Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2002

Kyoto Protocol

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member to comment on the importance of just transition strategies. One of the most significant developments in the ratification process of Kyoto is the support of the CEP union and the workers in this sector. Perhaps the member could comment on the importance of just transition strategies for workers and communities that are affected by the Kyoto accord implementation.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the question from the member for Burnaby--Douglas has raised a very important issue that is fundamental to our approach to the ratification of Kyoto.

We absolutely are committed to just transition strategies. We have called on the government on numerous occasions to actually consider all factors with respect to a strategy.

We support very strongly a plan to assist displaced workers to retrain, find new opportunities through employment insurance and direct sectoral programs. That is fundamental to the task at hand.

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

The Kyoto protocol is an international accord established five years ago, which led to several large international conferences where the world community negotiated, sometimes bitterly, the conditions for the implementation of the accord. It was at the Conferences of the Parties held in Bonn and Marrakech in 2001 that the international community, or some 178 countries, came up with the realistic framework that gave each country a certain flexibility in determining how they would meet their targets.

This is the context in which the government has already, it should be noted, committed more than one billion dollars toward measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and undertaken studies and consultations leading to an action plan tailored to the realities and the limitations of our country.

Through, on the one hand, our sustained participation in this international process of unprecedented scope and complexity, and also through a large-scale mobilization here within Canada, we have paved the way toward the ratification of the Kyoto protocol

Now the time has come for our Parliament to approve the process and to ask our government to ratify the protocol, in other words, to announce officially that Canada will take part in this international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By this agreement, we send the message that our country agrees with this major international contract to fight global warming within the framework of a combined effort involving dozens of other countries.

I wanted to recall briefly the international context surrounding the ratification procedure that we are now debating, in order to show that our actions here in Canada will be an integral part of international actions.

I wanted to remind members of this to demonstrate that one cannot contrast—as some have tried to do—a completely Canadian action plan with the enormous international effort resulting from the Kyoto protocol.

Our action plan fits within the international action plan, and is not independent of it. However, it can be completely tailored to Canadian realities.

In the past few days, our colleagues have debated the Kyoto protocol and Canada's ratification of it in scientific and economic terms, and in terms of the political repercussions.

As far as the scientific aspects are concerned, I will refer to the findings of the three working groups of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This panel brought together the best government experts in the world and prepared consensus reports that the Financial Times considered to be models of their kind. These reports describe what we can expect. When I say we, I mean the earth, the oceans, the climate, human beings and other life forms if we continue down the current slope in terms of climate change brought about by human activity. These reports suggest possible adaptation strategies, while noting that “tackling climate change is now a political, at least as much as a technical or economic, problem”.

As for the economic aspects of the issue, during this debate we have seen numerous scenarios unfold, often with alarmist predictions, including an economic slowdown, loss of competitiveness, loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, unknown costs, unfair distribution of the burden, and so on.

In reality, the most credible numbers come from the National Climate Change Process, Analysis and Modeling Group, a group comprised of representatives from all levels of government in Canada.

What does this group predict? After consulting with experts from business, universities and environmental groups, this group predicts that our GDP will increase by 30.4% in 2012, instead of 31%.

Is there really cause for concern with such a prediction that is well within the standard margin of error? More importantly, this prediction does not weigh the possible positive impact on our economy, health and lifestyle stemming from innovation, new investment, new developments in energy and so on.

We also know that hundreds of businesses in many European and Asian countries and even in the United States, with billions in sales have joined in support of the Kyoto protocol under the banner “e-mission 55--Business for Climate”. These businesses believe Kyoto is appropriate.

We also know that dozens of Canadian companies, including oil companies, have taken the lead and understand that reducing greenhouse gases will in no way harm their ability to compete or be efficient.

We also know, and the Canadian Labour Congress reminded us of this point, that the Kyoto protocol is not seen as a threat to jobs in Canada. On the contrary.

The CLC urges the Government of Canada to ratify Kyoto because, they say, it would be good for the Canadian economy, for job creation, for the health of workers, for our children and for our cities.

Furthermore, we know that the federal and provincial governments can negotiate sectoral agreements with industry and unions, while ensuring that fair transitional measures and incentives for change and adaptation measures are established to ensure the necessary flexibility.

Over and above these measures, however, what counts the most, both now in the debate and in the years to come, is our capacity for innovation and creativity as far as clean and renewable energies, as well as new construction materials, new technologies, transportation and bioeconomics, are concerned.

Then there are the political dimensions of this debate, which merit considerable attention also.

I feel that our primary responsibility as elected representatives is to call upon the business community to show greater vision, to move beyond short term considerations and follow the lead of the numerous companies that have already embarked upon new practices which have proven that economy can go hand in hand with respect for the environment, and that it can be profitable to work with the environment.

We also have a duty to point out the path we want our country to follow, while still keeping the door open to bilateral, multilateral and sectoral negotiations, with a view to ensuring all necessary fairness to the various parties to the action plan, and while respecting jurisdictional limitations and the past efforts of certain provinces, as well as their specific characteristics.

