Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2002

Kyoto Protocol

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. First, I want to mention that I will split my time with the hon. member for Lotbinière—L'Érable.

The House of Commons must be a reflection of the society that we represent, of the men and women who have elected us to represent them. Of course, I want to properly represent my constituents and, as we know, Quebeckers are overwhelmingly in favour of ratifying Kyoto. They are also very concerned by climate change and global warming, as they are by the ozone layer and, of course, by greenhouse gas emissions.

As parliamentarians, we have a dutynot only to find out what our constituents want, but also to think about future generations. It would be very ill-advised and irresponsible on our part not to defend the Kyoto protocol immediately.

All too often, for purely speculative and financial reasons, decisions are made in this House in the interests of political lobbying groups. The Canadian Alliance is currently playing that card. It is the same thing with the Progressive Conservative Party and with some Liberal members. We heard some of them earlier in the House. Let us avoid falling too easily into the trap of protecting investments in the short term. Instead, let us think about our planet, about what we want to leave to our children and grandchildren.

This is why we must, considering all the positive things that we have heard for years about the Kyoto protocol, ratify this accord. It goes without saying that discussions must take place. We must see to it that this protocol is implemented. There will be an obligation for Canada, and for the other countries ratifying the Kyoto protocol, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6%, based on the 1990 levels. This is the obligation we are undertaking to meet.

Countries that signed on have not been given unrealistic targets. They are reachable. What is irresponsible is to do what the United States, among others, is doing, and not care about global warming. That is totally irresponsible. One day, the Americans will understand the harm they will have caused to our planet and the kind of world they will leave behind for their children and grandchildren. Why follow them blindly, like some parties in this House want to do? Why say, “If the Americans are not signing, we are not signing either”?

We have a beautiful vast country. Quebec is home to more than 7 million people. Canada is also a vast country. It has 30 million inhabitants and covers a vast territory. The environment that we will leave behind to future generations makes it worth ratifying Kyoto and then getting together to look at how we are going to implement it.

In this regard, the rest of Canada would certainly benefit from following Quebec's lead. I will give some statistics. From 1990 to 2000, Quebec increased its greenhouse gas emissions by only 4.4%. That is a fact. There is, within Canada, a very important entity that represents one quarter of the country's population, namely Quebec. This is why, last October, the National Assembly of Quebec decided unanimously to support ratification of the Kyoto protocol by the Government of Canada.

Why? Because Quebec is an example to follow. Instead of saying all kinds of things about what could happen, why not look at what Quebec has achieved?

With its 4.4% rise since 1990, it is prepared for full ratification and for a 6% reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions, compared to its 1990 levels, which would total the considerable figure of 10%.

Elected representatives in the province of Quebec will have some hard choices to make. But if there are hard choices to be made in Quebec, there must be hard choices required across Canada. It is unavoidable, under the circumstances. Some jobs will be lost and some investments displaced.

I see the situation with Kyoto as being comparable to the early days of the ISO standards. The day that manufacturers, who are the job generators, approve Kyoto, their markets will become global. This is reality. It is to these business owners' advantage.

We in the House must stop putting ourselves in the place of companies listed on the stock market, which will see their stock values drop as soon as Kyoto is ratified. We will see that they will come back up again in short order and everything will be back to normal. It is not true that companies and individuals will lose fortunes because Kyoto is implemented. On the contrary. Companies will invest in other areas. Those involved in energy will opt for investments in renewable energy rather than fossil fuels.

Business goes where the money is, where the profits are. When the profit lies with companies that have approved Kyoto, then that is where the business will go, and where the investors of Canada and Quebec will choose to put their money. I have confidence in them, because they have already proven themselves capable of coming through several recessions.

I have trouble understanding the Liberals' stand. There is an unprecedented crisis in softwood lumber, yet the industry is getting no help, and now today they are telling us Kyoto ought not to be ratified. Why? Because we are not prepared to help some companies that might perhaps experience some problems. That is the role of government. That is where a government needs to step in.

When a decision is reached in the House, if certain kinds of businesses were to experience problems because of regulations or bills that might be enacted, then that is when the government has a duty to step in to help. The Bloc Quebecois will always be there to support any plans to help get certain categories of industries back on their feet, while they undergo short-term reversals while taking the time to turn to different investments. We will be there to support any and all assistance policies, should any businesses be affected by ratification of Kyoto.

Let us give a beacon of hope to future generations. Let us, here in this House, be able to truly say that we made a decision for our children, our grandchildren and our great grandchildren. The men and women in this House who ratified the Kyoto protocol will be looked upon with pride. This would probably be the best decision that we could ever make for the future of generations to come.

I do not understand why there are still entire political parties that decide, with their noses in their books, to look at businesses on the stock exchange that might lose money if we made a decision tomorrow morning.

Our job is not to defend private interests. Too many decisions have been made in this chamber precisely to defend the interests of private companies and submit to the pressure from political lobbying.

Let us make a real decision for the future of our children and our children's children. Some day, when we are sitting quietly in our living rooms and see what we have done to help stop global warming and climate change, we will be proud of those who took part in this decision for the future.

