Debates of Nov. 26th, 2002

Kyoto Protocol

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

Mr. Speaker, it was nice to have that little break. We have so much to talk about.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether you were rivetted to your television set for the first part, but perhaps you would like me to give you an update.

There probably are members here who do want a little update on what was covered this morning. I can tell that members very actively want that. Some people were taking notes this morning and they may want to make sure that they got everything.

I wish this were a joke, but it is not. This is probably the most important issue that Canadians have faced in a long time. It is an issue that will affect every man, woman and child in this country. I fervently believe that to be true.

When I go back to my constituency, in the province that I come from there is something that had as big an impact on the people there as I believe Kyoto will have on all Canadians. I believe the impact will be the greatest on the people in Ontario, but I still would like to let them know what it was like for the west in 1980-81 when the national energy program was introduced.

There is not anyone who will forget those days. They will not forget how 30% in the city I come from lost their businesses, lost their homes, lost their very livelihood. In fact some lost their lives because they could not bear what had happened to them and what had happened to their very livelihood.

There were streets where seven, eight and nine houses were seized by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the banks because people could not make their payments. These were young families who were trying to get started. These were people who worked in the oil and gas industry. Because of the national energy program devised here in Ottawa and imposed upon those people, all of a sudden their jobs were gone. It was instant. It was in 30 days that it all happened. That memory is so strong. Everybody there remembers it.

Kyoto has the potential to do exactly the same thing, only this time it could do it to all of Canada. It will start here in Ontario. Ontario's manufacturing sector will be affected and people do not see it coming. The people in western Canada did not see the national energy program coming either. Their politicians did not warn them. The press did not warn them. They did not know what the cost would be.

There are penalities when we sign on to Kyoto. There are penalties that no one will be able to get out of once we implement that international treaty called the Kyoto protocol.

Let us not kid ourselves about it. It is fine in this place to make a joke here and there and to find it amusing. Certainly some of the members across the way find a lot of things amusing, but let us not ever forget how serious the issue is that we are debating in the House and how much it can affect every single Canadian.

The members of the governing party say that they have consulted. They have consulted all right. They have consulted with their special interest groups, with those groups that are on the dole that have to agree with the government. They have consulted with their party members here and there, their fundraisers. They have consulted with their hacks and flacks across the country, but they have not consulted with the person out there on the street.

They have not consulted, as I have said so many times, with those people on fixed incomes, the seniors who are growing in numbers due to our demographics. They have not talked to the father and mother with two kids. They have not talked to those single moms who are now so common in all of our constituencies. They have not talked to those people as to what it will cost them.

What will be their transportation costs? What will be their costs of power when we implement Kyoto? That is what is really important.

As well, we reviewed this morning the Liberal record on a number of environmental issues. My main example was the Fraser Valley and just how inadequate the government's action has been. What the federal government has let happen there is a disgrace.

Washington State is approving power plants 500 yards away from the border and they are blowing emissions right into the Fraser Valley. We are getting the pollution. They are using our aquifers. We are getting their sewage. We are not getting any of the benefits of the jobs. Of course California is getting a clean shake with clean energy, and the power lines will go right down the main street of Abbotsford. That is how the government handles environmental issues.

We also reviewed sewage being dumped into the ocean right in the Minister of the Environment's riding. No worse example could be set. We talked about the cars parked out front with their motors running and just what sort of an example that was setting. We have gone through that.

Just for your benefit, Mr. Speaker, so you can get back to the television to watch the rest of this, I just wanted to give you a review. That is what we covered this morning. Of course we covered the environmental plan that we have.

I want to review the original plan that was put to the provinces. They were asked to deal with it. It was said that they would be part of it and would cooperate with it.

To help everyone know where I am going here, first I will talk about the climate change draft plan. What I want to talk about later, in a few days, is the new plan, which is really just the old plan in a different folder. We need to talk about that because it is important that we deal with what the government is putting forward as its plan.

I apologize if this is not as riveting as our party's plan and what we would do. We talked about the exciting things we could do in the forms of alternate energy, research and conservation. Everyone enjoyed my talk this morning about the light bulb and promoting energy efficiency. All of those are part of a vision that any government should have for the environment.

I want to review this plan as fairly as I can. I have broken it down. This is an abbreviation of the plan. I have done a little more work on the newest plan, the one the government was supposed to meet on with the provinces on November 21, but that got cancelled, and the one that they were supposed to meet on this Friday in Toronto, but that has been cancelled as well. That is part of the cooperation that has gone on between the provinces and the federal government.

The government appears to be trying to divide and conquer. The Prime Minister is meeting with those premiers to whom he feels he can make an offer that cannot be turned down. That is very much like what happened when the national energy program was brought in. Again, it was a divide and conquer strategy. It worked rather well. The only thing is it devastated one part of the country. This divide and conquer strategy might work too. If it does, it will devastate the entire country this time, from the standpoint of both environment and what it is trying to accomplish.

Let us examine the program. I started yesterday but ran out of time. It is important that we have consistency when we are evaluating this and that we do it adequately and completely.

This was presented to the provinces on October 28. We need to examine it in some depth here.

I apologize for getting into the real technical part of this but it is necessary. When we evaluate the general points of what the government is assuming and basing the plan on, we must look at certain words it uses. It is a typical bureaucratic document where what we see and read between the lines gives us the picture. I will interpret for the House and for the people of Canada what the document is really saying. That is what this is all about.

I was asked during question period what this was all about. This is about telling Canadians they have something to look at, to wake up because it will affect them all. This has a major impact on their lives, not just on big business, or some far away place. This has a huge impact on them and every man, woman and child. My children and grandchildren, this has an impact on them. That is what this is all about, so let us not lose sight of that.

When we look at the general points in the document we come up with a fact that the government keeps saying. It says in the new document and the old document that the science is clear. Well, if we look at the authorities on which this science is based, the IPCC, the 200 scientists, climatologists, and the 40 models, they say that the science is not clear. These are the people the government is trusting and basing its information on.

