Madam Speaker, coming from Churchill River, I have certainly learned a lot in the last few months since entering the 36th Parliament. Coming from my neck of the woods and realizing that we live in a huge carbon sink, I thought it was a major, startling discovery on my part. Then I had a chance to look at the international comments and the lack of Canadian dialogue.
Nobody's talking about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in this country. The media went to sleep on it. The opposition has not collectively raised the issue except on the carbon tax issue. The government has barely taken any leadership on it. That is the political rhetoric of it.
As an individual and as an aboriginal person, my learnings and my world view—
If we look at the future and we look at the seven generations to come, our present emissions that we are having today outside in this world will have an effect seven generations from now. We are the effect of the generations to come. We will never know these children. We will never know them but they are ours. Collectively all our children are coming.
I went to Tokyo to hear the pre-Kyoto talks which they call the ad hoc group of the Berlin mandate. This is what the draft agreement includes. These are the topics of discussion and negotiation internationally. When they go to Kyoto next week this is what they will hear: legally binding targets, something that is going to press beyond voluntary which is what the Reform is afraid of; the joint implementation where countries can purchase and invest in other countries of the world and get permits and benefits for their efforts; technology transfer.
Where we find a startling discovery in one of our universities or research labs in Canada, we can sell and transfer this technology for the betterment of humankind, for competition or for the betterment of our generosity for all the peoples of the world.
Capital investment is very interesting because money talks and that is what we found here in Canada. We have not put money toward this.
The United Nations has a global environment fund which the developing countries are hoping will grow. On official development assistance, ODA funds, developed countries, annex 1 countries are creating funds and investing elsewhere.
On bilateral agreements, the United States can have a bilateral agreement with Chile to preserve its sink and do development and research for that purpose and also capital investment. Here in Canada we do not have an investment within our own domestic efforts. I will come back to that.
There is also the tradable permits. That is a major discussion at the international table. We cannot hide from that. It is being discussed by all the nations of the world. Tradable permits are putting a carbon value. However, it is a negative value, but it is going to be a polluter pays. It is a short term measure until we clean up our lifestyle. It is an instrument to get us on the right track. We are at a crossroads here. The journey started in Rio. We have not done anything yet, but Kyoto is going to be a crossroads on which way we are going to go.
When we talk about sinks, it is a carbon reservoir. As the hon. member from the Conservative Party mentioned, the whole equator and rain forest is a major sink but we also have the Boreal forest which is a major sink. Internationally what they are recognizing as sinks are manageable forests, not wild forests.
Who is speaking on behalf of our bogs and muskegs in the back woods of our country which are not manageable? It is beyond imagination to manage the northern Churchill area because it is beyond manageable or economic effort.
The other aspect is how many greenhouse gases are in this negotiation? Three as presently in the agreement or a total of six? There are six gases that should be discussed, not just three.
As I mentioned, this is the international draft. It is happening. It is at the international table. We never heard about it. The CBC or CTV, the national media outlets that we depend upon, do not even have an outlet in Japan. They do not even have a correspondent in Japan to let us know what the negotiations have been in Tokyo, Bonn or anywhere else in the world. The media plays an important part.
Domestically, I call on the government to talk about a national atmospheric fund, a major revolving fund in this country, as a challenge of consciousness. We spend about $600 million as a tax incentive for the oil sands industry. Why could we not put $600 million on a revolving fund to lever atmospheric positive measures for good energy use, a good livelihood, good perceptions by the media, good initiatives given by municipalities, large or small and maybe the automobile industry? Maybe some day we will have a Canadian automobile, one we can truly call our own which will be environmentally friendly. Let us challenge ourselves. Let us challenge our intellectual and engineering communities. Let the industries put their minds and money toward this as well, not just take the profits and run.
Maybe we should revisit the incentives and the tax breaks that we give to major industries and make sure they are put in an appropriate place.
On the issue of preserving our forests, there are forests in the province of Manitoba. When a forest fire makes a major break, it is left to burn because there is no commercial forest there. There is no dollar value on the northern boreal forests. Why not put the forest fire out, giving employment to the people who live up there and preserving the sink? It is releasing carbon as it happens.
Transitional funding is a major issue. It has to be addressed through Human Resources Development or the industry. There will be transitions in training for the workforce of the future. There is going to be transitional funding for industry.
The Minister of the Environment raised the issue of the coal industry. There is not going to be a total eradication of the coal industry immediately, which is the conclusion that everyone jumps to. It may be a slow generational process by the next generation of workers to look at a different industry. It is not wholehearted.
We look at the international negotiations like a bubble. The European Community, which is a huge trading block of common currency, has now described itself as a bubble. Japan pointed out that France does not have to cut its emissions for the next 15 years because they will be getting credits from other nations within the European Community.
Canada is a bubble in itself. Alberta and Saskatchewan and the coal industries in Nova Scotia should not be afraid because we have to address this as a nation, not by regions. We have to do it as a collective effort for humankind.
The hon. leader of the opposition mentioned a very precious species in his perspective is the taxpayer. I think all species should be considered, not just the human species, but all living species. The humans of this world also live on the living beings of this earth. There are living beings in the oceans and in the air, truly the gift of mother earth. That is what we are taking care of and that is what the future of generations to come will depend upon.
I would like to call it the term of greed, which in my language is—
When we are greedy, when we want something so much, that is sinful. In that perspective I would like to call on the conscience of all the people of Canada, the people who are listening out there to be aware of the issue of climate change. There are disruptions. We just had a temperature of plus 10 degrees Celsius in downtown Saskatoon the other day. That is a major disruption. We will never know what the full effects will be on the economy, or on our health as scientists are telling us. We just have to look at it and take on the challenge.
The figure of 20% by the year 2005 was an achievable goal a few years ago. Now we have increased 13%. I call on all Canadians to take on the leadership, go to Kyoto and when we come back the race will be on. It started in Rio. It does not start next month.
