Debates of Nov. 28th, 2002

Kyoto Protocol

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the government is asking the Parliament of Canada to vote on ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

Yet we are being asked to do so without any chance to debate the merits of the implementation plan or to hear the provinces' point of view on this matter, despite its great importance.

Let us be clear on the facts. There is a significant international problem of global warming. The overwhelming preponderance of scientific analysis supports that view. The problem must be addressed. The most effective way to address it is by way of actions that have two characteristics: first, they are international; and, second, they are effective.

The issue before the House is whether this Parliament should ratify this accord in blind haste by the artificial deadline of December 31 with so many of the facts unknown and do that in the face of the opposition of so many of the provinces that, and let us face this reality, have the power to prevent the protocol from taking effect, resulting in Canada making an international commitment that it may well be unable to keep

The minister acknowledges that the heavy lifting and the most important decisions on environmental issues in the country in the last two decades are due principally to the initiatives of the Progressive Conservative government, in which I was honoured to serve. That was a time of real leadership on the environment both at home and internationally.

This government has wasted that leadership by ignoring two of the principal lessons of our success. First, we worked with the provinces. This government works aggressively against the provinces. Second, we did the homework. This government wasted five years after Kyoto was signed and still has no idea what might be in an implementation plan. In the course of the fall it had driven offside several provinces that had, at the end of the summer, pronounced themselves as supporters of Kyoto. There is a unanimous view that the government handled this file with unparalleled ineptitude.

Compare the preparations for Kyoto with the preparations for the acid rain treaty, for example. We knew that the only way to get agreement from the Americans on acid rain was for Canada to start with clean hands at home. We knew we had a skeptical president to persuade. He actually thought acid rain was caused by trees and we had to persuade him of the facts. We knew we had to have clean hands at home and the only way to do that was through genuine agreement with the provinces. If the federal government then had treated the provinces with the antagonism and disdain that are the hallmarks of this government, then there would have been no treaty on acid rain.

The Liberal government might not like the idea that Canada is a federation, but that is a reality which no amount of condescension and arrogance will erase. As the minister demonstrated again on Tuesday, he prefers to attack my province of Alberta rather than to work with it. Then he pretends surprise that the memories of the national energy program come bounding back in western Canada.

One of the great falsehoods of the government is the pretence that the federal government can do this alone. It cannot. The protocol will not be worth the paper it is written on unless the provinces agree to make it work in their jurisdictions. While the absence of an implementation plan makes it difficult to know what actions are being proposed by the Government of Canada and consequently what jurisdiction they touch, the implementation of Kyoto is bound to affect the following areas of provincial or shared jurisdiction: natural resources, environment, transport, municipal affairs, housing, agriculture, health, land use, land use planning, training, property rights, and local private initiatives so essential to an emissions trading system.

This is not an argument about provincial rights. It is an argument about Canadian reality. Members can argue, if they choose, that provinces should or should not have certain rights. What is relevant to this debate is the incontrovertible fact that they do have powers which will have an impact upon our ability to make Kyoto work. In some cases a province could stop an important element of the protocol from working.

What we are dealing with is worse than an empty motion. This is counterproductive. It sends a clear signal to the provinces that Ottawa will seek to impose its will. In that atmosphere, it is guaranteed that some provinces will withhold the agreement needed to make Kyoto work.

Let me recall some of the language used by provincial premiers and ministers to describe the federal government's proposal and the process that led to it. I have a random selection of quotes from the premiers, the essential partners in this process. They have who said, “A clear breach of trust by the federal government”; “rammed down the province's throat”; “lack of information”; “une attitude cavalière”; “a moving target”; “contempt”; “tainted process”; “a charade of partnership”; “no way to build a country”.

These are not minced words and are not necessary. Had the federal government sought to get the agreement of the provinces, agreement in most cases could have been secured. It did not try. It tried to ram it through. It is presenting us now with a motion which if accepted will be very counterproductive to getting agreement on precisely the issue in which the government claims to be interested.

If the government had been genuinely interested in the House's opinion on the substance of Kyoto, we would have been asked to debate a detailed implementation plan complete with the enabling legislation. However, according to the leader of the government in the other place, that enabling legislation has not been written yet. Nobody in the government has any idea what it will contain. It will not be tabled in the Parliament of Canada for at least three to four months.

We are being asked to vote on something that does not exist and yet it would tie our hands and give the Government of Canada the opportunity to say that Parliament is for it. The problem is the government does not know for what it is asking Parliament to be. Neither does anybody else. Instead we are being asked to sign off on a meaningless motion calling upon the government to ratify a protocol which its impact is unknown.

The government itself admitted the other day, through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, that, “This motion is not binding on the government”. In other words, the debate does not matter. The vote does not matter. The government will ignore both. We are asked to play a game, to put a feather in the Prime Minister's cap so that he can turn an important matter of public policy into a publicity stunt, some kind of desperate grasp for a legacy.

This is a vote with no significance except to create a false impression and a very bad atmosphere of working with the provinces. It does not express the free opinion of Parliament because the government is afraid to let its own members vote as they believe. It does not represent an informed opinion because no one in the House or country knows enough facts to make an informed judgment. It does not limit the government's capacity to conclude treaties unilaterally. Nor does it create any obligation to pay attention to Parliament in concluding treaties. It does not assure the international community of commitments Canada might make because we do not know what those commitments mean and we do not know if Canada can keep them. This treaty makes a mockery of Canada's word on the world stage.