I encourage all my colleagues in the House to follow the lead that citizens have shown us in poll after poll. Quebeckers and even Canadians support ratification of the Kyoto protocol. They are conscious that we truly must change our way of acting and even the way we get around.

Quebec will have some big decisions to make, because the lion's share of greenhouse gas pollution in Quebec is caused by transportation. Quebeckers will have to rethink the way they travel, the vehicles they drive and their choice of equipment, to ensure that we will always be as close as possible to reality and that we leave future generations with a healthy planet.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his speech.

Why is the Bloc Quebecois or the province of Quebec supporting this accord without having any of the details? Also, why is the Bloc supporting the government's position, when eight provinces are saying that they do not support this accord?

I know the province of Quebec well; it understands the impact of such an accord with the support of the other provinces, particularly the province of Quebec.

I would like to repeat my question. Why is the Bloc Quebecois supporting this accord, knowing that the government has not provided all the details?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Members will understand, of course, that ratification of the Kyoto protocol is totally independent from the implementation plan that will be negotiated by the different stakeholders in Quebec and in Canada.

We will have the time to sit down and look at the situation. What we, in the Bloc Quebecois, are saying is that, concerning the objectives that we are being asked to achieve with the Kyoto protocol, Quebec is able and feels ready to achieve them and seriously believes that Canada is also ready to achieve them.

We know that we will have to take very important steps and decisions, but I believe that the federal government has the power and the means to implement its ideas. Inevitably, when the plan is implemented, we will see automatically the impacts and we will seek to compensate the industries.

As I was saying earlier, the Bloc Quebecois will be there to support all the measures that this government has to take to compensate industry during the period it needs to redirect its investments, to actually allow it to comply with the Kyoto protocol.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the position taken by the hon. member. Moments ago he said that Quebec felt it could meet those Kyoto targets as did the rest of the country, but we hear contradictory words coming from industry and the provinces. He knows all too well that the provinces themselves would bear the brunt of implementation. It would be up to the provinces and industry to comply and yet we know there is no consensus.

My question for the hon. member is, what is the rush? He says we could meet those targets and he may be right. However without consensus and without significant input from Canadians themselves and from industry, how can we be assured that we will be able to meet those targets? Should the government not take its time and bring those provinces on side as well as industry and Canadians generally? We are not questioning the science. What we are questioning is whether we can realistically meet those targets.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to answer my hon. colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party.

I have trouble understanding what he is saying. When he tells me it is the provinces that will pay the total cost of applying the Kyoto protocol, I hope this is not true. I understand that the Progressive Conservative Party is like the Liberal Party and the Canadian Alliance. It makes the provinces pay for everything. That much I understand.

Perhaps it is time for us to come together and for the federal government to tell the provinces from the start that “We will pay our share to implement Kyoto”. Then maybe there will be less pressure on the provinces and they will be more open to listening to their residents. Again, I would like to point out that Quebeckers and Canadians want Kyoto to be ratified. We will be there to support them.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn today to speak about ratification, and not implementation, of the Kyoto protocol.

Since the beginning of the debate, I have noticed that we are having trouble making a distinction between the two. We are talking about ratifying a protocol. The process began in 1997. Once a protocol is ratified, a commitment is made and other related measures need to be negotiated.

However, the first step is to make a commitment, which is why we need to ratify the protocol. By ratifying it, we show the world that Canada, and Quebec in particular, are very much concerned about the environment. Ratifying Kyoto is an important step for our future.

I also want to point out that the environment is one of the values very dear to our youth. We can use values such as the environment to bring more people on board and to ensure that young Canadians show more interest for politics. We have to provide the new generation with the tools and means they need to live as they wish.

I think that since we began discussing the Kyoto protocol and the environment, the Bloc Quebecois critic, the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, has been the model of a young person who believes in the environment, who looks after his file, and who explains things very well. He has travelled across Quebec and even to parts of Canada, and he has also attended international meetings. He is in a position to convince not only the new generation but also the baby-boomers, and I am one of them, of the need to sign Kyoto. This is what we call a collective effort. It means that each party, whether it is the provinces, the Canadian government or businesses, must do its share and take that first step.

Let us look at the situation. We began to discuss the Kyoto protocol in 1997 and this is now 2002. We are trying to convince the Canadian Parliament to ratify this protocol. Fifty-five countries have already signed it.

When we talk about globalization, we must not only think in terms of economic issues. Globalization is literally a global phenomenon. It is very much in line with the Kyoto protocol and the exchanging of views. The 55 countries that went ahead are sending a signal to the effect that our world wants to collectively take charge of its destiny and ensure a better future on this planet.

Today, I rise on behalf of future generations. Over the past few decades, not many decisions have been made by the new generation. Yet, it is this generation that will suffer the consequences of the things done by the world's major polluters.

When I hear that the Bush administration does not want to sign Kyoto, I know exactly why. As we know, President Bush is from Texas. We know what this means in the United States. This is the state where oil companies are concentrated. These companies could not care less whether the atmosphere is polluted or not. What they care about is making money.

