Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2002

Petitions

[Gary Pillitteri, Liberal, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the third petition, many constituents of mine call on Parliament to focus its legislative support on stem cell research for cures and therapies.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition calling on Parliament to take steps to prevent the distribution of materials involving pedophilia and sado-masochistic activities.

I note that in my riding these lists are forming the basis of a direct mail and telemarketing solicitation. I have had complaints in my riding that people who have signed these lists that are distributed all across the land and appear in Parliament suddenly find themselves receiving mail solicitations for donations. We should treat this type of material with our usual good caution in the House.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present four petitions, all on the same matter, signed by residents from the area of Nunavik, Puvirnituk, Kangiqsujuaq, Akulivik and Kuujjuaq.

The federal government, through one of its departments, ordered the killing of Inuit sled dogs from 1950 to 1969, in New Quebec.

The federal government adopted a policy supporting the dog killing.

The federal government did not hold public consultations with the Inuit communities in New Quebec.

We are asking for a public inquiry into the federal policy of dog killing that was implemented in Nunavik.

Lastly, the federal government made no effort to suggest corrective action to help the Inuit communities maintain their way of life.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to revert to the introduction of private members' bills?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent to revert to private members' bills?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Kyoto Protocol

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Just before statements by members the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill had 12 minutes remaining in her speech, followed by a 10 minute question period.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been identifying for Canadians nine myths about climate change which have been brought forward by climate change specialists.

I would like to continue with myth 4 which states that if the earth warms, it will be disastrous for the environment and human society. That is a myth according to climate change specialists. Climate historians say that during warm periods civilization flourished while in cold periods there was more drought, famine, wars and disease.

Myth 5 is that extreme weather events are expected to be more common if the earth warms. This has already started. More droughts, floods, forest fires, et cetera, are on the rise as a result of our greenhouse gas emissions.

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a meteorologist with 25 years experience with Environment Canada, showed in a study about to be published that extreme weather events are not currently increasing anywhere in Canada. He says, “Extreme weather events are definitely on the decline over the last 40 years”.

Myth 6 is that sea level is rising quickly and will get worse if the polar ice caps melt due to global warming. Coastal settlements and low lying islands will be submerged. That is a myth according to climate change experts. They say sea level has been rising naturally since the end of the last ice age and this has not accelerated recently.

Myth 7 is that humanity is causing earth's polar regions to warm quickly resulting in unusual rates of ice melting. That is a myth according to the climate change specialists. In fact, Mr. Winsor, of Göteborg University in Sweden, used detailed measurements to conclude in a report published just last year, and I guess the Minister of the Environment may not have seen it, which stated:

“...there was no trend towards a thinning ice cover during the 1990s. Data from the North Pole shows a slight increase in mean ice thickness, whereas the Beaufort Sea shows a small decrease, none of which are significant”.

Myth 8 is that Kyoto will save thousands of lives by cutting air pollution. The fact is, according to these climate change experts, Kyoto is not a pollution treaty. Carbon dioxide is in no way a pollutant. We breathe it in and out every day. Plants use it for photosynthesis. Real pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxides, can be reduced with far less expensive methods than a greenhouse gas treaty.

Myth 9 is that solar and wind power can soon be significant contributors to the base load energy needs of Canada. The experts say that both solar and wind power are far too diffuse and intermittent to ever provide more than a small fraction of the energy needs of any major industrialized nation, let alone a vast northern country like Canada.

This is what climate change experts say about the kinds of arguments we are hearing from the Liberal government. Nine myths that they say are completely without scientific basis. Who are these experts? They are: Dr. Tim Patterson, a professor of paleoclimatology; Dr. Morgan, a climate consultant and Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; and Dr. Madhav Khandekar, an environmental consultant who has 25 years experience with Environment Canada as a research scientist. Dr. Khandekar states:

Climate change is the most complex issue humanity has ever handled. To pretend that the science is sufficiently mature to substantiate rushing forward with ratifying Kyoto is ridiculous in the extreme.

