Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2002

Kyoto Protocol

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the House give its consent to the hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Does the House give its consent to the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by offering very sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Macleod. I think he has given a very precise and informative discourse on this subject matter. In particular I want to congratulate him on pointing out, and doing so very articulately, the difference between the issue of pollution and CO

2

, atmospheric pollutants and that of greenhouse gas, which I think has caused an immense amount of confusion, not only in this chamber, but throughout this entire debate.

I want to pick up in particular on the issue he spoke to near the end of his remarks, that is, the types of incentives we can put in place to encourage provinces, individuals and corporations to take part in actual concrete actions to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In my home province of Nova Scotia, as well as in Alberta, the province of the hon. member for Macleod, there are already tremendous efforts being made to harness such things as wind power, to do more with solar power, to do more with water generated power and obviously with nuclear as well. These are exactly the types of directional changes that the country will have to make in order to comply with Kyoto and to ensure that Canada will be able to meet certain targets.

The difficulty, as the hon. member has pointed out, is that the government has set out a position which is unrealistic. By ratifying this accord, we are being disingenuous, not only with Canadians but with the world, the signatories, and perhaps as important, those who have not signed, like the United States. The United States has said it cannot meet those targets but it is going about doing what it can to meet certain reductions that it will set for itself.

Would the hon. member therefore agree that certainly we can do a great deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that the provinces have to be on side in that effort as well as corporations and individuals, and that Kyoto, in and of itself, is not the panacea? It will not help to simply pen our signature on this before Christmas. It will not help create greenhouse gas reductions, as the hon. member has pointed out.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the compliment. There are not a lot of compliments passed in the House.

On the issue of incentives, I am absolutely convinced that we can be more energy sufficient in this country with incentives. I think in my own case of the first home that I built. The insulation in the outside walls of that home was in the 2x4s. Today it is standard to use a 2x6 and the insulation is substantially greater. Is that a cost benefit? It is. It actually does not take too many years for those extra costs of building the walls thicker and putting in more insulation to be returned to the homeowner.

There are enormous changes in the efficiency of furnaces. We have gone from very inefficient furnaces to quite efficient ones. Are there incentives that could drive that further? There absolutely are.

The parliamentary secretary said that every federal building should be built to R-2000 standards. Boy, that would be a wonderful incentive, if in fact the federal government would show leadership in that area. I would be delighted, for example if every cabinet minister drove a hybrid vehicle. The environment minister, to his credit, drives a hybrid vehicle. He is at least taking up the cudgel and doing what he said he would do. There are enormous areas for incentives.

On the issue of the provinces being involved, if the provinces do not buy into this, we will not have implementation of the accord no matter what the federal government says. The saddest thing we have had to watch is the provinces coming out against the proposals for helping our environment. They want a clean environment but they know that the accord,and the way it is being pushed on the Canadian public and on the provinces is the wrong way to go. I think that is a tragedy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very intently to all of the interventions that have been made on all sides of the House.

I thank my hon. colleague opposite for what I feel was quite a thoughtful intervention. He is quite right. There are scientists on all sides of the House. My hon. colleague from Peterborough has made a very impassioned intervention supporting Kyoto and the position of the government. Truly there is mixed opinion within the scientific community.

However, more than 2,000 of the world's leading climate change scientists have contributed to the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They reported in 2001 that most of the warming observed over the past 50 years is attributable to human activity. They estimate the average global surface temperature is likely to increase by 1.4°C and 5.8°C by 2100.

It is very important to look at recent science. I know that my hon. friend was reading from epochs long past. This is a current trend which is now being observed. Not only did that panel of over 2,000 of the world's outstanding scientists on climate change make this intervention, but it was also supported by many of the prestigious scientific communities around the world. Perhaps my hon. colleague would care to comment on the data by that very prestigious scientific panel.

Also companies in the west, like DuPont, Syncrude, Suncor and British Petroleum have done things that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They have found that good environmental policy is also good economics for companies. Also we are not just talking about--

[The Deputy Speaker]

I do want to give as many people as possible an opportunity to ask questions, so I will turn to the hon. member for Macleod for a response.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting how a scientific panel becomes prestigious, that is, if it agrees with the perspective of the individual talking. My scientific group is very prestigious in my view. The parliamentary secretary of course has put great stock in that scientific perspective.

