Debates of Nov. 28th, 2002

Kyoto Protocol

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the break and a chance to have a drink. Also, the message is that we have to tell Canadians and inform Canadians. I admit it would be unhealthy to stick Kyoto in everyone's ear so I would advise against it. I would advise the member that it was a figure of speech, in case she needs clarification on that.

The point is, what is the rush before Christmas? Why can it not go through the normal procedure? Why is this being handled so differently? Why are we going to ratify it and then work on a plan? Remember in the Kyoto protocol that by the year 2005 we must show substantial reductions in CO

2

. Remember that in 1999 we were 15% over our emissions of CO

2

from 1990 levels. Remember that Statistics Canada said that in the year 2000 we were approximately 20% over in our CO

2

emissions. Remember it also said that in 2001 we were about 23% over in our emissions. Remember that by the time the implementation period comes, even if we do quite a bit coming up in the next few years, probably by 2008 we will be about 30% over our CO

2

emissions.

Our first breach of this contract will come in 2005, yet we have a Prime Minister and a Minister of the Environment who stand here and say that we have 10 years to come up with an implementation plan. We have a Prime Minister in waiting who says, “Hey, if we don't like what we see, we will just not do it”.

We have a contract we are about to sign and ratify. Once we ratify that, I know that this leader and all members of our party, if they sign a contract, will live up to it. Before we sign that contract, we have to know what it will cost, how will it be implemented, how will it affect the average Canadian and how will if affect that mom and dad or that person on a fixed income?

They are the people we are talking about. We are not talking about the people in the House. We are not talking about big business and so on. We are talking about the average Canadian. We have just gone through, city by city, province by province, what the costs will be. It will impact them.

I have never felt so strongly about an issue since I have been in the House. Actually, even since I have been interested in politics, I have never felt so strongly about an issue.

What is the rush? Why is the government rushing ahead? That question needs to be asked. When the members go back to their constituencies, the answer they will give will be very important to people. When those prices increase, if in fact we live up to our agreement, and remember our record is pretty terrible, they will have to say that, yes, they were in the House of Commons and yes, they decided to vote for this because they thought it would be good for cleaning up the air and good for the people. I do not think it will go over very well when they say that they voted for it and supported it because the Prime Minister said he would call an election and be around for four more years. They will say to their constituents that they are paying more for their electricity, power and gas because they did not want him around any longer. That reason will not sell very well and it will not be a good selling message when it comes to the next election.

Therefore, I would urge the members on the other side and other opposition parties to really think about this. What will it cost? How will it be implemented? What will be the effects on our constituents, on every one of them, not just the businesses and big industries? Will it really help little Johnny and his asthma?

If it did help, a lot of us here would reconsider. If we really believed that this was targeting the 45 smog days in Toronto, if we thought it was really targeting little Johnny's asthma or the health conditions of some of our seniors, if we thought that was the case and it would clean up the Fraser Valley, southern Ontario and southern Quebec, then I think we would have a whole different approach.

However, this is about CO

2

. This is about climate change. This is about a scientific theory on which the IPCC has 40 models and it says it is 10 years away from knowing for sure. If alternate energy cuts in the way they expect it to in about 2040 or 2050, we may well have a reverse problem some 40 or 50 years from now.

Until we get the science right and until we get the answers to these questions, why are we bulling ahead? That is the question. Why do we have to do this before Christmas? Why can we not send it to a committee? Why can the government not see that conservation, transitional fuels and alternate energy are the future, and that hydrogen energy is the future?

The government does not have a vision. The government does not know where it is going. It is foundering both with the present Prime Minister and the potential future prime minister. We need to cooperate with business, with industry and most important, with the provinces. It is really important that we work with Canadians, that we do something that is good for Canadians.

I am at the point where I would like to move an amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following therefor:

This House call upon the government not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change until an implementation plan is in place that Canadians understand, setting out the costs and benefits and how the targets are to be reached and until the plan can be agreed to by the provinces.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I declare the amendment receivable.

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

Mr. Speaker, before getting into the subject of the motion, I would like to thank and congratulate the member for Red Deer on his speech. Although totally in disagreement with his approach and his arguments, I can say at the very least that he is tenacious. I feel this Parliament needs to be open to a variety of points of view. Once again, I congratulate him on his tenacity and rigour in this debate.

First of all, I must say how very pleased I am to speak during this debate on the motion relating to ratification of the Kyoto protocol. This is, I would point out, proof that the very principle of sustainable development can be set in action by debate on this subject.

For the first time in this session, we parliamentarians are enjoying a golden opportunity to express our views and to ensure that the resources we are tapping today will be there to serve future generations. As a result, my party has, and will continue to have, no reservations whatsoever about voting in favour of the government's motion on ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

There is one thing I must emphasize, however, which is that we in the Bloc Quebecois have always differentiated between ratification and implementation. We believe ratification is essential, in order to combat climate change.

