Steve Mahoney

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, normally one gives the answer he or she wants to give to the question and does not answer the question. I will answer the member's question by giving him two examples of actual savings that have occurred.

Sterling Pulp Chemicals Limited has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by almost 95% in its facility in Buckingham, Quebec by turning waste into fuel. After it made an initial investment of $1.1 million this company now enjoys a $2.28 million per year savings in lower energy costs. That is number one.

Number two, British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell have made long term commitments to make the transition out of fossil fuel, which is what we are talking about. They are spending large amounts of money on renewable energy. BP, whose new slogan is “Beyond petroleum”, has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by nine megatonnes in just three years and has added $650 million U.S. to the value of its operation through energy efficiency.

These are facts. These are from the private sector. These are companies that have taken the lead. They are not sticking their heads in the sand and saying, “We are not part of the problem”. Instead they are saying, “We want to be part of the solution”.

Everybody should be honest and recognize that it is not the melting of the ice cap that has led to the problem we are facing with climate change but in fact it is human activity. We should change it, not because it is patriotic, but because we owe it to our kids to change it. The first way to change it is to start admitting there is a problem, which is exactly what we have done by signing the Kyoto protocol.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to continue. I have addressed the amendment to the throne speech and now I have an opportunity to finish what I was saying when my time ran out, and that is to put forward some thoughts on the Kyoto protocol.

First, one thing I find fascinating is that no matter where we are from, as members of Parliament, we are expected to be experts on all these various subjects. The Kyoto protocol of course involves some very scientific and technological information, stuff that not all of us necessarily would know firsthand, so we have to do some research. We have to try to listen to both sides of the equation.

I recently had the opportunity to travel to Calgary. I met with some of our crown corporation officials during the day and in the evening I attended a dinner at which the Prime Minister spoke. Of course everyone was quite astounded that close to 900 people would be in attendance at that dinner.

I got to talk to a number of oil company executives, people who, generally speaking, are afraid of the impact of the ratification of Kyoto. They had spent some time during the day meeting with the Prime Minister and putting forward their concerns. They shared those concerns with many of us that evening.

I use this example because these are fairly learned individuals. I am not talking about people who, as some suggest, may be some charter members of the flat earth society and who may from time to time speak on this issue from this place. They are individuals who have done their homework and have had their staff and various companies do the analyses. They are expressing concerns, and I do not take them lightly. We have to listen to their concerns.

One thing I heard from them was that we could not put the burden of the war on climate change on the oil industry. I agree with that. In fact that evening the Prime Minister said in his speech that it was only one part of the solution, one part indeed of the problem.

I received a letter today which highlights my point about people who are learned and who know the situation. I will not mention the gentleman's name but he is a professor of geology from Kelowna, British Columbia. The letter identifies the real issue in Kyoto. He says that he believes climate change is the result of the melting of glacial ice which occurred 10,000 years ago. This is a professor, so I assume he knows a little of his stuff and has studied the matter.

His answer to what causes climate change is that naturally occurring events result in changes in solar radiation which lead to climate change: the eccentricity of the earth's orbit; the tilt of the earth's axis; the procession of the earth's axis; and sunspot cycles. He does not believe that human action, the things that we do in the production chain in our daily lives such as driving our vehicles and building our homes, is causing climate change. I do not know.

It seems to me that the average kid in grade three thinks that what comes out of the smokestack or the back of an automobile tailpipe, or burning coal or that kind of thing does something to the atmosphere. Yet we have a professor who says that the problem is caused by naturally occurring issues around the axis of the earth, which obviously we have no means of controlling.

I look at that and ask if that makes any sense. I am not a professor of geology. I have not studied the scientific impacts of this. However, in terms of common sense, it leaves me somewhat frustrated. We all know there are things we can do to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

I was in Calgary recently and I met with the president of Nascor Inc. I would invite anyone to see this company's operation. It builds prefabricated walls, floors and trusses for homes that are very highly insulated with byproducts, by the way, from the oil industry. It is right in Calgary and it has done studies showing that if its housing systems were used in the construction of a home it would increase the cost of an average home by $500 but that it would reduce the cost of heating that home by 50%.