On hearing about the environment minister's confident predictions of the dire effects of not ratifying Kyoto, the professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says Dr. Khandekar, and one of the lead authors of the report on which the Kyoto protocol was based, laughed, and said, “There is a certain charm when politicians are so certain of the science when the scientists are not.” That is what Dr. Khandekar, a former research scientist with Environment Canada, who holds a Ph.D. in meteorology, and has worked in the fields of climatology, meteorology and oceanography for over 45 years had to say.

To continue the list of experts, they are: Dr. de Freitas, professor at the School of Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland in New Zealand; Dr. David Wojick, Canadian climate specialist and President of climatechangedebate.org; Dr. Kenneth Green, expert reviewer for the UN report on which Kyoto was based; Dr. Tim Ball, professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg; Dr. Petr Chylek, professor of physics and atmospheric science at Dalhousie University; Dr. Michel, professor with the Department of Earth Sciences and an Arctic regions specialist in Ottawa; David Nowell, past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group; Dr. Sallie Baliunas, specialist in sun/earth climate interactions; Dr. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia; Dr. Fred Seitz, climate specialist and past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences; Dr. Art Robinson, founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine which focuses on climate change and CO

2

; Dr. Hans Jelbring, wind and climate specialist from Stockholm, Sweden; Dr. Hans Erren, geophysicist and climate specialist from the Netherlands; and Peter Dietze, energy and climate specialist, and official scientific reviewer from Germany who reviewed the report on which Kyoto was based.

I wish I could name all of these people who are renowned experts in their field of climate change, and who are saying that the whole argument that somehow Kyoto has to be signed to protect us from climate change is nonsense.

If the science is solid then why is the government so afraid of including scientists who challenge the government's stance on Kyoto into the debate? When some of these leading scientists, who I have just quoted, asked to be part of the debate, they were not allowed to be heard. The government said they were not stakeholders.

The government does not want to hear the truth because this is not about science. It is not about climate change. It is not about what is best for Canadians. It is not about what is best for the environment. It is about what is best for the Prime Minister who desperately needs a legacy to hold up as he is leaving office. That is the sad truth of the matter.

It is so clear that Kyoto does not address the environment. It does not address pollution and it does not clean up the environment. It is clear that Canada produces only 2% of global CO

2

even if it was a problem. Less than 10% of carbon dioxide is man made. In fact, some estimates are only 2% and Canada produces only 2% of that. Yet the government is acting like ratifying the accord is a matter of life or death when we have minuscule, fractional measurements of carbon dioxide. The accord is not dealing with a pollutant.

Even the government's own figures say that Kyoto would result in a loss of GDP of $16.5 billion a year. That is before it figured out it had better hide the numbers. Estimates by other more objective groups are a lot higher. We must remember that the government has a track record of lowballing program costs to sell its initiatives. It is difficult to have any faith in the government numbers. Even if their lowball figures are correct, it is $16.5 billion a year that this deal would cost and most other objective estimates are far higher than that.

If we have an extra $16.5 billion to spend, would Canadians not want it to be spent on reducing carbon dioxide for a fractional amount when it is not even a pollutant? Would they not rather spend $16.5 billion on cleaning up the smog over our cities and helping out the hundreds of communities in this first world country, many of them aboriginal communities, that are under boil water orders because they do not have clean water? Would they not rather clean up the toxic waste sites that the Auditor General has just said the government has done nothing about?

Yet the government, which has done nothing about toxic waste, smog and the clean water needs of hundreds of communities in the country, has the nerve to get up and say that we have to sign Kyoto to reduce our 2% production of man-made CO

2

. This is where the real priorities of the government are. It is not in the environment. It is not in common sense. It is not in science. It is in making political hay for the Prime Minister.

