House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 39% of the vote.
Business of Supply May 11th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I will just refer to Environment Canada, with all due respect to my friends. The people there are the ones who get paid to do it and I trust that they know more about it than the member.
In Ontario warmer weather causes more air pollution and smog. I am sure we could agree on that. In Ontario alone smog costs more than $1 billion a year. Mr. Clement, the Minister of Health, is here and he might want to hear this. It is $1 billion a year in--
Business of Supply May 11th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate, but it is kind of extraordinary and bizarre in many ways that we are having it.
I talked to people from the western part of my riding to the east, north and south throughout the election and before that, as someone who was involved in environmental issues. They would find it extraordinary and bizarre that we are having to debate this rather than getting on with the work on the important issue of climate change.
We know what climate change is doing. I shake my head at the fact that we having to convince the government that more action should be taken on this. I wonder what will be asked in a generation or two. Will they ask, what did they do at that important time when they were at crossroads? Did they stick their heads in the sand, tar sands perhaps? Did they get up and do something about climate change?
The climate change issue is one that not only affects Canadians. It also affects people throughout the planet. As has been stated before, we only have one planet and we are doing an awful job of taking care of it.
In generations to come the record will show that we went through massive resources with terrible consumption and poor stewardship. That is an embarrassment. What have we done? We have decided to go for the quick and easy and look at the next six months and perhaps the next year. However, we have forgotten the notion of looking after the next generation, taking care of what we have.
I sense there might be some debate about the fact that climate change is a significant scientific issue. I would like to take a look from where this stems. We just have to go back to the first world climate conference in February 1979. It identified the issue. Then in June 1988 there was the World Conference on Changing Atmosphere in Toronto. Then in November 1998 we had the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
In August of 1990 the IPCC issued its first assessment report, which talked about the concerns. In December 1995 the second assessment report by the IPCC was issued. It talked about the balance of evidence suggested a discernible human influence on global climate. Then in 2001 the third report was issued. In May 2001 a further report was issued.
In June 2001 a report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, commissioned by President George W. Bush, talked about how greenhouse gases were accumulating in the earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities. Even George agrees now.
In November 2004 an unprecedented four year scientific study of the Arctic, conducted by the an international team of 300 scientists, was released. It stated that the impacts of global warming were now affecting people in the Arctic, and it goes on.
I want to address this because the minister talked about it earlier. In June 2005 the national science academies of the G-8 nations, plus those from China, India and Brazil, signed a declaration warning world leaders of the clear and increasing threat of climate change. They called for immediate action.
It is pretty clear at this point, and we can all agree hopefully, that climate change is an issue and we are not responding. We are bystanders watching it go by.
What does this mean? In terms of Canadians, it means socio-economic impacts. We talked about the pine beetle epidemic. Even the global insurance industry claimed that $44 billion in insured losses were due to extreme weather events such as floods and hurricanes. Recent scientific evidence suggests a link between human induced climate change and an increase in storm intensity and duration. We could talk about Katrina.
Do we want to talk further about whether climate change is a problem? In British Columbia warmer waters are affecting the spawning and migration of salmon. The B.C. interior forest industry is facing a widespread infestation of the mountain pine beetle, to which I referred. What keeps their numbers in check? Cold weather.
In Alberta and Saskatchewan severe droughts have been ravaging the prairie provinces. Environment Canada reports that the prairies are actually drier now than they were in the 1930s. There is further evidence.
Business of Supply May 11th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, when we look to some of the experiences in Quebec, we see some of the things that have been done right. I would like to get the member's take on the government's seemingly lack of investment in alternative energy in the budget and on the vision or lack thereof that it has presented to Canadians. Specifically, looking at the investments in wind energy, we have seen that European countries have taken this on, set targets, met them, exceeded them, and has looked at how to deal with climate change.
I would also like to hear the member's comments about the fact that we do not seem to see investments, notwithstanding the rhetoric of the government, in R and D. I have not seen any evidence of that. I would like to hear his comments about that.
Public Works and Government Services May 10th, 2006
With respect, I will reserve judgment, Mr. Speaker.
Let me repeat: Canadians have a right to know the details of this deal now. First, is there a link between this deal and a developer who has given $73,000 in the last 13 years to the Liberal Party? Second, is there a good reason why the Conservatives are so anxious to put this deal away without showing Canadians what they are paying for? Will we get answers to these questions before Canadians have to pay for it?
Public Works and Government Services May 10th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are furious with the details of the deal for the new Mounties headquarters, a deal that we have learned will cost 20 times the original price.
Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works told the House that we would be shown the details of the deal to purchase the building before the deal is finalized. However, the unelected minister responsible for public works is on record as saying that Canadians will only be given the details after they have signed on the dotted line.
Who are we to believe? The parliamentary secretary sitting in the House or the unelected minister in the Senate?
Public Works and Government Services May 9th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, it really is outrageous. The government will spend over $620 million for this property by the time it finally owns it, 20 times more than the original purchase price. Is this the minister's notion of a good deal for taxpayers? If that is the case, he has really spent way too much time in the Senate.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell us how many more of these great deals Canadian taxpayers can look forward to?
Public Works and Government Services May 9th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I have obtained documents that show that Public Works originally signed an agreement for the new RCMP headquarters with the building's original owners but did not support the final acquisition. The property was then sold to a private developer for $30 million. The government has now turned around and signed another agreement for the very same property for 20 times the cost.
Could the minister explain how this deal, hatched by the Liberals and signed by the Conservatives, is good value?
Petitions May 9th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition on behalf of the Canadian Council for Refugees and other partners, calling on the Canadian government to establish a process to facilitate the granting of permanent residence to persons who have been in Canada for more than three years and who are from countries on which Canada has imposed a moratorium on removals.
Public Health Agency of Canada Act May 5th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, it really is critical that we look at the air we breath, the water we drink and the environment that surrounds us.
I would hope that this office and the officer would be able to, as I mentioned before, have some efficacy in terms of being able to go into a community and act on people's concerns about not having potable or drinkable water for decades. The fact is that they need something to be done right away. It would be similar to a local medical officer being able to file a report that commissions the local municipality to act directly.
It would be interesting to see if we can find a way to have that done at the national level, whether it is a national purview, but I am not talking about going over jurisdictions. However we need to ensure that access to drinking water is paramount.
To be honest, I do not think most Canadians are aware or maybe they are becoming aware of the water crisis in this country. Some of it came out of Walkerton and Kasechewan most recently, but I think Canadians are aghast and quite surprised at the fact that in Canada, where we have access to fresh water, we still have people who are not able to drink and access clean water.
I think it is an excellent point and I hope it is incorporated.
Public Health Agency of Canada Act May 5th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely critical that we share resources, in that we put our resources together to affect the health of all Canadians.
I must say that if I had had more time I would have spoken about disabilities and putting in a disabilities act, which is also important, but I will save that for another time.
When we look at what Quebec has done, we not only need to look at the fact that we should have national scope but we need to look at where things have been done right. I know my constitutions are envious of the community health centres in Quebec and to the extent it has been done in Quebec and in Ottawa Centre. We need to look at best practices and use those best practices in all provinces. I think the community health centre approach is the way to go. Quebec has done it, bar none. As I mentioned in my speech, we also need to look at best practices like the banning of cosmetic use of pesticides.
I quite agree with the member that we are better off when we put all of our resources together to positively affect all of our health services. When we see health issues that do not respect borders, we need to do that and the more we can the better.