Debates of Nov. 29th, 2002

Petitions

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions. The first petition draws the attention of the House to violence against Hindus in Bangladesh. It says in part that the Hindu organization from the greater Toronto area expresses its grave concerns regarding the latest series of organized and sustained violent attacks. It calls upon Parliament to request that the Government of Canada undertake a review of the foreign aid that it provides to the government of Bangladesh in view of these violations of human rights.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition pertains to the definition of marriage and the settlement in law that marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. It asks that it be resolved that we as citizens find that definition to be the definition in law.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition deals with stem cell research. It points out that thousands of Canadians suffer from debilitating diseases. These Canadians support ethical stem cell research and call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat those illnesses.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition deals with child pornography. The petitioners ask Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment and the amendment to the amendment.

Kyoto Protocol

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine has 12 minutes left for her remarks.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 12 minutes is not a lot, but I will try to condense all I want to say on this matter of ratifying the Kyoto protocol into that amount of time.

I would like to address several myths that opponents to the ratification of the Kyoto protocol have been disseminating in the pubic and even in the House.

Myth number one is that we have not consulted with industry and the provinces on Kyoto. The fact is that since 1997 under the national climate change process the federal government has worked with more than 450 experts from different levels of government, industry, academia and non-governmental organizations. These experts who have been consulted have produced tens of thousands of pages of analysis. They have spent thousands of hours in ministerial meetings, public consultations and technical workshops.

As well, stakeholder meetings were held in every province and territory in Canada in 2000 and then again in 2002. During the 2002 stakeholder meetings, over 600 experts from across Canada, including 152 from civil society, 232 from industry, and 186 from provincial, territorial and federal governments, were consulted on Canada's plan to implement the Kyoto protocol. Through these consultations, the federal government has learned that stakeholders want as much flexibility as possible to decide for themselves how best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That debunks myth number one.

Myth number two is that the Kyoto protocol will irrevocably harm the Canadian economy. It is the myth that the Kyoto protocol will cost Canadians their jobs. Over the past 10 or 12 years, there have been various estimates of what ratifying the Kyoto protocol will mean for the Canadian economy. The most credible numbers come from the analysis and modelling working group, or AMG, of the national climate change process, the process I just talked about.

The AMG is comprised, as I mentioned previously, of officials from every province and territory, and it also consults widely with experts from industry, academia and the environmental community. Its most recent analysis indicates that when Canada ratifies Kyoto, Canada's GDP will be 30.4% bigger in 2012 instead of 31% bigger. In other words, we may forgo $17.2 billion of growth over 10 years, or about $24 per year per Canadian. These estimates of AMG have focused on cost. They have not, however, examined the positive impact: increased rates of investment, innovation and efficiency as a result of implementation of the Kyoto protocol in Canada. Let us look at that.

It was reported on September 25, 2002, that implementing Kyoto in Canada could cost 200,000 jobs. This estimate is close to the high range of potential effects on employment recorded by the AMG in the discussion paper on Canada's contribution to addressing climate change. It is important to be clear. This is not 200,000 jobs lost. Rather, it is 200,000 jobs, and that is only the estimated high end, that will not be created over the next 10 years. To put this in perspective, Statistics Canada reported that 59,000 jobs were created this past August alone. Already this year 386,000 new jobs have been created in Canada. As well, this estimate of 200,000 jobs not created between now and 2012 does not consider the creation of new jobs as a result of our innovative actions to stop climate change.

For instance, Industry Canada estimates that if Canada ratifies the Kyoto protocol, investment in renewable energy could grow fifteen-fold, to over $7 billion per year. Ontario Premier Ernie Eves recently stated, “I'm not planning on losing any jobs in the province as a result of any reduction of greenhouse gas emissions”, and acknowledged that Kyoto could end up boosting the economy in the long run through the development and use of environmentally friendly technologies. Those are the words of Premier Ernie Eves, not necessarily the biggest friend to the environment and to the ratification of Kyoto.

Several innovative companies see action to fight climate change as an economic opportunity. For example Sterling Pulp Chemicals Limited has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by almost 95% in its facility in Buckingham, Quebec, by turning waste into fuel. After an initial investment of $1.1 million, the company now enjoys a $2.28 million per year saving in lower energy costs.

Clearly, fighting climate change can be both: good for the environment and good for profits.

Let us look at the oil and gas industry. There are major oil and gas companies that also recognize the economic benefits of fighting climate change. British Petroleum and Royal Dutch/Shell have made a long term commitment to make the transition out of fossil fuels and are spending large amounts of money on renewable energy. BP's new slogan is “Beyond Petroleum”. BP has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 9 megatonnes in just three years and has added $650 million U.S. to the value of its operations through energy efficiency.