Canada should mandate a decrease in the emission of real pollutants. It should invest in environmental clean up. It should support research and development into alternative fuel sources and energy conservation measures and products. It should offer possible tax credits to award innovation, energy conservation and environmentally friendly practices. However this Kyoto accord completely misses all those important initiatives and must be rejected. I urge the House to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly enjoyed the speech given by my hon. colleague from Calgary.

I guess there is a little fact that is well known and that is, there are many scientists on both sides of this argument. One of the most interesting things I heard recently was a scientist who said that for years and years, if we tracked the mean temperatures at different locations in North America, which is where they have the records, we would see that the temperatures go up and down. I wish we could use graphic aids in the House but I guess my hands are the only props I am permitted. The temperatures are cyclical. It is true that from time to time, over a 50 year or up to an 80 year cycle, the temperatures will gradually go up and they will turn around and go down again.

The scientist said that what distressed him the most about some of his scientific colleagues was that they were now willing to somehow predict that the cyclical nature of temperature changes would be abandoned and the current uphill trend would become a straight line extrapolation. He said that there was no scientific basis whatsoever for that extrapolation, for that curve to go up and down. He said that it was unjustified to say that the current uphill increase in the temperatures would not keep going up invariably. I would like my colleague to comment on that type of science.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is correct. The University of Virginia climatologist, Dr. Patrick Michaels, says that statements about dramatic increases in global temperature are stark examples of non-science.

A closer look at the 20th century temperature record shows three distinct trends. First, a warming trend of about half a degree Celsius began in the late 19th century and peaked around 1940. We must remember that 1940 was, supposedly, when all of this carbon dioxide burning started, but the warming trend peaked at 1940. Then from 1940 until the late 1970s temperature decreased. This was when there were fears of a coming glacial period by some of the same environmentalist alarmists who are now telling us that we have to fight global warming.

There was a third warming trend from 1976 to 1986 after which the increase becomes very small.

The question is, where do environmental groups get the idea that our planet has warmed dramatically in recent decades? The answer is simple, according to the climate change experts, they are using the wrong data. Instead of citing modern, accurate, space based measurements, they quote error prone, ground based temperature readings that give little indication of true global trends. The earth based readings are notoriously inaccurate, according to the experts. Most of them come from developing countries that do not properly maintain their stations or records. Nearly all of these stations are land based even though three-quarters of our planet is covered with water.

Second, urban sprawl has enveloped many temperature sensing stations in heat islands which are significantly warmer than the surrounding countryside.

The climate change specialists, and I quoted a number of them in my remarks, are saying that this perception, this scaremongering about global warming, is completely and utterly baseless.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton.

One of the first speakers on the bill spoke for over 11 hours on the subject of Kyoto and various aspects of it. I think it is demonstrative of the breadth of input and diversity of opinion that exists.

Quite frankly, I am not surprised that Canadians are maybe a little concerned that they do not have the information they require. I think Canadians are generally aware that Kyoto has to do with greenhouse gases. I think they probably understand that it has something to do with climate change impacts when they think of El Nino, La Nina, the Winnipeg floods, the Quebec ice storm, the western droughts and the floods in Quebec, some very stark and dramatic examples of aberrant climatic events. Those are events that concern Canadians but I think they understand that if there were something we could do to mitigate the incidence of those, we would seriously consider it.

Canadians also have indicated a significant interest in the health side of the parameters surrounding the equation of the Kyoto discussion. I am sure all members of Parliament have had correspondence from and meetings with their constituents about the environmental impacts of particulate matter, of the burning of fossil fuels, of car emissions and of the importation of harmful elements in our air, which are important. For instance, about 40% to 50% of our particulate matter comes from the Ohio valley in the United States. However we also export some of ours, because, quite frankly, those harmful things in our environment move. They are transportable and global.

One of the important aspects that Canadians should understand is that 9% of all the greenhouse gas emissions in the world affect Canada's climate, that is 9%, which is not insignificant.

