Debates of Nov. 26th, 1997

The Environment

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let me say how very pleased I am this evening to have the opportunity to participate in this very important debate in the run up to the Kyoto conference next month. I have to say in all honesty so far I feel a little like Alice in Wonderland.

First of all we were treated to some comments by the environment minister who I must say made a reasonably solid case. In fact I would say she made quite a convincing case for why we desperately need leadership from the Government of Canada to tackle the problems associated with climate change. It is the very environment minister who apparently has attempted but failed to persuade her colleagues of the critical importance of this challenge.

It leaves one somewhat worried. Once again we see an example of where the more progressive elements within the Liberal caucus—and I am certainly prepared to acknowledge that the environment minister falls within that category—are nevertheless overshadowed and prevailed upon by the regressive elements in the Liberal caucus. What we get instead is a total absence of leadership.

It is a situation where at this point in time we are coming up to Kyoto with absolutely no clear indication from the Government of Canada of where it stands and what it intends to do on behalf of the Canadian people who have elected them to office and who have been looking to them for leadership.

Then we heard the Reform leader again very effectively in his usual eloquent way damning the government for its record in regard to climate change. I want to quote directly and I hope I got the exact words. It seemed to me to be an absolutely classic statement by the Reform leader when he said that we have had a government “panting for a simplistic solution for a complex problem”. I have to say that I have never heard a better description of how the Reform Party of Canada conducts itself day in and day out in this House and outside of this Parliament in regard to practically every single issue of public policy.

We then heard the Reform leader once again make the case that who pays for this should be the single most important question. He went on, as he does so often, to define the public interest as being absolutely identical and equal to the concept of the taxpayers' interests. That vision of Canada is a bankrupt vision that is causing a lot of Canadians to lose heart these days about the amount of influence that the Reform Party has on the current federal government.

I think most Canadians see the issue of the public interest in a much broader way. They understand that it has something to do with citizenship, with community and with our sense of pride as a nation. To define the public interest in the narrowest possible terms as having exclusively to do with taxpayers' interests is an abdication of leadership it seems to me.

Finally we heard the Reform leader offer up his astounding statement about how in his view one had to recognize that there was, I guess, a pretty even balance between the international consensus that exists around the globe today among highly respected scientists, among independent peer review scientific evidence and the so-called scientific evidence that is offered up by the high paid lobbyists on behalf of the narrowest of economic interests.

To equate those two and say that they have to be balanced and they leave us not really knowing for sure whether the scientific evidence is sound is again, I think, an act of deception. It is the opposite of the kind of leadership that Canadians are looking to their parliamentarians to provide.

Moving on from there and travelling through this world of wonderland we then heard the Bloc leader. The Bloc leader in his comments tonight and the presentations that his colleagues have made in recent weeks have taken a more progressive view than the other two parties. It is certainly a more enlightened view with respect to the whole issue of climate change.

What we heard tonight was that in the process of the Bloc leader applauding the record of his own provincial government, the Government of Quebec, in regard to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, he really advanced one of the most convincing cases that I could ever hope to hear for why we need a strong federal government from coast to coast to coast in this country to provide leadership on this kind of issue.

The Bloc leader knows perfectly well that we live in an immensely diverse country, that we have very different regional economies, that the energy base and the economic base from one province to another differ greatly. I know he understands that given the fact the province of Quebec is blessed with a very generous amount of hydro energy, its economic base and its energy source are very different from those of provinces that depend upon a more carbon based energy source.

What he understands I am sure, and what I think increasingly Canadians are coming to understand, is how barren the notion is that somehow we should be able to lay on a uniform formula across the country and say every provincial government and the people of every province should expect to make the exact same contribution based on the exact same formula for greenhouse gas emission reduction.

That is not reality. We need to be clear that people sometimes try to make fun of the fact that European nations have come forward with the most progressive proposals for greenhouse gas reduction and that we understand the so called European bubble effect that allows for some flexibility across the European nations on which countries are going to be able reduce their greenhouse gas emissions most and in which particular way.

