Debates of Nov. 26th, 1997

The Environment

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on this important subject of climatic change.

With only a few days left until Kyoto, it was high time for a debate in the House of Commons on this issue, which is of such vital importance for the quality of life of future generations. It is about this conference, which is vital to our future, that I want to speak to you today.

On Monday, Environment Canada released the troubling results of a study that took six years and cost over $80 million. This study revealed that we must expect a higher mortality rate and an increase in the number of diseases if something is not done right away to slow down global warming.

This study also pointed out that certain species, whether vegetable or animal, will actually be threatened with extinction. According to the same source, the average temperature in Canada will increase by 3 to 6 degrees Celsius for the eastern and western extremities of Canada, and by 4 to 6 degrees Celsius for the central part of the country.

The anticipated effects for Canada as a whole are disastrous. Scientists predict an increase in the frequency and intensity of storms, serious consequences for health, economic sectors, forestry, agriculture and fishing, and a significant impact on human health in general.

These serious phenomena are caused by the increase in greenhouse gas emissions. These gases prevent the sun's heat from returning into space and cause a gradual rise in temperatures. The large scale use of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas produces these gases that cause the greenhouse effect responsible for global warming.

Next week, delegates from over 150 countries will begin 10 days of negotiations in Kyoto, Japan. Representatives of Canada and of Quebec will have to reach agreement with other nations at the conference on an international reduction objective. The Bloc Quebecois was the first political party in Ottawa to take a clear stand on the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Chrétien government has known since the Berlin conference, in 1995, that it would have to make a commitment at this conference, yet it did not take the necessary steps to prepare Canada for this important world summit.

Consequently, Canada is the only country among the seven most industrialized countries that has not made its position public in preparation for the negotiations. This is unacceptable, since Canada is the second largest producer of carbon dioxide per capita in the world after the U.S. In fact, we share this responsibility with all industrialized countries, which produce 80% of all greenhouse gases.

The Reform Party is waving the spectre of taxes hikes and fuel price increases to get us to do less than the U.S. Still facing a credibility problem, strangely enough, it is painting an even bleaker picture than the petroleum lobby in the United States with its statistics.

Such short-sighted vision does not serve the interests of anyone in Canada. What is at stake, in terms of our environment and our economy, is so important that it requires vigorous action on this issue. That is why the Bloc Quebecois believes that the federal government must formally make strong greenhouse gas reduction commitments at the Kyoto conference scheduled for next week.

The federal government must acknowledge the fact that its current greenhouse gas reduction strategy has failed and act accordingly. Only by setting meaningful goals promoting a significant reduction of carbon dioxide emissions will the government confirm its willingness to address this serious problem. The provinces, particularly major polluters, must also pledge to do more in this area. The Canadian position must go further than the variable rate formula proposed by the Japanese. According to this formula, and given its size, population and climate, Canada should achieve reductions of 2.3% by the year 2010.

Obviously, this objective is far from that of the European Union, which we should try to reach, to the extent possible, but it does take the Canadian reality into account. This is the Bloc Quebecois' position.

What will the Liberal government do, just days before the deadline? Cabinet ministers are very divided on the issue.

In conclusion, I will say once again that global warming is a major issue for my generation. Young Quebeckers want to live in a prosperous and environmentally responsible society, something to be achieved through sovereignty.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I consulted with the other parties in the House and I think you would find consent from all sides to send the pages home if it has not already been done.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Agreed. The hon. member for Durham, a quick question, please.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a comment to which the member can respond. We touched several times on the topic of tradable credits tonight. The member for Sherbrooke mentioned that in his speech. He said that tradable credits are new and are just starting to be traded, even though they were traded as long ago as 1990 in the United States at a time when he was Minister of the Environment.

There is something missing from the equation in our business cycle, that is, the costs of polluting. Often we do not try to put a number on that. This is the problem with industrial structure. We do not have a cost of pollution. The notion of tradable credits allows us to recognize there is a cost to pollution which requires companies to buy these credits.

