Debates of Nov. 27th, 2002

Kyoto Protocol

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Exactly, this is not a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will move on to Nova Scotia and will quote the energy minister there, Mr. Gordon Balser, who is also the vice-chair of the province's committee. He said, “They have repeatedly treated the provinces and territories, I think, with contempt”. The Nova Scotia energy minister went on to say that this was a charade of a partnership and the way the government has treated the provinces and territories had been fairly dismissive.

Obviously we are getting our verdict and I hope that the future prime minister is hearing that message loud and clear, about the cooperation of the provinces. All these quotes are from the last month and are on where the provinces stand on the issue today.

Let us finish off with Newfoundland. Premier Roger Grimes has been the major spokesman there. He said that what they were being told was “It doesn't matter what you say. We're doing this anyway”. He went on to say, “From what I know of it today, I think we will be left with no option but to examine every single avenue for us to resist any unilaterally imposed sanctions upon Newfoundland and Labrador”.

That is pretty clear. I have gone through the provinces and everyone has heard what each one has had to say about the government plan. The last comment probably summed it up best.

Yesterday someone from the other side stood up and said that it really did not matter what we said in the House. The government will not listen to the provinces, members of Parliament, the Canadian people or the Canadian industry. It will ratify Kyoto by the end of the year and if we do not vote for it, there will be an election. That is where it is at. No blackmail. No ifs, ands, or buts. That is a dictatorship. That is how dictators talk and I think Canadians are starting to get pretty tired of that kind of action.

Canadians want to understand what Kyoto is. They want to cooperate. They want their provinces to participate. They want industry to participate. Now, industry is ready to participate. Somebody yesterday said that industry did not care.

I am holding an ad by Shell Oil from The Economist in which it promotes clean air. Shell Oil is saying that it wants to clean up the air and to be players. It is interesting that it has also invested 25% in alternate energy for the future. It wants to sell energy, whether it is carbon, solar or hydrogen. How can anyone say that industry does not want to participate? It wants to participate but it does not want to be dictated to. Those people who industry does not want to participate are obviously not on top of this issue and do not know what they are talking about.

When it comes to cooperation, I think we have demonstrated that there is none, that this will be rammed through and that members of Parliament will have to go home. As Kyoto unfolds and as its implementation begins, the price of fuel will go up and the requirements of implementation will start to grind down, because remember that by 2005 we have to show substantial decreases in CO

2

levels.

When that starts to happen, members of Parliament will have to answer their constituents' questions. Their constituents will pull out some of these quotes, and the media is aware of these things, and ask us where we were in informing them about Kyoto and its implications and did we tell the Prime Minister that he needed to consult.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, Terrorism.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am saying that consultation must occur and that the provinces must be brought on side.

I have a number of items that I would like to cover today. One of them has to do with the IPCC modelling that has been done; that the government has chosen to nitpick and cherry-pick the good stuff and leave out the bad stuff. I also want to talk about the analysis of the second report.

Unfortunately, I only analyzed the first report into about four or five pages. The second report I thought we should do in a little more detail. I have about half of it completed at this point. I would like to do a clause by clause discussion of that. I will try to abbreviate it as much as I can but we really need to do a pretty major analysis of it, which is what no one else has done, and certainly the government has not done. It certainly has never been sent to a committee where a committee could call witnesses and try to analyze what exactly Kyoto is all about and its impacts. Obviously if it had been sent to a committee it could have done this clause by clause study and analyzed this protocol.

However it has been thrown into the House and we are told it will be ratified, whether we like it or not, and that it will happen before Christmas and tough luck. None of the provinces agree. Nobody agrees but it will happen to us.

I guess if there is one purpose of my standing here it is to let the government know that we do not agree with the way it is handling this file. It should have been dealing with this file in a committee in a proper and democratic way in the House.

Obviously there are many things we could say as we get into this. The major thing is that the government says that Kyoto will only cost pennies. Only 3¢ will be added to a barrel of oil and only 13¢ will be added to a barrel of oil for its extraction, which is an additional cost from the tar sands.

We have to remember the importance of the tar sands. They represent a supply of oil bigger than Saudi Arabia, that it is a major part of Canada's economy and that 60% of the dollars spent on the tar sands are spent in the province of Ontario; 60% of that money will go to manufacturing jobs in Ontario.

I received a call from a truck driver who owns five trucks. He had a contract to haul pipe from Hamilton to Alberta as part of the oil industry. All of a sudden he was given 30 days notice that his contract was over, that he would stop hauling pipe. He asked, “Is it because I have done the job poorly or is it because I have not delivered on time? I thought everything was fine”. The company said that everything was fine and that he was doing a great job. Everything was right on time. However the uncertainty of Kyoto has resulted in an investment freeze in that industry and the company will not take that pipe any more. The owner of those trucks here in Ontario said that he had to lay off four of his drivers because of that.

I am sure the people producing the pipe also had to lay people off because that pipe was not in demand any more.

For people to think that Kyoto will not have an impact across this country, they are totally wrong. Anybody who says that it will not have an impact is simply not telling the truth.

Obviously there have been all kinds of reports. I want to talk about the modelling. We see headlines that state that Kyoto could push the cost of gasoline to $1 a litre. I think if the Europeans had their way they would probably like to see it at $2 a litre.

The only person who will benefit, certainly in the cabinet over there, will be the environment minister who drives an energy efficient car. However when he tried to encourage the other ministers to drive energy efficient cars, none of them responded. Now we only have two. We also will have a check soon on how many cars are outside and how many are running, just to keep everyone posted.

There was a recent report done by an economist here in Ontario about the costs. There have been many reports, and I do not want to say that this one is the most accurate, but this is just one example of the costs. The report came to the conclusion that we should go with a middle of the road model. We must remember that the government cherry-picked the bottom end model, but going with sort of the middle of the road model, this is the report's findings.

The report states that to get to 6% below 1990 levels under a fully implemented Kyoto, which is what we are talking about, we would need to have a natural gas price increase of 90%. We would need to have a gasoline price increase of 50% as a minimum or between 30¢ to 35¢ per litre. The average household would expect to pay $2,700 per year. The Kyoto plan will do nothing to reduce global warming.

The government talks about all this voluntary stuff. I have driven on the highways in Ontario. If people would slow down to 100 kilometres per hour, that would be a huge saving. The speed limit of course is 100 kilometres per hour, but the government is talking about reducing the speed limit, putting tolls on roads and having people drive smaller cars. Will Canadians do that when they do not see the benefits, when they do not see the results, when they have not bought into the plan and when the provinces are not being consulted? I do not think so.

We can go on to talk about the effects of GDP. We can talk about the industry minister's officials who did their research and said that the government was underestimating in its modelling by at least 30%. If one government department is saying that it is under by 30%, who knows what that might be? When has anyone found government to be accurate in its estimate of costs?

