Debates of Nov. 22nd, 1994

Global Climate Change

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, motion M-168 put forth by the hon. member for Davenport in this House today really caught my interest.

I have had the opportunity to work on regular basis with the hon. member on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, of which he is the chairman.

It is an honour for me to become the vice-chair of this committee. When you look at the background of the hon. member for Davenport and see what kind of work he does on the committee, his care and concern for the important issue of the environment really becomes apparent. He is, of course, a great conservationist, but he is also a great advocate of federalism.

We need not look any further to understand why the people opposite, the Minister of the Environment in particular, have no qualms interfering with the provinces' jurisdiction in that respect. The Liberals wrongly associate the federalist cause with that of the environment. In their view, provinces are small and incompetent entities which are incapable of looking after such a great cause as the environment all on their own, as an exclusive area of responsibility.

They tell us that air and water know no boundaries-what a revelation!-and that this is why the federal government has the duty to control, protect and preserve the environment. They justify encroaching upon a provincial jurisdiction by claiming to be in a better position than the provinces to do so and, of course, by arguing that Canada is a big country, so big in fact that all activities have to be centralized in Ottawa in order for the environment to be protected.

Yet, it is common knowledge that the centralized administration of this huge country does not necessarily have a positive impact in the field. On the contrary, centralizing to excess generally puts increased distance between what is going on in the field and the decision-makers. It is a phenomenon known as ivory tower phenomenon.

But the environment is about what happens in the field. So, serious thought must be given to the implications of increased centralization in that regard.

The hon. members opposite also rely heavily on the global approach argument to justify increasing federal interference with provincial jurisdictions. Their redundant message to the effect that pollution know no boundaries has become their creed and their justification for set themselves up as great national conservationists.

Basically, the government is creating new structures, unscrupulously, without paying any attention to duplication, to what the provinces are already doing. Worse, it takes advantage of grey areas and non-established areas to impose itself upon them. Some have gone along with this federal tactic. It is their choice. Others, on the other hand, see things differently and feel threatened and bullied by the federal government. But regardless of the fears expressed by certain provinces, the federal government, in the name of federalism and a comprehensive approach, pushes ahead and imposes its way of doing things, its standards and its administrative structures.

If this twisted line of reasoning were taken to its logical conclusion, Canada itself would be subordinated to a broader, North American, maybe even planetary, organization with overall responsibility for the environment.

We do not think that this is the best way to preserve and protect our natural environment. We are, of course, in favour of harmonizing standards and requirements, and we certainly support agreements for specific sectors. But we firmly maintain that these standards, requirements and agreements must be implemented on a smaller scale if we are to attain environmental objectives quickly and effectively. The federal government should therefore limit its role, and leave the implementation and administration of environmental matters to the provinces.

The motion by the member for Davenport mirrors only too well his government's desire to centralize and dominate. He would like the federal government to step onto an already very crowded playing field. When he speaks to us about energy conservation and efficiency, the member for Davenport is light years behind Quebec and other provinces who have already taken action in this area.

For several years now, Hydro-Québec, which reports to the government of Quebec, has been offering its consumers programs promoting energy conservation and efficiency. Again yesterday evening, I saw a Hydro-Québec television commercial offering information and a brochure on a new energy conservation program.

I wish to remind the hon. member who tabled this motion that all provinces also operate such programs through their power-producing corporations. The Power Smart Program, among others, has been around for a few years. The hon. member should also know that the federal Department of Natural Resources runs several programs resulting from the Green Plan. There is even an Efficiency and Alternative Energy Branch within this department.

Is the hon. member telling us through his motion that the federal government's own actions are inefficient? That would confirm what we have known and noted for a very long time.

The hon. member's motion shows very clearly once again the federal government's lack of recognition for provincial initiatives and desire to meddle in areas of provincial jurisdiction. I ask the hon. member for Davenport: Why should the federal government promote energy efficiency in Quebec and in the other provinces, when it is already being done, Mr. Speaker?

Would implementing such a motion not lead again to useless, inefficient and costly overlap and duplication, to a waste of public funds which would not achieve anything, except for spreading federal government propaganda?

I am asking myself serious questions regarding the hon. member for Davenport's intentions in putting forward this motion. Even his wishful thinking lacks vigour. The wording of the motion itself is very timid. It says: "That the government should-consider the advisability of promoting-". Let us say simply that one could not go very far with such words. The hon. member for Davenport is usually more specific and vigorous in his proposals.

