Debates of March 19th, 2002

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, why are we having this particular debate today? Is it because the government for the last five years has done nothing to have an informed debate on whether we are capable of meeting our greenhouse gas target under the Kyoto protocol? I have a simple question for the hon. member. All members in this Chamber should agree, before having mere blind ratification, about what the Government of Canada may or may not be getting this country into.

Would it not make sense for us to ensure to Canadians that we carry out a sector by sector analysis, a province by province analysis and that a full scale debate take place from coast to coast to coast on what behavioural expectations the national government may have upon them? Should those three analyses not be done prior to ratification?

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend should know that consultations with the provinces are underway.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions and as a result has already invested or committed about $1.5 billion to implement a broad based climate change action plan. When fully in place it is expected to take us about one third of the way to our Kyoto target.

Our approach is multi-faceted: to reduce energy consumption through conservation and greater energy efficiency; to promote investment in capital stock turnover toward cleaner industrial processes; to encourage the removal of CO

2

from our atmosphere through natural carbon sinks and industrial sequestration; and to develop less carbon intensive power sources, including natural gas, hydroelectricity and others, as well as a growing portfolio of renewable and alternative energy supplies.

It is clear that to reduce greenhouse gas emissions we must develop and deploy innovative, new technologies. These new energy technologies are important to achieving sustainable development and social and economic goals.

Canada has a well respected capability and experience in energy research and development and in transferring leading edge technologies. Investment in energy efficiency, renewables, alternative and cleaner fossil fuel technologies are central to our efforts.

Indeed, the Minister of Natural Resources has just announced at Globe 2002 in Vancouver, eight new partnerships to develop and deploy innovative technologies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada's approach to energy research and development activities is focused on working in partnership with national and international clients and stakeholders to develop and deploy advanced energy technologies that have strong economic and environmental impacts. Partnership is a way of business for the Government of Canada.

Our plans address the transportation sector, upstream oil and gas production, electricity generation, the industrial sectors, residential and commercial buildings and communities. All of this is underpinned by determined efforts for innovation, the creation, dissemination and commercialization of new knowledge, the development and deployment of new technologies.

Natural Resources Canada is Canada's catalyst in energy science and technology, the key player in the network of public and private sector collaboration.

Today we are starting to see the payoff from decades of research, development and support in a wide range of energy technologies: better energy efficiency, new transportation technologies, a slate of renewable energy sources and new generation hydrocarbon based technologies.

NRCan's long term vision for Canada's energy future sees a Canada that enjoys: a sustainable Canadian hydrocarbon energy supply with reduced emissions of greenhouse gases; a dramatically increased contribution of renewable energy from biomass, wind, solar and small scale hydro to Canada's energy mix; elimination of noxious emissions, including greenhouse gases from large scale combustion, notably from coal, and viable technologies and techniques for cost effective CO

2

capture and sequestration; fully integrated small scale energy conversion systems; a low emissions future transportation system; an eco-efficient processing sector in Canadian industry; ultra-efficient buildings with low life cycle impacts; and sustainable communities throughout Canada.

Canadian leadership in these energy areas would create new opportunities for economic development, new jobs, scientific sophistication and new trade potential. It would provide us with strategic global positioning by making Canada a place of excellence to whom the world would turn for the best energy and environmental solutions.

Like the decades of work that resulted in energy technologies we are seeing today, reaching this energy future would take years of patient research and development in a wide variety of potential technologies. NRCan is committed to working with its public and private sector partners and through available S&T programs to develop and deploy the technologies we need to fulfill our vision for tomorrow. We can be confident about these future technologies.

Let me offer a few examples that illustrate some of the exciting advances Canada is making and our resolve to meet our climate change objectives. Fuel cell technology is one such illustration. Canada is in the forefront of this revolutionary field of research and development, which could reshape the automobile industry and slash emissions in the transportation sector. Today NRCan is working to develop the fuel cell infrastructure, like the network of gas and service stations. NRCan is partnering on the development of technologies for hydrogen production, utilization, safety and storage and is managing a program to demonstrate a variety of fuel cell vehicle fueling facilities.

A Canadian company is a world leader in the development of technologies for the production of biomass ethanol, a renewable, virtually CO

2

neutral transportation fuel. For more than 15 years, NRCan has supported the development of Canadian biomass to ethanol technology, an investment that has brought the process from the idea stage past the demonstration phase and today to the brink of commercialization.

NRCan is focusing on ways to improve industrial energy efficiency through work on advanced industrial products, processes and systems, advanced combustion technologies, process integration, intelligent sensors and controls, and bioprocessing technologies.

Canada's climate extremes have made this country a world leader in housing and energy efficient building technologies, both in retrofitting and new construction. NRCan's work in this area has led to heating, ventilation and air conditioning technologies and construction techniques that use almost half the energy and emit significantly less carbon dioxide.

Solar energy is another promising area. Canadian innovations like the Solarwall for ventilation air heating and the EnerWorks water heating system have broken new ground, cutting both emissions and energy supply costs.