Another interesting fact that I came across in the environment minister's documents, which are available to all Canadians through their members of Parliament and which are on the minister's website, is that Canada is the largest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases. On a person by person basis, Canadians produce more greenhouse gases per person than anyone else in the world. That is a very stark factor but I have had people come back to me and say that since it was only 2% of the overall greenhouse gas emissions globally, why would we be concerned about it. We should be concerned about it because 9% of global greenhouse emissions do affect us. It is important that we put these things in perspective.

I do not think I should have to stand here and list all the people who are for and against something. I think we have come now to the point where people are looking for a little bit of synthesis of what has been said.

I have come to the conclusion that in the main people who are in favour of ratifying the Kyoto protocol generally talk about the benefits to Canadians. Just today I received a letter from the Registered Nurses Association in which it stated, “We hope that you will support the reduction of greenhouse gases from 6% below 1990 levels by the year 2012. In the interest of improving the health of Canadians the nurses organization also urges that we maximize the co-benefits of cleaner air by employing an implementation strategy that aims at reducing all fossil fuel emission and other air pollutants”.

The nurses of Ontario are saying that it is a health issue, that it has an effect on the general health of Canadians. I think most Canadians, particularly those who have seniors and children in their midst, will know that the prevalence of puffers in our society has gone off the charts. People are having respiratory problems and it is not unrelated to Kyoto.

On the other hand, those who speak against Kyoto in my view seem to be speaking on the basis of not the interest of Canadians but rather the interest of their business or industry.

Today in the Quorum document the heading reads “Auto parts firm slams Kyoto”. It is saying that the key issue for auto parts makers and the auto industry is the potential damage that could be done to investment in Canada if Canada ratifies the Kyoto accord.

We know the nurses support ratification of the Kyoto accord. We also know that the auto sector does not support it. One is in the interest of individual Canadians. The other is in the interest of business.

Canadians should look for those things and look at the rationalization for arguments when people speak. If they are part of an industry sector, part of the fossil fuel industry, the petroleum industry in Alberta for instance, if they are part of a very rich province in the manufacturing sector which is a heavy consumer of fossil fuels, chances are Canadians will see that the provinces may come out opposed to Kyoto.

The stories in the newspapers of late have demonstrated that there are some difficulties between the views of the federal government, the Minister of the Environment and some of the provincial premiers. The premiers came up with a list of 12 conditions under which they would be prepared to have further discussions on the ratification of Kyoto and what it meant.

One of the two that the federal government has not concurred with is that the provinces have asked the federal government to pick up the tab if there is any impact on their economy. That is an interesting point. However I wonder if they would also accept this. If the government has to back stop losses as a result of Kyoto, will the provinces be prepared to share, in excess of their burden on taxation, any benefits from Kyoto? They cannot have it one way only. It should be a two-way street. If good things happen with Kyoto, the federal government and Canadians should benefit. If bad things happen with Kyoto, the provinces have said that they want to be held harmless and that the federal government should pay the bill. We all know the federal government has no money of its own. It is taxpayer money.

I believe one of the most important things that Canadians should realize is that the debate going on now with regard to Kyoto demonstrates clearly the need for a national government. Let me repeat the point. There is no consensus on Kyoto and there is disagreement on the various aspects of Kyoto and its impacts, costs et cetera. As a consequence, it is a clear demonstration that we need a strong national government to look for consensus and to take a leadership role on a very difficult issue.

Have we ever done this before? Of course we have. Acid rain. Did we not have an acid rain outcry? Our lakes were dying. On the consequences of acid rain, people were talking about the billions and billions of dollars. We could not cost it out though. Today people say that we should cost out Kyoto right down to the penny of how much it will cost between now and 2012 to get reach our targets. However, did we do that with acid rain? No. We made a commitment on acid rain. We said that it was something that should not happen and that it was in the best interests of Canada and of future generations to deal with it, and we did.

We did not wait for all the little nitpicking points, where people wanted to get the i s dotted and the t s crossed. It took bold leadership and acid rain was addressed by the Government of Canada.