I do think that the science is inconclusive. I will be willing to accept the fact that human activity has an impact. It is the amount of the impact that is still inconclusive. What I would like to have in terms of an interchange is an acknowledgement that the inconclusiveness does not leave us in this country isolated from new information coming to us. I do not want to see us sign an accord that will hurt this country to the exclusion of others.

One thing I did not go over in my intervention is the issue of the undeveloped countries that are not involved in this accord. The parliamentary secretary knows that those countries have just voted to never get involved in the Kyoto accord, to never go down that road. One of the selling points has been to be like good boy scouts and start out and everyone will follow in lockstep. If that would happen I think there might be a point, but with the undeveloped countries saying no chance, I feel and fear that this accord will be Canada's demise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate my colleague on his carefully prepared intervention. He seems to have a clear grasp of the subject and I thank him for that.

Where we disagree, however, is on the solution he proposes. He is proposing a Canadian solution to a problem that is international. In my opinion, a global, international problem requires an international solution. Each country cannot do as it sees fit and set its own strategy, when the problem affects the entire planet.

I am thinking of Germany, which has succeeded in effecting considerable changes to its energy production sector. It went from a certain kind of energy to wind power in a very short time, when required to reduce its emissions by 21% as a member of the EU.

In this particular case, does the hon. member not believe that energy efficiency can be synonymous with economic competitivity, performance and innovation? As the parliamentary secretary said, companies like DuPont and TransAlta in the west, by deciding to purchase a wind power company, are providing proof that energy efficiency can be synonymous with growth.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment. It is interesting that he should mention the wind energy company. It is located in my riding. Obviously, I have seen this process.

The problem is truly an international one, and it does not call for a Canadian solution. However, how many countries will ratify Kyoto? How many countries have problems—this is not the right word for Kyoto—with pollution and an increase in coal-related gases? Obviously, Canada is the only western country that intends to sign the Kyoto protocol. I think that this is a big problem for Canada.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

First I would like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. She has been working on this file for quite a long time. In fact the parliamentary secretary has been here throughout all of the debate.

I want to thank her personally because in October I held a Kyoto round table for four hours in my riding. Representatives from Stelco, TransCanada Pipelines, climatologists from the University of Toronto, the parliamentary secretary, a director general from Environment Canada and an environmental firm from my riding talked about these issues. I brought everyone out to look at the impact of Kyoto and to get real input on the issue.

The first question was why did Canada support Kyoto. Canada has always believed in a multilateral approach and through the United Nations process we believe this is the most effective means of ensuring global action. Kyoto is not the end in itself. It is but a first step in a process that will deal with climate change over a period of time. The process will continue to evolve. Therefore there is no definitive answer today as there was no definitive answer on other issues, but we know there is enough information to say that action must be taken and it must be taken now. We have to have a plan and fortunately, we have a made in Canada plan.

Kyoto points toward greater energy efficiency, which is important for Canadians; sustainable growth, an area which I will be talking more on; innovative technologies, and Canada has become a leading environmental country in terms of exporting technologies around the world; cleaner air; and of course lower greenhouse gas emissions.

The Kyoto round table that I held was important because it gave constituents in my riding, the business community, industry, academics and young people an opportunity to hear from the experts. Clearly not everyone was there to say the same thing, although they all did agree on one thing, that action needs to be taken. On the question of pace, there were some differences, but everyone agreed that inaction was not and could not be an option.

Since 1997 the government has been in consultation with stakeholders from the provinces and territories, with key industry sectors, with the public, and others. I thought it was incumbent on me as a member of Parliament to host a round table and not just in that forum but also to send out information and to continually get input from my constituents. I believe that it was useful in providing information, receiving information and helping me in my comments today.

There has been much talk about the costs of ratifying the Kyoto protocol. It seems that the skeptics have forgotten to look, with due respect, at the financial benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Yes, there will be costs in meeting the targets of the Kyoto protocol and no one on this side of the House has suggested otherwise. However the government believes that they are manageable and small compared to the impacts of not taking action.

It is important to point out that the government is committed to work, and has continued to show that it is prepared to work, with the provincial and territorial governments, business and industry to refine the plan and to develop implementation strategies.