Nascor Inc. has a system which, if it were used nationally across the country in the construction of housing, would probably on its own meet the Kyoto requirements that we are talking about. However we are not about to institute a national building requirement that says that we must use this company's product. The company has to go out and promote its particular product, and it is doing that in the housing industry.

What we can do, and I say this to those who are opposed to the Kyoto protocol, we as the national government can ensure that any of the housing projects in which we are involved will at least be insulated to the same level that Nascor's housing system would insulate and therefore reduce the cost of housing. The natural benefit of doing that would seem obvious. We could save people money in heating their homes and we could meet the Kyoto protocol requirements.

There is another aspect to saying that what we do has no impact. There is the impact on transit and how we move people. Again I go back to Calgary. In the area of Garrison Woods, a community with which some in this place might be familiar, a project was developed by Canada Lands Company Limited, a company that is a crown corporation of the Canadian government. Sixteen hundred units have been built in this project and not one door is more than a five minute walk away from municipal transit. It is a very creative project and is celebrated as a true success story in municipal planning and development. Once again, if people can walk five minutes to get to a bus, maybe if that bus is available, on time and reasonable, they will use that public transit vehicle and leave their automobile at home.

That is another area where obviously the government has led the way in terms of Canada Lands and one in which we can lead the way in working with municipalities, with our partners. I received a news release today about the $250 million that was given to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for green infrastructure. This is another area I submit that would lead to us meeting the Kyoto requirements in the Kyoto protocol.

We have to make a decision as parliamentarians. Maybe it is because it is the opposition's job to be a little obstreperous and to oppose the government, because that is what it is told to do every day when it goes to a caucus meeting, but there are some thoughtful people in the opposition. There are some thoughtful people in the oil fields. There are some thoughtful people in Kelowna, British Columbia. I have to say to them that they cannot possibly believe that human activity does not have a serious impact on the quality of the air that we breathe. It is just not reasonable to suggest that it is all a part of the ice age, the melting of the glacial ice cap. It is just not reasonable to believe that.

I have heard criticism after criticism from members opposite and from the media that there is no leadership being shown. By announcing that there will be a vote in Parliament on the Kyoto protocol before the end of the year, contrary to the statements being made in somewhat emotional ways that there will be no plan, there will be a plan put before Parliament before the vote is taken.

Will it dot every i and cross every t ? Will it solve every problem? I doubt it. We need to take the time to study the issue fairly in an unbiased way. We need to recognize that there is a serious problem in pollution and work together with the industries in Alberta and right across the country so that we leave a better climate and a better atmosphere for our children.

[World Habitat Day, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has designated October 7 as World Habitat Day. This year's theme is “City to City Cooperation” which encourages more partnerships to address the problems of our urban world.

Canadian cities have long been leaders in sharing their expertise. In 1997 the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was recognized with the Scroll of Honour from the United Nations human settlement program.

The Government of Canada, through CMHC, is working with UN Habitat in areas such as housing finance systems for developing countries. CMHC has also signed historic agreements with 10 provinces and territories to increase the supply of affordable housing in Canada, and negotiations are underway with the other jurisdictions.

CMHC continues to support quality, affordable housing in safe, healthy and sustainable communities.

I encourage members and all Canadians to join the United Nations in observing World Habitat Day.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is about the future of the planet and just about every aspect of the environment, the air we breath and the quality of life we will leave for our children.

It is also about an absolute refusal led by, and I am sorry to say because I am generally a big supporter of business, a business coalition that is putting ads out that are intended to do nothing but frighten Canadians, that somehow we will lose hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investment. These people should realize that the impact to the oil industry is only one aspect.

Let us take a look at what we can do to give people better incentives to better insulate their homes. I ask the member opposite as he chirps at me, why is it that at the gasoline pump the most expensive gasoline we can buy will purport to reduce the emissions from vehicles by 15%? The oil industry is saying, buy our more expensive brand and we will reduce emissions. That tells me that something is askew in terms of the marketing and perhaps the goal of some of the people in that industry.

By and large through the leadership shown by the Prime Minister in his statement to ratify Kyoto, to bring the debate into this place, I believe business will see that there are many new technologies and new ways that we can leave a safer, cleaner planet for our children.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, in all honesty the member raises a point. When the criteria is put in place for the infrastructure then there may be some flexibility required as we have had in the past in other areas such as the $680 million housing money. We designed that program so that provinces who were unable to perhaps match the cash, it was $25,000 per housing unit, hopefully would be given the option of matching what is called a rent supplement.