Many of us will remember Bill C-68, one of the most famous bills, where the government estimated $87 million and now it has been estimated at $1.53 billion for the next couple of years. That is how inaccurate government estimates usually are.

Again I come back to the point that every single member in the House, every one of us, you and me included, Mr. Speaker, will have to tell that fixed income person, that mom and dad with two kids, that lady driving her son to the hockey game right now, before we knew the costs, before we knew how it would be implemented and before we knew the plan, why we agreed and how we could possibly vote to ratify something like that. How does one justify that? I really do not have any idea.

I have heard the minister often say that there was no investment freeze and nothing was happening. However we have headline after headline. This one involves EnCana, which says that it has shifted investment out of Canada for the fourth quarter because of the uncertainty of what ratification will do. That is a large company. The article is dated November 20. It is pretty recent stuff. That is exactly what is happening in company after company after company. They are sending--

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the hon. member is repeating himself. Did we not hear that yesterday? Did anyone notice that?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

That is not a point of order at all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the members across the way are giving me a break and giving me a chance to have a drink of water. I appreciate their consideration and concern but I am just fine. I believe so strongly that what the government is doing and how it is misleading the Canadian people that I think I could stand here until Christmas or after Christmas just to make that point.

Let us go on. One company has said that Kyoto will cost oil sands projects $100 million. Others are announcing a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there. I have an interesting one. The president of Syncrude is a friend of the government, has consulted with the government and has had dinner with the Prime Minister when he was here. He has done so much for the development of the tar sands but he has been a very close friend of the Prime Minister. He says that Canadians do not realize that the reductions promised are so significant that only if we eliminated all transportation, planes, cars, trucks, rail, could we meet the targets. If we shut down all the oil, natural gas and coal industries, we would only get halfway there.

Those are the targets we will be signing onto. A friend of the government is telling us to look at the targets and to look at how big they are. What does the government not get about that? How can the government not get it when even a friend has said that and has delivered that message during a dinner at 24 Sussex.

This friend has said that Kyoto means that these projects will be put on ice. That means jobs, income, GDP and our standard of living, which is what we all depend on in a modern industrialized country. Does the minister want to drive this country into third world status? Is that what his aim is? Kyoto, obviously, is just one more part of the legacy of the Prime Minister to drive us under.

I have to repeat this, and I apologize for repeating anything, but there is so much that needs to be said. According to the Marrakesh accord, “Nations that ratify Kyoto but do not meet their targets in round one by 2012, will be penalized another 30% in emissions cuts and, in addition, such nations cannot sell carbon credits in round two. If at the end of this period, a party's emissions are still greater than its assigned amount, it must make up the difference in the second commitment period, plus a penalty of 30%. It will also be barred from selling under emissions trading and within three months it must develop a compliance action plan detailing the action it will take in order to meet this commitment”.

The accord goes on to say that a nation can make up a deficit if it wants by buying the credits from a country like Russia, a country that has much dirtier industries than we do, but we will send Russia money to buy its hot air under the Kyoto accord.

If we ratify Kyoto and do not meet those targets, there are penalties. For any future prime minister to stand up and say, “Look Canadians and industry, we will let him ratify it. It is good to give him his legacy, but if it is going to hurt our country or our industries, we will just opt out of it. We just will not do it”. That does not put much onus on one's signature. I like dealing with people where word of mouth is everything and a handshake means they will deliver.

Obviously if we sign on, if what a future prime minister is suggesting, we are not even good for a signature let alone a handshake.

What does that say about our country? What kind of legacy is that for our children and grandchildren? I do not think the minister or the Prime Minister care about that. They want to bull ahead with this thing and they really do not care. I do not think that is where Canadians are at. I am sure of that. It is an irresponsible action.

Many people are saying that we need to have a lot of things happen before ratification. I have four letters here that have been written by pretty important groups: the Canadian manufacturers and the Canadian coalition for responsible environmental solutions. I have a letter from the mayor of my city written to the Prime Minister, which is after a great deal of discussion about Kyoto. I have another letter written by the chamber of commerce. All of these people say that we should not ratify Kyoto until we know the cost and we have an implementation plan.

The number of people who are saying that is huge. In fact 71% of Canadians are now saying that, until there is a plan and until we have the cooperation of the provinces, we should not ratify. Boy, is that a change? A year ago I could probably not have interested anybody in talking about Kyoto. Today I could go to any city anywhere in Canada and get a crowd to talk about Kyoto. That is how much more interest there is.

If there are some Liberal members who want to put together some ridings and have me debate Kyoto with the environment minister, I would love to have that challenge. That would be the thing to which I would look forward to more than anything else. But I imagine that the minister will not accept that.

It was pretty interesting to be at a breakfast meeting in Victoria and realize how little a large number of the business community and professionals know about Kyoto. That is from the minister's riding. It is shocking that they know so little about Kyoto.

Obviously Canadians do not understand it very well. Canadians also need to be sure that they understand the 12 requirements of the provinces. I meant to mention that when I was talking about the provincial issue. I will not read all 12 at this point, but I really think that the 12 issues that the provinces want to hear, want to have answered, are the ones that the government needs to address.

I would like to talk about the modelling. The government says that models are the key. We had a few members across the way make sarcastic comments about models yesterday. Obviously they think it is a fairly funny issue. I do not find any humour at all in Kyoto. I do not find any humour at all in the potential of what it could do to our country. I find it an extremely serious matter. So when I talk about modelling, it is important that we look at some of the input.

First, we must go back in time to look at what changes have happened over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years. We must remember that the science has been done, the figures and the detail on how much rain there was, how many droughts there were, what kind of life existed and what was the chemical makeup of the air. The science has been done through ice samples and cores. There was a major study done in western Canada where cores were taken out of slough bottoms and interesting things were found.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the hon. member. I know he was just getting ready to wrap up his comments. In view of the great interest in this debate, I would ask for unanimous consent that the House continue to sit after the ordinary time of adjournment until 10 p.m. to consider Government Business No. 9 in order to have a more fulsome debate on the Kyoto protocol.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty amazing that the government keeps trying to play these games.

We came back here for a throne speech and in the throne speech the government promised all kinds of weird and wonderful things. We have not seen anything. All we have seen is reintroduced bills. Committees have just been studying old bills. The government has been playing games month after month and now all of a sudden, as we get close to Christmas, it starts introducing things like the Romanow report and Kyoto. What kind of a game is the government playing?

Why would we agree to do things differently for it when in fact it has had nothing on the agenda? It has had to filibuster its own motions and has had to close the House on several occasions because it did not have any speakers here. For the most part quorum could be called here a hundred times a day and there would be no one here. Those are the kinds of games that the government plays. It has its nerve to stand up and do that sort of thing. Canadians are getting pretty sick and tired of that kind of non performance from their government and the kind of dictatorial nonsense that it is trying to impose on us.

