Speech on the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol

Mr. Speaker,

There are now more than six billion co-trustees of planet earth; those of us fortunate enough to live in Canada want to do our best to help keep it in good repair.  Accordingly, I’ll be voting “yes” to ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. 

Je suis certain que je ne surprends personne en disant que j'ai de grandes inquiétudes - surtout en ce qui concerne les effets que ce dernier aura sur l'Alberta.  

Constitution Issues

It is clear that Kyoto is not self-implementing; we’ll need to pass legislation.

Mr. Speaker, a constitutional cloud is lurking just over the horizon.  The provinces are claiming jurisdiction over elements of the Kyoto Accord.  Alberta has already introduced legislation to “occupy the field” in certain respects.

I think it would be fair to say that constitutional experts across the country are divided.  We must accept that there will be issues and continue to work together on an acceptable implementation strategy.  The case for continued cooperation and consultation is clear.

The View from Alberta

Particularly disturbing throughout the discussion over recent months has been the notion raised by some that Albertans are not committed to the environment.  Questioning Kyoto has wrongly become synonymous with being “anti-green”. Albertans, however, are far from it. 

We understand that climate change needs to be addressed and are appalled at the suggestion that we would ruin the planet for selfish gains.  Many Albertans, including myself, moved West at least in part because of the natural environment. In the 1970's, it might be added, I conducted a number of environmental prosecutions for the province.

Most Albertans want Canada to be a global leader in environmental protection.  After travelling to Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and meeting families living on less than $2/day, it’s often overwhelming to return home and see how well most of us live here.  

Alberta and Canadian industries are recognized everywhere for their bold, creative ways of reducing emissions.

• Alberta-based EnCana and others, for example, are developing sequestering techniques to pump CO2 underground as a way of forcing oil to the surface.  EnCana estimates that their operations could produce the same effect as taking 212,000 cars off the road.  Sequestration applied throughout Western Canada could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 75 megatonnes a year, provided that it can be done at a reasonable cost.  

• The use of ethanol blends and other bio-diesel fuels reduces greenhouse gas emissions and has the potential to create tremendous new opportunities in agriculture, especially for prairie farmers.   

• Syncrude, one of Alberta’s leading energy producers, has already cut C02 emissions per barrel of production by almost a fifth since 1990.

And I could go on and on.

Non seulement est-ce important pour l'environnement d'être prudent avec notre consommation d'énergie – mais c'est aussi dans l'intérêt du monde d'affaires.  Ces derniers le savent et font les ajustements nécessaires.  Soyons clair: ils ne veulent pas souffrir des effets négatifs par rapport a leurs croissance economique.

Clean Development Mechanisms

Businesses are not just developing ground-breaking technologies.  They’re doing what Canadians generally have come to expect: using their innovations to help the developing world.  It’s little-known that under Kyoto Canadian businesses can get credit for helping developing countries put in place cleaner technologies.

As an example of a Clean Development Mechanism, take a proposed coal-burning electricity plant in a developing country.  If Canada offers to build a much cleaner gas burning plant instead, I gather we can claim a credit for the difference in emissions levels between the two facilities.  This approach would appeal to all of us in Canada who want to see developed countries do something about greenhouse gases and other air pollution around the world.

Importance of the Oil Sands

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that many Albertans’ jobs depend on the fossil fuel industry, as does much of our ‘Alberta Advantage’.  Many Albertans fear they are going to be the most negatively impacted; and we must not be.

Implementation must in no way jeopardize the strength of the Alberta economy - the growth of which is heavily dependent on the expansion of the oil sands.  Our Prime Minister has said that, “Nothing is more nervous than a million dollars”.  Now consider five billion dollars for an oil sands plant!  The fact is that in the investment world perception is reality.

The development of our oil sands is too important to this country to not go ahead - because of ‘chill factor’ or any other reason. 

Implementation must protect the oil sands as a priceless national asset.

They are a source of hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs across Western Canada.   Moreover, forty per cent of the money spent on machinery, chemicals, equipment and services in Fort McMurray goes to Ontario and Quebec’s manufacturing sectors. It’s estimated that between 30,000 and 52,000 jobs in Ontario’s steel industry alone depend on the Alberta oil sands.   As the Calgary Herald said, “When a project is cancelled in Alberta, steel workers in Hamilton go home.”

Concerns Expressed

Some Canadians ask, “What is the risk?  Heavy emitters can’t simply pick up their drills and find the same reserves south of the border.”  Industry, however, has said that even though some may continue to extract oil in Alberta, upgrading and treatment operations may be moved out of the country.  Even as per unit reductions are achieved, they worry, Canadian industry might still be disadvantaged because Canada is a growing net exporter of oil and natural gas.

When the U.S. pulled out of the negotiations, the entire dynamic changed.  Many people have expressed concern that the Protocol now appears to favour European nations. 

D'autre part, on dit que des nations de taille continentale avec des populations à la hausse tels que le Canada, l'Australie et les États-Unis, auront à absorber de plus grands coûts économiques pour se conformer.