I want to look at another part of the hon. member for Davenport's timid motion, and I quote: "-in anticipation of global climate change-". The hon. member talks about climate change; he is no doubt referring to global warning mostly caused by greenhouse gases.

I find it a little funny that the hon. member is telling us this when the Minister of the Environment recently admitted that she was not sure she would be able to honour an ambitious promise in the famous red book. This promise in the Liberals' bible said: "Our immediate priority will be to work with all major stakeholders to design a plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent from 1988 levels by the year 2005". Asked whether she was convinced that this objective could be attained, the minister replied: "Oh, my God! Am I convinced? No. I am not convinced".

She thus admitted her political inability due to the lack of support and backing in Cabinet. Nevertheless, this promise is a key plank in the Liberals' environmental platform. So what is the motion from the member for Davenport worth when an important promise of his party is so easily flouted by Liberal ministers?

Another disturbing point about this promise is the idea now being considered of passing our responsibilities off onto developing countries. Indeed, Canada is showing some openness to the idea of taking credit on its own account for reducing greenhouse gases when it supports or takes such action abroad. If that were so, it would be a blatant admission of failure and proof of the Liberal government's weakness.

The motion of the member for Davenport seems somewhat futile to me. First, it asks the government to duplicate what is already being done in the provinces and in the federal govern-

ment itself; second, it highlights a red book promise that will not be kept, concerning the reduction of greenhouse gases.

The member's motion is not very solid. It shows an obvious lack of front-line information. I am sure that the member can present us with much more substantial motions.

I conclude on an energy-saving note by telling you that on December 8, 120,000 Christmas lights will be lit on and around Parliament Hill-I repeat, 120,000 lights.

Also, I invite you to count how many government vehicles are left idling on the Hill, with their engines running, all day long. A good contribution to saving and the greenhouse effect! I believe that the federal government should do its own homework before imposing on others.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the main justifications for the use of renewable over non-renewable sources of energy is the greenhouse effect. I believe this is the rationale for this motion from the member for Davenport.

The greenhouse effect is the concept that increased emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels will lead to increased temperatures in the global climate, hence the move toward renewable sources of energy as opposed to the burning of fossil fuels.

It is a fact that the earth's surface temperature and human emissions of greenhouse gases have both increased over past decades. However, to suggest that we must abandon traditional sources would be unwise to say the least.

It is important that any shift from non-renewable to renewable resources be based on the merits of that resource, not simply on an anticipation of what may or may not happen. Energy policies must be based on economic, environmental and industrial concerns. I agree that Canadians need to actively participate in energy conservation and efficiency. This does not mean the government should be issued a blank cheque to promote this concept.

The member for Davenport suggests that we should place greater reliance on renewable sources of energy over non-renewable resources. Many renewable energy technologies are available. They are already in use around the globe and can provide different alternatives.

There are several sources including solar power, wind, wave, tidal, and hydro or water power. I would like to go into this a bit to show there is really no easy fix in this huge equation.

Other less known sources include biomass, which is the conversion of plant and animal matter into energy, and geothermal energy which is from within the earth and is very popular in New Zealand.

Converting to renewable sources of energy is not an easy procedure. We need to look at the whole picture when we talk about non-renewable and renewable forms of energy because it is not as simplistic as it may appear at first glance. Renewable energy is not without its own problems. There are economic, environmental and practical considerations that must be taken into account.

California uses several forms of solar energy. There are huge energy collectors which provide electricity for hundreds of thousands of homes at competitive rates. Solar energy is also used for hot water heating in buildings and current solar energy research is looking into the concept of converting direct sunlight into electricity.

Although solar energy appears to be a sound environmental choice there are still considerations. The manufacture, installation and disposal of solar power systems involves environmental health and safety considerations. We need to question how much fossil fuel energy input is required for solar systems compared to fossil energy consumed by comparable conventional energy systems.

The manufacture of solar cells also uses hazardous material such as arsenic and cadmium. Some of these materials can be quite hazardous to the people who use them. What I am simply pointing out is that every area has its problems.

Another concern with solar power is the large amount of land required for the plants. Approximately one square kilometre is required for every 20 to 60 megawatts generated and this causes a problem.