I will be quoting from a number of these models and members will get the idea and understand how unclear the science is. If I were to go through all the science we would be here for another 10 or 12 days just for me to summarize the extent of the science. It is very complex.

There were 4,000 models that have now been broken down to 40 models. The science deals with ice cores, soil samples, samples from the bottom of the ocean and all of the research that has been done. It deals with what has happened out in the stratosphere. It deals with 23 years of satellite imaging. All of that is part of the science. The government continues to say the science is clear. That is an untruth; the science is not clear. I would argue and our party would argue to be cautious. Let us do something because the science indicates that there has been a change and maybe we are a part of that, and we can do something about it.

The document then says that we can establish a competitive edge by joining the rest of the industrial world. That is an interesting comment. I guess that means that the U.S. and Australia are not industrial countries. I guess that means that China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Chile and Argentina have no industry.

Join the industrial world by signing Kyoto? Many of the industrialized and developing countries are not part of Kyoto. Was this written to deceive? Was this written so that Canadians would not understand what Kyoto was about? It says in the document we should sign Kyoto to join the industrial world. Well, 85% of our trade and one in four jobs in this country are dependent upon the U.S. The U.S. is not an industrial country? The U.S. is not part of the industrial world? Who would possibly believe that? I do not think a Liberal would even believe that and that is a real stretch.

The U.S. may join Kyoto in the future? I wonder what crystal ball that came out of. The U.S. will meet its Kyoto targets and beat it. About 39 states already have plans implemented. It will join Kyoto? It will buy credits from somewhere? It would do that? Why would it do that? Americans are not stupid. Some people think they are. Certainly some members of the Prime Minister's staff have names for them, but I do not think we would agree that they are. We would call them an industrial country and pretty smart wheelers and dealers. So where does that come from?

It says that cost impacts will be modest and will be offset by investments in technology. What does the government not understand about modelling? There are forwarding models. What one puts in them determines what one gets out of them. The government put in 3¢ a barrel of oil. It put in $10 to buy a tonne of carbon credits. It put in the figures it wanted to put in and it got out what it wanted to get out. That is how modeling works. What one puts in is what one gets out. If one puts the wrong figures in, one gets the wrong answers out.

[An hon. member]

No problem.

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

There is no problem. I agree with the hon. member on that one.

So we will have to discuss the modelling in detail because the government does not understand it. We will have to talk about these 40 models and the inputs. What inputs did it use to get its predictions?

The government says that innovation and technology are the keys to growing the economy while reducing the emissions. Innovation and technology are exactly what will reduce the emissions, and that is exactly what we should be promoting, but we are not. We will make companies buy credits, send money off shore so they will not have that money to provide jobs, research and development here.

What does the government not understand about that? We must buy that technology back because we are sending our people away. We send 22,000 graduates away from this country every year who have master's degrees and Ph.Ds. We lose 22,000 of them a year. Why do we lose them? Because there are no jobs here. There are no jobs for those high tech people here.

Members of my own family are an example of that. They have done well and I am proud of them, but two of them cannot work in Canada because they did not get offered jobs here. Our daughter had 19 countries after her. She got a signing bonus to work in Germany. We are missing out. She did not have a job offer in Canada. We are not even into that. Fortunately I got to see her last Friday when she was a guest speaker at a convention in Ottawa bringing foreign information to bring us up to date. What kind of a deal is that? That does not upset me as a father? That does not upset me as a Canadian and a member of Parliament? Members better believe it does.

The government should not say that innovation and technology is the key unless it will put its money where its mouth is and develop these secondary education systems, support our students, and provide them with jobs when they finish. It should not just say that. We are good at patting our chest and saying things, but we do not put our money where our mouth is. It would be a lot better to invest in that, than those other things the government invests in.

We must ensure a strong over-all investment climate. Let us think about that one for a minute. The government says that we will sign Kyoto, we will have targets, and that it will cause us all kinds of new regulations and rules. It will tax us more. We will pay more for energy and fuel, and that will encourage investment? I do not know many investors who will go for that deal. Investors want security. Investors want to know what they are investing in and they want to know what the rules are before they invest.

The investment freeze that many companies are now saying represents about 10% of the potential investment in the country that is not coming here anymore. It is not coming here because if one is investing one wants to know what the rules are. The rules are not clear in this country and that is what is wrong. When it says Kyoto will ensure a strong overall investment climate, I have big problems.

The government says it has held extensive consultations. It says that page after page. It does not mean that. It has not consulted. Canadians do not know. The premiers are not coming on Friday to Toronto because they have not been part of it. They have not been consulted.

Canadians do not know because they have not been consulted. Industry is not part of it because they have not been asked to be part of it. When it says consultations, there are big problems.

It talks about the fundamentals of the approach being national engagement. It is good with words. National engagement, we will involve everyone.

I do not know anybody who feels they have been involved. It has been mishandled from day one. It says we will have a made in Canada plan, evergreen, step by step, in partnership. That almost brings tears to my eyes. I could say, wow, that is really something. It goes on to say, no undue burden on any sector or region and the risk will be managed and fairly shared. I wonder about anybody watching this or thinking about this in Quebec. I wonder how much Quebec can trust the federal government to treat it equally and fairly when the government seized the sinks for agriculture and forestry.

I cannot believe that any Quebec politician would believe that in fact that is what will happen, that the federal government will treat it fairly. No, the federal government will take everything it can because it is scrambling for 240 megatonnes of emission credits. It will not do that and Quebeckers should know better than anybody about the federal government's intrusion into their areas. That is why Quebec has separate immigration policies, tax policies and legal system, because it does not trust the feds.

Quebeckers should look at this and ask, is the federal government going to commit us to all of this, and can we trust it? I do not know too many people around who would say they trust everything the government tells them to be true. I would be surprised, as Quebeckers find out about this, if the government sticks with this.