Action to reduce climate change and action to implement the Kyoto protocol in Canada will have a beneficial impact on industry and on our economy.

Let me come back to the so-called job losses. Who says that ratification of Kyoto is going to involve or necessarily create job losses? Let us see what some people who disagree have to say. The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, CEP, called for the federal government to provide transitional funding for ratification. Energy workers support Kyoto. It is the corporate executives, or rather some corporate executives and politicians like Ralph Klein and unfortunately like hon. members on the opposite side of the House who belong to the Canadian Alliance, who are raising the alarm about jobs.

It is also important to look at general trends in the oil and gas sector. Although the fossil fuel industry has experienced massive production increases over the past recent years, more than 80,000 Canadian jobs were lost in this sector over the last 10 years. These cuts were made for profit, not to stem environmental problems, and there was no national outcry and certainly no lobbying by Ralph Klein or by the Canadian Alliance about these job losses.

I find that interesting. When job losses are created solely out of the profit motive, there is no outcry, but if there is a potential that job creation growth might not be as big as we expect over the next 10 years, and not that it is negative growth, but not as big as we expect, there is an outcry on the part of the Canadian Alliance, the hon. member for Red Deer and Ralph Klein and his cohorts.

Canadians want ratification of Kyoto. Quebeckers want ratification of Kyoto. Montrealers want ratification of Kyoto. The residents of my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine want ratification of Kyoto and we do not want it in 10 years from now. We want it before the end of this year, that is, before December 31, 2002.

That is the commitment the right hon. Prime Minister has made and that is what we will do. The House of Commons will support ratification. I will support it. I have supported it from the very beginning. I will continue to support it.

After we have supported it, I will be rolling up my sleeves, as hundreds of thousands of Canadians, millions of Canadians, will be doing, to do my part in achieving the targets that we will have committed to under the Kyoto protocol accord. I will do it, my colleagues on this side of the House will do it, and a significant number of my colleagues on the other side of the House will do it as well, like the members of the NDP caucus.

Let me close by saying that the Kyoto protocol will be ratified before the end of this year and it will be a good thing for Canada. It will spur economic development and it will improve the health of every Canadian.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have high respect for the member from the Liberal Party. She is very eloquent. She is an excellent communicator and often expresses clearly some very good ideas. I would like to challenge her in one particular area. That is on the area of basic assumptions.

A number of years ago a guy came to my door and said that the old, ugly wooden siding on my house should be replaced because it was cracked and not thermally efficient. He offered to put on new siding for me. He said it would have insulation in it and it would be very good siding. Unfortunately, I signed onto it, not knowing that the guy was a charlatan. He took me for a ride. He overcharged me. He took my money; the trusting person that I am, I gave it to him because he was going to do this work for me.

Without going into the details, I really got taken on that particular job. It was a good learning experience. A lot of guys pay $10,000 for a university education, but I got mine that day.

At any rate, I mention that because I made the assumption that what that person told me was true and I also made the assumption that he would do proper and satisfactory work technically in applying the new siding.

The members opposite who talk about their avid support for Kyoto are making a lot of assumptions. So are, I believe, the constituents who are supporting them. One of those assumptions is that the Kyoto accord has to do with the reduction of pollution. Frankly, I am not an expert in chemistry; I am a math physics major and I studied some chemistry. However, when I look at what Kyoto really addresses, which is greenhouse gases, which are primarily carbon dioxide and secondarily water vapour, that which most of us recognize as clouds in the sky, I think we are being asked to follow on those assumptions and say that is going to reduce pollution.

Most of us are in support of the reduction of pollution. I am and the member over there is. I cannot imagine any Canadian saying that he or she thinks we should increase the pollution in our atmosphere, water or soil. No one would say that. We are all interested in reducing pollution. I recently purchased a very efficient vehicle. Part of the reason, not all of it but part of it, is that I want to do what is right for the environment.

Kyoto, on the other hand, is going to decoy a bunch of money not to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, certainly not to reduce noxious oxides. Instead a whole bunch of money will be transferred to other countries in order to continue at our present rate. It is not going to have a significant difference on the worldwide emission of greenhouse gases.

Add to that the fact that Canada's population is one-half of one per cent of the world's population. I think the assumptions are very big when one thinks that the Canadian people collectively can do anything about this. If we were all to die and to stop using energy and to stop the man-made part of pollution, at best it would reduce it 2% worldwide.