Are there any other examples? Sure there are. How about the ozone. There was serious concern about the depletion of the ozone layer and about that whole problem again related to hydrofluoric carbons out of I believe aerosol cans and all the other causes of how this hole might be developing, allowing less filtration of the deadly impacts of sun rays. We have addressed it. We took action on that.

I only have a few minutes. It is unfortunate that one member had 11 hours and I have 10 minutes, but in 10 minutes I want to say that I think we dealt pretty well with unleaded gas.

The federal government has demonstrated clearly that exhaustive consultation of all sectors and being open to those points is very important. However at the end of the day it is the national government, under the executive authority of the national government, that must make those tough decisions and show leadership on a very important matter affecting the health of Canadians.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I caught from the member's speech. The acid rain and the ozone treaties were not international treaties. They were bilateral treaties and did not have the potential impact on the Canadian economy that the Kyoto accord would.

Second, if the member thinks his time in the House to debate this issue is not sufficient, why do he and his colleagues not ask the Prime Minister for more time? There is no rush. There is no crisis tomorrow. The sky will not fall tomorrow. Why do we not have more time after the Christmas break to have a proper debate on this issue when we really have a plan to get us to the target, not 60 million tonnes short of it?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not need 11 hours to make my point. In 10 minutes I think I can make enough points to demonstrate to the member that it is time we look at the synthesis of the key points not being made, unlike the prior speaker who had to spend 10 minutes of a 20 minute speech listing the companies who are against Kyoto ratification.

At this point, Canadians should know that Kyoto will mean smarter homes, efficient cars, alternative energy source development, cleaner air and demonstrate yet again that a national government has to show leadership on important issues affecting the health of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, to get back to the initiatives that the federal government is supposedly going to take, as the hon. member opposite stated, does he recognize that greenhouse gas emissions in Canada will never be reduced if this double-talk continues? On one hand, we are talking about ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and, on the other, about continuing current subsidies to the oil industry.

In fact, the government gave the oil industry $66 billion in subsidies between 1970 and 1999, compared to a mere $329 million for renewable energy. During a period during which this government was in office for part of the time, from 1990 to 2000, $2.6 billion went to the oil industry, as compared to a paltry $76 million to renewable energy.

Can we not agree that significant change is necessary and that we need to echo the commitment made by the European community at the earth summit in Johannesburg? Such a commitment would mean that 15% of our total energy production would come from wind, sun and other renewable sources. Should this government not make such a commitment?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some have suggested that Canada cannot demonstrate that we can meet our targets. Therefore, I assume by that argument they are saying that we should do nothing. Well nothing is not an alternative.

Over the last 10 years, we have had exhaustive consultations on an important global problem, not just a national problem. If Canada cannot meet its targets, then nobody can meet its targets. We can have efficient homes. We can start producing ethanol so that our cars do not emit the dangerous emissions that they do now. We can have better habits and better marketing of products without all the wastage in packaging. We can deal with our transportation problems.

I believe very sincerely that Kyoto will be the springboard against which we will be smarter in terms of our energy consumption and it will translate immediately into a better and healthier Canada.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the motion regarding the Kyoto accord and to raise my concerns and, in fact, my dismay and opposition to the circumstances surrounding this motion.

First, by this motion, the government is asking the House to call upon it to ratify this treaty. Under present national circumstances that is a most peculiar and, dare I say, unusual procedure in a parliamentary system. What we have heard repeatedly, and know to be unquestionably true, is that cabinet can ratify, that is to say recommend to Her Majesty that it be signed. Therefore the motion is in a form which seeks to have the House tell the executive branch to commit an act which the executive branch can do without any advice or direction from the chamber. This is, therefore, a take note debate which for reasons of political misdirection has attached to it a vote which is unnecessary and meaningless. It is unnecessary because the signing or ratification of a treaty is an exclusive prerogative of the Crown and it is misleading because the House can never give orders to the Crown on its exclusive rights or prerogatives.

