Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2002

Kyoto Protocol

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to the Kyoto accord tonight. I made my position on the Kyoto accord very clear last summer. I said that I would listen carefully to my constituents, especially as more information came out and the plan was in place and more of the details were known. I am still listening.

Constituents have written many e-mails and letters to me on this issue. Some of them have asked me to stand in the House of Commons and make sure that we ratify the Kyoto accord. Others have asked me to make sure that we do not ratify the accord. To some extent the constituents have been left out of the debate. Most members' speeches have taken one side or the other exclusively. There is not a member in the House of Commons who does not have constituents who favour ratifying the Kyoto accord and constituents who are against it.

One of my constituents said that once again polarization has led to a lack of objectivity. This evening I will try to reflect what my constituents have told me they want me to do.

First I will talk about two e-mails that were against the Kyoto accord. They were the strongest. I will just repeat a line from each of the e-mails because in the time available I will not be able to get through them all.

One said, “This is not a harmless little agreement. It will be very hard on us and our potential development”. The person was also interested in penalties. I want to make sure that people know there are no penalties such as a fine for Canada, but if we do not reach certain levels in the first round, the ramifications are that we have to come up with a plan for the second round with increased reductions to make sure we make up for the lack in the first round.

I was very impressed by the other e-mail in the sense that the person had done a lot of his own research instead of repeating what other people have said and different scientists he had heard. I will read a few lines. It is a long e-mail and I cannot do it justice but in part it read:

President Bush has refused to ratify Kyoto calling it “economically irresponsible”. It is a global environmental panic aided and abetted by incomplete scientific studies. The greenhouse effect is both natural and necessary for life on earth.

He then talked about some computer simulations and particular aspects of them that left inaccuracies and gave false readings and thus alleged global warming is only a small percentage of what is being announced, as well as distorting figures for the future. He mentioned countries such as Germany for which it would be easy to reduce its emissions without any extreme effort. He pointed out that some countries have already done things, or were planning to do them, to reduce emissions and make it easy for them.

I want to comment on two organizations, the Whitehorse and Yukon Chambers of Commerce. Many people have commented on similar organizations.

The Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce talked to me last December about the importance to Yukon's petrol based economy. It is important because Kyoto to a large extent is based on taking into consideration the effects on petroleum products. I have made the case and explained that concern at length in the House. I think that voice has been well heard on the issue.

I also talked this weekend at considerable length with the president of the chamber of commerce. I explained my position, what has happened to a number of companies that have reduced emissions already, and what I thought the results would be. That was partly because I had a second submission from the chamber this weekend.

Chamber members were concerned as well that the U.S. was not ratifying and felt it might make us uncompetitive if we had extra regulations, especially because we are such a large exporter. Because we have an oil, gas and mining economy, they were concerned that a harder environment for those companies would deter investment in the Yukon. They were concerned about not having all the provinces on side yet, but they did maintain that governments and citizens have to reduce greenhouse gases and they just wanted to make sure there was more time to refine the plan and ensure certainty.

The Yukon Chamber of Commerce had similar points, one about more time. It wanted to accommodate growth in the economy, population and exports. I actually confirmed that the plan does that. Again, its members want to be competitive with our NAFTA partners. Because of the other demands on the budget, they want to make sure that there is money available for the steps we would take, and they said that fuel and auto efficiency would have special effects in the north. Once again, they want to continue consultation.

I want to now quickly go on to the support. There were many more e-mails and letters to this effect. I think I can read the comments of a number of them in the time I have remaining.

The first one is: “I believe it is foolish to have big gas guzzlers and to have poorly insulated houses. It is the common sense of our elders who went through wars and the great depression that we should be adopting--waste not, want not”. Another one says, “Please let the Prime Minister know that Yukoners support his aim to ratify Kyoto”. The next says, “The sooner we get this Kyoto protocol passed, the sooner corporations, provinces and territories will start looking for the measures, technologies, and capital investments that will make it happen”.

Of course, the Yukon Medical Association is strongly on side. I also had a lengthy conversation yesterday with a person who assures us that the gas pipeline will go through Yukon and it is so important for our economy if we ratify Kyoto because of course natural gas is lower in emissions than CO

2

. The Council of Yukon First Nations, which represents 11 Yukon first nations from across the Yukon, is strongly in support of ratifying Kyoto. Another e-mail says, “We need to take this forward for the sake of future generations”. Another one says, “We encourage you to speak for the ratification. This is a critical issue for Canada and the Yukon, as the North is most heavily affected by climate change”.