I told the story this morning about the cab driver in Halifax a couple of weeks ago. The cab driver asked if I was with the federal government and I said I was. He said we are about to hit them at the very time they are getting back on their feet. He said they were finally busy, building apartment buildings and finally achieving something and we are going to impose Kyoto on them. He said that would shut down the oil and gas industry which they believe could be the future. That is what they are saying in Atlantic Canada.

I have quotes from the premiers of every province. I have quotes that I want to go through from the energy and the environment ministers.

[An hon. member]

What about Manitoba?

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

The member just asked about Manitoba. I love the environment minister from Manitoba. He is a real piece of work, that guy. He is there saying let us sign Kyoto. All he wants is to be sure the feds develop Manitoba's hydroelectricity and run transmission lines to Sault Ste. Marie so the province will have a guaranteed source of income forever. Manitoba wants to become the hydro centre of Canada, have the feds pay for it, and for that Manitoba will sign Kyoto.

Well, that is really good for the environment. That is a real commitment. It is about money. That is where that environment minister is coming from and he accuses others of the same sort of thing.

Let us go on. This says that Kyoto is only the first step and will not have much impact on climate change. Did everyone hear that? Kyoto is the first step and will not have much impact on climate change. The Prime Minister said a couple of days ago that in fact we will notice no change in our environment. The environment minister at the University of Calgary a few weeks back was asked whether we would stop having droughts, floods and ice storms. He said that in about 100 years we probably would not notice much change in the environment.

We are being asked to take a 30% economic hit on every man, woman and child, and it is not going to make any difference to the environment. Little Johnny will still have asthma. There will still be the health problems. This is about CO

2

, climate change and global warming. It is not about pollution. We must get that message across, and if I have to stand here until Christmas to get it across, I will do it. That is how much I believe it.

It says that Canadians' participation is necessary. Well, I guess so. If we will have 80 kilometre an hour speed limits and not allow any speeding, because that obviously would use less fuel, we will need some commitment or else a heck of a lot of police. If truck drivers will not be braking or accelerating as fast, we will sure need a lot of commitment. If businesses literally will be laying off 30% of their staff, we will need to have commitment.

There will be a need for a lot of commitment. When it says that we need Canadians' participation and commitment, we are asking people to change their whole way of life. We are saying that they must cut their carbon use by 20%. It says right in the report that is their commitment. Twenty per cent is a major reduction in the use of carbon.

I can hardly bring myself to deal with the section of the report that deals with modelling, because I do want to spend a lot more time on the IPCC modelling. It is very important that we talk about the 40 models.

I know there is one member across the way who is waiting. He probably has had to delay his town hall meeting so he could find out about this modelling because he is very interested. I think he even wants to be a model in another career. I do not think he is going to make it but I would not want to be the one to mention that to him. We will deal with the modelling that has gone on a little later, because I want to talk about the IPCC modelling which probably is not nearly as interesting as other types of modelling.

On investment and new markets, obviously the government and the environment minister think that all of a sudden all of these new companies will spring up because we have signed on to Kyoto. What the minister does not know, or I do not think he knows, is that places like Denmark and Germany are leading in this technology. Because we signed on in 1992--and we sign everything--and we then signed the Kyoto accord in 1997, we have not encouraged industry to become innovative.

Compared to some of the other places, we have not done much to really develop this. We are not the leading edge, which we should and could be. We need to see a government commitment before that will happen.

I like this one. We need to talk further about fair and competitive taxes. I have talked to many industries, many companies and many Canadians about taxes. I have never heard anybody say that we have fair and competitive taxes. We do not even come up to the standards of the poorest state in the U.S. in terms of what we get for our tax dollar and how much tax we pay.

I remember being at the OECD in Paris a few years back and asking what is wrong with Canada. Why is our dollar so low? Why are we not achieving anything? Why are we going down instead of up? It was made very clear what the reasons were. First, we have a government without a vision. We have a government that does not know where it is going. It jumps from pillar to post and does not show any leadership. The second reason was that our taxes are too high. The third reason was that we have too much debt.

Those were the reasons the OECD gave for Canada having so much trouble, why our dollar is so low and why we are having difficulty. We need to examine that if we really want to talk about fair and competitive taxes. When our number one business partner, the U.S., where 85% of our trade goes, is not part of an agreement that we are part of, we had better believe that we are not giving ourselves a competitive advantage.

Mexico is not on side. None of the South American countries are on side. All of these countries have opted out. Australia is not part of it. China and India are not part of it.

It does not give us a competitive advantage, by taxing our businesses, by making them do things that others do not. That is not a competitive advantage. That cannot be used as an investment strategy. Uncertainty cannot be a reason that companies will invest in a country. It has never worked that way and nobody would buy into that argument.

It goes on to talk about risk management, that we will work with industry to reduce uncertainties, limit risks and impact on competitiveness. That is really great. The way to do that is to give them an implementation plan: industries will have to have these targets; they will have to achieve this amount of emissions and this is what it will cost. That will help them decide either to stay here or to leave so they can survive or not survive but they will know. However, by not telling them of any implementation plan, by not telling them of any cost, by not showing anything, how will we keep those businesses? How will we hold them if there is not a competitive environment to be in?

We will build in contingencies to limit the risk. I translate that to be government giving guarantees, I suppose like Bombardier. I guess we are going to do that right across the country. We limit the risk and we build in contingencies to limit the risk.

The problem I have with that is, where does the money come from? Why should I as government be involved in businesses and guarantee them against risk? How would that work? The communist countries tried that, the east bloc countries tried it. They tried to guarantee businesses to keep people in business who were not competitive and we saw how far they got. We see where they are today. Today the only advantage they have is that they are out of business and now will be able to sell credits to us. Maybe they will have another source of money. Maybe they knew more than we thought they did.

We will work in conjunction with the U.S. Do we not like this one? I guess we will. I guess we have to. If it has 85% of our trade, and one in four jobs depend upon it, we had better work with the U.S. and we had better not start calling the Americans morons because they do not take that very well. If someone from another country called our Prime Minister something like that, I would sure be on that person's case. It would sure make me mad. If we were to say it internally, that is one thing, and it is fine over there for them to say it, but boy, we had better not say it. How are we going to work with these guys when we start treating them like that?