Unlike certain western petroleum lobbies or even certain political parties within this House, we do not believe that climate change can be solved by a made-in-Canada solution. We do not share the Americans' conviction that each country can have its own solution.

We believe instead that climate change requires an international solution, and ratification of Kyoto. This is why last March, on the initiative of the Bloc Quebecois, we in Quebec formed a huge coalition bringing together various segments of Quebec civil society, such as students, workers, academics, environmentalists and representatives of the private business sector, calling upon the federal government to ratify the Kyoto protocol promptly.

Today, therefore, we feel pride, not only to represent this Quebec coalition on ratification of the Kyoto protocol, but also to have this opportunity to share with the House the Quebec consensus on this issue.

I would like to remind everyone that the National Assembly passed a motion unanimously in which all parties, the Parti Quebecois, the Liberals and the ADQ, called on the federal government to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

So today, we hope that the consensus that was reached in Quebec will be reached here in the House. We believe the unanimous support that was voiced in Quebec's National Assembly should be repeated here today in this Parliament, by ratifying the Kyoto protocol unanimously.

Why is it important to find an international solution and ratify the Kyoto protocol? First, because there will be a considerable impact on, and change in, the environment and natural heritage of Canada and also, obviously, Quebec.

A group of eminent scientists, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has already come to the conclusion that there will be many extreme weather incidents. Here are a few examples: an increase in temperatures by the year 2100 of between two and six degrees; increased flooding; more frequent droughts; and the melting of the Arctic icecap. All of these examples are consequences of climate change and global warming due to our use of fossil fuels, which, I remind everyone, are petroleum, coal and natural gas.

These impacts will be significant and dramatic, not only for the environment, but also for economic activity. In Quebec, the level of the St. Lawrence is expected to drop by 15 to 20%, depending on the location, Montreal or Quebec City. It is believed and expected that the level of the St. Lawrence will drop from 30 to 40%. All this will have a direct impact on Quebec's ecosystems.

Major industries, especially tourism, may be affected by this climate change. Therefore—

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I want to mention to the House that the amendment that was just proposed is not in order.

The reason I must do so before the hon. member is done is in case he himself would want to propose an amendment. If this amendment is not in order, it is important to mention it immediately. This is why I am doing so at this point.

The amendment proposes that this House call upon the government not to ratify the Kyoto protocol on climate change. It then sets out a number of conditions. The initial proposition is that the House call upon the government not to ratify the Kyoto protocol. I draw the attention of the Chair to Marleau and Montpetit, chapter 12, page 453, which says in part:

An amendment should be framed so that, if agreed to, it will leave the main motion intelligible and consistent with itself.

An amendment is out of order procedurally, if: it is the direct negative of the main motion and would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion; or one part of the amendment is out of order.

When the amendment is being debated, the mover of that amendment may not move an amendment to his or her amendment.

The footnote attached to the statement that an amendment is out of order if it is a direct negative is number 30. I ask the Chair to look at this and perhaps come back later because I recognize that this is something that may require some research. It is still important that it be raised now so that it does not deprive someone else from the potentiality of moving another amendment should this one be ruled out of order. Footnote number 30 states:

Expanded negative amendments strike out all the words after “That” [that is exactly what this does] in a motion in order to substitute a proposition with the opposite conclusion of the original motion.

That is exactly what this does. Examples are cited from the Journals dating back to June 6, 1923; October 16, 1970; August 11, 1988; and October 29, 1991.

Furthermore, there is a longstanding principle around here that one cannot move a hoist motion to anything other than a bill. This is a hoist motion. A hoist motion can be only moved to a bill, for example, that the bill not now be read a second time, that it be referred back to committee, or that it be dealt with six months hence and so on. That is a hoist motion. This is the kind of formulation that we have here. This is hoist motion formulation that is only in order for a bill and cannot be put as an amendment to the motion.

Had the hon. member wanted to put an amendment that would have been in order, he might have wanted to add that the government ratify the Kyoto protocol once it had received the agreement of the provinces. I could have argued at that point though that he was introducing a proposition that went beyond the scope of the original motion, but I would have put a different argument to the Chair. This is a different thing altogether, although one could still argue that it has in a way brought in propositions that are beyond the scope of the motion, but that is a peripheral issue.

The main issue before the House now is that this motion negates the original motion. It has the same effect as voting against the motion. It is a hoist motion to a motion, and that is only in order if it is a hoist motion to a bill.