One would think that in the frozen north people would like it to get warmer, but that is not true when we listen to what the constituents say. The Minister of the Environment was there with me and heard some of this. One constituent said the spruce, willows and balsam firs are slowly moving uphill and further north.

The president of the Association of Yukon Communities is in town right now. A champion of ratifying Kyoto, he says that when he left Dawson City it was 5° above and there was just a lot of rain, while he came here to below zero. Normally it used to be 30° below in Dawson City. In fact I was there in October 20 years ago and it was 44° below. He has led the debate at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which has of course championed signing Kyoto, with conditions.

What is very important in the north is permafrost. It is different from the rest of the country. Construction in the north is based on the permafrost keeping things frozen. The chief of a first nation explained that all their administration buildings are shifting and will have to be rebuilt at great expense. The mayor of Dawson City talks about the cataclysmic costs of all these buildings shifting and moving as the permafrost melts. In fact, some of the sewer systems in the north are predicated on the permafrost staying frozen.

The spruce budworm is moving north. As well, the Gwich'in people have a terrible problem with the caribou herd. If climate change and snowfalls change their migration, they will not be able to get to the one spot where they can have the best calf survival, which may result in the loss of that entire culture in northern Canada and Alaska.

There is great economic loss because there is dependence on the ice bridges in the north to get things to communities and corporations and for the trucking industry. The people in Dawson cannot even get across for much of the winter now when the ice bridge does not freeze. Of course, we have heard about the Mount Logan atmospheric record and the elders who have been around for a long time. There has been climate change in the past, but they say that never so fast and never at this rate have their people seen this.

I told my constituents that I would reflect their views. I made as many as I could in the time I had. The most important part now is to refine the plan and to put it into action. These are the voices of my constituents and I encourage Parliament to listen to them.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member talk about all the constituents who had written to him and about the letter he received from the chamber of commerce. Did the chamber of commerce ask the member not to ratify Kyoto? What were its concerns and how does he expect to answer its concerns specifically?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I do not speak very clearly because I read two pages of the chamber of commerce's concerns.

With regard to answering those concerns, as I explained, I talked to the president of one and I will phone the president of the other association to go over the ramifications to business.

I also talked about some of the success stories, which I did not know about before I researched this, of companies like Duke Energy, Canfor, Riverside Forest Products, Shell Canada, TransAlta and Syncrude, Nova Chemicals, IMC, Midwest Products, Simmons, Maple Leaf, Ekati, IBM, the Northwest Territories Power Corporation and Yukon Energy. I read about these companies making investments in things that other companies will only have to invest in after Kyoto. Some of them have already reached their targets. The amounts of money they have saved are phenomenal. I still keep thinking about IMC Potash Colonsay which invested $10,000 and had a savings of $490,000.

We can see how competitive that will make industry and how far ahead we will be of other countries that will eventually have to do this. They will buy these technologies from us. I think the Canadian industry has a very bright future. Had I not done the research into these companies that are leading the charge I would not have this great confidence.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is obviously torn between the two competing positions on Kyoto. Obviously some pretty important people and organizations in his riding are voicing concerns about this and others are supporting it.

I would suggest that it is not unlike most of our constituencies, but unlike most of us at least, the member, in spite of that concern, that uncertainty and being torn between the two sides, seems to be going ahead and supporting ratification not knowing how to address those concerns his constituents are bringing to him.

If his constituents have those concerns, why would he not support not ratifying until we had a plan to see how those concerns could be put aside before we blindly ratify this thing and perhaps bring into fact all of those concerns that the chamber of commerce and others brought to him?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, of course the concerns that were brought forward were from my constituents. I used my entire time to explain their concerns. However, had I been able to answer a number of them I would have been happy to.

Regarding the question about why do we not wait until there is a plan, there is a very detailed plan that is an evolving plan. The point I made at the very end of my speech is that it is very important to listen to the concerns of our constituents and to ensure that their concerns go into the evolving plan as it gets changed in the many years that we have to implement it.

I cannot give the answers to all of the concerns now but if the member opposite lists a specific concern I will be happy to answer it.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to Government Motion No. 9, which reads as follows:

That this House call upon the government to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

First, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, for the excellent work that he has done on this issue. Even his speech earned him praise from the environment minister. It is not often that we hear a minister praise a speech from this side of the House because with the kind of partisan debates we have here, members have a tendency to be more receptive to speeches made by colleagues of their own party.