In my opinion, this is not the right time for the federal government to wait for consensus on an action plan that would dot all the i's and cross all the t's, as far as each measure to be adopted and each phase to be undertaken are concerned.

We are not here for the purpose of micromanaging every transitional and adaptive measure arising out of the action plan. What we are here for is to define the horizon and the vision that is right for this country and for the international situation.

The cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action. The time for action, concerted action, has come. It is time Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague who just finished his speech on the merits of the Kyoto protocol. He obviously speaks with a great deal of experience, having been the spokesperson for and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. I know him to be a member who studies a subject thoroughly and who gives it much thought and consideration.

Therefore, I am happy to add my voice to those in the House who believe that the Kyoto protocol should be a fait accompli.

It is that. I have listened to debate among members in the House who have a genuine and deep-seated commitment to the benefit of Canada and all Canadians. When we speak about Kyoto, I note that some of my colleagues address this with the fervour that in the past some of us might have addressed a philosophical or religious attachment to a particular thing. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact we have needed that kind of attachment to move things along.

Today, in a much more secular environment, we address this as sort of political will. Perhaps we are in a period of political correctness. Be it as it may, we are today in a position where those who have been looking to Canada for leadership on the environmental issues we can rightfully say, “Here we are. We are providing such leadership”.

The facts would seem to bear that out. Canada, as an industrialized nation, is responsible for only 2% of emissions that contribute to climate change, the so-called greenhouse gases. However we are a very small player on the pollution index and we are attempting to make a big dent in the way that the world will respond to this challenge.

I know that my colleague who just spoke would say to everybody in the House, and I dare say without presumption to those who sit in judgment on what we will do, that this is a challenge for each and every one of us. It is no longer an issue for us in the House that we will or will not accept Kyoto, because we will. It is there, it is a question of ratification and it is out of our hands. Much as many of us would like to think differently, we are all participants in a system that recognizes the nature of hierarchical decision making. We have already in this Parliament devolved to the executive the authority to ratify international accords, international protocols and international treaties, and so it should be. Here I would reflect on my colleague that we are happy to see that the leadership of this House has determined that ratifying Kyoto is a good thing.

Whether we would agree or disagree, as some people in the House would position themselves, we cannot change that. Should we? Certainly our vote in the House will not make a difference. I do not mean to be dismissive in that regard, but I do want to reinforce that. The challenge for all of us is not whether we can bring forward all the data that we think our scientists can provide us so that we can look good in making an argument for or against ratification. Those arguments have been made. They have been eloquent. Some of them have been compelling and many of them have been persuasive. Obviously they have persuaded those who will make the decision on our behalf.

I think most of us have come to grips with the fact that a particular philosophical position has already won the day. I do not know of anybody, certainly not on this side of the House and maybe not on the other side of the House, who does not want to make a contribution to a cleaner environment and to diminish the potential for ruining an environment down the road. If such a member exists in the House, please stand up and advise all Canadians of his or her position. Seeing none, I will continue.

The challenge then is that we ought to engage in a discussion about an implementation process. Let us acknowledge what has happened and what is happening and let us engage ourselves in an implementation process that will take into consideration all those dynamics that make us a separate, distinct sovereign country and that afford us as Canadians all those advantages that we say will accrue to all humankind as a result of our ratification of Kyoto and as a result of the leadership that we will provide.

It is leadership, because so far the countries that have ratified Kyoto account for only 37.4% of all the greenhouse gas emissions. Members have already said that this would not be a binding protocol unless 55% of the countries in the world responsible for 55% of the overall emissions sign on. We would contribute an additional 2% to that 37.4%.

If I were a cynic I would say it would not happen no matter what we do, but I am not. We are providing leadership. By our signature and ratification we would hopefully bring other nations along with us, particularly some of the more polluting countries. I am thinking of one now that is responsible for over 17%. It is probably waiting for us to make a decision.

It is important for us to think in terms of an implementation program that is consistent with the objectives of the philosophical position of the environmental position that we are advancing. The implementation program should not diminish the intensity of our drive nor the value of our leadership by engaging in exercises that merely shift some of the obligation without bringing any actual benefit to Canada. If we are not going to diminish the amount of greenhouse gases or pollutants in Canada then we are diminishing that drive and that leadership.

One of the principles we should be looking toward is a position that is uniquely Canadian, taking into consideration the sectoral requirements of all Canadians in this vast territory which is geographically bigger than all of Europe, and much more challenging. It is much more challenging because geographically we have differences in resources and consumption.

We need to take those differences into consideration. We need to make those investments in technology and innovation that allow us to meet our own objectives here, domestically. We need to keep in mind the competitive nature of our society, our industries and our sectors. We need to ensure that we engage all of those jurisdictions and all of those industries that are going to be part and parcel of a solution. We need not engage in any exercise that would pit one Canadian versus another, one industry versus another, or one jurisdiction versus another.

The political environment is uniquely suited to establish the kind of implementation program and oversight program that would make us all proud as Canadians that we ratified Kyoto.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his interesting perspective. I find it more odd that he would use leadership as his thesis for the speech when his party is the one party that is lacking leadership above all else. The Kyoto protocol will be anything but leadership.

