Madam Speaker, I am pleased you are back so that I will not have to review everything I said yesterday for your benefit. I am waiting for a few other members who were keen on getting this. They are just getting here. If I see them come in I will deal with the plan in detail.
They were interested in the 40 IPCC models that the United Nations developed. They would probably like me to review the 4,000 that were initially developed and broken down to 40 models. I decided that I would only have time for the 40 models. I want to explain modelling and the science behind it, how it works and the variabilities that we can have.
In case there are members here who did not have the benefit of hearing everything yesterday I want to state that our party does care about the environment. I care very much. I consider myself environmentally conscience. I have an environmental background with a training in biology. On that basis I will not go through those details again. I stand here in the House on a very serious issue.
We should deal with two subjects: pollution, and climate change and global warming. Both of those subjects deserve the attention of Canadians and of this House. They deserve the attention of all Canadians who care about their children, grandchildren and future generations.
I also briefly reviewed the position of the Liberals on so many things and highlighted their great deal of talk on air pollution and how their inaction has been startling when we think about some of the situations. I used the Fraser Valley as my best example of air pollution. There we have the second worst air shed in Canada and the federal government did almost nothing to get involved in that issue. It is still doing nothing and does not even bother to make representations before the NEB or before any of the hearings that have gone on or will be going on in the future.
The minister's basic argument is that we should all stop driving so much and not have as many cars. We do not need to have two car families and use so much carbon fuel. We should stop barbecuing to help the environment. We should not run our lawnmowers so often. This is the Liberal solution and commitment to air pollution. The Liberals talk big about downtown Toronto and how our cities are being polluted. But when it comes to action and legislation we see little commitment to carry that out.
I talked about water and the lack of commitment there. Literally the amount of one day of spending on the Kyoto protocol would go a long way to improve the water conditions of the world. Most people have said that if the money were allocated to clean water instead of emissions credits we could provide clean water for every single person in the world.
I talked about landfills and the fact that most of the modern world is not putting its garbage into the ground any more. There is a ticking time bomb leaking into our water tables. There are much better ways in which the world is dealing with garbage. The Great Lakes, the Sydney tar ponds, uranium in the north, all those are examples of where the government has done little.
While talking about water, our third world status of putting sewage into the oceans in such notable places as Victoria, the home and constituency of the environment minister, should never be forgotten if we want to see an example being set for future generations of the caring, feel good, hand over heart kind of philosophy that the government has.
I talked about Kyoto and some of the history of it and the fact that during the whole negotiation process Canada negotiated rather poorly. It had a poorly set economic and implementation plan that did little to help itself. Canada's aim was to go 1% below the Americans. On the other hand the Australians had a plan. They knew the economics and have since opted out.
I talked about the questions that Canadians are asking because they do not understand Kyoto. Yesterday I could not help but talk about my visit to Hamilton on Sunday and about how many people in the audience said they had never really heard about or understood how Kyoto would affect them. I thought about the people driving down the road in all kinds of vehicles and how the federal government was about to do something that would impact every single one of us, our families, grandchildren and future generations.
That is the point we have to get across and the reason I want to speak today about Kyoto. Some 63 members in my party want to talk in detail about Kyoto. We want Canadians to understand that it would impact them. The Canadians I am talking about are a little different from the Canadians who the government has consulted. I am talking about families with two kids worrying about making a living, paying for their house, driving their kids to soccer, and single moms and people on fixed incomes and so on. Those are the people I am talking about.
Those are the Canadians who have not been consulted and do not understand what Kyoto is all about. Those are the people who would be impacted by Kyoto. Those are not the people who would become part of the hearings. Those are not the people who read the newspaper every day. Those are the people who would be most dramatically hit by what Kyoto would bring about. My party will talk about that.
I find it extremely offensive that the environment minister spends his time travelling across this country talking about the doomsday scenario. He is Chicken Little and the sky is falling. He runs across this country saying that the floods, ice storms, and droughts on the Prairies would end as soon as we sign Kyoto.
That is absolutely not true. History has told us that. We have had droughts for a long time. I talked yesterday about the 17th century and the 70 year drought on the Prairies. The fact is that droughts have been getting shorter in time. When John Palliser came to the Prairies he said the land would never be farmed because it was so dry.
These are the things Canadians need to realize. The government's Chicken Little philosophy is not based on science. It is not based on anything. The government talked about little Johnny's asthma being cured by Kyoto. Health and pollution are certainly a subject that the government should deal with but this agreement is about climate change, about global warming and about CO
The minister in his speech yesterday talked about the IPCC and how wonderful it was. We will talk further about that and the 40 IPCC models. About 200 world scientists are recommending what will happen and the variability there.
I introduced the idea of adaptation and how important it is and would be and always has been to the people of the world. People must adapt to changing conditions. These conditions do not change overnight. These conditions change over hundreds of years.