Second, Kyoto is, once ratified, an irrevocable accord among nations. Once signed, the executive is bound. It is obligated to do all necessary to implement it. That is why our system, the Westminster model, demands that certain conditions precedent be met before signing it. There is good reason for this. It is, if we consider the popular term, the due diligence of our form of government. It exacts an extremely high standard of assessment by the executive, that is the cabinet, be met before advice to proceed, that is to say ratify, is given to Her Majesty to sign. A treaty is, above all, an agreement between or among sovereign states.

Approximately 85 years ago, a Liberal justice minister and attorney general, the Hon. David Mills, a member of both the Mackenzie and Laurier cabinets, wrote and later lectured on the subject of treaties and their implementation in Canada. He stressed that when a treaty would have direct impact on provincial governments, whether there be a cost or an impact on existing provincial laws, the federal government should not proceed to ratify until consensus be reached. I stress consensus not unanimity. We have heard both inside and outside the chamber that the federal cabinet has the unquestioned legal right in every way to sign and therefore the provinces will be required to live with it.

As I speak in this place today, eight provinces are not in agreement with the federal plan. These provinces, as represented by their cabinets and premiers as first ministers, are opposed to that which is proposed here. Today they are saying that they do not wish to be bound by this accord and at least one, if press reports are correct, will take concerted legislative steps to counter the effects of the so-called implementation plan.

I therefore ask and wonder where is the due diligence of this chamber in proceeding when there is clearly and unequivocally no consensus.

I would point out that on September 2 in Johannesburg the Prime Minister in his speech said that he would obtain consensus among the provinces before he proceeded, yet here we are proceeding.

We have, as we know, inherited a British style of treaty making. It is clear that country, Great Britain, had great global influence and interests around the world at one time which necessitated that the art, that is to say the steps to be taken before a treaty be signed, of necessity be fastidiously followed. This stress of due diligence had good reason. It recognized that the federal cabinet, giving advice to the Crown on the subject of ratifying a treaty, should not put itself in a spot or position whereby it would be in conflict or clash with itself, realizing that provincial governments gave advice to the Crown also as to their sentiments or agreement in adhering to the direct effects the treaty would have on it.

In brief, provincial consensus is absolutely necessary because it is they who will shoulder some of the costs and today there is no provincial agreement to do so. Today we see a state of profound disagreement, a fundamental dissonance between the federal crown and eight provincial crowns which is a most disturbing and peculiar embarkation on treaty ratification by the federal cabinet. I do not believe as a member of the House that I should abet this very real, and I would suggest, legitimate concern by provincial governments.

This is, in the absence of consensus among provincial premiers, a step which the late Liberal Justice Minister Mills warned against. He said it could not proceed because to do so brings this pact into disrepute. In brief, it is imprudent, the test of due diligence is not met and it flouts the federal cabinet powers to advise Her Majesty to sign. Quite simply, it is the wrong step to take at this time.

A third point to be considered requires, if and only if consensus exists, that the cabinet bring to the House as soon as possible upon signing, the estimates, what will be required from the public purse or cost, as well as any bills necessary to amend the existing legal framework to ensure the objectives and demands of the treaty be carried out. It is only at this stage that the accord, that agreement among sovereign states, will be in fact Canadian law.

I would only say on this point, when the treaty is ratified it will not change one iota of anything in the country, perhaps with the exception of a louder outcry from provincial capitals and other federal-provincial litigation.

In this short period of debate on this treaty it is easy to characterize the views as being strongly held and polarized. My observation is that there is a concerted attempt to fashion this debate around virtue, that is to say those who support the ratification and are the true and exclusive environmentalists and it is only they who really truly care for the country's environment. There will be this vast and perceptible change in air quality, rivers will flow clean and lung disease will become an ailment of the past. Their commitment to their grandchildren and unknown future generations is often raised. A new economy will spring up.

Conversely, others say certain industries will be inordinately impacted with job and future investment opportunities will be lost. They say this is an exercise premised on uncertain science which will have negligible environmental but dire economic consequences.