On another technological front, Canadian scientists and our private sector are perfecting the best techniques to capture CO

2

from our atmosphere and store it benignly and permanently underground in older oil fields and deep coal seams.

NRCan is leading in the development of oil sands technology that will make development cheaper and easier, working on, for example, improved bitumen extraction processes that reduce tailings, save energy, cut emissions of greenhouse gases, extract more bitumen and recover process water and reuse it.

NRCan is working on technologies to negate environmental problems, notably greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants from fossil fuel production, as well as technologies to improve our ability and the economics of tapping into existing and new fossil fuel sources, particularly coal. In fact, NRCan's national laboratory in Bell's Corners, just west of here, is leading the national program of research in advanced combustion and conversion of fuels to cleaner sources of energy.

Although closing the combustion cycle is still a distant goal, progress is being made in reducing emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Emerging technologies include new forms of power generation such as natural gas combined cycle plants and advanced fluidized bed combustion.

These are some of the many innovative technologies the Government of Canada is supporting. Clearly we are making progress but we know we must do more. Our vision is to continue to develop technologies that support sustainable energy production and consumption for Canadians now and into the future.

By developing new technologies that mitigate climate change for future generations we create opportunities for new businesses, new jobs, new economic sophistication and new trade potential from Canada's rich energy endowment. By transforming how we generate and use energy, move people and materials, heat our homes and operate our industries and businesses, Canadian technology is a forerunner in addressing the challenges associated with climate change, not only for today but for tomorrow.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Given the numbers of colleagues seeking the floor for questions, if the questions and replies could be somewhat brief then we will get as many as possible on the record.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member mentions the commitment of the government to this matter and that is great. Those words are great and all the things that he mentioned are wonderful things, but the reality is that while we have spent $1.4 billion on Kyoto we have just recently announced $7 million for some of these new technologies. That $1.4 billion went to conferences and those kinds of things, not to new technology.

Does the member not think that we should be doing more to encourage industry, possibly with incentives, tax breaks and those kinds of approaches, like we see in the U.S. and in some European countries? Would that not be a better way to encourage this to develop even faster?

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—Cochrane, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon. member to look at the record of the government. The key word in reducing greenhouse gas emissions is partnership. The hon. member was asking the federal government to prove its leadership. We have done that. Just last week the hon. Minister of the Environment announced eight new partnerships, eight new programs in Vancouver worth some $400 million. That proves the commitment of the government to partnering.

We will give the private sector the guidance and the leadership it needs and we will provide some funding. That is what we are doing, with $1.5 billion. We did not wait to sign Kyoto to take action. We are already taking it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out the member opposite's paradox with regard to Canada's natural resources policy.

It is a bit of a paradox that he is talking to us about developing clean modes of energy and promoting certain technologies. When it comes to the facts, it is important to note that, since 1970, $40 billion has been spent in fossil fuel exploration and development in western Canada. All this, for what purpose? To promote and provide a better supply of fossil fuels, or polluting energy, to the Americans.

My question is the following. Would it not be better for the environment and sustainable development if, instead of using the $40 billion invested since 1970 to explore western Canadian tar sands and subsidize exports, this money were injected into developing clean technologies?

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—Cochrane, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague seems to forget that we live in a country that requires a great deal of energy. We live in a very cold country.

If our government and previous governments had not invested in the production of new energy resources in this country, we would probably be freezing right now.

Our approach is a dual one. While developing our energy sources and creating jobs for Canadians, we must also continue to develop non-polluting sources such as hydroelectricity, wind energy and others.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can demonstrate how void the government has been when it comes to taking action on this file or actually providing any kind of leadership.

The member said that the government has been vigorous in engaging industry on this issue and wanted to reward early action taken by industry. For instance, the CME has advised Canadians that greenhouse gas emissions already have been reduced by 2% below 1990 levels. Industry has done this on its own. Could the member actually name just one regulation or one incentive whereby the government actually fostered an industrial response to greenhouse gases?

On November 2, 1999, the Minister of Natural Resources stated:

Mr. Speaker, Canada has engaged the active assistance of the provinces--

I doubt that.

--environmental organizations and the private sector all across the country in developing a Kyoto implementation plan. The work is going ahead with a great deal of vigour.

It has been three years since that statement so my question is quite simple. Could he name one regulation whereby industry actually can state that it really knows the rules of early action and engagement on this file? Just one.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—Cochrane, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the hon. member that his party was in power for nine years and never put a dime into climate change, but this government has acted. In budget 2000 and the 2000 fall economic statement, the government committed $1.5 billion over five years for climate change initiatives. We have increased that since then. These initiatives include the development and demonstration of innovative technologies for reducing greenhouse gas and other emissions, increasing the uptake of energy efficiency.

