Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2002

Kyoto Protocol

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Burning straw is certainly interesting and we have to wonder where that was coming from. Certainly we are concerned about pollutants and particulate matter in the air and that might be a good way to create a problem in the environment.

The main concern on this side of the House is that Kyoto deals primarily with emissions of CO

2

. If anyone around here is a greenhouse operator, they will know that most greenhouses actually pump extra CO

2

into their greenhouses. It is good for plants. They grow better. CO

2

can hardly be considered a pollutant. We are all respiring CO

2

. A lot of it has been blown around the House today. Maybe we need to open the windows and let some oxygen in to help balance the debate here.

We are concerned that Kyoto does not deal with environmental contamination in general or air pollution in particular. It does not deal with the real pollutants: sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide and smog itself. The Kyoto plan will not cover countries that are producing two-thirds of the man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

Therefore, global production of CO

2

is unlikely to fall under Kyoto, and as for Canada's little contribution to this whole equation, if we put the brakes on our industry, restrictions on our own emissions and all go back to pedalling bicycles instead of driving cars, do we think that will stop industry from developing south of the border, in the Soviet Union, in China and in other countries that are contributing far more than Canada probably ever will in our entire existence?

It is an ideological pill that our friends opposite are trying to feed us. It is a very nice idea to think that we should somehow protect the planet in this way, but realistically, friends, we want to protect the planet and we want to do what is right. We want to have a made in Canada plan that will invest our money. Rather than sending Canadian dollars out to other countries with worse records and worse controls than we have, we would like to see our money invested here in energy alternatives. We should be advancing the better use of solar energy, wind energy and hydroelectric energy. We have still untapped resources. Surely we can find a way to build dams and tap in on our hydro power and still provide fish ladders. There has to be a way to do that without damaging the environment.

We have tremendous possibilities in this country. We are an energy rich country. Why we would handicap ourselves in this kind of an agreement with the kinds of realities and the cold climate that we are faced with? We need to heat our homes. We have huge transportation costs to deal with, which European countries, where people are huddled together in small communities, do not have. They do not have our transportation costs. Neither does Japan. Japan has public transit. We have huge distances involved and people need transportation. Most of us cannot walk to a grocery store right around the corner.

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

Mr. Speaker, the senior minister from Alberta, the current health minister, has said that there are four conditions that she feels it is necessary to meet before this goes ahead. One is that the Kyoto agreement should do nothing that will undermine our economic growth, which starts things off with a farcical suggestion.

Second, she says that no region, province or sector should be selected out and be adversely affected, which may or may not happen. We may all suffer equally, and by suffering equally together it will be sort of like socialism, where people say they do not have anything but at least they are together in it. Maybe that is her idea.

One of her last two points, she says, is that we must have certainty for business. In other words, people have to know what it will mean to their businesses. Her final point is that we need strong partnerships to reach the goal of meeting Kyoto targets.

On those last two points, she admitted that businesses cannot explain Kyoto to their shareholders or to one another or just do not understand it and cannot explain it because she cannot explain it to them. Second, on this need for a strong partnership, the provinces have bailed out and none of the major stakeholders understand it or will take part in it. She says, then, that if the preconditions are not met then her premier allegiance is to Alberta and she would have to not support it.

How does the member think that the Minister of Health can possibly support this when two of the four conditions that she has laid out cannot be met at this time?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention. It is a bit of a paradox to see the minister, who represents a riding in Alberta, stand up and try to somehow defend this protocol when her province is at such risk.

Indeed, there is no certainty. The economic certainty for business is already threatened. The IDA chairman told the Prime Minister just the other day that the 190-member association, which represents all major brokerages and the securities arm of all chartered banks, feels that federal friction with the provinces has created a feeling of uncertainty toward the Canadian economy among a large segment of the investment community in the U.S.

Our investments are in jeopardy and our future is in jeopardy, all to pursue an ideological dream that is not based on reality.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this resolution. It should be noted, as has been mentioned by members previously, that parliamentary approval itself is not required to ratify it; it is a matter of executive power. It is certainly something that the House, maybe through committee, may want to give some thought to changing at some point in the future.

I would like to focus on the implementation plan and the fact that Kyoto cuts across so many policy areas. The implementation plan itself needs very close scrutiny by individual members of Parliament. The real issue today for me, and the issue which the debate should focus on, is the implementation of it, how we make Kyoto best work in the interests of Canadians.

We have certainly seen some progress in the revised plan that was put forward with respect to the sectoral agreements. Upon review it does show that the government has acted on some of the concerns expressed.

The most important element in that plan has to do with how we deal with industry, and the large emitters in particular, on a sector by sector basis. The government has always said it does not want to unfairly disadvantage any sector and it is important that we stay on this track. However, the one further change I would push for in the implementation plan is that we lift the cap when we are negotiating the sectoral covenants with large emitters. Let us negotiate those covenants. Let us assess the risks they may incur and the progress they could make without a cap.