Some interesting things have happened recently in the United States. These credits are now traded on the Chicago Board of Trade. Environmental groups like Greenpeace are buying them. They are removing these credits which limits the ability of these companies to pollute. The object of the exercise is to give companies an incentive not to pollute by developing new technologies to reduce their emissions.

What does the member think about that kind of concept?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Madam Speaker, as we have always said, the important thing is to invest in renewable technologies. This is what is important and what must be reflected in the Canadian position. We must have an energy policy that will allow us not only to reach our environmental goals, but also to maintain a degree of economic growth. I truly believe that this can be achieved.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have a big problem. When I say we, I am not talking about the Ottawa area, Quebec City or Vancouver, but about the planet itself. We have a big problem because, since the onset of industrialization, we have been burning more of all sorts of things. We have been burning oil, wood, coal, and alcohol. We have been burning all sorts of things and this gives off carbon dioxide, a very simple gas but one with the incredible property of holding heat around the planet.

How can we trace 1,000 years of history with respect to carbon dioxide? We have only to look at ice samples trapped in glaciers for this period of time to see that historically the planet has had approximately—and here I am referring to a chart—280 parts per million of carbon dioxide. This keeps us very comfortable on our planet.

With industrialization, we have doubled the number of parts per million. This means that the planet is turning into a Thermos bottle and that the rays of sun that enter the atmosphere are not leaving at the same rate they used to. We are going to get fried if we are not careful.

Do we have much time left to take action? I would say we should have done something about twenty years ago to avoid the worst. Already we should be getting ready for important climate changes in 20, 30 or 40 years. We are perhaps already experiencing these climate changes, which create hurricanes, flooding, or very disturbing seasonal variations.

It is obvious that Quebec and Canada on their own cannot change the equation significantly. Our contribution is important, but it is not the only one. Canada as a whole emits 2% of these greenhouse gases, which means that the rest of the planet—and we can think particularly of the industrialized countries such as the United States—emits the other 98%. That is why Kyoto is so important. That is why there must be an international agreement between all countries, in order to reduce these emissions, which are creating a sort of Thermos bottle effect.

It will not be easy. I would even venture to say that it is very late in this planet's time line, but it is very important. I would urge all those who are listening at home and understand what I have to say, not to hesitate to contact their MPs and to ask them to ensure that Canada does everything within its power to reduce greenhouse gases.

There are considerable variations within Canada. Quebec produces around 9 tonnes of gas per inhabitant. That is a lot. This means that, by using electricity produced by a thermal plant, gasoline in my car, and a variety of other products, including clothing containing plastics, I am causing nine tonnes of CO2 or related gases to be produced.

In Alberta, however, with the industries being what they are, the figure is 56 tonnes per person. That is six times more than the figure for Quebec. From sea to sea, people must become aware and we must lower our production of greenhouse gas. We must set the example so that other countries will follow and we can avoid the worst.

The worst occurs when there is no more snow on ski hills in Quebec. The worst occurs when the prairies can no longer produce wheat. The worst occurs when we are invaded by all sorts of insects and diseases carried along by the increased temperatures.

I know you do not need convincing, Madam Speaker, but I hope our viewers tonight will understand the importance of this debate.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, over the next century global temperatures are predicted to undergo change greater than any seen in the past 10,000 years. This will create a chain reaction, impairing the Earth's hydrology, geochemistry and botany. As a result, planetary aquatic and terrestrial life forms will be stressed, economic, industrial and commercial activities will be challenged, and socio-political relationships will be strained.

Even with concerted substantive action today we will see a doubling of CO2 in the next century. Even with stabilization by 2010 it will still take a significant timeframe to rid the atmosphere of the greenhouse gases to the point where the current rise in global temperatures is restored to a level decreed in the UN framework convention on climate change 1992. It stated that such a level should allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable way.