Under the plan we are developing, it is important to emphasize that no particular province or region will be asked to bear an unreasonable share of the burden. Canadian business will remain competitive in the North American and importantly, the global marketplace. We will regularly assess progress and make adjustments to changing circumstances.

One thing I have heard is that the United States is not signing the accord. It is true that the United States is not signing it, and the United States did not sign the small arms treaty nor did it sign the landmines treaty.

The United States, for whatever reason, has not taken a multilateral approach, yet 42 out of 50 U.S. states have established regulatory regimes to deal with the issue of CO

2

emission reductions. Therefore, to suggest somehow that the United States is not signing means that we do not have to worry, is a falsehood. To suggest somehow that the United States is doing nothing is, of course, untrue because 42 states out of 50 are taking action.

I believe that we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to take the necessary steps. Over the last five years, evidence, in my view, has been insurmountable. There are those who would suggest otherwise, and of course they are entitled to those opinions, but I believe, as one parliamentarian in the House, that not to go ahead with Kyoto would be the wrong thing to do.

The best evidence tells us that while there is still some costs with Kyoto, they will be modest. They will be balanced across the country and across the economy. These costs are not actual losses compared to today but are in terms of slightly less growth than otherwise would be the case.

I point out, for example, that Canada's gross domestic product will grow by about 17.5% as we take action on climate change over the next eight years. That is about 0.4% less growth than we might have otherwise expected.

While it is impossible to forecast over a 8 to 10 year period the estimated economic impact, the most likely scenario is about .4% of the GDP. This a modest impact relative to the strong economic growth over the same period.

Probably the single most important point to make is that this work of preparing estimates has been a cooperative effort between the Government of Canada and the provinces over the years. The federal government has worked closely with the provinces because the goal is an approach that enables all of Canada to be part of meeting our Kyoto target.

Every time the policy option has become clearer, the modeling has been updated to reflect the most likely situation. The best case forecast has been regularly revised to reflect the most up to date reviews and comments about Canada's economic prospects.

This is important because the context in which Canada will be taking climate change action has changed over time and so too have the estimates of the potential impacts of Kyoto on Canadian jobs and Canada's economy.

It is important to bear in mind that climate change is expected to lead to droughts, of which we have already seen clear evidence, and to severe weather events such as floods and intense storms. The scientists who study these issues, certainly the climatologist who I had at my round table, indicated that more of these episodes were likely to happen in the coming years. One only has to remember the drought of 2001 which cost the Canadian economy $5 billion, or the 1998 ice storm which cost Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick more than $6 billion.

It is important to understand that the scenario modeled is not the plan. Some have been interchanging that. It is an analytical exercise that enables us to develop and fine tune the plan in a way to even better moderate and balance impacts across the different regions of the country and the different sectors of the economy.

However if we were to take the approach that Kyoto is the final end, then maybe we could accept some of the arguments that I have heard in the House in the past while. The reality is that it is an evolving process. We will be able to meet these targets because of the consultations and the work. I would say that one of the most important areas on which we have been working has been with the cities of Canada and the work we have done through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the 20% club, to reduce CO

2

emissions by 20% over 10 years. In the end the implementation will be done by the people of Canada in the cities of Canada.

As a credit, many of the key cities in Canada and some smaller communities have signed on in conjunction with the Department of the Environment. I lay that out again for members and would entertain any questions.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from across the way spoke glowingly about all the work that has been done between his government and the provinces for the past five years, which I think was the length of time. I wonder if he could tell me why, after all the energy his government put toward its position and toward working with the provinces, that only two provinces are actually in agreement with ratifying Kyoto at this time. Why is that all provinces, not only the eight that have not agreed to it but the other two, still do not know what the implementation plan is going forward from this ratification? Why is it that the provinces are totally opposed to ratification at this time?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend raises a good point. I would like to point out to him that over the last five years, as I have said, there have been ongoing consultations with the provinces and territories and, as we know, the provinces unveiled 12 key points that they wanted dealt with. The federal government has agreed to nine and there is an ongoing process right now on the other three. The door has not been closed. There are still discussions on the other three.

However again I would point out to my hon. colleague that Kyoto is the what and the plan is the how. That is what we are dealing with.