Today, I asking all members of the House to endorse these new environmental values. We must. This is not just an economic issue, it is also a question of values. It is a community issue. We must take charge of our destiny and ensure a better future for the new generation. When I hear members from western Canada complain that many jobs will be lost if the Kyoto protocol is ratified, I think that they have a short memory.

Since 1970, the Canadian government has invested $60 billion for the development of the oil industry. Meanwhile, $329 million were invested in green energies. The difference is huge.

When we talk about implementing Kyoto, we will have to have more of a territorial approach than a sectorial approach. Again, Quebec stands out; it has already done its share.

Members can be sure that, if we were a sovereign state, the Kyoto protocol would have been signed already. But since we are still prisoners of the Constitution and of this Canadian government, we must work hard to convince the Parliament of Canada that Kyoto is a good thing.

As we can see, the Kyoto protocol is not only about economics, it is also about values. We must work together and sign the Kyoto agreement so that Canada and Quebec can be seen as leaders, as forward-looking states that believe in the environment. We must not be seen as people who cannot agree on such a fundamental issue. Right now, those who watch what is going on in Parliament can see that a lot more parliamentarians have risen to defend private interests than to defend the common good and the environment. It is obvious. How can we make a collective effort if we cannot even agree on ratification of the Kyoto protocol?

As I said at the beginning of my speech, some have a tendency to mix everything up. They try to instill fear by saying, “If you sign, tens of thousands of jobs will be lost”. I repeat, signing this agreement is a step toward the future. We are not going backward, we are going forward. We are already late, considering the amount of pollution that can be seen everywhere, whether in Canada, in the United States or elsewhere on the planet.

As for this protocol, which was negotiated in 1997 and which the Prime Minister said he supported during the earth summit in August 2002, we must go ahead and sign it. I challenge all parliamentarians in this House to make an effort and think about the community, the environment, the future and the heritage to be left to the new generation. We must put aside all private interests and industry related issues to think about making Canada an environmental leader. We must have a unanimous vote of this House to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Thus, we will show that we are ready to take a big step for future generations.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting presentation but a somewhat distorted view of our national economy perhaps.

The member suggested that if Quebec were independent it would have ratified and implemented the Kyoto accord some years ago because it has done all its work and has no more work to do. I find that to be an amazing statement considering that Quebec to my knowledge has not done any more than any of the other provinces. Certainly Quebec is blessed with abundant hydro electric power, a green source of power, an emission free source of power, but that does not exempt it from the responsibility of reducing its emissions to 30% or 20-some per cent below 1990 levels just as everyone else in Canada does.

I find the member's disregard for the rest of the Canadian provinces amazing, and it is just because Quebec was blessed with abundant hydro electric power. The west was blessed with abundant energy resources, fossil fuel resources, but because of that blessing Alberta sends $9 billion a year to Ottawa, a good part of which ends up in Quebec because of the transfer payments.

I suggest it is time for Quebec, if it is so wealthy in resources, to start supporting the federation similarly.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand to a certain extent the frustration of my colleague from western Canada, because in Quebec, we have been forward-looking. In Quebec, we had an action plan. We have been taking care of the environment for quite a long time. We made some economic choices, we relied on hydroelectricity rather than nuclear energy. This is obvious.

Today, Quebec should pay a portion of the bill of western Canadian polluters? This is unacceptable. We did our share. Now we are at ratification stage, but when we get to implementation stage, to be fair and equitable to Quebeckers, the federal government must at all costs go by territory and not by industry. We know very well that, if it goes by industry, oil companies will find a way, once again, to avoid taking their responsibilities and to continue polluting, as they are doing now.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his most interesting and emotional speech.

I say emotional because, fairly put, this debate and this subject matter does conjure up a great deal of emotion because it has the potential of having a grave impact on the future of our country and on future generations.

I do have some concerns about the statements that the hon. member has made about how the government intends to implement this without the cooperation of the provinces. I also take some umbrage at his suggestion that Quebec has done it better. Regarding the suggestion that Quebec relies on hydro, I dare say that the members from Newfoundland would be a little upset with the suggestion that it is only Quebec that is doing this.

Given the fact that the federal government has on many occasions gone ahead without the cooperation and support of Quebec, given the fact that we have eight provinces that have expressed grave concerns, given the fact that the government has broken its word on many issues--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Lotbinière—L'Érable.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed difficult to get across the reality of the figures, because the federal government has not given Quebec one red cent in support of its hydroelectric development. That is clear.

However, $66 billion went to support the development of the oil industry. This economic reality will need to be taken into consideration in connection with the Kyoto protocol, these figures will have to be considered. Quebec must not be penalized for having been too forward-looking, too proactive.

The figures being what they are, Quebec must be recognized for its efforts over a very long time in the environmental field.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we must be conserving energy in the Chamber today because it is really cold in here. I was wondering if we could get some heat in here.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga West.

My colleague across the way made the point that Quebec was doing everything and working toward a solution to cure the world. I am really glad that the Bloc is on line with Kyoto.

I do not think there is anyone in this Chamber, including the Alliance members, who are really torn on this particular issue, who does not think pollution is a bad thing. I do not think we would find a member of Parliament who would not agree on that.

