Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2002

Kyoto Protocol

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his excellent speech. Naturally, I do not totally agree with some of his arguments, but I congratulate him on his speech.

He asked a number of questions. He talked about European countries. He wondered how it was possible for the 15 countries of Europe, that is the European Union, to agree on the issue of ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Here, the ten provinces cannot agree, but there is a big difference.

I just want to ask the hon. member if he realizes that, in Europe, the burden is on Germany and Great Britain to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and this is why the other countries have very little to do. Here in Canada, Quebec, Ontario and especially Alberta do not want to have to carry such a burden for the other provinces. That, to me, is the difference.

Does the hon. member see this big difference between the provinces of Canada and the countries of the European Union?

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

Mr. Speaker, I quite enjoyed the question asked by my hon. colleague, the Minister of the Environment.

The main difference between Canada and Europe is that, in June 1998, the latter adopted a model to allow the European Union to share the Kyoto burden. How many years has it taken for Canada to discuss sharing the Kyoto objectives within our borders?

The difference between Europe and Canada is that the former has taken this issue seriously since 1997. European countries reached an agreement in June 1998, one year after the Kyoto protocol was signed. Canada has just been twiddling its thumbs. Ottawa has been busy consulting and has not taken action. If we had dealt with this issue right from the start in 1997, we would not be discussing it today but would rather have made strides.

Today, as we sit and wait, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada increased by 19% between 1990 and 1999, instead of the 6% decrease that Canada is supposed to achieve. Why? Because the Canadian government has lacked leadership, while Europe has been taking this issue seriously since 1997.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and congratulate the hon. member for his very comprehensive and thoughtful speech on this very important debate. Indeed he is a very able contributor to the work that we do in the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

The information put forward by the member in his speech is available to all members of the House. First, how did he come to the conclusion that he would like to support the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. Second, how do his constituents feel about this issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

In Quebec, we made economical choices in the 1960s and 1970s that were environmental choices. From the time of René Lévesque to Robert Bourassa and on, Quebec has been developing its renewable energy sources, including hydroelectricity. Quebec has not been twiddling its thumbs. Between 1990 and 1999, Quebec adopted two action plans on climate change to ensure that—excluding Newfoundland—it, along with Manitoba, has one of the best performances in terms of greenhouse gas reduction.

It is rather paradoxical to see that the best performers in Canada, if we exclude Newfoundland, are Quebec and Manitoba. Why? Because it shows that clear objectives and a specific action plan give results.

We must protect our natural heritage. We must understand that protecting the environment can be a golden opportunity to develop a nation. Of course, I reached this conclusion out of concern for our natural heritage, but I also think that this is the best application of the concept of sustainable development to the three spheres: the environment, society and the economy.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I get confused by the position of the Bloc Quebecois because it seems contradictory.

I have a little trouble understanding why, since Confederation, provinces like Alberta, Ontario and until recently British Columbia, through a process of equalization, have paid more to the federal government than they have got back and much of that largess has gone to Quebec. We are one country and we want to equalize services across it.

On one hand Quebec wants to isolate Alberta and have it take the flak. On the other hand, the Bloc seems to be prepared to support ratification, with a federal government that has betrayed the provinces at every turn on this issue. I do not understand that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must explain to the hon. member the difference between equalization and structuring investments. There is one thing that must be understood. When we invest, for example, in the development of Hibernia, it is a totally different thing, because we create real jobs. This is the difference with equalization. We want structuring investments that will allow us to develop clean energy.

Our position is not surprising. What we are saying is that if Quebec were a sovereign state, we would probably not be discussing this issue today, because we would probably have adopted the protocol as early as 1997. That is the difference. As for the rest, the federal government is imposing on us a federal plan that is totally unfair and that does not at all take past efforts into consideration.

Let us take a company such as Alcan. Since 1990, it has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by two megatonnes. It has also made a commitment to reduce its emissions by 500,000 tonnes over the next four years. These efforts by Alcan and the aluminum industry must be rewarded. What we are saying today is that we do not want Alberta to pay more; we want a fair system that is based on a single principle. In 1992, Canada endorsed the polluter pay principle. Canada must implement this principle; otherwise its commitment is meaningless.

Today, the government is telling us that it has endorsed this principle. However, it refuses to implement it. Therefore, we totally reject this federal approach, because it ignores the polluter pay principle. This is like rewarding the industries and companies that have polluted in the past. Today, the government is telling them “You will be eligible to benefit from governmental subsidies in the hydrocarbon sector”. This is nonsense. One must be consistent in politics. The government must ratify Kyoto, but is must also reposition the funding of hydrocarbons, rethink its budget and fund clean energy more than it is currently doing.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I get into debate I want to mention two items. While the hon. member opposite identified certain members of his party, his counterpart in Quebec, whom he deemed to be very good environment ministers, I think that all of those in the House would have to recommend and respect the work that the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis did when he was the minister of environment in Quebec as well.

