Debates of March 19th, 2002

Supply

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre elaborate for a moment on the study produced in Holland on Canada's predicted possible costs in the ratification of the Kyoto process, something that was briefly referred to by his colleague, the member for Vancouver East but only en passant, as we say?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I doubt I could elaborate at length for two reasons. First, I saw the report for the first time today when it was circulated to my colleague, although I have been aware of the report for quite some time. Second, I have very little time.

What is necessary to point out, and may be the key salient point about the report generated from Holland on the impact of implementing Kyoto in Canada, is that the cost, when one considers the benefits versus the initial outlay, is more like $800 million for implementation, not the $40 billion and $50 billion that we keep hearing. Some people with vested interests have been fearmongering about the cost of the implementation. We challenge that and we now have good research to assist us in that challenge.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hallmark of the government over the past eight years has been its propensity to avoid dealing with difficult issues. We know as a point of fact that Canada is now falling behind in critical areas where we once led, whether it be the economy, the development of natural resources, leadership or stewardship on the environment. This is a very complex file. In true Liberal tradition, it has ducked the issue essentially for the last five years without really engaging Canadians on this particular issue of public policy.

I would like to tip my hat to the member for Red Deer for his leadership within the context of his own caucus in actually dedicating this supply day to this issue of public policy.

Having said that, I would have preferred if the wording of the amendment had gone toward a more constructive debate so that we could have actually held the government to account for its actions and we could have focused on the need to postpone any decision on ratification until Canada had developed a full implementation plan that would have included a detailed impact analysis.

The impact analysis has to be the starting point. We clearly need to ensure that a detailed impact analysis is done on a sector by sector and province by province basis before implementing any kind of strategy .

The Government of Canada should fully engage the Canadian public to inform them about what behavioural expectations the federal government would have on the Canadian populous at large.

Given the void created by the government in actually providing any kind of leadership on this issue, we have recently seen a myriad of cost analyses or projections produced by a vast array of interest groups and, quite legitimately.

Before I continue, Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for South Shore who carries the natural resource file.

Various stakeholder groups have been advocating at least two reasons for the need to have the analysis done. One reason is that having an impact analysis in terms of what a ratification plan or an implementation would be in terms of what cost that may have with respect to the economy is a reasonable question to ask. I do not think anybody would have any grave objection to that aspect of it.

The real aspect I would like to advocate is that the environmental community has no desire for the Government of Canada to merely ratify an accord that it clearly has no game plan in place or no genuine interest to ever implement in the future.

The challenge of climate change is a very difficult file for most countries to address but it is more complex in the Canadian context than in most other industrialized nations. Canada has a large land mass with a small population base that provides transportation challenges. We have a cold climate. We have an export driven, energy intensive economy.

When we look at our challenges we see other countries that are facing the same challenges. Let us look at Sweden. The Swedes are actually allowed to have a reduction rate significantly less than what we have here in Canada. They have done their homework and have convinced their EU partners that their country's circumstances make climate change a more arduous process than perhaps it would be in other EU based countries.

To state the obvious, the Government of Canada really did not have its act together prior to going to Kyoto in the first place.

I was a member of the delegation involved in the Kyoto process. On November 12 the federal government finally met with the provinces. It thought it was a good idea to get together with them. Regardless of what the national government may want to do, the provinces will have to implement any decision the federal government may take. We know in this federation that if we do not have that consensus, it is very difficult to implement anything, including this challenge on climate change.

The November 12 accord, I will call it, was agreed to by the provinces. There was a consensus so that the Government of Canada could at least go to Kyoto and say that we at least had our subnational governments on board. What happened? The very next morning the Globe and Mail quoted the Minister of Natural Resources as saying that may be our position.

We got off to this process in a very haphazard way that really betrayed the trust of the provinces. We went to Kyoto without any plan for implementation and really without any target or timeline. We were there to sort of take orders per se. Immediately upon return from Kyoto, Ralph Klein, the premier of the province of Alberta, said quite clearly that this accord, which was agreed to by Canada, in no way reflected the Canadian position that was established in Regina. That was said on December 12, 1997. The Alberta environment minister, Ty Lund, also said at that time that only with governments working co-operatively in partnership with industry, environmental groups and individual Canadians could we reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases and that together we could address our international commitments in such a way that no region or sector would be asked to bear an unreasonable share of the burden.

The Alberta government has actually led our nation in moving the yardstick in reducing greenhouse gases by some of the issues it has brought forward under the best efforts regime.

That is what the Government of Canada should have been doing for the last five years. It has been five years and we still do not have a provincial consensus.

