Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2002

Kyoto Protocol

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister talked about economic certainty several times. Will she promote and advocate the federal government underwriting unforeseen losses to help that uncertainty? What will she do to make the principles that she talked about operational, instead of a nice speech? What is the specific mechanism that she will be recommending to deal with the potential economic harm? Where is the plan to deal with it?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if we look at it as it relates to the large industrial emitters, we are in fact working very hard with them to ensure that we provide them with the economic certainty they need. Those discussions have been ongoing for some time.

If the member were to look at the climate change plan that was released by the government some two weeks ago, he would see that specific and special attention has been paid to the unique challenges of the large industrial emitters.

I have every reason to believe that the government, where the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Environment and others have pledged to see a tripling in oil sands production over the next number of years, will ensure that everything necessary is done to ensure the long term economic prosperity of this country, which means we must provide the necessary certainty to the large industrial emitters.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that there are a number of members still wanting to ask the minister some questions, I would ask that you seek unanimous consent to extend questions and answers by five minutes for the minister.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member for Elk Island have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, by now all members of the House are aware of the serious implications of elevated greenhouse gas levels.

Since the industrial revolution human activities have greatly increased greenhouse gas levels. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a world panel of experts, the greenhouse gas effect is causing the temperature in the lower portion of the atmosphere to rise. If we continue the activities that have created this change, we can compare it to adding another blanket to the bed in an already warm house. We all know the results of that.

Something had to be done. A timetable, targets and mechanisms were developed to deal with our excessive production of gases that were causing the atmosphere to get hotter. This extra heat is producing changes that we are only beginning to see. Climate changes are occurring in winds, precipitation, cloud cover, humidity and all other aspects of climate.

In Manitoba, where I live, we are concerned about these changes. The effects in all our communities are now being seen. I toured badly flooded farmlands just south of Winnipeg this summer. Flooding in the middle of summer is something that farmers in the Red River Valley have not contended with in the past. Our northern neighbours are extremely concerned about the future of the winter road system which is the lifeline of many northern communities.

Churchill, Manitoba, is the polar bear capital of the world but these magnificent animals are threatened by climate change. The ice breakup is occurring two weeks earlier, on average, than 20 years ago. This shortens the time available for polar bears to hunt from ice flows. Climate change will affect the traditional economies of aboriginal peoples including their abilities to hunt and fish.

Canada contributes about 2% of the world's greenhouse gases but we are the second highest per capita producer of the gases in the industrial world. If this contribution were not curtailed, Canada would face some very serious implications. They would take the form of: droughts affecting agriculture in all regions, reduced water levels in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence, insect infestations and forest fires, changes and reduction in marine fisheries, melting permafrost and increased heat waves, reduced air quality, and increased health problems.

Something had to be done. The Kyoto protocol and framework conventions on climate change is one result of decades of international negotiations to control and reduce greenhouse gases. If the Kyoto protocol were to falter, it would take years to negotiate and implement a new agreement.

We have all heard the arguments, from both sides regarding Kyoto and complex issues such as climate change, often becoming buried in the rhetoric of defence. I have attempted to listen to the theory from both sides of the debate including both the scientific and cost analysis, and to make an informed decision.

I agree with the evidence presented by bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which states that increased warming is due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. I agree with the province of Manitoba when it states that the Kyoto protocol is the only mechanism currently available to nations from around the world engaged in a process that would combat the serious risks posed by climate change.

We do not know that Kyoto would destroy jobs. Kyoto would be a new approach to job creation and economic growth. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives says that a million dollars invested in conventional energy projects would generate 7.3 jobs on average while the same amount invested in renewable energy, wind and solar power, would create 12.2 jobs.

Premier Klein has said that Kyoto would drive investment away and kill jobs. I believe that ultimately oil prices, not Kyoto, would govern the growth on investment in the oil sands and other energy projects. The most important factor in the growth of oil supplies is that of the international price of oil and we all know the variables that apply to that price.

Many companies are finding that making their operations more efficient not only reduce greenhouse gases, it saves them money. Midwest Food Products in Carberry, Manitoba, made energy efficient improvements and cut its energy to save $900,000 in 1999 and reduced its emissions by 10,000 tonnes.

Maple Leaf Foods in Manitoba installed a heat recovery system in its Winnipeg plant. With other improvements it is saving more than $30,000 a year.