Wind energy is another source of renewable energy. Windmills have been around for centuries and are still functioning in many areas such as California and Denmark. Presently wind turbines produce 1 per cent of the electricity for California and Hawaii and many nations are currently looking into this resource as a positive alternative.

What needs to be noted when we examine these various sources of energy is that almost every energy source has some kind of negative environmental impact. Renewable sources of energy are not without their problems and considerations.

For example, although wind power produces no air or water pollution and does not involve toxic or hazardous substances, it faces public opposition because of its visibility and the noise of the turbines.

Our traditional form of renewable energy is hydro power. Dams generate the electricity through the weight of water going

through the turbines. In Canada hydro electric power produces nearly two-thirds of all of our energy consumed.

Though hydro power is the main form of renewable energy, there are many problems or potential problems connected with it. For example, most of us are aware of the Kemano project in British Columbia. Because this project was exempted from a full environmental assessment by the previous government, resource and community concerns remain in debate with hostile stakeholders in many areas.

The Great Whale project near James Bay also illustrates the continuing environmental concerns of many of these energy megaprojects. As such, British Columbia has gone away from many of the larger projects into much smaller even to the point of small streams and rivers generating small areas that are more environmentally friendly than a huge megaproject.

The seas can also be utilized to create wave and tidal power. Temperature differences between deep cold water and warm surface waters are utilized as a power source called ocean thermal energy conversion.

By and large it is going to be in the end market forces and public demand that will direct the energy market whether it be in favour of renewable or non-renewable sources of energy.

To conclude, these are just some of the issues surrounding the use of renewable sources of energy which need to be considered when we consider whether we should be promoting this form of energy. I am mentioning these because it is easy to look at only one side of the issue without considering some of the associated concerns.

When we talk about shifting from one form of energy to another it is important that the contribution of energy development to the material welfare of Canadians be balanced against environmental sustainability.

In 1992 the production of energy supplies was valued at over $35 billion or 7 per cent of our gross domestic product. It employed over 300,000 people. Energy accounts for 11 per cent of total exports, 17 per cent of all investments and is responsible for an annual trade surplus of over $10 billion. It is a big player.

In summary, I am not suggesting that we promote one form of energy over another or that we should not consider using more renewable sources of energy. However, I do suggest that the energy consumption habits of all Canadians are an area for scrutiny. Rather than generate more energy we need to learn to use less. Therein lies the solution.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the hon. members of this House for permission to sit due to a cast on my leg.

I heartily endorse the motion introduced by the hon. member for Davenport this evening. The House has heard something of the history of climate change and what the world and Canada are doing about it.

I should like to present some thoughts on the economic aspects of this issue. Ultimately climate change could have a major impact on jobs, business and farms throughout our country. That makes it a matter of vital importance to every Canadian. We all need to understand and better know what its effects will be.

The impact could potentially be crippling. A melting polar ice cap could disrupt east coast fisheries. Rising sea levels could inundate low lying areas of the Atlantic provinces. On the Great Lakes water levels could fall sharply, stranding industries. We could see more frequent and more violent storms. Draughts could worsen on the prairies. New diseases and insect pests could infest our crops and threaten human health. Flooding could occur in the Fraser River basin. In the north the permafrost would no longer provide a solid foundation for buildings and pipelines, putting existing installations at risk.

These developments would translate into economic loss and it could be more severe because of the particular nature of Canada's economy. This is highly dependent on resource based industries such as agriculture, fisheries and forestry, all of which are very sensitive to climate change.

In view of that sensitivity, Canada must act vigorously to try to mitigate possible climate change. The most direct way that we can do so is by reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide.

While Canadians make up only half of 1 per cent of the global population, we do account for 2 per cent of the worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases.

On a planetary scale we generate far more than our fair share of greenhouse gases. Unless Canada and other developed countries take the lead and demonstrate that we are serious about cutting our emissions the developing world will not begin to do its part to bring the problem under control.

To remedy the situation we first need to understand why it has occurred, where do Canada's greenhouse gases come from and why are they so high in proportion to our population. The answers to these questions have to do with Canada's geography, demography and economic infrastructure.

We live in a huge thinly settled country of cold climate and long winters. We must make heavy use of transportation, heating and artificial lighting. Our population is growing faster than that of most developed nations. Our economy relies to a disproportionate degree on resource extraction and agriculture. These activities are generally more energy intensive than manufacturing.