Let us get back to talking about Kyoto and the issues. I will wrap up at a point and at that point we will have all kinds of opportunity to hear other members, unless the government is so afraid to hear the facts that it would use something like closure.

I said that there was a lot of data available on what kind of CO

2

levels there were, and so on, in the past. I do not think there is too much point in stressing the sources of many of these. There are many scientific studies and I do not think a lot of parliamentarians or Canadians want to hear about them. Let me summarize some of this work. This work has been collected by the IPCC, which is a United Nations group of 200 different scientists. I will not read this into the record, although some members might like me to. However, I would like to quote little pieces of it.

In the study done from 1000 to 1900, which was the first block the IPCC looked at, it found in that period that there was a trend of lowering temperatures. It got that information from ice cores and samples from the bottom of the ocean. Samples were taken from the mud going down into the earth's core, through glaciers, the rings on trees and so on. That is how all this data was collected.

The scientists found that in the 20th century there has been an increase in temperature. There was a decline and then there was an increase. They also found that there was a period of major cooling between 1400 and 1900. The minister may have even published some of the work in another life. The big threat in the 1970s was that there was an ice age coming. Of course that was another Chicken Little thing. Running across the country talking about that is similar to the Chicken Little that we see now.

There was also a period of time in the 12th century when we had a two to three degree Celsius warming. We have had an ice period, a cooling period, and in the 12th century a major heating. The models show that, and the scientists have developed those models and tried to analyze why that all happened. According to the data the snow line in the Rocky Mountains was about 300 metres higher than it was in 2001.

Everyone says that the ice caps are melting and the mountains are being exposed. That is something that happened once before in the 12th century. Through modelling it can be shown why that happened. Moreover the data seems to indicate that there has been a regular recurrence of episodes like the little ice age and the medieval warm period in roughly 1,500 year climatic cycles over the last 140,000 years.

For our minister to all of a sudden come running through the fence saying that the sky is falling, that we have floods, ice storms and droughts, and that when we sign Kyoto they will all be gone is not the way it works. None of the IPCC models say that. None of the data says that. None of the science says that. Not a scientist would agree with that, yet the minister uses that as his number one prop, that if we do not do this, these are the disasters that will befall all of us.

The next major analysis period was from 1856 to 2100. What is going to happen in that period? The interesting part is that they have broken it down into 40 models. These 40 models, determined by what is put in, determine the predicted outcome. One model says that we will actually have a decrease in temperature of 0.4°C to 0.8°C. Another model, using the same data but forgetting about the cloud factor, shows that we could have a 5°C increase. The models on which the government counts, from those 200 scientists and many other scientists, have a range of reduced temperature or raised temperature. I do not know. I think we should err on the side of caution.

We should get CO

2

levels under control. They are higher than they have been for the last 100 years, but there were periods when they were much higher. Let us err on the side of caution and say that we will deal with climate change, but really what Canadians want us to deal with is pollution.

Pollution is killing people in the Fraser Valley and southern Ontario. Pollution is the big problem in Toronto and why it has 45 smog days. Canadians think that signing Kyoto will fix that problem. Well it is nothing about that. Kyoto is about climate change. I am even saying that we should deal with that.

Here are the questions that the IPCC raises. How much effect does CO

2

have on the temperature? We have this greenhouse gas around the earth. It is made up of 97% water in the form of clouds and water vapour, and 3% is made up of things like CO

2

, ozone, methane and various gases. Kyoto has decided to target one of the major greenhouse gases representing part of that 3% as CO

2

At townhall meetings a lot of people think that carbon monoxide is CO

2

. A lot of people who do not have chemistry or biology backgrounds do not understand that. Carbon monoxide also comes out of cars but that is not what this is targeting. This protocol is targeting CO

2

We have the greenhouses gases around the earth that keep us from getting too cold. The model says it would make a 37°C difference if we did not have the greenhouse gases. The reason that the climate would warm up is because the greenhouse gas sheath becomes too thick.

So the first question is, how much effect does CO

2

have on temperature? The important question is not whether the climate is affected by human CO

2

but by how much. If the effect on the climate of any increased amount of CO

2

in the atmosphere is slight, global warming may not be particularly important. This is sort of like the premiers' endorsement of this whole proposal. These scientists are quite a long way from really endorsing.

Second, they ask, could there be other causes behind the increased temperature? They are asking. They do not know for sure that it is CO

2

. They do say further on that they believe that within 10 years they will have perfected the science to understand global warming much better and will be able to really get the model right and know that they have the answers.

They go on to ask, “Are the greenhouse scenarios reasonable?” They then examine all of them, asking what the consequences are of a possible temperature increase. What are the consequences if the temperature goes up? What about cost curbing? What is it going to cost us to reduce those emissions and how should we choose what to do?

Obviously in Kyoto it was decided that CO

2

is the thing to target. Is it the right thing to target? Obviously the modelers are saying they do not know.

It is important to point out that all of the IPCC's predictions are based on such climatic computer model simulators, and it has found that many of its models are not accurate now. Every year it changes the model and comes up with other answers.

The IPCC basically tells us that its previous models were wrong. Either it will not be warming up as much as previously claimed or something is hiding the warming. The scientists are saying that maybe it was not CO

2

that was causing this global warming.

We are about to embark on a signing of the Kyoto protocol, ratifying it and committing every man, woman and child in this country to a 20% cut in the use of carbon products. We are committing to do that when the scientists are saying that maybe the models this whole thing is based on are not accurate.

I think that maybe going a bit slower and waiting until after Christmas might be a pretty good idea. I do not know that after Christmas the scientists will know if they have it right or not, but I sure as heck know that they do not feel that they have it totally right now.

So what is wrong with a made in Canada program? It would not be held up by problems if the scientists say, “Yes, definitely it is CO

2

and we have to deal with it”. Obviously then Canadians would get behind that, but when they read stuff like this I just cannot believe that they will be as solidly behind it as the government says they will: “...most...modelers still believe that accurate models are a decade away. Moreover, the simplistic models used by the IPCC appear to overestimate” climate change. It is changing every day. At this point, turning to the 40 new IPCC scenarios, the modelers have explicitly abandoned the idea, and if I can repeat that, they have explicitly abandoned the idea of predicting the future and instead they talk about projections and possible futures. As one of the modelling groups fairly honestly points out, the IPCC scenarios are an attempt at computer-aided storytelling.

We are about to embark on this major impact on Canada and we are dealing with something that may not be totally accurate. How can we do that? How can we as politicians in the House in good conscience say that we will be going ahead because of a potentially incorrect model?

How can we do that? How in conscience can we do that to the people of Canada, to our constituents, to the single family mom, to the people on fixed incomes? It is not possible. Even scientists do not agree that we should be doing that, yet the minister cherry-picks these ideas and says they are fact. Again, I really think that Canadians need to ask some serious questions.