It is precisely because this is so important that we need to ensure that there be the kind of consensus on Kyoto that would make the agreement arrived at some five years ago between the provinces, territories and federal government effective. We cannot afford to make these decisions blindly. We must know with a reasonable degree of certainty what the impact will be, not just on the country as a whole, but also upon individual provinces, individual industrial sectors and individual regions of the country.

Five years ago, almost to the day, federal, provincial and territorial ministers of the environment and ministers of energy did meet in Regina, in November 1997, and they did come to an agreement on Kyoto, quite a detailed agreement. They went home from the conference thinking that they had got that done and that was through partnership building of doing it together. Who broke it? The federal government broke the agreement. It broke it unilaterally. Its argument was that it did not need the provinces and the territories and that it had the power to sign treaties internationally.

I heard that argument before. I was honoured to be the lead minister introducing the free trade agreement. Officials, theorists, told us that this was federal and that we did not need the provinces. We said that if we did not have the provinces, we would not get a treaty that could work and so we insisted on having the provinces in. We demonstrated that where there was a determination on the part of the national government to match its rhetoric with its work, we could draw the partners together and get an agreement that would move everybody forward.

The government had that agreement underway and then it broke it unilaterally and tragically to the country.

The Prime Minister went off to Kyoto all by himself and he signed an agreement. What was the scientific basis of Canada's commitment to Kyoto? The scientific basis was the Prime Minister of Canada said he was going to be better than the United States of America. There is science. There is leadership.

Let me deal with the question of treaty making. Of course only the federal government under our law can sign treaties but the practical reality is that in order to give effect to any major international obligation, Canada needs to have the cooperation of the provinces as well as the agreement of the federal government. In the words of the research branch of the Library of Parliament:

If a treaty contains provisions that fall under the provincial sphere of jurisdiction as laid out in section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the federal government must secure the participation of the provinces so that their legislation will comply with the obligations of the treaty.

The principle is clearly stated in the 1937 Privy Council decision in the Labour Conventions case. Provisions of international treaties that fall within areas of provincial jurisdiction can be implemented in Canada only by the provincial assemblies.

As far as the Kyoto protocol is concerned, at the very least, there will be interference in each of the following areas of provincial or shared jurisdiction: non-renewable natural resources, forestry and agricultural resources, as well as a number of others. The Government of Canada can choose to ignore this reality if it wishes, in order to obtain ratification, but to what end?

The scope and complexity of the Kyoto protocol guarantee that, without a doubt, there will be tentacles stretching out into areas of provincial jurisdiction. Barring active participation by the provinces in the implementation process, the federal government will therefore be open to court challenges in Canada as well as penalties on the international level.

The issue is very clear. We must have decisions that bring the provinces in, not divisions that drive the provinces away.

As a former foreign affairs minister, I have to say there is a grave danger that we will be signing an international accord that we are not able to honour. Not only will that make us subject to international penalties, it will also besmirch the name of a country whose strength is that our word can be counted on. We are being asked to sign an accord which we do not know whether or not we can honour.

Allow me to direct my comments particularly to my fellow Quebeckers, who support the Kyoto protocol in such large numbers. I appreciate the desire of Quebeckers to improve the environment. Contrary to some other provinces, ratifying Kyoto will be potentially more directly beneficial to Quebec.

However, I question the wisdom of the decision of the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois to play the game of the Liberal government. Quebec might gain something in the short term, but Quebeckers know as well as I do, if not better, how dangerous Ottawa's interference in provincial jurisdictions can be. Why allow the federal government to set a precedent that it will use regarding other future issues?

Ever since they first came to Ottawa, Bloc Quebecois members have been strongly critical of this government's tendency not to respect the division of powers. We disagree with their ultimate solution to the problem, but Bloc Quebecois members and Progressive Conservative members, like some Canadian Alliance members, agree that we must always remain vigilant to protect the provinces' autonomy. Now, they are ready to capitulate for a few short term benefits.

What will happen when the next international treaty goes against the interests of Quebec? Since it will have capitulated regarding Kyoto, what will the Bloc Quebecois be able to do if the issue is, for example, work standards in potential free trade areas of the Americas, or other similar matters? How will the Bloc Quebecois then be in a position to criticize the federal government for not seeking a consensus among the provinces after today, when it is prepared to allow the federal government to go ahead without any consensus among the provinces? This is a dangerous precedent, particularly since it involves a government that is so used to abusing its federal powers. It did so when it patriated the Constitution and with the national energy program.

Everyone is aware of the Prime Minister's approach to intergovernmental affairs. This is not a government that respects the rights of the provinces. If it can ignore the provinces today, it will do it again in the future. However, later we can have the votes of the Bloc Quebecois members in the House. I certainly hope that we can find a way to ensure that there will not be an agreement without the consent of the provinces.

Under the rules of the House we are not in a position to move an amendment in this debate. If we could, we would move a very simple amendment that would require the agreement of the provinces to any implementation plan. That would make Kyoto an acceptable process. It would give us some opportunity to go forward and deal with the unquestioned problems of greenhouse gases that have to be dealt with. This is an area in which Canada has played a leadership role historically. We have to play that leadership role again, but that cannot be done with this motion.