Roger Street, one of the editors of Environment Canada's recent “Canada Country Study” said that climate is a key defining variable for Canada, it defines our social and economic well-being. Natural processes are inextricably linked and when one fundamental piece, like climate, is so dramatically altered, no other natural process is immune. With that fact in mind and to paraphrase Mr. Street, our social and economic well-being will be altered as well.

I fear that our institutions, political, economic and social, have not kept pace to adequately respond to the changes we have created in our natural environment. Our ability to mitigate harmful human interference and adapt to negative impacts of climate change is seriously hampered.

Natural laws are immutable. There is nothing we can do as legislators in this place, pass laws, make policy and act on these, that could ever supersede nature. When we attempt to do so, we put at risk the health and well-being of all of the Earth's community, including ourselves.

We must learn our lesson from climate change. We must legislate and govern as if the Earth mattered.

Because we cannot fool nature, we must accept that action be realistic and effective in actually dealing with the issue of global climate change.

The eyes of the world will be on Kyoto next week as representatives from the planet's governments convene to negotiate an agreement. There are many proposals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We should acknowledge the effort put forward by the nations of the world in recognizing the seriousness of the problem and their willingness to propose solutions.

There is concern however that some of the solutions have loopholes attached, loopholes which would exclude HFCs, PFCs and SF6, which are rapidly growing and could contribute at least 5% more to greenhouse gas emissions. Other loopholes would inflate the baseline year emissions thus making it appear easier for countries to achieve stabilization.

Whatever legally binding agreement is negotiated at Kyoto, it must be clear, express and provide targets and criteria to repair damage to natural systems. Not paper reductions but real reductions that can be measured by nature's account balance.

More important than Kyoto however is what we do after in Canada. Climate change is a global issue, but the dialogue and action begins at home. We have a duty. The duty is to engage Canadians. The solutions to address climate change exist. They exist in our homes, communities, office towers, shop floors, classrooms and labs and they exist here in this place.

The public and private sectors and individual Canadians and their communities must all make a fair contribution to solving a problem of climate change. We must build on the exemplary work of the Canada Country Study. It is the first ever national assessment of the social, biological and economic impact of climate change, which includes regional studies, sectoral analysis and reports on cost cutting issues.

Environment Canada brought together experts from government, industry, academia and non government organizations to complete this study. The Canada Country Study tells us that impacts will range in both degree and variability, depending on the region of the country and the economic sector. Make no mistake, all parts of Canada, all Canadians will be affected.

Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, utilities, energy extraction and production and industrial and commercial residential sources vary from region to region depending on predominant economic activities. Any realistic post-Kyoto implementation strategy should include a range of mitigation measures reflecting the diversity of Canada's regions and sectors.

Energy efficiency is crucial to the reduction of greenhouse gases. Energy efficiency and conservation initiatives implemented by Natural Resources Canada from 1990 to 1995 resulted in energy savings of approximately $4 billion a year to the Canadian economy.

The private sector must be encouraged to increase energy efficiencies. A number of initiatives currently exist and must be expanded. For example, insurance companies are starting to offer energy savings insurance policies to commercial and municipal operations to provide their lenders with security for the repayment of energy saving building retrofits.

Engaging Canadians individually and in their communities is central to achieving greenhouse gas reductions. The Ontario Green Communities program is a community success story. Green communities are community based, non-profit, multi-partner environmental organizations. They achieve results by mobilizing community co-operation and providing practical services and advice. The mission of green communities is to build sustainable communities by conserving resources, preventing pollution and protecting and enhancing natural ecological processes.

This year with the support of Environment Canada, the Green Communities Association launched a national initiative to promote the establishment of new community based networks across Canada to build national partnerships and establish a national alliance. A significant component of their activities is the residential retrofit program which will help engage Canadians in the reduction of greenhouse gases.

Another success story is the Federation of Canadian Municipalities 20% Club. Members of the 20% Club bring national objectives on climate change together with local voluntary initiatives.