I pay tribute to the member for Athabasca who asked a question in question period yesterday. It was a very simple and genuine question. He asked if the Government of Canada would agree to have a consensus reached with the provinces before ratification. In the view of the Progressive Conservative Party this is a necessary component before even considering ratification.

We know there is a lot of trepidation within the Canadian populace at large. There is a legitimate fear by individuals who live in western Canada and even in the east where there is a petrochemical industry in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland offshore. The last thing they want from the government is another national energy program. Without knowing what the rules and regulations will be on an implementation strategy and without having that impact analysis done sector by sector and province by province, it is totally legitimate for these individuals to be concerned in that way.

Industry is indeed willing to do its part. The Canadian manufacturers and exporters and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers have really stepped up to the plate to take a constructive approach as opposed to a mere rant. They have taken the position that they are willing to do their part if the government tells them what the rules are, but they need to be assured that the objectives are achievable and will not wreak havoc with their economy.

I wish to reiterate quite clearly that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has not been in favour of blind ratification without having the proper homework done, without having a provincial consensus reached in advance and without having a detailed impact analysis done industry by industry, sector by sector.

I heard the member from the Bloc's interpretation of the motion. We are taking the liberty to say that how we interpret the vote today is that we would have preferred that the homework had been done, with an impact analysis, sector by sector, province by province, and it has not, so we will be supporting the Canadian Alliance motion today.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for his intervention which was quite fine until the last few minutes when he indicated his party's policy. He indicated the fact that there would not be any ratification on the part of a Progressive Conservative government without provincial consensus.

The hon. member is well aware of the fact that there are two provinces that are and will continue to be definitely opposed to the ratification of Kyoto, namely Alberta and Ontario. The question therefore to the hon. member is this. Are the Progressive Conservatives taking an ambiguous position, knowing very well that two provinces will not agree to the ratification?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like perhaps to take a moment to advocate what we have advocated all along in terms of what should be done. I know that the chair of the environment committee is a strong environmental parliamentarian. It is possible, but maybe not probable, that he may not be here in the House of Commons by the year 2008 or 2012 when Kyoto becomes more binding. From that perspective, does he want the Government of Canada to ratify a document that it has no genuine interest in ever implementing?

We have been advocating a “no regrets” strategy all along by having massive tax incentives on renewable sources of energy, massive tax incentives fostering blended fuels such as ethanol, massive tax incentives for the R and D on energy efficiency initiatives as well as renewables in that regard and having a loan guarantee program with respect to the retrofit of buildings that the federal government would fund. These are things that would complement the initiatives brought forth by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities as well.

We have a simple position. We have never supported blind ratification. If we cannot demonstrate that we have a plan in place, tabled with the regulations about how that plan would be achieved, why would we go forward and agree with any accord or any agreement, regardless of whether it is Kyoto or any public policy decision that the Government of Canada may undertake?

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

Mr. Speaker, I too listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. critic of the environment. I found the last line very interesting as well, that they would feel compelled to support the Alliance in its opposition day motion.

I want to respond to the cost of not ratifying Kyoto and the cost of inactivity. We look to the fact that a billion dollars a month is spent by Canadians on extreme weather situations. We heard today about the 1998 ice storm that cost $5.4 billion. There is real climate change and it is impacting Canadians. As we speak, we have seen the warmest winter on record. We have seen droughts in western Canada. I wonder about the position of the hon. member opposite when he says that they will not ratify Kyoto. Can we afford not to?

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

Mr. Speaker, my comment with respect to the question that was asked was that regardless of whether we were in the framework of the Kyoto protocol or not, the Government of Canada would have to have a comprehensive climate change strategy that would foster real reductions of greenhouse gases.

Our position is the Government of Canada has been grossly negligent over the last five years. To this moment it still has not been able to develop a provincial consensus. It has not even done its homework on an impact analysis that the Aussies and the Swedes did prior to Kyoto. We are still waiting for a sector by sector, province by province analysis. Until that homework is done, until it is proven that ratification makes sense or is even doable, then why would we want to ratify it?

It is incumbent on the Government of Canada to provide that plan. If that plan is reasonable and there is consensus by the provinces, then it should be considered. However without a plan blind ratification makes no sense. We are serving notice that we need to have the provinces on board and a plan in place.

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

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Fundy--Royal, let me say it is a pleasure to rise on debate on this supply day motion brought forth by the member from the Alliance Party.

Before I begin debate, I would like to reference some of the comments made by my colleague from Fundy--Royal which are extremely critical to the position we have taken on this supply day motion and extremely critical to the entire issue of whether the government ratifies the Kyoto accord or not.

He commented that there was no provincial consensus. The job of the federal government is to go out and get provincial consensus. It has had five years to do it. Where has it been? Where has it been on a lot of other issues, which I will bring into my speech later?