Even though the provinces and territories are not signatories to international treaties, the government has felt it important, not only in dealing with the provinces and territories on a continual basis, but also in setting up round tables, and I will use the municipal round tables as an example. I talked about the FCM. We want to set up these round tables to get the kind of input that we need to make sure we get the plan right.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether Canada has always believed in ratifying the Kyoto protocol. I think that, since 1997, opposition parties, including the Bloc Quebecois, have had to put pressure on the government for it to commit to ratifying Kyoto by the end of 2002.

However, with regard to this implementation plan, I would like to ask the member why the federal government is always so unfair. Why does it not apply the polluter pays principle and use 1990 as base year instead of 2010?

If the government is so eager to go ahead with this, why does it not listen to what the Bloc Quebecois and the Government of Quebec have been suggesting, so it can be fair across the board?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would point out to the hon. member that 1990 in fact is where the reduction comes from and we have that included in the plan. The government, since 1997, having been a part of this process, has felt it very important that we work in consultation with the provinces. We know that the provinces have different views and some have been much more supportive initially than others but this is an ongoing process.

We have received a list of 12 issues from the provinces. We have already agreed to nine and the process is ongoing with the other three. I believe the government took a strenuous approach and, from the evidence I have heard, an approach that is achievable and realistic.

As the member knows, the province of Quebec has been supportive for various reasons, as have other provinces, although sometimes, and I know it is unbelievable in this House, politics plays a bit of a role. However what is important is that inaction by the government or by any of the provinces would spell very dangerous consequences. I do not think that is the approach Canadians want us to take.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I would be a bit embarrassed, as the member for an riding like Beauharnois—Salaberry, if I did not speak to this issue that is so important. In fact, I represent an area that has suffered enormously from the senseless, even savage, development that took place there in the thirties and forties. Today, this area has a great deal of catching up to do in terms of the environment. At the time, many industries settled there, producing chemicals, aluminum, steel and so on. People were not really concerned about the environment back then.

Today, we have to live with the consequences, as they say, and find solutions to clean up the environment and make it liveable for everyone.

We also need to attract people to our area, in the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry, which is surrounded by water. Mr. Speaker, you know my area because my riding is close to yours, on the other shore of the St. Lawrence. We know that the St. Lawrence is one of the great bodies of water that was used in Canada's industrial development, from the Great Lakes all the way downstream. At the time, people did not think that the impact would be so bad in the medium and long term.

Today, we are indeed talking about a pact, a treaty, an international movement. If we do not do this today, and if we put off signing the Kyoto protocol, that too will have a negative impact in the medium and long term. I feel like every year that passes without us signing the agreement will jeopardize, in the medium and long term, the quality of the environment of our planet, our country, and I would add, my area.

That is why I support the government's decision to ratify Kyoto before the end of the year. We will support the Prime Minister on this and all government members agree with the need to ratify Kyoto.

Of course, the opponents to Kyoto always come back to the economic impact of the protocol. Instead of focusing only on the number of jobs that could be lost if we ratify Kyoto, we should try to figure out how many jobs Kyoto could create in Canada. When we want to develop a green industry, we always feel like it will not turn out a profit, that jobs will be lost and other countries will benefit from our failure.

I totally disagree. We know of a lot of businesses that have decided to take such an opportunity to modernize their operations and adopt new technologies. Nowadays, we have companies that easily meet the emission standards not only in Quebec but throughout the country.

Some have chosen the narrow-minded approach, because they want the debate to deal only with the jobs we might lose. They forget to think about the mid to long term impact the accord could have on our economy.

For instance, we have been having a raging debate in the last week about the famous Romanow report that recommends new money for health care. Why is every region in Canada urging the federal government to step in and reinvest in health care?

If I take the case of Quebec, it used to have a health budget of $8 billion. Today, the budget has doubled. It is the same for all provinces. There is a problem. We are talking about an aging population, but this is not the only issue.

We have greenhouse gas emissions and CO

2

emissions in the air. What is their impact on health? We could save on health costs in each of those regions in Canada and have a healthier population.

Let us take the case of agriculture. All my colleagues who spoke during this debate and all those who favour a quality environment referred to the impact on agriculture.

Consider the case of forests. They represent an extraordinary wealth. Rather than considering a sensible development of the forestry industry, they stubbornly continue to violate forests. In the Amazon and elsewhere in Brazil, how many millions of acres of forest have been ruthlessly stripped of all trees, without any consideration for the environment?