Tonight I will be attending the Museum of Nature with my colleague from the Ministry of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of the Environment. We will announce a further $6 million BIOCAP project. The government is serious about climate change and we are acting.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address the Canadian Alliance motion on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

I am taking this opportunity to sincerely thank the hon. member for Red Deer for bringing forward this motion in the House, thus allowing us to have a debate on this issue. We must not wait for the government to consult us or to consult parliament, because there is no consultation. Even though I basically disagree with the hon. member's motion, I thank him for initiating this debate in the House of Commons today.

During oral question period and debate, I have said repeatedly in the House that, as far as we are concerned, the Kyoto protocol is essential from an environmental point of view, not only to provide increased protection for our ecosystems and our natural heritage, but also to deal with the issue of costs now. It is not true that this international agreement has only an environmental dimension, as I will try to demonstrate over the next few minutes.

In our opinion, there is a major economic dimension to the challenge posed by the Kyoto protocol. It is true that, in western Canada, there is some opposition to the protocol as such, but all the letters written by provincial premiers that I read show that they support the principle underlying the Kyoto protocol. I emphasize the term principle, because it is ultimately the essence of that agreement.

In recent weeks, some provincial ministers from western Canada—I am thinking of Alberta's energy minister—alluded to the possibility of dire consequences for the Canadian economy, should Canada ratify the Kyoto protocol. A cost of close to $40 billion to the Canadian economy was mentioned. A few days later, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce indicated that the costs to Canada would be some $30 billion.

These figures attracted a great deal of attention because, after all, they were from a provincial minister and a chamber of commerce. However, we have seldom seen a breakdown of costs for each province. This is why I have serious reservations about the figures mentioned so far by some industry and private sector representatives.

There have been other studies, and it is important to mention this, because the Alberta minister's presentations are not the only ones. There is also Nick Marthy, a renowned researcher my colleagues probably know, who did an estimate based on an econometric model of the possible costs of ratifying the Kyoto protocol. It was his view that the cost to Canada's economy would be on the order of 0.17% to 0.19% of GDP. Clearly, there would be an impact, but it would not be as great as certain representatives of western Canada and the Canadian Alliance claim.

The Canadian Alliance says that this impact would take the form of negative growth of $2 billion a year for ten years. In other words, a cost to Canada of approximately $22 billion, in 1995 dollars.

Representatives of western Canada have said that the costs would be approximately $40 billion but, according to this researcher's study, they would be only $5 billion to $9 billion for the Alberta economy. This would be four to six times less than certain provincial ministers from western Canada and Canadian Chamber of Commerce representatives have estimated.

In terms of GDP, this would represent a reduction for the province of Alberta of 0.58%, if the European formula is used, but I will come back to this. We know that there are basically two methods of sharing the burden of the Kyoto objective; the European method based on a triptych approach to sharing the burden, or the 6% approach, which is better known internationally.

Using the European approach, however, the impact on Alberta's GDP would be 0.58%, while the impact on Canada's GDP using the 6% international approach would be 0.38%. What would a 0.19% reduction in GDP mean for Ontario? It would mean $8.5 billion. For Quebec, the reduction in growth would be 0.06%, or $1.4 billion. And I could go on like this.

Having said that, studies must be considered in a context, because it is impossible to come up with figures as astronomical as the ones that some people have been suggesting over the last few weeks. I obtained a copy of a brief from Environment Canada dated March 4, 2002, which forecasts that the annual costs would vary between $300 million and $7.3 billion. This is a recent study prepared by Environment Canada, and it demonstrates that there will indeed be costs, as well an impact on the growth of the economy, but that the costs are not as high as some would imagine.

We have talked of costs, however it is equally important to talk about benefits. If we only see the Kyoto protocol in terms of how much it will cost to implement, as seems to be the case with the motion moved by the member for Red Deer, then we are not really taking into consideration the reality of the situation. This is what explains that the forecasts, the estimates indicate that the decline will not as sharp as some would imagine.

It is important to point out that some industries will experience growth, in particular those in the environmental sector, which are expected to grow from $427 million to $7 billion per year. This according to a study from November, 2001 by the analysis and modelling group of the national climate change process. Therefore, for some sectors of the Canadian economy, the benefits will be considerable.

We also need to look at this issue in terms of social benefits. If there is doubt about the science, and denial that climate change has any effect on human health, we are not starting from the same premise. I believe that greenhouse gases and fossil fuel production, whether it be coal, natural gas or oil, have a direct impact on public health.

The most recent studies on the social benefits, savings and health advantages puts the savings at $500 million per year. These are benefits relating to public health in economic terms.This is another benefit resulting from the implementation of the Kyoto protocol.

There is one other major advantage, which my colleague has mentioned. The Canadian insurance industry is probably in the best position at this time to estimate the actual costs of climate change. This industry has, and will continue to be, affected. To give Quebec as an example, no one can forget that the two greatest natural disasters relating to climate in Canada occurred in Quebec: the ice storm and the floods in the Saguenay region.

The 1998 ice storm alone is estimated to have cost insurers $3 billion, and this is for a single climate-related event. According to current estimates for the Saguenay flood, the economic loss for the region totals $6 billion.

