House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 67% of the vote.
Supply October 24th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Calgary--Nose Hill, who seems to enjoy wallowing in fearmongering, whether she would like to comment on the letter that appeared in today's Calgary Herald , signed by 27 eminent Alberta scientists, urging the provincial government to support the ratification of the Kyoto protocol?
Supply October 24th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, 700 years ago some scientists were claiming that the earth was flat. Does the member recognize that there are examples throughout history of conflicting views?
The fact is that today, as we speak in this Chamber, unlike 10 years ago, the vast majority of the scientific community is of the opinion that we are undergoing a climate change. Those who do not are, by and large, subsidized and paid by the fossil fuel industry.
Supply October 24th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I am not as knowledgeable on this matter as the hon. member. I can only indicate to him that as far as I know the emission trading scheme does not contemplate purchasing tonnage from Russia. It may apply perhaps to trading schemes with developing countries that might welcome that kind of trade.
I agree with the hon. member that the best application of our efforts should be in real reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by way of the initiatives that he mentioned, namely innovation, conservation and renewable resources. The emission trading scheme has been quite controversial over time and it has been accepted internationally. I think it is part of the Kyoto accord. However it has to be applied with a grain of salt.
Supply October 24th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, today the Calgary Herald reports that a host of Alberta's top scientists have written an open letter to Premier Klein urging him to embrace the Kyoto protocol. The letter is signed by 27 Alberta university experts in the fields of hydrology, ecology and atmospheric science. The letter also accuses Premier Klein of ignoring or downplaying the potential dangers of climate change in favour of business and economic interests in the province. The letter states:
We must take the effects of climate warming seriously....The Kyoto protocol does not specify courses of action, only targets and timelines....We are optimistic that Alberta and Canada have the technical expertise to meet the Kyoto targets, if efforts are made to mobilize it.
In their letter the scientists predict global warming will result in increased droughts and water shortages, an increase in the number of forest fires and wildfires, and the drying up of key wetlands areas.
The letter also refutes those who say the scientific jury is still out on climate change. The scientists say there is virtually universal agreement that climate change is real and that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are speeding up the process.
They also say that predictions of economic losses under Kyoto are worst case scenarios and do not take into account the cost of not signing the accord. This worries the scientists who write:
It is...unacceptable to postpone action to reduce climate warming. To minimize the effect, we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions as rapidly as possible.
The scientists write that the Kyoto accord, rather than being a detriment to Alberta, is a deal that presents enormous opportunities for technical innovation and it makes sense in the long term to encourage these. What a refreshing message from Alberta. One wonders whether the Alliance Party will have to be reluctantly dragged into the 21st century or whether it will take leadership and even urge the government to accelerate the pace of ratification and implementation. The 27 scientists are certainly giving an important message to the people of Alberta.
I will give a quick background on the Kyoto ratification. The agreement comes into effect when a developed country whose combined emissions equal 55% of the total emissions ratifies it. The countries of the European Union have already ratified it, as has Japan. Canada's signature could be enough to put Kyoto into effect. Therefore we have a particularly strategic and significant role to play.
Waiting for developing countries to join is unrealistic. It is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition made that point this morning, probably without being fully briefed about the position taken by the developing countries repeatedly on this matter.
The developing countries have made it clear that they have no intention of acting now. Instead, creating opportunities for improved energy efficiency, energy innovation and economic incentives in developing countries is the better approach for us. By ratifying the Kyoto protocol, Canada would give badly needed leadership in North America and assume its share of responsibility for its own security and the security of the global community.
Much has been said about the cost of action and not much about the cost of inaction. Ratifying the Kyoto protocol will evidently result in energy efficiency and it will generate energy innovation. It will put the focus on energy conservation. It will give us great economic advantages in doing so.
Therefore, rather than talking about the cost of ratifying Kyoto, if we want to engage in that debate we should at the same time talk about the cost of inaction. The cost of inaction is increasing. There are persistent temperature levels several degrees above normal which are causing economic damage to the shipping, the insurance and even the tourism industry.
In addition, farmers and ranchers face severe droughts and damage. Droughts also lead to more frequent forest fires. Our people in the Arctic are already seeing the negative impact of climate change on permafrost. The cost of inaction is rapidly overtaking the cost of ratifying Kyoto.
The Department of Industry, in a study done a few months ago, reported that more than $7 billion in economic activities can be generated by the ratification of Kyoto. In contrast, the claims made by the petroleum association, Esso, Exxon, the BCNI and the chambers of commerce are misleading. Instead we should act before the cost of inaction becomes too great and unbearable.