Recently the Ontario Medical Association reported that smog and poor air quality cost Ontario more than $10 billion annually. This figure includes both health costs and lost work time. Any plan, such as Kyoto, that would reduce the cost to society and individual suffering must be supported.

I do not speak alone on this issue of smog and air pollution. Organizers as diverse as the Teamsters Canada and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario both endorse and support the Kyoto protocol.

I want to touch upon another made in Manitoba initiative regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas. I speak of hydroelectric capacity. Federal studies have shown that developing Canada's hydroelectric capacity is one of the most efficient methods of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is clean and abundant. Manitoba is willing and able to participate in such an initiative. We have the flowing water, the know-how, and the people to build these facilities for the benefit of all Canadians. I encourage all Canadians to embrace that.

Hydroelectricity is not the only clean source of energy. With support from the Government of Canada, Vidir Machine Inc. of Arborg, Manitoba, is burning straw instead of coal to heat a number of barns. It is saving money and reducing emissions.

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

Oh, come on.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will send my hon. colleague who is heckling in the background some data on this because even he would be impressed by this information.

Straw also has the potential to be turned into ethanol. The government's climate change plan for Canada sets a target to have 35% of the gas supply have 10% ethanol. That is good for the environment and farmers.

I realize that Canada is a diverse country. The oil industry's concerns of Alberta regarding Kyoto are different from the concerns of a province like Manitoba and certainly no less important. But it is time we act together and logically for a common vision of a healthy Canada. The 20th century was the warmest the world has seen in 1,000 years. We owe it to the people, our children, our grandchildren, and the future generations of great-grandchildren to work toward a solution. The environment and human health would benefit from the implementation of the Kyoto protocol.

I urge the House to support the ratification of this accord, a move to a collaborative process of implementation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to start to critique that presentation, other than to say that generally speaking the entire presentation was nonsense, almost from beginning to end, except for the hello and the good-bye.

How can we counter someone who argues that we must do more to fight smog and pollution, when Kyoto has nothing to do with smog and pollution? What do we say to someone who says that we could create more jobs by having more wind power? That is like saying if we were to put horses in charge of turning windmills round and round, then we could have thousands of more farmers employed with the horses. It is a ridiculous argument.

The hon. member went on to say that the heat recovery system installed in her province was a good example of how to save energy, yet that was done without the Kyoto accord. It was done in advance of it for economic reasons and not for the Kyoto reasons.

What do we say to someone who says this is the warmest summer in a 1,000 years? What do we say to someone who has no proof of that and no way of substantiating it? It is ridiculous.

I believe the whole speech was nonsense, just to encourage her. The Minister of Health has said that we need certainty in this for business.

That reminds me a lot of the speeches that were given about the land claims process in British Columbia where we were going to have certainty and that, because of certainty, business would thrive. The government's land claims process in British Columbia resulted in not one settled land claim in my entire province in 10 years. For 10 years we have wrestled with uncertainty. For 10 years we have had hundreds of millions of dollars wasted. We have obligated aboriginal people and kept them in poverty for 10 more years, while the government screamed about how well it was all working. Yet there was no certainty in the land claims process.

As the Minister of Health has said, the business circles in Alberta are not yet able to explain the Kyoto agreement. Why? Because nobody understands Kyoto, especially not the businesses in Alberta.

How can the hon. member vote in favour of an agreement like Kyoto when her own Minister of Health says that no one can explain it in the business circles in Alberta? How does she think this lack of certainty will do anything to produce the economic growth that everyone feels is necessary for a general environmental clean up, not this Kyoto boondoggle that we will all supposedly sign next week?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we are seeing a new industry being generated right now in the House, that of wind power. I would suggest to the hon. member that he travel a little more across the country and learn of the impacts in other parts of the country and see what is happening in other countries.

Our Minister of Health raised some important questions as they related to certainty. I know that myself and all members of the government are anxious that no region of the country be penalized and that a process be in place of consultation with all industries, employee groups and communities to ensure that no one is harmed.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I must comment on the totally uninformed rant made by the member for Fraser Valley. Fortunately I do not think the rest of his party has such a lack of understanding of the agreement.