The motion is a request for a blind ratification. It is asking Parliament to vote with its eyes closed in favour of a motion with unknown implications except for two things. We know there are provinces that will not agree and their failure to agree will mean the treaty cannot be implemented. We also know that if we promise the world that we will implement it and we find out we cannot, then Canada's name will be besmirched in the international community. We want neither of those things to happen.

There is a better way to deal with the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. It has been proven before by other federal governments that were prepared to set forth the goals a Canadian society should seek and then work with the partners in the Canadian community to make that possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the right hon. member. I would like to clarify a number of things.

We in the Bloc Quebecois have always said that we make a distinction between ratifying Kyoto and implementing it. Will the hon. member admit that the fundamental problem in Canada is not with the protocol per se? The problem is that the federal government will not recognize the principles set out in the protocol, stating that this is a shared and differentiated reduction effort.

Does he admit that the current problem does not rest with the protocol per se, but rather with the federal government's interpretation and approach, which are inconsistent with the shared and differentiated principles for combating climate change?

One must distinguish between the international accord and the way the government opposite is behaving in term of blatantly encroaching on provincial jurisdictions.

Could the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party comment on my remarks on the distinction between the protocol and how the federal government would implement it?

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is obviously a distinction to be made between the protocol and its implementation. Both will be guided by the same sort of principle, which is cooperation respectful of the nature of Canadian communities.

We now are in a situation where at least eight provinces out of ten object to rapidly and blindly ratifying Kyoto protocol. The government is ignoring the provinces on this.

Why should we expect a sudden change of attitude from this Liberal government, the government of the unilateral patriation? Why should we expect this government to radically change its philosophy and say “We ignored the provinces on ratification, but we will cooperate with them on implementation”? It is unrealistic.

We have no reason to believe that this government will change this policy, which is so deeply rooted in the Liberal Party. Why ask now for speedy ratification which would increase the influence of the federal government? It would then be able to say: “We are not alone in seeking this implementation plan. The governments of Quebec and Alberta may not be in agreement with it, but we did not act alone. Parliament also took a position and the Bloc Quebecois supported us.”

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

We support ratification, not implementation.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

You have been a member of Parliament for three elections. You were elected three times. You have some experience with the Liberal Party. The way votes can be used to create confusion among members has become a trademark of that party.

I can assure you that a spokesperson for the Liberal government will go to your riding and say: “The Bloc Quebecois supported us. We have their support in principle. There will be some slight differences in details, but it is the partisanship of the Bloc Quebecois which is the problem. The Canadian Parliament has taken a position.” This is the game played by the Liberal government.

I hope that members of the Bloc Quebecois and ministers of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec understand that we are witnessing the first step towards serious interference in provincial jurisdiction.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have to respond because I find that the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party is raising some quite interesting points. Unfortunately, I would really like there to be further discussion of Quebec's jurisdictions as opposed to Canada's.

I agree with him in the sense that we, members of the Bloc Quebecois, are very wary when it comes to federal intrusions in Quebec's jurisdictions. We just had blatant evidence of that this morning, with the tabling of the Romanow report.

However, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party must understand the interests of the Bloc Quebecois, which, ultimately, are merely the interests of Quebec. That is often the problem. When we can join forces with other parties to confront the government, I say so much the better. However, it may happen that members of the Bloc Quebecois go it alone when it comes to certain issues, because we believe that we must conduct ourselves as though we represent a country, such as Quebec.

If Quebec were sovereign, perhaps it would want to seek shared jurisdictions, support and allies with the other provinces. But we are not sovereign. So, Quebec's representatives might say “This serves the interests of Quebec, so we will vote for it”. It may also happen—in fact, this is regularly the case—that it does not serve Quebec's interests. Then we do not necessarily seek associations. We have a job to do with regards to Quebec's jurisdiction, and this concerns Quebec's jurisdiction and defence.

This may lead to divisions among the different parties, but the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party must understand the context in which we are working here, which is to defend specifically the interests of Quebec with, if possible, some allies. If there are no allies, we will still defend the interests of Quebec.

This may lead to various problems. However, I would really like him to understand that we are still friends. But we have a job to do as Quebec's sovereignist members. We try to do that job as well as we can, with the support that we can find. When we do not have any, we are able to weather the storm alone, always with the goal of defending Quebec's interests.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am perfectly aware of the history of the Bloc Quebecois. The hon. member will recall that I was here when the Bloc was created. However, I do not wish to address today—there will be a debate on that issue at some other time—the possibility of realizing the ultimate goals of the Bloc Quebecois.

For the time being, and for months and years to come, we are and will be living in a federal system, and the Government of Quebec must act within it. A federal system cannot function without respect for provincial jurisdictions. We must work within today's reality, even if the member is pursuing changes for the future. It is extremely dangerous for us to give our support to this government. It would set the precedent of breaking the constitutional rules of Canada and interfering in provincial jurisdictions. This precedent will be used to justify future interference.

In these circumstances, we are partners. As a member for Alberta, I am a partner with my colleague from Quebec when it comes to respecting the existing federation. The member has changes to propose. However, for the time being there is a system in place and a division of powers.

The federal government does not respect this division of powers. This represents a threat on the constitutional level. It is also a threat in terms of the capacity to implement the Kyoto protocol. If the Government of Quebec can oppose the implementation of a provision dealing, for example, with international trade in terms of credits, this power will not be exercised in Quebec. Thus, there will be a means to break the Kyoto protocol. This is a threat to the federal system. It is a threat to the international role of Canada. It is truly dangerous and unnecessary.