The federal government plays a pivotal leadership role in engaging Canadians, communities, industry, along with the public sector in the national effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Environment Canada's community based programs involve Canadians at the community level. Their support of the Green Communities Association means Canadians can increase awareness of climate change and contribute to the betterment of the natural environment.

Environment Canada's Canada Country Study involved hundreds of Canadians in the assessment of socioeconomic impacts of climate change. The shift to energy efficiency can be accelerated by fiscal policies that support and encourage residential and commercial retrofit, the development of renewable and alternative energy and increased usage of natural gas. These policies can be financed by shifting funds away from fiscal initiatives that encourage perverse ecological subsidies.

Energy efficiency activities are job creators. The shift to this sector would encourage technological innovations to flourish in environmental industries that will increase trading opportunities for Canadian firms.

This a win-win agenda. It is an agenda that engages all Canadians in the very important national effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

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.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Churchill River for some extremely insightful and timely remarks.

I would like to request unanimous consent to split both my time and question period with the member for Waterloo—Wellington.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Thank you for the consent. I happen to think this is a good speech but I am sure you did not want to hear it twice.

I welcome the opportunity to speak about this important topic and would like to congratulate all parties for the co-operative effort that resulted in this debate being possible.

In terms of the consequences of atmospheric change, I hold the opinion, and I will preface this by admitting freely that I have absolutely no scientific background, but I hold a rather simplistic view that non-sustainable practices are going to catch up with us in a number of significant areas.

If someone is waiting for indisputable empirical confirmation of the problem, I would suggest that they will be waiting a long time because nature does not speak through science. She speaks through symbols and signals, like climate change, like increased acidity in water systems, depleted resources, the extinction of species and any number of other signs directly linked to environmental degradation.

The Reform Party has shown signs of enlightenment specifically in two of the three r's , reduce and recycle. It has effectively reduced its credibility on this issue to zero and its stated position so far has contained 95% recycled material.

In addition to supporting research and simple observation, we can also see confirmation of the problem from the corporate sector. The insurance industry, a sector that survives with the successful calculation in management of risk is all over this issue like a cheap suit. The very real threat of claims involving too much water, too little water or water at the wrong times of year have set this industry on its ear.

While I readily admit that I could not tell the difference between CO2 and CO1, I do know that money does not talk, it swears. I need no further proof that we have an impending problem. I also believe that this is just the tip of the melting iceberg.

My greatest fear is that this argument, which is not unlike the one that plagued progress on smoking legislation, will delay action at the expense of future generations. I feel we have a moral obligation to address these issues in a responsible, logical, timely and co-operative manner. The clock is ticking and the earth is warming and we are not going to get too many chances at successful intervention.

What is important is not our position going in to Kyoto. It is the nature of the agreement coming out. Simply reducing the argument to green versus growth may be strategically sound but it shows a fundamental lack of knowledge on the issues involved.

Clearly growth strategies and the pursuit of wealth do nothing to help the environment. I am not saying growth is bad. What I am saying is that unless we discover life on another planet, in the long term it is a dead end street. It is in the long term interest, the environmental interest, economic interest and social interest of all Canadians that we lead the world in the adjustment to this new economy. We certainly need to strike a balance between short and long term interests.

The challenge we collectively face as politicians is this. Addressing these issues is going to involve leadership. It is going to involve increased levels of co-operation. It is going to involve making decisions with the goal of improving the human condition for future generations.

We are being asked to take a certain amount of risk to effect change in a world in which we will have no direct share. The potential Kyoto agreement is an excellent start and will serve to jump start an upward spiral of net economic gain through the adoption of sustainable practices.

In conclusion, it becomes clear that our country and indeed our planet is faced with a number of environmental problems that are paralyzing policy makers by both the severity of their implications and by the complexity of the measures necessary to solve them.

It is not unlike the mythical Medusa. If we stare at this problem, it is paralyzing in its scope. Perseus managed to slay this demon by using a shield to reflect the image. I would like to suggest that we let our shield be the ingenuity, creativity and co-operative spirit of the Canadian people, of Canadian industries and I dare say Canadian politicians.