Certainly today's stories concerning the 190 member Investment Dealers Association's report, if true, are most disturbing.

We are by this unnecessary motion being asked to choose which side is correct.

Let me return to Justice Minister Mills' words on this. He said:

The matter of making treaties is a most serious business and one in which dilettantes should not engage. After all, a treaty is irrevocable.

I will state and openly confess that on this subject I am a dilettante since I possess neither the scientific acumen nor the economic insight to know who is correct. In such case I listen closely to those in my riding who have greater insights and understanding than I could possibly possess. They tell me Kyoto will cast uncertainty on industrial investment in many sectors. It will have a chilling effect that will be negative. Is that a matter to which I should pay attention and be concerned?

As a border community in southwestern Ontario will it have any effect on air quality? The answer is no, because 90% of airborne particulates and greenhouse gases come from the United States, a mere 400 metres away.

Will it lead to an explosion of new jobs? The answer is no one knows for certain. It is in fact less than clear. Some call it a leap of faith.

Therefore, in the presence of an apparent federal-provincial disagreement of considerable proportions on this agreement, in the face of an economic downturn or bad economic prospects with no environmental upturn, I as a dilettante am being asked to say, I support Kyoto.

I have seen nothing of the cost or the extent of the legislative agenda to implement it. I have heard the bravado of the polar extremes of those who love the environment and future Canadians while the others purport to speak for the economy.

I speak for the clear message received away from this place which is that there are too many uncertainties, too much risk, no due diligence, do not support it, and I do not. It is, I fear, a leap of faith one should not be asked to take.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite for his very honest, humble and thought provoking remarks.

He made several good points, not the least of which was the costs that this would entail, the costs that industry would be expected to absorb, the costs that the average Canadian would be expected to absorb which are completely unknown.

He also made the point that it would bind Canada but we do not know what impact it would have in terms of having a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions because the United States is not a signatory.

One of the more important elements of his remarks was about the lack of consensus and the lack of information. The provinces will be forced to bear the costs of implementation. I would dare say that we might include the municipalities in the discussion as well. He quite rightly pointed out that there has been no consensus.

We know that in the past there has been the ability to get consensus on international accords of this type. Rio was an example. The acid rain treaty was another. I would suggest that in constitutional terms Meech Lake was another.

We also know, as he has said, that eight of the provinces are not there. They are not including themselves as supporters of this accord. Ironically, one province that is, the province of Quebec, was left out of the Constitution so it should understand the need for consensus on something like this.

I ask the hon. member is there not still time? Could we not still bring the provinces into this process knowing that we do not have to ratify, we do not have to implement it until 2003? Is it not time that we had the provinces here? What is the rush?

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is there is no rush. The rush is self-imposed in that we are going to ratify it apparently by Christmas, or else.

What is clear is that we are asking provincial governments to pay part of the costs for this. We can imagine in this place if a provincial government in particular, or if collectively the provincial governments, were to pass uniform individual laws which imposed a financial burden on the federal government, it would go to court in about 39 seconds. There would be a challenge.

We do have treaty making powers at the federal level. In my opinion, we are heaping abuse on that process by saying that we have this power, and because convention demands that we seek the consensus of provincial governments, and I stress not the unanimity, but the consensus, and because we do not have that consensus, we really do not have anything, but we are going to use our power in a way which was never contemplated. In fact most legal observers would deem it to be unconstitutional. It is unfair to abuse a given power and that is what we are doing.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see finally some sanity in that vast Liberal caucus over there with the member's memorable speech. Given the member's speech and his position and how he feels about this process, will he then stand in his place when this motion comes to a vote in the House and vote against it?

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a most interesting question. I have been on record twice on this, if I could put it that way. I have two positions on it.

I am waiting to hear if this is a confidence motion. There is a new verb which has been introduced into this place, to Nunziata oneself. I am not certain what that means but it is a verb. One should not be put in a position where one would Nunziata oneself. If that were the case, I would be absent, but I would make a lot of noise outside the chamber.