All this to say that I am indeed in agreement with my colleague that there are costs associated with ratification of the Kyoto protocol. There cannot, however, be a fair, equitable and realistic evaluation unless consideration is also given to the benefits as far as public health is concerned, as well as the economic repositioning of certain industries as far as the choices relating to the Kyoto protocol are concerned. There are, therefore, major benefits as well.

I would like to quote the findings of one final study. They are not the only ones who can make use of studies. A recent Standard & Poor's study—a firm not to be taken lightly—feels that there will be continuing growth. I will just read one except, which says:

Growth will continue in all regions of Quebec subsequent to ratification of the Kyoto protocol. In Alberta, there will be an average annual downturn of 0.14% between 2000 and 2014.

I am not saying that there will not be a downturn. Growth will slow down, but 0.14% is far from the catastrophic $40 billion prediction by ministers of certain western Canadian provinces or by the Chamber of Commerce. The latter predicted approximately $30 billion would be lost to the Canadian economy.

As for Ontario and Quebec, this study continues:

—growth would develop at 0.10%.

For Ontario and Quebec, growth would develop at 0.10%, so this would not be a downturn.

Why? Because there would be a repositioning of certain industries within the Canadian economy.

This is the end of my presentation on costs, because this is now being debated. I wanted to take at least half of my time, if not more, to discuss the pros and cons of ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

There is one other aspect of the motion which troubles me, namely paragraph (c), which reads as follows:

(c) the Kyoto Protocol would do little or nothing to benefit the environment.

Since when do greenhouse gas reduction requirements not provide increased benefits to the environment? With all due respect for his presentation, if this is the hon. member's premise, he must not believe that fossil fuels, be it coal, natural gas or oil, or the energy generated by these three sources, have a negative impact on the environment. It seems to me that if we reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it will benefit the environment.

I am also concerned by paragraph (a) of the motion, which reads:

(a) Canada's principal economic competitor, the United States, together with most of the world's developing countries, would not be bound by the Protocol's emission reduction quotas;

According to the hon. member, the fact that the United States are not ratifying the Kyoto protocol will have a negative impact on Canada.

When one is familiar with the emissions trading system, one should know that if the Kyoto protocol is not signed by the United States, this will directly impact on the costs of such trading, and thus on demand. Therefore, it is wrong and biased to say that the fact that the United States are not ratifying the Kyoto protocol will impact negatively on Canada, quite the contrary. Our emissions trading system will have a positive effect.

Some studies, which were not done in Canada but in other countries and which I read just last week, confirm that this would indeed be the case for Canada. I do not know whether there are Canadian studies that demonstrate this, but last week I read studies from foreign countries which show that there will be very positive consequences resulting from the fact that the United States will not be ratifying this protocol.

I cannot believe that there are still people who think that the energy produced by the three fossil fuel sources I mentioned earlier does not affect climate.

In 1998, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, founded by the United Nations and jointly sponsored by the United Nations environment programme and the World Meteorological Organization, presented its conclusions regarding the level of knowledge about climate change. Their 2001 report is even more pessimistic than their earlier reports. Confirming the impact of human activity on global climate, the group announced that temperatures will continue to climb during the next century and could cause “serious damage”, including a rise in sea level of 88 centimetres by 2100. The group also reported that Arctic glaciers have already shrunk 15% over the past 40 years and that the snow cover has retreated by 10% over the past 30.

The report also gives various examples of the impact of human activity on the increase in temperatures recorded over the past 50 years. It contains new analyses of data from certain cambium layers, trees, corals, glacial core samples and northern hemisphere records showing that the increase in temperature over the past 100 years has undoubtedly been the greatest recorded for a single century in the past 1,000 years.

The authors note that the 1990s have probably been the warmest decade, and that 1998 has probably been the warmest year on record.

In conclusion, I wish to say that our party will not be supporting the motion put forward by the member for Red Deer. Once again, I thank him for having raised this issue in the House of Commons.

I see this evening's vote as follows: should this parliament vote against the Canadian Alliance motion calling on the government not to ratify the Kyoto protocol, the vote should be interpreted as meaning that this parliament wants the federal government to ratify the Kyoto protocol. It is all very fine and democratic to move this motion, but there has to be consistency.

People should be aware that if parliamentarians vote against this motion, it can only be interpreted as meaning that they want the government to ratify the accord by June, as the Quebec coalition requested last week, and we hope that this will extend to the rest of Canada.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of our colleague from Rosemont--Petite-Patrie. I am totally in agreement with his speech and the point he raises.

He has done a good job commenting on parts (a) and (b) of the motion, but I would invite him to say a few words on the third part of the opposition motion, which reads:

(c) The Kyoto Protocol would do little or nothing to benefit the environment.

While not wishing to be unkind to our colleague from Red Deer, I find this somewhat of an exaggeration. I hope that my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois can comment on this third and very important part of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am especially surprised about the third part of my colleague's motion, because over the last weeks and months, there has been a certain evolution on the part of some Canadian partners who would not be described as environmentalists. There are more and more of them who admit, according to certain environmental groups—they too have noticed this—that certain partners from western Canada acknowledge that climate change and energy from fossil fuels have an impact on the environment.