I pointed out that we have had eight ice ages and eight interglacial ice periods. We happen to be in one now. There will be a ninth ice age. Scientists agree with that. In fact nobody disagrees with that. Yet this government would imply that it is not possible and of course it is wrong.
Yesterday I used quotes from the Prime Minister and what he has said. He said the government would have a plan and would not push it down anybody's throat. He said the government would ensure that all parts of the country are treated equally. The Prime Minister also said that Kyoto would not hurt us at all and so on, all of which we know is not true.
I also, of course, talked about the football game, which was an excellent game. I compared the Minister of the Environment to the Viagra man. The reactions were a little different. The Viagra man is very happy jumping over his picket fence. The environment minister would jump over his picket fence, crying, “The world is falling. The insects will take over the world. Man, woman and child will die”. He did not do that but I expected him to.
We also talked about the industry minister, the health minister, and the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard and all the things he said.
Then we started reviewing the so-called plan, the powder-puff PowerPoint presentation of the government. We talked about that plan. I know a lot of members here would like me to review that and make sure we talk about it item by item, because that is probably one of the most important things.
Before I do that, and so we have the opportunity to review this, I want to again go through exactly what Kyoto is all about. We must remember that the public, whether they be in Victoria or Halifax, have asked some questions: First, what is Kyoto? Second, what effect will it have on me? Third, how does it affect my family? Fourth, what will it cost me? Fifth, how will it change my life? Sixth, what will it do for the environment? All Canadians care about the environment. The last question they ask, is there a better way?
I want to spend a lot of today talking about a better way. What is a better way than Kyoto? In the next few hours we will talk about that better way, what exactly that might be and what a Canadian Alliance government would do, if we were in power, to involve Canadians, the provinces and industry.
If people were to turn on any newscast today they would see the government's total failure at getting the provinces and industry on side. Of course every day that goes by the polls tell us that Canadians are not on side. I expect that in another several months a majority of Canadians will say no to Kyoto and yes to a much better plan. Our job, of course, as the Official Opposition, is to make sure Canadians understand what a better way is.
The better way is not the status quo and not doing nothing. The better way to is come up with a plan that will work, that Canadians will be a part of and that industry and provincial governments will work into. Provincial governments are the ones that will be delivering on whatever agreement we come up with.
I will make a Kyoto presentation for hon. members. This is the kind of presentation that I would make at a town hall meeting when I am dealing with a variety of Canadians. I can think of a town hall in Vancouver or one we did in Calgary just a week ago. I can think of a town hall in my own constituency. We also have done some in Ontario. This is the sort of presentation I would give and I will share some of that information with the House.
First, what are the accepted facts that we should deal with when we talk about Kyoto? We should first realize that climate change is occurring and it has always been occurring. No one would say that the climate stays constant. There was a period historically in the 18th century when people were predicting that they could control climate totally. Governments were actually saying that if they took control they could control climate.
I do not think we would find anybody agreeing with that being possible today. We cannot even predict the weather for tomorrow or next week, let alone, with Kyoto, trying to predict the weather for 100 or 1,000 years from now. They tried that in the 18th century and finally agreed they could not do that. Here we are again with a government that is saying that it will predict climate.
Let us agree that climate changes. Climate changes slowly over time. Ten thousand years is the sort of segment that we should be dealing in. We can examine what the weather was like in those time periods by taking ice samples and cores samples from the centre of the earth. We can examine what the climate has been like.
Let us remember, as I said, that there have been eight glacial and eight interglacial periods. There has been in the last 100 years a build up of CO
has increased by about 40% in the last 100 years. We can also agree that the temperature has increased.
With that temperature increase there are some problems. If we take the figures we will come up with about a 0.6° Celsius increase in the last 100 years. The problem is that only for the about the last 25 years have we been taking temperatures from satellites. We have 23 satellites that record the weather every second of the day around the world.
How did we take temperature before that? We took it from ground stations for about the last 100 years. We have had ground stations, usually close to cities and airports in the last 50 years, and that is where we take our temperature. However we must remember that a huge percentage of the earth is covered by water. How did we get the water temperatures out in the ocean? We asked sea captains to take the temperature and record its exact position and then send that in to a data collection centre.
One hundred years ago some of those sea captains probably did not really know where they were. Probably they did not really take those samples. Some of them probably made those samples up. The point is, to say that those are accurate temperature samples, most scientists would question them.
In the last 23 years of satellite recording there has not been much change in temperature.
We also must remember that the ground stations that temperatures are recorded from today have now become more and more populated areas. Everyone knows that the temperature in a city is higher than the temperature out in the countryside. Obviously some scientists are arguing that maybe there has not been a major temperature increase. Of course, no one is saying that it has been above 0.9° Celsius in the last 100 years. This Chicken Little, “we are going to burn”, really is not based on any science at all.
