Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak in the debate on Motion M-82 put forward by the hon. member for Calgary Centre concerning the Kyoto protocol and the establishment of a joint committee.
Before getting into my comments on this motion, I would like to qualify what the member for Calgary Centre said, for at least three-quarters of his speech, about the provinces appearing to be opposed to the ratification of Kyoto.
I think he is making a historical as well as a technical error. It is important to separate the ratification of the protocol from its implementation. In this regard, I would remind hon. members of the Premier of Alberta's failure to create a Canadian coalition of provincial premiers to oppose the ratification of Kyoto at the last federal-provincial environment ministers meeting.
The Canadian consensus of the provincial environment ministers is not about not ratifying Kyoto, but rather about not implementing it. If the hon. member takes a look at the 12 points on which they agreed in Halifax, he will see that what the provinces are asking for is not that the Kyoto protocol not be ratified by the federal government, but rather that there be an equitable sharing of the Kyoto objective. They want the efforts made in the past by industries and by provinces like Quebec and Manitoba, which took it upon themselves to put in place action plans dealing with climate change, to be taken into account; they are asking the federal government to factor into the sharing of the Kyoto objective the different economic realities across the country.
We agree on the fact that, in Halifax, the provinces did not oppose the ratification, but rather the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. The Alliance member was absolutely right when he gave the central element of the real objective of this motion. He supports this motion because it will delay the ratification of the Kyoto protocol.
Since 1995, several consultations were held under the National Action Program on Climate Change. In January 2002, I checked the various consultations that have been held in Canada. As of January 18, 2002—not including the federal consultations in all Canadian cities on the four options put forward by the federal government—14 cities were visited, including Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver; 450 experts were consulted and there were 16 issue tables over a period of five years. Of course, this does not include all the conferences and meetings of federal and provincial ministers. I think the will to ratify the Kyoto accord has been clearly expressed.
I am glad to see that the hon. member for Calgary Centre would like us to discuss the impacts of Kyoto. This will allows us to speak about these undeniable impacts in the House today.
The question that begs to be asked is why we should start all over again all the work that has been done on the environmental impacts of the implementation of Kyoto in Canada and its regions. The UN International Panel on Climate Change has told us climate change impacts will be floods, more frequent droughts, irreversible damage to natural areas, and a higher prevalence of several infectious diseases.
This 2001 report deals with the impacts of adjustment and vulnerability to climate changes. In Quebec, the impact will be catastrophic. The water flow in the St. Lawrence River will be reduced by 15 to 20%.
There will certainly be an environmental impact associated with climate change. Why launch another consultation and create a joint committee just to have it confirm what the UN Intergovernmental Panel has already confirmed?
The member also wants us to talk about the economic impacts of implementing the Kyoto protocol. Many studies have been done on this. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce conducted a study, as did the Pembina Institute and the federal government, but the impacts are real, including for Quebec.
The impact on Quebec will be at least neutral, if not positive. Why? There is a theory that applies here. The Porter theory says that energy efficiency, or efficiency of any sort, is synonymous with competitiveness. How could a company which is more energy efficient be less competitive? Would energy efficiency make a Canadian business or a Quebec business less competitive than an American one, just because the Kyoto protocol had not been ratified in the United States?
Could a Canadian company not profit from the decisions made in Delhi last week? A company which exports its technology and transfers clean technology could receive credits under the clean development mechanism.
Would a business be penalized if it is based in Europe and can sell on the tradable permits market?
In fact, if the United States does not ratify Kyoto, but Canada does, it will be quite the opposite. These companies will want to sell the permits on the market. The price of those permits will change.
Ratification of the Kyoto protocol will have some economic benefits. There will be technological transfers. So, clearly, if the West tries hard enough, it can succeed.
We had an example of this last week when a gas company bought a wind energy company. It is quite telling. Half of the potential for wind energy generation is concentrated in western Canada. Our resource communities could depend on this incredible resource. If we turn our back on progress, we will be unable to keep up with the rest of the world. I do not want Quebec and Canada to lose ground. We need to go forward. We have to be efficient. We have to promote innovation, which will in turn bring us wealth.
Those who argue today that ratifying Kyoto will make Canada lose ground are living in the past. They are cutting themselves off from technological developments and completely ignoring the need for Quebec and Canadian companies to be more competitive on an increasingly global market. Kyoto gives us an incredible opportunity.
Canada will also have to take into account the shared goals we have to set for ourselves, but which can however be achieved differently. That is the issue here. I support and will always support Canada's goal to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% under the Kyoto protocol. This has to be done fairly, in a way that takes into account the potential for efficiency in the various provinces. Since western Canada has major potential for wind energy generation, its demographic and economic situation must be taken into consideration. Climate conditions, which vary from coast to coast, must also be taken into consideration. It is a well-known fact that the weather has an impact on energy consumption.
So it is not true that sectoral objectives will be established for Kyoto. I strongly support the consensus of the provinces, in Halifax, where they joined forces and told the federal government “We want to do our share, we want a shared, but separate objective that will take into account the economic realities of the different regions. We want territorial, bilateral agreements”. This is what the Bloc has been suggesting for a year.
Last week, in Halifax, the provinces rejected the sectoral breakdown that Canada wants to impose, and they asked for a territorial approach. This is what we have been asking the federal government for for weeks and months, and we are pleased that this struck a chord in Halifax the other day.
I will conclude by pointing out that a distinction must be made between ratification and implementation. I think we must remove all the constraints that would prevent Canada from ratifying the Kyoto protocol. However, we must achieve a consensus in the House on a fair breakdown of the Kyoto objectives, based, among other things, on the European model. Fifteen sovereign countries which are members of the European Union have agreed on a model of fair territorial breakdown that establishes different objectives within the European Union. This is a shared and separate objective that we wish to apply here in Canada.