It says that we will keep open Canada's long term undertaking under the protocol and no commitments to the second commitment period. That sure sounds like a good, solid environmental commitment. We will be part of phase one but we will not commit to phase two.

The environment minister said that nothing much will happen in phase one. That will deal with 5% of the problem. Ninety-five per cent of the problem will wait for phases two, three, four and five down the road. We are not committed to phases two, three, four or five. Is this saying that we are not committed to doing anything?

That is not what Canadians are saying. Canadians are saying, “Fix the pollution problem. Deal with global warning. Have a plan that will work. Tell us what it is, tell us what it will cost and we will get behind it, but do not tell us that you are not going to tell us anything”. That is what they want to hear. That is the purpose of debating this issue in the House, making sure that Canadians connect with this issue.

We need to talk about these targets because in the next document it deals with them a little bit further. We need to start off by making it very clear, and this will allow me to develop the numbers. The actions that are under way will cover 80 megatonnes. We dealt with some of those actions this morning.

It is pretty scary, the actions the government says it will take credit for. It is pretty scary that it might even believe some of its own propaganda, that it might actually agree that it will have these emissions credits for things it is doing now. They are things like everybody will drive the speed limit, things like 20% of the homes will be retrofitted, things like training truck drivers to drive slower and so on. It is taking credits for things like that. Of course it is taking 30 megatonne credits for sinks, and we will talk about that as well.

Then it talks about actions for the future, 100 megatonnes. The government does not have a clue where it will get those from.

We will review and analyze the second report province by province. As we analyze each province, we will see what is expected of those provinces and why not a single environment minister, including those from Manitoba and Quebec, will meet with the government on Friday. They will not meet because there is no way they could agree to the stuff the government is putting forward.

Then of course there is that nagging 60 megatonnes that we really have no plan for at all. We have no idea where we might find it. At one point the environment minister went so far as to say that maybe we cannot achieve our total targets and maybe we will just never get to the 60 megatonnes.

The truth is there are penalties if we sign Kyoto. Kyoto says that according to the Marrakesh accords, nations who ratify but who do not meet their targets in round one by 2012 are to be penalized another 30%. That could not be much clearer. There are penalties if we do not keep up to these commitments. When the environment minister, the natural resources minister and the Prime Minister say that maybe we will not make our targets, then Kyoto is saying there are penalties. We can get out of those penalties. It is easy. Buy the credits from someone else.

In other words, in 2012 when we have not achieved the targets, and no one says we can hit those targets, does that mean there will be a proposal that we spend billions of dollars to buy credits so as not to be penalized by Kyoto? That is how most people would read it. Everybody agrees, the economists, the business community and the provinces, that we cannot meet those unrealistic targets in that timeframe.

What does the government not understand about that? We cannot meet the targets within that timeframe. The provinces are saying to extend the timeframe to something they can achieve. Nobody is saying to do nothing. Everybody is saying, “Let us do something, but let us do something that we can achieve. Let us be honest for once. Let us not sign this international agreement, which is totally dishonest because we cannot get to those targets, and let us do something with realistic targets and with a genuine plan”.

I will follow up further on that because the government has developed that a little further by province. As we review the next document, I apologize for how many days it will take but it is a rather wordy document. We will have to analyze it in depth. It is important that Canadians understand it because the government has no intention of letting Canadians find out about it.

Let us look briefly at what the government says are the actions that it is taking right now. Here is its action plan. It has invested $1.6 billion since 1998. In what? What have we saved? Where is the beef? Where are the savings? One point six billion dollars should buy us something.

The government can argue that it has given money to the municipalities. Yes, it has. Two hundred and fifty million dollars went to the FCM to develop grain projects, which are very good in many places, and it has helped the municipalities to build infrastructure. However, does anyone know what they had to give in return? They had to give a guarantee to support Kyoto. The municipalities have that money but it has been made very clear to them that there is a price.

Why do people think so many of the municipalities supported and told the government to ratify Kyoto? It is because they had projects approved. When they are asked about that, they say that is not true at all. They say that it has been totally fabricated. All I know is that $250 million in projects were approved and that where they were approved those councils sent back letters saying to ratify Kyoto. Draw your own conclusions, Mr. Speaker.

What about David Suzuki? What about the Pembina Institute? I have faced many of those people now in debates across the country. They are so righteous and care so much but every one of them raises money with a tax credit. Every one of them is on the dole to the government for tax credits. Why are they supporting Kyoto so strongly? The government pays them to support it. I do not need to say any more. It goes on and on.

People who are out there working for a living, the taxpayers, they are the ones paying the bills. They are the ones who really matter. They are the ones at the grassroots level. They are the ones who should be asking what they received for $1.6 billion.

The government says that it has action plan 2000. It is expected to lead to a 50 megatonne reduction by 2010. I have tried to find out a lot about action plan 2000. It is a great piece of paper and it has a lot of good ideas in it, but when the Auditor General examines it I think it will be like the rest of the Auditor General's report, which I have read a couple of times into the record, it is talk and more talk but no action.

The Auditor General said in her report that we have an environmental legacy that we are leaving to our children and grandchildren. She also said that we have a failing grade on the environment.

I think that is exactly what we are finding and it is exactly what we will find when we start to search out where these funds have gone. What friends and relations have received these funds from the government? We have lots of examples of that.

This is the best one and we have reviewed this a few times: 30 megatonnes from agriculture and forestry sinks. Is that not great? Do not give it to the farmers and the foresters. Do not give it to the provinces. The feds will claim it. That is really great. As if that will really help national unity. That will really help the farmers and foresters of Quebec. They will be really happy when they find out that this is a grab by the federal government of provincial jurisdiction. It is a direct grab from them. They are lying to the provinces.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize that the hon. member is on about his fourth round of the same arguments over and over--

[An hon. member]

Just starting.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

--and just starting, as a colleague says, to repeat himself over and over, but that is not my point.