In my own area, there could be a happy union between agriculture and forestry. Because of a problem with hog production, hog farmers act in an anarchic way and cut trees down in order to have more land where they can spread pig slurry. They do not consider the impact tree cutting can have on the environment.

If we analyzed every positive impact, we would see that in terms of employment there would be a medium and long term benefit.

There is another important aspect that has to be mentioned. Businesses looking for a place to locate often do a quality assessment of the place. On the environmental level, this quality has a major impact on the business siting decision.

I wanted to talk more about transportation this afternoon. I always come back to my own area and the greater Montreal area—the greater Toronto surely has to deal with the same problem—namely the impact of trucking on air quality in areas around major urban centres.

The plan proposes some quite extraordinary things. We know that CO

2

emissions from cars and trucks represent 25% of that pollution. This is why it is important for municipalities and regions to focus on reducing trucking and favouring public transportation more.

In concluding, I would like to ask a question to all those who are in the House. What are we waiting for? What are the people who currently oppose ratification of the Kyoto protocol waiting for? Are they waiting for a time when there is not a single fish in our waters, not a single tree on our land, not a single bird in the air? What are we waiting for?

The day we find ourselves in that situation, we will have a deprived planet. Perhaps people will continue to extract oil from the ground or coal from the mines but, in the end, we will no longer have any grass, we will have nothing left. This can happen quite rapidly.

This is a matter of social conscience. I believe that people should think about this. When the plan is implemented, we will be able to sit down together and think, to find the right solution.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by the parliamentary secretary and member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

In his speech, the member said that his riding had a lot of catching up to do since the 1930s and 1940s and that ratifying Kyoto was very urgent. According to him, if we do not take drastic measures, soon we will no longer have fish, birds or trees in our forests.

However, I would like to ask this to the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry. He talked at length about the implementation plan. Why, to help his riding, should the polluter pays principle not be included in the plan? This plan favours polluters.

The member says that we must act quickly. Why is the polluter pays principle not included in his government's plan? Why does he not tell his Minister of the Environment to listen to what Quebec has been saying so that businesses, like the ones in his riding that produce steel or aluminum, in my riding, do something? Many businesses have already taken measures since 1990. If the government does not take that into account, these businesses will be in the same category as those that have not done anything.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we need to take a wider outlook than that. This is an issue that concerns all of Canada.

I get the impression, and it may be more than just an impression, that we need a collective effort. It is true that great things have been achieved in Quebec. That is fine. This will be an example for other regions in Canada.

But I think that we should all do our share. More privileged regions should be ready to help those who are less so. We should also consider the fact that the types of industries differ from one region to the next.

The important thing is to find a balanced solution that will benefit everybody, but that will apply at a pace that can vary, provided the 10 year timeframe is respected.

We have until 2012 to reach our goal, and that leaves us 10 years. We should stop being parochial and say: We have done this or that, and it is enough. Why are we being asked to do even more? We should be more open than this to the whole country. We should participate. Quebec needs to participate in the development of a better plan and help other regions implement an effective plan.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is distressing to hear speech after speech from the other side refusing to acknowledge or answer my questions about the impact of solar magnetic cycles on this whole climate change question. There are tonnes of evidence, going back as far as we can tell to 1750, which correlates sun spot and solar magnetic cycle activity with changes in global temperature.

I would like to ask the member first, would he not acknowledge that there is a possibility that greenhouse gases are not the major contributor to climate change, whether it is cooling or heating, that it is probably solar cycles? Second, would he not acknowledge that we do not need Kyoto to address pollution? The government could pass regulations tomorrow to require cars to be less polluting but it does not do it.

Carbon dioxide and water vapour are naturally occurring gases. They are not pollutants. If we want to deal with pollution we should address pollution. We do not need Kyoto to address pollution and it could easily be solar magnetic cycles that are causing cooling and warming. Would the member acknowledge those two things?

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, each country can decide to develop a plan to address pollution immediately. Overall, when the Government of Quebec decided to propose formulas to raise the awareness of businesses and homeowners about energy savings, it used the incentive approach. It did not wait for the Kyoto protocol.