I do not see how the member for Red Deer can believe that an anticipated decrease in greenhouse gas emissions in a given territory, be it 6% less than levels from 2008 and 2012, will not have a positive effect on the environment. If he is basing his argument on this premise, then my colleague who moved this motion must not believe that producing energy using fossil fuels has an impact on the environment.

Given that some provincial ministers have said that they agree with the principle—and I stress this—of the Kyoto protocol, because this is what I have seen in letters, I do not see how my colleague can move a motion such as this one. He will certainly have an opportunity to respond to my comments in a few minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, fossil fuels have an impact on the environment and on climate change. We all agree that climate change is occurring.

I want to address my questions to the hon. member. First, should the government not be doing something to encourage alternate energy research faster? Is it doing enough?

Second, regarding the model we are to be seeing in April, the U.S., where 90% of our trade is, is not part of it. China, India, Brazil, Mexico, et cetera, are not part of this agreement. The Europeans can change because the U.K. went from coal to gas. France is nuclear and Germany through reunification deindustrialized the east bloc and took advantage of it. Does he believe that the government's report will consider all those things? If he does, we need to talk.

Third, does he believe that had we signed Kyoto the Saguenay floods and the ice storm would not have happened?

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

Mr. Speaker, as for the last question, I cannot give the member any guarantee that the ice storm and the Saguenay floods would not have happened. However, I do believe the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which predicts significant climate change. I will not comment on specific cases. However, I would believe groups of international experts and the UN before presuming that the ice storm would not have occurred. Based on the comments made by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, I do in fact believe that we need to act right away.

Regarding the first question about renewable technologies, I would simply say that in my opinion, when we look at the federal government's investment of close to $40 billion since the 1970s in tar sands development in western Canada, excluding the funds allocated, it seems as though the time has come to make some big changes. Perhaps we should reallocate funding, take the public dollars that are invested in certain polluting sources of energy, and redirect it toward renewable sources, such as wind and solar energies.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I note that Canadian Alliance members are saying that, as a government, we are going too fast with the Kyoto protocol. However, the other opposition parties are telling us that we are not acting quickly enough. This makes me say that we may be going at just the right speed.

I want to congratulate the Bloc Quebecois member for his analysis, which is very well balanced between the costs and the benefits that would result from the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. I fully agree with him when he says that, in the long term, the fact that the United States is not signing the agreement will benefit Canadians and Canadian businesses involved in environmental technologies. This will give us an economic advantage over the Americans.

The hon. member spoke at length of the costs and benefits relating to the Kyoto protocol, as well as studies on the subject. I wonder if any data or studies were put together, that he is aware of, regarding the social and economic costs that would result from not doing anything about climate change and not ratifying the Kyoto protocol?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to evaluate the costs of non-ratification because we cannot predict what future climate changes will be.

What we do know, based on studies done by Environment Canada and by various Canadian companies, is that the social benefits would amount to over $500 million a year. I think that when we look at the public health benefits, it is clear that there are benefits not only for individual citizens, but also for our public administration, in terms of making better choices.

In terms of the economic costs alone of the Kyoto protocol, I am prepared to debate the issue tomorrow morning if need be. I would suggest instead that we hold a debate on both the costs and the benefits.

I would be very open to debating the economic costs of the Kyoto protocol tomorrow with any member of this House. I am certain that I could convince my western Canadian colleagues.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre. I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the federal New Democrats to speak to this motion. Having looked at the motion very carefully, we in the NDP disagree with every line that it puts forward.

It is quite astounding to listen to the comments of the Alliance member for Red Deer. They reminded me very much of the famous novel 1984 by George Orwell. This is a very good example of doublespeak.

The Canadian Alliance is telling the Canadian public that Kyoto is dangerous and harmful to the environment, that we should not proceed with it, that we should scotch the whole thing, pack it up and go somewhere else.

Alliance members are also saying that we should rely on human adaptation. In other words, we should tell all farmers facing drought or coastal communities facing flooding as a result of a rise in the ocean level to adapt. I have never heard any comment as utterly ridiculous. It completely flies in the face of real scientific evidence that has been developed over decades which tells us that we are facing an environmental catastrophe unless we as a global community are willing to act.

While I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the motion, it is nothing more than a scare tactic. Reports from the Alberta oil companies are telling us that it will cost $40 billion to implement the Kyoto protocol.

Let us get real. There are costs to implementing Kyoto. Why should there not be? It has taken a number of years for society to destroy our environment. Destruction is all around us in terms of air quality in urban communities and the quality of the oceans. Yes, there is a cost to cleaning that up and to reversing the decisions we have made, but it is not the kinds of economic costs now being put forward by vested interests propagated by the Canadian Alliance. One study from the national institute of public health in the Netherlands shows that in Canadian terms it is something much closer to $198 million to $700 million, not $40 billion.