It was good that the member brought up the importance of Kyoto and the reduction of smog. The member opposite mentioned oversimplification. Unfortunately the former critic in health had the same misconception, and I must admit I had the same misconception when I first heard about Kyoto. It just relates to carbon dioxide and a number of other gases. One would think that it does not relate to smog, but when we cut those greenhouse emitting gases smog is also cut. There is a tremendous cut in smog when companies successfully cut greenhouse gases--

[An hon. member]

How?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

An hon. member is asking how? The answer is obvious, by cutting gas emissions from vehicles and oil burners, and by cutting coal and diesel fuel emissions. There are lots of particulates that go with those. They cause emphysema, lung diseases and asthma which hurt our relatives, our families and our health care system.

Could the member give us examples of how companies in Manitoba have cut energy and made money?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, supported by both the Government of Manitoba and the Government of Canada, several industries in Manitoba are putting forward efforts to reduce emissions. Hudson Bay Smelting and Mining has put in a number of important initiatives thereby saving dollars and reducing emissions. Simmons Canada Incorporated, which is located in Manitoba as well as other communities across the country, has also put in a number of important initiatives. It is important that we work together, consult and continue with these initiatives.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and enter into this debate on the ratification of Kyoto.

The Minister of Health, who represents Edmonton West, just spoke to the issue. She proposes that the risk to the oil and gas industry be reduced but at the same time we proceed somehow with ratification. That seems like an oxymoron. The very act of ratification itself without an implementation plan, supported by industry, exposes the industry to the worst risk. Already the consequences of that are manifest.

In spite of denials that such a report exists, my colleague had a report from Canada's leading investment dealers, the Investment Dealers Association of Canada, in his hand yesterday during question period. The report surveyed 53 top American equity analyists. Two-thirds of those surveyed warned that implementing the international climate control treaty would harm the Canadian economy and would cause Wall Street to rethink energy sector investments in Canada. That fallout already is happening. We already have threatened cutbacks in investments from big international investors, upon which we rely on Canada's future developed, if we attempt ratification without an implementation plan.

The member from Winnipeg South Centre who just spoke a moment ago said that the interests of Alberta were different than the interests of people in Manitoba and other areas. The riding which I represent, Nanaimo--Alberni, is in British Columbia. We have a lot of people who are very concerned about the environment, as are myself and the members on this side. However we are also concerned about a plan. How does the member propose to address the issues that a province like Manitoba faces, with huge transportation distances between, for example, Winnipeg and areas like Morden and Winkler where some of my family lives? There are huge transportation costs and it is a very cold province. I grew up in Winnipeg and it was cold, something like Ottawa is today.

We need to heat our homes. It would be nice if everyone could go to energy efficient homes, but what kind of costs would be imposed on homeowners? The government wants people to buy energy efficient cars. When people living in rural areas go into town they need vehicles that can carry farm supplies and groceries. The grocery store is not a five minute walk away as it is for many of the urban members. How would the member address the huge transportation costs? We are such a cold nation. We have serious problems with which we have to deal in terms of heating our homes.

We might all want to go back to sod homes like the first inhabitants in Canada, such as Mr. Snorri Thorfinnson. We read about the settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland. They made thermally sound sod homes, which were a metre and a half thick. They worked pretty well and conserved heat. I am not sure that most Canadians are prepared to or will live in homes like that. We wonder how some of the advocates of the Kyoto protocol expect us to heat our homes. We wonder how we can expand and develop as a country, with the restrictions that Kyoto will put on us.

Today in my speech I would like to focus on several issues related to Kyoto: science, economics and Kyoto's effect on my riding of Nanaimo--Alberni.

On the question of science, the government's climate change plan on page 5 makes the statement that there is a strong consensus among scientists that climate change is already occurring and that human activity is contributing to it. Is there a strong consensus and is that an accurate statement? I would suggest that it is a very misleading statement. Climate scientists agree that climate is always changing, but to say that there is a consensus that human activity is contributing to that is simply not true.

A dictionary definition of consensus is that it involves general agreement or unanimity; group solidarity in sentiment and belief. However there is no unanimity or even general agreement among scientists that global warming is even taking place, let alone that human activity is causing it.

Regarding the anti-Kyoto scientific community, since the climate treaty was hatched in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, scientists have shown their dissent in four petitions. We have the 1992 statement by the atmospheric scientists on greenhouse warming with more than 100 signatures. In 1992 we had the Heidelburg appeal, with more than 4,000 signatures. These are not high school biology students. They are reputable international scientists with recognized credentials.