The hon. member indicates that we could demand more fuel-efficient cars tomorrow. But this assumes readjustments on the part of the auto industry, should it be decided to take that route, as proposed by the Minister of the Environment. So a period of one year, or two, three, four or five years would be required. That is the way it is; things have to be announced in order for people to start to prepare. We cannot just do it out of the blue.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on behalf of the people of Jonquière, who support ratification of the Kyoto protocol. Before I continue, I should indicate that I am splitting my time with the member for Sherbrooke.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of ratification, because it is time to reverse the present trend toward global warming, which points to dramatic environmental damage. Canada must be involved in the international effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly since this country is a heavy emitter, in fact the worst per capita, if Quebec is not included in the figures.

The people of Quebec want to see Canada ratify the protocol and there has been unanimity in the National Assembly in favour of this.

Right from the start, the Bloc Quebecois has been calling upon the federal government to assume its share of the responsibility for greenhouse gases. The Bloc has always been in favour of adopting quantifiable objectives internationally in connection with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. These objectives need to go hand in hand with legal constraints, so that the commitments entered into by the federal and provincial governments are met.

We think that it is both desirable and realistic that Quebec, the federal government and the provinces reach consensus to set ambitious greenhouse gas emission targets, but that must not further set back ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

Why must the Kyoto protocol be ratified? First, let us talk about the effects of climate change: the greenhouse effect is a vivid term that describes how the atmosphere controls the temperature of the earth, making it a unique planet on which organisms grow and beings live.

Solar energy is absorbed by the lower atmosphere, the oceans and the earth and converted into heat, which heats the surface of the earth and the air that surrounds it. A part of this energy is reflected and is lost in space, but our atmosphere traps most of it. Certain atmospheric gases insulate the earth, preventing the heat from escaping.

Greenhouse gases absorb the heat and reflect it back to the earth's surface. Without this natural greenhouse effect, the earth would be much colder than it now is, driving the average temperature of the planet down to a temperature too low to support life as we know it.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has risen 30% and methane has increased 145%. It is estimated that consumption of fossil fuels worldwide emits 22 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the key factor in climate change, into the atmosphere and this amount is climbing steadily.

The earth's average temperature has increased 0.6 degrees Celsius over the last 100 years. In fact, the 1990s were the warmest years in recorded history. If nothing is done to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions, the best forecasts indicate that the average world temperature could increase by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius over the next century. An increase in world temperatures will cause changes to other elements of the earth's climate system, which will influence atmospheric conditions.

Let us see what direct impact global warming will have on health. This impact will be felt when we go outside on an extremely hot or cold day. It will be increasingly difficult to breathe, because of heat stress and increased air pollution, particularly for those who suffer from respiratory illnesses. There will be an increased risk of heart attack and strokes caused by heat stress, and an increased risk of skin cancer caused by prolonged exposure to UV rays.

It has been established that pollutants are harmful to lungs and are responsible for a larger number of people being hospitalized for bronchitis, pneumonia and asthma. Pollutants increase chest pain and make it more difficult to breathe; they deprive the body of oxygen, because of an increase in the carbon dioxide concentration.

Why ratify Kyoto? On May 24, 2002, the motion unanimously adopted by the National Assembly read as follows:

That the National Assembly ask the federal government to restate its commitment to meeting the greenhouse gas reduction goals set by the Kyoto protocol on climate change, and urge the federal government to take an active part in the current efforts aimed at asking for negotiations so that as many states as possible ratify the protocol.

But there is a problem. The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the most recent implementation plan presented by the federal government for the reasons that I will mention.

The Ottawa plan uses 2010 as the reference year for the specific reduction effort that will be demanded from each province or economic sector. This approach is unfair, because it does not take into consideration past and current efforts, and it encourages polluters to pollute even more until the year 2010.

In Quebec, greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 4% since 1990, compared to 14% in Ontario, 31% in Alberta and 24% in British Columbia. For all of Canada, these emissions have increased by 19% since 1990.

The Bloc Quebecois does not agree with Ottawa, which is prepared to fund projects from the oil and gas industry. In the past, Ottawa has given to that industry direct subsidies that were 20 times greater than those given to other industries. Since 1970, Ottawa has paid in direct subsidies $66 billion to the oil industry and only $329 million for solar and wind energies.