If we wanted a proper examination of this issue, why would we not put on the table one of the positive sides of Kyoto, the fact that it has been estimated that it will produce 65,000 new jobs, and the whole issue of the green economy? We could talk about investments in public infrastructure. We could talk about investments in retrofitting our buildings to save energy. Those are costs we would actually save. Those are issues where we would produce jobs and a green economy.

Contrary to what the hon. member for Red Deer was saying, that Kyoto would lead to a recession, I find it very insulting that he would put forward that kind of argument in the House to literally scare people away from the true reality of what is facing them.

We must recognize that as Canadians we consume more energy per capita than any other country in the world. We use more total energy than 700 million people on the African continent.

We in the NDP understand that this is not just a Canadian issue. This is an issue of global justice. This is an issue about what we do in the north and what happens in the south. If we somehow expect to maintain our privilege and our incredible levels of consumption and to say to developing countries that they cannot do the same, that they cannot enjoy the privileges we have, this truly is an issue of global justice.

We also have to look at other costs to our society. Anyone who has kids will know that there has been an incredible increase in asthma among children. Why? Because of our environment, our polluted air and global warming. We are now seeing a tremendous impact in terms of environmental health issues, which is costing our health care system billions of dollars.

I was very interested to hear the comments from my Bloc colleague who spoke about the ice storm and its $3 billion impact and about how those kinds of environmental catastrophes will continue to happen.

I think the motion today gives us an opportunity to raise the question as to whose interest is being served. It seems to me that the true colours of the Alliance Party have come through very strong today, colours, I might add, that are very polluted, because they are clearly sending out a message. They are articulating and defending a false position put forward by corporate Canada. I am proud to say that we in the NDP are in the House to uphold the public interest and I believe that is why we are elected.

Just in case the Liberals think they will get off scot free, I hope they will vote against this motion and I know there are individual Liberal members who have actually done a very good job of raising these issues within their own government and have taken a very good stand, but the Liberal government, I have to say, is not much better. For five years now it has been waffling on this issue. We have had conflicting statements from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment. They have been all over the map and we are no further ahead. We want to call on the Canadian government today to really show leadership and to not only reject the motion but to move ahead and ratify the Kyoto agreement and Canada's commitments.

By contrast, real leadership is coming from the community. We have environmental organizations like the David Suzuki Foundation, Greenpeace Canada and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, all of whom have been producing excellent information to show us the reality of what will be happening in our environment if we do not adopt Kyoto. In fact, Greenpeace and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund released a study in February which shows that we could improve our urban air quality and meet one-third of the Kyoto commitment if only we would have stronger vehicle emission regulations on our automobiles. It is pretty shocking to know that SUVs, for example, will not be covered by any regulations until the year 2009. It is really astounding that as we escalate the degradation to our environment, regulations covering some of these very harmful gas guzzling vehicles like SUVs will not even come into effect for another seven years.

We have also seen a lot of leadership from groups like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Jack Layton, president of that group, has made it his business and his mission to bring together the municipalities to say that if the federal government will not do anything and the provincial governments are all mucking around, then at least at the municipal level, where 80% of Canadians live in urban environments, they will show leadership and take a stand on this issue. We congratulate them for that.

Finally, let me say that we in the NDP have been unequivocal in our support of Kyoto. Our member for Windsor--St. Clair, our environment critic, has stood up in the House day after day pressing the government as to why it is waffling on this issue. We will continue to do that, along with the Canadian public, until the government meets its commitments that were laid out in the Kyoto accord. We have to hurry up and do this before it is too late. We have to meet our commitment because the survival of our planet and the future of our children depend on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's intervention on this opposition motion. While she touched on many aspects of the Alliance motion, one of the things she did not talk directly to was the fact that the Alliance Party feels this will make Canada uncompetitive.

The significance of Kyoto is actually the fact that it is a global initiative and I have a question for my NDP colleague. Canada has taken great pains to continue to bring the United States to the table, and when we hear the fearmongering about the fact that it may cost jobs and it may cost economic gains, I look south to the United States. While it has opted out of being a signatory to Kyoto, it is doing some very significant things. I look to the $4.6 billion package of clean energy tax incentives that the president of the United States announced. I wonder if my colleague would comment on the fact of this assumption that there will be an economic downturn from this because we are in such close partnership with the United States. I know that jobs are something that her party is always keen to protect.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the hon. member but I have to say that if the Canadian government has been pressuring the U.S. government to ratify Kyoto we would actually like to see some good evidence of that because that has been one of our big concerns.

However, I certainly would agree that a mythology has been developed that somehow Kyoto is bad for the economy and that we will have a massive bleed of jobs. I think there is much evidence out there to show that, first, those figures are grossly overrated and overestimated and, second, that in actual fact a green economy is something that will produce jobs, whether it is in terms of transit and urban infrastructure, upgrading water plants or dealing with agricultural issues. There is a lot of evidence to show that Kyoto is good for the environment but is also good for our economy.