The other point is there has been absolutely no sector by sector impact analysis. This is on the verge of the asinine. This is ridiculous. The government has a certain responsibility here. We are trying to point out that responsibility to it. It should not be something done at the last minute in great haste to satisfy some whim with which the Prime Minister woke up one morning. We are talking about a comprehensive, detailed, organized plan of how this could even remotely begin to be implemented. It is not there.

I noticed there was one thing that all opposition parties agreed upon, which is a point worth repeating. We did not all agree to support the motion but we did agree that the government had shown zero leadership on this file. That is absolutely true. It has been five years since Kyoto. Where is the plan and how will it be implemented?

The government itself is not singing from the same song sheet. Its own ministers are contradicting one another. Regarding Kyoto, the Minister of Natural Resources, as early as March 15, stated in Calgary:

We have to make sure we do it right and that's what the government's intention is, to make sure we have all the information, have an analysis and work with the provinces and then make a decision on whether we can ratify or not

I like that position. That is halfway responsible. On the same day, reported in the same paper, was a quote from the Minister of the Environment, who stated “We'd like to ratify and our aim is to ratify”.

One person is saying that the government plans to ratify, apparently at all costs, and the other minister is saying that maybe it should take a second look at this because there are costs.

Let us take a look at what is being discussed here. For example, we are talking about a government that is prepared to ratify an accord without a number of issues being clearly defined. Canadian negotiators are still pushing for clean energy credits. We have not defined clearly whether or not we will be able to use our carbon sinks, and we really have not defined clearly how emissions trading might or might not work. However those are more clearly defined than clean energy credits, which are not defined at all.

For example, Canadian negotiators who currently are pressing for this, and are not expected in the short term to succeed, are arguing that we should get credit for being a large producer and exporter of relatively clean natural gas and hydroelectricity.

It is a good argument. The Canadian government argues this can be used to displace energy sources, such as coal, which produce higher levels of greenhouse gases.

Let us back up to the emissions trading that is at least quasi recognized under the Kyoto protocol. This allows countries or individual companies with higher emissions of greenhouse gases to accumulate credits by investing in projects internationally that would reduce emissions. This may allow a country to continue to emit levels of greenhouse gases above its own targets without penalty. This is being seriously discussed and allowed in the protocol. I will say it again however that we are not being given any credit for the thousands of megawatts of clean energy exported from Canada every year in hydroelectricity and natural gas. The federal government has a lot of homework to do on this file, as it has a lot of homework to do on other files.

What are the facts? The Kyoto protocol which was signed by 186 nations in December 1997 committed Canada to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6% from 1990 levels by 2012. We are 10 years away from target, five years away from the original meeting in Kyoto and there has been very little done, and what has been done does not have an ounce of accountability from the government, not even a wee bit.

The government does not even have real numbers to discuss. It has said it has committed $1.5 billion to combat climate change. From its own numbers it has committed $4.2 billion over the next five, six or seven years. Most of that is completely unaccountable to the general public, the auditor general and the Access to Information Act.

Much of Canadian industry and most of the provinces are worried that they will be at a competitive disadvantage if Canada ratifies the accord, especially since our largest trading partner, the United States, which happens to represent 25% of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide has stated that it will not ratify the accord. Canada is looking for recognition of its clean energy exports. I have already discussed natural gas and hydroelectricity. Even if we did get recognition of those clean energy exports, as long as the United States does not sign on to the accord we do not get recognition from it. It is a veritable Pandora's box. We are worse than the dog chasing its tail. The government says one thing but on investigating what it has been saying, there is nothing to back it up.

The Minister of Natural Resources has stated that natural gas and electricity come from Canada but the environmental benefits occur elsewhere. Yes, and what are we doing about that? The bottom line is global emissions are lower because of our exports. We need to find a way to encourage and recognize that trade and the use of cleaner energy produced in exporting countries like Canada should not be unfairly and unduly penalized as it will be if we sign on to the accord.

Ten minutes is not a very long time to debate this subject. To quickly sum up, the point I take issue with the most is the cost. I challenge the government to do its math. It has all kinds of different cost estimates out there, from $1.5 billion to $300 million to $3.3 billion. We are talking huge numbers of dollars.

I think most members here have read “Pain Without Gain: Canada's Kyoto Challenge” by the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association. This is a matter of having faith in the ability of the government to meet this challenge.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was at a presentation given by the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association. When asked what those very inflated statistics were based on, the answer quite simply was that the statistics were two years old. A survey was done of the association's membership who were asked how many jobs they thought would be lost through climate change and what a business would lose through climate change.

Is this the kind of lax and loose scientific data that my hon. colleague would choose to move forward with on such an important issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, that would be the purview of the Government of Canada.

