Ted White

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is distressing to hear speech after speech from the other side refusing to acknowledge or answer my questions about the impact of solar magnetic cycles on this whole climate change question. There are tonnes of evidence, going back as far as we can tell to 1750, which correlates sun spot and solar magnetic cycle activity with changes in global temperature.

I would like to ask the member first, would he not acknowledge that there is a possibility that greenhouse gases are not the major contributor to climate change, whether it is cooling or heating, that it is probably solar cycles? Second, would he not acknowledge that we do not need Kyoto to address pollution? The government could pass regulations tomorrow to require cars to be less polluting but it does not do it.

Carbon dioxide and water vapour are naturally occurring gases. They are not pollutants. If we want to deal with pollution we should address pollution. We do not need Kyoto to address pollution and it could easily be solar magnetic cycles that are causing cooling and warming. Would the member acknowledge those two things?

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the member, with all due respect, is getting completely mixed up between pollutants and greenhouse gases. Numerous times in his speech he mentioned that the greenhouse gases were pollutants, and he talked about natural gas being the answer. I would urge him to study basic chemistry. He will see for himself that when we burn natural gas, we get greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and water vapour. We get greenhouse gases.

He should not get mixed up between pollutants, which this side of the House is arguing to get control of, and greenhouse gases, which are part of an unproven theory about global warming. For goodness' sake, I urge the member to please study some basic chemistry and some basic science. He will see for himself that there is a huge difference between Kyoto and pollution.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, since the member raised the point that there are none so blind as they who will not see, or something like that, might I say to her as for her state of denial, it is completely irrelevant if we are unable to alter climate change.

I would put to her that even though she criticizes the 3,000 scientists and 72 Nobel Prize winners who disagree, there is plenty of science that indicates there is a much better correlation to solar magnetic cycles from the year 1750 than there is correlation to carbon dioxide emissions. How does she explain that one?

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech the member said that the science is not in doubt. However the fact remains, and she must know, that a long list of prominent Canadian scientists were in Ottawa only two weeks ago to dispute the science of the Kyoto accord. That list, if she wants it, is available from my office. It is also available on the web. It is very easy to find.

There is a longer list of opponents to Kyoto, more than 3,000 scientists from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel prize winners. The member can find it on the web at www.heartland.org/perspectives/appeal. She will find quite clearly that the science is in doubt. It is no good just standing there saying that it is not.

I would like to make one other comment and ask her a question on this. Does she not know that Canada's contribution to CO

2

emissions are only less than 2% of the world's total? If she was to go to the Environmental Protection Agency website or even the IPCC website, she will see that it does not even register on their scales.

How does the hon. member think that getting rid of even 100% of our emissions would even register on the world scale?

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the intervention by the member and I do not know who on earth did his research. Does he not realize that the hottest period in North America that is on record was between the 1930s and the 1960s? He can look at the EPA website. He can look at any weather-related website on the net and find that this is the case. Does he know that the worst heat wave in Canada's history was in July 1935? There were four days in a row where Toronto was over 42°. This was long before the concentrations of carbon dioxide were at the level they are at today.

Does he know that about a hundred thousand years ago Greenland was colonized because the temperatures were so high? Does he know that there was a mini ice age three thousand years ago? Also, does he not realize, for goodness' sake, that it ties in more closely to normal solar magnetic variations than it does to anything to do with carbon dioxide?

There may be very good reasons for us to control our emissions of carbon dioxide, but more important are other pollutants like sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide and ozone destroying components. For goodness' sake, to start all this fearmongering nonsense when there are numerous examples of high temperatures and low temperatures in our past is just completely ridiculous.

Right now the glaciers in the southern hemisphere are growing, such as the Franz Josef glacier in New Zealand. He can go and look it up. He can look in the news.

A friend of mine who runs the largest importer of fruits and vegetables in Canada told me that he has been warned by his suppliers in the southern hemisphere that it is the coldest spring on record, the harvests this year are going to be the lowest on record and we should be prepared for higher prices for the produce from the southern hemisphere.

Finally, the North Atlantic and the eastern seaboard are colder than usual. How does he explain all that with his fearmongering? It is ridiculous.

[Question No. 23, November 18th, 2002]

With respect to documents known as “trespass warnings”, whether in the form of “constructive” or “actual” notices, sent by registered mail to the Minister of National Revenue by persons acting on instructions provided to them in the Detax strategy promoted by Mr. Eldon Warman of Calgary: ( a ) how many such notices have been received by the Minister in each of the tax years 1996 through 2002; and ( b ) how many of the persons filing such notices have since begun or resumed paying taxes, been prosecuted, and been sentenced or acquitted during that same period?

[Question No. 22, November 18th, 2002]

With respect to the Compass Program of Human Resources Development Canada: ( a ) what were the costs associated with running the program over the past year; ( b ) what are the projected costs for the current year; ( c ) how is the success rate of the program measured and what were the most recent results of those measurements; and ( d ) if no measurements have been made to determine the success of the program, how is its continuation being justified?

[Noreen Edith Provost, October 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Noreen Edith Provost, who passed away on September 21 of this year.

Noreen was best known in a public sense for her work with Citizens United for Safety and Justice, work which won her the respect of police, many politicians and judges, and the victims of violent repeat offenders.

In 1992 Noreen was awarded the Governor General's Commemorative Medal for her significant contribution to her community and to Canada.

Despite all her hard work and the support of most Canadians, violent repeat offenders are still being released prematurely by the government to commit more crimes. Rest assured in Noreen's memory we will continue to hold the government accountable for its failure to protect Canadians from violent repeat offenders. We will insist that the rights of victims and their families are placed ahead of the rights of criminals.

Noreen's work for the victims of crime stands as an example to others. She will be sadly missed.

[Health Care System, October 30th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am not getting up to criticize the idea that getting people to exercise is not a good idea. It is a good idea. However, it would be wrong for the secretary of state to imply that by getting people to be more active would therefore solve problems with the health care system. It would not; it would defer the problems.

For example, over the last 30 years, there has been an increase in life expectancy of one year for about every five years that is passed. People live longer but that does not mean it costs the health care system less. Sometimes it costs more because people get more serious diseases when they actually do get ill in that age range of 65 to 75. We would defer the problem by getting people more active. We cannot use sports and activities as a way to avoid the costs. That is not true.

Some British Columbia statistics show that young people between the ages of 18 and 30 visit a doctor on average of once a year from sports injuries. It is a fact that when people become active, they sometimes injure themselves that way.

It is a good idea to keep people active because it makes them generally more healthy and they live longer, but it would not fix the health care problems. Does the secretary of state recognize that?

[Petitions, October 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is presented on behalf of Faye Stannus and more than 100 other persons, who are drawing the attention of the House to the fact that thousands of Canadians suffer from debilitating diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer, muscular dystrophy and spinal cord injury, and that Canadians support ethical stem cell research but Parliament should focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.