Bob Mills

[Petitions, November 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, today I have two petitions signed by 388 people from Alberta. In the first petition the individuals believe that the creation and use of child pornography should be condemned and that a clear majority of Canadians would like to see the exploitation of children stopped.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, developing countries are now saying that they have serious doubts about ever being part of the Kyoto protocol at any time in the future. Now developing countries are out. We have no clean energy credits. Eight out of ten provinces are opposing Kyoto. Industry is out. It seems everyone is out except the government. It is simply out to lunch on this issue.

When will the government agree to a made in Canada solution and give up on this flawed bureaucratic Kyoto protocol?

[Kyoto Protocol, October 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I saw that lack of consultation in person on Monday in Halifax. The Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is equally upset by the Prime Minister for ignoring the will of the provinces. He said:

What we're being told is: “It doesn't matter what you say, we're doing this anyway”.

The federal government is thumbing its nose at provincial and territorial leadership. Why is the Prime Minister so afraid to meet with the premiers before ratifying Kyoto? What is he afraid of?

[Kyoto Protocol, October 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, referring to the federal government's Kyoto plan, the Premier of B.C. said:

This is no way to build a country. We're not going to stand by while the federal plan, the favoured plan, blows away 11,000 British Columbia jobs.

Why is it the policy of the government to ignore the wishes of the provinces and kill jobs just so it can ram Kyoto down our throats?

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have three questions.

First, some of the provinces are reporting that the minister will not be attending the meeting on Monday.

Second, 75% of CO

2

emissions are through consumption, not through production. Does that mean that the costs will be borne in about that ratio by consumers? When will the minister tell us what those costs will be?

Third, Canadians are being asked to reduce their emissions by one tonne of the five tonnes that they produce in a year. That is a 20% reduction. When will Canadians understand what exactly that means?

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing I know is that the government said that it would not need more than four days in the House to inform all of the people across Canada and answer all those questions. People really do want to know. It will take a real mind shift.

According to the document we received this morning, we will have to agree under the protocol to one tonne less emissions. The average person in Canada is responsible for about five tonnes of emissions a year. We are asking them to reduce that by one tonne for us to hit our targets. That is a pretty major decision that Canadians will have to make. How are we going to inform Canadians and make them understand that, and get them on side when we refuse to talk to them about it and the government will not even talk about it in the House.

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to know what to say to that. I appreciate that the member has done a lot of work on alternate energy, but as far as CO

2

is concerned maybe we should just leave that to the plants. They use it in photosynthesis and that is probably not the main issue.

As far as his interest in biology is concerned, I could walk him through the seventies and share some of my involvement as a biologist in many environmental issues and my real concern for our environment.

As far as ethanol plants are concerned, I have one in my riding which probably will be forced to close down later this year because the feed stock wheat has become so expensive that it is not in the market for it. The market is primarily in the U.S. which is where it is being shipped because it is not selling in Canada. We should be selling it but to get to 25% is a huge leap from the under 5% that we are at now. When that kind of number is being thrown out we had better be able to substantiate it with how to get there. Obviously this very weak plan does not do that.

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we are about to sign the most important international document that we have ever signed in the history of the country. Let us look at our record on the other ones to see how well we have done. The commissioner says we have done a lousy job. We have failed the course. We have not delivered on our environmental commitment. That is why it is relevant.

In fact, in signing Kyoto in 1997 we agreed to 6% below 1990 levels. In 1999 we were 15% above 1990 levels. By the year 2000 we were 20% above those levels. By the year 2010 we are going to be 30% above those levels. With Kyoto, by 2005 we are supposed to show substantial improvement in our record. How are we going to do that when we keep increasing? Signing an international agreement that is just talk and that we are not going to deliver on is extremely relevant to what we are talking about today.

I am going to go even further and say that it is rather deceptive to tell Canadians that we are going to hit these targets, but then we have news conferences where we say we will not hit the Kyoto targets, that gap of 240 megatonnes. We are only going to hit 170. That is fine, but we are signing an international agreement and talking about ratifying it and we are not even going to hit that level.

As well, of course, we constantly hear in the House about the mixing of Kyoto, greenhouse gases and climate change with pollution. If we really want to deal with pollution there are ways to do it that are much cheaper than signing an international accord to deal with it. I will not go through the science of what makes up smog and what makes up greenhouse gases. I think most members know that there is a major difference between those two.

Kyoto will not help pollution. Once Canadians find that out they will understand the deception. Should we deal with pollution? Yes, we should. Do Canadians want us to? Yes, they do. But it is not through Kyoto that we will do it.

So when we hear that we do not care about the environment, let me say that we are getting sick and tired of that kind of comment.

Let us go on and look at the better way, the second of the questions Canadians are asking. Yes, there is a better way. There is a much better way. Had the government shown leadership much earlier, we could have been a long way down the track in finding this better way. Countries like Denmark, Germany and even the U.S. are a lot further down the track of finding alternatives to our carbon based industries than we are.

What can we do? I think there are three obvious areas that we need to explore. The first one is the area of conservation. Few of us would disagree that there are a lot of things we could do to improve the use of energy, from retrofitting houses to encouraging people to use triple-pane glass. Those are all things that we should be emphasizing, but they come at a cost. We have to be sure that people understand who is going to bear that cost. It is going to be the consumer. It is not going to be some mythical government that is going to give a $1,000 grant. That will not cover this retrofitting.