I want to come to what I consider a very well written letter from a person who has many questions about Kyoto, who has examined it and has brought in experts to speak about it. These experts have not convinced her that Kyoto is the way to go, much as we look at those models, which would hardly be convincing as I quote various parts.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There always has to be a sufficient number of members in attendance during debates to make a judgment on what is being said. I do not see a quorum here but my count may be wrong.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

There is a quorum call. There are 17 members present. There is no quorum. The bells shall ring for not more than 15 minutes. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

We have quorum now. The hon. member for Red Deer may continue.

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

Madam Speaker, I am certainly pleased that we now have a much bigger crowd here to listen. Members can get caught up on their note taking. I am very pleased that the environment minister is taking this so seriously and absorbing every word of it.

I have received so many letters. The one I want to read, which I think has a lot of meaning, is from my constituency, but I think it echoes what a lot of people are saying. This lady, who is head of the Chamber of Commerce in my riding, probably represents, as I said, what a lot of people are thinking. She states in her letter:

The...Chamber of Commerce believes the environment is of paramount importance. However, the Kyoto protocol is not the means to the desired ends.

A lower environmental burden can be achieved with appropriate time frames by the private sector in Canada, working alongside governments and environmental groups.

That is exactly the cooperation that we believe in as well, but that is not what the government believes. I hope the minister heard what each of the ministers of the environment and the premiers of the provinces had to say when I outlined their comments. The letter continues:

We have the proven ability to create innovative new technologies that will allow us to produce energy, resources and manufactured goods to meet the needs of the world's people.

The Kyoto Protocol will not advance this important environmental call to action. Instead, the...Chamber of Commerce supports a made-in-Canada solution to greenhouse gas emissions and is joining the other Chambers of Commerce across the country in the call that would result in a Canada-made plan.

The proposed made-in-Canada solution would leave decision-making power in Canada and preserve jobs and our way of life. It would consist of the following elements:

It would combine immediate actions to address climate change with a more realistic time frame for overall reductions in greenhouse gases.

It would keep capital in Canada to invest in technology, research and development, rather than spending it primarily on international Kyoto emissions permits.

It would negotiate agreements with specific economic sectors, including electricity, oil and gas, transportation, forestry and the public sector to achieve reduction targets mutually agreed upon by all levels of government.

It would implement energy conservation education and awareness campaigns, and include initiatives for individual Canadians to reduce their energy consumption.

It would factor in our trade relations with the United States, our largest trading partner, to ensure our ongoing competitiveness.

It would involve immediate investment in new energy, emissions and environmental technologies as the key to environmental improvements and sustainable development.

Admittedly, an effective and responsible plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will affect all Canadians and require us to make tough choices. Citizens across the country must be kept fully informed of the risks, uncertainties, results and opportunities of any national program with an impact as great as [that of] the Kyoto Protocol.

Canada's national climate change plan must identify how targets will be met and how the burden will be shared among the country's various sectors and regions.

A feasible and predictable policy framework at the national and international level is also required before industry can play a full role. This should involve:

Better understanding the scientific basis for climate change, including the magnitude of emissions impact and the earth's ability to handle it.

Obviously that is exactly what the modelers are saying. They want better science. The letter continues with what should be involved:

All stakeholders--industry, government, citizens, other nations--taking measures to reduce their energy intake.

Supporting the awareness that greenhouse gas reductions have implications not only for industry, but for consumers as well.

The Red Deer Chamber of Commerce encourages you to join the Chamber--

The writer goes on to talk about the many public meetings they have held.

This letter was from Jan Fisher, the Executive Director of the Red Deer Chamber of Commerce. She pretty much hits on most issues that Canadians feel are true.

Again without a plan, without knowing how it will be implemented, without targeting the sectors and telling them what they will be responsible for and without any costs, how can the government possibly bull ahead with the ratification of Kyoto by Christmastime? That is just an impossible thing to do and obviously an irresponsible thing for any government to do anywhere in the world. I do not think any other country that we are partners with in the industrialized world would operate this way.

I believe everyone heard the evaluation of the first plan. I would like to now talk about the second plan, which of course was hastily put together for the meeting in Toronto on November 21 with energy and environment ministers. However, that meeting was postponed because there was no real plan. The federal government said it would not listen to the provinces and would not agree to the principles for the meeting. All provinces and territories agreed with those 12 principles.

The federal government said no, that it would not talk to the provinces. The meeting was scheduled for Friday, November 29 and that meeting has been cancelled. So much for consultation and the guarantee that the Prime Minister gave when he said that we would not ratify until we had the cooperation of the majority of provinces, of industry and of the Canadian people. The Prime Minister promised that would be the case. His promise is turning out to be the same as his GST promise. He will not deliver on that because he says that his legacy is to ratify Kyoto.

Let us evaluate this clause by clause. Let us do what committee should do with this bill. Let us analyze this bill for Canadians. I have heard people say that what has been happening in here is very interesting. Someone even asked for the transcript. I cannot imagine reading all those pages, but there are people out there who are that interested and that concerned.

There is no committee. The government is not consulting with parliamentarians. As was said yesterday, it does not matter what happens in here because no one is listening. I hope that is wrong. Just because the government is not listening, does not mean that Canadians are not listening. I think Canadians are starting to listen. I think they are starting to listen to their industries. I think they are starting to worry about their jobs. I think they are starting to listen to their provincial governments. I think they are starting to listen to their chambers of commerce. I think they are starting to listen to the MPs who are being honest with them and who are trying to give them all the information they possibly can on the Kyoto accord.

I think Canadians will start to engage. If they have not engaged before ratification, they will engage during implementation. When they engage during implementation and the costs of their fuel, heating and consumer goods go up, I think there will be a lot of questions asked of lot of members here. How did they vote on the accord? Did they ask the cost of it? Did they ask for the implementation plan? Did they ask how industry would be affected? When pink slips arrive at people's houses, does anyone not think they will ask why this happened? When they hear it was because of Kyoto, I do not think they will be very happy with their members of Parliament who did not inform them.

Let us evaluate it clause by clause. I will go as rapidly as I can. I would like to wrap this up as soon as I possibly can. I will certainly make every effort to do that within the next day or so.

At that point, I will then turn it over to my colleagues. I know every one of them want to speak on this most important matter. I know they want the opportunity to say that when it came time to speak about Kyoto, they were here to speak about it and vote on it. They want to be able to say that they were here to stand up for that fixed income person, for that mom and dad, for that single mom, for farmers, for foresters, for those who could potentially lose their jobs, et cetera. They want to be able to say that they voted to delay this thing so they could have an opportunity to find out what it would cost, how would it be implemented and how would it affect Canadians.

That is the bottom line. That is why this place could become relevant again, and I hope Canadians will make it so.