We also rely on abundant reasonably priced domestic energy sources such as coal, hydro, natural gas, uranium and oil. We sell to other countries mainly forestry products, minerals, agricultural goods and various energy products.

When the time comes for drawing up international accounts the emissions associated with the activities producing these exports are attributed to Canada, not to the countries that consume the exports. In contrast, Canadian imports are generally less energy intensive but we receive no credit for that.

However, the last factor affecting greenhouse gas emissions cannot be blamed on anyone else and that is the relatively affluent lifestyle of Canadians. We regard as necessities what would be unimaginable luxuries to most inhabitants of third world countries, but those necessities come at a price, our disproportionately high release of greenhouse gases. With many factors conspiring to drive up our use of energy and our greenhouse gas releases it might seem a daunting task to try to hold them to acceptable levels.

Though the picture I have painted may be grim, there are grounds for optimism and the source is the concept that has become a rallying cry for our times, sustainable development. The idea of sustainability entered the public awareness about the same time as the threat of climate change in the mid-1980s. For radical problems it proposes a radical dynamic solution; re-establishing a balance between human activities and natural systems, integrating economic and environmental goals, working not for short term profits but for long term benefits and enhancing the quality of life.

Earlier it had seemed that advocates of the environment had to be adversaries of human progress and vice versa. Sustainable development taught us that this is not the way things have to be. Countless times in the past humanity has turned seeming obstacles into challenges and barriers into opportunities for advancement. That is what the environmental challenge of our time is.

That is what the threat of planet change is, a looming danger certainly but at the same time a spur to find new and better ways of doing business and living our lives. It is an opportunity to do things more efficiently, more effectively, more competitively and, above all, more sustainably. The problem has been clearly identified: rapidly increasing emissions of greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere at record levels, altering climate in ways that may not be completely predictable but are quite possibly very severe. The solution surely is obvious, bringing the emissions under control to keep the changes of climate within acceptable parameters.

The question then becomes how can we control or reduce emissions. We need to reduce the energy needed to power our economy. We need to continue building a less energy intensive economy and choosing a less energy intensive lifestyle. That is by no means a fantasy. After all, over the last two decades we have seen the automobile industry wrestle successfully with this problem. Today it manufactures cars that go much farther on a litre of gasoline and that burn their fuel much cleaner than in the 1960s. That is only an indication of what is possible but it shows us the direction we should take.

We need to work toward energy conservation, energy efficiency and the use of non-polluting renewable energy sources. As representatives of the Canadian public there are many ways in which we can further this effort. One of the most important is by fostering science and appropriate technology development in pursuit of our climate change goals. We must support the people who are looking for new knowledge and new solutions. We must encourage research and development and we must smooth the path from thinking up bright ideas to successfully marketing them on a large scale. New ideas are central to Canada's environmental industries which make up one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy today.

A few weeks ago the government announced a Canadian environmental industry strategy, a co-ordinated approach to promoting this sunrise sector. The potential is for this to become one of Canada's export leaders, developing new energy saving techniques and marketing them domestically and abroad.

Infrastructure renewal is still another opportunity for promoting resource conservation. The old deteriorating installations squander energy and release pollutants. The government's municipal infrastructure program is helping replace these relics of the past with clean and efficient facilities.

I mention as well the high cost of transportation in Canada. Now a new expressway beckons us, one that will not become snowbound in winter or develop potholes in the first spring thaw.

I am referring of course to the information superhighway, the electronic network with possibilities that organizations and individuals are only starting to explore. It is the kind of business that Canada should be involved in where distances and weather are immaterial and energy expenditures are minimal.

These are all measures that promote energy conservation and efficiency and do the right thing for climate change. At the same time, however, they and other initiatives are creating business opportunities and jobs. Another example is the growing technology not only of government installations but also of private homes, offices and industrial plants.

The measures are transforming our country's economy, making our companies more efficient, more productive and more competitive. After all, the firm that can get more for its energy dollar is the firm that can sell at a lower price. In today's cost

conscious, competitive markets, that is the firm that is going to get its customers back.

I have heard claims that we cannot afford action to avert climate changes, that it comes at too high a cost and will price us out of the global marketplace. The very reverse is true. We cannot afford not to act.