I would like the member to comment on that and to consider carefully, as the legal mind that she is, whether it might be possible that some of the assumptions she and others are using may be wrong.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with the question asked by the hon. member from the Canadian Alliance.

I would first point out that it sounds like he did get taken in by a charlatan. I strongly recommend the next time he needs to do home repairs or car repairs that he check with the Better Business Bureau in his local municipality to ensure that the person is registered, is a qualified technician or belongs to whichever building trade, and that no complaints have been filed against the individual. He might also want to go down to the courthouse and check the small claims court to see whether or not any claims had been filed against the individual.

I can assure the member that the over 2,000 scientists and experts who were used are not charlatans. They are highly qualified people who graduated from university. In many cases they have post-doctoral degrees. They are world renowned as experts in their field.

Addressing the issue, let us look at who has been establishing that greenhouse gases are causing climate change. The targets that have been set in the Kyoto protocol will in fact reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will improve the lives and health of hundreds of millions of people around the world and millions of people here in Canada.

Over 10 years ago the United Nations environment program and the World Meteorological Organization--they are pretty credible--established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC recently completed an assessment of global climate change involving 2,500 scientists and scholars from around the world. Their assessment concluded that human activities are changing the climate and that the changes consistent with climate change are already occurring in areas of the planet.

The IPCC conclusions have been endorsed by more than 100 Nobel laureates, by 17 national scientific academies and by most of the world's governments, including the United States. Did members hear right? The United States recognizes that there is climate change and that climate change is caused in large part by greenhouse gas emissions. I do not think the Canadian Alliance is aware of that. Let us also look at a couple of other facts.

What are some of the activities that contribute to climate change as established by these experts? One, the activities that contribute to climate change also contribute to smog. Clean air and climate change are linked by transportation, electric power generation and the oil and gas sectors. These sectors are major emitters of both greenhouse gases and air pollutants.

Actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will help achieve Canada's clean air goals. This includes reducing emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxides from emitters like thermoelectricity plants, refineries, and pulp and paper mills; reducing traffic congestion in our cities; and reducing emissions from homes and buildings.

Fossil fuel combustion accounts for 80% of the greenhouse gas emissions and for 85% of nitrogen oxides. About 35% of primary emissions of fine particulate matter are linked to aggravated heart and lung diseases such as asthma, bronchitis and emphysema. They are also due to fossil fuel combustion. Fossil fuel combustion also accounts for about 40% of emissions of sulphur dioxides which contribute to particulate formation and acid rain.

The case has been clearly made by the experts. I am not an expert. I have not trained in these areas, but I have enough sense to look up the credentials of those who are considered experts in order to determine whether or not they are. There are thousands of scientists who have signed on and support the ratification of Kyoto. The government will ratify Kyoto before the end of 2002.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Palliser.

It is a great pleasure to speak in strong support of the Kyoto protocol. First I want to say that it is about time. This has taken so long. I heard with interest the comments of the government member and the energy she had to speak in defence of the Kyoto protocol.

I have to question why it has taken the government so many years of foot dragging under the guise of consultation that now after 12 years we are still waiting for the accord to be approved. Finally, this very important debate is happening, to meet our targets of a 6% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the 1990 levels.

Millions of Canadians suffer daily from the effects of smog. The estimated cost to our health care system is in the billions. Add to that the cost to farmers who are suffering from the effects of unpredictable and often catastrophic weather conditions. All of it is caused by global warming.

We must recognize that as Canadians, we consume more energy per capita than any other country in the world. We use more total energy than the 700 million people on the African continent. We in the NDP understand that this is not just a Canadian issue; this is an issue about global justice.

After 12 years of waffling and inaction by the Liberal government, Canadians have every reason to be very skeptical about what the Liberals are really up to here and whether or not they will deliver on their promises on the environment. Since coming to office in 1993, they have failed to deliver on their environmental commitments. In the Liberal red book, for example, in 1993 there was a promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% from 1988 levels by 2005. Well, the Prime Minister abandoned that one long ago.

One thing that has been really disturbing about the whole debate around Kyoto is the campaign of fear that has been undertaken by corporations and provinces like Alberta and even my own province of British Columbia. I have seen the full page ads in the Globe and Mail and other publications. I have seen the letters, the advertising campaigns and the TV ads.

I received something in the mail from the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions. I thought that was interesting because it is easy for everyone to say that they want to reduce pollution and smog and enhance our environment but it is another thing to actually make the changes.

