Mr. Speaker, I think the importance of this debate is being shown by the people who are addressing it tonight. Two ministers, the leaders of all the opposition parties, shows the significance of the debate to the House and to Canadians.
However, I have to ask why we are having this debate when we are 10 days away from Kyoto? This should have happened a year and a half ago.
The government is asking for comments and advice from Canadians and from the other parties. It is too late. It is 10 days from Kyoto, and we are still waiting for the government's position. This is not the way to go to an international event.
I would like to address some of the issues that have not been touched on so far. I suppose if we had to pick a date 1990 would be as good as any. I thought the minister was on the right line about a month ago when she said there had to be a formula to address Canada's particular conditions. She withdrew her comments within a day. Obviously some people in her caucus got to her.
Canada is a different country. It has a smaller population and wide expanse. It is a cold country. If we compare the Europeans we do not try to lump Scandinavia in with Spain. Yet, with Canada's expanse, we are trying to that. That is incorrect.
There needs to be a formula to address a country's unique perspective, whether it be Australia, Canada or whatever. It needs to be addressed so that 1990 can be picked as a date, wherever one is in the spectrum.
For example, Canada has done a pretty good job in many areas. Other countries, particularly the European bloc, are at the beginning. Why would we have one country up here on level of attainment compared to one below it? There needs to be a balancing. What I am suggesting is a level playing field.
That formula has not been addressed by the government. I do not believe it will be addressed at Kyoto. I think the President of the U.S. will address it because he wants to level the playing field. I think that is correct.
Another issue is that 35 of the 165-odd countries 35 will be asked to sign on. This is a global problem which requires a global solution. All the countries in the world going to the conference need to be part of the solution. We cannot have Canada, for example, signing on to a particular agreement when Mexico, China and India, which will be major contributors to greenhouse gases in the future, are not being asked to sign on the dotted line. Perhaps it should not be to the same degree as Canada but at least they should be asked to make a commitment. That commitment to my knowledge is not being asked for. There has to be some agreement that gets all of us into the arena together.
We keep hearing that Canada's problems are huge. We need to bring into perspective that Canada is responsible for 2% of global emissions compared with the U.S. at 25% and China at about 20%.
We often hear the minister and the government say that Canadians have been consulted, that the provinces have been consulted. The provinces were consulted in the last couple of months. To my knowledge there has not been a broad cross-Canada forum for Canadians to address the issue; for Canadians to say yes, they believe there is a problem or no, they do not; or for Canadians to say the degree they would like to address it and to indicate some solutions. Whatever the issues they should be bring them forward but a forum does not exist and did not exist.
We are going to Kyoto. The government will come back with the solution, ram it down our throats and say “This is it, Canada; like or leave it”. That is backward. It is top down government instead from the bottom up. The consensus of the players, the Canadian people, the provinces and the industry should be taken to Kyoto.
There was not consultation other than the last month, and I have to question that. What happened two weeks ago in Regina? The Minister of Natural Resources just commented on what a good deal that was. However, to my knowledge only eight days later the Prime Minister was stating a different target. The year 2010 was arrived at by the provinces; 2010 was the year the Prime Minister quoted to Premier Tobin and Premier Klein.
Where is the commitment? If this was a consensus or commitment as a result of the provinces and the Government of Canada working together, it did not last for eight days. There is a huge credibility gap between the Prime Minister, who is taking the commitment to Kyoto, and the provinces that will have to implement it down the road.
Where is the economic analysis? We can take various scenarios. We can take the emissions down to 2005, 2007, 2010 or 2015 and work out the different scenarios. How do we get to them? How will we get the standards whether they be fuel taxes or voluntary commitments? However we get there Canadians need to know the numbers. We have yet to see an economic analysis from the government of the different alternatives, the different costs and who will pay them.
The government has dropped the ball. It is going to Kyoto 10 days from now with a stance Canadians have yet to hear. That is not the way to do it.
Hopefully in the next couple of days we will hear it and we will be able to get on side. I fear that the government will sign on to something in Japan, bring it back to Canada, and be forced to push it down the throats of Canadians. I fear it will be a position we may not agree with. I hope this can be avoided in the future.
