Charles Caccia

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, December 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While I do not dispute the profound knowledge and learned dissertation on the part of the hon. member, I doubt very much that the hon. member is addressing the bill before us.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I gave an elaborate explanation earlier, but I am glad to repeat it because the Canadian Alliance members seem to have difficulty in linking the question of climate change, such as hot summers, and the necessity of increased electricity consumption to enjoy air conditioning and other industrial necessities that require colder temperatures. That leads to a greater demand on electricity. That, in turn with climate change, leads to the creation of more intensive smog formation. The link is caused by the change in climate and the change in temperature.

As for greenhouse gases per se, the hon. member ought to be reminded of the fact that we are not talking of CO

2

, but we are also talking of methane and other chemical substances that are a part of the greenhouse gas family.

I wish that we could reach a plateau of understanding of the issue whereby we would stop delinking climate change from the creation of smog because there is a link between the two.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Athabasca has raised an important point and has asked a good question which because of limited time, boils down to whether or not we should be engaged in the Kyoto accord global effort.

That is an important decision in terms of foreign policy. If the official opposition chooses a role for Canada outside the global community in resolving the problem of climate change, that is its prerogative. There is no doubt about that. We on this side of the House believe that we should proceed with the rest of the global community and not stay outside.

If the Democrats had been re-elected in the United States, this probably would not have happened south of the border. The decision by the United States is a decision made by the White House. I would imagine that the vast majority of Americans would want to be part of the Kyoto exercise given the opportunity.

We have the opportunity as a country to play the role of willing participants in global initiatives and therefore it is consistent with our history and tradition in foreign affairs. Otherwise, we would be giving the global community the signal that we were washing our hands of the issue and an international agreement which was extremely difficult to arrive at and which took several years to finalize was something that Canada preferred not to take part in. We have a great record in the United Nations in peacekeeping, in the creation of the International Criminal Court, and Kyoto is part of that overall tradition.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, what is significant in the exchanges that have taken place over the last few days is the division into two camps of believers. One camp puts its confidence into the scientific evidence provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which I will refer from now on as the IPCC. It consists of a large number of scientists who have concluded that the climate is changing because of the burning of fossil fuels. The work of the scientists was subjected to three rounds of peer reviews. That is it has been subjected to the scrutiny of other scientists and thus it bears a high level of credibility.

Then there are the parliamentarians who instead put their faith in the findings of a small group of scientists whose activities are believed to be supported by the petroleum industry. A scientist named Bjorn Lundberg, mentioned in the debate last week, belongs to this group. It must be emphasized that his work is not peer reviewed.

Against this background the question that arises is this. What should an elected representative do in the public interest and should he or she act on the conclusions by scientists whose work is not peer reviewed or choose the conclusions by those whose work is peer reviewed and, therefore, likely to be accurate?

In addition to the choice of one scientific conclusion over another, there are also other factors that come into play in deciding whether to support ratification of the Kyoto protocol or not.

We have in the past 10 years evidence of changes in weather patterns, more frequent weather extremes resulting in damage to the insurance industry, to agriculture and to the shipping industry. The occurrence of more frequent hurricanes, floods, droughts and hot summers has reinforced at the non-scientific level the notion that something is wrong with the weather.

Have we caused harm to the weather, as noted by Arctic scientist Fred Roots as he contends in a recent paper? Why do the Kyoto opponents pay so little importance to recent weather extremes and to the views of specialists in Arctic methods?

Unless these questions are fully answered, democratically elected governments and representatives have little choice: ratify the only international document, called the Kyoto protocol, which aims at making an initial very modest step toward the goal of repairing the damage human activities continue to cause to weather.

Much has been said about the cost of action, but not much about the cost of inaction. For instance, severe droughts damage agriculture and lead to more forest fires. In the Arctic we hear reports on the negative impact of climate change on permafrost.

Therefore we have every reason to believe that the cost of inaction is likely to overtake the cost of ratifying Kyoto. On this issue alone a debate is badly needed.