There was some mention of the credit for early action in the plan, but we have to be unequivocal throughout the whole process. The Minister of the Environment and others have indicated that early action is key. They want to encourage corporations to take early action.

In my mind the message we need to send to the economy as a whole is that when companies act early on maximizing energy efficiency and are more profitable as a result of this energy efficiency, we should not punish them but we should reward them. There needs to be incentive for companies to take this on. In going forward we must enshrine full credit for early action as a fundamental principle of the climate change implementation strategy.

On the issue of buying credits I want to be on record that it should not be an exercise in transferring wealth. It is a safety valve that is in the protocol, but it is certainly not the preferred approach. We do not need to transfer this kind of wealth to places like Russia.

With respect to the provincial context, certainly members have concerns about the response from the provinces. We need to address those concerns in a very meaningful way. The implementation plan gives us an opportunity to do that. The implementation plan itself must make Kyoto a reality in a manner that does not tear us apart as a country. Canadians expect no less than that, those in the west, those in the east, and certainly those in the central parts of Canada. We must function as a nation.

There are some challenges. I still have some difficulty with the fact that we do not see the specific numbers. We often talk about federal budgets and the details are always very significant. The implementation plan must contain more detail.

Another is the time constraint that we are up against. We start measuring in 2008, in five years. I am not suggesting that we cannot do it, but we have to be cognizant of the short timeframe. The incentives that we put in place must respond to the timeframe that we have when we start to measure and ultimately meet the Kyoto obligation.

What is it that we should be doing? We need to clearly indicate in the implementation plan the financial instruments we want to employ to reach this target. We need to indicate the financial instruments that deal with the impact of Kyoto that we may see on the economy, how we would offset any sort of downturn that may be experienced. We need to emphasize the increase in economic activity that we may see, instead of what might exist.

We need to look at the whole Kyoto protocol through the innovation lens. We have to make sure that the Kyoto protocol does not contradict what we are saying with respect to the innovation agenda. We have to be cognizant that investment decisions are being made today for many years down the road. When companies are making their investment decisions they need to know the rules of the game in order that they do not find themselves five, eight or ten years down the road in some way impacted as a result of what we are talking about today. That is why it is absolutely important that this implementation plan be as specific as absolutely possible.

I certainly do not see any companies closing up shop and leaving, but I am concerned at the moment that as investment decisions are being made, that they are looking elsewhere in North America. We work in a North American context and in a North American type economy.

We need to look at renewable and non-renewable energy sources. Oil and gas companies for all intents and purposes today are energy companies. They are looking at both renewable and non-renewable energy sources and how best to take advantage of those opportunities. The implementation plan needs to encourage the non-renewable side of the energy source as well.

From a municipal standpoint, there is lots of opportunity and lots of incentives through the FCM to deal with recapturing methane gas through landfill sites. We need to focus on those types of initiatives in the implementation plan.

With respect to the North American context, we are connected by a geographic circumstance and a level of mutually beneficial economic integration without comparison in the world. When the U.S.A. decided not to ratify the protocol, it fundamentally changed the context of the Kyoto assumptions for a lot of people. We have to be cognizant of that.

It is also not as simple as saying that the U.S. is now doing nothing. In fact the United States of America is doing quite a lot to deal with this issue. We could look at it on a state by state basis and California in particular, in terms of its economy and size, and it is taking action.

We need to treat this issue in sufficient depth to mitigate its impact on the Canadian economy. We must also understand that we need to deal with and make progress on greenhouse gas reduction. We also need to keep in mind in that North American context that the U.S. is the fiercest competitor for capital in North America. I and many other members in the House want to ensure that Canada is very well positioned to deal with attracting direct foreign investment in Canada. We need to have a comprehensive strategy and we need to look at how Kyoto impacts our relationship.

Yesterday the member for LaSalle—Émard talked about reference to a special parliamentary committee. It is a vehicle that we should be taking advantage of to scrutinize the implementation plan in very clear detail which is required.

We have made progress. Back on March 7, 2002 we agreed to build on the existing bilateral cooperation on climate change with the United States. We need to pursue that more effectively.

What are some of the things that we could do with respect to the implementation plan? Strengthening compliance standards under the Energy Efficiency Act might be something to consider when we consider that the act covers almost 60% of the energy type products that are being used. We should look at how we could deal with the regulatory regime and how to harmonize our approach to these compliance standards from a North American context. We should look at fuel efficiency standards. We should look at California, look at New York, look at Canada. We should combine our approach to fuel efficiency standards. It comprises about 25% of the auto market in North America. It is very important.

We need immediate budgetary measures to show that we are serious about the implementation of the accord. We must speak to issues such as a national building retrofit strategy. We must look at collaborating with labour, business and municipalities. The U.S. has already done it, in providing a $2,000 tax credit to people for improving their homes or building their homes to certain standards. The U.S. is doing it and we could also do it.