The third thing we should talk about are the CO
levels. Yes, the CO
levels have increased by 40% in the last 100 years by calculation. Some people say that it is 30% and some say that it is 40% but let us say that is 40%. Probably, and most likely, that is because of the burning of carbon fuels, the breakdown of carbon fuels. It also is because, of course, that we have gone now to 6 billion people and every one of us breathes out carbon dioxide because we are animals. That is part of the process of respiration. Plants take in CO
in photosynthesis and produce carbohydrates and animals in breathing release CO
Yes, there is more CO
but in the historical past in the ice cores there are periods of time where CO
was way higher than it is today. We must remember that the more CO
we have the more photosynthesis we have. Obviously that is reason we have plants and great plant life throughout many parts and the country. I live in an area that was an 800 foot deep inland ocean and there was a great deal of plant life that lived there. We have an abundance of oil and gas today because as it decayed and deposited that is what produced the pockets of oil and gas.
During that time there were hundreds of times more CO
than there are now and yet some of the Liberals would have us believe that the only source of CO
is humans and human activity. The Mount Etna volcano today releases way more CO
than all the animals put together would ever produce. Some would say that at least 90% is from nature and 5% to 10% is from human activity. We are talking about a very small percentage of human involvement in CO
What I have just gone through are some of the accepted facts that scientists would agree to.
What are not accepted facts and what facts are under scientific debate? First, has the release of CO
from our fossil fuels contributed to global warming? Is that why it is warmer today than it was 100 years ago? There is a lot of uncertainty on that. How much effect have humans actually had on building up the CO
? That is a major question that scientists cannot answer today. I will be quoting some of them when we look at the models, which is where we can deal with that issue.
Second, will increasing CO
emissions contribute to future climate change? Again we have a great deal of scientific discussion. The IPCC says that it will take at least 10 more years before it understands the science well enough to build the models. It has tried modelling based on facts of the past and most of the models have totally failed. When we get to modelling we will discuss that further.
What are the factors driving climate change? Let us assume that it is a happening and that it is a serious problem. The evidence tells us that 97% of greenhouse gases are water vapour. CO
is a major component of the other 3% but also in that is methane and all kinds of other things. In fact some of the science even says that what the sun does, and the influence of sun spots and sun activity, is more important than anything else in creating changes in the greenhouse gas composition and CO
levels. However, we will get into that as we go on.
The next major point that we need to make is that greenhouse gases are necessary. All of a sudden, because of Chicken Little, most Canadians would say that we have to get rid of all the greenhouse gases. The greenhouse gases are 97% water vapour. It is what makes our clouds, what protects the earth from the sun's rays and what keeps the temperature on earth 37° Celsius warmer than it would be without greenhouse gases.
If we lowered the temperature of the earth by 37° Celsius we would not have life. We would not have plants and animals. We would have nothing. Greenhouse gases are necessary. The problem, according to Kyoto, is that the greenhouse gases are too intense, are bouncing too much heat back to the earth's surface and that is a problem if we do not want it to get warmer.
I think people in certain parts of Canada might argue, “Hey, right on for greenhouse gases”, with Ottawa being one of them. The people in Ottawa certainly could stand a few degrees warmer and if greenhouse gases could make that happen I guess they might say that is a good trade off.
However the minister was right when he said that in places like sub-Saharan Africa those extra few degrees could make a heck of a lot of difference and certainly could damage them. That is a given.
So we should address the question of climate change. We are not arguing that. Then we need to ask, what are the sources of these gas emissions? Let us remember that Kyoto is targeting CO
That is what it is all about. It is about CO
, so let us look at where we get that CO
from, on the industrial side of things and the human side of things. The figures look something like this: about 25% of our CO
comes from transportation; 4% comes from landfill gases; 10% from agriculture; 10% from buildings; 16% from power generation; 17% from mining and manufacturing, from industry; and 18% from oil and gas.
Let us look at those figures, then, and look at the fact that the minister and the Prime Minister say that we are not going to be affected by any changes, that Kyoto will not cost us any more, that it will not really do anything. We are talking about the reduction of CO
to 6% below 1990 levels. Today we are 20% above 1990 levels. From 1999 to 2000, we went from 15% above to 20% above 1990 levels. Canadians are increasing their CO
If we are going to reduce CO
as Kyoto commits us to do, what will we have to do? Let us look at the big numbers, such as 25% from transportation. We will have to cut 23% of our release of CO
from transportation. That means, then, that if we drive a car, if we ride a train, if we ride a bus or if we fly in an airplane, we will need to have a 23% reduction in all of those things. That means that the cabinet ministers' cars that are parked in front of this building are going to have to be turned off. That also means that those cars out there will have to be little ones. That is what it means. Those cars are running all day out there. That is setting the example for Canadians about reducing CO