I was very interested to know who was in the coalition because it said, “We are concerned about a rush towards a decision to ratify the Kyoto protocol without due consideration”. I thought that was really strange because we had already had 12 years of debate. When I read further, I saw that the letter was signed by none other than the president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the president and CEO of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, the president and chief executive of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

This was nothing more than propaganda put out by corporations which have tried to create fear among Canadians and among workers that they have something to lose by ratifying Kyoto rather than that we have a tremendous amount to gain.

I was also very disappointed that in my own province of British Columbia the new premier, Gordon Campbell, sent all MPs a letter in which he said:

--the federal Kyoto implementation plan is not the right plan by any stretch. As a result, being opposed to Kyoto is not the same as opposing efforts to prevent climate change. We must have the courage to realize that Kyoto is not the only way to go.

He never spelled out what is the other way to go. What he further did in his letter was to instill fear in people that jobs would be lost, between 11,000 and 37,000 jobs in British Columbia. This obviously would create a lot of fear.

By contrast to these kinds of fear campaigns and the foot-dragging by the Liberal government, we have seen real leadership on this issue come from peoples' organizations and the environmental community. I have had hundreds of e-mails and letters and phone calls from my constituents who believe very strongly that the future of their children and of our communities depends upon adopting Kyoto and being very clear that we are prepared to makes changes. We should be prepared to make drastic changes to improve the health of our children and the health of our environment.

I am very proud of the fact that the Canadian Labour Congress and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, as a couple of examples, have been very strong on this issue and have made it very clear that they wholeheartedly support the ratification of Kyoto.

In fact in terms of CEP, a major union that represents many workers in the energy field, I was very proud when I read that members of the local in Calgary who work in the oil industry passed a resolution in September calling on the government to ratify Kyoto. They understood that all the propaganda from the corporations in Alberta, the oil and gas interests that were trying to pose that they were interested in the security of jobs for workers, had nothing more to do than their fear about losing profits. That was the bottom line for them.

I want to congratulate the CLC and CEP for having the courage to speak the truth and to stand up and defend our environment.

The same can be said for the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, that just a couple of months ago spoke out and made it very clear that oil and gas drilling near the Queen Charlotte Islands had to be stopped. We have had a moratorium on oil and gas drilling. It has pointed out very clearly that if that moratorium is lifted, as the B.C. government would like to do, it will have a tremendous impact on defeating the whole principle and integrity of Kyoto. I would like to congratulate groups like the Western Canada Wilderness Committee and the Living Oceans Society for speaking out.

We have also seen groups like the David Suzuki Foundation and the Climate Action Network Canada. I have attended forums on Parliament Hill which they have organized to point out again and again that the shift to a low carbon energy efficient economy offers significant opportunities to every region of Canada in terms of industrial innovation, greater energy self reliance, public health benefits, rural economic development and urban renewal.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has also pointed out that promoting the idea of well funded public infrastructure in Canadian cities, for example public transit, would go a long way to meeting our commitments under Kyoto. These cities are desperately hurting from pollution and smog. Kids end up in emergency rooms because of asthma.

We in the NDP have consistently stood up for our environment and for the adoption of the accord. We have called on the government to adopt a plan, including a requirement of a 20% green energy in all federal departments in five years, requiring government vehicles to use alternative fuels, creating a dedicated transit infrastructure fund, redirecting tax incentives to sustain and encourage renewable energy and legislating a mandatory blend of ethanol in gasoline.

We have also been very clear that we need a green jobs fund to ensure there is a just transition, as called for by the CLC, so that attention is paid to the security of workers.

Kyoto offers significant opportunities and benefits. It is something that we should be embracing. We should be willing to make change for the future of our planet and for the future of our children. For members who have the gall to stand up and say that they want to deal with climate change but they will not support the accord, I say shame on them. They are playing a very dirty game with the Canadian public and the Canadian public has made it quite clear that it supports the accord.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech. My sense is that she obviously is very supportive of the Kyoto accord, but she has some doubts about the particular framework that might be implemented in Canada. Would she care to comment on the value of simply having a framework?

I was involved in the introduction of the blue box for recycling in Ontario. At the time, industry and business opposed it. They argued very well, and we can still argue, that the blue box was not the most efficient way of recycling, particularly not the most efficient way of reducing.

It seems to me that the greatest impact of the blue box in Ontario is not the recycling it has accomplished but the way it has changed people's mindset, so that every week people think about what they can put in the blue box. Meanwhile behind that, they think out what they buy.

It seems to me that one of the values of having a frame of reference like we have for Kyoto is exactly that. Once a frame of reference is in place, even if that frame of reference is flawed in one or two ways, it will make us behave differently. We will make different decisions on how we fix up our homes, how we travel and things of that type.