Leadership taking the forces, walking and having someone follow is not necessarily positive leadership. What we need is leadership that can take a look at and recognize the Kyoto protocol for what it is. It is dangerous for Canada, Alberta, and to the economy.

If Canada were to sign the Kyoto protocol we would have the distinction of being one of the countries that would perhaps, more than any other country, have to significantly reduce its emissions. Countries in the developing world would not have to reduce their emissions. They have not signed the protocol. They are not included in it and yet out of the six billion individuals on the planet, five billion are from the developing world.

The United States has shown leadership. It has looked at the impact that it would have on its economy and on the country and it has said it needs a different type of plan to reduce CO

2

. Australia recognized that it was able to negotiate and it will not sign the Kyoto protocol.

Many of the western European countries would not be affected because they have already reduced their amounts to levels that would not force them into making a plan that would hinder and hurt their economies to the degree that Canada would be hurt.

I must note that Europe uses nuclear energy and it is a leader in that area. Is that the type of leadership that this member would like to see Canada move toward, more nuclear powered energy? Japan obviously has not.

Given that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and all those dealing specifically with the economy of the country, have warned us and told us of the hurt to the economy that we would see with the ratification of the Kyoto protocol, what kind of leadership is it from a country that would walk its economy into that type of situation?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking about challenge my hon. colleague was thinking about leadership. The two are not necessarily at odds with each other because the decision presents a challenge. I indicated what some of those challenges were and the fact that decisions that would be made may require all of us to come up with a “how to” plan, not a “what to” plan because that has already been decided. That is not dangerous.

A “how to” plan would involve a strategy for maintaining competitiveness in the environment in which we operate, a political and economic involvement. That is not dangerous. There is no dissonance with leadership there.

The hon. colleague makes reference to whether we are heading in the right direction or not. There are members on this side of the House who have paid great attention to this issue. My colleague from Stoney Creek set out a few examples of a strategy where Canadians would be able to maintain their dominant position in a relatively wealthy environment. What we need to do is to take a look at challenges as not being dissonant with competitiveness.

What we need to do is to take into consideration the interests of Canada as an industrial interest and as a home for Canadians who are looking for not only this direction, because we are back to the “what to”, but as a place where Canadians can maintain a competitive environment.

We need the “how to” process where we would not only protect but nurture and encourage our industries, where we would not only protect our resources but nurture innovation, and where we would not only take a look at the conditions that we currently have in terms of the consumption of energy resources but where we could renew them, make them sustainable and make them exporters of the innovation.

[Rex Barnes, Progressive Conservative, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from South Shore.

We sit around the table and talk about Kyoto, but a lot of Canadians out there, believe it or not, still do not understand what Kyoto is all about. I will try to simplify it as much as I can so that not only people in the media understand it, but also people out there reading the papers.

It is irresponsible of the House to blindly ratify the Kyoto accord without knowing exactly what is in it and exactly how it would affect ordinary Canadians. We could talk about how it would affect the provinces and that is important, but how would it affect Canadians who are paying the bills, and paying our salaries to work on their behalf?

It is important to realize that Canadians are doing their part to ensure that they take care of the environment in one form or another. An example is the price of gas which has risen across this country. It is very high in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have some of the highest gas prices. People are doing their part because they cannot afford to do otherwise. They are carpooling to cut down on people driving from one point to another because they cannot afford the cost but at the same time they are thinking about the environment.

I would like to make the following analogy. If anyone in the House were to go to a construction company and ask it to build a house, the first thing the contractor would say is how much it would cost. If a person only has $100,000 to put into a house and the contractor builds the house for $150,000, that person would be in trouble. To look at it simply, one would not build a house if one could not afford it. Therefore why would the government expect parliamentarians to vote for Kyoto without actually knowing how would affect us and what is in it?

We are all concerned that climate change is happening and that we all must do our parts. All we ask is to be told how it would affect our pocketbooks and how it would affect us long term, and we would all work toward it.

I do not know how my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party will vote on it, but I have made it clear that it would be irresponsible of me to blindly ratify the accord without knowing what is there. If my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party feel differently, I encourage them to vote for it, but then they are not doing justice to themselves or the people they represent. It is no good to just sit here and say that the party in power has brought it in, so we will support it. That is not good enough. It is important to be given the details, to slow down on the ratification, speak to the provinces and business people, and do it right.

Premier Roger Grimes of Newfoundland and Labrador is not against Kyoto as far as making it work, but he is opposed to Kyoto when there is no consultation, no plan in place, and no impact study to show how it would impact the province and the people. It is important to realize that this information must be given to us first, and if we do not do that, it is irresponsible.

The thing about Kyoto is that a Canadian plan is one made up with the provinces. Canada should have changed the format in the way it handled this. I have heard in the House that the government did not have to bring this to the House for debate, that it did not have to be ratified in the House, that it could have just pushed it through. That again shows the arrogance and the irresponsibility of any government that would do that.