Our major trading partners have plans for stabilizing their greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000. They include Britain, the United States and Germany. Denmark is a northern country with cold temperatures like Canada. Despite that, it has a plan to achieve a 20 per cent reduction in emissions by the year 2005. There may be some doubt about whether all these countries will actually achieve stabilization of emissions at 1990 levels as they are setting out to do but at least they have made the commitment and have started along the path toward that goal.

They are taking steps that all can see and measure. Canada must do the same and members can begin by giving their support to this motion now before the House. It is only sensible to adopt a precautionary approach in addressing the issues of climate change. We must take steps now, not wait until later when more painful or more costly solutions may and will be required.

Granted, climate change poses a great threat to Canada but the effort to counter climate change is an undertaking that summons all the best qualities of Canadians, imagination, drive, a willingness to innovate, an entrepreneurial spirit and a taste for hard work. These are the qualities that built our country and have repeatedly won for it the number one ranking by the United Nations human development index.

Those qualities will help us face the challenge of climate change and in doing so we will ensure a bright, sustainable future for Canada. It is a fine line between a healthy environment, a sustainable environment-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I regret, the member's time has elapsed.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion tabled by the hon. member for Davenport. We both sit on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Through our numerous meetings, I have come to know the hon. member, who is a former environment minister and also a man dedicated to promoting a sound environment.

However, I am surprised that, given his professionalism, he would table a motion which, albeit positive, is excessively vague and non directive.

Motion M-168 reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in anticipation of global climate change, consider the advisability of promoting energy conservation and efficiency, as well as placing greater reliance on renewable sources of energy so as to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear power.

With all due respect, I submit that this motion does not have any substance.

"The government should- consider the advisability of promoting-" I have often seen laws and regulations designed to monitor stakeholders more closely. I am referring to the opposite of what is called a toothless piece of legislation. The motion says: "The government should". Does this mean "should" or "should really"?

At the rate Liberals are examining, consulting and discussing, they will consider the issue for a long time. Let me give you an example. The health sector: Four years and $12 million later the government suddenly realizes that this field falls under provincial jurisdiction. It was a mistake. Not to worry. We just start all over again.

Why this vague wording? Maybe the hon. member knows that the government is not able or does not have the will to implement its laws. Canada's environmental act is one of the most comprehensive and complex. We are in the process of reviewing it.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act gives the Canadian government several powers to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. However, the act regarding political party financing allows oil companies to make substantial contributions to the party in power. There may not be a link, at least, this is not what I meant.

As I was saying, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the government could have promoted the reduction of energy consumption. It is easy to say, less easy to prove. I will anyway.

The preamble of the act states "Whereas the government of Canada in demonstrating national leadership should establish national environmental quality objectives, guidelines and codes of practice-"

I am not saying I agree with this, but it is in the preamble.

Further in the preamble, it says: "And whereas Canada must be able to fulfil its international obligations in respect of the environment-". I will speak later about the failure to meet the commitments made by Canada in Rio to reduce at the source the emission of greenhouse gases. A lack of will, probably.

In section 2 of the same act, we are told that we can take both preventative and remedial measures in protecting the environment. Preventative and remedial. However in a 1994 catalogue

about human activity and the environment, Statistics Canada shows that between 1985 and 1991, the net production of coal rose from 60,000 kilotonnes to 71,000 kilotonnes.

Statistics Canada lists in this report environmental considerations relating to coal production, including idle land, land cave-in, surface erosion and inorganic detrital matter.

According to the same report, with respect to carbon dioxide emissions caused by the use of fossil fuel, CO2 levels have increased from 387 megatonnes in 1982 to 436 megatonnes in 1992. What we are talking about here is a greenhouse gas. Given these figures, I do not know what to think of the advisability of promotion, as the hon. member for Davenport puts it. At any rate, let us see what else the Canadian Environmental Protection Act says.

In Part II, Clause 47 reads: "The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing, with respect to any fuel or fuel used for any purpose, the concentration or quantity of any element, component or additive that, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, if exceeded, would, on the combustion of the fuel in ordinary circumstances, result in a significant contribution to air pollution".

Under the new gasoline regulations made in March 1991, Environment Canada carried out 1,141 inspections, but conducted only two inquiries and issued five warnings. Considering that, based on Statistics Canada figures, between five and ten tons of oil are spilled every year in oil-producing provinces, one can wonder if this government really has any will to act.