I would be grateful for the hon. member's comments on that aspect of the value of the Kyoto accord.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to respond to that question. I agree with the member that the blue box program, while it has been successful, probably the most important thing is that it has helped changed people's attitude.

My concern and skepticism, like many other people, is why it has taken the Liberal government so long to catch up to what Canadians want, which is aggressive leadership and action on implementing Kyoto.

For example, Greenpeace and the Sierra Legal Defence pointed out in a study in February that we could improve our urban air quality and meet one-third of the Kyoto commitment if we had stronger vehicle emissions legislation for example covering SUVs. If there was any greater example of where people are saying one thing but still carrying out business in a way that is contributing to global warming, surely it is on that issue. I would really query and question the federal government's commitment on this, because SUVs have been spewing out all kinds of noxious emissions.

While we have to change public attitude, we want to see the government implement a clear plan, a framework and legislation that will ensure that those emissions will decrease and that we will not see a greater contribution to global warming.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue with this individual about assumptions.

Again, everyone of us in the House would certainly favour doing what we can to ensure that our atmosphere, our water and our soil are kept clean and pure for ourselves, for our children and grandchildren and for other people around the world.

The question is this. Are we assuming that Kyoto will achieve this? One feature of the Kyoto accord is that we can buy credits. In other words, if we have businesses that do not meet the standards, all we have to do is send some money to some other country where the amount of emissions is less and they can continue to do this. That aspect of the Kyoto accord will not reduce pollution, it simply moves it to another place on the planet.

Furthermore, when we consider--

[The Deputy Speaker]

I hesitate to interrupt, but I know that when members split their time, it also has an impact on the period for questions and comments. In fairness in this case to the member replying, there is only limited time left, less than a minute, and I try to divide that as evenly as I possibly can.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my reply. I am appalled at the position put forward by the Canadian Alliance. It has offered no clear alternative. It is so easy to for Canadian Alliance members to say that they support the environment, but they have not offered any concrete action. It has contributed to the debate with fear and misinformation which I think most Canadians have now realized is just a complete smear campaign.

If Canadian Alliance members truly listen to their constituents and look at what is going on across the country, they would know that people want to see Kyoto approved.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in debate in the House of Commons, specifically on ratifying the Kyoto protocol. As the member for Vancouver East indicated, the New Democratic Party is very pleased to support this motion. We believe it is the right thing to do, not only for ourselves but for all generations that follow us.

We recognize that we have a lot of responsibility in terms of cleaning up our own backyard. The member for Vancouver East talked about our pollution being the same as on the continent of Africa. We are energy pigs, to put it less politely than she did, and we have to do something about it and do something about it quickly. There is a limited amount of time, less than a century, we are told. It is breathtakingly short period of time in which to get our environmental house in order.

Recently the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote to the environment minister and urged him to ratify Kyoto. They said:

Signing the Kyoto protocol is both a necessary responsibility and a symbol of Canada's commitment to the health of our world.

We certainly agree with the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops on that point.

There is widespread agreement among the world's pre-eminent climatologists, that the climate is warming, that our time to adapt is, as I indicated, growing short and that we must do something about this, and soon. We have only one earth and it is not a flat earth as some people here would have us believe. We cannot do a controlled experiment here. We have to get it right and we have to do it right now.

The International Panel on Climate Change, surely the world's most renowned group of experts on this matter, tells us that global warming is occurring, that it is due to greenhouse gas concentrations and that the prudent thing to do would be to act on it immediately.

A group of church leaders in the United States, many of them evangelicals, went earlier this month to the big three automakers in Detroit to meet with them and to tell them that climate change is a moral issue. They want those companies to develop more fuel efficient vehicles.

The organized interests who want us to delay or entirely avoid any action on climate change talk only in dollars and with no sense. Those interests are concentrated in the petroleum and carbon industries and they have as their errand boys members of the Alliance Party, a few Liberal backbenchers and Premier Klein in Alberta.

As a member of the New Democratic Party, I get relatively little opportunity to rub shoulders and exchange ideas with senators but I was delighted to be read yesterday an interview that appeared in the Hill Times this week by retiring Alberta Liberal Senator Nick Taylor.

I do not know Senator Taylor personally but I do know that he comes from the oil industry in Alberta. He has just reached the mandatory retirement age. He had a number of interesting things to say, starting with:

The Esso group through Syncrude because they are the biggest heavy-oil producers, and Petro-Canada, good old Petro-Canada, with the Maple Leaf. They have had the most influence on Ralph Klein and Alberta.

He prefaces this by saying that not all oil companies are opposed, as we heard from the member for NDG a few minutes ago, and the parliamentary secretary.