In terms of the U.S. position, it is very unfortunate that the Alliance is playing this game of saying that such and such a country will not ratify and will not do anything, so why should we? This is an issue of international agreements. I would think that it is an opportunity for Canada to show its leadership. If the U.S. is reluctant and if Bush is changing his tune, as he does all the time, it is up to us as their economic partners to convince them that this is the right path to take and that Kyoto should be approved.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions. I think what we are really saying is that we need to move beyond Kyoto, that Kyoto is an out of date piece of legislation because so many countries are not signing on.

I want to ask the member about the new jobs. I agree with her that it would be great to have those new jobs, but the Canadian government is not doing enough to help establish our environmental industries so that those jobs will be there. The other countries are progressing way beyond us. In Vancouver last week one could see the technology levels of different countries.

What I really would like this member to explain is the transferring of dollars from the rich countries to the poor countries to buy credits. How is that really going to help, first, the people there, and second, the environment? What we are doing is buying the credits so we can release more CO

2

into the environment. How does that help the environment?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments and questions. If he has been listening to the debates in the House and question period over the last couple of years, he will know that we in the NDP have been very clear about our position that we do not buy into the whole notion of transfers of credits.

I tried to say in my comments that this is about an issue of global justice. It is about the north taking responsibility for its history environmentally and not saying that we will somehow palm it off on other countries and have a little exchange going on. We believe it is critical that Canada meets its commitments to reduce the greenhouse gases. This is about lowering our consumption. If we say that is not the case, then we are simply fooling ourselves. We have been very clear on that point.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to take part in this opposition day motion on Kyoto from the Canadian Alliance.

Let me start by saying that the member for Red Deer has the toughest job in the whole Canadian Alliance Party. It is not a beach party being a member of that party lately anyway, but frankly he has the job of trying to sell the Canadian Alliance position on Kyoto, which has been one of shifting sands. Since I have been here in 1997 it has been an absolutely moving target. When Kyoto was brought forward to the international arena, the Alliance's first position was to deny it completely, to say that global warming was not the result of human activity on this planet, that it was not a problem. That was its first position. I heard the leader of that party say that a couple of times. Those members were the chief apologists for the oil industry. They were the corporate shills for oil interests or big oil.

They took that job very seriously until the oil industry matured beyond their position. It is kind of embarrassing to be out-greened by the oil industry in North America, but that is exactly what happened. They were forced to shift their position and then they started challenging the science by which the measurements were being taken in terms of global warming. For the next six to ten months they were talking about bad science and how could we commit our country to such a radical change in the way we conduct business when it was based on bad science, as if they had a team of scientists somewhere that was better than the leading scientists in the world who congregated at Rio and then at Kyoto to decide to finally do something about global warming. They had members like the members from Athabasca and Red Deer who were willing to challenge the leading minds of the century on this issue.

Then they were forced to recognize that the Pacific Ocean has risen 12 centimetres. They were forced to recognize that on the Canadian prairie due to global warming the area I come from and the area that those members come from are close to being a desert. We are two or three degrees of global warming away from going from a prairie agricultural economy to the next Gobi Desert. That is the fear in the area I live in, but their narrow, blinkered focus was only on the oil patch. They had their heads deeply in the oil sands. They refused to acknowledge the emergency taking place internationally when the rest of the world was coming to an agreement.

Finally they had to give up on that and start admitting that given the ice storms, given the change in climate, something goofy was happening, that maybe mankind was in fact responsible for some of this global warming. Maybe burning fossil fuels was soiling our own nest to the point where human beings would not be able to live on this planet.

Now they have had to shift their tactics again, to fearmongering about how much it would cost to fix the problem, but not talking about the cost of not fixing the problem. They are trying to sell the fact that there is some immediate negative cash outlay necessary and that is where they find themselves now.

A fourth angle that they have tried to float today is that Kyoto is last century's solution and we are looking for a 21st century solution. Kyoto was agreed upon in the very twilight hours of the last century for implementation in this century, so let us not try to sell it as an outdated ideology or as obsolete in any way. That is completely disingenuous.

Now we find Canadian Alliance members scrambling to find some way to be faithful to their old arguments and still recognize the undeniable fact that this planet has agreed as a global entity that we must do something about our global climate change.

I was lucky enough to take part in a cross-country conference on climate change, in five different locations, with the global task force on climate change which Canada hosted in 1993. Prior to Rio we were dealing with these issues. One of the things that came up at that time is that we are too much concerned with supply side management and that maybe this is how we have to break out of the box: we have to start talking more about demand side management. As a contractor, a journeyman carpenter and the head of a building trades union, for me it was absolute heresy to stand up in any public setting and say that we were against building more hydro generating stations, we were against building more nuclear power plants or we were against building the oil tar sands in Fort McMurray, because that was where the people I represented hoped to get jobs. Therefore we had to do some research.

We had to get some real hard facts to find the trade-off . We were happy to learn something which I am happy to share with the members for Red Deer and Athabasca and the other champions of the other point of view. Empirical evidence now exists that there is far more job creation opportunity on the demand side management of energy resources than there is in manufacturing on the supply side.