I would ask the Chair to look at the two propositions that I have just raised. Were the Chair to rule in a way that is favourable to the point that I am raising, the Chair would then have to recognize that those who are speaking now should not be deprived of the potentiality of making an amendment should that be their wish.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Chair to make a ruling as quickly as possible on the point of order raised by the government House leader. To the extent that I may have to table an amendment, the Chair must make a quick decision on the point of order raised by the government House leader.

Therefore, if it is possible, I would ask you to make a ruling as soon as possible, so that I can present an amendment to the motion, should this be necessary.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the government House leader's references that he made earlier you have already ruled that the amendment is receivable by the Chair. You ruled that in this place and we count on you for that decision.

I would say to the government House leader that I disagree with his interpretation of what he said the amendment does. It is not a hoist amendment. It amends the motion. That is what an amendment does. An amendment adds something to a motion. It may change it in a particular way. The House is free to vote for the amendment or against it when it is time for a vote to be called. It does not hoist the motion at all.

I disagree with the government House leader's argument and ask, Mr. Speaker, that your previous ruling on the amendment stand, be accepted, and that we continue debate on the amendment.

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader is upset by the amendment because it takes into account the wording of the former finance minister, one of his own colleagues. He is upset because it exposes a cleavage within the Liberal Party on this matter over the leadership contest. That is the real source of his problem and angst on this--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order, please. I am sorry but the hon. member is not adding to the point of order. That is a matter of debate. Given the complexity of the point of order it would be advisable that the Speaker himself take a look at this. I will take it under advisement on his behalf.

In the meantime, I again give the floor to the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, so that he can conclude his speech as if the point of order had not been raised.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if a ruling will be made before the end of my speech. If the ruling confirms the comments made by the government House leader, I would then be in a position to table an amendment. Therefore, I would like to know if a ruling will be made before I conclude my remarks.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am advised to tell the hon. member to continue his speech. A decision will be made in the next few minutes. I do not know if the hon. member has already prepared an amendment, but I am of the opinion that if his time is up, he will still be given an opportunity to present his amendment, should the amendment before us be deemed out of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must point out that an amendment will be ready for presentation before I finish speaking, in case the decision is along the lines of the recommendations of the government House leader.

Getting back to my speech, I had reached the environmental impacts of climate change.Climate change will have not only environmental impacts, but significant economic impacts as well, in future, particularly for the insurance industry. This major industry is in many ways bigger than the oil industry. We need only think of the costs surrounding the ice storm that hit Quebec so hard in 1998. Insurance claims totalled $1.75 billion, for $3 billion in damages. The economic impacts will, therefore, be considerable for industries such as the insurance industry.

There will also be major impacts on health. There is talk of the costs related to climate change being in the order of $500 million annually, This a pretty sizeable amount. When reference is made to the economic costs of climate change, I feel it is also important to consider all costs together. Costs will have to be borne by certain industries in Quebec and in Canada, and there will also be health costs relating to the failure to act to combat climate changes—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As House leader for the official opposition I notice that while the debate is going on the government House leader is in the corner debating with the clerks on the point of order that he put before the House. That is not proper. It is like the players being in with the referees.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

That is not a point of order, it is a question of debate. Let us allow the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie complete his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that it is important to consider all the costs, and not just those for a single industry like the power industry for example. It would not be fair or appropriate to take into consideration only one industry or sector when looking at the costs of climate change. We must include health costs, environmental costs and the costs of inaction, as well as those related to a number of sectors that might benefit from the implementation of Kyoto. I believe that the ratification of the Kyoto protocol is a unique economic opportunity for several sectors of the economy.

The environment industry is an example. A number of analyses, including one conducted in 2002 by the Analysis and Modeling Group on climate change, estimate that the environment industry in Canada could make between $427 million and at least $7 billion in profits annually until 2010.

Of course, some sectors of the Canadian economy will be adversely affected, but others also stand to gain. I think we must not look backward, but rather forward. We must take into consideration that countries like Germany have made major changes to their energy infrastructure. When we take countries like Germany, which had the courage to develop their wind industry and are now contributing to the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world, I think this is an example of a nation's willingness to look to the future instead of the past. The Canadian environment industry does stand to make substantial profits as a result of Kyoto. Employment gains are also expected.

What certain lobbies would have us believe is that there will be significant job losses and net losses resulting from Kyoto. On the contrary, a recent study by the Tellus Institute of Boston shows accumulated net benefits totalling $4 billion for the economy as a whole, and $1.6 billion by 2012. There will be a net increase of jobs estimated at 52,000 as a result of changes in consumption patterns.

Accordingly, ratifying the Kyoto protocol will create employment in niche areas and in sectors of activity where we never would have thought that jobs would be created. There will be net gains in economic activity in both Quebec and Canada. We are talking about a net annual gain of $135 per household as a result of these jobs. We are talking about an increase in the GDP of $2 billion if we act, instead of twiddling our thumbs doing nothing.