In summary, there should be no caps on growth. We should pursue the sectoral agreement with large emitters. We need a climate of investment certainty. We must operate within the North American economic space. We need an implementation strategy that stresses and reflects partnership and collaboration with the provinces, business, labour and consumers.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was a very interesting speech. The member said some very positive things. The unfortunate part is that my colleague is right in that none of the things that he mentioned as being important are covered under the Kyoto protocol.

My question to you is twofold.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I hesitate to interrupt members but I think it is worth mentioning and reminding ourselves that our questions and comments have to be directed through the Chair, not directly across the floor. Sometimes it is pretty friendly but sometimes it can turn not so friendly so I would rather err on the side of caution, please.

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

Mr. Speaker, I beg your pardon. I have all due respect for the Chair and I will address my question through you.

Ratification of Kyoto carries a heavy price tag. It addresses CO

2

only. It does nothing to improve the health of Canadians, contrary to what the minister may have suggested earlier.

Could the member please explain how ratifying Kyoto without certainty of targets for large emitters is going to reduce risk?

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a valid question. In terms of the implementation plan, I want to focus on the large emitters. Certainly negotiation has gone on. More needs to be done.

In my remarks I made reference to the sectoral approach and signing covenants on a sector by sector basis. We need to push a little harder and eliminate the caps.

There is a 55 megatonne cap on the large emitters at the moment. I would much rather see us engage in a negotiation with large emitters without that target there and see how we could improve efficiency, see what the impact would be on the investment climate because the investment climate is very important. I do not want to prejudge this negotiation with large emitters by suggesting that there is a 55 megatonne cap. We may go beyond the 55 megatonne cap with good economic principles and good economic objectives in place.

The large emitters I have talked to are very heartened that a sectoral approach is now being taken. The issue of a cap is still a problem to some extent for some large emitters but pursuing on that basis could create the climate for investment certainty for those sectors.

At the end of the day, I think everyone in the House wants to pursue an economy that continues to create wealth and prosperity for Canadians in the context of a North American economy because that is the economy we work in. The objectives are not mutually exclusive. I believe that we can succeed in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, whether it is CO

2

, methane, or the other types of greenhouse gas emissions that were targeted under the Kyoto protocol. We can do it while ensuring that we have economic prosperity.

The question is, what economic incentives will we have in place to deal with, mitigate and provide offsets for any downturn that may occur as a result of the plan? Pursuing sectoral agreements will allow us to move forward. If the large emitters are on side, we can collectively work together. I do not want to pursue any type of accord or any type of national policy that ultimately tears this country apart. We cannot operate in that fashion. It is certainly not the way members in the House want to operate.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Stoney Creek talked about some of the concerns. Even in answering that question, he referred to the fact that he did not want to see one part of the country torn apart from another part or put at a disadvantage. He mentioned in his discourse that he had concerns for some parts of the country and he said that we must “function as a nation”.

We are dealing with one of the largest agreements that has come before the House in perhaps 12 years. The Kyoto protocol will be significant to the oil and gas industry. It will hurt the oil and gas industry. It is going to devastate sectors and regions of the country more than other regions. Why would the government proceed without other levels of government buying into the plan?

Why would the federal government unilaterally move ahead on an agreement that does not have the provincial governments on board? British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan have said it is going to cause huge economic disasters in certain regions of the country.

Why would the member buy into an accord when just a week ago the National Post reported that the member for Stoney Creek, the head of the steel caucus, said that the protocol was ruinous but added, “I believe the government when it said no one section will be made uncompetitive”. What has made him change his mind?

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am the chair of the parliamentary steel caucus and I take that quite seriously. We have worked effectively with all members in the House. By 2012 the steel sector would find itself about 12% below 1990 levels so the Kyoto accord itself would not impact the steel sector specifically.

However there is concern with the customers that the steel sector supplies. The steel sector is very integrated in North American markets so there are some concerns there. The steel sector is quite content at this moment but we need to move a little farther with the sector by sector approach, the covenant approach. It has been effective in making progress with respect to the negotiations.

When we talk about the provinces it is important to remember that of the 12 concerns that the provinces had, nine have been dealt with and accepted. Three are being debated. It is not an issue of not engaging the provinces. I want to restate that it is important to ensure that provinces are onside.

I am focused on the implementation strategy and that is what the House should focus on. Parliament, through a special committee, should scrutinize that implementation strategy so that all provinces, consumers, labour and business are onside.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important issue facing our nation and indeed the entire world.

I want to make it clear before I go any further that I do not like sitting on the fence, it hurts. I want to state categorically that I am in favour of ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Today we are making decisions that will affect our children and grandchildren for years to come.

I am reminded of the debate that took place in the House a decade ago--maybe you were even here, Mr. Speaker--concerning free trade. At that time we were asked to make a leap of faith, and we did. I believe it is important that citizens be engaged at the local level.