I would also like to point out that I will be splitting my time.

The great sadness I feel when listening to the debate on Kyoto is that so few of us in the House understand the notion of interconnectedness, that we as humans are nature and that the creations of humanity, be they political, economic, cultural or spiritual, are merely human artifacts and part of the greater reality of the earth community. We forget, as Jane Jacobs has said, that “nature affords foundations for human life and sets its possibilities and limits”. Economists she says, seem not to have grasped this reality yet.

As any student of economics will tell us, at least if they have studied the same textbooks that I did, environmental and social factors are externalities and are neither integrated nor accounted for in the normal costs of doing business. This is the central failing of economics and it is fueling the controversy over the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. Without understanding the fundamental reality that economics is merely a subset of the environment, just as humans are merely part of ecosystems, we risk failing in our efforts to address climate change.

Climate change is one of the most significant challenges facing our country and our world. What can we do about this problem? Let me suggest that we have two choices. The first is to act now to address the problems arising from climate change. The second is to wait until we are forced to act.

By acting now, the array of choices for implementation measures is broader and, by extension, less costly.

In the Kyoto debate, we have abandoned sober realism for petty ideological strutting. If I may, I would like to offer two reports on Kyoto grounded in the here and now. The first concerns Kyoto outside of North America. I have just returned from a week in Europe with the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association. While there, I was struck by the overwhelming support of European parliamentarians for the Kyoto protocol and what it seeks to accomplish. It is viewed as an opportunity, not a liability. It is considered a way to modernize their economies. Additionally, they see it as a responsible and necessary endeavour for members of the international community.

I was repeatedly told in explicit terms how thrilled EU members are that Canada is on the verge of fulfilling its commitment to the world. We North Americans are often justifiably accused of thinking regionally rather than globally. Sometimes one has to leave this continent to really get a sense of how our decisions resonate around the globe. In this case, our choice is being seen as a triumph for internationalism, as it signals a willingness to work with others on this most pressing problem.

The second report I would like to offer involves the very real and very current impacts of climate change in Canada's Arctic. Despite the efforts of many to cast the impacts of climate change as being distant and theoretical, our northern peoples know better. I have had the privilege over the years to work on Arctic issues with people like Sheila Watt-Cloutier, international president of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference. Here is her account of what climate change means to Inuit people:

There is something missing from images of melting ice and disappearing polar bears to illustrate climate change in the Arctic. They are neither the essential story nor the best of images. To Inuit, climate change is a matter of cultural survival. Our very future as a people is at risk. How can we remain a hunting culture when it is predicted that by the latter decades of this century the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free in summer and the animals we now hunt will be gone? Climate change in the Arctic wears a human face, an Inuit face. We look to Ottawa to protect our rights through national and international action, including ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

The Inuit speak from experience and current realities, not from the world of modeling and computer simulations. Climate change for them is not a contentious issue. Like persistent organic pollutants, it is an unwelcome gift from the south.

Building on this, it is important to remember that, like all environmental issues, when discussing climate change one must consider the equity factor. Those who are least responsible for environmental problems so often bear the brunt of them. At the same time, they are shut out of the economic benefits that are born out of the activities that cause the problems. In Canada's case we need look no further than the Arctic for proof of this. Let us remember that what happens in the Arctic will happen to those of us who live in the south.

The debate over the Kyoto protocol is also about adjustment. It pits a desperate faith in the status quo against a courageous willingness to change. A lot of people do not like change and many have built prosperous careers out of wagging fingers and frightening us into inaction. The sudden efforts of some parties to delay ratification, parties who have been consulted, parties who have walked away from the consultation, strike me as the actions of those interested in dragging out the status quo purely for reasons of self-interest.

Kyoto is not about self-interest. It is about doing something for the current and future good of the world. It is the first step in what will be a long and permanent process.

There will always be dissenting voices like the ones we have heard in this debate. The problem is, we have given those voices impetus through our own inaction. We have allowed the critics to make climate change a contentious issue in spite of the fact that all of the evidence is stacked against them. Who are we to believe, the 2,000-plus scientists who form the IPCC and who say climate change is a burgeoning threat to the environment? Or those political and industrial interests with a storied history of vociferous opposition to improving environmental protection who are saying global warming is not really that big a deal?

The starter gun for positive change goes off with the ratification of Kyoto. It shows industry, the provinces, the international community and the Canadian people that the government intends to act. Until we make such a commitment, confusion will reign, and the relevant parties will condemn us for contributing to that confusion.

