Larry Bagnell

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I did not quite catch the math on the will of the people of Quebec, but perhaps the member can explain to me why most of them would like to remain in Canada at this time.

I was delighted he mentioned wind energy. I want to compliment the Yukon Energy Corporation for the tremendous work it has done with windmills. It has already made significant contributions to cutting CO

2

emissions in Yukon. We were delighted that there was an incentive for wind energy in the last federal budget.

In relation to natural gas, one of my constituents said it was important to ratify Kyoto so that the gas pipeline would go through Yukon. Natural gas could replace the far dirtier coal and diesel production, and therefore reduce greenhouse gases.

Could the member comment on Quebec's position regarding ethanol production, which was recommended in the plan? If he does not have any views on that I would be interested to hear more about tidal energy because we support that. The many programs the Canadian government has put forward for renewable energy were supportive of things like that and the government has funded many projects across the country.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, of course the concerns that were brought forward were from my constituents. I used my entire time to explain their concerns. However, had I been able to answer a number of them I would have been happy to.

Regarding the question about why do we not wait until there is a plan, there is a very detailed plan that is an evolving plan. The point I made at the very end of my speech is that it is very important to listen to the concerns of our constituents and to ensure that their concerns go into the evolving plan as it gets changed in the many years that we have to implement it.

I cannot give the answers to all of the concerns now but if the member opposite lists a specific concern I will be happy to answer it.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I do not speak very clearly because I read two pages of the chamber of commerce's concerns.

With regard to answering those concerns, as I explained, I talked to the president of one and I will phone the president of the other association to go over the ramifications to business.

I also talked about some of the success stories, which I did not know about before I researched this, of companies like Duke Energy, Canfor, Riverside Forest Products, Shell Canada, TransAlta and Syncrude, Nova Chemicals, IMC, Midwest Products, Simmons, Maple Leaf, Ekati, IBM, the Northwest Territories Power Corporation and Yukon Energy. I read about these companies making investments in things that other companies will only have to invest in after Kyoto. Some of them have already reached their targets. The amounts of money they have saved are phenomenal. I still keep thinking about IMC Potash Colonsay which invested $10,000 and had a savings of $490,000.

We can see how competitive that will make industry and how far ahead we will be of other countries that will eventually have to do this. They will buy these technologies from us. I think the Canadian industry has a very bright future. Had I not done the research into these companies that are leading the charge I would not have this great confidence.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to the Kyoto accord tonight. I made my position on the Kyoto accord very clear last summer. I said that I would listen carefully to my constituents, especially as more information came out and the plan was in place and more of the details were known. I am still listening.

Constituents have written many e-mails and letters to me on this issue. Some of them have asked me to stand in the House of Commons and make sure that we ratify the Kyoto accord. Others have asked me to make sure that we do not ratify the accord. To some extent the constituents have been left out of the debate. Most members' speeches have taken one side or the other exclusively. There is not a member in the House of Commons who does not have constituents who favour ratifying the Kyoto accord and constituents who are against it.

One of my constituents said that once again polarization has led to a lack of objectivity. This evening I will try to reflect what my constituents have told me they want me to do.

First I will talk about two e-mails that were against the Kyoto accord. They were the strongest. I will just repeat a line from each of the e-mails because in the time available I will not be able to get through them all.

One said, “This is not a harmless little agreement. It will be very hard on us and our potential development”. The person was also interested in penalties. I want to make sure that people know there are no penalties such as a fine for Canada, but if we do not reach certain levels in the first round, the ramifications are that we have to come up with a plan for the second round with increased reductions to make sure we make up for the lack in the first round.

I was very impressed by the other e-mail in the sense that the person had done a lot of his own research instead of repeating what other people have said and different scientists he had heard. I will read a few lines. It is a long e-mail and I cannot do it justice but in part it read:

President Bush has refused to ratify Kyoto calling it “economically irresponsible”. It is a global environmental panic aided and abetted by incomplete scientific studies. The greenhouse effect is both natural and necessary for life on earth.