Without the artificial deadline of year's end, we would be able to reach agreements, as we did in the past. I was there for the agreement on acid rain and I was there for the Free Trade Agreement. I know it is possible to reach a consensus if we begin by respecting provinces and other partners within the federal system. This is what is different today. This is what the Liberal government's approach to the Kyoto protocol lacks. This government has no respect for the nature of our current system. The member wants to change the system. However, we must live within it, at least—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, if one thing has saddened me in this debate, it certainly was not the filibuster of the member for Red Deer, but the position of somebody that I respect very highly. To think that the leader of the Conservative Party has taken this tack.

I was minister of the environment of Quebec during the debate on CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, where the provinces opposed clauses in the act which infringed on provincial jurisdiction. I remember the minister of the federal government fighting very hard to impose the act because he had the right to do it. The record will show that at that time I proposed an equivalency clause to exempt provinces if their legislation was equivalent to CEPA.

The federal minister at that time, the government's ex-minister of foreign affairs, was ready to impose CEPA on the provinces. I know because I was part of the debate day in and day out. Let us not hear the Conservative members saying that they are full of purity and that we are the people to blame. Sometimes in our daily lives we have to take action. The action on Kyoto is now. We cannot wait forever to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

Many years ago we were the brand new continent, the new world. We were the continent of innovation, of Frank Lloyd Wright, Buckminster Fuller, Wassily Leontiev of economics, Salk and Flemming in medicine. Meanwhile, the old world was mired in wars over the first half of the last century, one war more brutal than the other, causing damage and devastation beyond imagination, while this new world thrived.

After the war was over, suddenly there was a great change in mentalities. The victor and the vanquished in Europe came together and formed, against all expectations, an amazing union, which is now thriving, and which now has one of the most stable currencies, one of the prime currencies of the world with the American dollar. Who would ever have imagined it?

Meanwhile, we of the new world have become mentally the old world, shrinking unto ourselves, led by the super power to the south of us, which is so proud to call itself the one super power in the world. Is that super power teaching us the example of collectivity, of multilateral action, of joining with others to cure the ills of the world so there will not be a rich world and a poor world, and something for the haves and something else for the have nots? No.

What does it do? It retrenches unto itself, negates all treaties that are collective in action and then wants to drag us into its dragnet, saying, “You, Canada, because you are a neighbour, do the same, otherwise you are going to be affected, because we have decided not to ratify Kyoto, the landmines agreement, the biodiversity convention and what else”.

I am proud that we have decided to join with those who believe that Kyoto is not only a matter of facts, figures and profits for this one or that one, or this province or that province, but that Kyoto is a matter of fairness and equity in the world. We, along with the United States, who pollute more than anyone else in the world and who are the champions of energy consumption in the world by far, per capita, should live differently, should manufacture differently and should think about those places, the small island states, Bangladesh, the have not countries that are polluted because of our actions as industrialized countries.

I look at what has been happening in the old world, the world of past wars. I look at the French rail system. I look at the windmill miracle of the Danes. I look at the fact that Sweden and Germany have decided, with great courage, to renounce nuclear power. I look at the fact that one can go to any airport in the smallest country, like Finland or Norway, and have fast transit to their airports. They have wonderful fast transit and we do not even have one major city linked by fast transit to our airports.

We are still debating Kyoto. We are still saying that we cannot do it, that we will suffer all the ills of the world if we ratify Kyoto. Where is our resolve? Where is our collective will with those wonderful universities that we have and those wonderful skills?

We have shown courage in so many instances in the world and that is what it is about. All that we have shown by taking the leadership in the landmines treaty, at the biodiversity convention in Rio, within the framework for climate change at Rio, have we lost that resolve that we can do it?

Kyoto is just a small baby step, the 6% that Premier Klein says will cause catastrophe in his land, or the premier of Ontario who says, “Oh, no”. I heard the Ontario minister say “It's like putting lipstick on a pig”, a great lofty debate.

Kyoto is a collective agreement that will force us to do things differently. I agree with the members of the Bloc who argued that the ratification of Kyoto is one thing that we must put behind us. The implementation plan must come afterwards and that has to be where our mission must start.

It will not only be 6%, we need to look to 2050 where we will have to reduce our energy consumption by not 6%, 12% or 25%, but by as much as 50% if we want to live differently, if we want to live in a world where those who waste and consume too much have to waste and consume less so that there is an equalization in the world.

The argument that China, Russia and Brazil are exempted from Kyoto is false. In 2005 they will have to join the treaty as well. They will have to be subjected to timelines and percentage targets.

The other day I quoted from a speech that I heard at the United Nations. I will now quote some details from it. It was given by the President of the Republic of Maldives. He said:

Geographically, the MaIdive Islands lie in the equatorial calm of the northern Indian Ocean, away from cyclone paths. The brief annual monsoonal turbulences and the occasional high tidal swells hardly ever endangered the 195,000 inhabitants of the islands.

This year, the frequency and magnitude of unusual tidal wave action has risen alarmingly. The period from the 10th to the 12th of April recorded the highest sea level evidenced in the country, during which unusual high waves at high tide struck the islands with a ferocity that inflicted extensive and unprecedented damage throughout the country.

The rich and developed nations clearly have the wealth and the land to defend themselves from a rise in sea level even if they wait for it to occur, yet they are already preparing. Because small states are more vulnerable, we have to prepare sooner. But the Maldives lacks the economic, technical and technological capability to deal with the formidable prospects of a significant rise in sea level.