Senator Taylor goes on to say:

So it's an Esso type of thing, Standard Oil of New Jersey-thinking which bought these old dirty refineries from McColl-Frontenac and had gone ahead with a great deal of the tar sands development. Credit to them, they were the pioneers in heavy oil at the tar sands, but now they are the ones who are going to have to get in the inhibitors and clean up things a little.

He then was asked the question by the journalist as to who in cabinet was opposed to Kyoto. The senator, who sits in on national Liberal caucus meetings I assume, indicated that the Minister of Health and another minister from Alberta were listening carefully to the oil people.

In reference to the Minister of Health, he said:

She used to be minister of energy, ...one of the architects, along with [the member for LaSalle--Émard] of the rejuvenation of the tar sands. They changed the tax laws so that there is a tremendous advantage for large oil corporations to get into the tar sands. She looks to the tar sands as one of her favourite children, possibly being made to bear a bigger weight than the others right now.

Senator Taylor also said:

The oil and gas industry always raises [heck] for any new environmental thing--acid rain, salt water disposal or natural gas. Take salt water disposal. We used to dispose of it on the ground, to get rid of weeds and the dust, now we pump it back into the ground to get out more oil. Natural gas we used to flare off to get at the oil. They made us stop. Now we collect it, and sell it. Big pipelines. Lots of profits.

Here is one person who has worked in the industry, knows a little about it, a lot more than I do, and feels very strongly. He concluded:

I think the government has done a very poor job indeed [of selling Kyoto]. First of all, by shilly-shallying and wondering and dilly-dallying, they gave the flat earth society people the time to get organized and get going. After all, this was a treaty that was signed in 1997 following a voluntary agreement in 1992... People who were worried about CO2 had since '92 to do it. The debate [in the House] now should be how to put Kyoto in place, not whether to join it.

One of the things to which insufficient attention has been paid in this whole debate is the notion of retrofitting. I had the opportunity in August of this year to attend the conclusion of the Canada-Saskatchewan infrastructure program. More than $600,000 had been put up to retrofit six municipal buildings in the great city of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.

We were told at that final conference that the savings alone on reducing energy costs as a result of that retrofit were in excess of $200,000 annually, which meant that in three years all of that retrofit would pay for itself. Incidentally it created jobs in the process, and it probably has a shelf life of a minimum of 50 years. We could anticipate tremendous savings over half a century with those kinds of projects.

Those are the things about which we in the House do not talk often enough. We hear gloom and doom, that if we ratify Kyoto the sky will fall, we will not be able to do it, and we will lose jobs. People totally forget to think about what the opportunities are. Yes, there are challenges and some sectors probably would be hurt. The oil and gas sector may be hurt somewhat but there are opportunities with this initiative. If the Americans want to slow walk this, I say even better, because it is an opportunity for us to develop some interesting new technologies that can be sold and exported to other countries around the world. We have the capacity and the capability of doing that.

This party fears that the interests opposed to Kyoto are trying to prevent necessary action. They insist on a complete blueprint for the future regarding our plans on Kyoto. Many of the members who are asking where the blueprint is for Kyoto are the same members who, in 1988 and 1989, were telling us to take a leap of faith on free trade, that we did not have all the studies but it would be good for Canada. Now they are telling us to hold on a minute and are asking for a blueprint.

The proposition being put forward by the opponents of Kyoto actually would allow a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions when we need a significant decrease. This is not a realistic option and Kyoto is the best and only instrument we have.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my colleague had to say. The Canadian Alliance has been casting doubt on the science of climate change. Nobody disputes that it is much warmer now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. The doubt comes when we project forward, as to whether it would continue to get warmer.

There has been an increase in CO

2

which no one denies. There have been increases in particulates in the atmosphere such as nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds such as benzine, toxic metals such as mercury, ground level ozone which is a powerful poisonous greenhouse gas, and various other things.

Those things are in our atmosphere. They are causes, which someone questioned, of climate change. People say not to worry, that the effect is not serious enough yet to project forward. The world population would likely double in the next 30 or 40 years, so we would be up to 12 billion people. People say it might be twice as bad.

However, with the present technology, what if countries like India and China, with roughly a billion people each, come up to our level of consumption? We are not talking about inputs compatible with today's 12 billion people. We are talking of inputs compatible today in 30 or 40 years for 50, 60, or the equivalent of 80 billion people if the technology remains the same. Then the doubts over here about whether human beings are having sufficient effect to change the climate would disappear. I would be grateful for my colleague's comments on that.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by passing a compliment to the member for Peterborough. I did not realize that he was one of the initiators of the blue box in Ontario until it was mentioned earlier in debate today. That has had a significant impact across the country and I congratulate him for his involvement on it.