What I find most interesting about what the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association had to say is in its executive summary which almost sounds like a mission statement. It expects to be part of a meaningful international strategy for limiting atmospheric greenhouse gases. I do not have a problem with that. It wants to lead in a genuine reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that are measurable, verifiable, practical and economically feasible. I do not have a problem with that. It also wants to make a real and meaningful contribution in controlling greenhouse gas emissions over a long period of time. I would suggest that is what the government should have been doing five years ago, not today.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the environment minister has told us that we will get a report next month. He also tabled something yesterday in the House which he said was up to date information. However when we read this very carefully we find a whole bunch of innuendoes. The cost of the drought in Saskatchewan has been priced in. The cost of the 1998 ice storm was also included. The government says that all of these will be savings once Kyoto is in place.

What does the member think the report in April is going to be like? Does he think it will be similar to this? Does he have confidence the government will do its homework and that the economic models designed by it will in any way relate to what the real facts might be on the ground?

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

Mr. Speaker, those are very good questions and the member guessed my answers before he asked them.

I do not have any confidence the government will bring out a report that is at all accountable.

Bill C-4, the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act, which most opposition parties voted against, was passed in the House by the government. It was supposed to reduce greenhouse gases. The sum of $100 million was put into an open-ended piece of legislation and the government is allowed to put more money in at any time. It is not accountable to the auditor general's office and the Access to Information Act is not applicable. The government talks about spending money, but we have no idea how it is doing it. There is no accountability in the legislation and there is no accountability from government ministers.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. Does the member agree with a more flexible level of objectives in terms of greenhouse gas emissions over a longer period of time? That would enable us to bring in countries like the United States and developing countries so there would be a broader group of countries that could adhere to a long process of diminishing greenhouse gases. Or does he adhere to the Kyoto agreement that is determined to have an effect on GDP of between 2% and 10% as well as not being able to be ratified by the 55 countries required?

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

Mr. Speaker, our future in energy and in greenhouse gases is inextricably linked to the future of the United States. Absolutely we need to find a way to move forward with our partners, in particular the United States. It may not be through Kyoto. Without question, we may have to find another avenue to do it.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to engage in the debate on this topic today.

Certainly I do not pretend in any way to be a scientist. I am simply a layman, as I think are the vast majority of members and Canadians. I approach the topic from the position of a layman. From that position, there are some glaring holes in the whole argument perhaps on both sides of the issue.

I do not apologize for representing a riding that supplies 15% of Canada's fossil fuel energy. I am proud to do that. My riding plays a vital part in producing Canada's GDP and keeping the lights on and homes warm in Canada. Industries in my riding are doing some amazing things in an effort to reduce emissions. I approach the whole issue from that perspective.

So many agendas appear to be at play on the issue of climate change and the greenhouse effect that a layman has no idea who to believe and who not to believe.

The whole thing started some time ago at the conference in Rio in which Canada took part. Canada's delegation to Rio, as I understand it, was headed by Canada's environmental representative to the United Nations, Maurice Strong, a well-known figure. The member for Davenport is shaking his head and I may be mistaken. However, that particular individual has been very vocal on the issue. I apologize if I am in error and he did not lead the delegation, but he certainly was part of it and he certainly has had a lot to say about it.

It is my understanding that after promoting the need to reduce CO

2

emissions and emissions generally and to transfer huge amounts of wealth to the underdeveloped world to allow it to catch up with the technologies available in the developed world, that same individual is now involved in an Asian power corporation conglomerate. It is engaged in creating a huge electricity generating development in China with the use of very polluting high sulphur soft coal.

Those contradictions lead me to wonder about the legitimacy of this whole issue. The list goes on and on.

Certainly the commitment Canada made in Rio was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. The government did not even begin to meet that commitment and it has moved on now to Kyoto where our commitment is in fact 6% below 1990 levels. This will put us about 25% above 1990 levels by the time we are to make that commitment and introduce those changes. We have a huge distance to go. In my opinion the chances of our meeting that commitment are very unlikely.

When we look at the requirement to do that, most Canadians think that industry has a problem and in particular fossil fuel industries have this problem they have to solve. However, the reality is that only one-third of the problem has to be solved by industries, including the fossil fuel industries. One-third of it has to be solved through changes in the transportation system. One-third of it has to be solved by the consumers, Canadians driving their cars, heating their homes and all the other things they do.

Unfortunately it reduces the government's credibility on the issue. Heading into Kyoto there was a lot of discussion in the House and in political circles all over Canada about how we might meet our commitment. Prior to the trip to Kyoto I attended a federal provincial conference of energy and environment ministers in Regina where the provinces in good faith engaged in a discussion of the commitment we would make in Kyoto.

