House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 64% of the vote.
Kyoto Protocol December 3rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that there are a number of members still wanting to ask the minister some questions, I would ask that you seek unanimous consent to extend questions and answers by five minutes for the minister.
Kyoto Protocol December 2nd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly enjoyed the speech given by my hon. colleague from Calgary.
I guess there is a little fact that is well known and that is, there are many scientists on both sides of this argument. One of the most interesting things I heard recently was a scientist who said that for years and years, if we tracked the mean temperatures at different locations in North America, which is where they have the records, we would see that the temperatures go up and down. I wish we could use graphic aids in the House but I guess my hands are the only props I am permitted. The temperatures are cyclical. It is true that from time to time, over a 50 year or up to an 80 year cycle, the temperatures will gradually go up and they will turn around and go down again.
The scientist said that what distressed him the most about some of his scientific colleagues was that they were now willing to somehow predict that the cyclical nature of temperature changes would be abandoned and the current uphill trend would become a straight line extrapolation. He said that there was no scientific basis whatsoever for that extrapolation, for that curve to go up and down. He said that it was unjustified to say that the current uphill increase in the temperatures would not keep going up invariably. I would like my colleague to comment on that type of science.
Official Report November 29th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, when one speaks without notes, one occasionally makes errors and I do not want to ever be accused of not knowing what I am talking about.
On page 2032 of yesterday's Hansard , it is recorded that I spoke of the world's population saying that Canada's population is one-half of 1% of the world's population and in the immediate paragraph before that, on page 2032, I said 2%. I believe I probably said that, but I would like to correct the record in case I am ever cross-examined.
Kyoto Protocol November 29th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue with this individual about assumptions.
Again, everyone of us in the House would certainly favour doing what we can to ensure that our atmosphere, our water and our soil are kept clean and pure for ourselves, for our children and grandchildren and for other people around the world.
The question is this. Are we assuming that Kyoto will achieve this? One feature of the Kyoto accord is that we can buy credits. In other words, if we have businesses that do not meet the standards, all we have to do is send some money to some other country where the amount of emissions is less and they can continue to do this. That aspect of the Kyoto accord will not reduce pollution, it simply moves it to another place on the planet.
Furthermore, when we consider--
Kyoto Protocol November 29th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I have high respect for the member from the Liberal Party. She is very eloquent. She is an excellent communicator and often expresses clearly some very good ideas. I would like to challenge her in one particular area. That is on the area of basic assumptions.
A number of years ago a guy came to my door and said that the old, ugly wooden siding on my house should be replaced because it was cracked and not thermally efficient. He offered to put on new siding for me. He said it would have insulation in it and it would be very good siding. Unfortunately, I signed onto it, not knowing that the guy was a charlatan. He took me for a ride. He overcharged me. He took my money; the trusting person that I am, I gave it to him because he was going to do this work for me.
Without going into the details, I really got taken on that particular job. It was a good learning experience. A lot of guys pay $10,000 for a university education, but I got mine that day.
At any rate, I mention that because I made the assumption that what that person told me was true and I also made the assumption that he would do proper and satisfactory work technically in applying the new siding.
The members opposite who talk about their avid support for Kyoto are making a lot of assumptions. So are, I believe, the constituents who are supporting them. One of those assumptions is that the Kyoto accord has to do with the reduction of pollution. Frankly, I am not an expert in chemistry; I am a math physics major and I studied some chemistry. However, when I look at what Kyoto really addresses, which is greenhouse gases, which are primarily carbon dioxide and secondarily water vapour, that which most of us recognize as clouds in the sky, I think we are being asked to follow on those assumptions and say that is going to reduce pollution.
Most of us are in support of the reduction of pollution. I am and the member over there is. I cannot imagine any Canadian saying that he or she thinks we should increase the pollution in our atmosphere, water or soil. No one would say that. We are all interested in reducing pollution. I recently purchased a very efficient vehicle. Part of the reason, not all of it but part of it, is that I want to do what is right for the environment.
Kyoto, on the other hand, is going to decoy a bunch of money not to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, certainly not to reduce noxious oxides. Instead a whole bunch of money will be transferred to other countries in order to continue at our present rate. It is not going to have a significant difference on the worldwide emission of greenhouse gases.
