Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 406 - 413 of 413
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 12:29
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Cullen.
I think it is fundamental, not just as part of our Kyoto implementation strategy but as an overall national clean air strategy, that we force car manufacturers in Canada to produce more efficient, less-polluting vehicles.
The argument by the Canadian automaker is that we'll be the only ones on the planet to do it, and they can't manufacture vehicles for us. Well, great, they won't have to. Oregon has adopted the California standards. California has obviously adopted the California standards. A number of other U.S. states are moving in that direction, New York being one of them.
Because people travel more and more, because every year there's a greater number of vehicles on the road...basically the average fuel efficiency of the fleet hasn't moved since the end of the seventies. Considering the tremendous technological development we've seen in the auto sector, it's quite staggering to look at that statistic. We could very efficiently have....
Yes, it would be more expensive to buy those efficient vehicles. There's a bit of a debate in California. The range is between $1,000 to $3,000 to get those efficient vehicles. For an average Canadian who travels roughly 16,000 kilometres a year, the payback is so quick that it becomes a non-issue.
Frankly, our approach to this, like other sectors, has been to try to negotiate a voluntary approach with the auto manufacturers. Guess what? It's not working. We're not going anywhere. I don't think we will ever get anywhere unless the government says to the Canadian auto manufacturers that we can sit down and negotiate, but they should be certain that if we do not come to an agreement, the federal government will legislate.
If we don't do that, we'll never get out of it.
Collapse
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 12:35
Expand
There are two things we should be looking at. We want a phased-in approach. No one is talking about the massive disruption of any economic sector in Canada. That's not what we're arguing for. I think we can look to concepts such as the one developed by CEP around fair transition. If people will be losing employment in certain sectors, let's train them so that they can be employed in other sectors.
I recall that in 2002, at the time we were debating whether or not Canada should ratify Kyoto, Industry Canada produced a study that showed, depending on the different Kyoto implementation scenarios, the renewable energy industry in Canada could generate annual revenues in the order of $7 billion to $8 billion if Kyoto was implemented properly. So obviously the potential to create jobs is there. The potential to generate wealth is there as well. We just have to do it right.
Collapse
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 12:38
Expand
I think they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. Is that the English expression? It refers back to what Mr. Bigras was saying earlier. If we were to use 1990 as a baseline, then these efforts that they've done would be recognized, but these same companies or sectors are arguing for a 2010 baseline to start the intensity of emission reduction, thereby basically nullifying all the efforts they've made.
If they were to choose the approach that we were talking about earlier, then these efforts would be recognized, but because they're arguing for a 2010 baseline, all of it is basically forgotten.
Collapse
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 12:41
Expand
As I said earlier, I am a social scientist, but I referred to NASA--you may have heard of them--Environment Canada, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Pentagon, the British meteorological centre, the Chinese meteorological centre, the Japanese meteorological centre, the European meteorological centre, the German meteorological centre.... A tremendous number of organizations around this planet--the World Meteorological Organization--agree that climate change is real, it's happening, and it's largely due to human activity, so you might as well question their credibility, their credentials, if you want to question mine.
Collapse
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 12:43
Expand
That is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there is an ongoing scientific debate around climate change. Right now the overwhelming consensus is that it is real, it is happening, and it is because of us, and therefore, on that basis we should develop policies to address that question, which as others have pointed out will help us address other environmental issues.
I am not saying we should stop or should prevent people who have different views on the issue from being heard. What I'm saying is that the overwhelming international consensus on this issue is what I've said already. I am not saying we should stop.... Those who have different views shouldn't be prevented from saying them. In fact, I've read many articles from Professor Patterson in various Canadian publications, but mainly in newspapers. His voice is obviously being heard, just as my voice is being heard, and that is where the debate is presently.
Collapse
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 12:49
Expand
I think Albert Einstein would be of very great use right now. He said that the significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them. Climate change is exactly that.
Why aren't we capturing all the methane that's being emitted in our landfills? I don't know. It's economical, or very close to being cost-effective, in most cases. Toronto will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by some 20% because it's doing that.
I think Kyoto should force us to look at everything we're doing and find creative ways of improving our wealth, our standard of living, while not creating havoc on the plant. I think that's what it's about.
The federal government can play a very important role in providing leadership, in showing the direction we should be going in. Unfortunately that hasn't been the case so far. We say we ratify Kyoto, but at the same time we don't want to put any measures in place that would force any sector of the economy to reduce its emissions. So we're sending out a very mixed signal, and that's a problem.
Collapse
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 12:52
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Simard.
I think that even within the federal government, it is recognized that the approach adopted in 1992 is not working. Federal public servants now admit that our carrot and stick approach is effective, but there is also the whole question of taxation. The federal government now realizes that it will have to implement such measures.
For our part, we are going to continue to put pressure on the federal government. Canadians are concerned about climate change and are committed to the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. A Léger Marketing poll published on Monday by the Canadian Press revealed that, if I am not mistaken, more than 80 % of Canadians support the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. On this front, Canadians are going beyond simply paying lip service to the idea. In the Léger Marketing poll, Canadians were told that they had to understand that they would have to do their bit. In spite of this, 80 % of Canadians said yes. They said that tighter measures had to be implemented and that we had to go ahead with Kyoto. In some provinces, such as Quebec, support for this type of proposal stands at around 92 %. It is not quite 100 %, but it is not far off.
I think that this is the only choice that the federal government has.
Collapse
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 12:58
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Watson.
The Canadian Auto Workers Union would disagree with you, since it has endorsed the NDP's green car platform, which does specify a very stringent standard for fuel efficiency for vehicles in Canada. This was launched, if I'm correct, about a year and a half ago, or two years ago, but we would be happy to provide the committee with a copy of that platform, which has been supported by the Canadian Auto Workers Union.
Collapse
Results: 406 - 413 of 413 | Page: 28 of 28

|<
<
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data