In 1996 the Leipzig declaration was signed by some 130 prominent U.S. climate scientists, including several who had actually participated in the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change, the so-called IPCC.

In 1998 the Oregon petition was signed by some 17,000 U.S. scientists, thus far. We might suggest that it is obvious that there is no strong consensus among scientists and the government is plainly misrepresenting the facts when it tells Canadians that there is.

Why is there no consensus? The general circulation models, the GCMs, are weak instruments of prediction. Predictions vary by as much as 300% in temperature forecasts. They require arbitrary adjustments. We always have to look at our assumptions when making scientific models because there is something in logic called a non sequitur. One can arrive at an erroneous conclusion by logical reasoning if it is based on a false premise.

We had better look what the assumptions are. The assumptions in this regard involve arbitrary adjustments. They cannot handle crucial mesoscale and microscale cloud processes. The forecasts of substantial warming depend on a positive feedback from atmospheric water vapour.

The GCMs cannot account for past observations. The temperature rose between 1920 to 1940. Then we had the cooling trend up until 1975. Since 1979, there was the absence of warming in the satellite records.

Other explanations which need to be explored are: reducing the positive feedback from water vapour; an increase in cloudiness; anthropogenic aerosols; man-made land changes; increasing air traffic; and solar variations including climate. Goodness knows, the solar variations have tremendous impact on climate. It appears they have throughout history, from the beginning of time and recorded history.

Will Kyoto work? Here is a quote from Richard Benedick, one of the chief negotiators for the Montreal agreement on ozone reductions. That was an effective international agreement. He wrote an article entitled, “How Workable is the Kyoto Protocol”, published in Weathervane .

According to Richard Benedick, “the Kyoto outcome will have an inconsequential impact on the climate system”. What sacrifices is the government asking Canadians to take on for an outcome that is very questionable indeed? It is a valid question.

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, a Princeton scientist and environmental adviser to President Clinton, was quoted in Science , December 19, 1997. He said, “It might take another 30 Kyotos over the next century” to control global warming. There is not a lot of confidence that the agreement, even if it were signed and if it were possible to implement and comply, would have a significant impact on global climate change.

Two-thirds of the countries are not covered by Kyoto. The total of CO

2

emissions could just as likely skyrocket if Kyoto is implemented. We might say that because the Kyoto deal allows for emissions trading. It does not require that Canada would make CO

2

reductions. Kyoto would establish emission trading credits. The scheme would allow Canada to buy credits toward its targets by transferring money abroad and in some cases to the countries that have worse environmental records, far worse than our own, and we could do that rather than make CO

2

reductions.

Implementing Kyoto as it is, a very weak, damaged environmental agreement, could endanger the environment rather than help it.

Now I have some facts. Man-made CO

2

accounts for about 0.4% of atmospheric CO

2

. Water vapour, which causes 97% of the greenhouse effect, accounts for 100 times more of the volume of CO

2

The Kyoto accord does not deal with the serious concerns about environmental contamination in general or air pollution in particular, for example, particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide and smog. Canadians are being mislead somewhat in thinking that reductions in CO

2

will mean a reduction in the smog about which we are concerned.

It is interesting to note that weather balloons have shown no warming in the past 45 years. Anybody walking on the streets of Ottawa today would be hard pressed to think about global warming. In fact, we are in a freeze across the country. If there is any agreement on global warming, we are not experiencing it this week in Canada.

Weather balloons have shown no warming in the past 45 years. Satellites have shown no warming in the past 23 years. Both methods are infinitely more reliable than surface temperature readings. We might want to have that question answered. Could members opposite explain that to me? If we are so sure that man-made intervention is causing global warming and if we are sure that it is happening, then why have weather balloons not shown warming in the past 45 years nor satellites shown or confirmed that in the past 23 years? That is a valid question.

Let me talk about Kyoto economics. When we ask what the cost of implementing Kyoto will be to Canadians, we do not get much of an answer.

[An hon. member]

No answer.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

One of my colleagues says no answer and that is really what we are getting.

The only cost mentioned in the latest plan is $1.6 billion which the government has already spent. That is an interesting statistic. A lot of money has been spent on this because we are concerned. We ought to be interested in science and be good stewards of the planet. We ought to be thinking about how we can best develop the resources we need and how we can best live as human communities, protecting the environment by having minimal impact on the environment and making our footprint one that we can live with for generations to come.