I will leave members with this final thought. If not Canada, who? And if not now, when?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on this very important issue affecting all Canadians and indeed all people in the world.

On a snowy night in Ottawa global warming may not seem to be an issue of concern but I can assure you it is and members in this House know that it is. We know that almost 90% of Canadians believe that climate change is already occurring or will occur in the very near future. So this is indeed of great concern to all of us as Canadians and to all of us in the world.

Scientists are noting subtle yet significant changes in our environment and the effect of this over time could seriously damage our forests, our agriculture and our fresh water supply. It could also lead to the extinction of species, including polar bears, musk ox and caribou. Moreover it is no secret that a warming climate caused by greenhouse gases will lead to more illness and death in the next century unless steps are taken now. All of this I find most worrisome, as do all Canadians.

It should be noted that nine of the earth's warmest years since 1861 occurred after 1980. Each year the burning of fossil fuels introduces 22 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. While Canada may not be the largest polluter overall, we are the ninth largest. We have the second highest rate of greenhouse gas emissions per person. Since 1990 these emissions have increased by 13%.

The science of climate change is sound and it is compelling. Although we do not know everything, what we do know is more than enough to warrant responsible cost effective investment to address the problem.

The global climate is warming at a more rapid rate. This is due in large measure to a dramatic increase in the volume of greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere. The issue of global climate change is very important in the upcoming conference in Kyoto, Japan. Representatives from around the world will meet to put in place a plan to deal with that change.

Canada needs to and will push for new meaningful, realistic and equitable legally binding targets to limit greenhouse gas emissions. This will be done by developing Canada's position on climatic change with partners from all across Canada, provincial governments, municipal governments, industry and non-governmental organizations.

Our position must be, and must be perceived to be, fair among all regions, provinces and industries. We will endorse emission targets that can be realistically achieved on a step by step basis. We must do this because Canada must be part of the international solution. To do otherwise would be untenable and irresponsible.

All Canadians must be engaged in this debate. Canadians need to understand the science of climate change, the resources and the measures which have been taken to date and what actions they can take to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. Overcoming this problem will not be possible without the efforts and support of all Canadians.

The federal government will continue to look after the interests of all Canadians. It will lead us into the new millennium with vision and foresight.

The challenge of climate change does not have to be a crisis. We must take this opportunity to make Canada a more efficient and innovative nation. If we meet this challenge, and we will and we must, it will ensure the continued health of our planet. If we fail to meet it, our children and our grandchildren will pay an enormous price.

We need to work very hard to ensure that this will not happen. All Canadians need to work hard on this issue. We owe it to the generations that follow.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thought I might share a little story about the nature of environmental destruction, environmental problems and ask the member to respond. It is really just a way of getting this little story on the record. I remember reading this about 20 years ago. It was trying to illustrate the nature of environmental problems. They are often geometric or exponential in nature.

The story goes that you have to imagine a lily pond which is being covered by lily pads at a certain rate over the course of 28 days. It starts with one lily pad on the first day, two lily pads on the second day, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, et cetera. The thing to remember in the covering of this pond with lily pads is that if this is a progression of pollution or environmental degradation, on the 27th day there is still half the lily pond uncovered.

It is very easy to believe on the 27th day or on the 26th day or on the 25th day that the people who are saying there is a problem are wrong, because they can look out over half of the lily pond and say “These people are Chicken Little. These people say that the sky is falling. These people are exaggerating. They want us to take unnecessary measures”. If they listen to that kind of advice in this story, when sitting on a lily pad on the 27th day they are saying there is no problem and on the next day boom, the entire pond is covered.

I ask members to consider whether or not this story is not constructive in some way. We do not know with respect to greenhouse gas emissions whether we are on the 27th day or the 26th or the 25th, but we are close. We are somewhere in the twenties and it is incumbent upon us to act.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member opposite for that wonderful story. I am not sure where it was going or where it was leading but it was wonderful nevertheless.