Stakeholders have demanded clarity. Let us give them clarity. It is time to change the focus of debate from divisive haggling over ratification to united cooperation in implementation. Let us leave the finger waggers and professional fearmongers to their cigar dens. Instead, let us work with those who already have it right: pioneering industrial actors, homeowners and non-governmental groups. In particular, I would like to applaud the efforts of the Smart Implementation Coalition, a partnership of industry, NGOs and municipal governments. The forward thinking of this group and others shows that many of the steps toward greenhouse gas reduction are not that difficult. For the bigger ones, we need to create a decisive atmosphere of change.

We can, through ratification of the Kyoto protocol, create such an atmosphere, or we can ignore the colossal amount of work that has gone into this problem and be forced to change later. These are the two fundamental choices presented by Kyoto. Nature, not the naysayers, will make the final decision if we wait.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)]

Mr. Speaker, there are now more than 6 billion co-trustees of planet Earth. Those of us fortunate enough to live in Canada want to do our best to help keep it in good repair. Accordingly, I will be voting yes to the ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

I am sure that I surprise no one when I say I have great concerns, especially in terms of the effects it will have on Alberta.

It is clear that Kyoto is not self-implementing; we need to pass legislation. A constitutional cloud, however, is lurking just over the horizon. The provinces are claiming jurisdiction over elements of the accord. Alberta has already introduced legislation to occupy the field in certain respects. I think it would be fair to say that constitutional experts across the country are divided. We must accept that there will be issues and continue to work together on an acceptable implementation strategy. The case for continued cooperation and consultation is clear.

Particularly disturbing throughout the discussion over recent months has been the notion raised by some that Albertans are not committed to the environment. Questioning Kyoto has wrongly become synonymous with being anti-green. Albertans are far from that. We understand that climate change needs to be addressed and are appalled at the suggestion that we would ruin the planet for selfish gains.

Many Albertans, including myself, moved west at least in part because of the natural environment. In the 1970s, it might be added, I conducted a number of environmental prosecutions for the province. Most Albertans want Canada to be a global leader in environmental protection.

After travelling to Asia, Africa and Latin America and meeting families there living on less than $2 a day, it is often overwhelming to return home and see how well most of us live here.

Canadian industries are recognized everywhere for their bold, creative ways of reducing emissions. For example, Alberta based EnCana and others are developing sequestering techniques to pump CO

2

underground as a way of forcing oil to the surface. EnCana estimates that its operations could produce the same effect as taking 212,000 cars off the road would. Sequestration applied throughout western Canada could reduce emissions by as much as 75 megatonnes a year, provided that it can be done at a reasonable cost.

The use of ethanol blends and other bio-diesel fuels reduces greenhouse gas emissions and has the potential to create tremendous new opportunities for agriculture, especially for prairie farmers.

Syncrude, one of Alberta's leading energy producers, has already cut CO

2

emissions per barrel of production by almost a fifth since 1990. I could go on and on.

Not only is it important for the environment to be careful in our energy consumption, but it is also in the interest of the business community. They know it and are making the necessary adjustments. Let us be clear; they do not want to suffer any negative impact on their economic growth.

Businesses are not just developing ground breaking technologies; they are doing what Canadians generally have come to expect: they are using innovations to help the developing world. It is little known that under Kyoto Canadian businesses could get credit for helping developing countries put in place cleaner technologies.

As an example of a clean development mechanism, take a proposed coal burning electricity plant in a developing country. If Canada offers to build a much cleaner gas burning plant instead, I gather we could claim a credit for the difference in emissions levels between the two facilities. This approach would appeal to all of us in Canada who want to see developed countries do something about greenhouse gases and other air pollution around the world.

The reality is that many Albertans' jobs depend upon the fossil fuel industry, as does much of our Alberta advantage. Many Albertans fear that they are going to be most negatively impacted and we must not be. Implementation must in no way jeopardize the strength of the Alberta economy, the growth of which is heavily dependent upon the expansion of the oil sands.

Our Prime Minister has said, “Nothing is more nervous than a million dollars”. Now consider $5 billion for an oil sands plant. The fact is that in the investment world, perception is reality.

The development of our oil sands is too important to the country not to go ahead because of the chill factor or any other reason. Implementation must protect the oil sands as a priceless national asset. They are the source of hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs across western Canada. Moreover 40% of the money spent on machinery, chemicals, equipment and services in Fort McMurray goes to Ontario's and Quebec's manufacturing sectors.

It is estimated that between 30,000 and 52,000 jobs in Ontario's steel industry alone depend on the Alberta oil sands. As the Calgary Herald said, when a project is cancelled in Alberta, steelworkers in Hamilton go home.