Let us start off with the basic introduction. I know there is at least one member who will actively follow along with me as we do our clause by clause review. This will be a little different than in committee because I am not sure how many of the members on the other side are listening. I am not sure how many of them are taking notes and are trying to evaluate this along with me. Had this gone to the environment committee, I know that it would have taken it seriously. I know that it would have given it an evaluation and I know that Canadians would have become informed.

However, this will not go before any committee or anybody else. In fact the Prime Minister has said that he did not have to take it anywhere and he did not have to even bring it to the House. That is arrogance. He has said that we have to rush it through and have it done by Christmas. Why by Christmas? He has said that it does not matter what the House has to say.

What I would like to do is talk about some of this. The cornerstone of the arguments against the ratification of Kyoto is the fact that the government has failed to come up with an implementation plan. The document does not provide us with how this will be implemented. It does not tell us how Kyoto will affect each sector across the country. It gives us a bunch of generalities but does not tell us how it will affect business by business. We need to know that because the people's jobs are a concern.

The government has put forward this document called “Climate Change Plan for Canada”, but it is not a plan. It does not tell us about the costs of anything. It does not tell us what it will cost Canadians. In this clause by clause analysis then, I would like to, as I did with the first one, show the House how foolish the whole document is.

First, the government has carelessly, hastily and recklessly put together this plan. It was done quickly. It was done because the provinces said that they would not meet with the government because it did not have a plan. The provinces are not meeting with them anyway because it does not have a plan. Therefore it did not accomplish that.

Second, on the basis of what has been happening, the risks to the country are not being pointed out to Canadians. There is nothing in here about the risks to Canada when the document is signed.

Third, it does not even come close to meeting the Kyoto commitments. That is a very serious claim. The document does not meet the Kyoto targets. It is short 60 megatonnes and it has no clue from where it will get it. Again, it has used this sort of false wording, “we will get clean energy credits”. That is a non-starter and is not acceptable. That is not what anybody is agreeing to.

Fourth, it does not mention anywhere that there are penalties for ratifying Kyoto, or not living up to it or not implementing it.

The document says that we will not meet our targets. We have to assume then in the year 2012 the government will have to buy credits. Where do we buy credits? From Russia and from other East Bloc countries.

Finally, the government has not put forward any kind of legislation, has not talked about how it might go to committee or what the legislation might look like. It has told us absolutely nothing about that. This document, which is supposedly the next version to go to the provinces, and the provinces will not be there, is nothing different than the first one. Many of the things we said when analyzed the first one could apply to the second one, but let us go a little further through this.

Sometimes I wonder whether all the work in analyzing this is really worth it, the clause by clause study. It has became so obvious, as we have worked through it, that this is a farce. The government is not taking this seriously and is, in a reckless manner, dangerously playing with our economy. The sad part of this whole document is that it does not tell us anything about how we will improve our environment.

If people who are watching this want more information about this document, I refer them to www.climatechange.gc.ca. This is an overview of the document the government has put together. After reading the first couple of pages, Canadians will be amazed. They will be so shocked that the government would dare say that it will ratify this piece of garbage. They will not believe what is happening.

Let us start with the preface of this whole thing. “There are few things more fundamental to Canadians than the rich natural legacy we have inherited. Canadians understand the importance of the environment, both to the quality of life we enjoy and to our future economic progress. There is also clear recognition that certain activities are having a harmful effect on the environment and that the choices we make today can determine the health of our environment, not only for tomorrow or next year, but for 100 years from now”.

That is a really good Liberal statement. I really like it and so far that is just perfect. Who could not agree with that? The only problem is the whole document is like that. It is a bunch of feel good, Liberal propaganda.

“One of the most pressing environmental challenges is that of global warming. The international scientific community has concluded that the rapid increase in the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere can be expected to increase the earth's surface temperature and change our climate, alter our environment and endanger our health”. I think the Prime Minister said that in 30 years our children and grandchildren would die of heat.

The scientific truth, as I went through the models, does not say that and it does not agree with that. The problem is a lot of scientists as they learn more about this are starting to ask more and more questions. The international scientific community, which I have talked about a lot, the IPCC, was formed in 1988 to help coordinate and research the scientific and socioeconomic aspects of climate change. It has been around for a long time, working hard and perfecting its science as time has gone on.

As we go on through this, we must also remember that 17,000 scientists have disputed the global warming alarmist concept. It is time that we say we need more information. We need to do something. Let us err on the side of caution, but let us not do something that will so damage our economy and our people that we will not be able to recover to fix the real environmental problems which we have.

Lorne Gunter, a columnist in the Edmonton Journal , addressed this point as well as anyone. He wrote, “Our tiny effort is insignificant. If Canada ruins its economy to cut emissions, will the earth be better off?” That is a pretty strong statement. It is based on a lot of what we have read.

I could read another long story that Lorne Gunter wrote, but I do not want to be found reading something into the record, because up until this point I have tried to speak from the heart in dealing with the various facts that people really want to hear. I will pass over this very good article.

[An hon. member]

What side is your heart on?

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

This is the Liberal side for the heart. When they feel good that they have really done something, that is where they place their hands just so they feel really good about everything, even though they are going to do nothing about what they feel so good about. That is the Liberal way. That is what it is to be a Liberal. It is easy to define.

I am not going to read that article. It is very good and if people want it, they can get a hold of it. We will keep it. I am sure other members will find it so inspiring that they will want to put it in their speeches.

It states, “That is why in 1992 Canada supported the United Nations framework convention on climate change. Since then the government has announced its intentions to ratify the Kyoto protocol which sets out specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions”.

I just read from the document. In 1992 the government said it recognized we had a problem. In 1992 it said it was going to do something about it. In fact, it signed an agreement in 1992 that emissions would be stabilized by 2000. Let me remind members that in 1999 we were 15% above our 1990 CO

2

emissions. In 2000 we were 20% above 1990 emissions levels. Now we are close to 23% or 25% above those levels.

We agreed in 1992 that we were going to stabilize our greenhouse gas emissions of CO

2

. We did not do anything and now the government has the nerve to bring a forced ratification to the House. There will be an election if we do not ratify this.

The House leader had the nerve to come in here and say that we should extend the hours because we need more time. What has the government been doing for the last 10 years?

Ten years ago the government said in its own document, which I just quoted, that there was a problem and it was going to deal with it. It signed an international agreement saying it would and it has done nothing. What kind of a sham is this? What kind of a phony excuse is this for the handling of a subject?

As we have been saying all along, we can develop and should develop a made in Canada plan. We should not be going with the made in Japan plan called the Kyoto protocol.

The document goes on, “It is vital to have a plan that will enable Canada to successfully meet its climate change objectives. The initiatives included in the climate change plan for Canada will do that”. That is a claim that is made in writing by the government and it is totally not the truth. It does not have a plan yet. It does not tell us how it is going to implement it.