We did not contribute to the impending catastrophe to our nation; and alone, we cannot save ourselves.

The day before yesterday there was an article in the paper about the tropical glaciers in the Andes that are melting at a much faster rate than the glaciers in the northern hemisphere. The people rely on these glaciers for drinking water, water for irrigation and water for industry. They say that the glaciers are melting so fast that they will disappear much faster than scientists ever believed.

Even today there was an article in the Globe and Mail about NASA taking photographs of the Arctic region which show that melting is occurring at a much faster pace than scientists ever believed.

I heard Dr. Robert Corell from the United States, who is now doing a special study on climate change in the Arctic, pronounce that in the year 2075 at the outside the Arctic Ocean will be an open sea.

The other day I was at a press conference where my colleague from Nunavut was speaking along with me. She said something that struck me very deeply. She said that their land was treeless and that they liked it that way. She said that they did not want it to change. She said that they liked their way of life but that it was being threatened by climate change.

That is really what Kyoto is about. Kyoto is not about us, the rich guys, whether we are in Quebec, Ontario or Alberta, spoiled as we are in our nice homes, with our nice SUVs and our vast parking lots. It is about us doing things differently so that people in the Arctic region and people in Bolivia and Peru will not suffer because glaciers will be melting faster than they ever thought possible. We must do things differently so that people in the small island states and others are given a chance. We, a rich nation, rich beyond compare, must be an example to others by showing them that we can do things differently. This is what Kyoto is about.

I was saddened when I heard that representatives of our mighty, historical, national party, the Progressive Conservative Party, would be joining, of all things, in a filibuster against Kyoto. How does that party appear to the rest of the world, the 93 countries that have ratified Kyoto? What does that party say to all of the European nations? What does it say to Japan? What does it say to all the countries that believe Kyoto is far more than just an instrument to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 3%, 4% or 6%?

Kyoto is just the start of a plan that must make us change our way of living and manufacturing and our way of doing things. This is what it is about.

I urge all my colleagues to show the way by ratifying Kyoto overwhelmingly. I know the Conservative leader said that it does not matter because the executive has the power to ratify it anyway. Of course it has the power to ratify but it will be far more important and symbolic if it obtains, as it will, the backing of a great number of MPs here in this House of Parliament.

I will close by reciting these words by Mahatma Gandhi that I heard a long time ago. He said, “Nature has something for everybody's needs but not enough for the greed of even some”.

That is what this is all about. We need to use the benefits of nature, as far as we can in human terms, so that everybody's needs are taken care of rather than catering to the greed of even some.

I ask the people who are against Kyoto today, whether they are from Alberta, Ontario or elsewhere, what it is that motivates them. Is it their own parish, their own economy or their own bailiwick for the common weal?

Today the common weal is far more than Alberta, Ontario and even Canada. It stretches beyond our borders because we are part of an international community where we contribute to the common weal of not just this part of the world, but the whole world. The planet is finite. There is only one and it cannot last forever at this pace. We have to change our ways. We have to change our lives. We have to change the way we produce and we have to change the way we consume energy.

This is why I will be among the great backers of Kyoto. I will vote for it and I hope the House will vote for it overwhelmingly. In closing I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Durham.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I caution the hon. member that he should have stated at the beginning of his speech that he was splitting his time, however, there is no splitting of time at the moment. Questions and comments.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis on his interest in the environment and also on his position on this issue.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis understands that, in order to find a global solution to climate change, we need a firm commitment from northern countries to significantly reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Besides the emissions reduction in northern countries, we need to focus on technology transfers to southern countries and capacity building to help developing countries embark upon similar initiatives and find climate change solutions.

Fearmongers argue that Kyoto could lead to an economic downturn for Canada, a depression and the associated job losses, but I want the hon. member to tell us how ratifying Kyoto will represent a challenge in terms of innovating, developing new technology, maintaining control over our work, and being able to transfer our expertise and technology to developing countries and export them. I would like him to tell the House how Kyoto can help Quebec and Canada to become world leaders in climate change solutions through the development of green energy sources like wind or solar energy as well as hydroelectic power.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I was dealing with the environment in Quebec, I always thought that, despite people's constitutional differences, the environment is the most precious thing that unites them. Whether they are young or old, they meet on the environment issue, because we are really defending the common heritage. So I totally agree with my colleague.

We are in our infancy in terms of green technologies in Canada. Everything still lies ahead when it comes to wind energy, biomass energy, solar energy, geothermal energy. We have so much to accomplish.

If we look at the statistics on wind energy, for example, Germans produce about 8,000 megawatts; a small country such as Denmark produces between 2,500 and 3,000 megawatts. The Americans produce 4,000 megawatts and we, Canadians, do not even produce 300 megawatts.

With regards to solar energy, for example, Japan produces about ten times more than we do. With respect to biomass energy, we have great innovators, such as logen Corporation, in the Ottawa region, that use cellulose fibre to produce natural fuel.

There as so many inventive and innovative people in all parts of the country that we must mobilize them in a Kyoto implementation plan, because this protocol is merely a first step. It is a great adventure for society to build these technologies, not only so that we can use them, but also so that we can transfer them to those who need them to deal with climate change, as the member as suggested. This is our common hope.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I most heartily commend my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, who I thought was one of the great environment ministers of Quebec. Among people of the same calibre who deal with the environment there is my colleague, the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie. He takes the issue very much to heart and passionately devotes his time and energy to it. I congratulate them both.