They would not have to put up the hard cash on the table to make the deal work and to get the housing under construction. However they would have to commit to assist and work with the municipal sector to create a social housing waiting list to occupy the house thereby reducing the waiting list and benefiting the municipality. They would also have to agree to provide some form of rent supplement so that they would receive the cost of renting a new home down to a more affordable level. I have no problem with some flexibility but the principle is to let us leverage the federal dollars to maximize every project that we enter into.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is of course a pleasure to be back. We have been back for two days. After just a couple of days of getting into this, it feels like we never left.

I think it is an important time for the government. It is an important time for Canada. In fact, it is an important time for this Parliament because of all the discussions that take place around the various issues and the direction.

We all know that the Prime Minister has set a target that is a countdown to sixteen and a half or seventeen months until he retires. Also, a number of the parties in this establishment are either currently undergoing or soon will be undergoing or may yet again be undergoing leadership reviews. One never knows what could happen opposite if they decided they were not particularly happy with the third or fourth leader they have had in their reincarnation and their changing of the stripes, if you will.

However, that is not what this is about. This is about a vision for the future of the country, a vision for the young people that my friend from Parkdale—High Park mentioned, and about what the Prime Minister and the government want to see happen that is doable.

Many members have talked about health care, so I will leave that one on the table. I would like to focus on the urban issues, particularly on the infrastructure statement in the throne speech. I think it is critical.

There are those of us who have relationships with the other levels of government, involvement with our councils. We heard the hon. gentleman opposite say that he has something like 107 local governments. It is mind boggling and there should probably be a review of that. In any event, obviously those who have a relationship with those local governments would appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister and the throne speech have addressed the issue of long-term sustainability in the area of funding infrastructure.

While we are quite proud of the infrastructure programs that we have had with the government since 1993, I frankly think there were some things that perhaps we should have done differently. I think the initial infrastructure program was perhaps too broad. The definition of infrastructure allowed for various things like community centres and arenas, all of which are important in a community, to be built with the infrastructure dollars when in fact perhaps they should have been concentrated on what I call core infrastructure, which would lead to the development of clean and safe water, sewage disposal, roads, a national highway program, urban transit, high-speed rail transit, bus lanes and things of that nature. In my view, a nationally funded infrastructure program should focus on those areas.

The recent strategic infrastructure program of $2 billion in fact is very specific and much more strategic in that area. We have not seen the numbers. Members opposite can criticize if there are no numbers in a throne speech, but I think we all know that is just for theatre. That is so they can make a point and perhaps be interviewed on the issue. Hard numbers are not put in a throne speech. It sets out the philosophy, the direction and the commitments that the government, the Prime Minister and the cabinet wish to see happen.

They have said that there will be a ten-year infrastructure program. It is my hope that it will be a substantial amount and that it will be tied to matching dollars from the provincial sector. As well, I would like to see, because this is something I thought we did very much right in the first program, a one-third matching opportunity for municipalities. Or in fact they could perhaps arrange for a one-third contribution from the private sector if there was some role for the private sector to play in that particular program. That made sense. The reason is that it basically tripled the amount of money that was going toward infrastructure.

I am hopeful that we will see a substantial commitment in this ten-year fund, that municipalities will be able to look at what most of them look at, which is a five-year capital program, not really ten, and will be able to look five years out into the future and say that they have some infrastructure needs that are core to the growth of their communities, to the safety of what they deliver in terms of sewer and water systems, and in speeding up and eliminating the congestion that so many of our large metropolitan areas are facing, the gridlock we are facing certainly in the greater Toronto area, in the city of Mississauga that I hail from. Hopefully we can help with that project referred to very often in the media as smart growth. It would be very smart if this money were used to help in the movement of people and goods, et cetera, throughout these dense areas.

I am hopeful we will see a substantial commitment, a three-way split and a long term. Who would disagree with that? In fact it is interesting that in the debates in this place about the throne speech what we hear are complaints that the government has not done something in the past or it is just a promise. The reality is that it is a blueprint.

