Dave Chatters

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

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.

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

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.

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

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?

[The Environment, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government has a credibility problem on this issue. If in fact, as he said, it did not betray the provinces in Kyoto, that it has credibility and that Alberta is helping it lead on this issue, why then is the province of Alberta preparing to sue the federal government over the actions it is taking on Kyoto?

Why does the government not simply commit to not ratifying this agreement unless there is a consensus reached?

[The Environment, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government claims that it is consulting with the provinces before it ratifies Kyoto. The provinces were consulted and actually reached a consensus in Regina before the federal government went to Kyoto and betrayed them at the bargaining table.

The government has repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to actually listen to the provinces on this issue and it continues to perpetuate this fraud by saying it will listen, but at the same time saying it will ratify Kyoto regardless of what others say.

Will the government give these consultations some credibility by committing not to ratify Kyoto unless a consensus can be reached by all stakeholders?

[Kyoto Protocol, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, to date the government has dismissed warnings from industry groups and the provinces on the cost of Kyoto. Instead, the government seems to embrace the scaremongering of the environmental movement.

Will the minister's and the government's Kyoto plan, to be presented by April of this year, be anything more than the fantasy wish list we have seen so far?

[Kyoto Protocol, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government has promised Canadians that there will be public consultations before a final decision is made regarding Canada's role in the Kyoto accord.

To date, consultations with the provinces and industry are ongoing, but Canadian consumers need to have input into the issue. When will public consultations begin and what form will these consultations take?

[Species at Risk Act, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have been listening with interest for the past number of days to the rationale and excuses being put forward by members of the government to explain why this flawed legislation has once again come to the House for debate. I find it incredible particularly in light of a cross-Canada media survey released on the weekend to determine who Canadians trust. It is no surprise that nurses and doctors were at the top of the list but it was also no surprise that politicians were right at the very bottom of the list, even below journalists

Now the government comes to the House and the majority of its members' comments boil down to a couple of phrases, those being “trust us, we will do what is right” and “because we say so”. Truthfully the whole issue calls to mind another environmental issue that the government is currently trying to address, that being the Kyoto accord. I will address those similarities in a moment.

This group of amendments primarily deals with socioeconomic interests and the need for public consultation. These are two of the key issues within not only this piece of legislation but any piece of legislation. After all, as it has often done, the government can push through any legislation or action the Liberals in their own characteristic style deem necessary in spite of public opinion. We have seen the government do this so many times. Whether the issue is hep C compensation, disposal of nuclear waste or as is becoming apparent, the Kyoto accord, the government just does what it does and if Canadians agree, well that is convenient but it is really not necessary.

Before I begin my comments directly pertaining to this set of amendments, I would like to point out as so many of our caucus colleagues have already done, that the Canadian Alliance supports sustainable development and protection of endangered species. In fact, these very principles are embedded within our party foundation stating that we are committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species and to sustainable development of our abundant natural resources for the use of current and future generations. However, we also believe that for any endangered species legislation to be effective, it must respect the fundamental rights of property owners.

The truth is this legislation fails on all counts to protect the rights of property owners. When we consider the connection between the rights of property owners and the protection of endangered species, it really does not make much sense to sacrifice one for the other. After all, without the support of private property owners, species simply cannot be protected. It is as simple as that. Yet the government is proceeding in a fashion that seems to pit property owners against environmental causes thereby guaranteeing eventual failure on all counts.

It is not difficult to empathize with the difficulties faced by landowners when they are told that their family farm which has provided the entire income for the family and has been in the family for generations actually shares space with rare listed creatures. Suddenly the farmers find themselves in the situation of losing income, property and family history all in one fell swoop. Unless the transparency of this legislation improves, that same farmer may not even be totally sure of how it happened.

When it comes to such critical subjects such as family income, support and structure, the government has a responsibility to do everything possible to ensure transparency of process and to give people the opportunity to be involved in the decision making process.

I particularly noted the comments of the member for Davenport this morning when he suggested we should put aside economic and social concerns in the case of protection of endangered species because we will never get anything done if we do not. I dare say that the member certainly did not stay in this House for some 34 years by not taking into consideration what impact a piece of legislation would have on the social and economic well-being of his constituents. I think that goes without saying.

Having said that, people must have the chance to make their case before decisions are made. The system must be responsive to their needs. There must be a process the people have access to.

We all know that the government does not traditionally follow the approach of think first and act later. In fact the government prefers to go with the highly complicated approach of act first and hope that no one notices later. For some reason Canadians have allowed their government this latitude for many years. It has had dramatic impacts on all elements of Canadian life.