Not long ago I was at a meeting in my constituency of Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey where the topic was Kyoto. It was well-attended and supportive of Kyoto. There is a lot of misinformation right now that is being floated around out there. I think communication at the level of the ordinary citizen could be much improved. I know it is something that we are working on right now.

I however disagree with the claim that businesses and provincial governments have not been adequately consulted. There has been five years of extensive consultation and we must get on with doing the work. Any further delay on ratification is time wasted. The opposition seems committed to wasting time.

I make a major distinction between ratification and implementation because that is where the debate is. I still have a number of questions on how Kyoto would be implemented. I have heard from business groups and organizations who have had major concerns about how Kyoto would affect the economy and their own interests. Their concerns cannot be ignored and must be carefully considered as we debate how we would meet our targets. All regions of Canada must face this challenge together.

Climate change is real. Humans have raised carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 30% above the levels that were virtually stable for millions of years. Global warming is the result of greenhouse gas emissions and we only have to look at the effects of the ice storm and the drought in western Canada to see the dramatic effects. The ice storm of 1998 caused $5.4 billion worth of damage. We do not know how much it will cost us for the drought out west. If we do not do something now things would get worse, especially for the well-being of our agricultural industry.

I have spoken far too much about the costs of Kyoto and not nearly enough about the opportunities. I see Kyoto as a golden opportunity for rural economic development. We need to promote biofuels and bioproducts. We need to do it now.

Ethanol can be produced from grains such as corn and wheat. Cellulose technology is on its way and it can produce ethanol from different things, including agricultural and forestry waste. Today gasoline containing up to 10% ethanol is sold roughly at 1,000 service stations across the country at no extra cost. Ethanol increases the octane of fuels and is much cleaner than octane enhancing chemicals like MMT. It is better on the engine. It acts as an oxygenate to reduce emissions in colder weather, which we have an abundance of today as an example. It also acts as a gas line antifreeze.

Transportation is one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gases. The beauty of moving to E-10 gasoline is it can be done right now with no changes to the engines and no big changes to the service stations. In fact, Brazil uses E-100 which is 100% ethanol fuel. It would require some engine modifications. It is something that we should look at down the road.

Another big advantage of using biofuels is that the plants used to produce the fuels themselves absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The storage of carbon in plants more than offsets the emissions from burning the biomass fuels. Therefore, we have a totally green cycle. When this is taken into account ethanol made from corn can produce up to 100% less carbon dioxide than fossil fuels even when production is taken into account.

Canada produces 238 million litres of ethanol each year. The U.S. is far ahead of us in ethanol production producing seven billion litres every year. It is constructing one new ethanol plant each month on average. The reason the U.S. is so far ahead of us is because 12 years ago it amended the clean air act to include mandated oxygen levels in fuels. We must do the same thing or something similar, but only after we create the environment for production capacity.

Unfortunately, Canada imports nearly 100 million litres of ethanol from the U.S. each year just to meet its current demand. We have the ability to become a net exporter of ethanol, creating a dynamic new industrial sector which would have ripple effects into other areas.

For example, we need grain and other agricultural products to produce ethanol. That would greatly help offset the downward trend of our grain and oilseeds prices. It would help out farmers which is something we on this side of the House have committed ourselves to doing. I am committed to increasing grain based and cellulose based ethanol industries in Canada as part of a made in Canada solution.

Biodiesel can be produced from vegetable oils such as canola and soybean. At present, it is not cost competitive with petro-diesel, but that would change as new technology and opportunities arise. It is much cleaner and a great alternative. It is worth paying a premium to have cleaner air.

The bio-industry is not limited to fuel. Numerous products produced with petrochemicals can also be produced using bioproducts. It is clear that the Kyoto accord could have great benefits for Canadian farmers if we were all willing to work together. I cannot believe that members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition can stand over there and once again play games with the livelihood of farmers.

The bio-industry is something that we must look at. In 1994 we lobbied hard with a task force for the environment and we received an exemption from excise tax.

Commercial Alcohols was established in Chatham. It has expanded a number of times and currently produces 173 million litres of ethanol each year. It consumes over 400,000 tonnes of corn each year. In fact, last month it had to shut down for a refit for a couple of weeks and it actually depressed the price of corn within Ontario by 10¢ a bushel.

It has stabilized the corn market in Ontario by its own consumption by 25¢ a bushel. If we were to apply that to 7 or 10 ethanol plants across Canada then we could establish a partnership similar to what we have right now with Suncor and with other oil companies in Canada. Once that is set up we would have a distribution system. In three years time we could tell the oil companies that they should be mandated that a certain percentage of fuel burnt in Canada should be green.

The next step from there is the crushing of soy and canola oil. Alberta has refineries to refine vegetable oil to make diesel. There is a huge opportunity here.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that in the early 1990s a leap of faith was asked for with regard to the free trade agreement. He also suggested that a lot of misinformation about Kyoto was out there.