Since 1995 and the much praised agreement on the taxing of the oil sands projects introduced by our Prime Minister, approximately $86 billion in related development has been announced with about $24 billion of it to be completed by the end of this calendar year. That leaves $62 billion awaiting decision.

The oil sands have created outstanding opportunities for our first nations. Persons in the oil sands pay taxes and contribute to transfer payments. Much of the Alberta government's annual budget is based on energy royalties meaning that social programs throughout the province are dependent on the sector.

In an era of instability in the Middle East, a strong oil patch increases North America's energy security. Reduced reliance on imported energy sources is something for which many countries around the world are now clamouring. Some Canadians ask, what is the risk; heavy emitters cannot simply pack up their drills and find the reserves south of the border. Industry however has said that even though some might continue to extract oil in Alberta, upgrading and treatment operations may be moved out of the country.

Even as per unit reductions are achieved, they worry that Canada's industry might still be disadvantaged because Canada is a growing exporter of oil and natural gas.

When the U.S. pulled out of the negotiations, the entire dynamic changed. Many people have expressed concern that the protocol now appears to favour European nations.

However, it is said that countries the size of continents with growing populations, such as Canada, Australia and the United States, will have to absorb greater economic costs in order to comply.

Canada can and should play a decisive role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, our approach should be one that leads to a moderate and lasting impact, while upholding the economic benefits that our government has generated.

The plan to implement Kyoto must bring certainty to the investment environment as soon as possible, reflect the unique concerns of all of our regions as a national family, and as the Prime Minister has committed, not impose a disproportionate cost on Alberta.

I intend to be vigilant about all of the implementation measures. As a representative of the province, the economic needs of three million Albertans are crucial.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the hon. member's speech which was not unlike a speech I would have made myself as an Alberta MP. I still think that the hon. member has a dilemma and a responsibility to the citizens of Alberta to stand up and support Alberta's position in the vote on the motion. However, that is a decision the hon. member will have to wrestle with.

He referred to the clean energy export credit and the instruments that are available to companies to go into the third world, develop green technology and receive credit for it back home. Canada is in the process of building a number of nuclear power stations in China that will replace hundreds of coal burning power stations, yet we will receive no credit whatsoever for that technology that we are exporting to China. I ask the member, why is that fair?

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Athabasca for that question, which is one that has troubled me as well. I have been to see one of those nuclear plants near Shanghai. In fact, it is in production now.

My understanding of whether nuclear power will qualify for credits is that at present it does. An American living in Europe who is a specialist on the Kyoto accord told me that European nations are moving against allowing emissions credits for nuclear plants. If that move is successful, as the member is indicating, Canada and other countries that produce nuclear power would lose the right to build nuclear plants in developing countries and thereby obtain an emissions tax credit.

I know nuclear power is very controversial in the member's riding, as it is in mine. Safe nuclear technology, such as the Candu reactor, will continue to be eligible for credits. If we can cut the pollution in places like Shanghai, Beijing, New Delhi or Jakarta through sound, safe nuclear technology, I think the member would be the first to agree that would be an excellent contribution by Canadians to the developing world.

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member across the way.

There is one issue I have some problems with and I wonder what his take is on it. That is the notion that the Kyoto accord does not require Canada to actually make CO

2

reductions, that it establishes this emissions trading credit scheme which allows Canada to buy credits toward its targets by transferring money abroad, in some cases it is said to countries with worse environmental records rather than make the CO

2

reductions themselves.

I just do not understand how that could be a benefit. If we want to be on the leading edge of technology on these things, why do we not simply take it upon ourselves to make improvements in this way? Why would we commit ourselves to this protocol which has so many risks? Why would we not just make a commitment to do something--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's question is a good one.

As I understand it from the same person I was speaking about a moment ago, in the case of Russia it is going to have approximately 1,000 megatonnes to sell for emissions credits because of the fact that its economy is approximately half the size it was in 1990. That is 1,000 megatonnes of credits available which could be banked, by the way, so each year it would have 1,000 more. That could have all kinds of consequences.

If the Russians sold their credits to whomever and used that money to improve their environmental practices, that would be good. If they were to flood the market with that 1,000 megatonnes and the price went down to $1 or $2, that would be good for Canada in the sense that if we had to buy emissions, we would be buying them at a very low price.

The point my colleague is making, as many people have said, is what good does it do to buy hot air from Russia? I would hope very much that if Canada bought an emissions credit outside our country, it would go to a country that would use that money immediately to cut down pollution in whatever country it happened to be. If the money just went--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I did actually give him an extra minute. Resuming debate.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to talk about Kyoto tonight. We are expelling a lot of air in this green House of Commons talking about greenhouse gases and that is a nice analogy.