Having said that, I want to recognize, in a non partisan way, the work of the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, particularly with regard to the educational aspect of his work as a member of Parliament. He sends householders regularly to his constituents. Personally, I have relatives who live in the member's riding, and I know that people always appreciate receiving information. It is not partisan or biased information, but factual information that allows people to form their own opinion on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

Furthermore, since I remember this because I followed the issue on television and in the newspapers, I would like to point out that our colleague and environment critic, the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, had assembled a very large coalition comprised of almost a hundred stakeholders to ensure that the government would finally decide to act and ratify the Kyoto protocol.

I continue to say what my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois have maintained during the debate and what we had the opportunity to point out regularly in the House, which is that we find it unfortunate that Motion No. 9 tabled by the government did not contain a ratification date. Following some persistent and tenacious questioning by members on this side of the House, we have been able to get the Prime Minister to acknowledge, last week, that there would be a vote and ratification of the Kyoto protocol before the end of 2002.

Despite this, the implementation plan introduced by the federal government in this regard can still be improved. For example, we still have serious doubts about this plan, because it uses 2010 as the base year by which specific reduction efforts will be demanded of each province or economic sector.

We in the Bloc Quebecois as well as a majority of Quebeckers, consider that this approach is unfair, because it does not allow past and current efforts to be taken into account and it encourages polluters to pollute more until 2010. It is as though we were saying today, in 2002 “There is no problem. You can still continue to pollute for the next eight years, because the base year will be 2010”. This is a technique that lawyers refer to as wilful blindness, that is closing our eyes to pollution events until 2010.

We in the Bloc Quebecois had asked that 1990 be used as the base year, because we felt that we should not encourage or reward polluters and that we should avoid penalizing those who have already made efforts.

I should remind the House that, before I was elected here, I worked in the pulp and paper industry for 14 years. I worked for Abitibi Price, the largest pulp and paper company in Canada. I worked there from 1976 until 1990. I saw pulp and paper companies, and not only Abitibi Price, invest millions and millions of dollars. I could talk about Consolidated Bathurst, Kruger, Donahue and Domtar. In Quebec, these corporations made some serious efforts to develop clarifiers to process and remove unwanted solids.

The pulp and paper industry expanded in Quebec in the 1920s, around 1924-1925. We have 60 pulp and paper companies in Quebec. Except for the most recently built plants, most of them are facing pollution problems. Some of the plants, like the ones in Kénogami, in the Saguenay region, and in Port-Alfred, were built in the 1920s near the water.

By definition, the plants needed two things: first, a supply of wood material, which is why the plants were built in very densely wooded areas, like in the regions of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, the Mauricie, Abitibi, the North Shore and the Gaspé area. Usually, plants were also built close to the water.

We know that in the 1920s and 1930s, people were not as concerned as they are today about the environment. Oftentimes the residues of sulphites used to bleach paper were discharged directly in the river.

Another reason why companies built plants near rivers was because a paper mill is necessarily energy-consuming; it needs hydroelectricity. In Lac-Saint-Jean, paper companies built dams in the Shipshaw and the Saguenay rivers in order to obtain the hydroelectricity they needed for the papermaking machines.

I can say that, in the 1980s, the paper companies invested large sums in clarifiers. They changed the production processes so that they could use products other than sulphite to bleach the paper.

Where I worked, we produced kraft pulp. It is one of the most polluting processes. Quebec companies invested heavily in environmental protection in an attempt to control both solid and liquid residues discharged into waterways and dust particles that escaped into the air.

I did say I am from Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean. I come from Chicoutimi. Alcan is everywhere in that region. It started operating in the former city of Arvida. The Arvida aluminum plant was for a long time the first industrial complex in the world. In the days when we did not use kilometres and metres, we said that the plant measured a mile and a half long by three quarters of a mile wide. That is the size of the potroom at the Alcan plant in Arvida.

Alcan was used as an example, but it could just as easily have been Péchiney, Reynolds in Baie-Comeau, or the aluminum smelters in Deschambault or Bécancour, Quebec. These companies chose to establish in Quebec because of its major hydroelectric potential, since aluminum smelters are by definition huge energy guzzlers. That is why the pulp and paper and aluminum companies established operations in areas with high hydroelectric potential.