The federal government's plan is unfair and it benefits the industries that pollute the most. It ignores the polluter pay principle, whereby those who pollute the most are the ones who must reduce their emissions the most.

The federal government evaluated the impact of the implementation of the Kyoto protocol on job creation. The plan is particularly unfair in this regard. Quebec, which pollutes the least, will lose more jobs, while Alberta, which pollutes more, will lose fewer jobs.

The Bloc Quebecois does not agree with how the federal government evaluated the impact of its plan on the revenues of each province. The results are that the federal plan is very unfair. Quebec, which pollutes less, will lose more, while Alberta, which pollutes more, will lose less.

Historically, Quebec has opted for non-polluting forms of energy, such as hydroelectricity. Since 1990, which is the reference year in the 1997 Kyoto protocol, Quebec has been model, in terms of the environment. Therefore, it should not have to pay more than the others, because the polluter pay principle must prevail.

Let me give the example of Alcan, which is located in my area. On October 17, 2002, Alcan Inc. announced that greenhouse gas emissions from its facilities in Quebec will be reduced by 285,000 tonnes compared to the 1999 levels, based on an equivalent production capacity. This new objective will be reached by the end of 2003.

In his statement, Jean Simon, the vice-president for the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean operations, said, regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions:

--it is an objective that has been part of our operations management systems for many years. Alcan has been reducing its gas emissions since 1990 and has reduced them by over two million tonnes in the past decade. Therefore, the agreement is in line with our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our facilities all over the world.

In short, we make a clear distinction between ratifying the Kyoto protocol and implementing it. We are convinced of the merits of ratifying the Kyoto protocol, based on several principles that we value strongly and that will have to be reflected in the implementation of the protocol.

I say yes, let us ratify the Kyoto protocol for the future of our planet, for our children and for our grandchildren.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for her speech. She has demonstrated that ratification of Kyoto and the fight against climate change can turn into opportunities to develop the resource-based regions.

She pointed to Alcan, a company that has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 2 megatonnes in the last few years. But that corporation will go even further. It is committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by another 500,000 tonnes over a four-year period.

Why? Because of all the economic benefits. First, aluminum is an alloy that can be recycled. Second, it is a light material that can be used for some motor vehicles, for instance. This goes to show that some industries, including the aluminum industry, will be able to expand, grow and create jobs in areas like Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

However, the efforts previously made by these industries, and companies like Alcan, which has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 2 megatonnes, will not be recognized in the federal government's plan.

To be fair to the companies in my area and to ensure that the fight against climate change will continue in the future, does the hon. member not think that the federal government should take into consideration the effort made by Alcan and by the aluminum industry, in Quebec and in Canada?

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie. Before answering his question, I would like to congratulate him on the excellent work he has done throughout the debate on ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

I wanted to include in my speech what is being done at present and will be done in future by Alcan in my riding. They are setting an example that ought to be followed by numerous companies, as well as looked at closely by this government in connection with its implementation plan.

What Alcan has been doing since 1990 is very important, in my opinion. Not only has it reduced its greenhouse gas emissions, it is also able to charge less per tonne for its product. If the government does not take into consideration what the company has been doing since 1990, its price per tonne of aluminum will go up.

To be fair, the efforts made that will help us attain our objectives more quickly must be acknowledged.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard all manner of things said about the Kyoto protocol. Some are in favour, others far less so.

I have heard some historical arguments, some going back to prehistory even, on temperature change. We all know that the earth was nothing but a fireball, once upon a time. Then there was the Ice Age, so there have been some pretty wide variations.

Some hon. members have tried to convince us that there was a kind of stability, that there was no climate change. They even said that it had nothing to do with pollution.

Looking into the dictionary definition of pollution, it is described as the degradation of a natural environment. There is no immediate degradation of the natural environment where climate change and greenhouse gas emissions are concerned. We do know very well, however, that the planet is affected. By that very token, greenhouse gas emissions are a component of pollution, because they have a direct effect on the planet, on the animal kingdom, on the plant kingdom. Of course the consequences of this are climate change, which brings about ice storms or floods. We are even beginning to find exotic microbes in our country. The mosquitoes are arriving earlier and earlier and leaving later and later.