He then talked about some computer simulations and particular aspects of them that left inaccuracies and gave false readings and thus alleged global warming is only a small percentage of what is being announced, as well as distorting figures for the future. He mentioned countries such as Germany for which it would be easy to reduce its emissions without any extreme effort. He pointed out that some countries have already done things, or were planning to do them, to reduce emissions and make it easy for them.

I want to comment on two organizations, the Whitehorse and Yukon Chambers of Commerce. Many people have commented on similar organizations.

The Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce talked to me last December about the importance to Yukon's petrol based economy. It is important because Kyoto to a large extent is based on taking into consideration the effects on petroleum products. I have made the case and explained that concern at length in the House. I think that voice has been well heard on the issue.

I also talked this weekend at considerable length with the president of the chamber of commerce. I explained my position, what has happened to a number of companies that have reduced emissions already, and what I thought the results would be. That was partly because I had a second submission from the chamber this weekend.

Chamber members were concerned as well that the U.S. was not ratifying and felt it might make us uncompetitive if we had extra regulations, especially because we are such a large exporter. Because we have an oil, gas and mining economy, they were concerned that a harder environment for those companies would deter investment in the Yukon. They were concerned about not having all the provinces on side yet, but they did maintain that governments and citizens have to reduce greenhouse gases and they just wanted to make sure there was more time to refine the plan and ensure certainty.

The Yukon Chamber of Commerce had similar points, one about more time. It wanted to accommodate growth in the economy, population and exports. I actually confirmed that the plan does that. Again, its members want to be competitive with our NAFTA partners. Because of the other demands on the budget, they want to make sure that there is money available for the steps we would take, and they said that fuel and auto efficiency would have special effects in the north. Once again, they want to continue consultation.

I want to now quickly go on to the support. There were many more e-mails and letters to this effect. I think I can read the comments of a number of them in the time I have remaining.

The first one is: “I believe it is foolish to have big gas guzzlers and to have poorly insulated houses. It is the common sense of our elders who went through wars and the great depression that we should be adopting--waste not, want not”. Another one says, “Please let the Prime Minister know that Yukoners support his aim to ratify Kyoto”. The next says, “The sooner we get this Kyoto protocol passed, the sooner corporations, provinces and territories will start looking for the measures, technologies, and capital investments that will make it happen”.

Of course, the Yukon Medical Association is strongly on side. I also had a lengthy conversation yesterday with a person who assures us that the gas pipeline will go through Yukon and it is so important for our economy if we ratify Kyoto because of course natural gas is lower in emissions than CO

2

. The Council of Yukon First Nations, which represents 11 Yukon first nations from across the Yukon, is strongly in support of ratifying Kyoto. Another e-mail says, “We need to take this forward for the sake of future generations”. Another one says, “We encourage you to speak for the ratification. This is a critical issue for Canada and the Yukon, as the North is most heavily affected by climate change”.

One would think that in the frozen north people would like it to get warmer, but that is not true when we listen to what the constituents say. The Minister of the Environment was there with me and heard some of this. One constituent said the spruce, willows and balsam firs are slowly moving uphill and further north.

The president of the Association of Yukon Communities is in town right now. A champion of ratifying Kyoto, he says that when he left Dawson City it was 5° above and there was just a lot of rain, while he came here to below zero. Normally it used to be 30° below in Dawson City. In fact I was there in October 20 years ago and it was 44° below. He has led the debate at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which has of course championed signing Kyoto, with conditions.

What is very important in the north is permafrost. It is different from the rest of the country. Construction in the north is based on the permafrost keeping things frozen. The chief of a first nation explained that all their administration buildings are shifting and will have to be rebuilt at great expense. The mayor of Dawson City talks about the cataclysmic costs of all these buildings shifting and moving as the permafrost melts. In fact, some of the sewer systems in the north are predicated on the permafrost staying frozen.

The spruce budworm is moving north. As well, the Gwich'in people have a terrible problem with the caribou herd. If climate change and snowfalls change their migration, they will not be able to get to the one spot where they can have the best calf survival, which may result in the loss of that entire culture in northern Canada and Alaska.