In doing some reading in preparation for speaking tonight, I came across an article about the French academy of science in the 18th century taking the position that meteorites did not exist. People had reported that rocks were falling from the sky and landing in their fields. Rural folk believed they were supernatural omens. Scholars at the French academy thought this was so absurd that they dismissed the whole phenomenon out of hand.

For nearly a century they blocked scientific discussion on the matter. They exerted such intimidating peer pressure that museums and laboratories throughout Europe quietly began to discard their meteorite collections lest the great men in Paris think they were backward. Thomas Jefferson joined in the scoffing, accusing two U.S. scientists of being liars for proposing the idea. In effect there was a consensus of the world's top scientists that meteorites did not exist. Then one day in April 1803 a meteorite fell in Normandy near a gathering of French scientists and attitudes suddenly began to change.

I find that story entertaining, interesting and something to which we should pay some attention. There is certainly a very overwhelming sense that we have put ourselves on a track, signed a political agreement, and not looked very closely at where we are going.

That same author, Ross McKitrick, said that bureaucracy and politics can sometimes overtake science, creating false notions of consensus while sabotaging the very mechanisms able to test those beliefs. He said that there is no sure way to prevent this from happening but we should be very alert to the possibility.

Mr. McKitrick also talked about how this logic could very much relate to the whole question of global warming. Some of the warning bells in some of the documents that have been produced so far portray consensus where in actual fact scientific consensus does not exist. I wanted to put that on the table.

Earlier this evening the Liberal member for St. Paul's said that as far she was concerned global warming is a given. Let us assume just for the sake of debate that the member for St. Paul's is correct. I would firmly argue that Kyoto is not the vehicle that will overcome the problems identified, assuming that the hypothesis is correct.

Why is our neighbour to the south miles ahead of us in reducing greenhouse gas emissions? We are going to put all of our eggs in the Kyoto basket. The Americans are saying they are going to take action right now and they have been doing it.

My questions are these. Why is our government not creating incentives now? Why has it done virtually nothing when our neighbours have not only done much at the federal and state levels, but are miles ahead of us. They have removed any uncertainty so that the people whom they are asking to invest in new technology and so on do not have to worry about some unknown set of ramifications from some international agreement that might come down upon them and create uncertainty as to how they operate.

The hon. member for St. Paul's also made the statement that the whole world has decided that we will get on with this. I am sorry but that defies the facts. The fact is that 65% of emissions in the world occur in countries that will not ratify Kyoto or are exempted from any meaningful kind of target.

It is very predictable that the trading scheme envisioned by the government will simply shift jobs, activity and the production of CO

2

emissions outside of Canada. It is predictable, if not certain, that global emissions will end up rising because of the structure of the Kyoto accord. They will not end up rising as a consequence of what our neighbours to the south have done. They are doing theirs nationally, within house, in the largest economy in the world and some of their results are nothing less than amazing.

I want to bring a couple of other things to the table about which I do not believe others have talked.

When we talk about the science, we want to keep our eyes open for any new or significant developments. Potentially it is highly significant that we had a massive controlled experiment with our atmosphere after September 11, 2001.

The air traffic basically came to a halt over a good part of the globe and certainly over North America. Scientists looked at the climate during those few days and noticed some very interesting things. We started to exhibit diurnal or daily temperature fluctuations within a 24 hour period that resembled what used to happen prior to the expansion of air travel over the last 30, 40 or 50 years.

The odd time when a few airplanes flew in formation, say fighter planes, they could see very clearly what happened to the vapour trails. Those vapour trails could basically occupy the entire huge span of the atmosphere in the skyline in a very short period of time.

The hypothesis then is that aircraft travel is having a tremendous impact on injecting major greenhouse gases. Of the greenhouse gases, 97% volume is water vapour. That water vapour is being injected at high altitude and potentially has way more impact than great amounts of ground level emissions of water vapour and carbon dioxide, the other most significant greenhouse gas.

I believe a lot more work will come out of that development, and we have only become aware of that.

If we were to go the way the U.S. has gone and decide that rather than getting into a political document, such as the Kyoto protocol, that we would come up with a Canada solution, we would do ourselves a huge favour.

Many industries have made dramatic changes since 1990, driven by fuel efficiency and other rationales, not necessarily related to concerns about CO

2

emissions. The major concern those industries have right now is that it appears the federal government, the Liberal administration, does not want to give them credit for all those advances. Right now, if companies were looking at investing in further reductions, there would be a tendency to hold off until there was some certainty whether they would get credit for it now or after.

Those kinds of decisions are being impacted by what the government is doing now. It is very bad for our economy, job creation, investment and on other concerns the business community has.