Some fearmongers would have us believe that economic activity would decrease. On the contrary, every economic theory indicates that efficiency leads to innovation and growth. For example, why would a business that uses energy efficiently suffer economically? This goes against Porter's theory.

We must see the ratification of the Kyoto protocol as an golden opportunity to develop our potential. It is a golden opportunity for Quebec. Let us not forget that 50% of potential wind energy production is located in Quebec. Resource-based regions, such as the Gaspé Peninsula, the Lower St. Lawrence and the North Shore, can all benefit from the development of these new energy sources. They could even become world leaders in wind energy production, if they wanted to.

If we pursue Canada's current strategy, which has been to fund the oil industry, to the tune of $66 billion since 1970, not only will we not slow climate change, but we will continue to encourage the increase in greenhouse gases. During the same time period, the government only provided $329 million to fund green energy sources. Basically, this means that the oil industry received 200 times more money, in the form of subsidies and government assistance, than green energy sources. How can this be explained?

From 1990 to 1999, the oil industry received $2.5 billion, whereas renewable energy sources received a mere $76 million. The government should match each dollar given to the oil industry with a dollar toward renewable energy. Why would the government not invest as much in the development of renewable energy?

I think that when we decide to set up action plans, we can achieve results. This is why Quebec strongly supports the Kyoto protocol. The choices made by Quebec in the energy sector during the sixties were environmentally friendly: today, 95% of our electricity is from hydroelectric energy. Since 1990, Quebec has adopted two action plans on climate change. Thanks to these plans, Quebec has the best performance in Canada, when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

What we are asking the government to do today is to look to the future. I can assure the House that we support ratification. If Quebec were a sovereign state, it would have already ratified Kyoto.

We strongly support a quick ratification of the Kyoto protocol, and we believe that there must now be a debate on the ways of doing things, and on the implementation of this accord.

[The Speaker]

The Chair is now ready to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning the admissibility of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Red Deer.

I have reviewed the authority cited by the government House leader. I find that while I can certainly applaud his diligent research, the arguments raised are not clearly relevant to the amendment that has been moved before the House today.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Red Deer is not, in my view, a direct negative or a hoist but rather is a motion that imposes a condition on the main motion. It may well be that it could have been worded differently because it does have the word “not” in it. Had it said for example that “the government defer ratification until”, it would have been, in my view, an order, and the effect of the motion, even poorly worded as it may be, has that same effect.

Accordingly, I find the motion to be in order and properly before the House.

I hope that clarifies the position for the hon. member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie.

I do remember that he wanted to propose another amendment should this one be out of order. I truly appreciate the hon. member's patience with the Chair in this instance.

I believe that clears the matter and we can now proceed with questions and comments.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie for the incredible work that he has done regarding this issue. He has done that work with professionalism. He was conscientious and patient. He used all his qualities and skills in his study of this protocol.

I want to ask him to comment further on this issue. The Bloc Quebecois members are convinced—as my colleague has pointed out repeatedly—of the merits of the Kyoto protocol, based on several principles that we value strongly. However, as my colleague mentioned, we make a clear distinction between ratifying the protocol and implementing it.

I wonder if my colleague could give us the reasons why the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the most recent implementation plan presented by the federal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a highly pertinent question. I have always said that the two issues must not be confused, as certain Alliance members have attempted to do in recent months and weeks.

There is a difference between ratification, which proposes an international solution to climate change, and the government's interpretation of this international accord, which penalizes provinces and industries which have made efforts already and made significant progress.

Taking Quebec as my example, it has as I have said managed to restrict its increase in greenhouse gas emissions to 4%, whereas Saskatchewan's rose by 32.7% and Alberta's by 31%.

Where we fault the federal plan is quite simply that it does not take into consideration past efforts by industries and provinces, with its choice of 2010 as the reference year rather than 1990. We have tables to refer to, and they indicate that certain industries and sectors in Canada will increase their emissions. I am thinking, for example, of the thermal power industry, where there would be a 47% increase. The fossil fuel sector will have a 131% increase, while manufacturing, the backbone of Quebec's economic structure, will have only a 3% increase.

How can we impose a similar burden on the manufacturing sector, which is concentrated in Quebec, and which makes up the economic backbone of Quebec, as that asked of the fossil fuel sector, which is expected to increase its emissions by 131% by 2010?

One need not have taken economics 101 to know that the marginal effort that Quebec's manufacturing sector will have to make is greater and more difficult. The marginal cost is greater than that of an industry, such as the oil industry, that will increase its emissions by 131%.

In the end, what we are asking, is that the federal government agree to a bilateral agreement with Quebec that will take into account the efforts that have already been made. This agreement must recognize the carbon sinks, mostly in agriculture and forests, which are under provincial jurisdiction. The money that the federal government puts into fighting climate change must be distributed fairly.