I would like to point out that he is asking for a huge leap of faith by farmers and agricultural producers.

This morning at the agriculture committee we heard the deputy minister in charge of the research department of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food say that the department had done no thorough cost benefit analysis of the cost of Kyoto on agriculture. This is the agriculture department that has not done the work.

When I walked away from that meeting I thought the agriculture department was completely incompetent for not having done that analysis, but then I realized there was a second option and one that I think was more accurate, which was the fact that it did not want that information. The department knew the results and chose not to do the work. The information that we do have comes from a study in the United States. It says that farmers will likely be paying 30% more in input costs if Kyoto goes through and that their farm incomes could be cut from 25% to 48%.

Obviously we are looking at higher energy costs if Kyoto is put in place because the energy companies will have to either buy credits or change their technology, which will drive up the costs of fuel, fertilizer and chemicals. Clearly, farmers in Canada will be less competitive. The United States has said that it will not ratify the agreement which will cause us to be less competitive on the world market.

There is no mechanism in place for sinks or carbon sequestration yet and it looks to me like this will be one of the biggest central planning initiatives that we have ever seen in Canada.

The member himself is involved in a sector in agriculture where he can recover his costs by raising prices. I am wondering why he is so determined to hammer the grains and oilseed sector and defend an accord that neither he nor I know the effects of. We know it will have negative effects but we do not know what those effects will be. He is supposed to be representing farmers and producers. Why is he so eager to support the accord?

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

Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with the member across the way is that he has tunnel vision, which is a big problem with the opposition.

The example I gave at the end of my speech with commercial alcohols in Chatham from 1994 to date, with 400,000 tonnes of corn, is a market that did not exist in 1993. It is a domestic market too, by the way, which is helping to stabilize corn prices within Ontario. Let us apply that to a national perspective. We have plants across Canada that are producing ethanol and biomass diesel, which, by the way, comes from the grains and oilseed sector.

I think we have all established in the House that we do not have pockets deep enough to get into a subsidy war with the United States and the European economic community. Therefore, if we have already proven in Ontario that a domestic market can stabilize the price, then let us apply that to a national perspective with biomass fuels and establish a domestic market right across Canada, which will go a long way to stabilizing corn and the grains and oilseed sector. It is just common sense to me.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my friend across the way would agree that the implementation plan put out by the government so far, which limits the use of ethanol as a target in that plan to only 35% of all the fuel we consume in the country, should be increased to a full 100%; that is 10% of the full 100% of the fuel that is consumed in the country should be mandated. Should we have a mandated program that would require all fuel in the country, a full 100% of it, to have at least 10% ethanol in it as opposed to what his government is proposing, that only 35% should have ethanol in it?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a cart and horse issue. We do not want to put the cart in front of the horse.

I will explain to the member right now that we should set up the infrastructure across Canada to take and produce ethanol. Let us establish a partnership with the oil companies to get a distribution system working with them, like Suncor has with its green hose. Co-ops across Canada have green hose right now at the pumps.

Three years down the road, and I agree with the member, we should mandate that 10% of the fuel used in Canada has to be green. In fact, once we get it all set up, let us go up to 20% once we have grains and oilseed, because it keeps increasing the domestic market to stabilize prices within the country. That is what I have been talking about.

I agree with the member but let us get the cart in the right place.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North Centre.

We have made it clear as a party that we are in favour of ratifying Kyoto and that the government should do so as quickly as possible, and by that I mean about a year ago.

The real issue is not about ratifying. It is a given that we should do that. We committed internationally five years ago to ratify Kyoto. Our international reputation is being affected by the fact that we are moving so slowly on this, when we were the very first country in the world in 1997 to signal that we were in favour of the protocol and that we would carry through on our responsibilities under that protocol. The history since then has not been very good and our reputation has been badly affected by the meanderings that we have seen from the government.

We need to do this and we need to get on with the job. We need to move as rapidly as we can to finalize what in fact is the implementation process and then put it into place.

We have had a great deal of argument in the House, I would say particularly from the members of the Alliance Party, about the risks and the costs. It is interesting that they never talk about the costs of not doing it. Equally, the government has never done an assessment of what it will cost us if we do not proceed to implement Kyoto and meet our targets within the timeframes. I have never seen those from the Alliance or the government.

It was interesting to hear the member from LaSalle speaking the other day about Kyoto and raising certain concerns around the costs and that everyone be treated fairly as we implement it. It is interesting to compare that with his own position as he made very severe cutbacks in the budget in the mid-1990s. The effect of those cutbacks was to reduce the GDP in this country by a full 4%. By the government's own estimates, at the very worst, Kyoto might have the impact of reducing our GDP by 2% over a very extended period of time, probably 10 years minimum. That 4% cut that he caused in the mid-1990s was over a two year period.