I would like members to stand up and be honest and tell us what it is in the throne speech that they actually do not like. I find it very hard to believe that anyone would be against a long-term, ten-year commitment to infrastructure and working with our provinces and municipalities. If they are, they should say that they are. What I do hear is them yelling “How are we going to pay for it?” The fact is that it is a budgetary process and members here know that the budgetary process will outline how it will be paid for in the many months to come.

Let me move from infrastructure to the housing commitment, something in which I have been very much involved. As parliamentary secretary for crown corporations, I had the opportunity to work closely with Canada Mortgage and Housing and Canada Lands, both crown corporations. I would recommend that all members take the time to look at some of the success stories of our crown corporations. These companies actually make money. People would be shocked.

In fact, let me take members to Alberta, to Garrison Woods in downtown Calgary. It is a development that was formerly a military site. It was taken over and transferred to Canada Lands. It put a development project in place and sold the lots to builders. The Canada Lands development company put restrictions on what could be built, how it could be built, and how it fit into the community, saving the trees. It is an absolute landmark of a development project in this country and it has received national recognition with a Grand SAM award from the Canadian Home Builders' Association. In fact people come from all over the world to find out how in the world the Garrison Woods project got developed. There are 1,600 houses in phase one. Not one of those doors is further than five minutes from a bus stop, yet there are no buses within the community. It is absolutely brilliant modern-age thinking, and it is a Canadian government crown corporation that has led the way. This stuff exists.

In the throne speech, we have said that we are going to extend the housing program. That means we are going to add to the $680 million that was put into affordable housing right across the country and we are going to extend the mandate to the Canada Lands and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporations to find new and creative ways to deliver affordable housing to Canadians. If someone on that side of the House would like to stand and say they object to that, I would love to hear that statement today. I would be completely incredulous, because these are true Canadian success stories.

I will tell members what is most interesting. I was in Calgary last week and local Calgarians are astounded to find out that it actually is Canada Lands, a division of the government, a crown corporation of the federal government, that has delivered Garrison Woods. There is another project coming in on a military site in Edmonton.

I am sorry that I am out of time, because I wanted to spend several minutes talking about Kyoto and about the fact that there appears to be some kind of rebellion being led by Premier Ralph Klein and some of the folks in Alberta and our friends opposite who refuse to accept the fact that we do have a climate change problem. I have heard them say it.

They do not believe that climate change is the problem when in fact every scientist, environmentalist, expert and frankly, most average Canadians understand it is a serious problem. The government is committed to it and there will be a plan in place before Parliament votes to ratify Kyoto later this year.

[Municipalities, June 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

While the opposition simply continues to throw mud, the government is breaking ground. We have had three major infrastructure programs since elected totalling over $6 billion: strategic highway investments, $600 million; affordable housing, $680 million; money for homeless, $752 million; cultural spaces Canada, $80 million; and green municipal investments, $250 million. Are we helping cities? You bet we are.

[Points of Order, June 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record. In a speech I made in the House on May 28, during an affordable housing debate, I made a comment on a residential building known as Urban Manor in the riding of the hon. member for Edmonton Centre-East. For the record, I made a mistake but an honest mistake.

In my statement I said that the building did not get RRAP funding from CMHC because it was condemned. In fact it was not condemned but rather it did not meet the guidelines and program criteria for RRAP assistance. I want to apologize to the owners and residents of Urban Manor and to the member for Edmonton Centre-East.

Finally, by way of explanation, the Edmonton community plan on homelessness felt that replacing the shelter was a high priority for the community. As a result, I am pleased to say that the government has contributed over $3 million for a new shelter.

[Species at Risk Act, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting with the government.

(The House divided on Motion No. 116, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to go on for much longer. If you want to ask for unanimous consent I would be prepared to talk the clock out with no problem.

Our party did not go through three leaders of the opposition in the past two years. We did not have a party that went across the country eating its young and destroying itself. What we have is a party that is unified, that is providing financial leadership to Canadians, and members opposite know it. Members opposite only need to look at the numbers about how Canadians feel. They have confidence that this government will do the right thing, and we will recover the overpayments from the provinces in a fair way so as not to put undue strain on the provincial treasuries.