I would like our colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis to develop one aspect of his speech. He said that he agrees with members of the Bloc who argued that the ratification of Kyoto is one thing that we must put behind us. However, he also said that implementation would come next. I have a little trouble understanding that point. I would like our learned colleague to help me on this.

As Quebeckers, can we be assured that the Kyoto protocol will be implemented fairly and with respect for provincial jurisdictions, with recognition for the work that has already been done in some provinces? Manitoba and Quebec have already started reducing greenhouse gases. I would like to hear the comments and impressions of my colleague on this.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that implementing Kyoto once it is ratified will really be the great challenge for all of us. It will only succeed if we pool our common interests to introduce leading-edge technologies with regard to green energies and to find new ways of doing things. This can only be achieved through cooperation.

My biggest wish is to have some kind of advisory committee. There are so many brilliant people who could help. I am talking about Louise Comeau, of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Robert Hornung and people from all provinces. It seems to me that we should use these resources, that we should call upon these experts who are among us every day.

It is incumbent upon all sectors and all provinces to get these people together in some kind of advisory committee that would provide practical advice to both the Canadian government and provincial governments in terms of how to change our mentalities and our attitudes and how to introduce new technologies. All these people are among us. I could name quite a few. We must be able to get them together and be positive about this whole issue.

I hope that Canadian Alliance members and Progressive Conservative Party members will join us in this initiative. Kyoto and post-Kyoto must become a social vision, regardless of where we live in Canada and what province we call home.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could say it was a pleasure to engage in the debate, but it is with disappointment than anything else that I take part in it, simply because we should not be having the debate at this time.

It is clear to me that with the uncertainties, the lack of detail, the absence of a plan, and the absence of any sense of cooperation with the provinces and industries, that we are not ready to ratify this accord. We should be working toward an environment where we could seriously debate a plan that includes at least a draft of legislation for implementation of the Kyoto accord. It should include a plan that lays out the costs to the provinces, to industry and to consumers, and the share of the burden they would be expected to bear. We have none of those things.

This whole issue has been a fraud from the very beginning. It has been so badly handled by the government and by those promoting the Kyoto accord that, in spite of the fact that we have been 10 years at this, we are nowhere near the point we should be. That is probably because, not only this government but the government before it, they have never been particularly serious about dealing with the issue of greenhouse gases, the greenhouse effect on earth, and all the rest of those things. Had it been serious, certainly the Conservative government, after its commitment in Rio to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000, it would have come up with some kind of plan and would have taken some kind of action at that point. This government has taken up the cause and has gone ahead and signed the Kyoto accord, and by so doing has betrayed the trust of the provinces.

I was in Regina at the meeting of provincial environment and natural resources ministers where an agreement was reached with the provinces on a position to take to Kyoto. That position was to stabilize greenhouse gases at 1990 levels, not 6% below 1990 levels. The provinces agreed reluctantly to commit to that level. Then the federal government went to Kyoto and unilaterally, without any consultation, committed to 6% below 1990 levels, which is now 30% below 1990 levels.

It is sheer coincidence that the difference between the stabilization of the 0% and the 6% below is the 60 megatonnes which the government cannot find a way to deal with in its latest plan. That may not be that important, but certainly if the government had lived up to its promise, its commitment with the provinces, and had taken that commitment to Kyoto, at least its plan would be a plan to deal with the targets of 6% below 1990 levels.

There is corruption of the whole Kyoto process through the IPCC, the study that was done and the recommendations that were brought forward by that group. The executive summary of that report that is being used all the time on this issue is such a corruption, particularly the conclusions that were arrived at by scientists of the IPCC.

I would like to quote a statement by John Bennett of the Sierra Club of Canada. He said:

--the IPCC has described as an impending “environmental catastrophe” caused by human induced climate change.

I do not know where he got that from because the summary statement of the IPCC study is:

--and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate is not possible.

That is quite a contrast to what some are saying the IPCC study in fact told them. That in itself is a corruption of the truth and is misleading.

When I look at that inaccuracy, those kinds of misleading statements, it throws into some question the whole issue of whether we are being told the truth or whether we are being fed something that is less than the truth. The more we look at it, the more we have to think that way.

Although I certainly would not even propose to come close to the efforts of my colleague from Red Deer, I feel no less passionate about the issue, but I do not think I am up to speaking for 11 hours and 45 minutes.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, is the gentleman from the Canadian Alliance making a speech or is it questions and comments?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

That is a point of debate. However, on the point of order, the hon. member has the floor on debate for 20 minutes. Then there will be questions and comments for 10 minutes.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, one point of contention on this issue from the very beginning has been the science around climate change. We have raised these issues because there is growing scientific opinion that the science behind the Kyoto accord is badly flawed.

Over and over again we have mentioned such distinguished people as Dr. Tim Patterson, Dr. Tim Ball, Dr. Fred Singer, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Fred Michel, Dr. Howard Hayden, Dr. Terry Rogers. I will not go through their qualifications. They are all well respected scientists in their fields, which are related to the climate change issue.

[An hon. member]

They were brought to committee.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

In fact they came to committee to warn us about what we were doing.

When we mention their names and present their evidence that there is really something wrong with the science, I hear members as well as the previous speaker, try to discount the opinions of these experts by somehow implying that their opinions are not valid because they are corrupted by the oil industry or the energy industry. That is simply not valid in any way.