We are worried about the federal government's approach. Take, for example, the fact that Quebec gets only 8.8% of the climate change action fund. Given that Quebec receives only 8.8% of the money, yet makes up 24% of the population, we are justified in fearing the worst when it comes to how the federal government will fund the fight against climate change in the future. We believe that Quebec will be penalized. We believe that Quebec and certain industries will not be recognized.

Take, for example, the Canadian forestry industry, which has managed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 19% since 1990. It will be treated the same as the fossil fuel sector. This is unfair and unacceptable. This is a misinterpretation and misapplication of the principles contained in the Kyoto protocol.

The Kyoto protocol sets out a common, but distinct approach. Clearly none of these objectives are applied in the federal plan because the plan does not respect provincial economic structures, demographics or energy efficiency, nor does it take into account the differing climates.

We favour this approach because it has proven itself in Europe. We believe that it should be applied here because it is a fair and equitable way to reduce greenhouse gases in Canada.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first make a couple of points. Certainly Quebec benefits greatly from good, clean power from Newfoundland and Labrador, which is to Quebec's advantage and hopefully to our advantage. I also agree with him fully when he says that ratification and implementation are two entirely different things.

However, if the government opposite is completely ignoring the provinces in relation to the ratification, despite their wishes and the wishes of many of us on this side, does he have any degree of satisfaction that the government will recognize the provinces and their concerns when it comes to the implementation?

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

Mr. Speaker, we believe in a territorially based approach, which would mean a 6% share of the Kyoto objective, or 240 megatonnes, internationally. Share the reduction objectives among the provinces and let the provinces achieve these objectives through action plans.

This is a shared and separate approach; respect provincial jurisdictions and trust the provinces. There can be no partnership without letting the provinces develop action plans that meet their respective objectives.

We are also asking for a fair sharing of resources. My hon. colleague mentioned Newfoundland, and I fully agree with him. However, let us not forget that federal assistance was provided to the Hibernia project, in Newfoundland, to the tune of $3.8 billion, in the form of $1.22 billion in direct subsidies, combined with a $1.66 billion loan guarantee and $300 million in advances from Ottawa. All this was done using Canadian money, while in the 1960s and 1970s, we in Quebec paid for our own network and hydroelectric power system using Quebec taxpayers' money. The federal government did not contribute one cent to these projects.

We are asking that, from now on, the federal government contribute fairly, so that Quebec can receive its fair share of the funding for combating climate change in Canada.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today in this important Kyoto ratification discussion.

I will make a couple of points in terms of the process to make sure that everybody understands. Right now the federal government could ratify Kyoto. It is a decision of cabinet. The decision of Parliament, the voting and the debate is immaterial in some respects. However, at the same time, I would like to thank the government for at least providing the opportunity to have debate. I think that is important.

I am disappointed, as I think many other Canadians are, that the government has not put a specific time to when it will ratify. That is something of concern. There is still some degree of suspicion that cabinet will do it but we will see what happens over the next few weeks to come.

One of the many reasons that we are supporting Kyoto is not just the fact that we have to change thing in our communities right now but our future and also the way Canada is involved in the world.

We have been very disappointed with the way in which the government has handled this file. It is something it has had over several years, with regard climate change. It is something it had in its red book from 1993 to be addressed, in terms of reductions. That has not happened. It has increased many times over the years. That is why we have almost had to catch up over the last few weeks.

We now have a situation where the Prime Minister is literally scurrying across the country to meet with premiers because he did not do so over the past few years. Something has to come to fruition, so we will see deal cutting and all those things happening at the last minute.

That does not make for good government and it does not make for good policy. It is truly unfortunate. If we look at the opinion polls and listen to what Canadians have been saying over the years, we would know they have been saying that they support Kyoto and the changes that need to happen, and that they are willing to do that. However when the government introduces a plan at the last moment without the proper consultation, it pits people against one another, which is truly unfortunate.

We have a situation here where we can be part of a world strategy and part of an initiative to actually change some of the things that have been causing economic and environmental degradation in terms of our sustainability and it has now become a confrontation that was completely unnecessary and, I think, in many respects, unhealthy for the Canadian public. It has to be recognized because it is about the management practices of the government.

We have seen it as well today with regard to our health care. We finally have the Romanow report. However we have a high degree of uncertainty among Canadians about a very particular issue, which is what we are talking about here, the planning business practices of the government. That has not happened with Kyoto.

With regard to the plan that the government has put forward, we have some concerns about it and it still has a lot of glaring omissions but despite that, we will be supporting the ratification. We hope to participate in a fruitful and, more important, a really thorough and more consultative way with regard to the actual implementation plan itself, making sure it hits the streets and gets out there.