We have to realize that if province by province had the input like they did when Kyoto was first was discussed, the Prime Minister could have told the provinces at that time that they had two to four years to come up with a plan and then they would sit together and format it into a major plan for the country. Therefore, Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador and all provinces would have been on side.

Now all we have is a major battle from province to province, and that is not good for the country. If that had been done, we would have been way ahead of the eight ball and we would have probably unanimously supported the report. The provinces would have had their own made in Canada, made in Newfoundland and Labrador, made in Alberta, program for the environment and to fight climate change to ensure that we left the heritage for our young people so that they would not have to worry about major problems with regard to the environment.

We are all here for the environment. We will not do anything that will hurt the environment. However we are here to ensure that it is done right. If that had happened, I guarantee we would probably have been the unanimous of the House for the accord.

However we cannot support it if we do not know on what we are voting. It is okay for some people to say that we have not read it, but tell us how much it will cost us. We cannot blindly ratify something. It is like the house; we cannot build a house unless we know how much it will cost. That is the same with Kyoto. That is very important.

We have read all the documents and have heard people speak on this, and they put all these big words into it. However a lot of people do not understand really what is happening. They honestly do not know what all the fighting is about with regard to Kyoto. As a result, we have to try to make it very simple so that they can understand it. That is very important.

One thing stands out the most when I speak to people. They want to know what it will do for them. They want to know how it will help them. They want to know if companies are trying to develop technologies to make it easier. If Kyoto will make it easier for them, they want us to tell them how so they can buy into to protect the environment. They do not want us to blindly ratify it and then make changes after. They say that will not work. If they do not support it now, they definitely will not support it after if all these changes are brought in. It is no good to put something in at beginning which is no good and then change it after.

My grandmother always told me, “If you are going to do it right the first time, do it right so you do not have to change it for the second time because as soon as you change it the second time, you have actually said you made mistakes in the beginning.” It is okay to make mistakes. if we admit our mistakes. If we do not admit those mistakes and make changes for the sake of making changes, then that is poor leadership, it is irresponsible and we are not doing what we are being paid for, and that is to represent the best concerns of our constituents and for all of Canada.

We have to realize that we have to move forward. If we are to move forward as a group, we have to show that we are building relationships and consensus with all parties in the House to ensure that concerns like Kyoto go forward with the best interests of the country and of all political parties in mind. There is no one in the House who is opposed to it but it is the manner in which it has come here.

We cannot vote on this blindly. We must have a clear vision of where we are going, what we are voting for and how it is going to impact us. If we cannot do that, I suggest the members are irresponsible and they will fail their constituents and Canada. This has nothing to do with leadership. It is all about working for our constituents to make their concerns heard and to ensure that Canada is the greatest country. We are the greatest country but let us make it better by ensuring that technologies are there which will ensure that we do not pollute our environment.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my friend across the way that Kyoto is not a house. Kyoto is an objective. It is a direction that we must go in. It was precipitated because of a recognition that our climate was changing on earth due to human activity.

I also remind my young friend, who is relatively new in this Parliament, that consultations have been going on with the provinces for over five years. At least one province, Alberta, has had a detailed plan in its hands for 12 years, which the premier of Alberta somehow chooses to ignore.

Reaching the objective of Kyoto is going to be a combination of two things. It is going to be a plan, yes, but also running the race as technologies develop and as we reintroduce old technologies, which served the industrialization of this country so well before the days of petroleum and so on.

Would the member recognize that this is a two-pronged approach? Not only is it just the plan, but is it not also the race we have to run?

[Rex Barnes, Progressive Conservative, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, again it shows how much people really listen and how much they understand. I did not say that Kyoto is a house. I said it is like a house when it comes to point of knowing how much it is going to cost to build a house. We must know how much it is going to cost us as Canadians and what the implications of Kyoto are going to be. If we do not do that, we are failing our people.

I agree with the member that yes, we are probably dealing with a two or three-pronged plug. It will take time to to do it, but let us put the plan front and centre now. Let us stipulate in the plan that in year one we will meet a certain objective and indicate what it will cost; in year two this is what we will do; and in year three and year four this is what we will do. Let us have the plan outlined. Let us not change it from year to year because of a whim. What we have to realize with Kyoto is that if we are to do it right, we have to have a plan. We have to know where it will go and how much it will cost people.

He talked about consultation. Premiers across the country have said that they have not been consulted in the manner which everyone says they have. Yes, there was consultation, but what type of consultation was there? The consultation should have been to instruct the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador to start formulating a plan for the province and then inform the government what the province wanted. Ottawa should not dictate to the rest of Canada what it will be. Let the provinces have input. Canada is only as strong as its provinces. If the provinces are not strong, Canada is not strong.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments from my colleague from Gander—Grand Falls. His last analogy probably sums this up as good as any analogy that I have heard. He said that the whole is only as strong as the sum of its parts, that Canada is only as strong as its provinces.

Instead of having a confrontational attitude and approach to difficult issues, the government would have been much better served to have had an approach that would have brought the provinces on board and would have allowed them some modicum of cooperation and some reward in the process that would have encouraged them to embark upon the Kyoto protocol.