It is imperative that Canadians, men and women of good faith ensure that we do what we must for the environment. I think that is important and certainly that is the position of this government. We will continue to do so.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, Canada has always been regarded as a world leader and a driving force on critical issues which threaten the preservation of our environment.

The Progressive Conservative years were characterized by action and leadership. In contrast this government is long on improvising and short on planning and implementation when it comes to protecting the environment and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is just as true for the last four years as it has been for the last four weeks.

The Kyoto conference on climate change is less than one week away. This government is flying by the seat of its pants and has said nothing about its position for Kyoto. What it fails to recognize is that any target is irrelevant when there is no plan in place to achieve it.

In absence of an implementation strategy, set targets amount to nothing more than good intentions. To be effective, our position must be informed by science, enhanced by government and anchored in society's will. Only when society is fully engaged will our policies and strategies succeed.

The issue of climate change is real and it is complex. It is a fact that there is a discernible human influence on global climate change.

It is true that the world's scientists do not know the exact consequences. However it is a disservice to misrepresent to Canadians that the science is divided as some of my colleagues in this House have tried to do.

I actually understand why the Reform Party does not understand the science beyond this and it does not believe in global warming. I think it is because it still lives in the ice age.

As a northern and a marine nation we must be resolute in addressing this very serious problem. Global warming from a Canadian perspective is indeed a national problem. It challenges the environment of the town of Charlottetown, P.E.I. For the Reform members who actually represent some seats in western Canada, it also threatens the Fraser River delta in British Columbia.

This government's made in the U.S.A. approach is not leadership. The science and technology that addresses climate change is evolving. A target a decade or more away is likely to become irrelevant as the science continues to evolve. However the PC party will accept reaching 1990 levels by the year 2010 as an interim target as long as an implementation strategy accompanies this target.

The Minister of the Environment stated in this Chamber on October 22, 1997 in referring to the earth summit in Rio, “Frankly with respect when we made our commitment in Rio in 1992 we really were not aware of what we had to do to achieve our target”. The environment minister should heed her own advice. Without an implementation strategy we will not build on the global efforts of the past five years in Rio, Berlin and Geneva.

The government has been so focused on trying to arrive at a target that it has forgotten to develop an implementation strategy for home. It has been conspicuously quiet on its negotiating strategy in relation to economic instruments and in clarifying what is not on the Kyoto table. In no way should a Kyoto position include potential trade sanctions for any non-compliance.

As the auditor general has stated, the government has a vast implementation gap when addressing environmental issues.

Some hon. members across the way like to raise the record of the previous Conservative government to deflect attention away from their actions or lack thereof over the last four years on perhaps any subject.

My next comments may not be focused on the members in the House today, but they may be addressed to some of the individuals in the front row such as the finance minister, the defence minister, the fisheries minister and so on. The fisheries minister blamed us for the problems with respect to the salmon treaty when we were able to negotiate a deal.

If the Liberals want to compare records, our party is up to the challenge, especially with respect to the environment. Perhaps hon. members across they way forget that it was our party and our leader who developed the 1992 green plan. It was our government that brought in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to control toxins. This government has failed to pass one piece of significant environmental legislation. Our party was responsible for the Montreal protocol which committed over 24 nations to the reduction of ozone depleting gases. Today over 150 countries have ratified this protocol.

Even the finance minister is trying to get in on the act. He claims that when the Liberals came into government—we heard his tirade the other day—nothing had been done on the environment. I remind the finance minister that we signed an air quality accord with the U.S. to control air pollution. Under our government and our leader we announced further measures for acid rain control. Under our leader Canada was the first country to ratify the UN conventions on biodiversity and greenhouse gas emissions. Under our leader we introduced a national protocol on packaging to reduce waste.

This government's record cannot even begin to match what was accomplished for the environment when our party and our leader were in government. For this government the environment has not been a priority.