Before putting forth such a motion, we should check whether or not legislation has already been enacted regarding energy efficiency, fossil fuels and nuclear power. As it turns out in this case, several acts already deal with these subjects.

The Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, a federal act, the National Energy Board Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Canadian Petroleum Resources Act and the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act are already in place to control this type of energy.

As I just tried to explain, Canada has extensive legislation dealing with an area that, I may recall, falls under provincial jurisdiction. Consider Hydro-Québec, which for many years has promoted the cause of saving energy, for instance, through its 1-800-ÉNERGIE line, which is more readily available and accessible than proposals coming from the federal government.

Furthermore, as the Minister of the Environment said herself in Bathurst, if reducing gas emissions is a provincial responsibility, then saving energy should also be a provincial matter. In concluding, as the hon. member for Davenport may have noticed, I felt that his motion lacked consistency and tended to ignore the many jurisdictions around us.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this motion because the framer has used the old debater's trick of setting up a straw man in order to knock it down.

The motion is predicated on the assumption that because there has been a recent warming trend, that we have entered into a period of global climate change. This is alleged to be due to intensification of the greenhouse effect by increased atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide due to combustion of fossil fuels. If that sounds convoluted, I guess it is because it is convoluted.

The framer of the motion, the member for Davenport, has inferred that this hypothesis is universally accepted by climatologists. I would hasten to say this is not true. In fact, I believe that the concept of catastrophic global warming has a lot more popularity in the press than it does in scientific journals. We are now confronted with doomsday scenarios. The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester repeated a few of them.

It reminds me of a quotation from Goethe who said: "The phrases that men are prone to repeat incessantly end by becoming convictions and ossify the organs of intelligence".

Climatic changes have been observed throughout recorded history and they have been a feature of life on earth for millennia. I am not talking about the gross shifts which resulted from continental drift many millions of years ago. I am referring to changes that have recurred throughout the Pleistocene period.

There have been a series of ice ages and some climatologists suggest that we are still living within a warm cycle of one of them. In any event, it is only a few thousand years ago that this site was overlaid by many hundreds of feet of ice.

On a smaller, more humanly comprehensive time scale there is much evidence of climate change within the last couple of thousand years. For example, I have examined ancient mine workings in the deserts of North Africa and Yemen. These mines date from the very early days of the Islamic period. They come complete with very large piles of slag and piles of water-washed tailings which to me is absolute proof positive that there were, within recorded historical time, large numbers of trees and lots of water available in what is now desert. I am not talking about simple desertification of the sort that we have going on in the Sahel today. I am talking about massive climate change. This has been within the last 1,200 or 1,300 years at most.

There have been cold periods too. The Norse settlements of Greenland, which existed between the 11th and 14th centuries, disappeared because of a climate change. The glaciers actually advanced out over the settlements. They lost all contact with the old country and some hundreds of years later when people came back they found some genetic vestiges of them in the Eskimos. It is only in very recent years that they have begun to find their ancient stone and earth works because the glaciers have been receding again.

Less than 300 years ago Europe had what was called the little ice age, when hundreds and thousands of peasants died of exposure or starvation because their crops failed. We had this terrible cooling period.

Cores of ice from Greenland and the Himalayas prove that carbon dioxide levels on earth have varied radically over time. Curiously one peak period of atmospheric carbon dioxide corresponds to the period of the little ice age.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Regrettably one minute would be about the tops right now.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

I would like to present some facts and figures.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Well, it might be helpful to the House if the member could indicate how long that might be.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

About four minutes.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is there unanimous consent to allow the member from Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia to conclude his remarks?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

I thank the House. We have two well-established facts before us. The carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is higher than it was a century ago, and the average earth temperature has been increasing for a little over a decade.

Are these two phenomena related? We do not know. There is no convincing evidence to say that they are, and I would say that it ain't necessarily so. There are just too many variables and they are not well understood.

The earth's reflectivity, for example, varies from year to year, depending on the amount of frost and snow we get in the polar regions, or depending on the amount of cloud cover. Ocean currents, particularly in the eastern Pacific, have a gross effect on temperatures. Solar flare activity is probably the most important, and yet this is a factor that has never been thoroughly studied and is only partially understood.