Moving on, in a recent study the Department of Industry reports that more than $7 billion in economic activities can be generated by the ratification of Kyoto. Evidently opposition members did not find the time to read that report. The same can be said for those philanthropic organizations such as the Canadian Council of the Chief Executives, formerly the BCNI, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Petroleum Producers Association to name a few.

Contrary to what opponents of the Kyoto accord are saying, its ratification offers Canada several advantages and opportunities. First, it would become more energy efficient and less energy wasteful. Second, it would make Canada more competitive. Third, it would make non-renewable fuel reserves last longer. Fourth, it would develop the use of natural gas, of which we have plenty, and of renewable sources of energy at a faster pace.

Fifth, it would remove perverse tax subsidies to the tar sands oil. Sixth, it would improve air quality. Seventh, it would protect polar ice caps and the permafrost. Eighth, it would reduce the rise in sea levels. Ninth, it would moderate weather extremes, frequent droughts and forest fires. Tenth, on the international scene, it would make Canada a responsible player in striving for global security.

At this point a brief comment is necessary on the litany of false claims that were made by the member for Red Deer. They were unfortunate because they weakened his credibility as the Alliance Party's environment critic.

The other day the hon. member still laboured under the illusion that there was no link between climate change and smog, and we heard it also today. Toronto residents remember what happened last summer with the highest number of smog alerts. The member for Red Deer is blissfully unaware of the fact that the main sources of smog are pollutants from vehicles, coal burning power plants and certain industries. When we have higher temperatures we use more electricity and therefore we increase the production of coal produced electricity. When we reduce these pollutants and the electricity producing activities then we reduce smog.

The member for Red Deer criticized the government because he felt public consultations held with the provinces, territories, business and the public were inadequate. Where has he been? Over the past seven years intensive consultations were held with the business sector. There were 14 round tables. In addition, the government of Alberta co-chaired with the Government of Canada the federal-provincial consultations.

Responsible governments of developed countries the world over are now signing and ratifying the Kyoto protocol. We have a choice, we could imitate the Bush administration and not ratify, or ratify. By not ratifying we would say to the global community we are not prepared to share the responsibility of resolving the climate change problem and prefer to leave its solution to other nations, hide our head in the sand, and hope for the best. This is the message that seems to be emerging from the Alliance Party, and from the Progressive Conservative Party as well.

What the official opposition does not seem to mind is to offer Canadians the option of isolation from the rest of the world with the exception of the United States. It does not seem to mind Canada becoming a carbon copy of the Bush administration, but we do. I cannot emphasize strongly enough that there are three preconditions necessary for the successful implementation of the Kyoto agreement.

It will have to come from three sources; government, industry and most importantly, citizens. From the government it is most vital that the finance minister remove obstacles to achieving our Kyoto target, such as preferred subsidies to industries which are the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, and to introduce incentives for the accelerated development of renewable energy. With the finance minister, the role of the Minister of Industry cannot be emphasized enough because that minister is to provide the framework for innovation and technological advancement.

From Canadian industry we need a change in mindset and attitude, from being reluctantly dragged into the age of clean energy and efficiency, to become leaders, as industry does in other countries and in other jurisdictions.

There needs to be acceptance by each Canadian of the innovative challenge by the government to reduce individual greenhouse gas contributions by one tonne through simple changes in daily activities.

These are three preconditions which, if put into place soon, could lead to a successful implementation of the Kyoto agreement. They could give Canada a leading edge role in the economy of this planet and demonstrate that we are on the right track because we alerted the public to a problem that needed to be resolved, not only in the interest of the Canadian public, but also in the interest of the global community.

[Banking Act, November 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his elaborate and extensive reply, for his frequent references to the term sustainable development, and the fact that it would appear that his department is applying the basic principles at least theoretically.

