Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague and friend from Lac-Saint-Louis.
Having heard the debate so far it is back to the basics. I assumed that many of the points which have been registered for such a long time were taken for granted but they have not been.
I want to dwell on the science of the matter, the economic costs, the issue of ratifying now, the question of whether this is a made in Canada plan and finally, the connection between greenhouse gases and other forms of pollutants.
The Leader of the Opposition said something quite incredible today. He said that climate change was not a problem yet, not a problem today. Dare I ask what planet the Leader of the Opposition is living on? Has he looked out the window lately in Alberta and seen the drought? If he lived in the Arctic and looked out the window this summer he would have seen how the ice had failed to re-form because of the heating of the climate. If he lived in Europe and looked out the window this summer he would have seen the flood waters rising, as the German weather office said, attributable to climate change. If he lived in Asia and looked out the window he would have seen this amazing pile of crud two miles up in the sky contributed to in part by climate change and global warming. It would seem that the evidence of the senses would be overwhelming, but even if that failed it seems to me that the evidence of the science itself is overwhelming.
We know that the 20th century was the warmest in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,000 years. The 1990s have been the warmest decade on record and this year alone has been the warmest year on record so far. One can look out the window in downtown Toronto to see the number of smog days which is contributed to directly by climate change.
The science is overwhelming. Who says so? Not just me, but over 1,000 of the world's top scientists and over 100 Nobel laureates. Who says no? Ralph Klein says no. He is not alone. He has a complicit coterie of desperate demagogues from the petroleum club and they are the gang of polluters. Of course they do not want to clean up. It is much easier not to.
Therefore whom do we trust on this issue? Whom do we trust on the science? Do we trust Ralph Klein, the scientist? Do we trust the polluters? Do we trust the editorial board of the National Post ? God forbid I used to be its editor. Or, do we trust the scientists?
The second point is the costs. The most credible modelling of the costs, of economic growth and job creation over 10 years indicates that the impacts are minimal. Who says so? The analysis and modelling group which is made up of officials from the Government of Canada, every territory, province and industrial sector. That is who says so, including officials from the Government of Alberta. This is the most credible group and they say so. No other group comes close.
By the worse case, over a 10 year period there will be a total reduction in the increase of jobs of 200,000 over 10 years; that is 20,000 jobs a year.
The Minister of the Environment said that over the past nine months the Canadian economy this year alone added 427,000 jobs. Therefore, what is the problem?
The member for Calgary--Nose Hill asked: Whom are Canadians to believe? Whom are they to trust?
I ask: Do we trust the outlandish scaremongering Premier of Alberta with his whacko figure in yesterday's speech, not in the text, of $27 billion a year additional costs substantiated by nobody, or do we trust the ANG, the people who actually got together on a collaborative basis? Whom do we trust indeed?
Third, why should we ratify now? We have been consulting with the provinces and the industrial sectors since 1997. This year alone there have been stakeholder meetings with 600 experts from across Canada including 232 from industry and 186 from government and we are having more meetings. I say enough already. We have had the consultation. What do members mean when they say they have not been consulted? We have consulted to death. It is time to get on with it.
Do members think that in 1939, at the outbreak of World War II, we stood in the House and said that we have a problem admittedly, but we cannot go to war until we know the final cost, job loss figures and the plan for the next 10 years? We would not have done it.
When the challenge is big enough, we must step up to the plate and say we will do it and get on with it. Either we believe it is true, that it is a problem, or we do not. If we believe it is true we must act and then figure out as we go along how we will do it.
There is the issue of the made in Canada plan. Of course this is a made in Canada plan. These are made in Canada targets. This is a made in Canada consultation. This is a made in Canada plan that was issued today. It involves the provinces, federal government, territories and industry. If we want something different, do we think that a country will be better off with a bunch of balkanized plans made in Alberta, Calgary or Ontario? This is a country for Pete's sake. That is why we have countries in the first place, to pull it together, to respond to great national crises, and to be there when the international community asks where is Canada. That is why we have a country. That is why we have a made in Canada plan and that is what we are doing.
The whole question has been raised and confused by the opposition party that there is no connection between climate change, global warming and pollution. Here is the connection. Increased temperatures lead to formation of more ground level ozone and smog which sears the tissues of the lungs. Warmer, moister air masses move more slowly and will reduce the dispersal of air pollutants thereby increasing the concentration of pollutants over major cities.
Sustained hot spells and heat emergencies, such as those seen in Chicago and Toronto for the first time last year, increase the stress on the human body and make it harder for elderly people, the frail and small children to cope with the effects of air pollution. Lower flows of water in lakes and rivers caused by heat waves and droughts can lead to poor water quality and an increase in water borne diseases.
This is sustained by the work being done by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development which talks about the ancillary benefits of worrying about climate change:
In most cases, policies to abate or otherwise reduce GHG emissions lead to lower energy use and to changes in the energy mix towards cleaner fuels. This reduces local air pollutants, leading to lower morbidity and mortality from pollution, better visibility, higher crop yields and less damage to structures (through the reduction of acidrain). Additional benefits can include reduced urban congestion; lower noise levels and possibly roadaccident fatalities as a consequence of lower vehicle-miles travelled; and reduced soil loss and erosionthrough increased tree farming.
What do members mean that there is no connection? Of course, there is a connection. As we contemplate what will be perhaps the greatest debate that this country will see on our watch as politicians, Canadians will be asking where were members on this, which side of history were we on because we had better be on this side. If anyone thinks this is true, if the scientists have it right, then for the sake of the future of our children and our children's children, we must ratify.
We must get on with this. We cannot go on consulting to death. We must change things. That is what we are here for and we cannot do it piecemeal. That is what we have a country for. For all of our children, for all of our heritage, and for all of our future, let us ratify.