We are concerned about the government's record on a number of different things. First, with regard to its plan, 25% of the emissions have still been left out of the whole reductions. We do not know where that will come from right now. It is no wonder businesses and consumers are a little skeptical. They do not know where those reductions will come from, which causes some of the uncertainty that has led to the fearmongering and to all the different elements, in terms of propagating that everybody will lose their jobs and there will be no new growth. That type of environment allows that to happen.

If we are looking at the actual sectors and initiatives that the government has in its plan, one of them is transportation. We have seen the government just recently fall flat on its face with regard to urban strategies. In an urban blueprint that was released we saw that once again the municipalities were left behind. The government provided no tools and no means of resources to support the Kyoto accord in terms of the actual emissions.

With regard to public transit, we know from documents that it has been behind Kyoto all this time. It actually has been in the forefront on a number of different fuel cell technologies and it did not receive anything from the urban task force. It got rhetoric. This is a problem because once again it goes back to the business plan of the government and the credibility. It creates fears and, more important, it shows that the government cannot handle this responsibility. That is certainly something that is out there for debate.

With regard to the actual transit issue, we know that in the past there have been significant differences with regard to our modes of transportation. I come from a municipality that has a 3% transit use. It is not very high. If we do not eliminate or actually almost mandate use in regard to all the times that we have to use our automobiles, we are going to create more problems. People need to be able to have reasonable choices. For example, supplying a portion of the gasoline tax to municipalities would allow them to create some of the sustainable mechanisms that they need for urban transit. That would be an improvement with regard to emissions and air quality.

We have issues with regard to large emissions producers and Kyoto. We also have opportunities that have come out. One I would like to talk about in particular is with regard to the auto industry. It is something that we are very much concerned about. We are very much concerned about the future of it and the fact that the emissions are so related to the actual amounts of vehicles we have, the types of vehicles we have and also the purchasing choices that Canadians are showing. Certain ministers have shown that they have purchased big, gas-guzzling SUVs. It is something they have bought into as consumers and now they have to look at their own practices and set examples, like the rest of Canadians.

With regard to the auto industry, we have been calling for an auto strategy for many years. It is something that is a real problem. We have watched our auto jobs dissipate and there is a real sense of opportunity with Kyoto and the actual auto sector. In Windsor, Ontario, we know that we have DaimlerChrysler looking at a billion dollar investment for a plant. It will not do it if there is not an auto policy. I know that some people have said it is subsidization, that we are giving incentives, but the reality is that our trade agreement with the United States, which the federal government has bought into, allows the United States, its municipalities, state governments and its federal government, to offer a number of different incentives to get the car manufacturers into their communities.

We either have to address that and be on an equal footing on the part of our trade policy or, alternatively, we at least have to look at being able to compete. If we want to compete with regard to their types of incentives, what better way to do it than Kyoto with regard to some of the emissions? What better way is there when we have them coming to us regarding the CAW, General Motors or Ford? They have all signed on in terms of an auto policy and they are all open to being able to create more sustainable technologies. Specifically, it is unfair what the government sometimes does with this type of strategy. It has asked consumers to change their driving purchases in order to reduce by 25%. It is interfering with the market itself but it is not providing incentives to companies to create the sustainable technologies and advance ourselves.

If we do not deal with this issue, it is not a question about the vehicles that we produce today and right now, it is that other markets are going to dry up on us. We know, for example, that California has standards that will affect our ability to sell vehicles there. Right now, as we speak, there is a court case with regard to legislation in California, but it is going to create the standards and the emissions requirements for vehicles. It is the biggest purchaser of automobiles in North America in terms of its single market.

That is the problem. If we do not look at Kyoto and at creating competitive fields that are going to meet those of the different nations that are moving toward these targeted means of their products and services, we are going see ourselves being frozen out. We are going to be frozen out of future economic development. This is not just about the fact that we can say, okay, there are going to be a lot of jobs lost here right now and there are not going to be any others developing. The fact of the matter is that we are going to be losing the opportunity to trade and compete in the world.

We are going to fall behind in innovation. That is important. We now have the innovation strategy that has been kind of going around the nation, almost like a three ring circus in some respects, because it is not really funded to any really high degree and, once again, it really does not come together with Kyoto or any of the other initiatives. I have had the chance to participate in these exercises and they are nice exercises to some extent, but when we do not actually put in any resources, it does not create the feeling that we want to have happen with business, technology and innovation.

The auto industry has an effect on one in seven jobs in Canada, one in six in Ontario, and one in seven in Canada. Why can the government not recognize that? Why can it not become involved with regard to the auto sector? We know--

[An hon. member]

Why not just leave?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Why not just leave? Are you asking them all to just leave? We know that the Alliance would want all the auto jobs to leave. I suppose that is its position. I do not think that is probably the best one that most Canadians would assume, but it will certainly create economic hardship.