Instead, it is typical of the government and its almost now 10 years in office. It did not have a plan. It waited until the very last moment in the process. It is my understanding that the Prime Minister has given word that the vote will occur on the Kyoto protocol on Monday. It would seem to me that there is a very limited amount of time to debate this in a responsible, reasonable, rational manner and, hopefully, in an intelligent manner.

I do not think many members of the House, although there may be a few, would debate that climate change is not occurring. There may be some debate about why it is occurring.

What went wrong? How can a government, which has been in power since 1993 and which signed this Kyoto protocol in 1997, now all of a sudden say that Kyoto has to be signed by December 31? All the legislation in the House seems to have to be passed before 2003, whether it is the nuclear bill, Bill C-4, or the gun control bill or Kyoto. There must be something awfully bad coming in 2003, something that we do not understand on the opposition side. What would be the difference if Kyoto was signed by August of 2003?

Have we somehow given a promise? All our trading partners have not signed on to it. All our trading partners do not intend to sign on to it. We do know enough about this legislation.

If we go back to the Rio summit, two major issues arose from that summit, biodiversity was the first one. Ten years later we have a Liberal government that has failed to pass the species at risk act. It has failed to pass any significant piece of environmental legislation.

Global climate change was the other issue that came from the Rio summit. That was in 1992. Kyoto was in 1997. On December 31 are we going to turn into something, but we do not know what it is yet. There is absolutely no reason for the government to pursue the course that it has. There is no reason the government could not have had the provinces on board. There is absolutely no reason that it could not have lead by example.

Two years ago in the natural resources committee members asked the committee to investigate the Kyoto process and look at the issue of climate change. Nothing happened. While we had agreement from some, we could not get an agreement from all government members. We could not get agreement from all opposition members. There were at least two of us who agreed to the motion but we could not get agreement to work on the cost of Kyoto. That was amazing.

Here we are at the last hour of the last day debating this issue and trying to find some reasonable position to take. The government has changed its position. It turns over more than one would turn bacon in a frying pan. It is absolutely incredible. It started off with an implementation date of 2008 to 2012. Now it may be 2020, 2030 or 2040.

Canada is the highest energy user per capita in the world. We use energy. We live in a cold climate. We have big distances to travel. Canada is a huge country. Our energy costs are high now and they will continue to be high.

What has the government done to lead by example? The Parliament Buildings do not even have thermopane windows. If we wanted to reduce heating costs that would be a small and fairly inexpensive first step. The government should wrap its head around that. The government is telling the rest of the nation how to retrofit for billions of dollars and it has not spent 2¢ of its own money to do the job itself.

What will a litre of gasoline cost at the end of the day? Do not say it will only be 3¢ or 4¢ more expensive because we know that is not true.

What will be the cost of a litre of home heating fuel? What will be the cost of a cord of firewood? We live in a cold climate. It is important to keep warm. A sweater will only do so much; we have to have an alternative heating source.

Why did we embark upon a program that encourages pollution by third world countries? We are saying that we will forgive the carbon produced by third world countries until they get up to scale with their own economies. Would the world not have been better served and would Kyoto not have been better served if we had said we would supply those third world countries with clean sources of energy? Would that not have been a better process to embark upon? Did no one think of that? Is that too complicated for the members on the government benches? Surely it is not. It is pretty basic.

How will carbon credits work? I still have not heard a satisfactory explanation from the government side.

Why did we not receive credit for clean exports? Hundreds of thousands of megawatts of clean electricity go from Canada into the U.S and there is no credit for those clean exports. With respect to the natural gas which comes from Alberta, the east coast and the high Arctic, there is no credit for those clean exports. We will be shipping product to the U.S. and allowing the U.S. to cut its carbon dioxide emissions but we will not be getting credit for shipping that product.

It seems that there has been a lot of obfuscation to make a fairly simple issue very complex. The government has done a poor job of defending the interests of Canadians. There is not an issue that we have ever supported in the House that was not costed out ahead of time. The government could say, “We have a cost here and it will be so many billion dollars in the first year and so many billion dollars in the second year”. We do not believe it, and Canadians do not believe it. There has to be a better and more pragmatic approach to this issue.

Where have we looked at emissions? What has the government done to foster green energy? What has the government done to foster ethanol production in Canada? We could have 10% to 20% of all the gasoline in Canada supplemented with ethanol. Nothing has been done.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was refreshing to hear someone who thinks the same way that I do and who has obviously looked into this in great detail. I have one question for the member.

Would he ever consider ratifying a protocol knowing full well that he could not meet the targets in it and also understanding fully that there are huge penalties to pay for implementing it and not being able to follow through?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no. The long answer is a little more complicated.

The hypocrisy, and I do not think that is too strong a word, Mr. Speaker, of ratifying an accord that the government knows it does not have a chance of implementing and coming up to the standards that are involved is shocking to say the very least. To embark on an issue like this and to not know the cost involved is even more shocking.