He also argued, and we heard it from other government members, that we could not have any Kyoto costs applied disproportionately. Alberta, for instance, even though it is the heaviest polluter and creator of greenhouse gases, should not be treated unfairly or unequally. They use those types of terms.

However, in the same period of time, 1995 to 1997, as he slashed the budget, which had the impact of reducing the GDP by about 4%, that 4% reduction was much more greatly served against the Maritime provinces and the province of Quebec.

When we are looking at what the impact will be of Kyoto, we have to keep that in mind. We recognize that there will be a significant shift in the way we plan the economy and in the way the economy develops but from everything we do know, particularly from the European experience, we can offset those costs by new development.

I always use the example of Denmark. It moved into alternative energy and now leads in the world, with Germany close behind. Denmark has a small population of roughly 3.5 million people but it has created, in a very short period of time, in two to three years, 12,500 new jobs building the windmills and turbines that are now being exported to countries all over the world. Canada is one of the recipients of that technology because we did not develop it here. We have fallen behind. It is another reason that we need to ratify now to get on with it. As the years go by, other countries are outpacing us quite dramatically in that technology. The Japanese have taken over the lead quite significantly with regard to solar power. We need to catch up. We actually need to get into the race. When we are talking about the need to ratify within a certain timeframe, we need to keep technological development in mind.

With regard to some of the other reasons that we should be moving ahead, I would draw to the attention of the House the argument that we hear so often from the Alliance, that Kyoto is not a health issue. We have heard from any number of sources that of course that is not accurate.

I want to address the ignorance in the comments that I am hearing from the Alliance members once again. The reality is that there is a solution. I probably live, in terms of the metropolitan area, in the most heavily polluted area in the country from the perspective of air pollution. The solution that we will find to that is to reduce the use of coal-fired plants in both Ontario and, more specifically, in some of the states in the U.S. If we do not move ahead with Kyoto, if the U.S. states, which are much further ahead than the U.S. federal government, do not move ahead, those emissions, the greenhouse gases and things like mercury and benzine, which come from the burning of coal, will continue to float into my constituency and we will continue to have, as various medical associations have documented, a significant increase in premature deaths and all the other health factors.

The implementation of Kyoto and the reduction of the greenhouse gases will coincide, as we reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, coal in particular, but not alone, with the reduction in a number of toxins, mercury and benzine, just to name a couple of them.

It is interesting as well to listen to the members of the Alliance and Premier Klein in Alberta talk about a made in Canada solution. It is nothing of the kind, of course. It is simply that party and the Conservative government in Alberta toeing the American line. It is a made in America solution and it is no solution at all, because that solution, as we have seen from the model that the vice-president enunciated a year and a half ago, is simply to do less and to do it over a longer period of time. We know by those models that greenhouse gas emissions will continue to go up, not be reduced.

Just last week the Bush administration watered down the environmental protection act and the protection it gave or was about to give requiring the clean up of coal-fired plants in the United States. That is the kind of policy and plan that the Alliance would have us follow as opposed to implementing Kyoto, a plan, I would add, that was heavily opposed, including lawsuits, by a number of the northeastern states opposing the watering down of those provisions, those provisions that would have done something about the health of my constituents by reducing the emissions that were coming from those plants all over the mid-western United States that eventually flowed into my riding.

As much as the government wants to take credit for Kyoto, I wish to say to it and to the Canadian people that we just cannot watch the ratification become the end of the process. We very much have to keep after it to see that the implementation is done properly, to the terms of the protocol that we are now committing ourselves to, finally, at the international level.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address a matter of great interest to all members of the House and specifically to my hon. colleague opposite, and that is the fact that greenhouse gas emissions are indeed a global issue and not something that just an individual country needs to be concerned with.

I know that the governors of the eastern states have entered into a bilateral agreement with our maritime provinces in looking at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, 42 states have brought in regulatory regimes that are very much harmonized with the kind of initiative of reducing greenhouse gas emissions that Canada is undertaking with its provinces and territories.

I wonder if he would like to comment on the fact that indeed, as much as President Bush may have backed away from the Kyoto protocol, the states in America and Americans themselves recognize what Canadians do and that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a very important global issue.

[An hon. member]

He works with them.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am hearing some comments from the Alliance about the Bush administration working with the states. New York state would be very interested to take that issue on, because it is currently suing the U.S. administration, as are a number of other states including Illinois, because of the practices and policies of that government.

The reality, as we have heard in terms of this bilateral agreement that has been initiated by the maritime provinces and some of the northeastern states, is that all of the activity in the United States that is progressive and meaningful in terms of dealing with the issue of greenhouse gas emissions and, I will add to that, air pollution generally, is coming from the states. It is not coming from the federal government. They are in fact fighting rearguard actions all the time against the Bush administration and the steps it is taking to protect its friends in the oil industry, at least those of them who are so antiquated that they do not understand what their responsibilities are in dealing with the issues of Kyoto and air pollution more generally.