If we are to go into something that will have potentially tremendous costs to us, we ought to ensure that it is at least something that will produce a desirable outcome. At this point we do not know what the costs are.

Canadian manufacturers and exporters estimate 450,000 jobs will be lost to Canada with a cost of as much as $40 billion. We already suffer from a challenge in being competitive in this new global environment. How can Canada, by saddling itself to this agreement, ratify it when our biggest trading partner south of the border and our North American trading partners will not ratify it? When 85% of our trade is south of the border, how do we think we can this without impacting on our economy?

Most of our industry is concentrated right along the 49th parallel. One mill has uprooted itself this week from Fort Langley, British Columbia and will move just across the 49th to Sumas, Washington. The CEO said that this will avoid $800,000 a month in softwood lumber duties and will capture other efficiencies. We have to wonder if it has something to do with the new 600 megawatt gas generating plant which is being built south of the 49th at Sumas.

The hon. member sitting next to me represents a riding that will be greatly impacted by that project because the Americans will get the 56 jobs from the Fort Langley mill and they will also get hundreds of jobs in the construction of these plants south of the border. That energy is purported to go down to Seattle and California.

The plant cannot be built in Seattle because it has its own air pollution concerns. Seattle does not want the plant so it is being built on the 49th, next to Canada. Energy will be shipped through Canada so B.C. will have the benefit of hydro lines passing through a populated area which has concerns about electromagnetic radiation from the hydro lines. That energy will go down to the grid south of the border.

Meantime the particulate matter from these new generators will flow into the Fraser Valley. Because of the concentration of population and the way air funnels down that valley, people there will have to deal with the consequences of increased air pollution. This air pollution will be equal to thousands of idling cars every day blowing fumes into the Fraser Valley which is already one of our most challenging areas for air pollution.

[An hon. member]

Kyoto doesn't address it.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

No, Kyoto does not address this. In fact, this is a harbinger of things to come. So much of our industry is already owned or co-owned by American interests. As we saw with the Ford plant in Oakville just recently, when its industry was threatened it just closed a very efficient plant and went south of the border to protect its own industry. If we now create an energy incentive for industry to produce on its side of the border, do we think that industry is not going to be motivated by profit to close down on our side of the border and move south of the 49th? For those who suggest that only Alberta is concerned about this, I hope the people in Ontario are taking a good look at it, because Ontario's industry stands to be struck very hard by the agreement and investment is very likely to pull out of that province as well as British Columbia.

From British Columbia's perspective, we have taken such a hit on the softwood lumber agreement and now we face being saddled with this kind of agreement that has very questionable objectives in regard to it ever doing anything to help the environment. Do we think that air pollution somehow stops at the 49th? Do we think that as development goes to the U.S. side pollution is not going to blow across our border? Is the government proposing a plan to somehow fence it out? Do we think we are somehow isolated from the rest of the global community? When so many of the countries of the world, the big producers, are not signing on to the agreement, it is unlikely that our little contribution is going to make a significant impact.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has estimated that Kyoto would cost as much as $2,700 per family. There probably are families that can afford to increase their homes to R2000 and some are probably already there, but I believe that many Canadians are not there. For many Canadians, $2,700 per family is a big chunk of their disposable income.

It would be nice to be able to buy a smaller car. It would be nice if we did not have to drive so far. It would be nice if it were not so cold. It would be nice if we did not have to let our cars warm up before we get into them, like so many of the cabinet ministers do who have their cars idling outside the House on a day like today, and as they will after question period. We see them perking away out there.

[An hon. member]

Even the environment minister?

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Yes, even him, and I think of the hon. member from Red Deer, who did such a job for us in trying to explain these issues to Canadians. We are very grateful. The member has taken the time to study the issue and he understands this. He has a background in biology, he is an environmentalist and he is concerned. Some people called it a filibuster. It was not a filibuster in a classic sense. It was the member for Red Deer trying to inform Canadians about the important issues related to Kyoto and what it is going to cost us. He has a passion for the issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I understand you can hear me. Excuse me if I have raised my voice. It is hard not to get passionate about something that is going to cost Canadians so much for so little gain.