I have a feeling that when farmers, fishermen, loggers, ranchers and oil and gas developers come to the realization that the right to their old way of doing things has suddenly disappeared, and disappeared I might add with little or no compensation, discussion or due process, they may be less forgiving of the government's lackadaisical approach to planning.

When it comes to an issue such as the protection of endangered species, we cannot afford simply to hope for the best. When we consider what is at stake here, it is literally the existence and survival of entire species that hang in the balance. Loose legislation and planning simply will not do.

It should be pointed out that the government has a record of loose planning when it comes to critical environmental issues. All we need to do is look at the recent events surrounding Canada's role in the Kyoto accord. All along the government has been committed to signing the accord. While it keeps promising Canadians a plan, we have yet to see anything that actually resembles a thoughtful, methodical, consistent plan.

Again the government seems to think that the philosophy of “just trust us” is good enough. I am here to say that it is not. How can we expect to just trust the government when ministers are contradicting each other, premiers are breaking ranks and refusing to sign on, the industry is voicing extremely strong reservations regarding the economic viability of signing the accord, and to top it all off, we still do not have a real plan of action.

Regardless of its characteristic arrogant ways, the government still plods on. It is amazing really, the connection between these two issues. Perhaps the lessons we have learned so far from the government's approach to Kyoto should serve as a fair warning on Bill C-5.

For example, the Minister of the Environment has admitted that he does not know what the total cost of compensating landowners will be. He is so unsure of the numbers that the government refuses to guarantee compensation. He has indicated that he believes the costs will be more than $45 million a year but just does not have a firm number to be able to make a real statement or commitment to compensation.

Now let us look at Kyoto. The Minister of the Environment has stated that he believes the total cost of Kyoto to the Canadian economy to be around $500 million per year. However Canadian industry has done its independent studies which state the cost of Kyoto to be anywhere between $25 billion and $40 billion a year. We cannot help but wonder if his estimations of compensation costs for Bill C-5 are equally as skewed. Not that it really matters to the government. After all, since the government refuses to commit to compensation, in the end it will be Canadian property owners who have to face the bill.

Another example of where the government's handling of the legislation parallels that of the Kyoto issue is the area of establishing national standards. In its current form, Bill C-5 would allow the federal government to establish national standards without any consultation required with the provinces. We have already seen how the government is prone to go ahead and act without consulting or considering the provinces. Just look at health care spending.

Certainly the division between the provinces and the federal government was never more clear than when many of the premiers declared their opposition to signing the Kyoto accord. Had there been more consultation and awareness, the government would have known the provinces' position and used the information to promote consultations and compromises. Then again, perhaps the government did know and just chose to ignore it as it has done so many times in the past.

The government has a well documented history of being heavy handed and autocratic when it comes to passing legislation. Regardless of how worthwhile the amendment is, if it comes from the opposition side of the House, the government simply will not consider it. It seems to me that legislation that is critical should be beyond political manoeuvring. Many good ideas were suggested at committee yet the government stubbornly refused to make the needed changes.

The truth is that the protection of endangered species is a worthwhile and necessary endeavour and the Canadian Alliance supports the effort. However the key element missing in this legislation is balance, balance between socio-economic concerns and the protection of species, and the balance between private rights and public protection. Clearly the legislation has not become any more balanced in the seven years that have passed while the Liberals have tried to enact endangered species legislation. Should this bill go ahead without any further changes, all Canada will have is an unbalanced act from an unbalanced government.

Those changes must be made to ensure that we have endangered species legislation that will actually protect wildlife and the rights of landowners. I would suggest that a businessman would be foolish to enter into a contract without knowing what the costs of that contract would be. On behalf of my constituents and all Canadians, Canadians are smart enough not to enter into a contract on this endangered species bill without knowing the costs to Canadians and to the Canadian economy.

[Softwood Lumber, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that was hardly an answer to my question.

The Prime Minister has to be aware that his incoherent ramblings will be taken to mean something more than they were intended to. Even the Prime Minister declares there is a deal in the works and the whole thing is so poorly conceived that nobody seems to know what he is talking about.

Canada must be careful not to jeopardize its case at the WTO, where it is sure to win. Will the Prime Minister assure Canadians that Canada's lumber case at the WTO will not be dropped as part of any agreement?

[Softwood Lumber, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said he was confident there would be a solution to the softwood lumber problem before the date of expiration, whatever that might mean.

No one else seems to know what solution he is talking about. We have seen nothing from either the U.S. government or the U.S. industry that would indicate the structure of a deal. There is nothing on market access and nothing on transition to a free trade world.

If the Prime Minister has a deal in the works, why is he keeping it a secret?