On the greenhouse gas debate the government has not fully engaged the public at large, NGOs, municipalities and for that matter the provinces. While the minister has claimed she has been in dialogue with the provinces, the fact remains this government has not come forth with initiatives or economic instruments that will enable citizens, municipalities or even the provinces to implement any accord derived from Kyoto.

The Progressive Conservative Party realizes that Kyoto is not a conclusion but rather a small yet significant step forward in our collective political, social, economic and industrial adaptation to meet the challenge of climate change. Our party's focus is on developing a strategy that will enable us to meet our obligations. We have also focused on the mechanisms our government must present to the world community to be developed with both the industrialized and developing nations.

A global problem like climate change requires global solutions. The debate on reducing emissions must move away from the focus on who will lose as opposed to how we get the job done with as many win-win solutions as possible. An international solution must include commitments to develop international emissions trading systems, a joint implementation strategy and an acknowledgement of Canada's potential to be a carbon sink.

Engagement of developing countries may be the most critical issue that challenges our ability to address global warming. Even if the industrialized nations are able to achieve significant reductions, the current rate of emissions growth in the developing world will still pose a problem.

Our made in Canada solution must be market driven, incentive based and focused on developing new technologies. New taxes are not part of a constructive solution.

The natural resource minister has said that progress toward a target can be made in setting energy efficiency standards, promoting technological advances and educating consumers on energy savings.

The minister is right, yet the government has lacked the initiative to implement a regime that supports these very comments. If the minister truly believes this is the case, why do we only allocate $20 million annually to promote investment in both energy efficiency and renewable energy?

Without adequate funding for research and development and energy efficiency, and without incentives for early action for industry, Canada will continue to lag behind competing nations in this field which is full of vast opportunities for Canadians.

The implementation gap must be closed on public education as well. Most Canadians are unaware the everyday choices they made on an individual level can make a real difference.

Since the government has taken office the number of energy efficient R-2000 homes being built in Canada has fallen by 55%. Governments have a responsibility to enhance and level the playing field for the development and adoption of renewable sources of energy. Equitable tax incentives must be introduced for wind, solar and expanded hydro supply of energy.

A modern transportation policy must be developed for the 21st century. Challenging the automotive industry to develop more energy efficient vehicles is a component. The transportation sector is responsible for over one-third of carbon dioxide emissions in Canada.

In addition, we must move away from using carbon intensive fuels, such as moving from coal to natural gas wherever possible. This no regrets philosophy is the cornerstone of developing a workable solution.

I reiterate that environmental decisions made by governments which will affect us greatly into the 21st century must be informed by science. These decisions, in turn, must be enhanced by government, which has the responsibility to enhance the collective will and to provide leadership. Only when policies and strategies are anchored in society's will can they succeed.

I close by quoting the hon. member for Davenport who stated in June 1994 “If our voices our strong, the speed of progress will be swift”.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, having only 10 minutes to comment is a very limited time on such a major issue.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the hon. member asking a question or making a comment on this speech?

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Then he does not have 10 minutes; he has five. He has less than that, in fact.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member his perception of something.

A premature view is evident among countries. The United States says that if China or other developing countries do not sign the agreement, the United States will not sign. The Regina agreement indicated that if the United States did not sign, Canada should not sign.

The member talked about a made in Canada solution. With Canada emitting 2% of total global emissions, does he believe that Canada could take the lead? Or, should Canada hold back and follow other nations? Should we be a role model for developing nations, as a developed country, or should we wait until everybody complies?

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He raises a very important issue.

It is possible that the result in Kyoto could be no deal. Just because there is no deal, does that mean we should continue our inaction on this issue? I say no.

We have to make an effort to engage the developing countries because China and India are the second and fifth largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the world. At a minimum we have to try to engage the developing nations. I believe we can work in a very constructive fashion to bring in a phased in program for the developing countries.

At the end of the day whatever position is reached in Kyoto, or perhaps not, the challenge before us from a Canadian perspective is to show a leadership role and to develop a very distinct implementation strategy for the country.