Simon Fraser University energy economist Mark Jaccard calculates that the Canadian economy will suffer a permanent discount in its gross domestic product and a real drop-off of up to 2.5% of the country's annual wealth. A 1998 study conducted in part by the American Farm Bureau Federation concluded that implementing Kyoto would increase expenses. I hope the member from Winnipeg South Centre who spoke, and her constituents and those in farm country in Manitoba, including my brother-in-law, are listening today, because the study showed that implementing Kyoto would increase farm expenses by up to 32%. I wonder how our farmers in Saskatchewan or Alberta, where they are already pressed to the limit, feel about that. The federation estimates it would increase farm expenses by up to 32% and decrease annual farm income by 24% to 48%, diminishing agricultural exports, the net effect being to put many farmers out of business.

As for government costs, what are the cost estimates for the federal government's new plan? The government cost of Kyoto-friendly alternative energy plants, homeowner incentives and foreign pollution rights have not been disclosed. What about the size of the innovation partnership fund? That is not available. The budget for all of the above? Not available until February and beyond. What about corporate penalties for non-compliance on gas emissions? That is not available. As for the impacts on big industry, that may be available in April. If big industry cannot get its act together by 2012, the deadline for implementing Kyoto, it can claim an extension until technology is developed to make gas reductions possible. Constituents in my own riding are very concerned about this. I have had letters. They want to know what the costs will be for the people of Nanaimo--Alberni.

The government wants Canadians to buy fuel efficient vehicles, to use cars less, to reduce idling, to retrofit our older homes, to buy R2000 homes and to replace appliances with more energy efficient models. They want us to abandon the clothes dryer and go back to the clothesline. That may work for some people. My wife likes the clothesline, but it does not work for everybody.

People in B.C., in particular those who live in the riding of Nanaimo--Alberni, are already experiencing the devastating effects of the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber dispute. It is estimated that we have lost 15,000 jobs, many of them in coastal B.C. and certainly in my riding.

I have had people write to me regarding their concerns about Kyoto: Ed and Linda Matt,BrigitteDeleeuw, residents of Parksville, and Jeff Jordanov. Another man from my riding wrote to me wanting to know what the effects would be on the construction industry and how it would impact on him. They all want to know why Canada should commit to an unachievable target that requires us to make payments to countries without targets.

There are many questions about the accord, questions that need to be answered. There is a lot that Canadians want to know about it. There is a lot of consultation that has not been done. We encourage everyone to consider the cost to the government and encourage members not to enter into a plan that will handicap and hamstring Canada without knowing what the costs will be.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way made reference to this mysterious Oregon petition. He also made reference to the fact that there are 17,100 scientists who have signed this petition.

In fact, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released the following statement, and within that, very notable scientists within the United States, stated, “The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy”. So there we have this, whatever it is, this Oregon petition, with these 17,000 scientists going up against the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. What I would like to hear from the member across the way is his response to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, because they disagree.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's intervention. He has illustrated the point I was trying to make at the beginning: that there is no consensus among scientists. There is a lot of discussion about what is affecting the planet, and there are a lot of factors affecting the planet. Solar energy changes affect the planet. In the urban environment, people see that their environment has changed. Where I live on Vancouver Island, I have seen changes since I moved there 12 years ago. In my own neighbourhood there is development where there used to be forests. We are seeing changes around us and we want to be concerned about that.

In fact, to say that scientists studying this issue have come to a consensus is simply not the case. There are many factors impacting the environment around us. Surely the point is well taken by the member that there is not agreement at this time. That is why putting ourselves under such an economic harness to try to meet an ideological objective, when the outcomes are certainly anything but obvious or anything but achievable, is a very serious concern that Canadians want to entertain.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the previous speech from the member for Winnipeg South Centre, she mentioned first of all that Kyoto would address the problem of smog. Then she said that one way to produce alternative energy would be to burn straw, which struck me as being contrary to the goal of getting rid of smog, not that Kyoto deals directly with the issue of smog. I would like the hon. member to comment on that.

I would also like him to comment on something else the member said, which was that 1,000 years ago the earth was actually warmer than it is today. She said that this is the warmest century in 1,000 years. She did not provide any proof for that, but she said that. Then she suggested that 1,000 years ago the earth was warmer again, which I suppose is where we get the term Greenland, for instance. A thousand years ago when people settled Greenland and were farming there it was actually a green country. Now it is of course covered in ice.

I wonder if the hon. member would care to comment on what to me were obvious contradictions in the previous speaker's speech.