalle—Émard.

If the Government of Canada was asleep at the switch on climate change and not adopting a no regret strategy it was because of the lack of leadership that we had, not only from the Prime Minister, but more in particular from the then finance minister. More and more Canadians are now recognizing that particular deficiency.

Where do we go? We know we do not have a comprehensive plan that has a sector by sector analysis where the provinces have a consensus and an agreement. If the accord is ratified without the active participation of the provinces the accord cannot be implemented.

What the PC Party is advocating is clearly what provincial governments are advocating and members of Parliament in the Chamber are as well. We are advocating to have not only a made in Canada plan, but we are also advocating to have a North American made regime. I call it a Kyoto annex, but a non-binding accord.

If we had the capacity to rope in the Americans who are the number one emitters of carbon dioxide we would bring in our largest trading partner, a country where we export one-third of our gross domestic product. That made in Canada plan would become a made in North America initiative and would replicate something we have done in the past.

This is exactly the same framework when we proposed the acid rain treaty in 1987 and had a comprehensive North American strategy on sulphur dioxide power generating plants that built upon an arrangement that we had made with the Europeans, known as the 35% club, where we had pledged to reduce SO

2

emissions by 35%.

The Americans initially fought us on the science, but because it made sense to their state governments such as, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont we were able to develop a North American regime.

Where is the indication that the Americans are interested in participating in a project of that sort? We do know that business hates uncertainty. Business likes to have established rules. We should engage the Americans and develop a North American plan to prevent the United States from having at its worst case 50 climate change regimes. Some 10 or 12 state governments are already going in that direction. If we were able to harness the interests of state governments and work with their national government toward a national strategy where the Americans and Mexicans would team up with us for a North American regime it would replicate something that we have had success with before. It does more for the climate, given that Canada has used its special relationship that was once stronger. We should use that special relationship to bring the Americans in who are the number one emitters of greenhouse gases as well.

I wish to emphasize what the motion actually says. I compliment the environment critic of the Canadian Alliance who I have worked with, although we have different objectives from time to time, for the wording of the motion itself. This is the minimum we owe Canadians, to provide a plan that is done sector by sector, province by province and that Canadians are fully engaged with and has a provincial consensus.

The minimum we owe this Chamber is that whatever plan has been tabled to the provinces come back to Parliament. We should strike a joint Senate and House committee, or perhaps just a House committee if some people have some objections with that, but I would rather have both Chambers involved which would express the special nature of the committee itself. That committee should have the right to tour the country and engage Canadians, health care professionals, environmentalists, the provinces, and hear from industry so that we have a comprehensive debate.

The Liberal government has been having this peekaboo plan, drawn up on the back of a napkin, that has no costing whatsoever, that falls 70 megatonnes short, and is so disingenuous.

We are advocating that all parliamentarians embrace our idea, which I know is supported by provincial governments in Alberta and New Brunswick and is resonating in the Province of Quebec as well. We would tour the country and see whether whatever plan we have is actually doable and manageable and that we know the costs, the impacts and the opportunities that are there. Why would we deprive ourselves of the opportunity to do that?

There is another thing I would like to add. The member of Parliament for LaSalle--Émard made a very aggressive speech the other day, which members may have heard, about the democratic deficit in Parliament. This is the largest public policy issue before the House at the moment. At the very minimum, he owes it to Parliament and this chamber to be in the House and vote on his own words, on whether he supports what he said earlier this week. I challenge the former minister of finance from LaSalle--Émard to be in the chamber when we vote on this on Tuesday.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you would find consent for the following order:

That at the conclusion of the present debate on the opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 3 p.m.