Committees of the House

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources be authorized to travel from place to place within Canada during its consideration of the First Nations Governance Act, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent to table the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Does the House give its unanimous consent to the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Kyoto Protocol

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

Mr. Speaker, I will just remind the member that this is new material, that this has not been read into the record. Therefore I will carry on from where I left off. It would be good if the member would listen and keep his notes up to date so that he knows when we are dealing with new material or when we are simply making a point.

Let us talk about the 100 megatonnes, the future, and where the government will get this from.

The government says that it will have targeted measures on individuals and consumers. Like everything else, we have to translate here because it is a different language.

We are going to have targeted measures on individuals and consumers. I think that means tax. I think that means that when consumers use gas, use power or something else they will be paying for it. Those will be targeted all right. We will have to target transportation, electricity, agriculture and manufacturing. We will have to hit the industry in Ontario because it is producing and emitting CO

2

. What do we not understand? If we manufacture something and we use energy to do it, and everything takes energy, we will release CO

2

and we will have targeted measures against us.

At least we have the right to know what those targeted measures are. The government says that there will be targeted measures to support individual actions by consumers. That is tax.

The government further says that there will be a comprehensive approach to industrial emissions, including domestic emissions trading, technology and infrastructure, investment targeted measures. Notice how it keeps sneaking in targeted measures.

If the government knows what those targeted measures are, why do we not know what they are? Why do the provinces not know what they are? Why does industry not know what they are? What is the government hiding? If everybody is going to be so happy and cooperative and working together on targeted measures, why hide them? The government should be putting them on the front page of every paper because everyone will be so happy to have these targeted measures.

The point is that the government should let Canadians know what this stuff is saying. The government says that it will have direct government participation in international credit markets. That has been translated to say that it will buy international carbon credits. Now we are going to have the federal government sending money to wherever to buy those credits to sell to our companies, or give the credits to them, and we are going to be out that money. That money will be gone.

When that money is gone, it means less research and development, lost jobs and lost productivity. Who wants to get into that bureaucracy? Obviously the countries we have to go to are Russia and East Bloc countries. I suppose in the second round we could go to African and Asian countries and send them money. They want money.

Like Mr. Putin said in Johannesburg, “Don't you guys come to me and expect our credits for millions. They are worth billions. If you're not talking billions, don't come to us”. Of course the Dutch government has already gone with millions and hundreds of millions of dollars to buy credits. The Dutch government figured that it would be good to get in on the ground floor before the price rose. It was probably smart that it bought those credits. I think it spent $300 million on them just as a first bid.

The price has gone up from $10 to $38. Some people think the price will hit $500. Our government is using the price tag of $10. How realistic is that? Who knows? Certainly no one knows and certainly the government modellers do not know. No one knows until this whole thing starts to work.

We must remember that Kyoto cannot be ratified yet because 37% of the emissions in the world are covered so far by countries that have ratified.

The agreement only comes into effect when 55 countries representing 55% of the emissions of the world ratify. Where are we at with that ratification proposal? Where we are at is that 37% have signed on now. The Russians represent 17%. Canada is 2%. Does anyone care whether we sign on or not? I am afraid not. Who do they want to sign on and ratify? The Russians. Mr. Putin said that the Russians may sign on in May or in the spring sometime provided billions of dollars of international credits are paid for in advance.

Where does this money go when it goes to Russia? I wonder how many people in the House think it goes toward helping granny in Russia who is trying to find bread to feed herself. I have seen the bread lines there. I wonder how many people think it is going to help the moms and dads and the kids in Russia. I wonder how many people think it will build clean energy, clean power plants and clean industrial plants so Russia can compete with us. How many people think that will happen?

Do members know where the money will go? It may go to the military, more likely to corruption and more likely to Swiss bank accounts. Maybe we could get a deal if we sent it directly to Switzerland instead of via Russia. Maybe we could make a better deal on it and not send quite so much.

Is that what the government is talking about when it says that it is going to buy international credits? I think so. That is how I interpret it. I do not know how else someone could interpret it. How does that help the environment? How does that help the people in Russia? How does that help us as Canadians? How does that help us to achieve cleaner air and less global warming? I do not know the answer to that. I have no idea how someone could answer those questions at a town hall meeting.

It is quite a bit of fun to think of possible future actions. By having partnership initiatives we will save 20 megatonnes; technological investments of 10 megatonnes; provincial actions, 20 megatonnes; municipal reductions of 10 megatonnes; consumer challenges of 7 megatonnes; as well as credits for clean energy exports. I had better stop here.

Credits for clean energy exports of 70 megatonnes. Clean energy credits have been ruled out by everybody. We are never going to get clean energy credits for anything because if we get them, then Russia has to get them from Europe. All Russian natural gas goes to industrial plants and homes in Europe. Our natural gas goes to a country that is not even part of Kyoto. At least Russia might be part of Kyoto when it gets its credits. The Europeans have said to forget it. Do we think they are a bunch of dummies to give Russia a bunch more credits that they will then have to buy back from it? The Europeans are not stupid.

The government in this country has the audacity to put in its plan clean credits for energy exports. How does it do that? How can it put that in the plan when it knows it will never get those credits? We must remember that there are penalties if a country does not achieve its targets. Those penalties are 30% above what the target is.

Why would a country sign on when it knows it will handicap the people of 2012, my children and my grandchildren who the Liberals claim they really care about? Why would we ever sign something that would inhibit them like that? I think we will put a black mark through that one because it is a non-starter and yet it is in here.

Then there is a preferred mix of instruments. I do not know whether the Liberals are planning to start a band or whatever, but innovation and technology, partnership programs, infrastructure, emissions trading, tax initiatives and smart regulations, I do not know what those instruments are. I do not know how to play them. Smart regulations? Should every regulation not be a smart one? The Liberals are saying that they have stupid regulations, but these ones will be smart ones.