There are also benefits. Contrary to what opponents of the Kyoto accord are saying, its ratification offers Canadians several advantages and opportunities: One, to become more energy efficient and less energy wasteful; two, it would make Canada more competitive; three, it would make non-renewable fuel reserves last longer; four, it would develop renewable sources of energy at a faster pace; five, it would remove unwarranted tax subsidies to the oil sands and the nuclear industry; six, it would improve air quality; seven, it would protect the polar ice caps and the permafrost; eight, it would reduce the rise in sea levels; nine, it would moderate weather extremes, frequent droughts and forest fires; and finally on the international scene, ten, it would make Canada a good team player on the global scene in terms of international security.
For those reasons it is no wonder that the vast majority of Canadians support the ratification of the Kyoto agreement.
The ratification of Kyoto has somehow multiplied false claims, including the loss of 200,000 jobs, accompanied possibly by huge investment losses. The threat of investment loss has been used in the past with other issues.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall the debate we had in the House on the acid rain program in the 1980s, the debate on the removal of lead from gasoline and the debate on the regulations that were introduced at that time to improve the performance of paper mills and the regulation of their effluents.
However, as in the past, investments will continue to take place but in an innovative way, with less damaging energy forms, like natural gas, wind, solar, ethanol and other renewables.
As for jobs, Kyoto opponents forget that jobs will be created because of new opportunities in all these emerging energy sectors.
Opponents also fail to take into account job losses from not acting on climate change, such as the high cost to agriculture because of more frequent droughts; the cost to shipping because of lower water levels; insurance rates because of extreme weather. This is not the time for fearmongering and false claims. In order to protect the public good, I hope Parliament will ratify and move Canada toward a new energy future.
Then we come to the not yet initiated debate of levelling the playing field. There is much talk these days about oil sands companies, for instance, such as Suncor, EnCana and Syncrude. This oil sector alone generates 22% of the greenhouse gas emissions by the fossil fuel industries. 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 favours the production of greenhouse gas emissions and the depletion of water which is becoming a precious natural resource. In a free enterprise economy, handouts of this magnitude impact on Canada's efforts to comply with the Kyoto goals. This practice should be phased out.
We come now to the question of plans. Critics have said that we lack the plans to meet the Kyoto target. There is an initial action plan 2000 on climate change which was implemented two years ago. That plan helps Canada to meet one-third of the Kyoto target. After several consultations with the provinces and territories over many years, the government released a document earlier this year proposing options and measures to reduce emissions for the remaining two-thirds of Canada's Kyoto target.
Today the government released an implementation plan for everybody to see before the vote on ratification takes place. To sum it up, we have a plan already at work to take us one-third of the way and, as of today, the climate change draft plan, developed after widespread consultations.
Supply October 24th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the hon. member for interrupting but it seems to me that he is addressing the report by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, which really has no relevance to the motion before us today unless the hon. member has an oblique way of again finding his way on the motion before us.
Supply October 24th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. Leader of the Opposition and in particular to the point he made in the course of his speech about his assumption that 65% of greenhouse gas emissions are from non-signatory countries. I would like to ask him whether he has been briefed on the reasons major countries are not coming into the Kyoto agreement, namely China, India, the Philippines and Brazil? They are countries that over the years have indicated repeatedly that they consider the first step is a responsibility for the industrialized nations to show their determination to deal with the problem mainly created by industrialized nations until very recently and that in a second phase the non-signatory countries of course would join Kyoto and do their share of work.
Canada Pension Plan October 22nd, 2002
Madam Speaker, I am not in a position to elaborate on that program because I am not sufficiently familiar with it.
Canada Pension Plan October 22nd, 2002
Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party to which I belong is the party that gave Canada the Canada pension plan, the old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, the widows' allowances, the child benefits and so on. In other words, it is the Liberal Party that has given Canada a vast array of programs and measures that are the foundation of our social security system.
I am very proud of that fact and I think we on this side of the House are all very proud of our record. We welcome suggestions to improve it, but I must also indicate that our record has been an outstanding one and all we want to achieve now with Bill C-3 is to improve upon it.
Canada Pension Plan October 22nd, 2002
Madam Speaker, in my remarks I did include an observation on the importance of including ethical screening. I also paid homage to the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle when he spoke on this bill in the last session. He made an intervention along those lines, in a very learned and much more elaborate manner than I did.
Canada Pension Plan October 22nd, 2002
Madam Speaker, from what I know about the bill before us, I can tell my colleague that the answer is no. I am not aware of any such provision in the bill.
As far as my supposed lack of consistency is concerned, it is true that in the House there are sometimes many inconsistencies. I would love to offer my colleagues and yourself, Madam Speaker, the most perfect world.
However, what I am most concerned about for now is that in a few years we will have to put more money into the Canada Pension Plan because of inflation. We have to deal with that too.