Otherwise, it would have been more logical to set up a plant on the outskirts of New York City or Chicago. The problem is that they lack the hydroelectricity required for their vats and paper making processes.

The purpose of this digression is to explain that, by selecting 2010 as the base year, the government is again refusing to take past efforts into consideration. It still has time, however, to alter its approach, if it wants to get all of the provinces on side. It should take into consideration the fact that, since 1990, a number of industrial sectors have been making efforts that deserve recognition.

The Bloc Quebecois is also concerned by another issue. The implementation plan for the Kyoto protocol confirms that Ottawa is prepared to fund projects from the oil and gas industry.

As we know, in the past, Ottawa has given subsidies to the oil and gas industry that were 20 times greater than those allocated to renewable energies. One has only to think about oil production, and more specifically the Hibernia project, off the coast of Newfoundland. I agree that Newfoundland had an unemployment problem. It is true that this project was going to help economic development.

In this regard, I know that discussions are currently taking place with the Quebec government to undertake oil and gas research in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, off the Gaspé coast and Anticosti Island. I hope that when the time comes to sit down, the federal government will remember the benefits that were given to the Hibernia project, off Newfoundland. As for the Gaspé, the Lower St. Lawrence and the North Shore, they also need to develop the oil and gas potential that exists in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I will stop here as regards this issue.

The Bloc Quebecois is asking the federal government to pledge that, for each dollar given to the oil and gas industry, one dollar will also be given to the renewable energy industry.

I must remind everyone that the tar sands are located in the riding of my colleague, the member for Athabasca, and that it is a process that produces a great deal of pollution. Earlier, he was quite happy to ask questions of my colleague, the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie.

For his benefit and for the benefit of the members of the House, when Quebec developed its hydroelectricity, it did not ask for one red cent from anyone. When Quebec harnessed the Manicouagan River to erect various dams, from Manic I to Manic V, and when, under the Robert Bourassa government in the 1970s, it harnessed the La Grande and Rupert Rivers to obtain the James Bay complex, it did not ask for anything from the other provinces to develop its hydroelectricity.

However, since the grants came in by the shovelful, if not by the tonne, for the oil patch out west, I think we should keep in mind the fact that Quebec has done its share in developing a non-polluting, renewable and clean source of energy.

In Quebec, hydroelectricity is a clean energy. Other sectors are waiting for funding from the federal government. Other sectors want encouragement. Take the wind energy sector, for example. Quebec already has the beginnings of wind energy development in the area of Cap-Chat, where the Gaspé Peninsula begins, on the north side. There are various wind energy projects there. It is still in the very early stages. There is a little field of windmills. I do not know how many there are, but it is quite an energy source for this region to develop. There are also windmills on the Magdalen Islands. More could be done.

We also know the Murdochville area needs a boost. During the last election, the member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok was strutting about telling everyone, “Elect a Liberal member. Elect a government member, you will see”. He practically told them that money would fall from the sky, that they would be able to pick it up by the fistful. The people were basically taken hostage; it made a mockery of everyone. I challenge the member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok to ensure that wind power projects are developed in the Murdochville area. He sure talked up a storm during the election campaign of November 2000, just over two years ago now. He needs to put his money where his mouth is.

Unfortunately, I will not have enough time to speak about another type of energy that could be developed, tidal energy. There are tidal energy production plants in Nova Scotia, in the Bay of Fundy. That is another industry the federal government should help and promote.

Finally, the Bloc Quebecois supports ratification of the Kyoto protocol by Canada, for the following reasons. It is time to reverse the trend toward global warming, which will lead to dramatic environmental damage. My colleague, the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, said it quite appropriately earlier today. We just have to think about the 1998 ice storm and the flood in the Saguenay.

However, my colleague forgot to mention another event. I will do so on his behalf, just to show that our perspective is not totally focused on Quebec. There are the floods caused by the Red River in the Winnipeg area. We all remember that, in 1997, they even thought about postponing the election in Manitoba, because the flood reached a magnitude never seen in the last 125 to 150 years. There surely is a reason for all of this. There must be something causing this. I am not a expert, but studies on the question say that we should consider the environmental aspects of this climate warming.

There is another reason why we in the Bloc Quebecois are asking for the Kyoto protocol to be ratified. Canada has to cooperate in the international effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Canada is a large source of greenhouse gases. If we exclude Quebec, Canada is the worst polluter per capita in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

The Bloc Quebecois therefore believes that the people of Quebec want Canada to ratify the Kyoto protocol. The Quebec National Assembly, which is our true national assembly, voted unanimously for such ratification. By unanimously, we mean that the members of the Parti Québécois, the members of the Liberal Party of Quebec, the official opposition, and the five ADQ members all voted in favour.