I do welcome the initiative that we have seen from the northeastern states, with New York I think being the leader in that regard, and the maritime provinces because they do recognize the problems that we are confronting.

The same air pollution that floats through Windsor and Essex County eventually moves its way across into the Maritimes and into the northeastern states. I think that is why they have been so progressive in the activities that they have carried on with and continue to do in spite of all the rearguard fighting they have do against the Bush administration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I simply have to address some of the things that the member raised a moment ago in his speech.

First, he completely contradicted himself. He said that Alberta is the heaviest polluter and then he admitted that his own riding is more heavily polluted than any place in the country.

He only gives one side of the formula when he talks about the impact of Kyoto on the health of Canadians. If in fact we bought everything that he was trying to sell us, if we accepted that Kyoto was going to deal with the issue of smog and deal with health problems that arise from smog, what he forgets to take into account is that when we place higher costs on business it means less economic activity and it means less money, therefore, for the health care system. This is self-evident. That of course has an impact on people's health.

Why is it that developed countries, those with the healthiest economies, also have the best health care systems and are able to ensure that people live a lot longer? I note that Canada and the United States, developed countries that can invest in environmental protection, are the ones that ultimately provide the best standard of living for their citizens.

My friend has it exactly opposite. He thinks that if we impose all kinds of restrictions on the economy suddenly people will become healthier, when in fact what will happen is exactly what has already happened in his own riding. If we keep imposing higher and higher costs on business, then guess what? We see those businesses move into other jurisdictions, as has already happened in the member's riding. He had already lost factories and automobile production plants from his riding because of increasing costs.

I wonder if my friend--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. I regret that the time has already elapsed, but I will allow the better part of a minute for the hon. member for Windsor--St. Clair to respond.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the point on losing the plants from my area. I understand that. The member obviously does not. The lack of knowledge in that party is just so amazing. Those plants are having to compete under a trade arrangement that party supports, not one that we do. We are losing those plants because the states in the U.S. are able to bid under the NAFTA agreement for those plants. That is why they are going there. It has nothing to do with anything else. It certainly has nothing to do with environmental standards. That is such a joke.

I think I have used up my time, but I would love to go on for another hour.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate. Right off the bat I want to indicate my unequivocal support for the motion before the House and join with all of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to say very clearly that we absolutely support the ratification of the Kyoto protocol and urge the government to show the necessary leadership so that we can in fact be a shining light to the whole world on something as fundamental as the future of our planet.

Let me also say how proud I am to represent a constituency in the province of Manitoba, where the leadership has been so enlightened and so courageous on this fundamental question. I want to offer public commendation to the Premier of Manitoba, the Hon. Gary Doer, and all of his colleagues in the Manitoba government for their courage and commitment to advance this agenda with respect to environmental sustainability and to of course indicate in fact how Manitoba has been clearly one of the leading lights in terms of this whole issue of Kyoto. We strongly support the leadership in that province and want to congratulate Gary Doer and his colleagues for their attitude of rolling up their sleeves to do their part to fight climate change through clean energy like ethanol and wind power.

I know that some of my colleagues from the Alliance Party have questions about some of Manitoba's strategies, which I would be pleased to answer later on. Suffice it to say that at this point I would suggest that when it comes to the issue of straw and chickens, the members of Alliance Party look very carefully at the Vidir biomass systems of Arborg before they jump to any conclusions and recognize in fact that we are talking about an enlightened, innovative project that could make a difference in combination with many other forward looking strategies.

I am pleased to take part in this debate on the ratification of Kyoto because the ratification of this agreement will have a profound impact on the health of Canadians. I am delighted to hear today that the Minister of Health has finally cleared the air and has indicated that she will support the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. However qualified her comments were this morning, I appreciate the fact that she has cleared the air and finally has been forthcoming in terms of her position. We have been waiting a long time for the Minister of Health of the Government of Canada to say unequivocally that she takes her responsibilities seriously and recognizes the absolute importance of supporting Kyoto in terms of the health and well-being of Canadians. Bravo, finally, to the Minister of Health. Let us hope that her leadership will continue in and among her colleagues.

In this debate, the New Democratic Party has addressed the economic considerations of ratification in considerable depth and has indicated its vital significance for the environment. These are areas that quite reasonably have been the focus of a great deal of public discussion and debate about this important initiative, but just as significant to the ongoing well-being of this planet and its residents are the health implications of signing or not ratifying Kyoto.

Last Thursday, the commissioner on the future of health care in Canada issued his final report. After 18 months of extensive consultations with Canadians and intensive research, Commissioner Romanow has offered Canadians a solid blueprint for the future. The viability of that blueprint depends as never before on securing a healthy environment and protecting Canadians from the negative health impacts of greenhouse gas emissions.