With regard to the fact that we do consume a tremendous amount of energy in North America we recognize that we do live in a cold climate and our energy costs are undoubtedly higher. It has been pointed out that in European countries there is a lot more technology and a lot more effort put into ensuring that houses can be cooled and heated by natural currents and the movement of air.

What the member is alluding to is the footprint that we would leave as a world population on the environment if countries like China and India become as big consumers of energy as North America. If we were to take the lead and show other countries that it could be done, that our environmental footprint could be a whole lot less than it is now, that would be the way to go and that would be the way to preserve the world for a long time to come.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Ottawa--Vanier.

I would like to take a more skeptical view of Kyoto. Some of my thoughts are taken from a book entitled The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomberg.

There is little doubt that over the last 100 years there has been a rise in temperature. Some say it is about 0.6%. There is little doubt that Canadians see strange weather patterns happening and wonder what is going on. There is also little doubt that there are legions of people who are prepared to tell them what is going on, some with more religious zeal than others, both of whom are prepared to sketch out terrifying scenarios which preclude rational debate.

It is valid to claim that there is extra CO

2

in the atmosphere. About 80% of it comes from fossil fuels and 20% from deforestation. Of that extra CO

2

about 53% is reabsorbed by northern forest regrowth. Increasing CO

2

emissions and the concentration have really started to take off lately and that is what has alarmed the environmental community. The extra or man made greenhouse effect is called anthropogenic.

The argument however gets trickier as to how to attribute all of the increase in the CO

2

. Do we attribute it all to human activity? Our first problem is records. Records prior to 1850 are a little sketchy. There are alternative ways to construct data from polar ice caps and tree rings, and things of that nature, but they are not as good as hardcore data. When we are trying to analyze temperature, data is extremely important. Unfortunately for the data, other sources of increase, such as sun radiation increases, also affect the data.

Therefore, how much is human and how much is simply natural cycles? In other words, if this is entirely due to sun spots, there is nothing we can do about it. We might as well get into our bathing suits and go home.

For the purposes of the argument however, let us allow that almost all if not all of this increase in CO

2

is directly attributable to human activity. What will be the consequence? The only sure thing that will happen is that there will be change. Some of it will be good and some of it will be bad.

Clearly agriculture would be affected. Some areas would be drought stricken and some would receive more precipitation. When we put CO

2

in the air we also put up other particulate matter. That matter forms into precipitation and cloud cover. No one seems to know whether the cloud cover would increase or decrease.

About 65% of the earth's surface is covered by cloud cover at any given time and it is a both a sword and a shield. It literally shields us from the sun's radiation and therefore reduces temperature, but it also traps gases and therefore increases the temperature on earth.

It also creates precipitation. One of the predictions is that there would be more rainfall which, when combined with CO

2

acts as a natural fertilizer. The effect of more natural fertilizer is more plant matter growth, literally more like a greenhouse, both in temperature and in consequence. The effect is that the earth would be greener. Some say that the biomass would increase by something like 40%. I find that a far-fetched figure. However, as I say there would be winners and losers in temperature increase.

Another area of concern is health. The greenhouse effect would likely cause more deaths and sicknesses related to heat which is true, but we also must keep in mind that twice the number of people in the United States die from cold than heat. If the number is twice as many in the United States, it is probably three or four times in Canada. Again, there are winners and losers. What would one rather die from, freezing or frying?

Another problem among a myriad of problems with the protocol is that various countries have various interests.

I do not know whether anyone has ever had the privilege of travelling in China, but when people step out of an airplane in Beijing their lungs are immediately assaulted by air pollution. A World Bank report states that 8% of China's GDP is lost due to pollution, while abatement measures would be at about only 1% or 1.25%. Therefore, the Chinese government has rightly focused on reducing sulphur emissions.

This is where it gets a little bizarre. Sulphur agents or sulphur aerosols act as cooling agents in the climate, the very thing we want to dampen down the temperature. China will actually be adding to global warming while dealing with its huge smog problems. If we think about that, 1.2 billion people in the PRC will be adding to global warming while 30 million Canadians hopefully will be detracting from global warming by emphasizing CO

2

as opposed to SO

2

. It does leave one a little confused.

I must admit that I have a bit of trouble keeping track of the winners and losers in global warming. Last week we saw pictures of polar bears and a reduced polar ice cap. That, on the face of it, appears to be worrisome and leads one to conclude that there are increased water levels. Someone living in New Orleans or Alexandria, Egypt, should be worried and maybe should even be making some plans to move.