We like the one on tax initiatives. We sure know that would not be unfair to anyone. We sure know who would get those tax initiatives and those tax breaks. We already see that.

We have discussed emissions trading.

With respect to infrastructure, yes, we need lots of infrastructure. Truck drivers are driving over bridges right now that were built in the 1950s. Bridges are collapsing. I have talked to a number of truck drivers over the course of my time here and they have said the government does not do anything about infrastructure. The government spends about 3% of the gasoline tax on infrastructure and the rest goes into general revenue. That is how the Liberals do business.

The government says it will use initiatives and it will build infrastructure. Where will the money come from to do that? From taxes. We know that is the answer, yet it does not say that anywhere here.

With respect to transportation, this is quite good too. Under the action plan, we already have 9.4 megatonnes for things we are doing now. I think that means that the minister's car he drives now is fuel efficient, so we count that. I think that is what that means. The fact that the other ministers leave their cars running outside all day does not count. We have one minister, and I was told today there is one more, or maybe two who have fuel efficient cars. While our House leader was serving as our interim leader, he applied for an energy efficient car and it has not arrived to this day. That is commitment.

Through transportation, 12 megatonnes will be reduced from somewhere but that has not been pointed out from where. There will be more intense negotiations with manufacturers and possible legislation to improve fuel efficiency in new vehicles by 25%. What happens with an automobile manufacturer in Ontario when the government says that it needs to have new fuel efficiency to save 25% by 2010? That means the whole factory needs to be retooled. If an investor, the options will be to retool or to move.

Is the Canadian market big enough that companies like General Motors, Ford and so on will retool or will they move to the U.S., to Mexico or the southern states? Where will they go if they have to build a new plant? That is a real threat to Ontario and Quebec where cars are manufactured. The reality is that these companies will be forced, if we have these regulations for a small market like ours, to possibly move. I talked this over with General Motors and it did not deny it.

Again we come back to how it affects the average person. The guy in Hamilton will say that he works at that Ford plant. He never thought this thing would hurt him. He thought it would have no effect on him. He thought it was some international thing. The government said it would not affect him at all. If we accomplish one thing in this debate, it is to let Canadians know that it does affect them, that it will have an impact on them and that it will cost them potentially even their jobs.

We go on to federal assistance and initiatives to increase use of urban transit which will be seven megatonnes. That is good. I do not see much problem with that. We should use more urban transit. If I lived in cities like Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, if I could I would probably try to use urban transit rather than fight traffic, fight parking, et cetera. However in a lot of Canada urban transit will not be possible and really will not help us very much.

This is something to note. Just before question period a member disputed the fact that there were more cars outside and that not many had run more than five or six minutes. At this moment, 13 cars outside are running. Maybe we should keep a tab on this. We could probably run out and check every hour or two. I wonder how many of them would leave and I wonder how many of them would be turned off if we started a little survey? Every half hour we could go out and check the number of cars and how many are running. That might be fairly interesting. I will keep the House posted as to how many cars are outside running, setting an example for Canadian people on conservation of energy and releasing less CO

2

. That would be an interesting survey which would keep our viewers excited. I know many Liberal members over there are just riveted on learning what their cabinet minister colleagues are doing.

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Where are they? They ran out to shut the cars off.

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

“Consider setting a national target of having 35% of the gasoline with 10% ethanol or at least 5% fossil free by 2010”. How much will that save? It will save .9 megatonnes. We have 70 megatonnes that we are claiming from a false credit for clean energy, but we will save .9 megatonnes by using ethanol. Obviously let us use it if it is cheaper to produce. However there are many questions about that. Let us do what we can to have cleaner burning cars. No one would disagree with that. I think we could get the automobile companies on side.

General Motors is working on half-ton trucks that run on hydrogen. We will be using all hydrogen in the future. We will not be using carbon fuels. It is a waste of our carbon based fuels to burn them in cars, buses, trains, et cetera. We should be using alternate energy but we are not there yet because the technology is not there. However we are getting there and we should work toward that instead of investing in something dumb like Kyoto.

“Consider a target of 500 litres of bio-diesel”. I do not know what that means. Bio-diesel is being used by the City of Toronto. I think it is being used by Brantford. There Some cities have put their city vehicles onto bio-diesel. They are bringing in soybean oil from the U.S. to mix with diesel and it is 20% less polluting. In that 20% they use a mix of 20:80 diesel and soy and that works. We could use canola. However it costs energy to produce those things and it also costs energy to squeeze them and purify them so they can be mixed with the diesel. It is not a straight win-win situation. It has some costs.

“Consider setting performance targets and best practices for all modes of transportation”. Well, performance targets sounds pretty good too. That gets down again to driving slowly and I am not sure how that will work. I would love to see the government's plan for my area which has highway 2, a busy highway. I would love to see its plan for the 401, 403, 407 and how it would get those people to drive 80 kilometres an hour. I just do not know what the government would do. Will there be cameras on every corner? Will thousands more police be hired? What will the government do to make this happen?

“Consumer awareness to improve fuel efficiency”. I guess that means slow down, do not accelerate too fast and when going down a hill turn the car off. “Improve the off-road vehicle fuel efficiency”. That sounds okay too. All these things sound okay, and as one member points out, I guess we drive in the ditch.

“Improve intramodal freight opportunities”. This is the very government that has moved a lot of railways out. I think of Mr. Lee Morrison who fought rail abandonment, and I know his successor has fought it as well. I know our agriculture committee has fought this sort of thing. The government is not committed to more rail or better rail transportation.

The CNR today announced a 1,000 job lay-off. Those are Canadians who lost their jobs today. Think of the number of pink slips there will be when we implement Kyoto? What is the hurry? Let us have reasonable targets. Let us have reasonable time to achieve those.

We now get into buildings. There are actions under way to improve buildings. Yes, the government is trying to insulate them better. Some are using solar collectors on the roofs. There are things being done. That is about four megatonnes.