We have a real opportunity here, not only for the area I represent but for all of Canada. It is something important that we need to recognize.

Let us go back once again to municipalities with regard to Kyoto. I think it would be good and proper for the government to invest in and focus on some of the actual buildings, the infrastructure and the green funds that can happen there with regard to improving energy efficiencies and technologies and also using that infrastructure to promote the efficiency that is necessary. That is an already existing infrastucture for us. It is something we can count on. It is something we can use. The government can also learn how to move those types of innovations and, more important, those types of investments, the buildings, back up to provincial and federal levels. So we do have some of these mechanisms and tools if we are to move along with the urban task force, if we actually are going to put some resources into that initiative, and then we will find that there will be some sustainability.

I want to touch briefly on a number of different things. One of the things that has sometimes been forgotten in the debate is our role in the world. When we look at what is happening with regard to different treaties and different types of agreements, we see that on this particular issue Canada has had a record of saying that we will be supporting ratification, that we are going to support it and be there with other nations. What happens now if we backtrack? If we backtrack at this point, we lose further credibility. We have seen issues recently with public comments like “moron” and stuff like that, where we have seen our reputation suffer.

This is an issue on which the Prime Minister has been out there saying that we support ratification. If we go back on that, what will happen? Will the deal fall apart? There is a high potential for that. If the deal falls apart, who is going to take up the initiative with regard to treaties, with regard to moving the world to environmental sustainability? That is a significant problem. It is something we have to wrestle with because the eyes of the world are on Canada on this issue right now. The world is looking to us for leadership. I cannot imagine how we are going to get scientists together again or how we will get the United Nations to move on other things.

Kyoto has been described in many respects as a baby step. It is the first step to working toward sustainability. If we do not have that now, what is going to happen? Will we have other types of treaties in the future? Will people come forth to champion them? I do not think so. If we do not ratify, I think we create some suspicion with regard to our involvement and there is good reason.

The government can do something for itself here to recover some of its record with regard to the environment. We know that since 1993 the government has not had a good record with the environment, which has been a cost to Canadians. It certainly could have been doing a lot more about this up until now, that is clear. We have seen that during debate over the last few days in the House of Commons. We have seen that from Canadians. We have seen that from the fact that we have had increased pollution. It is not just the fact that it is not willing to tackle Kyoto, it is the connection with the environment and the connection with our health, all those things. There are too many vivid examples that lead people to suspicion.

For example, we have asked for changes to the taxation laws. Why is it that right now polluters can actually write off their fines and the taxpayers pay for it? If the government can move so quickly at this time in terms of drawing up a plan in the last few months and putting it together, why can it not move a lot more quickly to change something that is just ethically wrong? I think Canadians would be appalled to know that a company can pollute and claim that fine on its taxes, and Canadians will lose. Not only that, it takes more money to clean up the environment. The government can move more quickly on those types of initiatives.

I can give the example of the Detroit River, where we had an oil spill from the United States. We heard nothing. The oil washed up on our shores. We heard nothing in terms of what is going to happen. There still is a considerable degree of concern that these things can continue to happen and that we do not invest in that.

With regard to the red book in particular, the Liberals promised to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% between 1988 and 2005. The Prime Minister abandoned that goal a long time ago and that is why we are playing catch-up. That is the real problem.

It goes back to my initial comments about a business plan. All of a sudden it is coming forth at the last moment and it is dividing a nation. That is not healthy. While other nations got on with actually signing the protocol, we are one of the last standing. Why do we have to be at the end of this? I do not understand that. I do not know why the Prime Minister did not champion this from the beginning. It does not make any sense.

It is not like the government has a lot to talk about lately with regard to legislation in the House. It has been busy with a lot of other things internally, but it has not been busy with the actual planning and moving things forward. It is something that should have happened a long time ago. We are coming in at the tail end and that is why the world is looking at us with regard to our actual mandate.

It is unfortunate, because provinces have supported this. We are down to Manitoba and Quebec right now with regard to their support, but other provinces have made overtures about Kyoto in the past. Now they are abandoning, questioning and undermining, I would say, the Minister of the Environment in many respects because they have not been consulted for many years and all of a sudden everything is happening at once.

I think this protocol is something that we have to ratify. It is something important for Canadians. It is something that is going to certainly fundamentally change our way of life. I think we have to make sure that the government is going to commit itself. It is going to be interesting. I know that one of the officials of the Minister of Health said that obviously the minister is considering what is in the best interests of Alberta in terms of her position on Kyoto. We do not know how the Minister of Health is going to vote on Kyoto. That is why we have had all this division. We do not know.