Canada was the only country in the G-8 that did not have a public position before going to Kyoto. That aside, the provinces in good faith sat in a discussion and agreed we should do what we could to invoke the precautionary principle. They hammered out an agreement which was never made public by either level of government. However we were told there was an agreement.

The Canadian delegation then went to Kyoto and far exceeded the agreement reached in Regina. It broke faith with the agreement that had been made with the provinces. It betrayed the confidence of the provinces. It got caught up in the euphoria of saving the planet and far exceeded what the provinces thought we could achieve.

That was just the beginning of the government's loss of credibility on the issue. Here we are in 2002, five years later, and the government has yet to produce a credible or verifiable plan to implement Kyoto. Such a plan would need to take into consideration the costs of Kyoto and what we are capable of doing. It would need to commit Canada to becoming an expanded supplier of energy to our neighbour the United States.

Even before the whole energy crisis and the George Bush energy plan the provinces had legitimate concerns about our ability to reach the Kyoto targets. After hearing George Bush's plea for a stable and more reliable source of energy the federal Liberal government jumped at the opportunity to commit Canada to be the supplier. The Prime Minister went to Washington and encouraged Americans to invest in Alberta's tar sands. He said there was enough potential there to meet the U.S. demand for energy so it would not have to depend on unstable Mideast sources.

At the same time the Prime Minister told Canadians and the House he intended to ratify Kyoto. There seemed to be no question in his mind he would do so.

His ministers are all over the map. The Minister of Natural Resources says he would not sign a contract in his private life unless he knew the cost of the contract. He says committing to sign something when the cost is not known is an unacceptable and dangerous business practice. I agree completely.

However the minister seems confident the government will come up with a credible business plan to meet the Kyoto protocol. In response to a question I had in the House the environment minister produced a report yesterday by the federal provincial group studying the costs of Kyoto and how we might achieve our targets. I got a copy immediately after he had tabled it. I studied it and was amazed. If it is the environment minister's idea of a credible plan it is frightening.

I read the report as a layman. In the report the group acknowledged the costs of meeting the Kyoto commitment would be substantive. The report deducted the costs of the ice storm in Ontario and Quebec and the drought on the prairies, thereby mitigating the costs of the Kyoto agreement. In some instances it said it would be a profitable commitment.

A couple of weeks ago I attended a conference on climate change at the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa. A number of environmental groups spoke and made presentations. It was acknowledged that when the Kyoto commitment of 6% below 1990 levels was input into computer systems there was no discernible effect on the environment. According to the computer models the effects of climate change we are now seeing would continue under the Kyoto commitment.

If that is the case and it is recognized by the experts, how in the world could a working group studying the issue suggest that if we met our commitment the costs of the ice storm and the drought on the prairies could be deducted because they would no longer happen under Kyoto? The computer model says they would continue to happen as frequently as they do today because Kyoto would have no discernible effect on the environment.

As a layman it raises all kinds of red flags for me. I have a problem with the credibility of the minister in producing the report. It frightens me that it is the minister's idea of a credible cost benefit analysis Canadians can use when examining the whole Kyoto issue and deciding whether we should make the commitment.

There has been discussion in the House that this is a foolish position that would not do the climate any good. However the scientists presented the position. It is not something our party dreamed up.

The discussion goes on against a backdrop of nine years of the government making promises and commitments, telling us things that did not turn out, and citing costs that were unrealistic. I know some members will take offence but I cannot help bringing up the issue of gun registration, the old chestnut of our party.

When the Liberal government brought in gun registration it said our party was fearmongering. It said we were incorrect because it would make our streets safe and all the rest. It said the registry would only cost $85 million. We are now in excess of $700 million and the guns still are not registered.

Why would Canadians and laymen like myself believe the government when it produces the kinds of figures in this report? It says we are fearmongering. It says the costs would be nowhere near that high. The government's history of credibility on the issues is sadly lacking. It truly worries me.

The Prime Minister and several of his ministers have repeatedly told western Canada not to worry because it would not be another national energy program. They say they would not consider a carbon tax because it would be out of the question. They say they made that mistake once and would not make it again.

As the government is making these commitments government bureaucrats are speculating publicly about the need to put carbon caps on industry. They say the only way to do it is to put a cap on industry. Then industries could produce so many tonnes of CO

2

and if they went above the cap they would either have to reduce the emissions or buy credits to cover them.

Carbon caps amount to a carbon tax. We can couch it in all kinds of terms and use smoke, mirrors and rhetoric to hide it. However it is a carbon tax by another name. In 1997 the former natural resources minister promised no unreasonable share of the burden would be placed on any region or sector in Canada. He said many times that there would be no carbon tax.