The document continues, “Moreover they reflect the priorities identified through the extensive consultations that have taken place with provincial, territorial, municipal, industry representatives, non-governmental organizations, individual Canadians over the years”. Extensive consultations?

I wonder how many Canadians think that they have been extensively consulted on this subject. The provinces say they have not been consulted. The Chamber of Commerce says it has not been consulted. Canadians by the hundreds are saying that they have not been consulted, yet the government has the nerve to say that it has fully consulted with Canadians.

In our clause by clause study I would recommend that we eliminate the first two pages of the document because they are totally incorrect and untrue. Madam Speaker, I know you are not keeping track, taking a dark pen and going through it line by line, but we can probably move faster because we have eliminated the first two pages. By the end of this I do not think there is going to be very much left. Probably you can already guess the conclusion, that we need a new document that includes an implementation plan, that includes the costing and that includes full consultation with Canadians.

It goes on to say that the Government of Canada is committed to continuing collaboration in an effort to find the most effective ways to build on the proposals presented in the plan.

I just quoted what every province in Canada thinks of this plan, and the government has the nerve to say it is committed to continuing the collaboration. The provinces have said it has not collaborated at all. How can the government commit here that it will start collaborating?

“Participating in the global effort to address climate change is an issue for all Canadians in every region and every walk of life, indeed it will require a national effort, one that summons the best from our citizens, entrepreneurs, scientists, communities and government”. That is a true statement.

It will involve a commitment from every single Canadian. Every man, woman and child in the country will have to eliminate 20% of his or her use of carbon. I have heard some people say that they do not use any carbon. Every bit of transportation uses carbon. Most every manufacturing takes energy and uses carbon. Electricity is made by burning carbon. The heat in this building is made by burning carbon. We use carbon for everything. Our whole way of life is based on the burning of carbon.

Can we change that? Yes we can. Will alternate energy take over? Yes it will, but it will not take over by 2005 when we have to show substantial decreases in CO

2

under the Kyoto accord. That is the very point. While we agree that we have to do something, obviously we are showing a real problem with doing that.

The truth is while the government is saying these things, it has not done much to tell every Canadian about all of these increases. I am still quoting:

This plan strikes the balance needed to enable our economy to flourish even as we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, it advances these goals without placing an unreasonable burden on any region of the country and assists Canadian industry to make a successful transition to a less carbon-intensive global economy.

Is that not just wonderful. These statements are just so Liberal, they are just so feel good. They make one feel like the Viagra man, just jump out the door and dance down the street. They make one feel so happy. But there is no plan here. There are no results from this. We will not dunk the basketball or dance into the elevator with a smile. There will not be an elevator because carbon use has been cut. In actual fact it cannot deliver on these things but they are such feel good things.

Remember that by the time we start to do this, we will have to be close to a 30% reduction in the use of our carbon. That is going to hit every single person.

There is a lot of evaluation in this document. If I do not get through it all, even analyzing the graphs, I will be sure the minister gets it so that he can read it. I am sure he will be very interested because they are not going to listen to us anyway.

This plan proposes both short term action and long term perspective. Something can be done now, such as providing Canadians and Canadian businesses with the tools and incentives to make more energy efficient decisions. Others will be done over a number of years, such as investing in more energy efficient technologies and production methods, and switching to less carbon-intensive forms of energy.

That sums up to investments, both short term and long term, but by the time we tax our companies, by the time we force them into what Kyoto will do, will they have that money to invest in jobs and new initiatives? I question if they will. Most scientists question, the manufacturers question, the chambers of commerce question, everybody questions that the government will have that. By ratifying this without an implementation plan, how can we possibly make these false claims?

In our clause by clause analysis of the preface of this document, it is a bunch of feel good Liberal philosophy but none of it is factual or deliverable. It cannot deliver something which does not have an implementation plan.

I am not going to go through each word, but I hope people have gotten the idea about how fictitious the whole document is. More than anything else, I think people will understand why the premiers, the environment ministers and the energy ministers are not booking their tickets to Toronto for Friday. If this is the sort of garbage that the government comes out with, why would they show up? Why would they bother to come when the government shows absolutely no interest in anything but feel good Liberal philosophy?

The people who are not coming are from many different political parties. This has become a non-partisan issue. NDP premiers, Liberal premiers and Conservative premiers, all the premiers of the provinces are saying, “We have 12 proposals. We want them addressed and if they are not, then we will not come”. They are not going to proceed. I do not think anyone really knows why the Prime Minister has decided to ram this through, including his ministers.

Another section says, “With commitment and resolve, we will build that future together”. Who wrote this stuff? It is amazing. Perhaps the minister's aides could let me meet the people who wrote this stuff. I would like to know what they are on because obviously, it allows them to spew out this stuff.

It talks about the science. It says, “There is a strong consensus among scientists that climate change is already occurring and that human activity is contributing to it”. There are some scientists who do agree with that. “The earth's temperature is determined in part by a naturally occurring process known as the greenhouse effect. While certain greenhouse gases occur naturally, human activities are releasing additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere”.

In actual fact, 5% of greenhouse gases are produced by humans and 95% are produced by natural activity. I do not want to re-read those words, but those words say that humans have something to do with it. Technically that is true, 5%, but what will the government do? Will it stop volcanoes? Will it stop methane coming out of landfill sites? Will it stop the natural processes of decomposition? Will it outlaw the breakdown of dead plant material? Obviously if humans only represent 5%, the 95% is from nature. Why would we do what we are doing when 95% is coming into the atmosphere from natural processes? That is the huge question that we have to ask.

I have many other examples here. The government in its document should probably have stayed away from the science, because now it really starts to get itself into trouble. It has decided to ignore 17,000 scientists who signed the Oregon petition and who in fact said that this alarmist plan that is Kyoto will really not achieve anything.

The government has chosen to ignore those people. It has chosen instead to pick a few people, just like it did with the models. It cherry-picked what it wanted to hear then it went ahead. The most common question I get is: why would the Liberals do this? The only answer I can give is that it makes them feel good in the Liberal way and it gives a legacy to the Prime Minister. It has to be a political reason because it is not a scientific reason and not an economic reason.

When a member stands up and says, “We are ratifying it. I don't care what the rest of you think. If you backbenchers do not ratify it, I will call an election and you will have me for four more years”, that is the political reason behind Kyoto.

For today I will wrap up. I will try to wrap this up as quickly as I can tomorrow and we will move on.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 5:42 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Worldwide All-News Television Network

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in conjunction with the Government of Quebec and the other partners in the Francophonie, given consideration to the creation of a worldwide all-news television network.

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak as long as the hon. colleague who spoke before me; unfortunately, our time is limited.

The idea for Motion No. 141 was first suggested by the President of the French Republic, Jacques Chirac. He suggested the idea that the world needed an international French language all-news channel. I agree with this objective. Today's world cannot accept English language information only, information with a single colour.