We all recognize that carbon emissions are bad and that they are harmful not only to us but to the rest of the world, which is really what is at the heart of the whole Kyoto debate. We do not live in isolation. We must think about the rest of the world and what is happening. We are polluters. We have to step up to the plate. We have to know that we create some of the problems.

The member across the way talked about numbers. About 70% of Canadians right now support Kyoto. However, having said that, there are a large number of people who are unclear about just what Kyoto is, along with many members of Parliament.

I think ratification of the Kyoto protocol is absolutely paramount. However, has the plan been as clear as it could be? No. Do we have all the answers to the questions? No, we do not. Do we even know all the questions? No, we do not, but it is important to lead.

The Alliance member wants to know why we are signing it. We are signing it because we do think as a country it is important to lead. We do think it is important to stand up to the plate, take a number and do something. To do nothing, as the Canadian Alliance members are suggesting, is wrong. That will not help Canada and it will not help the world.

Some of the concerns out there are legitimate. I have heard them from members across the way and from organizations in my community, like the chambers of commerce and others. People are worried. They want to know what this will do to growth in the economy, which is a fair question to ask.

We have to understand that there will be an impact but that there will be a positive impact as well as a negative impact. The positive impact is when we do things like we have already started. For instance, in my community in Guelph we have a company called Linamar Corporation. It has 18 sites in Guelph. It employs a lot of people, does a lot of business and we think a lot of the company. In partnership with the federal government it wants to work against climate change. It is already underway in Guelph. We received $9.3 million in a repayable Technology Partnership Canada climate change action fund investment for the development of cleaner running small engines.

Is that not what it is all about? Is it not a good thing that we become a leader in technologies, that we become a model for the world, that we do develop new technologies, that we do hire people and that we do expand and lead? Quite frankly, I think that is what it is all about and I think that we are well positioned to do so.

The government, in this plan, has to continue to focus on that. Maybe everything has not been said as clearly as it should have been or could be but as we go along those are the kinds of things that we must focus on.

One thing that has been brought up, which is important, is our relationship with the provinces. Obviously all the provinces are not on line with this. Ontario, where I live, is not on line. It does not like this plan. In fairness, it worries that the costs will be put on it. It cannot do this alone.

If the federal government is to lead, it also has to have the dollars. Clearly, to have the dollars to sustain this, we have to monitor it. We have to work with the provinces on a really close basis to work through this. If we do not, this will be doomed to failure and it will not work.

We must not make any mistakes on that. We have to be clear that we need to work with the provinces. When Canadian Alliance members are worried about this, particularly those from Alberta, I understand from where they are coming. They do not want an made in Ottawa solution. They want a solution made by Canada with Alberta being a part of it, and I understand that.

I see an hon. member nodding his head. He says that I am right and I thank him for that.

There is no one answer that will fix this. It is a multitude of things. It is a process that we have to continue to work through, but it is a process that is worthwhile. It is a process that will help make the world better, not only Canada. That seems like a worthwhile endeavour. It seems worthwhile for us to stick our necks out for it. It seems like we should go to the light, follow it and work with it.

We need to constantly work on this plan, though. There is no question about that. The plan is not set in stone. The plan needs to evolve. There have to be hearings and continual work with parliamentarians to asses where we are at. That will be vital for this to be successful. If we do not do that, we really will have shirked our responsibilities. This can be a good, strong partnership and it is in the best interests of all.

My community has received a number of dollars for many things. We received $275,000 for studying the link between climate, water and water-borne illness and the projected impacts of climate change. I do not think anybody in the chamber would say that is not a good thing. We have to move toward this.

We also received $125,000 to house the coordinating office of the Canadian climate impacts and adaptation research network for agriculture. Again, agriculture is very important for the country. There is not one of us who does not eat. If we eat, then we should be interested in agriculture. It should be that simple. This does not have to be hard. It should be simple. We should just think about where we want to go and how we will get there. The Guelph Tribune , a local paper, summed it up. It stated:

Ideally, humans would not find themselves in a stark situation where their activities--some essential and some not--are threatening to cause havoc for people and other species on the planet. Having realized that's the situation we appear to be in, though, we need to do something about it. And Kyoto is the agreed-upon international vehicle for travelling down that road. It would be a momentous decision at this point for Canada not to get on board that vehicle to a more hopeful world...People might well have to change their behaviours significantly as a part of the effort to minimize the causes of global warming. The government should try to ease that burden, but it should keep its eye on the big picture.

The big picture is what we are talking about today. This is why the government feels we must move to sign Kyoto, but in that we must be mindful of all the things our colleagues across the way are telling us. We have to be mindful of what people in our communities are telling us and what provinces are telling us. If we are not mindful of those, this plan will not work in the manner it should. However make no mistake, we must sign Kyoto and we must do it now.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be interested to know just exactly what this plan is, how it will work and how much it will cost. Could the hon. member tell me and Canadians what the plan of the government is to meet the targets and what it cost Canadians?

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good question but it is really simplistic at this stage. I think the member is confused between ratification and the plan. We are looking to lead right now. We are moving in the direction of making a commitment for a better world, one that will serve our grandchildren and our great grandchildren well. I believe the hon. member would want that for her grandchildren and great grandchildren.