By signing on to the Kyoto protocol we are avoiding what is the most common sense approach, which is to reduce emissions according to incentives, which we can put in place. Instead we are going with pure politics and environmental optics.

I always say if we have a choice between an incentive and a hammer, we are is much better off to go with the incentive because the hammer will in the long run not work.

This has major implications for international trade. This is becoming a trade document in a sense. I would like to know why we have not heard from the Minister for International Trade. Canada is one of the three NAFTA partners. We have our free trade agreements with Costa Rica for example. We are negotiating the free trade area of the Americas. We will be the only jurisdiction, in all those trading agreements, subject to the Kyoto accord. There are penalties that go with that accord which affect our trading ability and our trading relationships.

The European Union is threatening to go to the World Trade Organization because of the trade advantage the U.S. will have by not signing on to Kyoto. The flip side of that is that people who do sign on are at some trade disadvantage. That is the way I read it before I knew what the EU was thinking.

Countries like Australia, the U.S. and others have made the firm decision that they will not ratify the Kyoto protocol. They have determined that it is a political document, that it will not benefit the environment and that they have a better way to go. I am convinced that they are correct.

I have some knowledge on alternate fuels. It is very interesting that diesel fuel has been known over time as a pretty significant polluter. The U.S. military was running 20% soy in its diesel for about seven years. It did not bother to tell anyone because it was doing it for strategic reasons. However it has a very significant impact on CO

2

emissions. For every 10% of soy that it was running in its diesel, it was reducing CO

2

emissions by 9%. It was running B-20, which is 20% bio or soy in the diesel. At that percentage it has the same operating parameters, the same temperature and other operating characteristics as regular diesel.

Brampton and GTA generating stations are operating with bio-diesel. This all happened this year. Did it happen because of the government or any incentive that the government put in place? No. It happened because an entrepreneur came on the scene, saw an opportunity, had an interest in the environment and made this happen. Canadian Tire will be in the bio-diesel pumping business as well.

This adds on a bit to what the previous speaker talked about. There are tremendous opportunities at higher temperatures, summer range temperatures. We could be running possibly B-60, B-80 and possibly even B-100, 100% bio without any petroleum diesel.

The U.S. has done a lot on this front. I will quote some of the moves it has made. In January the U.S. put in some new environmental protection act requirements. These new rules allowed fleets to use bio-diesel to fulfill up to half of their alternate fuel diesel purchase requirements.

The U.S. is setting standards and regulations for alternate fuel for federal and state fleets, which is having a tremendous impact. The U.S. is looking at the fact that it will be doing a huge favour for its agricultural community because it will not have to subsidize the growing of the bio part of the diesel.

I will read one little paragraph and then I will be done. It states:

The federal Energy Policy Act requires 75 percent of all new state and federal vehicles to be fitted for alternative fuels by the year 2001. If all U.S. city buses used bio-diesel, it would require the oil from 43 million bushels of soybeans annually. There are enough niche markets for bio-diesel to make profits for the nation’s 400,000 soybean growers.

We saved the prairies in Canada once with canola. Canola has all of the same characteristics as soy. There is a tremendous opportunity to be exploited here, and this is only one example of many. I had more things I could certainly talk about.

Those are the kind of things that will move Canada in a direction, not the boy scout approach we have taken to the Kyoto protocol, which is a political document, and is the very reason that the country most like Canada, Australia, rejected the Kyoto protocol.

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

Mr. Speaker, is this not a fascinating debate? I listened for 11 hours to my colleague across the way, the member for Red Deer, and now I hear his caucus colleagues using a false logic that, in my view, defies explanation.

I hear my colleague opposite talking about the regulatory regime that is coming into place in the United States and I hear him talking about incentives that are happening in the United States. These are the very instruments that we will use in Canada to help reach our greenhouse gas emission reductions under Kyoto and yet he uses that as an excuse to say that we ought not to ratify Kyoto when Canadians understand why we need to ratify. Quite frankly, Canadians like to breathe. They realize by reducing greenhouse gas emissions we will have better air quality, and it speaks to more than just CO

2

Our plan targets 35% ethanol and gasoline supply. This is good for farmers. The member opposite himself said that. We will stimulate new income sources for farmers as well as other sectors. For example, corn and wheat account, respectively, for 73% and 20% of the current feedstock for ethanol production. Our plan's 35% target for ethanol and gasoline will create a demand for 150 million additional bushels of corn to produce the necessary ethanol.

My hon. colleague says that we do not need regulation and that we will not be able to bring in enough incentives. Those are the kinds of arguments I hear him using for not ratifying Kyoto, when the very fact that if we look right across Canada, whether it is the Ballard Power Systems, Shell Canada or TransAlta, companies that he--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the interesting thing that is ethanol cannot survive without an 8¢ a litre subsidy and bio-diesel needs no subsidy.