The question as to whether the government would conduct a full environmental assessment of the aquaculture industry remains unanswered. The question as to whether the government would implement the recommendations of the Auditor General remains unanswered. The question as to when the government would terminate certain bad practices which I outlined in my brief intervention remains unanswered. Finally and very important, when would the government act on behalf of the first nation communities living along Canada's coasts--

[Banking Act, November 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, let me introduce this topic by saying that over the years, and despite repeated requests, the government has not conducted an environmental assessment of the aquaculture industry. An examination of whether or not it is advisable to use public funds in support of current practices in aquaculture has never been undertaken or debated in this Parliament.

Numerous parliamentary and non-governmental reports support this view. For instance, in February 2001 the Auditor General found that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was not fully meeting its legislative obligations under the Fisheries Act while participating in the regulation of salmon farming in British Columbia. The Auditor General outlined steps to correct the situation. So far, no action has taken place.

In June of last year the Senate committee on fisheries released its report entitled “Aquaculture in Canada's Atlantic and Pacific Regions” recommending a thorough consultation with all users of aquatic resources before further development of the industry is allowed. Again there has been no action.

Then we have the Leggatt report released in November of last year. Its recommendations include the removal of all net-cage salmon farms from the sea by January 1, 2005, and a moratorium, which actually was recently lifted by the B.C. government, on new farm sites.

In addition, the Leggatt report recommends to remove the promotion of aquaculture from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to improve monitoring and to regulate salmon farming by federal government regulators. These recommendations have not been implemented so far.

Tonight I would appreciate it if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would answer the following questions.

First, when will the government conduct a full environmental assessment of the aquaculture industry and the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act?

Second, when will the recommendations of the Auditor General be implemented?

Third, when will the government terminate bad practices in fish farming such as allowing sewage from farms to pollute surrounding waters and allowing the escape of farmed fish, which deplete the native wild fish?

Fourth, when will the government act on the devastating economic, social and environmental impacts caused by the aquaculture industry on first nation communities living along Canada's coasts?

[Kyoto Protocol, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Public Works and Government Services inform the House as to whether actions are being taken to ensure that all federal government and crown agency buildings across Canada become energy efficient, less dependent on fossil fuels, and better at conserving energy to come closer to the Kyoto objectives and set an example?

[Kyoto Protocol, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, claims made by Kyoto opponents that we do not have a made in Canada plan are simply false. Yesterday Canada's environment minister pointed out that Canada developed over the past five years a made in Canada plan with the cooperation of all 14 provinces and territories. Kyoto opponents say that we should not abide by an international agreement, yet under Kyoto we chose our own targets, like all other countries under the agreement.

Opponents seem unable to grasp the fact that climate change is a global problem. Therefore Kyoto creates an international framework and at the same time allows countries to set their own targets and implementation plans. Opponents to Kyoto should stop misleading Canadians so that we can get on with the job of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and of reducing the damage they cause.

[Italy, November 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Campobasso region in Italy was struck by an earthquake which took the lives of 25 children and two teachers. Some 3,000 people are now homeless, and one can imagine the despair of the victims' families. Worth noting is the fact that a school, usually a safe place for children, was demolished while the surrounding buildings resisted the impact of the tremor, 5.4 on the Richter scale.

This House, I am sure, would want to convey to the victims' families and all those whose lives have been so abruptly disrupted our heartfelt condolences and our expression of sorrow. May the memory of these innocent victims become a source of inspiration in rebuilding a new future and in strengthening community bonds.

[Taxation, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is much talk these days about oil sands companies such as EnCana and Syncrude. This oil sector alone generates 22% of the greenhouse gas emissions by the fossil fuel industry. In addition, the extraction of petroleum from tar sands depends on the use of billions of litres of precious water every year.

Furthermore, the oil sands industry enjoys generous tax concessions amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. In other words, our tax system presently increases the production of greenhouse gas emissions and the depletion of water which in turn disturbs habitat. Handouts of this magnitude are in conflict with a free enterprise economy and with Canada's efforts to reach the Kyoto goal.

This practice should be stopped, hopefully in the next budget, by phasing out perverse tax subsidies to the oil sands industry.