We have to move toward this. For the costing and the plan, we will all have to work together with the provinces and with Canadians. I believe we can do it, that we can be successful and that we must do it.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for her remarks. I believe she is very sincere in believing that Kyoto will improve the world.

She said in her remarks that we have to keep this simple. She was asked a very simple question about the impacts, the costs and what it will mean for Canadians in terms of their home heating oil and what it will mean for industry upon which Canadians rely for something as basic as a job.

She talks about pollution as if this agreement will affect pollution. That is a completely different issue. We are talking about greenhouse gas emissions here.

She also mentioned that 78% of Canadians support Kyoto. I suggest that figure is very questionable and is shifting, as are many of the statistics on this issue. However, she went on to talk about the fact that many Canadians are unclear on what Kyoto will do. That is evidenced even by her own comments, I say respectfully. There is a great deal that is not known about the impact of Kyoto that Canadians deserve to know.

My question to her is what is the rush? Why are we rushing headlong before Christmas to ratify this agreement, this international accord, this obligation? We do not want to be disingenuous, I say to the hon. member. Clearly, we want to live up to those commitments. We want to have the provinces onside, we want consensus, all of these good things, she would have to agree.

Again, why would the hon. member support this agreement knowing that eight of the provinces are not onside and knowing that the detail is still lacking on such an important issue that will affect our grandchildren and great grandchildren?

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right, the numbers are shifting but they are shifting upward, not downward, for support of Kyoto. That is the first thing.

The second thing the member talked about was industry. I really believe our great country will be on the leading edge. We have always been a leader and we will, in the green technologies, continue to lead. I have great faith that we will continue to generate jobs in that field and help the country and the rest of the world.

Unlike the member across the way, I really believe Canadians can do it and can do it best.

As far as the implementation date and why we would move toward this, we have been working on this for a long time. We have to move toward it. If we do not, we will be shirking our responsibilities.

I pointed out areas that we need to look at, and the member agreed. We need to look at the provinces and all kinds of other things. We can work toward that together, and I think that is important.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about a number of green projects in her riding that are admirable projects. However, anyone can take $9.2 million of taxpayer money and do a project on greening the environment and coming up with greener small engines.

If this thing is going to work, everyone has to do it without $9.2 million of federal money. In other words, what is going on in everyone's riding voluntarily. Who will pay for the retrofitting of thousands of homes and thousands of commercial buildings that will have to be done to meet our Kyoto commitment?

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on that particular point, I know that the hon. member supports jobs. The company that the member is speaking of was literally started by one man who immigrated here. Now he has 18 plants across my city. It is unbelievable what this man and his company have done. To dismiss the fact that a company can take some money to move ahead and lead the way for the rest of the country and at the same time change the world while it is doing that, is really too bad.

I feel that these things are important. I hope the government will continue leading.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to put a few thoughts on the record about the government's position, my position and my feelings about Kyoto.

One of the unfortunate things that is happening is the attempt to create the concept that when we vote on Kyoto and presumably ratify the accord, that somehow something magical will happen, that jobs will fall off the frontier, that costs will rise, that we will pay more for gas, et cetera.

The reality is, and members opposite know, that the decision to ratify Kyoto and the vote at the point that it is taken is not the end of this process. In fact, it is quite the contrary. I suggest that is the beginning of the process of Canada becoming a world leader in the reduction of greenhouse gases and in the improvement of the quality of our climate, our atmosphere, our air, everything that matters to our future.

People opposed to our ratifying the accord tell us not to wrap it around an emotional issue. It is not only the people who support ratifying Kyoto who care about their grandchildren, and I acknowledge that quite clearly, we all care. Perhaps many members opposite really do believe some of the propaganda that has been put out on this issue such as it will somehow cost us jobs and hurt our economic growth. I do not believe that members opposite are so disingenuous that they would simply argue against ratifying an accord that is so important to the future of this country and the entire world without believing their concerns to be real.

This issue is not about whether we have hugged a tree lately. This is about finding out what the best thing Canada can do as a sovereign nation to show some leadership and some courage because it does take some courage.

People ask what the hurry is and why does this have to be done before Christmas. I get the question from people in my own riding. The fact that we are only a couple of weeks away from adjourning for the Christmas session would seem to make that question a little more urgent.

The reality is that the decision to move ahead on the ratification of Kyoto has been a longstanding desire and the position of this government and this Prime Minister is that it is time to bring it to a head. How many times do we get calls on any given issue in our ridings from people telling us that all we do is talk? How many times do we get calls asking us to finally do something and to make a decision, or to stand up and fix this or fix that? Lo and behold a decision has been made to put a timeframe in place, to allow Parliament to debate and to hear from Canadians all over the country on this issue. We are having this huge public debate but all of a sudden we are moving too quickly. It does not seem that there is a way to satisfy everybody.

Canada is obviously a country that is very difficult to govern. What is needed is leadership. That is what we are seeing from the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Environment and the government. Members may not agree with the leadership, and I do not have a problem with that, but they cannot deny, and Canadians should recognize, that the government is telling people what it will do.