Those people have no connection to the oil industry. I do not understand why their opinions, even if they did have some connection to the oil industry, would be any less valid than those of organizations such as the David Suzuki Foundation, the Sierra Club, or the Pembina Institute which receive a considerable amount of funding and not just from the Canadian government.

The Sierra Club received $213,000 from the British Columbia government when the New Democrats were in power in B.C. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities under the leadership of a current candidate for the NDP received a grant of $250 million to establish the green municipal program. Why does that funding from governments not somehow put the credibility of their opinions under suspicion any more than those scientists who have a huge list of credentials and years of experience in the field?

I think there is a problem. It makes me suspect that the government is cherry-picking opinions and actually paying organizations to promote its argument. That makes me very suspicious.

That having been said, the science certainly is questionable and should be questioned. The way for Parliament to have dealt with this issue should have been the same way the U.S. government dealt with it. It came to the conclusion that it would not support Kyoto.

We should hold parliamentary committee hearings, whether they be joint Senate and House of Commons hearings or standing committee hearings. We should have a thorough study done of this issue for parliamentarians, where parliamentarians could listen to the scientific opinion on both sides of the issue. We could see the evidence that the member for Lac-Saint-Louis talked about, the pictures of the ice melting and all the rest of it. Then we might be in a better position to understand the issue. We are not scientists or experts. There is this pulling back and forth trying to influence our opinions one way or the other and that is not fair.

There is something that concerns me even more than the questionable science on the issue. I read an article in the National Post yesterday under the byline of Terence Corcoran. It was quite shocking. There has been some reference to this agenda before.

This gentleman has brought forward some very credible experts in the field of economics. They have real concerns about the Kyoto accord and in fact have taken those concerns to the head of the IPCC which has promised to review them and get back to them. The article leads off by saying something that is very revealing. It states:

Anyone puzzled by the science behind Kyoto should take a look at the economics. In the words of one leading economic modeller [who is named later in the article] the central 100-year economic projections behind Kyoto and global warming policy making is “an insult to science” and “an insult to serious analysis”. And that is probably the good part of any criticism. It is also clear that the economic work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is driven by systemic ideological preferences for state intervention.

I think we heard the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis confirming, in his opinion at least, that is what this whole Kyoto thing and climate change is about.

John Reilly of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy Global Change is quoted in the article as saying:

At one point, the IPCC group attempted to find economists to “tweak” long-range models to get the desired emissions results. “They wanted our group [at MIT] to do this, but we just refused”.

Again, do we not get suspicious that there is something going on here that is less than truthful? I certainly do. Professor Reilly went on to say:

Not only did the modelling warp economics. The overall ideology of the operation appears to have been to create scenarios that would fulfill a larger objective. “The bigger issue,” says Professor Reilly, is the SRES [Special Report on Emission Scenarios] vision of an economic future of “equal incomes” among all regions of the globe. He calls it the “social justice” issue. “They are of the view that the future world is a matter of human choice. If we want a world where the United States stops growing, and developing countries grow and catch up, we can choose that world. It is not something you can project. You just choose that scenario and if it is a scenario we as a world like, we will create it. We will make it happen”.

That should really shock people. The article goes on at some length to describe how they worked in a backward direction to come up with the proposals. Between 2000 and 2050 they have third world countries growing at rates of 50% to 65% GDP, while by 2030 in the U.S. and other OECD countries, economic development grinds to an absolute halt. That goes against 300 years of history. It certainly goes against the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship that drives the U.S. and Canadian economies.

Canadians should wake up and question what the real agenda is. This article is backed up by some pretty solid scientific opinion.

Let us look at the speech the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard made at the University of Toronto where he referred to Canada joining the world in a global effort to make the world a better place for everyone to live in. We listened to the Prime Minister's comments after September 11 about the problem of unequal distribution of wealth in poor and rich countries and how this disparity in income is driving the terrorists in the world to do their work. He said that we are greedy and selfish because we are wealthy and that we should share more of that wealth with the developing world.

In some sense I agree with much of that. It would be more credible if more people like the Prime Minister were taking their own wealth and creating trust funds to help people in the third world, instead of using Canadian taxpayers' money.

The $2,700 per family after tax income cost of Kyoto is a figure that has been arrived at by a number of different organizations. It may not mean much to the Prime Minister and probably not much to most of the cabinet or most members of the House, since $2,700 in after tax income would not create great hardship probably for us. However to a huge number of people, I would dare to say the majority of people in Canada, that $2,700 after tax income will have a dramatic effect on their lifestyle and will make life quite difficult for them.

My colleague from Red Deer mentioned many times that there was some reason to believe that there was some scientific validity to the issue of the greenhouse effect and that we, as inhabitants of this planet, should do everything we could to reduce our footprint on this planet. We should do what is prudent, what is possible and what we can to reduce that footprint, and we should go ahead with that.

I do not think that this government is serious about it, just as the Mulroney government before it. If this government really was serious about what it is promoting, we would see some real action on behalf of it. We really have not seen much but rhetoric. The various copies of the plan that we have seen are full of very fuzzy and warm stuff, but what we look for are real actions.

I remember debating in the House some years ago the federal plan to convert the federal transportation fleet to green fuels. I dare say precious little has been achieved in that direction. Not only has the fleet not been converted, but, as my Red Deer said over and again, a part of the fleet sits out in front of the House on the street, in winter and summer, running to create comfort for the ministers.