The other thing is that Kyoto is about CO

2

, not air quality. One of the problems with Kyoto is that we could end up doing things to reduce CO

2

that could actually make the air quality worse. With many activities we may find that we are compromising on nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide and other things because of our attempt to get at the one item, which is CO

2

. We discovered that very fact when we substituted bunker C with coal in boilers. I am also aware of other examples so this is bogus.

If CO

2

dealt with all the pollutants, such as smog and particulate matter, then I might agree with the logic, but it simply does not do that.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in one aspect of the member's speech dealing with the competitiveness of our Canadian economy in a free trade environment of the Americas.

I listened to the member from Windsor a couple of days ago talking about Chrysler looking for a location for a new plant in Canada. I read this morning about the Canadian auto parts manufacturers coming out soundly against us ratifying the accord for those very reasons of which he spoke.

Could the member see why DaimlerChrysler or any car parts manufacturing company would locate a plant in Canada under the Kyoto regime when they need only go to Mexico, Central America or South America where not only are labour costs cheaper but they are not fettered by those kind of environmental restrictions and the Kyoto taxes that we will have in Canada? Why would that possibly happen?

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has asked the very question that would be asked by any group of investors or board of directors for a corporation or anything else.

I was astounded to hear that kind of question posed to the Minister of the Environment in terms of job losses within Canada. His response was that at the rate we were producing jobs we actually could afford to lose those jobs. This is not helpful when we are trying to do everything we can to expand Canada's economy and make Canada more prosperous.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to say that I am pleased to rise and participate in this debate. The second thing I want to say is that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Yukon.

I have followed the debate in the House over the last number of days. I have read the materials that I could get my hands on. I am by no means an expert on the issue but I have come to the firm position that the time has come where inaction on climate change and the environment is no longer an option. In every cause and every issue there is a time for action, and that time is right now.

I have heard many people in the House argue that what is happening with the earth is natural. Yes, it is true that naturally we do produce a certain amount of greenhouse gas emissions. However I believe it is time to be honest and recognize that it is human activity that has caused most of the problems.

In recognizing that we are the main creators of the problem, we now have an obligation to create a solution. We have, I submit, an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community. I believe that 17 academies and over 2,000 climate change scientists presented documents and gave opinions on climate change and the detrimental effects that come with it are damaging our planet.

Despite all this credible evidence, it is safe to say that it does not take a scientist to see the effects of global warming. Our planet is warming faster than at any time in the past 10,000 years, driven by greenhouse gases which have reached their highest level in 420,000 years. Increased floods, droughts, spreading disease and melting glaciers are affecting every area of this globe. When tragedies such as these become commonplace in our daily lives, it makes it apparent that something needs to be done and that it needs to be done sooner rather than later. It is my belief that we have overlooked this problem far too long right now.

With this broad base of evidence before us, I support the actions that are being advocated by our Minister of the Environment as we move toward positive change. It is essential that we--and I speak of we as a global society--take measures immediately to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Kyoto protocol outlines the need to reduce our greenhouse gases and it is a strong recognition of the need for action.

I think we can all agree that it is Canada's intention to create a society for this and future generations with clean air, clean water, liveable cities and healthy people. Continuing to delay action will only make more time for increased damages. Canada's climate change plan is devised to address these issues and help every single Canadian re-evaluate how we use energy.

We have heard a lot of talk over the last number of days about a plan. I acknowledge that the plan that has been presented by the Minister of the Environment is not perfect. It is the result of three years of consultation with the provinces, territories and business groups, but again it is not perfect. It is a plan that sets out how we are going to reach our reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. I agree that more work needs to be done on this plan.

I sat today and listened to the speech given by the hon. member for LaSalle--Émard. He supports the ratification of the accord but his position, with which I agree, is that more work needs to be done on the plan; more meat on the bone, so to speak. He made a couple of good suggestions. One suggestion was to sell Petro-Canada shares. I have never heard that raised before. I think it is an excellent suggestion that should be pursued by the government.

The second suggestion was to strike a committee immediately to develop the plan in a little more detail. I think it is a good idea but let us be realistic. If the committee goes forward, which I think it should, and it comes back in March or April next year with more details, do we think that all the industrial sectors, all the premiers, all the territorial leaders, all the business leaders, all the groups will say, “Hallelujah, it is over, we have struck our plan and we all agree with the plan”? No, and we know that. The Romanow report was tabled last week in the House. Before people could have possibly read the report, they were hostile to its contents.

That is Canada. It is a great country, but that is the federation we live in. Of course there will be disputes as we go forward.