“Accelerate home energy evaluations, retrofitting programs, improve standards and improve consumer awareness”. Again, I do not think that too many of us in the House, certainly on this side, would not agree that if we can build a house which is more fuel efficient and is competitive in the marketplace, then let us go for it. If triple-pane windows are the way to go, then let us go for it. Let us convince people. Let us show them that this is the better way to go. However let us not price houses out of range for that mom, dad and kids who want to buy their first home. Let us not price them out of the range where they can never afford to have a house. Let us be reasonable about how we approach this.

When we talk this way, we are talking about increasing the cost of everything that we do. There is a point at which we cannot keep increasing that cost. We need to then look at technology to solve the problems. Technology is the solution. Solar, wind, a combination of that and ultimately hydrogen generators are the way to go. That is the future, but it is not here yet. It is not here until 2030, 2040 or 2050. That is what scientists, engineers and corporations say.

The one important part about Kyoto is that it has brought it to everyone's attention. That is good. It is good that we are talking about it and it is good we are trying to become more informed about it.

Another point is “Consider requiring all new homes to be built by R-2000 standards”. Think about what that means totally.

“Target all new buildings to be built to a minimum of 25% better than the national energy code by 2010”. I wonder how many new buildings that might affect. How much investment might that affect? It would be nice to have answers to those questions before we commit to this sort of thing. How can we commit to these kinds of expenses until we know what the real costs are?

What will we to large industry emitters? We are going to establish over all targets through consultation. What kind of consultation? I used a quote from SaskPower this morning. It said that it would have to increase its rates 25%. IPSCO steel said that it if did that, it would leave the country. I guess that is consultation. One party said this and the other party said that and that is it. How will it impact the people of Regina? What will happen to those jobs in Regina? That is a huge industry for that city. That province needs that industry.

Before we go off half-cocked with the Kyoto protocol, would it not be better to have research into what else we might do, what other sources of energy, what other means of conservation we might have? Maybe one answer is to put new light bulbs that are 75% more efficient in people's houses. Maybe that is an answer. There are solutions and I think we need to start looking at them.

So we are going to consult. That is what the government says. It has not done it yet. The provinces say no, industry says no, Canadians say no, but now they are committing. Is this worth the paper it is written on? That is the question.

Regarding the 279 megatonne permit allocation and emissions trading, I have no idea what that means except cost, cost, cost. How are we going to manage domestic emissions trading? I sat in on a presentation on emissions trading. I actually took the course on how emissions trading will work. I am afraid to say, if I were making notes, and I did make some notes, that there is one word that would describe it: bureaucracy.

I was straightened out by a fellow from Great Britain who was brought here by the government to show us its system of emissions trading to try to put some smarts into my head so I could understand it. At the end of that presentation, the word I would use to describe it, from what he told me, is bureaucracy. It takes a huge bureaucracy to set up this whole emissions trading scheme. Is that what we want in this country, more bureaucracy and more waste of taxpayer money? I do not think so. Again, I think there is a better way.

Who are these large industries that we are going after? We reviewed in our pie chart this morning who they are. Remember that the industries that are the biggest emitters are the large manufacturers, the power plants and the oil and gas industry. That is who we have to hit with these permits. That is what we have to do. The government goes on to discuss, regarding large industry emitters, cost shared strategies. Does anyone smell government money there? Does anyone smell government getting into business there? That is what I see. I do not want government in business. Whenever government gets into business we have all the problems that the Prime Minister and his crew have had because they got into business.

It also claims that it is going to work with industry to manage the risks, as if the government could understand business well enough to know what the risks are. The biggest risk is going to be the unknown: not knowing what Kyoto is going to do to us. That is the biggest risk that we might have. If I were a large industry in the country right now, I would be really worried, and the large industries are. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association is really worried. The oil and gas industry is really worried. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is really worried. Why are they worried? They are worried because of the unknown. They do not understand why we are the only country in the Americas to sign on to an agreement like Kyoto.

The provinces are worried. All of the provinces are worried. That is why none of the provinces will be showing up on Friday. They are all worried. Each one is worried about the jobs in its province. Each province is worried about its economy. Each province is worried about its tax base. They are all worried because of the unknown.

Why is there so much that is unknown? Because the government will not tell us the costs, it will not tell us its plan, and it will not tell us how it will implement it, that is why. I think it probably does not know the answer to those questions.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize for interrupting the speaker. I know he was just about to conclude his remarks, but in view of the great interest in this debate, I seek the unanimous consent of the House that we continue to sit until 10 p.m. this day in order to consider Government Business No. 9, in other words, to continue speaking on Kyoto. I seek unanimous consent.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent to table the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just get back to large emitters. These are the ones we need to talk about. The large industrial emitters are the ones we are going to target first. The government says we will. We are going to talk about manufacturers. We are going to talk about probably one in three or one in four jobs in this province.

I just wonder how the members are going to be able to go back to their ridings and say that they did not really understand what Kyoto would do, that they did not really understand that so many jobs would be lost and so much of the economy would be damaged or that the price of gasoline was going to go up, that they did not know any of that.

So when we talk about this, members should take particular note of this and all of these questions that are being raised. This is why we are here. This is why we are debating this issue today, why we did yesterday and why we will in the future.

Points of Order

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On Monday my leader raised three points of order concerning the motion of the government on the Order Paper and now currently being debated in which the House is being asked by the government to call upon it to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

I have some new information. The last point of order raised by my leader was with regard to the customary practice of the House that when such a resolution is brought to the House seeking the House's approval to the government ratifying a treaty, the government has to lay the text of the treaty itself before the House prior to any debate commencing on such a resolution.

In your ruling you noted that there had been, from both sides of the House, a “dearth of citations of Canadian practice in this regard”. On this point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to be able to bring those authorities to your attention. This will assist you and all hon. members in ensuring that this point of order has been fully canvassed and properly dealt with. In addition, Mr. Speaker, you indicated in your ruling that the British practice he cited to you would not apply “since we are not by this motion implementing this accord”. I would like to deal with the latter point first.