Given the history of the country and the influence Quebec has had on government policy, when we hear the representatives of the Bloc Quebecois shouting in the House that we should immediately implement Kyoto we have to wonder about their agenda. Quebec produces huge amounts of hydroelectricity and non-emitting sources of energy. It would be eligible for substantial credit for sale to parts of the country that could not meet the commitment. As an Albertan I am suspicious of the agenda being followed there.

In the House in February the Prime Minister said:

Mr. Speaker, that is why we hold meetings between the federal and provincial ministers, in order to have all the facts on the table. The objective of this government, however, is to ratify the Kyoto protocol when we have obtained satisfaction.

Satisfaction for who? All kinds of people might find satisfaction for different reasons. The Prime Minister makes statements about federal provincial consultations and at the end of the sentence says he intends to ratify. Why in the world do we hold consultations in the first place if the intention is to ratify regardless of what the consultations produce?

Since the Prime Minister's remarks in February some ministers have backed away from that position. The natural resources minister did not quite say it but he suggested the government would probably not ratify unless it could come to a consensus. That is a more acceptable and reasonable business practice. I hope the Prime Minister will adopt it. However I am suspicious.

I will spend a minute on the whole issue of the science. I am a layman. I am not a scientist and would not pretend to be. However there are issues around the science.

The government has a history of getting into trouble. The hon. member for Davenport and other members in the House well remember what happened regarding the issue of manganese in gasoline. In the House and in committee we were presented with bogus science on the issue. The government chose to go ahead and ban the manganese additive in gasoline. The issue ended up in court under the free trade agreement. The government lost because the science was not reliable. The government and the taxpayers of Canada paid $20 million to the Ethyl Corporation because of that foolishness. I have a sense we are facing the same thing here.

The science that supports Kyoto is based on computer modelling. I do not know how reliable the computer models are but I have doubts. Environment Canada suggested if we inputted Canadian weather data from the last 50 years into the same computers they could not replicate what happened with the weather. Why would we blindly believe the same computer models could predict what would happen down the road?

I have no doubt whatsoever that climate change is happening. Only a fool would not admit the climate of the globe is changing. That is accepted. However is it a natural process or is it man made? Questions are raised when we look at the drought on the prairies in the 1930s and how oil was formed in the Arctic millions of years ago.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Athabasca would agree with the ancient Chinese proverb “a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”.

I wonder if he would also agree with the people who are the base of his bread and butter in his own riding, namely, Suncor, Shell and BP. They have set targets for the marketing of renewable energy over the next 25 years. Suncor is the most vocal by committing $100 million and setting a target of 50% of its sales to be renewable energy over the next 25 years. It considers itself to be in the energy business now, not the oil business. It is the same with what were British Petroleum and Shell Canada Ltd.

How does the member tout this line that flies right in the face of his own oil companies that provide the base of his tenure here in the House of Commons?

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I could only wish they were my own oil companies. As far as the proverb is concerned any journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step but it ends very shortly if the first step is on a precipice. I am afraid perhaps that is where this first step is taking us.

I fully intended in my presentation to talk about those very companies that the member referred to. There are wonderful things that the energy industry is doing and has done under the voluntary challenge program. The energy industry itself has already under the voluntary challenge program reduced greenhouse gas emissions by some 15% with all kinds of new and innovative ideas on the horizon that it is working on.

That has been the benefit of this whole Kyoto debate. It has awakened Canadians to this whole issue of environment and emissions and has produced some wonderful results and technologies that are on the horizon that will take us far past Kyoto. It will take us to where Environment Canada says we must get to to mitigate climate change and that is a 75% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

We can get there but we cannot get there by the year 2010 and we cannot get there by committing to spend billions of taxpayer dollars funnelled into the developed world on projects that allow us to continue business as usual. That would be an idiotic way to go in my opinion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide two bits of information before I ask my question relative to the hon. member's speech.

First, on the issue related to MMT the Government of Canada went wrong with that particular issue. It should have banned it as a toxin under schedule 1 of the Environmental Protection Act. It then would not have been subject to a challenge by Ethyl Corporation because it was challenged on the basis that it was banning a tradable commodity. The science on the precautionary perspective was fine. It was how the Government of Canada went about banning that particular substance.

Second, the United Nations and the scientific community as a whole have said that there is a discernible human influence related to greenhouse gases that are precipitating the change on a climatic basis.

The hon. member asked a very constructive question in question period yesterday. I would like to give him a chance to reiterate it. The Government of Canada should at least have a consensus reached with the provinces on whatever implementation strategy it may develop before it goes for ratification.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into the debate on MMT again. We went around and around on that one. I obviously do not accept the member's analysis. It was some time ago and it makes no sense to go back to that. I only used it as an example of where the government should have taken some time to analyze what was before it and that it would not have gone down the road it went down if it had been a little more objective in its analysis.