Madam Speaker, like many of us in this House, you have travelled pretty extensively. When we travel around the world, whether for personal purposes or for purposes relating to our business as federal elected representatives, we realize that, besides the local media, the main sources of information are the American network CNN and the British BBC. Both play a major role, even an essential one, in maintaining the flow of information around the world. Two networks is not enough, however. CNN and the BBC cannot meet all the needs for information worldwide.

The Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada—the latter under pressure from the former—who are fighting for cultural diversity, and rightly so, should realize that one aspect of this cultural diversity is the basic need for information from various sources and various cultures, each with a vision of the world quite different from the others. We should not have a uniform vision of information; that is not good for the whole planet.

France is currently looking at three options. The first is to have a French language, French only news network. This would be an exclusively French network based of the public television system, such as France 2 or the LCI news network. It would present the world with almost nothing but the French vision. While it is important, the main player in the Francophonie, France is not the only important player when it comes to the French language on this planet. This is nevertheless an option being contemplated by France.

The second option is a European network, based on the EuroNews system, which we get here, in Quebec and Canada. This would be a multinational but European network that would broadcast to the rest of the world.

The third option being considered by France is a multilateral French language network, somewhat similar to TV5. I am of the opinion, and this is the purpose of my motion, that the Quebec and Canadian governments—since we are in the federal Parliament, in Ottawa—should insist that the third option prevail. It would be a matter of telling our partners, our friends, our French cousins that we too want to diversify worldwide news sources, that we too want to be involved in the broadcasting of a different vision of news, and that this option should be examined by the Francophonie, which is an increasingly important forum at the world level.

I want to make it clear that I am not asking that TV5 be replaced. TV5 is a great success and it works fine. However, one of its objectives is also to broadcast cultural programs and films. That is fine. I want French language culture to be increasingly known all over the world. It is important that this culture be known, regardless of its origin, whether it is French, Quebec, Canadian or African.

However, it would also be important to have access to a French news source 24 hours a day. When we travel, we often watch TV5. We often find ourselves watching a movie. The only news sources available are the BBC or CNN.

The world needs an all-news network in French. Except for English, French is the only language spoken on all five continents. Therefore, I urge this House to ask the government to give consideration to—that is to keep an open mind and to explore the possibility of—creating a worldwide all-news French television network. Let us send to our French friends the message that we are interested in taking part in a multinational French language project that will help support cultural diversity in all this news, which is essential in the 21st century.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am tempted, as a response to the motion presented by the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, to remind the House of Canada's presence within the institutions of the international Francophonie, our participation in TV5 in particular, and of the benefits its presence has for Canadians.

The Francophonie is, first and foremost, the community of peoples who, to varying degrees, speak or use French in their national life or their international relations. It is also a group of organizations and associations, both governmental and non-governmental, involved in various sectors of interest to members of the francophone community, including culture.

Sensitive to its own francophone reality, Canada was one of the first countries to promote the Francophonie, by participating in particular in the creation and development of its many institutions. Thus it was one of the founding members of the Agence de Coopération culturelle et technique in 1970, which has since become the Agence intergouvernementale de la Francophonie. I will come back a little later to TV5, which some consider one of the Francophonie's finest achievements.

Canada is now the second largest donor to the multilateral Francophonie, after France of course, while it pays out more than $25 million annually to the various operating bodies of the Francophonie, including TV5.

The Francophonie is one of the major focuses of Canada's foreign policy. Domestically, our participation is designed to promote our linguistic duality and to affirm and promote the vitality of the French fact in Canada. Internationally, the Francophonie is a natural zone of influence for Canada, just like the Commonwealth or the Organization of American States.

But beyond considerations of a geopolitical order, Canada's membership in the Francophonie is primarily an alliance with the rich network of 56 states and governments that have French in common, a network that extends from Europe, Africa and the Middle East to the West Indies, the Indian and Pacific Oceans, and of course our continent.

Finally, it gives the rest of the world a true appreciation of Canada's contribution to the dialogue among cultures and an opportunity to embrace the values of openness, democracy and tolerance, and to appreciate the richness of our francophone culture.

The year 2001 reminded us that it is up to the better-off on this planet to lend an ear and listen, but also to share our perceptions and our understanding of the reality that surrounds us.

The theme of the most recent Francophone Summit, held in Beirut last October, was the dialogue of cultures. I must tell hon. members how very proud I was to accompany the Prime Minister to Lebanon. The Minister of Canadian Heritage also attended, given her longstanding involvement with cultural dialogue.

During the Beirut summit, the heads of state and government affirmed their desire to breathe new life and new energy into the dialogue of cultures and civilizations, and to bring peoples closer together through mutual understanding.

They identified various tools and programs of the Francophonie to promote a closer relationship, be it by increasing Francophone cooperation in international forums on the great issues of the day, by participating in initiatives to prevent and settle conflicts, or by encouraging exchanges among young people throughout the Francophonie.

As I mentioned earlier, TV5, the international French language channel and operating body of the international Francophonie, is also one of the best vehicles for promoting dialogue among cultures.

Created in 1984, the international channel, TV5, is the fruit of a close partnership among five members of the Francophonie, the Government of Canada, France, Switzerland, the French community of Belgium and the Government of Quebec. TV5 also benefits from the participation of a number of African countries, namely Cameroon, Ivory Coast and Senegal.

TV5 is now the third largest television network in the world, after MTV and CNN. The channel broadcasts 24 hours a day by cable and satellite on five continents. One hundred and thirty million households have access to TV5, which means a potential audience of almost 600 million viewers who can watch the best programming from the major public French language channels, including Radio-Canada and Télé-Québec.

The Government of Canada pursues two fundamental objectives by participating in TV5: helping to promote Canada on the international scene by offering Canada's Francophone artists and producers a special international showcase; and offering Canadians an additional French language channel and a window on the international community.

The Government of Canada has been involved for nearly 20 years in this multilateral undertaking that is unique in the world, and in 2002-03, the Government of Canada provided it with $8 million in funding.

In terms of content, TV5 is primarily a generalist channel in which information, in other words news, is the real backbone. In this respect, we should remember the outstanding contribution of Radio-Canada and RDI, which constantly feed TV5 news programming of the highest quality. These programs are broadcast all across the globe.

I want to take this opportunity to mention that the professionalism of Canadian journalists is greatly appreciated by the great TV5 family. Their reputation is firmly established. Canada thus makes an active contribution to ensuring that the news broadcast on TV5 is of high quality and reliable.

TV5 is also a well-respected undertaking around the world, where it is often the only alternative to local news sources. I am thinking of Africa, Latin America and the Middle East, where TV5 is in turn educational, entertaining and informative.

For over 20 years, Canada has been helping to build a world television network that, over the years has, become a news broadcaster on par with CNN and the BBCs of this world.

Canadian and international news occupy an important place in RCIs programming. The channel also broadcasts programs on culture, economics and politics, thus offering the rest of the world an overview of the realities of Canadian life today.