Being Minister of Health involves all of Canada. Health is certainly related to the emissions that we are talking about. There is no doubt about it. There is no doubt about the fact that if we eliminate some of these pollutants there are going to be significant improvements in the quality of life for Canadian. We can control some of those emissions. We can control some of those pollutants. I know that in my area, for example, 50% is local and 50% is from the United States.

If we improve and invest in the technology and reduce some of the emissions, maybe we cannot get Michigan to go just yet, but we can control what we have and that is going to lead to improvements for some of the respiratory problems that we have had. We have issues with regard to birth defects as well and issues that deal with learning disabilities. All those different things have affected us because of the pollutants, while we have contributed so much to this country. Windsor and Essex county contribute $26 billion annually to the Canadian economy. That would make us the fifth largest contributor if we were an actual province and we have one of the worst polluted environments. We do not get anything back in the way of support from the government for that.

That is why I talked about the auto issue. It is certainly there in terms of our contribution and work ethic and we will continue to do that if the government believes in us. If it abandons us, like the health minister has, then we are forced into a position and we are divided and that is certainly unhealthy.

The health minister should know that. The health minister should know that she represents all of Canada on this issue, but I guess big oil and big gas have too much influence, because that is what has happened. We have abandoned looking at wind in terms of a real strong national strategy. It is starting to come out a little to the forefront. We could have been on this a long time ago. We have other sustainable energy with regard to hydro as well. We have passed up some incredible opportunities and it is unfortunate.

When the government looks at itself in terms of why Canadians are now divided on Kyoto, I hope it understands and appreciates that it is because of its business plan and its management of it. I hope it has the courage and intestinal fortitude to be able to work with organizations that have come forward, like the Canadian Labour Congress. It has come forward and identified that it is concerned about jobs. Paper workers, steel workers and auto workers are concerned about their jobs, but they understand that there is a larger issue and that they are going to have some of their markets shut out in the future.

They are asking for the government to consult with them and to give them the confidence and the wherewithal to be able to have transition if it is going to happen. I think that takes a lot of courage, because they are putting at risk some of their future security. They are saying they believe that if they do this it is going to improve their lives and their children's and grandchildren's lives. They are saying that they can work toward more sustainability and can prosper better as people in a nation, but they cannot do that if they have a unilateral government that is bent on basically running stuff through at the last moment in terms of implementation plans.

I think we need to ratify. I hope the government has the courage to make sure that its implementation plan is strong, thorough and more consultative than it has been to this moment.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully and with great interest to my colleague opposite. It is good to hear that he supports the stand which has consistently been taken by the government, by our Minister of the Environment and by our entire cabinet led by the Prime Minister, and this is to ratify this very important international agreement.

I know the auto sector is very big in his area and I too have that sector in my area of Kitchener Centre. Some of those companies are on the leading edge of bringing in good environmental processes in how they manufacture cars. The government also has looked at what comes out of tailpipes.

Could my hon. colleague comment on markets like California, which have very stringent tailpipe emissions, and the fact that we are looking at harmonizing these kinds of markets and doubling the market in Canada because the number of people who live in California is roughly the same as the market in Canada? If we do not ratify Kyoto, we may have a missed opportunity.

The member also mentioned the large resource sector. I also point out that these companies have been on the leading edge. Whether we look at petroleum, Syncrude or Suncor, these are the very companies that are bringing in better environmental practices to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions because they too recognize how very important this issue is, not only for Canadians and not for today, but a global issue for generations to come.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the first thing I want to touch on is with regard to California. It is important to recognize that it is a significant trading partner. The hon. member is absolutely to correct to note that we will lose those markets.

I know the auto companies that I have been in touch with have been calling for, and the Canadian automotive industry will support them, incentives for the development and commercialization of new technology that allows for the harmonization of our products.

This is also important and perhaps the government will reconsider this. I have asked the Minister of Industry repeatedly why he will not meet with 20 plus urban mayors from the auto sector who have asked the for a meeting with him. This is a launching of an urban strategy, a blueprint. The government says it needs to consult and be more involved with municipalities and the minister refuses.

I hope the minister takes that into consideration and looks at the fact that we have Kyoto as a vehicle with regard to incentives and new technologies. I know the Auto Parts Manufacturers Association supports this as well. Everybody is on board right now but the minister and I cannot make any sense of that.

If one has any sense of leadership in this country, when the workers, the auto dealers, the actual manufacturers, the companies, the Canadian public and the mayors are all on side and everybody is clamouring for this, why would they not meet? I think that is important. If we lose out on markets like California that are increasingly growing, then we will certainly reduce our ability to trade.

With regard to the second question, there have been very credible and positive increases with regard to resource technology. It is coming a little slower than what we would like to see. I would like to point out that the 10% ethanol target, which we are calling for now, could have been reached a long time ago if there had been leadership.