People are asking to see the plan. I submit this is a bit like some of the debates in this place where people ask to see documents and then when they see them they say that is not good enough and they ask for more. We show them more and still they say that is not good enough and they point out what is wrong. This is a bit of a mug's game.

The fact of the matter is that a plan is in place and the provinces have been working with the federal government. Municipalities are way ahead of us. It is time we got on the bus and caught up to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

The government invested in the municipal sector by providing a green fund of $250 million. I thank the member for pointing out the fact that the government has shown that kind of leadership. That only makes sense. The municipal sector is already there. I would suggest many people in the private sector are already there.

One of the things that is disturbing is that this whole debate is being framed as an us versus them scenario: central Canada against western Canada; Canada against the United States; government against business; the feds against the provinces; politics against science, and Lord knows there are not too many scientists in this place; and the government against the opposition, which is the norm. It should be none of those things because this is for all Canadians.

The plan that is being discussed would be a living plan. It would be necessary for us to continue looking for new ways to help people insulate their homes. Perhaps put in place a policy, something that I intend to fight for in my role as parliamentary secretary for crown corporations, where any project that is developed for affordable housing, or any housing, that involves federal dollars would be built to at least a level of R-2000. We should ensure that level of insulation takes place wherever we can. We must show that kind of leadership as the national government, as I believe we will.

I want to talk about the fears that I have had expressed in my riding. People write or phone and say they do not understand at all. They understand that the United States is not ratifying and everything that we do, that we give and suffer for, may be lost because we live next door to the elephant, and there is no benefit in it. However, let me make some points if I may.

At both the federal and state level, the United States has already taken significant action to address climate change, and will continue to do that. I believe as many as 42 states in the U.S. already have legislation in place that goes a large measure toward the exact same goals of Kyoto. President Bush has appropriated $3 billion from the United States Congress to spend on Kyoto initiatives.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that President Bush, being from Texas, may well want to stand up publicly and say that he does not support Kyoto, notwithstanding that the former president, President Clinton, in fact did. So he has officially pulled out. However, let us not be misled. The states of California, Washington, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Maryland, and even Texas to a certain degree, have put in place changes to recognize the need to stop emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

I want to address the issue of science. None of us in this place, to my knowledge, or very few, are scientists or capable of debating this issue from that perspective. But at the end of the day, we have a responsibility that goes beyond science. We are not elected to be scientists; we are elected to be pragmatic. We are elected to look at the argument from all sides. We are elected on all sides of the House to examine the principles that are in place and to decide whether or not we believe they are the best for our country, for our ridings, and for the international world in which we live.

Canada was not supported by the United States in the landmines treaty, and yet we moved on the landmines treaty. We are recognized as one of the leading nations in the world on that particular issue. We should not, and cannot, and will not, shirk our duty as it relates to the environment. That is why the government is committed to ratifying Kyoto, so that we can begin the process. It is not an end. It is the beginning of a process that would see us lead to show that kind of international leadership that Canada is well known throughout the world for and that we can all be proud of.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member opposite because during his commentary I did not hear him use the word pollution. The Kyoto protocol is not about pollution and he did not mention it. I commend him for that because many commentators use the word pollution.

The member passes the vehicles that are used by the cabinet ministers outside here each day, many of them idling constantly. What does he think of the vehicles that the cabinet ministers use and that are idling hour after hour?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am told it will be -22°C in Ottawa tonight and if we are going to have people waiting out there, I hope they have the car running because we may not have to worry about whether they are capable of driving it if we leave them out there too long.

However the member makes a point in all seriousness about the issue of idling vehicles. I want the member to know that the entire city of Mississauga was the first city in Ontario, if not Canada, to declare itself a no-idling zone. We have ads in all our bus shelters and billboards throughout the community that say, “Turn your car off while your're waiting”.

The member's colleague who spoke for 11 hours made a reference, once every 15 minutes, to the vehicles outside this place waiting for the cabinet ministers. It is a little simplistic to refer to the fact that there are a dozen or so vehicles sitting outside for a period of half an hour or whatever waiting for their bosses to come out. It shows that from time to time the opposition is looking for trivial examples to do exactly that, trivialize the debate. This is not about changing light bulbs which is another point I heard the member's colleague make; that we could solve this by getting everyone to change their light bulbs down to 25 or 40 watts.

This is a comprehensive plan that shows leadership by the government and that all Canadians can indeed be proud of. Ten years from now Canadians will stand up and say, “what in the world was all the fuss about? We are world leaders in climate change”.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is that type of minutia that the government is asking Canadians to do. It is asking them to fix their homes so they are more energy efficient. They are asking them to drive less. They are asking them potentially to take on all of the costs of Kyoto and the provinces are concerned about what the impact would actually be.

The hon. member made a couple of points with respect to the propaganda that some provinces are putting out. I wonder if he is aware of the propaganda that his government put out, including advertisements during the Grey Cup. Now he talks about the need to quickly ratify the accord in Parliament. His government prorogued Parliament, delayed coming back, monkeyed around with some of the bills, and backed this particular debate up against the release of the Romanow report. Now we are in this huge rush, three weeks before the Christmas break.