It is factually true that water levels are rising. In the last 100 years levels have risen by about 10 to 25 centimetres. In the next 100 years levels are predicted to rise by between 31 and 49 centimetres. However, 75% of the increase is due to the increase in temperature, which expands the volume of the water, and only 25% is due to glacial melt. While in New Orleans people may or may not go under water, people in California will be appreciative of any increases in water. Again there are winners and losers.

The changes in weather patterns are difficult enough to assess, but the economics of this matter literally leave everyone gasping for air, pun unintended. The simple answer is that someone who is skeptical about the environmental impact should really be skeptical about the economic impact. The argument is that as sea levels rise, sea level cities will be devastated. On the face of it, that is true. The problem is that human behaviour is quite unpredictable. Everyone takes risks in life. Insurance companies make a fortune assessing risk.

If we go back to the New Orleans example, if in fact the sea level rises people will move or take mitigating action. If it rises dramatically there will be loss of life and property damage. Either way, it is a risk assessment. If insurance companies determine that New Orleans or sections of New Orleans are disproportionately at risk they will factor the risk and charge a premium accordingly. If it is too risky, they will not insure at all and it will be abandoned. That is the consequence of global warming.

At best, Kyoto will have a marginal impact on climate change. In the bigger picture, Canada's 2% contribution is frankly quite microscopic. To maximize the benefit to the environment and ignore emissions trading, we really should invest something like $350 billion U.S. or 1.5% of global GDP.

The problem with the economic modelling is that both sides of it cannot predict how new technologies will affect it. How will solar, wind and fusion affect the increase of CO

2

into the atmosphere? People are left in some confusion, not only over what the inputs are but also over what the outputs might be.

I hope that over the course of my brief talk here I have raised some questions that should be on everyone's minds while they assess this. I have a lot of sympathy, frankly, for the government's efforts on this file. It has a variety of provinces to deal with, some of which have dramatically opposing views. I am also aware of the enormous political support for this treaty in my riding and elsewhere in the country. I am also aware that there are businesses in my riding that will be adversely affected by the costs of implementation.

I hope, however, that I have made the case that there will be winners and losers as global warming accelerates, that Kyoto will be a tiny break in this trend but that on balance there is merit to ratification, and that we should be under no delusion that this is a panacea, but we should start with ratification and encourage the reductions as early as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the member has shown a lot of common sense and certainly has read Mr. Lomberg's book, The Skeptical Environmentalist . Mr. Lomberg is an environmentalist who has never owned a car in his life. He is a 37 year old Dane who really believes in the environment. I think that he brings out a lot of questions.

Based on the member's comments, I wonder if he would not agree on developing a program involving countries like China, India, the U.S. and so on where we go after two things, pollution and climate change, and as the science is perfected we develop it. Would he not agree that this might be a better approach than signing Kyoto, the rather Eurocentric sort of bureaucratic thing that it is?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the first point I would like to make is that developing any program on a global basis is extremely difficult because there are interests that are diametrically opposed to each other, so I congratulate the drafters of the treaty who have come thus far.

With regard to the second point, the developed world has to lead the way. I cannot really expect nations in the Third World to be leaders in this endeavour. I would like to think that this is a part of a more holistic approach, but I have some appreciation for the difficulties. There are difficulties with the assessment of the environmental impact. There is difficulty with the assessment of the priorities of the environmental impact. There is an even greater difficulty with the assessment of the economic impact of environmental initiatives.

In some measure, I agree with the questioner, but I appreciate that there are, as I have said, winners and losers in this entire process.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at my colleague quoting from that particular reference. Just to use his comments on the measurement of CO

2

, it is the gas that people mainly have mentioned, but it has been measured since the middle of the 19th century. True, methods of measurement have improved, but the measuring site was in the middle of the Pacific, far away from human effects. If a change could have been detected there from the middle of the 19th century to the present time, it certainly offsets any changes in measurement.

He also mentioned other things such as nitrous oxides, for example. Although they do not really sound like it, they are greenhouse gases and are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide although lesser in quantity. Generally speaking, they are also poisonous. The member mentioned particulates as a kind of sidebar to the production of CO

2

, which also seriously affect human breathing. I have mentioned ground level ozone. It is a poison and in Ontario has increased to the point that it costs tens of millions in reduced crop production alone.

From a public policy view rather than a science point of view, what is the difference, whether one believes in climate change or not? We should clean the atmosphere, which kills hundreds of people in Ontario every year and kept our kids last year inside school on 23 smog days. What would we do differently in cleaning that atmosphere and in tackling climate change, which might be debatable?