The design of this new health care system will be undermined if the health of Canadians deteriorates as a consequence of the unchecked rise of greenhouse gases and the climate change factors that result. We are at a stage where the health of Canadians is seriously and already affected by greenhouse gases and the climate change that is resulting from their unchecked growth.

We have allowed ourselves to pretend that we have a bottomless account of healthy air from which to draw. Clearly we have been deluding ourselves. We have used up that legacy and Canadians are paying the price with their health and their lives as we try in vain to overdraw that account.

Sixteen thousand Canadians are estimated to die prematurely each year from the intensifying air pollution in which greenhouse gases play a major role. Like the canary in the mine shaft, this is an indicator of much more serious problems with Canadians' health than already exist.

Asthma alone already accounts for fully one-quarter of all school absences. To put it in dollar terms, smog already costs Ontarians $1 billion a year in hospital admissions, emergency room visits and absenteeism. That is according to the reputable Canadian Public Health Association.

That is why health professionals from all walks of life working with organizations like the Canadian Public Health Association and others, all led by the Canadian Medical Association, are desperately urging us as parliamentarians to ratify this agreement and to get on with a rigorous strategy, a health oriented strategy, toward a full recovery.

I remind the House that in August of this year the Canadian Medical Association passed the following resolution:

That the Canadian Medical Association urge the federal government to ratify the Kyoto protocol and adopt a strategy that will reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by at least 6% below 1990 levels by 2012.

Health professionals, doctors, consultants and activists in the health community are adamant in their support for ratification. They are adamant for very good reasons. They are the ones on the front lines of health care. They are the ones who deal not only with the case by case symptoms through firsthand experience but who are also in a position to understand the trends, the big picture, for health.

The House dealt recently with the possibility of contaminated blood caused by the West Nile virus. Let us put that issue in the context of this debate. The urgent attempts to deal with each case of West Nile virus are not somehow isolated. The West Nile virus and other diseases which medical practitioners in Canada have never had to deal with before are part of a profound shift in global disease patterns that are currently linked to global climate change. The West Nile virus is only one example of what lies ahead, or indeed of what is already occurring.

Health consequences from climate change do not stop at provincial borders or national boundaries. Neither are they consequences that we can ignore or downplay. This is not about trade clauses that can be negotiated. The health aspects of this issue cannot be willed away.

The Kyoto protocol is an attempt to deal on a global basis with what is truly a global problem. The health aspects of this debate are inexorably linked to climate change and whether Kyoto opponents wish it or not, they will have a profound and costly impact on the lives and health costs of Canadians. We ignore this at our peril and the peril of our children's health.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have sat here and listened to the last two speakers from the New Democratic Party give their party policy and basically their canned speech over and over again.

The member for Windsor--St. Clair spent most of his time smearing the Canadian Alliance Party for being opposed to the Kyoto accord. Most of his speech smeared Alberta and most of western Canada. Of course the grand daddy of them all, he spent most of his time smearing the United States of America.

The member who just spoke pulled out the policy book on health. She said that Kyoto deals with the greatest threat to the health of Canadians, recognizing that CO

2

emissions are putting every life into jeopardy.

The concern of the Canadian Alliance, Alberta and many others is that if the Kyoto protocol is signed, Canada will have the distinction of being the only country in the world, the only country on the planet, that will have to significantly, perhaps more significantly than any other country signing on, lower its CO

2

emissions. Developing countries are exempt, countries with populations of five billion to six billion. The United States is exempt.

If the economy is as devastated as what projections show, where will the member find the resources to put into health care?

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

Mr. Speaker, first let me be clear. No one on this side of the House is smearing the Alliance or casting aspersions on its position in this debate. It just happens that we fundamentally disagree with that party's position.

If the member wants to discredit my remarks today, he is discrediting every reputable health care association and medical organization in the country. My speech was a listing of the statements and findings of our doctors in Canada and medical associations that have done extensive research on these issues and have presented the facts.

Those facts include problems in terms of the spread of serious diseases because of climate change, rising temperatures and the warming of our waters. I would suggest that the member refer to John Hopkins University for information about the spread of cholera, hantavirus, dengue hemorrhagic fever and lyme disease. I would suggest he refer to the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment which lists in very significant detail the human health effects of climate change, including vector-borne diseases, respiratory disease, water-borne diseases, as well as social disruption issues.

I would suggest that the member refer to the leading figures with respect to the Canadian Public Health Association, the Canadian Medical Association and other organizations which have been very clear about the direct link between ill health and climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.

The member asked me a question about how we would pay for our support for the ratification of Kyoto. I would like to know how the member intends to ensure a healthy economy if the workforce is not well and is suffering from the serious health effects of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.

I would suggest to him that we cannot afford not to act. We must ensure that we move forward with respect to Kyoto ratification. We must do everything we can on matters of the environment and sustainability or we will not have an economy left to support us in the future.

It is absolutely clear that what we are talking about today is a commitment to improve health. It is a commitment to improve the health of people here in this country and around the world.