Add to that the fact that Canada's population is one-half of one per cent of the world's population. I think the assumptions are very big when one thinks that the Canadian people collectively can do anything about this. If we were all to die and to stop using energy and to stop the man-made part of pollution, at best it would reduce it 2% worldwide.
I would like the member to comment on that and to consider carefully, as the legal mind that she is, whether it might be possible that some of the assumptions she and others are using may be wrong.
Government Advertising November 29th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, my constituents are irate about the blatant waste of their money being used for “in your face” government advertising at the Grey Cup.
Businesses advertise their products and services to increase business but no one is worried about the Government of Canada going belly up. The deductions on our paycheques are reminder enough that we are Canadians.
How much did the Grey Cup advertising cost? Why does the government waste these millions advertising itself instead of spending on health care?
Hazardous Products Act November 28th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask that you request that we see the clock as 6:30 p.m.
Hazardous Products Act November 28th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, once again I cannot resist the temptation to speak.
When I saw this topic, fire safe cigarettes, it reminded me of the years when I was a truck driver. One individual practised the ingestion of nicotine without fire, and his nickname was Snuffy. I will never forget Snuffy because he happened to dispose of his habit in many unsavoury ways. I remember getting into a truck one day and the side of the window was blotched and then gravity had pulled it down. I realized that he had been in the truck and did not realize that the window was in fact closed. On another occasion, I was wheeling one of those big 20 inch tires down to the shop and all of a sudden my hand felt a little different. I realized that I had driven over some. That was the first thing that came to my mind when I saw this non-fire cigarette or nicotine usage.
However, on the serious side, I had an uncle who died very tragically in a fire. When we think of fires being caused by smokers, it is usually innocent people who are affected, for example family members, often children, or other neighbours in an apartment building. Their property is lost and sometimes their lives are lost.
I have a friend who works in the nursing section of a burn unit. Nothing is sadder than to see people who have been seriously burned. It is a tremendously challenging situation.
We really cannot be against this bill because it would increase the safety of people while they are using a hazardous product. In fact, we know that cigarettes are very hazardous. It is interesting when we think of the statistics of how people die. In this case, we are told in our briefing notes that about 100 people die in Canada every year because of fires started by careless smoking.
We should also add to that list the 100 people per day in Canada who lose their lives because of smoke related illnesses. That is a statistic that totally boggles the mind. We have in excess of 30,000 people per year in Canada who lose their lives due to lung cancer and heart disease precipitated by the use of tobacco.
For us to continue to even tolerate the use of this substance in our society really boggles the mind. However, being a person who believes in individual freedom and individual choices, I guess I would continue to defend the right of a person to take a bunch of weeds, wrap them up in a piece of paper, light a match to it and suck on it. If they really want to do that, I would defend their right to do it. I have had friends tell me that I cannot take that away from them because they really enjoy it. Well, so be it.
At any rate, I would like to simply say that it is my intention to support the bill as well because it at least goes in the right direction to reduce one of the hazards associated with cigarette smoking.
Kyoto Protocol November 28th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member of Parliament would listen to her constituents, but I wonder whether she would concede that it might be possible that the constituents are basing their letters on information which is not accurate. I am just asking whether it is possible that this could be.
The reason I say this is that in what we have observed, a lot of people think that Kyoto has to do with the reduction of pollution, whereas in fact it has to do with the decrease of carbon dioxide emissions primarily. Carbon dioxide comprises about .03% of the earth's atmosphere. Consequently, a small increase in the amount of carbon dioxide is a large percentage increase. Therefore the issue can be greatly overstated
Also, with respect to its effect on global warming, when people think that the science is in on this, that just is not true. There are as many scientists on the other side of the issue as there are those who claim that carbon dioxide is the cause.
Is it possible that a large number of people in her constituency, and mine, who support ratifying Kyoto, if there are some, may possibly be misinformed?
Kyoto Protocol November 28th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member from the Bloc who just spoke that Canada comprises about 2% of the world's population. Kyoto is about limiting greenhouse gas emissions, the primary one of which is carbon dioxide.
With one-half of 1% of the population and 2% of emissions worldwide of carbon dioxide coming from our country, does he really believe that the economic risk and the economic loss is worth what will be nothing but an infinitesimal change to the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted in the world?