I have read the plan. It is a good document to move forward with. There will be costs to meeting the targets of the Kyoto protocol; I will not argue that, but those costs are quite manageable and quite small compared to the impact of not taking action. That is one of the issues that perhaps has not been talked about enough in the House. What are the costs if we do not take any action, we do nothing, such as some hon. members in the House have suggested, if we just let the world unfold as it should?

Canadians are well aware of the economic costs of the severe weather events that occur as a result of global warming. The economic impact of the Saguenay flood exceeded $1 billion. The economic impact of the 1998 ice storm exceeded $5 billion. The economic impact of the 2001 drought also exceeded $5 billion. The costs of meeting our Kyoto commitments pale in comparison to those figures.

Rather than spending so much time and energy focusing on what the costs of Kyoto are, let us talk about the costs that we can save. Emissions costs could potentially save $200 billion in energy costs. A lot of potential growth could be tapped into by investing in alternate energy.

If we ratify Kyoto and give the go ahead to the business community by reducing energy consumption, which is what the majority of Canadians want, they will certainly use their entrepreneurial and innovative skills and meet the challenges. In fact, many of the leading businesses are doing exactly that. Options are available. Sometimes people resist change, but it brings tremendous opportunity.

Another topic that should be discussed is the health care costs. The Ontario Medical Association calculated that smog costs more than $1 billion a year in hospital admissions, emergency visits and absenteeism in Ontario alone.

Canada's environmental commissioner has said that smog kills more Canadians than car accidents, breast cancer, prostate cancer or melanoma. It seems to me that we often focus on what is a perceived disconnect between the economy and the environment and that is not necessarily the case.

My own province of Prince Edward Island has a very exciting development with wind farming. I believe there is one in Alberta that is 10 times the size. It has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 13,000 tonnes per year. This morning I read in the local newspaper that one of the local industrial concerns in Atlantic Canada, Irving Oil, a private enterprise, is contemplating building a $100 million wind farm in my province. It is a tremendous opportunity.

I would like to highlight that the benefits of having clean air, clean water and a sustainable environment cannot be easily measured in dollars and cents. This protocol represents a huge step in the right direction toward developing a sustainable economy coupled with a sustainable ecosystem.

Many people may still be left with questions. I believe we should all take the initiative to put our energy into doing something positive and working collectively to fill those gaps. I suggest to the House and to all Canadians that we move forward on this protocol with conviction, commitment and courage.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was an interesting speech, but the member unfortunately, in my opinion which I think is a reasonably valid one, strayed from the facts very early on. He quoted the 2,000 IPCC scientists who did the study and developed the report for the United Nations as concluding that man was causing global warming in the atmosphere. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The conclusion of the scientists is written in black and white at the bottom of the report, not the executive summary of the report. It says quite clearly that the group of 2,000 scientists could not come to the conclusion that man was causing climate change, that man's use of fossil fuels was causing climate change. To assume that as an irrefutable scientific fact is simply wrong. On top of that, there is the Oregon petition floating around, which 17,000 scientists signed, saying that the science with Kyoto was badly flawed. If one were arrogant enough to discount 50% of the 17,000, there is still a huge scientific body of experts who take quite an exception to the science with Kyoto.

I would simply ask the member, why does he not look at the facts and look at the literature that is there in black and white and come to the conclusions that are there with the scientific opinion?

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, when we read everything that is written on this subject, the 17 academies, the thousands of scientists who have spoken to this issue and every day we pick up the paper there is another group saying that the evidence is irrefutable, that this damage is caused by human activity. To argue otherwise, I submit, is just burying one's head in the sand.

Certainly, I agree with the hon. member that there will be some scientists who will say that the evidence is not conclusive, that human activity is causing this problem but there will always be scientists who disagree with that. I do not know if it is going on presently, but do not forget that within the past five years scientists by the dozens and dozens were testifying in court in the United States of America saying that cigarette smoke had no relation to the health of individuals. We know that is simply not true.

To answer the hon. member's question, the evidence is overwhelming that human activity is causing an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about a federal plan. Does he think there has been adequate consultation between the provinces and the federal government?

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there is always room for more work to be done on any plan. This is a complicated issue and it is not easy to come forward with all the exact details. Kyoto has been going on for five or six years now. These consultations have been going on for approximately three years with the leaders of the provinces, the territorial leaders, with business leaders and environmental groups. After it came to the House, a lot of revisions were made to the plan presented by the Minister of the Environment. There certainly would be no harm in further consultations taking place.

As I said before, I listened to the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard today. He agrees that there should be more consultations, more work done on the plan. I do not disagree with that, but let us move forward.

There is another important point. This is an international agreement and I believe the world is looking to see what Canada does with respect to this treaty. That is why we as a society, as Canadian people, have to move forward with courage on this protocol.