With regard to energy efficiency, just changing light bulbs will make a lot of difference. Some people over there want to heckle, but that is because they do not like the green message. They just talk about it. They never deliver it. It is fine for them to throw in their little comments, but there is a lot we can do. We can target the uses. We can use oil and gas more efficiently.

Companies like BP, Shell and Suncor want to be part of this. They are investing in it. They see a good future in being part of this. It is not that industry wants to pollute everything or does not care. Industries do care and want to be part of the solution and the conservation, but they cannot do it on artificial targets, on a non-plan that the government has, with the uncertainty, the investment freeze that this will cause and all of that which other members are going to talk about.

All kinds of transitional fuels are now being developed. It is great to see in the manual that we are going to use 25% ethanol but where is the feed stock? Where are the plants? How long will it take? There are many unanswered questions.

We have a geothermal plant in my riding that heats a recreation unit and a swimming pool at Sylvan Lake, Alberta. They do not need gas or electricity because they use geothermal. That is the future, that is the way we are going and that is what the government does not have a vision for.

The other side of the issue is alternate energies such as wind power, solar power, biomass and hydrogen fuel cells. It is exciting what is happening in that area. The cost of alternate energies is being reduced by 50% every 10 years. They will become competitive around 2040 or 2050. With a government commitment, not just this government but the international community as a whole, they could happen much sooner.

Kyoto is a bad deal. It is a bureaucracy. It is inefficient and it is filled with mediocrity. It will be an economical and environmental disaster. We should focus on conservation, alternate energy, research and development, substantial climate change science, and cooperation with industry and the provinces. Ratification should be put off until we have a well conceived plan and we know the costs. We should stop being environmental boy scouts and stop signing things symbolically. This is probably the most important issue facing Canadians in this century.

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Athabasca.

It is certainly my pleasure to be able to stand in the House and speak further about Kyoto and what it means. My first comment is that I get tired of listening to members across the way and the Prime Minister saying that we in our party do not care about future generations, that we do not care about our grandchildren and our children. Of course that is totally not true. We care every bit as much about our children and our grandchildren as anybody across the way. I know I cannot use a prop, but I have a picture of my granddaughters here if anybody wants to look at it. I certainly care about them every bit as much as members on that side care about theirs.

On the street, what are people saying about Kyoto? They are asking four questions. Their first question is, what is Kyoto? The Ontario minister of environment says that a lot of people are telling him that it is a car. The level of understanding about Kyoto is very, very light. There are some who understand it totally, but the main question out there is, what is Kyoto? People want to know that. The government has not done its job of telling them.

The next question is, how does it affect me? What will be the economic cost? What will happen to my gas bills, to my job, to my kids? What is going to happen because of this? The government should be providing answers. What is it going to cost? And that is in full costing, as others have talked about.

The third question is, how will it help the environment? People really care about the environment. Certainly everyone in my constituency does. Right across Canada in all the town hall meetings I have attended, people care about the environment.

Finally, the fourth question is this: Is there a better way than Kyoto?

I want to talk about the last two questions. Other members of our caucus will talk about the first two. I want to emphasize what this will do for the environment. I am the environment critic and I believe that is what I should be focusing on. Also, is there a better way?

First, let us go back and examine the government's environmental record. It is rather fitting, I think, that the environment commissioner gave her report a couple of days ago. She commented on the government's record in her document, talking about Rio in 1992 and beyond and the 27 guiding principles that the Canadian government agreed to. The commissioner has done a report card on how well the government has done.

Of course the government also signed the UN framework convention on climate change to reduce CO

2

levels by the year 2000. It has signed some 200 other international agreements since then. The results given by the commissioner of the environment are based on 60 audits. She states:

The federal government is not investing enough–enough of its human and financial resources; its legislative, regulatory, and economic powers; or its political leadership–to fulfill its sustainable development commitments.

The result is a growing environmental, health and financial burden that our children will have to bear, the same children, I assume, that the Prime Minister and the party across the way think so much of. She went on to describe the government's huge environmental “deficit”.

The government has other deficits--

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the position of the previous speaker which he stated very clearly. We should also just put on the record the exact wording of the member for LaSalle--Émard, if I may quote:

What I really believe in terms of Kyoto is that before there is a vote we have to have a plan. And it has to be a plan that Canadians understand. One that sets out the benefits, one that sets out exactly how we're going to hit the targets and one that sets out the costs.

I think that is very important. The member has referred to this and now we have the exact words on the record, but I wonder if he does not find it disrespectful, if he could elaborate on, for instance, the technical briefing on Kyoto, which occurred Friday at 1 p.m. before a long weekend. There was no prior announcement. Today we found out, as he mentioned, that there was a briefing this morning. The Liberal caucus had theirs at 8:30 a.m. with two ministers. Ours began at 9:45 a.m., just prior to the opening of the debate. Obviously we would not be able to attend and ask our questions.

I wonder if does not find that disrespectful to Parliament. Or what is the government really trying to hide?