He spoke of the merits of the United States approach and praised the U.S. position. The government is trying to make up ground now on Canada-U.S. relations, but clearly provinces like the American states can do things on their own. The member from Quebec mentioned what his province was doing.

The member who just spoke made some inconsistent remarks in his short speech. His future leader has flipped and flopped on a lot of things, including GST, free trade, tax cuts, and military spending. He has flipped again on this issue. He initially said we should take our time, and that we should have a fulsome debate. Today and yesterday he said we should quickly ratify.

Why the rush to ratify knowing there is no consensus, no impact study, and no realistic acknowledgment that this is an achievable plan, that we in fact will be able to meet the 6% reduction targets by the year 2012?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat ironic to be accused by my hon. friend of throwing accusations over here that the government has found ways to stall or to delay the debate on this when it is the opposition that has done exactly that. My hon. friend is probably the leading proponent of finding ways to stall and throw some mud into the gears of this particular place.

However, let me answer his question about why the rush. This is not a rush. For five years meetings were going on, co-chaired by the Government of Canada and the province of Alberta, on how we could arrive at the point that we are at today. That is over five years since Kyoto, not to even mention the time before that in Rio de Janeiro.

The homework has been done on this. My hon. friend refuses to accept the information and he should at least acknowledge that. Whether we put it out at a Grey Cup game or not, he refuses to accept the facts.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I received an interesting e-mail today from a Japanese-Canadian. “Kyo” in Japanese means capital and “to” means city. That is where the word Kyoto comes from. He also said he wanted to reflect on the Kyoto protocol from a Canadian perspective. He created an acronym, KYOTO, Kill Your Opportunity To Outperform. I thought that was interesting, a Japanese-Canadian making that observation.

I would like to discuss the Kyoto accord from four perspectives: environmental, medical, scientific and political.

We have had plenty of opportunity to listen to some other perspectives so I will not spend extra time there. I consider myself to be an environmentalist. I am a hiker, hunter and fisherman. Some of the most enjoyable times I spend are in the wilds on my own away from the telephone. I hate to say that because the telephone follows us as politicians.

I accept that there is warming going on in Canada. As a young man hiking in the Rockies I noted glaciers that were at a specific spot and today those glaciers have receded and there is only one logical explanation for that and that is warming.

I accept that there are changes in the north, that permafrost in areas where it has not melted before is melting today, but what explains this warming to my mind is the issue. I hope that in the summation of the comments that are heard in the House of Commons over the next little while that we will make some sense of this.

Let me go then to the perspective from a medical viewpoint. As a medical doctor most of my life I treated pollution related diseases like asthma. I treated diseases from the perspective of particulates and smog. One of the things I remember as a young medical student was being shown in the anatomy lab the lung from a deceased person who lived in the city compared to the lung from a deceased person who lived in the country. I will never forget that.

The lung from the city dweller was black and tar-like and very scrunchy and the lung from the country dweller was pink and very flexible. The lesson that I was given, as I looked at those two lungs, was that there was a difference between the particulate matter, the smoke and so on that a city dweller breathed compared to somebody who lived in the country.

I understand and know that particulate matter is not beneficial to health but I object to global warming and the Kyoto protocol being equated with pollution. They are not the same thing. I will admit that reducing the use of carbon based fuels would have a secondary effect on pollution but the primary effect is on CO

2

which is not a pollutant. CO

2

is the gas that I am exhaling while I stand here and talk. It is a normal gas and it is necessary for plant life. I object to the use of the phrase pollution conjointly with the change of the temperature on our planet.

Pollution is very, very different. Frankly, I think we are attacking this problem backwards. I said that reducing fossil fuel consumption will have a secondary effect on pollution and I believe that we should be attacking this primarily on the pollution side.

Let me turn, then, to some of the scientific views. The colleague who spoke before me said that there are no scientists in the House. I think he would have been accurate if he had said that there are no climatologists in the House. I know that there are scientists in the House.

Because the issue is complex and does involve global calculations, I ask the question: Is there scientific unanimity on the issue of climate change? The answer, frankly, is no.

The second question I would pose is this: Is human activity hastening the planet's natural warming and cooling cycle? On this issue I have had a very interesting opportunity to look at the science of the past when it comes to the world's warming and cooling cycles. I took geology as a university undergrad. I found it a fascinating subject. I learned about a host of things, about fossil evidence and sedimentary evidence at the base of lakes and the oceans, and I learned about tree rings and how we can look at growth patterns in the past and extrapolate. I learned about carbon dating. Recently I have also learned about satellite observations of temperature.

All these things allow us to look back into prehistoric time. This is evident from a graph I have in front of me, which is called “Average Global Temperature” and which looks all the way back to Precambrian time. It is interesting to note that the world has moved between 12°C and 22°C, with one specific little blip above 22°C, as average global temperatures throughout prehistory. There have been specific times of warming, in the Cambrian and Ordovician periods, in the Silurian and Devonian periods, between the Permian and Triassic periods, with a long warming plateau all the way through the Jurassic period, and in the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods, and then there was a significant cooling. There have been cooling times and they are spread out through prehistory in fairly synchronous time periods. The coolest we reached was between Ordovician and Silurian times, and then during the Carboniferous and Permian times.