I am pleased to see the Progressive Conservative members representing their party taking the position on this supply day motion that they have because their position has not always been that way. The former prime minister, the member for Calgary Centre, said in a conference in Toronto that we had better follow through. He told the conference if we were not to come through on our commitments we would surely face fines or other financial penalties and, more important, our reputation as a reliable responsible partner in international agreements would be severely tarnished. He went on to chastise the government for dragging its feet and taking too long to meet the commitment that it made

I am glad to see the turnaround. It was probably led by the prospective candidate in Calgary Southwest running for the Conservative Party who emphatically said over and over again that the Progressive Conservative Party was not in favour or ratifying Kyoto. I am glad to see the positive influence it has had on the members in the House today.

It has been my position from day one in the debate, and I think the position of others here, that there is no question the climate is changing. Having grown up in northern Alberta there is no question the climate is changing. I worked for a good part of my working life in the Canadian Arctic and the signs are certainly there, the climate is changing.

However, the science, based on the computer modelling, that attributes that change solely to the influence of man and the burning of fossil fuels is suspect. The scientists involved have not been able to get the computers to replicate the reality of what has already happened and, therefore, it raises some questions.

I spent a lot of years drilling oil wells, looking for oil and gas in the Canadian Arctic. It was pretty obvious when we checked the bit cuttings as they came up from beneath the surface of the earth that they were full of tropical plants and animal fossils from millions of years ago. In fact, science tells us that oil and gas are formed from the rotting and the dying of plants and animals. Over eons it becomes compressed and produces coal and oil and gas. It was clear that at some time in the past history of the planet the Canadian Arctic was a tropical region.

There is all kinds of evidence through ice samples and scientific analysis from Greenland and the Canadian Arctic that there were times in our past history when CO

2

in the atmosphere was much higher than it is now.

It is clear that the climate of the planet is continually changing. It will always be changing. For us to think that we have the power to overcome nature, to mitigate climate and to control climate is giving us far more credit than we as humans deserve.

Let us stop and give some sober second thought to this thing. Let us do what we can to develop the technologies that reduce all kinds of emissions in Canada and around the world. We can then sell those technologies and get way past Kyoto, as we must. We can end our dependence on fossil fuels and we shall.

Points of Order

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order subsequent to my intervention of March 18 with regard to the Supplementary Estimates (B) for 2001-02.

I have uncovered additional information through further research and would like to amplify my argument for striking the votes from the Supplementary Estimates (B) which I mentioned in my previous intervention.

In 1968 the standing orders were amended to clearly separate debate on legislation and the supply process. It was agreed, and I pointed out numerous references yesterday, that we cannot legislate through the estimates process. Marleau and Montpetit on page 742 states:

Although, theoretically, a Supply bill is debatable, and therefore amendable, at all stages after first reading, it generally passes without debate or amendment on the last allotted day.

There is generally no debate because the supply bill does not contain legislative amendments. Footnote 275 on the same page states:

On occasion, through special orders, the House has agreed to debate a Supply bill at the second reading stage and at the Committee of the Whole stage.

And examples are given.

The estimates are presumably debated in committee prior to the supply bill being introduced which is why there is normally no debate on the supply bill itself assuming there are no legislative changes. Proposed legislative changes are always debatable in this House, therefore Mr. Speaker, if you rule that my point of order yesterday is out of order and that the votes are to remain in the supply bill, I ask that you allow debate on the supply bill when it is before the House later this day.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I thank the hon. member for St. Albert for the information which will be added to his point of order of yesterday. The Speaker will rule on it as soon as possible.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with a fellow maritimer, the parliamentary secretary to the House leader, who represents Halifax. Too often we find ourselves going over issues that are now beyond serious debate. I am surprised that 15 years after the first global climate change conference held in Canada I have to continue reminding people why it is so important to take action on greenhouse gases. Today's debate shows that it is needed again and I will state the case as clearly as I can.

Scientists have pointed out that we are already approaching the end of the 19th consecutive season of above normal temperatures across Canada. The 20th century was the warmest century of the last millennium. The 1990s were the warmest decade of the last century, and 1998 and 2001 were the warmest years yet. The U.S. government reported two weeks ago that its country had just experienced the warmest temperatures for the November through January period in 107 years since it began keeping national records. These are clear facts on which there can be no dispute.