I of course agree with the Chair completely that the motion that is before us is not one to implement the treaty. Implementation can only be effected by legislation. What is being asked by this motion is that the House approve the government proceeding to ratification. However, the British practice my leader cited to you was precisely in relation to that sort of resolution: a practice in Britain whereby the executive would ask Parliament to approve the ratification of a treaty. That is precisely the type of resolution the government has brought forward by this motion on Kyoto. Such British practice is applicable, although the ultimate decision as to whether it should apply in this case, which I will deal with now, will be your decision. I did want, however, with all respect, to clarify that point.

In fact the tradition and practice of the executive bringing before the House a motion asking the House to approve the ratification of a treaty by the executive has a firm history and foundation with a precise procedure associated with it.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, up to the commencement of the first world war, in international relations Canada was less than a fully self-governing nation. Canada was still regarded as being part of the British Empire with treaty-making power continuing to vest in the British Crown on the advice of the British government and to be carried out on behalf of the entire empire. Therefore, treaty making was regarded as an empire-wide function.

Section 132 of the Constitution Act, 1867, in fact contemplated this empire treaty-making function by providing that the Parliament of Canada was given the legislative power to implement in Canada the terms of such empire treaties.

However, as a result of Canada's participation and the extreme sacrifice made by the members of the Canadian armed forces in the first world war, the then Canadian Prime Minister Robert Borden insisted that Canada sign the Versailles Treaty that ended the war as a separate signatory and not just as a colony within the British Empire. This resulted in Canada acquiring the capacity to enter into treaties in its own name. The legal power to do so became vested in the Canadian Crown acting on the advice of Canadian ministers.

Following on that development, the father of the modern Liberal Party, Prime Minister Mackenzie King, placed considerable emphasis on Parliament as the primary forum for debating and deciding on Canada's external affairs. For instance, on the question of overseas military involvement by Canada, King, in a debate in this House on February 1, 1923, declared:

It is for Parliament to decide whether or not we should participate in wars in different parts of the world, and it is neither right nor proper for any individual nor for any groups of individuals to take any step which in any way might limit the rights of Parliament in a matter which is of such great concern to all the people of our country.

This culminated in June 1926 with Prime Minister King moving a motion which was unanimously adopted by the House, the key part of which read:

--before His Majesty's Canadian minister's advise ratification of a treaty or convention affecting Canada...the approval of the parliament of Canada should be secured.

From this, the firm practice developed that major treaties before ratification were referred to Parliament with this device, the identical device being employed by the government by way of the motion before us.

In all of the cases that we have been able to ascertain so far when this practice was followed, before the House dealt with the motion the actual text of the treaty in question was tabled in the House.

This firm practice of tabling a treaty prior to debate on the motion was applied in the following cases: Treaty for the Renunciation of War in 1929; North Atlantic Treaty in 1949; Charter of the United Nations in 1945; treaties of peace with Italy, Romania, Hungary and Finland in 1947; and the Auto Pact in 1966.

I could cite more examples but this list is sufficient to show that this was the firm and customary practice of this House whenever the government sought such approval for the ratification of a treaty. It would appear that the Auto Pact I referred to was the last time a motion asking the House to call upon the government to ratify a treaty was utilized and the firm customary practice requiring that the text of the treaty be laid before the House prior to debate on the motion was followed. This clearly establishes this firm customary practice of this House when dealing with such motions as the one before us on Kyoto.

There is the other issue raised in this matter concerning the British practice that the Leader of the Opposition cited to the effect that part of the practice was to allow a period of time to expire between the time the text of the treaty was laid before the House and debate on the motion commence. In the specific cases cited, the treaty was laid before the House well in advance of the debate.

In the case of the North Atlantic treaty, it was tabled in the House by Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent, on March 18, 1949, with the debate taking place on April 4, 1949, 16 days later. In the case of the Charter of the United Nations, the text of the charter was tabled in the House on September 7, 1945, and debated in the House from October 16-19, 1945, nearly six weeks later. In the case of the peace treaties after the second world war, they were tabled February 10, 1947, and debated June 30, 1947, more than four months later. In the case of the Auto Pact, the text of the treaty was laid before the House on February 24, 1965 and not debated until May 6, 1966, a year and three months later.

The customary practice of the House has been to allow at least some reasonable period of time to occur before the debate on the motion would commence. My leader had cited the British practice of allowing 21 days and it was from this practice that the Canadian practice clearly evolved.

In any case, although perhaps no precise number of days are required to expire from the time the treaty is tabled to the time the motion on it can be debated, there is no doubt that some period of time has to expire.

The government has chosen to utilize the firm practice as originated by Prime Minister Mackenzie King in the 1920s. If it is going to utilize this procedure then it has to be required to follow the correct procedural preconditions before debate on such a motion can commence. The motion that is now being debated has not been properly brought to this House due to the failure to follow clear procedural steps governed by the customary practice of this House.

Given that debate has already commenced on the motion I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that you should accordingly suspend any further debate on the motion until the text of the Kyoto protocol has been properly laid before the House, and a reasonable time has expired between the time it is so tabled and the debate on the motion is allowed to resume.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Ponsonby procedure, to which the member referred yesterday, has never been adopted in the House.

My hon. colleague from Red Deer suggests I have been talking too much. I think that he ought to be concerned about being afflicted with the same affliction I have if he does not conclude within the near future.

I have to wonder whether or not the member for Kootenay—Columbia is suggesting that he has not had the opportunity to examine the protocol or has not had access to it. It seems to me that if that is not the case, then what he is really doing is engaging in procedural wrangling to avoid the real debate and prevent us from discussing this issue which is of great interest and importance to Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am advised that there are some new elements that the hon. member for Kootenay--Columbia has submitted to the House. They will be reviewed by the Speaker who will bring down a ruling as soon as possible.