I note that the hon. member did not say that she was against environmental controls or that she was against doing something about climate change. That is the fundamental difference between the approach of at least some of the opposition parties and the government. It is not the goal. The goal at the end of the day may be the same. We would like a little proof on this side of what the real costs will be.

I understand Alberta's position very clearly. I understand the position of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia with offshore oil reserves and offshore gas.

It does not mean that we cannot do a better job of cleaning up the environment. It does not mean that we cannot reduce carbon emissions. There should be a step by step plan showing us very clearly how we could accomplish that end goal. That is not out there.

When I was concluding my remarks, I was talking about alternative forms of green energy. The government has done nothing to encourage alternative forms of energy, such as small hydro, wind power, or supplementing every litre of gasoline by making 10% of it ethanol. It has done nothing to do that, absolutely nothing. The government should start by leading by example. Let us retrofit the government buildings and insulate them.

The last time there was an energy crunch in the late 1980s, there was a tremendous retrofitting program. The walls and ceilings of private homes were insulated. Alternative oil burners were brought into production where we could get more fuel efficiency. We went to smaller vehicles. We went to more fuel efficient carburetors and motors. All that could be legislated.

It is no problem to reduce greenhouse gases. There is a huge problem for the government to reduce greenhouse gases because it does not know how to go about it. It cannot get an agreement or an accord with the provinces, but it wants to sign on with 168 countries around the world and force the provinces to abide by it. It does not make much sense to me.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss to know where the hon. member for South Shore has been since he was elected to the House.

Has he forgotten about the ethanol biomass program? Has he ever thought to tour the plant in Chatham that is turning out nearly 200 million litres a year? Has he forgotten about the elimination of the excise tax on ethanol? Does he not know about the Iogen Corporation in the south end of Ottawa near the airport? It is working on ethanol development from cellulose with a very hefty infusion of cash from the federal government. Has he forgotten that? Has he forgotten the last budget? The former minister of finance announced supplemental buy-back rates for wind powered energy. Has he forgotten about that?

I realize we could always do more, but perhaps the member could comment on those initiatives.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is infinitesimal, not even a blimp on the radar screen. It is less than 1%. There are big words and a lot of talk, but there is nothing in the total amount of gasoline used in Canada. It is infinitesimal.

In order to start a comprehensive program, we have to set a goal. Is the goal 10%? Is it 20%? Is it 30%? Is it 50%? The government has to set a goal and then try to reach it. I would like the government to do that. The government should not just sign Kyoto because the Prime Minister got up one day and thought it was a good idea. The government should sign it because the goal can be reached.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I shall be sharing my time with my friend, the member for Toronto--Danforth.

I rise today to support the immediate ratification of the Kyoto protocol. I do so in the belief that humanity is facing an unprecedented crisis of historical proportions. For our generation of parliamentarians it is hard to imagine a choice, a decision, that carries with it such monumental consequences. Nothing less than the future of the planet and the fate of humankind is at stake in this debate.

For us to rise to the challenge, we must summon up within us, within ourselves, qualities of courage, of imagination, of empathy with our brothers and sisters around the world, and of intergenerational moral obligation to our children and grandchildren.

What sort of world will we leave those children? Will it be a world fit for human habitation? Will it be a world where droughts continually worsen here in Canada's prairies or in the Sahel region of Africa? Will it be a world where the great oceans themselves inexorably rise, drowning ocean states like Nauru and coastal states like Bangladesh and threatening our own coastal villages and cities with flooding and storm surges?

Will this be a world where heat induced diseases like malaria, dengue fever and Lyme disease advance to overwhelm poor and vulnerable people around the world and indeed threaten even us in our seemingly safe bastion of North America?

Will this be a world in which increased temperatures combine with increased pollution to produce a toxic cloud to hasten the deaths around the world of young and elderly alike? And all this because we in North America failed to grow up, because we insisted on the acquisition and proliferation of sports utility vehicles as our birthright, indeed, the very definition of our moral worth as human beings?

When I recall the notorious Cheney energy plan of a year and a half ago in which the Vice President of the United States insisted that any restriction on the manufacture and sale of SUVs would be a constraint, indeed, an attack on the American way of life, I am sickened. What a paltry definition of American greatness. What pathetic, self-indulgent infantilism. What moral bankruptcy. What a failure of the human spirit.

Yet Canada has its own Dick Cheneys, its own self-absorbed, careless, short term, small minded critics of the Kyoto protocol, all equally bereft of scientific analytical capacity and moral imagination. What a monumental gamble they are asking us to take. What an extraordinary risk they are willing to run, not only for themselves but for their children. And all for short term gain, all for today and nothing for tomorrow, all for shallow political and economic ideology and nothing for science, nothing for moral decency.

When 2,000 of the world's leading scientists gathered together at the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and agreed so clearly on the impact of human activity over the past three centuries in hastening the speed of climate change, reasonable non-expert people like parliamentarians have to take them at their word. Probability analysis historically suggests that the consensus view of scientists has about nine out of ten chances of being right and the minority position has no more than a one in ten chance of being right.