However, let me play devil's advocate and say that, okay, CO2 increasing in the atmosphere is truly a problem. Termites are said to contribute 50 billion tonnes a year of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. That is more than is produced by all of the human consumption of fossil fuels on earth. If we are having an increase in CO2, the major contributor is probably a negative rather than a positive effect. I am referring to the destruction of the world's rain forests which serve as a carbon sink. If the carbon dioxide has nowhere to go it stays in the air.

To proceed with an energy plan based on flimsy and rather badly scientifically studied evidence I would say is irresponsible, and I wonder if the long term motive behind all of this might be to excuse the installation of the carbon tax. We have discussed that several times in the House.

But suppose global warming is a real threat? What are the reasonable alternatives? The motion speaks of alternative energy sources, but in my experience alternative energy, as most people describe it, could more properly be described as "supplementary energy". Wind, solar and biomass all have a legitimate place in the energy mix but to quote Dr. Petr Beckmann: "You cannot run a modern industrial state on sunbeams, summer breezes, fumaroles and chicken manure". There are only three practical energy alternatives and those are coal, oil, and nuclear.

The hon. member for Davenport as a scientifically trained man knows that wind and sunlight are very diffuse sources of energy. For example, the total energy output from the sun which can be received on earth under optimum conditions at the equator is not much more than one kilowatt per square metre.

I would suggest that my colleague's estimate of land requirements for solar thermal conversion are low by a factor of about five. I sharpened up my own pencil and using very optimistic assumptions of thermal and mechanical efficiency, panel spacings and so on, I calculated that a 600 megawatt solar plant would occupy a land area of about 50 square kilometres.

This monster, according to the Solar Energy Research Institute, or some figures I have extrapolated from one of its publications would require about 20,000 tonnes of aluminum, 1,200,000 tonnes of concrete, 350,000 tonnes of steel, 45,000 tonnes of glass, and 4,500 tonnes of copper.

What would be the energy balance? I would hesitate to try to calculate it. I do not feel I have the competence but I wonder with all of those extremely high energy consuming materials if we would not end up with a solar plant serving out its total operational life and giving out less energy than what went into building it in the first place.

I had a few more words but I think I have run out my four minutes. I got in what I really wanted to get in and I thank the House and the Speaker for their courtesy.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Let me ask, colleagues, if that same co-operation would allow us to go to the mover of the motion. The hon. member for Davenport under right of reply is entitled to two minutes to close off the debate on this motion. Agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity.

Indeed as in every other debate there is a lot to be learned. I have learned a lot during this hour from the input given by my colleagues whom I would like to thank.

The member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia has done a lot of homework. It seems to me however that he is putting forward observations that over the centuries have been made by the scientific community and which are geologically proven, no doubt.

However he is not aware of the fact that in recent times, in 1988 in Toronto at the international conference attended by scientists the scientific community concluded that there is a problem here in terms of climate change. Yes, there were a few dissenting voices but nevertheless a large part of the scientific community was of the opinion that we have to deal with climate change resulting from greenhouse gas emissions. That conclusion was reinforced and fleshed out in more detail in 1991 at the climate conference held in Geneva.

Next year in March a second conference on climate change will take place in Germany at which governments will participate to work out a global plan.

Evidently the scientific community first and then the politicians in the world have come to a conclusion of substance here despite all the understandable and justifiable doubts that have been expressed by the hon. member.

I concur with the member for Comox-Alberni in his warning that it is a difficult path. Change cannot be achieved overnight. We have to look at a mix if I understood him correctly and not rely on a shift from one set of sources, the non-renewable to the renewable, and hope that the problem will dissolve. He is quite right. We cannot do it quickly and it is a very long and difficult path.

It seems to me that the members for Laurentides and Terrebonne missed the point. We, or at least I look at this issue as a form of co-operative federalism. They interpret this issue as one of interference in provincial jurisdiction. Evidently there is a profound ideological difference.

To conclude, I would like to thank and express my gratitude to the member for Cumberland-Colchester for her impassioned and very interesting intervention, for her incisive analysis, for her support and for warning us about the importance of the precautionary principle.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96 the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on November 17 the Minister of the Environment released a discussion paper concerning endangered species in Canada. That discussion paper proposes that the laws protecting Canada's endangered species be strengthened. I could not agree more. In fact there is something in this that most Canadians do not know.