If members are interested at all in demand side management they will probably be interested in hearing this. A unit of energy that we harvest from the existing system through demand side management conservation measures is indistinguishable from a unit of energy that we crank out at a generating station, except for a number of things.

First, it is available online immediately. As soon as I turn off the light switch in my house that unit of energy is there so I can sell it to someone else, instead of a five year lag period for building a new generating station.

Second, it creates as many as seven times the number of jobs. A unit of energy harvested from the existing system through demand side management measures creates seven times the person years of employment as a unit of energy created at a new generating station.

The third and most obvious benefit given this argument is that we actually reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions. Surely that is an enormous benefit that we all want to achieve now that we have convinced the Canadian Alliance that greenhouse gas and global warming are in fact issues.

The fourth thing is that we do not have to borrow any money to do it.

The final one is the real sinker. As it pertained to the building trade unions that I represented, we offered a whole program where we would energy retrofit public, private and municipal buildings free of charge by using our union pension fund investment money to undertake the retrofitting. In other words, we would create jobs with our own union pension funds to renovate the building. The property owner would then pay us back slowly out of the energy savings, so it was off balance sheet, zero cost financing to retrofit every building in the country.

We proposed this to the federal government and it agreed. The federal government introduced the federal building initiative, albeit on a painfully small scale, far smaller than we recommended. However there are financiers out there who would be willing to retrofit every one of the government's 68,000 buildings across the country at no upfront cost to the taxpayer. This would reduce operating costs by 40%, reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions by God knows how much and reduce fossil fuel consumption at no cost to the taxpayer. Why are we not doing this right across the country?

Why did the Canadian Alliance not use its opposition day opportunity, a votable day I might add, to call for real leadership in this cold, harsh, winter environment of Canada so that we could be the centre of excellence in energy conservation and show the world how to create jobs, conserve energy and save money all at the same time? Perhaps some of that money that we would save by demand side management energy conservation measures could be used toward implementing our obligations under Kyoto.

That is why it is painful for me to watch the House of Commons seized for the entire day on whether Kyoto is real or not real, whether we should implement or not implement it, and then have to listen to bogus arguments that because we only generate 3% of the greenhouse emissions, even if we cut our emissions by 50% it would be meaningless on a global scale. That is nonsense.

We are a leading nation. We are one of the G-7 nations that could by example show the rest of the world how to conserve energy and reduce their consumption of fossil fuels through demand side management measures. We could export that technology again so that Canada could generate some benefit from the measures that we take to come into compliance with Kyoto.

We call upon the government to ratify Kyoto and sign on despite what the Americans are doing. We call on the members of the Canadian Alliance to get with the 21st century, get their heads out of the oil sands at Fort McMurray and come along with us as we speak for Canadians and for the global community to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions and hopefully breathe fresh air together.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but respond to those comments because, clearly, there were some pretty sharp jabs at myself, my constituency and the people who earn an honest living in my constituency.

We may have our heads in the oil sands but I would suggest that the hon. member who just spoke perhaps has his head in another orifice. He should perhaps remove his head and take a look at the reality.

The whole concept, as he pointed out, of demand side economics has merit. The government introduced its program with great fanfare and great promise to retrofit government buildings. Strangely enough we do not hear anything from the government, and have not for some time, about the success of that program. We do not hear why it did not catch on and why more of the many buildings the government owns were not retrofitted. We would be interested to know the reasons.

The government has launched a number of initiatives to deal with climate change and emissions, including not only the retrofit of buildings but also the conversion of the government fleet to a cleaner burning fuel. Strangely enough, when it introduced that particular program it committed to converting 75% of the government fleet to cleaner burning fuel by the year 2000 but in reality only about 5.5% was converted.

If these programs have such merit and would be of benefit to Canadians, could the member explain why they are not being implemented and why they have not caught on with Canadians and caught the imagination of Canadians?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, under the federal building initiative, I believe that out of the 68,000 buildings that the government owns, about 1,100 energy audits have taken place. Of those 1,100 audits, about 100 comprehensive retrofits have in fact taken place, many of them hugely successful, and the benefits have been well monitored and well chronicled.

Rose Technology Engineering wanted to use the Harry Hayes Building in downtown Calgary, right in the heart of oil country and the oil industry, as an example of what one can do with the latest technology in terms of energy conservation without comprising comfort or having to freeze in the dark.

We are missing an opportunity. We have been calling upon the government to actually do comprehensive retrofits on 1,000 buildings per year. It would still take 60 years but we should at least let the private sector put out an RFP on the buildings. The private sector engineers should be allowed to put forward proposals stating “Here is a million square foot post office in Mississauga. We believe that you are paying too much money in your energy costs. We have ideas that we can retrofit that and do it at no upfront cost to the taxpayer”.

Why in God's name would we not act on many of those buildings and show by example to the private sector what can be done with the new energy technology that exists in Canada today?