This being said, the government would do well to listen more carefully to the consensus developing here in Quebec. I believe that we in the Bloc Quebecois must make that consensus known.

Anyway, there are Liberal members from Quebec who have been elected to the House and we never hear them say that they speak for the consensus in Quebec. They never want to go against the party line. They just act like trained seals.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was an entertaining speech, but the member made the most outrageous statement. I was quite amazed. He said Canada was the second highest per capita user of energy in the world if we excluded Quebec. That raises a real question with me. Do Quebeckers not heat their homes with fossil fuel? Do Quebeckers not drive cars and haul their goods across the province with transport trucks?

The latest government plan that was presented to the House showed one-third of the CO

2

emissions coming from industry, one-third coming from transportation, and one-third coming from the consumption of fossil fuels. I dare say that I do not think Quebeckers are any different from any other Canadians when it comes to loving their automobiles and driving them or heating their homes.

Why does the member not think that Quebeckers have to make the same sacrifices to reduce CO

2

emissions in those two areas as the rest of Canada, even if we accept the fact that, because of the development of hydro, Quebec's industrial sector perhaps has lower emissions?

The other statement I take exception to is that the federal government did not put one penny into the development of hydro in Quebec. The federal government paid an exorbitant amount of money to negotiate and settle the land claim with the Cree of northern Quebec for the lands that the Quebec government flooded to produce that hydro electricity. On those counts, I would suggest, the member was a little off the truth.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Athabasca would be better off if he took his head out of the oil sands. He is in right to his shoulders.

I will not belabour the point. I merely wish to provide one little statistic. He would do well to broaden his horizons. I do not know whether he has had any regular contact with Quebec. The member for Athabasca is making value judgments on Quebecers. I am certain that he was involved in that love-in at Place du Canada, three days before the 1995 referendum. We remember how they came to tell us “We love you. Don't leave; we love you”.

We want out of Canada. Let us leave. If we are a burden to the member for Athabasca, then he must let us leave. We want to separate. We are fed up being with you and we want to leave. Why do you insist on holding us back?

I do not want to get carried away at this late hour; it will spoil my sleep. I just want to provide the member for Athabasca with one little statistic. He can think it over when his head hits the pillow tonight. I will merely point out to him that 95% of the electricity with which we heat the homes of Quebec is hydroelectric. That is 95%, Mr. Speaker, and you could point out to the member for Athabasca that it is non-polluting.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I did not quite catch the math on the will of the people of Quebec, but perhaps the member can explain to me why most of them would like to remain in Canada at this time.

I was delighted he mentioned wind energy. I want to compliment the Yukon Energy Corporation for the tremendous work it has done with windmills. It has already made significant contributions to cutting CO

2

emissions in Yukon. We were delighted that there was an incentive for wind energy in the last federal budget.

In relation to natural gas, one of my constituents said it was important to ratify Kyoto so that the gas pipeline would go through Yukon. Natural gas could replace the far dirtier coal and diesel production, and therefore reduce greenhouse gases.

Could the member comment on Quebec's position regarding ethanol production, which was recommended in the plan? If he does not have any views on that I would be interested to hear more about tidal energy because we support that. The many programs the Canadian government has put forward for renewable energy were supportive of things like that and the government has funded many projects across the country.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with enthusiasm to the passionate comments by the member for Yukon. He was raving about windmills. I hope he does not have the same attitude toward windmills as Don Quixote. I heard his ad for windmills in the Yukon.

With regard to ethanol, I will tell him that Quebec has projects to produce ethanol from corn. A lot of corn is produced in the St. Lawrence plain, that is the whole Saint-Hyacinthe area, Drummondville and the central Quebec region. There are ethanol projects. There is some ethanol production, but the problem right now is distribution. The number of distribution points is insufficient.

Personally, when I travel from my riding in the Quebec City area to Ottawa by car, I look for the 50-50 ethanol gasoline blend. However, there is only one company—and I will do a commercial here—called MacEwen or something similar that sells ethanol. Unfortunately, there are not enough distribution points.

[The Speaker]

There being no further members rising, pursuant to the order made earlier this day this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 10:09 p.m.)