There is great economic loss because there is dependence on the ice bridges in the north to get things to communities and corporations and for the trucking industry. The people in Dawson cannot even get across for much of the winter now when the ice bridge does not freeze. Of course, we have heard about the Mount Logan atmospheric record and the elders who have been around for a long time. There has been climate change in the past, but they say that never so fast and never at this rate have their people seen this.

I told my constituents that I would reflect their views. I made as many as I could in the time I had. The most important part now is to refine the plan and to put it into action. These are the voices of my constituents and I encourage Parliament to listen to them.

[Banking Act, November 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary was very articulate and I agree with everything he said.

I would like to go on the record by saying that I have supported business for most of my career. In my riding, a very rural riding, there have been problems over the years with banks providing credit to businesses in very rural and remote areas. I hope they will continue to work toward alleviating that problem, which I thought was disappearing, but recently there seems to be less appetite for providing credit to tourism operations. With low metal prices and post-September 11, this is very critical for my constituency. I hope they will take that into consideration and continue to provide credit for the tourism industry, which is so important to my riding.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said earlier that we had to elect good people because they come here to give thoughtful consideration to legislation and debate.

Does the hon. member have any suggestions on reform related to the huge demands on time? There are so many responsibilities in committee, in responses to e-mails and letters and in the vast volumes of legislation and amendments. How can more considered and detailed thoughtfulness be given to a particular piece of serious legislation when in the present system there are all these competing demands on time?

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the very thoughtful intervention of one of my favourite colleagues. I always use her as an example when people ask me for an example of integrity in thought and deed. I think my colleague is wonderful.

Because my colleague expressed so much interest in committees, I want to ask about how the structure of a committee meeting can affect the atmosphere. I want to follow up on the thought I was pursuing earlier this afternoon with respect to the relationship between the shape of the two houses in the United States and the shape of the two houses in Canada.

In committee, as we know, for every meeting we line up like troops of opposing armies, one on each side of the committee room. Of course we start on the very first day with a structural confrontational atmosphere, which is not always the attitude.

Would there not be times when it would make sense for us to sit anywhere in that circle? People could sit in any seat, which would be symbolic of facing a common problem together, of looking forward to solving that problem on behalf of Canadians as one group instead of being in a confrontational structure. In fact, we have already made some advances in that respect in the House, because as members know we have the set-up of the committee of the whole, in which people can sit anywhere. I think that leads to a very collegial and very productive debate when we are all trying to come to a solution on a particular problem.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the member has done a very good job in raising this in the House and he has to keep his campaign going.

On behalf of my constituents, televising committees and other processes for constituencies like mine, which is the farthest from this honourable House, is very helpful because there is a disconnect the farther we are away. Constituents cannot walk into the offices on a daily basis and feel connected to what is going on. Anything they can see through the televised system is a big help. It gives them a sense that this is their Parliament and their House. They can see what their members do and how they might have input.

One problem for my constituents and constituents of many of my colleagues across the way is the three hour time difference. This makes it even worse. They have even less access in normal time spans to some of the procedures.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, with respect, the member did not quite listen to all of my last answer. I explained that I would not give a yes or no answer to his question. However, there are yes or no votes on opposition day motions on such items.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very timely question because, as a matter of fact, our foreign affairs caucus addressed that issue this morning.

To be honest, I will not answer yes or no to the question because it obviously requires a larger debate. I am glad the member brought it up because it is important for people to consider here. However I can say that there are a number of ways that all of us, as the member has, can eloquently express some views on this. I have on a number of occasions already. As I said, we were working on it as early as this morning. There are various avenues to get the very diverse views of our constituents across to the decision makers who ultimately have to make the decisions.

There are a number of things involved, partly for timing reasons and partly for confidence reasons. Members have been elected by the people and cabinet is elected to ultimately make certain decisions. However, I think through the methods that we have talked about, those lengthy take note debates, debates in the House on this issue, as well as opposition day motions and question period, the mechanisms are there to get the views of the people, which, as he knows, are very controversial on this particular topic, as it is on all important topics, and bring these views forward to the group of people that Canadians have selected to make that ultimate decision. I think it is very important to get those views to the decision makers.