What does all this mean, this look at prehistory? It means that there has been a cycle of cooling and warming on this planet. What explains the cooling and warming of our planet? What scientists have said is that it is today being aggravated by human activity and what scientists have said that there is an alternate explanation?

Here we get into the scientific debate. It is quite difficult to say for certain that there is no human impact on warming of our planet today.

It is interesting to note on this graph that in today's time period we are just above the coolest that the earth has ever been, which was 12°C. We are sitting at 13°C today, as best I can tell from this graph. There is, on the graph, a very slow warming trend.

Is human activity the major determinant? The scientists I have talked with have said no, that human activity is not the major determinant. The obvious question, then: What is? The correlation between these warming periods throughout the earth's history, according to the scientists I spoke with, relates to sunspot activity. During the periods where the earth warms up dramatically, there is an increase in sunspot activity.

I raise all this not to say that this is conclusive, because it would be wrong for me to say that. I say that because there is another explanation for the cyclical warming and cooling of this earth. It is pretty obvious that we did not have industrial activity and carbon fuel consumption during the Jurassic period, where we were warmed, and I would be wrong if I even said how many years this was, during a significant period of prehistory. We had no industrial activity during the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods, when suddenly in the middle of the Tertiary period the earth cooled down. I have had scientists tell me that the earth cooled down because of cloud cover. I am not certain that there is a conclusive body of evidence on the issue of the cyclical warming and cooling of our planet.

Let me now go to the political component of this issue. Here we have the debate that is taking place in the House. Canada produces 2% of the world's man-made CO

2

emissions. We do not produce much. Seventy per cent of the world is not going to go down the road of the Kyoto protocol process. Canada is large, northern, cold and energy rich. From my perspective, the Kyoto protocol is going to impact Canada more than any other country that has ratified it.

Will there be economic costs to Canada? There will. Harmonization with the U.S. has been something that we have undertaken with our motor vehicles up to this point in time. As the U.S. backs away from the protocol, harmonization with the U.S. on our motor vehicles is going to suffer. Frankly, California has driven more pollution reduction, and I use that word outside the Kyoto context, than anything that Canada has done. Investment by U.S. sources will be reduced. This news is coming today from a very large survey of investment brokers in the U.S. saying that if we ratify Kyoto then the investment decisions from the U.S. will change. That will impact upon us. Exploration will shift to non-Kyoto jurisdictions, out of Canada to parts of the world where the Kyoto protocol is not being signed.

It is only fair to say that in fact there will be, in some parts of Canada, some economic benefits to ratifying Kyoto. If we are going to talk about this in a balanced way, there are. In my own constituency there is a very windy part of this country: Pincher Creek. There will be a benefit to Pincher Creek with wind power augmentation in Canada. There will be a benefit to the fuel cell technology developed largely here in Canada, the Ballard fuel cell technology, if we go down the road of the Kyoto protocol. Will there be a benefit if we insulate more of our homes? Yes, there will, in the long term. It will return a benefit to the homeowner.

What I want to be able to tell my constituents is whether the cost-benefit ratio is balancing out in favour of Kyoto or not. At this point, I must say that I cannot see the cost-benefit analysis well enough to make an informed judgment. I could see it if the government had an implementation plan laid out plainly, a plan that had costs and sectoral breakdowns. I would love to be having that debate here with individuals who I believe are sincere when they say they want to have our environment looked after better.

What does the Alliance propose? What does my party propose so that Canadians will know that it is not reactionary about the environment, that it is concerned about the environment? I am talking now specifically about Kyoto, not pollution.

Number one, we want to have no decisions without a good plan that shows the costs, no permanent, binding decisions.

Number two, we want an accord that reflects our distinct geography, climate, economy and energy supplies. That equates to a made in Canada solution accord.

Number three, we think the idea of international emissions trading is the most counterproductive thing that could be allowed, allowing some countries money from Canada to allow us to continue produce CO

2,

presuming that CO

2

is the problem, as has been stated. That is counterproductive. We are absolutely opposed to international emissions trading.

Next, and this is now my perspective rather than that of my party, I believe that we should be attacking pollution and then getting a secondary reduction in CO

2

emissions, rather than the other way around. I have spoken to that. I believe that would enhance alternative energy production. I believe that hydro, wind, ethanol, fuel cell and all the other things would be enhanced, and I strongly support that.

Finally, we should be spending research dollars in Canada to enhance changes to pollution, not Kyoto, so that those dollars will be spent in Canada.

I think I could belabour the issue and talk about it for ages. Those are the points I did want to make. I feel that it is a privilege for me to speak in a debate that will affect my kids and, in fact, the Speaker's children.

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among all the parties and I believe that you will find consent for the following motion. I move:

That as of 6:30 p.m. this day, no quorum calls, no dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Speaker, and if no member rises to speak before 10:30 p.m., the House will adjourn until the next sitting day.