Around the world we are seeing record losses and damages due to extreme weather events, losses that cannot simply be explained by changes in population or in settlement patterns. The 1996 Saguenay flood cost $1 billion and repeated itself not long ago. The 1997 Red River flood caused the evacuation of more than 25,000 people in southern Manitoba. It also resulted in over $300 million in damages.

The ice storm we experienced in eastern Canada a few years ago saw three million Canadians without electrical power and total damages of about $5.4 million. The impact of southern Alberta's current drought problem may be $5 billion, pressuring prairie agriculture revenues and crop insurance. Clearly these are issues about which my colleagues across the way should be concerned.

The best estimates of scientists about climate change are that we will see more of these severe weather events, not fewer. We will see more people affected by floods or drought in the country, not fewer. We will see more impacts on agriculture and our forests, not fewer.

Our government is tackling the issue of climate change. We are doing it through our own initiatives and in collaboration with the widest range of partners domestically and internationally. We are taking action in the context of the Kyoto protocol and in the context of the commitment that the Prime Minister made some five years ago to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases in Canada to 6% below the 1990 level by 2012. That is quite a commitment.

There is much I could say about the climate change issue, the Kyoto protocol and what it may mean for Canada. I could spend all my allotted time in this debate responding to the parade of comments and claims that have been advanced recently. Instead I will focus on making it clear that our government will continue to take action by building on the solid base of initiatives we have implemented already. Before I do so I must respond to the claim that Kyoto will do little or nothing to benefit the environment.

I remind that House the every long journey starts with a single step. If we are not prepared to take that step we are doomed to stay where we are forever. International trade negotiations started more than 50 years ago and only developed countries were involved. Perhaps the opposition believes we should not have taken the small steps that got these negotiations started because they were not to do a lot for international trade.

Let us talk about our financial commitments. Since 1995 the Government of Canada has spent $1.95 billion to develop new climate change programs and to enhance existing ones in an effort to meet its various climate change commitments. Even before the Kyoto protocol took shape in 1997 we began efforts to support innovative new technologies. We began to address the potential offered by energy conservation measures and improved energy efficiency throughout the entire economy. We began our outreach to Canadians to help them understand what they could do. We started this process in a major way in the 1998 federal budget when we established a new climate change action fund.

In the 2000 budget the government announced $625 million for climate change initiatives. That decision coincided with a consultation process involving experts from across Canada to help us identify priorities on which we could act. That consultation process helped to shape Government of Canada action plan 2000 that we launched in October 2000. That action plan was supported by an additional $500 million on top of budget 2000 commitments.

A further $390 million worth of measures were announced in budget 2001. The action plan 2000 commitments was designed to get Canada well on its way toward our Kyoto goals. Companies across Canada such as Dow Chemical, Shell, British Petroleum and Ford have invested in improved processes and facilities that have cut greenhouse gas emissions and saved money through a more efficient use of fuel and other resources. Our government is getting its own house in order in terms of our energy use choices and other initiatives.

Municipalities across Canada are tapping the methane from landfill sites as an energy source with great success. Individual Canadians are improving the energy efficiency of their homes and workplaces through the leadership shown by the government.

The list goes on and on but my point is quite straightforward. Climate change is not something that Canadians or the government have just discovered. It is one on which we already have a substantial record of commitment and results. It is an issue on which our previous action has generated a lot of the momentum that will allow us to meet our goals.

Let me conclude with a few final thoughts. We will reshape the future in a way that gives us cleaner air, cleaner water and a more stable climate. We will reshape the future to give us a more efficient and less wasteful economy, to improve the health of Canadians and to have a better protected environment for all living creatures.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the member who just spoke. She piqued my interest when she mentioned the drought in southern Alberta.

My riding is in southern Alberta and drought are a terrible problem facing it right now. Some of the people most adversely affected by the drought is a group of farmers down around Foremost, the county of Warner and over toward the Sweetgrass hills. They have been trying to get a water system brought in. They have been working on it for years. They have the provincial government and everyone else on side. Now the Canadian environmental assessment process has kicked into gear and threatens to hold the project up or even stop it from going ahead.

The member mentioned the drought. I remind her that we are very much aware of the drought situation in southern Alberta. One of the programs that has been put in place to help alleviate some of the ramifications of drought has been held up by her government.

She spent a lot of time talking about other issues that have affected the climate. No one is saying the climate is not changing. It is just to the degree we need to act to bring it around. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has put out one estimate of $30 billion a year for implementation. Would she comment on what effects she feels it would have on the families in her riding?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister has indicated previously, there is an ongoing mechanism for consultation with the provinces and all other partners over and above the board of trade. I believe at the end of the day we will all share the same commitment on the issue of trying to find a way of meeting our target of having cleaner air while at the same time wanting to make sure we achieve our goals in co-operation with the others.