Do we make public policy on the basis of a 10% chance of a minority view of scientists being right? More important, do we gamble with the future of our planet, the future of mankind, the future of our children, the future of our grandchildren, by failing to take action against a global risk that has a 90% chance of being right? What derogation from our duties as legislators, as global citizens, indeed as sentient moral human beings, would that be?

Supposing we followed the precautionary principle, took the 90% risk seriously, and ratified and implemented Kyoto, what is the worst that could happen to us? What is the downside?

Imagine our world in 2020 if we implement Kyoto. In 2020, we have stabilized our greenhouse gas emissions. True, fewer new jobs have been created in the fossil fuel industry, but new jobs have been created in the renewable energy sector. Natural gas prices have risen slightly, as have the costs of oil. Canada is a world leader in green technology. We are a more efficient country. The vehicles we drive have higher fuel efficiency standards and are fueled by ethanol blend gasoline. The next generation of cars powered by fuel cells is making its way onto our roads thanks to incentives and the existence of a domestic and international market for them. We have significantly reduced our dependence on fossil fuels, with dramatic implications for the health of Canadians, national security and the geopolitics of the Middle East.

In 2020, despite the population increase in urban areas, we have less congestion and fewer smog warnings because our public transportation infrastructure has been rejuvenated. Canadians and industry use fewer resources to accomplish the same tasks. Appliances are more energy efficient. Homes and industrial processes waste less energy.

In 2020, we are a world leader in renewable energy. We are a world leader in energy efficiency, in energy demand management, in forestry research, in waste management, and in materials research. We are a leader in disseminating that knowledge and technology to the rest of the world. We are spending less on our diminished energy needs. Canada has transitioned to a low carbon economy.

As columnist Andrew Coyne has pointed out:

The chances that many distinguished scientists who predict an impending climatological catastrophe will prove to be right...are greater than zero. In which case, would it not be prudent to take out some insurance against the event?

Kyoto is our insurance. It is clear that the risks of inaction are much higher than the risks of action.

To move forward decisively will require courage, commitment and contribution by all Canadians, but above all it will require leadership. In the real world, people do not undertake great tasks in a mood of cold, ironic realism. People need to have their passions engaged.

Hegel said:

We may affirm absolutely that nothing great in the world has been accomplished without passion.

It is the necessary fire that defeats the human inertia that is part of man.

The great French philosopher Blaise Pascal spoke of the essence of human life as a gamble, “un pari”, and so it is in political life. All the great decisions of state are essentially a gamble about the future.

Because we are not divine, we must always decide from a position of imperfect knowledge. We can never have all the facts. We can never be absolutely certain, but when we imperfect, frail mortals make this decision in this month of December, the year of our Lord 2002, surely it is not a lot to ask that we play the odds, that we not go against the 90% probability of the consensus of scientists being right, and that we think not only of ourselves but of our fellow human beings around the world who are far more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than we are.

Above all, as we vote on the Kyoto protocol, let us think of posterity, of our children and their children, and let us imagine ourselves sometime in the future feeling proud that at a moment of supreme, existential choice in our time and in our day we had the vision and the courage to do the right thing.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, who says that preaching is a lost art? I expected the voice to resonate as those ocean waves lapped up against the Rocky Mountains, and what were we going to do about it? I was not really moved, but I was surprised at the member.

I invite him instead to look at the speech from the member for Stoney Creek on his own side, because he realizes, as we realize, that it is not enough just to care. The member makes a passionate case for why we should care but he does not make a case about why it will work. Caring is easy. Liberals like to think they are the only people who care, but we on this side of the House, and many members on his own side, are saying, “Yes, but will it work?” The answer is, unfortunately, that I do not think this plan will work.

First the member for Stoney Creek pointed out the need to have treaties approved by Parliament before they are ratified, rather than them being just an interesting, little, useless exercise in debate. He talked about the need to have credits for early CO

2

reductions. He talked about the problems in having no specific details, plans and costs. He talked about the timeframes and the fact they are unreasonable. He talked about what financial instruments we were going to use to move the agenda forward, because he wants to move it forward, like many of us do, but finds nothing in the protocol that gives us any confidence that it will be done.

He talked about not contravening the innovation agenda that has already been announced, but he feels that Kyoto will contravene it because the two place one another at odds. He talked about the North American reality and the fact that we do not have a bilateral agreement with the Americans, and if we do not have a bilateral agreement with the Americans we have almost nothing. We are the only country in the western hemisphere signing this deal.

There are things we could do and there are things we should do. Many of them have been listed by the member for Stoney Creek and others. The member across the way should realize that passionate feelings of wanting to do something good for the world do not get the job done.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Neither, Mr. Speaker, does delay, delay, delay.

In 1939 members debated a wartime budget in the House. That was the way they expressed their views on the outbreak of the second world war and the decision of the Government of Canada to enter it. Did they know in 1939 that it would work? No. Did they know that they had to do it? Yes. We face from time to time extraordinary historical choices. Either we believe that there is a problem, in which case we have to set the goals and get on with it, or we cannot get on with it until we set the goals and agree that we have a problem.