I am particularly proud to talk about Radio Canada International because its transmitters are located in my riding, not far from the lovely town of Sackville.

From the Tantramar Marshes in New Brunswick, near the Nova Scotia border, people around the world can hear via shortwave signal Radio Canada International.

Given the success of TV5 and the Government of Canada's oft-renewed commitment to this operating body of the Francophonie, and given the existence of other Canadian tools already in place that broadcast quality French language news internationally, I believe that we should first focus our efforts on consolidating these tools. Of course, it would be interesting to envisage other vehicles for distributing our television programming, but at this stage, such a project is not realistic.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to make some remarks with regard to Motion No. 141. The motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in conjunction [I believe that is a very co-operative approach] with the Government of Quebec and the other partners in the Francophonie, give consideration [that is a word of moderation] to the creation of a world-wide all-news television network.

I would say to the hon. member for Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier that New Brunswick is an equal partner within the Canadian context and the Francophonie. I assume that he recognizes one of those partners to be his neighbouring province of New Brunswick which is the province I reside in.

In this era of media concentration, the idea is entrenched in the Canadian psyche that the more perspectives we can have that would disseminate news and information regardless of what language they are distributed in is a positive initiative.

As a founding partner of the Francophonie, and as a representative of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada which was instrumental in the establishment of the Francophonie, my view is that this initiative deserves consideration. I think that is what the member for Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier is advocating. A prudent approach should be taken. My colleague from the Bloc sits on the standing committee on official languages. It may be a reasonable approach to have this committee study the issue itself as to whether this is the track our nation should take.

We know there are intrinsic advantages, not just from a cultural perspective but economically as well, of maintaining the French language within the international community. The Francophonie has provided us with a forum to reach out and speak to nations. Other nations do not have the same kind of inroads from a north south perspective.

As the critic on official languages for the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada this type of initiative speaks to the same spirit of the strong institution that we have in Radio Canada International. There is a level of expertise there. Perhaps there could be some form of joint venture done in conjunction with France, Quebec and New Brunswick. I am quite comfortable going down that track.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, I will be supporting the motion by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, from the outset, let me say that I support the motion put forward by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier. I wish to read the motion again, because the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac was misinformed or he misinterpreted—at least that is what I humbly believe—the motion before us and found it to be not realistic.

This motion states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should, in conjunction with the Government of Quebec and the other partners in the Francophonie—

Last I heard, there were approximately 42 members countries in the Francophonie.

—give consideration to the creation of a world-wide all-news television network.

We are examining, with our partners in the Francophonie, the possibility of having a worldwide French language all-news television network.

I find that this motion is much in keeping with the new realities of the francophone community. Francophonie summits, which emulate to some extent Commonwealth events, are relatively new in the francophone community. The involvement, and even its establishment, of the International Organization of the Francophonie is relatively new. The Francophonie is growing. It is a community discovering itself, a community with very different realities within it.

The majority of countries in the Francophonie are African countries. They have French in common, but also the evolution and promotion of this language.

As the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier aptly said, and also my hon. colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party, with this evolution of the Francophonie, we can seriously contemplate the possibility of creating a worldwide all-news information network.

Perhaps the outcome of these discussions within the international forums of the Francophonie is a matter that should be brought up at the next Francophone Summit. Perhaps the outcome will be to say no. But, for the time being, how can one do like the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac and state that it is not realistic before even looking at the possibility of creating a network, when such an all-news network exists in English. I am referring to the BBC. There is also CNN, although this is a private network.

There are national news networks within countries. Could we, within the Francophonie, use this news, these structures, to make international news from primarily French speaking countries around the world available and accessible in French?

It is said that information goes hand in hand with democracy. I was surprised to hear my Liberal colleague say that it was not realistic to imagine giving information to countries that, all too often, suffer from a lack of information, such as countries in Africa. In many cases, these new and emerging democracies are deprived of international news about what is going on among their neighbours, their allies and around the world. These days, we live in a global village, and we are being told it is not realistic.

One only needs look at what the member states of the Francophonie have accomplished in recent years. The Sommets de la Francophonie have, more often than not, been a great success.

We have witnessed the role of the Francophonie in education. Countries with a common interest in the French language, such as Canada, form committees to assist, communicate and consult. It is not that some have a monopoly on the truth and the others are wrong. We are there to share knowledge and information about education and to give access to the member states of the Francophonie that are less developed to this education, to help people who are in circumstances that are all too often regrettable improve their lot.

An all-news network could broadcast information on the various means of education that are available to these different countries.

The same is true for culture. The member states of the Francophonie share a common culture, which is language, but we could learn so much more if every country in the Francophonie shared its own culture by making it available through information.

When an election takes place in an emerging democracy, the Francophonie sends an observer mission to monitor and observe what happens. An all-news network could broadcast what is happening in these countries to the rest of the world, particularly to concerned Francophones. I do not think it is not realistic to share the emergence of democracies, the emergence of events that carry hope in certain countries, these types of news, with other countries in their language, which is French.

There is also the issue of the economy in certain emerging countries of the Francophonie, where we share an interest through microcredit; the same could be said with regard to the status of women, and other issues.

It seems to me that a million and one subjects could be addressed by a French language all-news network. All countries need to be aware of all this information, as well as of international events as broadcast in English and in French by our networks in the western world.

My friend and colleague from the Progressive Conservative party has had an interesting idea. We might suggest that the motion of our colleague from Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier be examined by the new standing committee on official languages. This used to be the joint official languages committee, which was made up of MPs and senators and has had a number of successful outcomes to its credit. We now have the pleasure of having a committee made up solely of members of the House of Commons.

Last summer, hon. members will remember the ruckus about Radio-Canada not wanting to continue to carry hockey in French, thus depriving all French Canadians of a heritage they had enjoyed on state television for 50 years. The committee was one of those instrumental in remedying that situation, and now hockey is available to all Canadians, francophones in particular.

As for the situation involving the use of French on Air Canada, the committee was in large part responsible for rattling their cage so that minority language communities' rights were respected. Within a few weeks, there will be comment sheets available on planes in recognition of the rights of members of francophone communities who fly Air Canada.

At the present time, the debates of this House are broadcast across Canada by CPAC. Until recently, francophones from Manitoba westward were not able to tune in in French, because the French language channel was not available to them. The committee addressed this, and now it is.

The idea of our Progressive Conservative colleague, to refer this question to a committee, is very interesting and could be adopted by the members of this House.

Before I go on, I must say that I believe my colleague from Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party and myself have managed to demonstrate the importance of this motion, which unfortunately is not votable, because of the rules and procedures governing the business of the House.

I would, therefore, like to quite simply seek unanimous consent of the House to allow this motion to be put to a vote, in order to lend a little more weight to it. I believe that will be unanimously supported.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is there unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.