Canada is one jurisdiction in the world that does not have federal legislation protecting species at risk. We do however have provincial laws that have been praised for their efforts. In Ontario I might mention Jim Wiseman. The NDP MPP for Durham West has brought forth a private member's bill that has received broad support. Wiseman's bill which passed second reading with unanimous consent of the provincial legislature last week would promote identification and assessment to conserve, protect, manage, restore and reintroduce as well as rehabilitate endangered, threatened and vulnerable species in their habitats.

In spite of this eight out of Canada's ten provinces and two territories have no specific legislation protecting endangered species. Most provinces do have general wildlife laws, but these are directed primarily at regulating hunting of game species. We cannot forget that Canada is a nation with a strong international reputation for environmental awareness. It is a shame that we still do not have federal legislation dealing with endangered species.

Although Canada does a good job at identifying species at risk and preparing lists of species that require attention, Canada does not have any laws requiring that anything be done once a species is listed in any way. I have heard the situation described as operating similar to a hospital which records the names of its patients, assesses their illnesses, but does absolutely nothing to treat them.

As a member of Parliament from the prairies I want to bring to the minister's attention the example of the burrowing owl. It has been listed as endangered for years. It is a small owl with the unusual habit of nesting underground.

The biggest threat to its survival I am told is the use of a particularly toxic pesticide called carbofuran. There are other chemicals that could be used to do the same thing. Some farmers have joined a World Wildlife Fund program to save the burrowing owl by setting aside certain parts of their fields, but their actions are purely voluntary.

At the same time as this activity is going on at the federal level, the registration of carbofuran is still under review by Agriculture Canada. If Canada had endangered species legislation, alternatives for carbofuran could be mandated to protect the burrowing owl before it slides further toward extinction.

It should be noted that Canada played a leadership role at the Rio de Janeiro international United Nations environment conference in the negotiation of the biodiversity convention now signed by 160 countries. Canada would therefore have an obligation in international law to live up to its terms which include a commitment to establish legislation or regulations for the protection of threatened species and populations.

In follow up, the House Standing Committee on the Environment in November 1992 unanimously agreed to consider the necessary legislation that would act to protect species, habitat, ecosystems and biodiversity in Canada. We have yet to live up to that commitment or the recommendation of the committee.

Canada, we recognize, does have divided and overlapping jurisdictions but it is essential that Canada's federal, provincial and aboriginal leaders work in a co-ordinated way to ensure that this happens as soon as possible.

The Rio convention on biological diversity was signed by Canada on June 11, 1992. The convention stands for the recognition of the value measured as economic value, aesthetic value, value from ecological services and even the spiritual value of maintaining the wealth of plant and animal species and of their genetic diversity found on the planet earth.

It would be most appropriate for Canada's first federal legislation dealing with species protection to be ready for introduction on June 11, 1995, the third anniversary of the signing of the convention.

The Minister of the Environment has indicated in the discussion paper that she and her department will consult with Canadians with an idea to bringing in new legislation. In suggesting that the minister consider June 11 as the target date, I ask that she plan for a specific date for the introduction of what will be significant and important legislation for all of us.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the Deputy Prime Minister in her role as Minister of the Environment met three young children who came from three Canadian cities, Calgary, London and Moncton, asking this Parliament to do more to protect endangered species.

As the hon. member has noted, on that same day the minister released a discussion paper for a new framework to protect endangered species. That paper sets out a national framework for comprehensive protection of all endangered species in Canada. Currently there are 236 endangered, threatened and vulnerable animal and plant species in this country.

We released this paper to stimulate public thought and discussion. In January and February there will be public consultations. We need the views of scientists, aboriginal people and environmentalists, as well as farmers, fishermen, labour groups, businesses and local communities.

The discussion paper sees federal framework legislation as one component of a national approach that could be introduced in the House next spring. This legislation could establish a national, independent, scientific body and it could also set up a process for assessing the status of species considered to be nationally endangered. The species listing from that process would become a schedule under the federal act but also could be incorporated into provincial legislation.

The federal government cannot nor does it want to move alone to ensure protection for all species. We need to work closely with the provinces. A national approach to endangered species protection will allow federal and provincial actions to complement each other, not compete.

We are only going to succeed to save endangered species if all Canadians co-operate and if we listen to the concerns of all Canadians. We must ensure that federal and provincial laws work together. That is the only way we can save our endangered species.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.28 p.m.)