[An hon. member]

Where's the plan?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

In 1939 there was no plan. None. In six years the country mobilized its economic and industrial resources in a way no one could have imagined in 1939. We did it because we recognized the nature of the challenge and we got on with it. The plan developed as we fought the war.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. My friend referred to scientific consensus. I want to point out to him that in past there has been scientific consensus on a number of things that never came to pass.

We know that scientists have repeatedly predicted that the world would be overrun with population, that we would not have food left. Every time they predict that, the numbers come out wrong. There was a consensus on a global ice age not very long ago, a consensus that we were entering a global ice age. They were wrong. There was a consensus that we would run out of fossil fuels in 25 years. They were wrong.

I want to say to my friend that I think his premise is wrong. I think that scientists in this case cannot possibly know exactly what will happen with the weather. They cannot predict the climate to the degree that they would suggest. Therefore, I think it is completely wrong to premise all this type of action on information that, at its very best--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Don Valley West has the last word.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what if the hon. member is wrong? What are the consequences of his being wrong? They are far more catastrophic than the consequences of our being wrong. The hon. member being wrong is an attack on the future viability of the planet. The consequence of our being wrong is a more efficient economy.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to have an opportunity to speak in the debate.

I want to go back to an evening I had 14 months ago. A group of us were in Toronto sitting around and listening to the former president of the United States, Bill Clinton, talk about his life as president. He decided at the end of the evening that he would take questions. A young man in the back of the room stood and asked, “Mr. Clinton, if you had an opportunity to be the president again, what would the number one issue be on your agenda?” Mr. Clinton said, “There is only one issue. It is climate change and, as a North American society, we have to mobilize and get involved in doing what is right for future generations”.

When the Prime Minister announced that we as a House of Commons would be voting for the ratification of Kyoto, it will go down as one of his boldest moves as a leader. I will tell members why the Prime Minister has the confidence that he is doing the right thing.

I happened to be around here in 1983 as a young assistant when we had inflation of 13% and unemployment of 12%. It was a very scary time to be in government. At that particular moment in time, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau stood in the House and announced a wage and price restraint program only for the Government of Canada. Over a two year period we were going to lead by example in restraining wages and prices. He appealed to Canadians to join in the exercise on a voluntary basis for the good of the entire country. I remember vividly the opposition at that time saying that this would never happen, that it was just a public relations gimmick. That is what the opposition said.

The people of Canada rallied. Small business, large business and unions from coast to coast involved themselves in the great mobilization of the national will of the country. Within a two and a half year period we reversed the trajectory of wages and prices spiralling out of control, which were causing enormous damage to the economy. It was the public will. It was not through regulation. It was the ingenuity of individual men and women who got involved in this national exercise.

I believe that same quality and capacity of ingenuity exists today. We do not have to have the plan in a definitive way today for what we will be doing for the next 10 years. We never had a perfect plan when we gave the Government of Canada support for Spar Aerospace in 1980 to make a space arm, but through research and ingenuity, two and a half years later we had one of the most proud moments in Canadian technology when that space arm opened in outer space.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

What about acid rain?

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Let us talk about acid rain, which was a great example. I acknowledge the member for Fundy--Royal and the great work of the Conservative member of Parliament, Stan Darling from Muskoka--Parry Sound, when he almost singularly said that he would lead the way to get the congressmen of the United States to come onboard on the acid rain protocol.

Quite frankly, a lot of us thought that Stan Darling was just going uphill with grease on his shoes but, God bless him, he mobilized Americans. He mobilized the grassroots in the United States to force their congressmen and congresswomen to say, “yes, this acid rain protocol is important”. The results are a magnificent achievement for both of our countries together.

I believe there have been ample precedents for the mobilization of not just the will, the activism and the ingenuity of our country to take up this Kyoto challenge, but we have precedents: the 6% and 5% program, Stan Darling's acid rain protocol. I believe Canadians are waiting for us to lead on this in a very direct way. I do not think Canadians support the coalition of the antis, the anti-Kyoto crowd or group, wherever they are. I think they want us to come together and get this done.

A more fundamental issue is at stake here. It has to do with our sovereignty and our own self-confidence. As the House knows, in the last few years the foreign control and foreign infiltration of this country has just gone so high it is right off the Richter scale. If we are not careful there could be a tie-in to sort of slowing us down on this issue. We had better keep our heads up and appeal to Canadians to use their ingenuity.

I want to close by using an example of TeleTrips, a Canadian software that monitors men and women who work at home one day a week. It shows what is saved in terms of travelling on the highways and how it cuts back on waste and emissions. The United States is already doing this in five major cities and it is saving billions and billions of dollars a year in terms of its environmental costs and damage. We have not even started here. Therefore in many respects the Americans are ahead of us in working on some of these targets.

As my colleague from Don Valley West said earlier, we have green technology that is the envy of the world. If there was ever a moment to celebrate and support our technology, it is by getting our technology activated on this particular challenge. We know, from previous experiences, that all Canadians will rally.