Look at the buildings on Parliament Hill. While all homeowners are being asked to retrofit their homes, upgrade their windows and all the rest of it, we do not see many double-pane gas filled windows on the buildings around Parliament Hill. We do not see any effort being made on that, although Canadians are supposed to do something.

If the government were really serious, it would be demonstrating its seriousness by having a real program of action and those things would be happening. We would see those cars outside being shut off. The chauffeurs who drive the ministers around could come into the lobby to keep warm. When the minister is ready to go, they could go out, get in their car and go. In the summertime they could roll the windows down to keep cool instead of sitting with the car running, the air conditioning going and water running down the street under the cars.

I do not think that it is really serious. If it were, the Minister of Natural Resources would not be driving a Cadillac Escalade. I would like to move a subamendment--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry, but the member's time is up. I did indicate that earlier. The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.

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

Madam Speaker, the Kyoto agreement will have a major impact upon agriculture. Being the chief agricultural critic for the Canadian Alliance, I have been trying to see what exactly this Kyoto agreement involves and what impact it will have on agriculture. If we look at the U.S. analysis on the negative impact of Kyoto on agriculture, we will see that it will be between $30 billion or $40 billion, which will make an already less than competitive set of farmers even less competitive and that could happen in Canada.

A farmer from my area by the name of Randall Stefanson who is in the Riverton area, has done extensive post-secondary education in climate change. He has the practical experience along with a vast amount of academic education. He says that this is very bad for agriculture in Canada and it is bad for Canadians overall.

I know the member is from a farming area in Alberta. Could we hear his comments with regard to agriculture and if in fact we should know what we are getting into before we jump in?

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, I certainly with the member. The Kyoto accord has huge implications for agriculture, an industry which is already under severe stress because of foreign subsidies and all those things.

However there are a number of issues that will affect agriculture dramatically. The cost of energy and the cost of fuel for farmers will have a huge impact. The cost of energy not only reflects on the fuel for their tractors and machinery but the natural gas that goes into fertilizers and the energy costs for the production of chemicals will have a huge impact.

Particularly galling is the fact that farmers, through negotiations by the federal government, have been acknowledged as a way to save carbon and to store carbon in carbon sinks through zero tillage agriculture. One might think the farmers might get those credits to offset the increased energy costs, but no, the federal government is claiming those credits and will use them in its plan. There is no mechanism to even partially offset the cost to agriculture. There will be a devastating effect on agriculture.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to edify my hon. colleague opposite. He mentioned in his discussion the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. It seemed from the way I heard his comments, and I would invite him to clarify, that perhaps it was not as objective as it might have been, because of the $250 million green enabling fund which the federation dispenses on behalf of the federal government.

I point out to my hon. colleague that this is exactly the kind of partnership in implementation that is necessary to meet the greenhouse gas reductions that are part of the Kyoto protocol. In fact, that money goes to municipalities for pilot projects that can be replicated for such projects as recycling computers. I have had people from the industry say that this is a business opportunity for them. All the projects under the municipal fund need to be replicated in other municipalities. The government is taking this challenge very seriously and is asking our partners to participate.

He also talked about industry. I point out to him that Technology Partnership Canada gives repayable grants to companies such as GFI and ATS, which are in my community. They do factory conversion kits that are deal with cutting edge technology on solar panels and how that may be used in mass transit as well as vehicles. The government has put its money where its mouth is.

He also quoted his colleague from Red Deer. While I do not have Hansard in front of me, my recollection of what he said, while I listened to him go on, was that if there was a connection between the Kyoto protocol, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and health, that perhaps he and his party would have to look again at their stance.

I point out that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions will achieve the kind of clean air quality goals that Canada has. This includes reducing emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide from emitters like thermoelectric plants, refineries and pulp and paper mills.

The targets of Kyoto and the actions that will allow us to reach those targets, which the government contends are achievable in partnership with provinces, territories, municipalities and by asking Canadians as well as large emitters to do their bit, are very achievable and will have a very positive impact on a better environment and lead to a better condition for the health of Canadians.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was glad to give the parliamentary secretary the platform to make that enthusiastic advertisement for the government's programs, but I did notice one rather glaring error in her comments when she said that the government was putting its money where its mouth was. The government is putting our money where its mouth is, and that is quite a different thing.

I do not argue for a minute that the municipal green fund is not doing some good things, things that should be done. My my point is this. Would the Canadian Association of Municipalities and its president be out there participating in panels, selling the government's position on the Kyoto accord, if they had not got the $250 million grant? I do not think anyone could say that the money they are distributing on behalf of the federal government does not somehow influence their opinion.

Industry is doing wonderful things and using some of the government's programs to do those things. In my own riding in the Tar Sands, the industry has reduced CO

2

emissions by 17% per unit of production, per barrel of oil. That is well beyond the Kyoto accord. However the Prime Minister when in Washington promotes the industry as a source of supply for the U.S. However we cannot increase production by seven times and reduce overall emissions. That is unexpected.

TransAlta Utilities, one of the greatest greenhouse gas emitters in Canada and the main supplier of electrical energy in Alberta, without the commitment of Kyoto, is on track to reduce its net emissions to zero by 2024. It does not need the Kyoto accord. We do not need to be bound by the Kyoto accord. We do not need to engage in this social welfare program for the third world to achieve the things we need to achieve.