There is a real problem and those who do not want to admit it are basically sticking their heads in the sand. This is pretty serious for them, because we know that sticking one's head in the sand, particularly if tar sands are involved, can make the situation worse.

We also need to make an important distinction in this matter. There is the ratification of the Kyoto protocol and then there is its implementation. The ratification of the protocol demonstrates political resolve these days. It is an interventionist policy for action on important issues that could, practically speaking, threaten sustainable development. This is an important issue and it must be made known, it must be shouted out loud and clear.

However, the other issue that is also very important is the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. The polluter pays principle, in any matter involving the environment, must drive any and all activities and operations that are undertaken.

Suppose that the House were to decide to undertake a health initiative, and after all 301 members were weighed, it was calculated that there were three tonnes of excess weight. Would we ask my friend, the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie to contribute as much as me in reducing that weight? No way.

It is basically the same thing. When one corner of Canada produces considerably more than the rest of Canada and also much more than Quebec, it is unthinkable to ask that Quebec contribute the same as Alberta, for example.

We cannot have a double standard. There must be a fair link between those who pollute and those who must pay. Obviously this will hit the oil provinces in their pocketbooks.

Last year, I attended a dinner in Calgary. Someone explained to me that he had just sold his business for $4 billion. If the implementation plan attempts to reduce the consumption of oil, which is the main element of greenhouse gas, these people may no longer be able to sell their businesses to foreign interests for four, five, six or seven billion dollars.

They say the amount is low. Canada produces approximately 2% of greenhouse gas emissions internationally. Of course, 2% does not seem like much, but it is a question of responsibilities. It is a question of sustainable development.

Furthermore, concerning the 98% produced elsewhere, we experience the same effects. We must then consider all this as a political will to ratify the Kyoto protocol, but also as major elements of its implementation.

As for Quebec, those who are listening to us have heard quite a number of speeches and have found out that, through its actions since the 1970s and through its political and economic choices, it also made environmental choices. From 1971 to 1998, $43 billion in current dollars were invested in hydroelectric plants.

People know that the increase in electricity production through hydro sources prevented 64 million tons of CO

2

emissions from being produced from 1990 to 1998. People are well aware that, in Quebec, the reduction did not come about by the wave of a magic wand. It is not simply by stopping eating pork and beans and pea soup that we reduced our greenhouse gases. We had to take firm action. This is one of them. While Quebec was investing $43 billion in hydroelectric plants, Ottawa was investing $66 billion in the oil industry and $6 billion in the nuclear industry, as opposed to a meagre $329 million in renewable energies. We know very well that, right from the beginning, since 1970, if the federal government had been willing at that time — these were all known elements by the science community — it would have been easy to move forward in this area. It would also have been difficult for the economic interests of people who wanted to go for the simplest and most profitable. So there was not this political will to move forward in the renewable energy sector.

Today, a very important element exists. Hydroelectricity is still there, but we also have wind energy. Again, the Government of Quebec had the political will to turn to wind energy, which allowed for the installation of a total of 133 wind generators, 76 in Cap-Chat and 57 in Matane, in the Gaspé Peninsula. These two wind farms, with a total capacity of 100 megawatts, are part of Hydro-Québec's main system. This project required an investment of $160 million and gave jobs to more than 1,000 people for various periods of time.

For those who wonder about investment and job creation, the job creation ratio in the wind energy sector is much higher and that type of energy causes no pollution.

I would also like to say a few quick words about another element. Today, to produce, in thermal power plants, the equivalent of the hydroelectricity generated in Quebec each year, we would have to burn some 30 million tonnes of oil or an even greater quantity of coal, which would cause the release of some 100 million tonnes of CO

2

into the atmosphere, as well as a large quantity of various emanations associated with acid rain.

Clearly, the Kyoto protocol is just one element among many others. In the context of sustainable development, it is an element that is not a panacea but that shows a firm resolve on the part of the government to go forward. Of course, I will repeat that we must always be careful with the implementation plan.

Energy efficiency will always be part of the implementation plan. People will have to be increasingly aware of that. If the public decided to make a large contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions overnight, targets, at least in Quebec, could be achieved practically effortlessly. I am talking here about doing something about cars, heating and buildings. By buying more of our own products, we would reduce transportation costs. All this to say that energy efficiency is a very important element in the implementation of the Kyoto protocol.