This is a phenomenon which also needs to be understood in the Canadian context. This is precisely why we desperately need leadership from the federal government. There are many different ways in which different parts of the country can and should be expected to contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. No uniform formula laid across the nation is going to do it. The impacts are going to be different. The measures are going to be different.

That is precisely the tragedy about the complete failure of the federal government to date to provide any real leadership in working with the provincial governments partners to achieve an overall strategy and to begin to address Canada's responsibility to meet its commitments made in Rio in 1992.

In answers to questions which I have raised, which others have raised, my colleagues in the NDP caucus and others in other caucuses as well, again and again we have heard members on the government side and a number of different ministers say do not talk to us, go and talk to the provinces. They do not seem willing to just sign on at the eleventh hour as we are on our way out of town to Kyoto. No wonder they are not able to just sign on. There has been absolutely no leadership from the government in any meaningful way for the past four years.

I am not in the habit of rushing to the defence of the Conservative caucus. I thought this debate around greenhouse gas emissions reached an all time level absurdity when I heard I believe the finance minister or some minister on the front benches of the government rip into the Conservative leader who was pushing for progress on this, saying it was really your fault because he was the energy minister in Rio in 1992 and you came back to Canada and you completely failed to implement a comprehensive strategy that would move us in the direction of meeting our commitments made in Rio in 1992. Think about the absurdity of it.

I profess no expertise in what went on before I came to this Parliament, but it is my understanding that such measures did begin to get under way in 1992 and into early 1993. One is hard pressed to find that the current Liberal government has done much of anything every since.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Ten points for honesty.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I did not hear the comment of my hon. colleague, Mr. Speaker.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Ten points for honesty.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I appreciate that. The Conservative leader has said that at least you get some points for honesty.

Canadians want to see honesty in this debate. Canadians want to see integrity in this debate. What they want to see is a federal government that is willing to tell the truth to Canadians. Yes, we have a lot of work to do to catch up. No, we have not made any significant progress whatsoever in the direction of meeting our commitments.

We talk in terms of meeting our commitments in Rio in 1992. What we need to be very clear about is that in 1992 nations around the world began to face up to the fact that it was going to take a global effort to begin to address what is a growing crisis with respect to climate change.

It is a matter of weeks before the government goes to the international conference in Kyoto to represent the interests of Canadians. We do not have a clue what the position of the Government of Canada will be on our behalf. It is absolutely humiliating.

Surely the Prime Minister of Canada must have felt some sense of embarrassment that before leaving Canada, the Prime Minister of Japan joined the chorus of concerned Canadians in pleading for the Prime Minister of Canada to finally make his position known with respect to the upcoming conference in Kyoto. I am sure that is not what the Prime Minister had in mind when he invited the Prime Minister of Japan to participate in the APEC conference.

I would suggest that it is darn well time that the Prime Minister started to understand that the very government which is responsible to provide leadership on this issue is far behind the Canadian public, and that is an embarrassment. It certainly gives a very different notion of this government's idea of what leadership is all about.

So far the position of the Canadian government is a sort of half-hearted commitment that we will do a little better than the United States at Kyoto. The government argues that the reason for not being more specific about it is because it needs some flexibility at Kyoto.

Given the record of this government on climate change and its failure to provide any meaningful leadership on greenhouse gas emission reductions, Canadians generally are nervous that the kind of flexibility which the Government of Canada wants is flexibility that will allow it to drop below whatever commitment the U.S. makes with respect to climate change. Why else would we have the government arguing that it needs flexibility instead of setting its sights higher and talking about developing the kind of strategy which is necessary to ensure that we achieve those targets?

It is absolutely critical that the Government of Canada go to Kyoto and stake out a strong position. If we continue to ignore the signs and the damaging effects of a changing climate, then we have acted extremely irresponsibly with respect to future generations of Canadians.

Despite the hysteria of the Reform Party on this issue, the science is clear. Yes, of course there are some scientists who will say they are not completely convinced by the evidence they see that the problem is of the magnitude that the overwhelming consensus of scientists have assessed it to be.

We have heard scientist after scientist after scientist provide evidence that I think has to be taken seriously. As I say, there is an international consensus that this is a problem that we have a responsibility to face up to as a family of nations.

I do not know what is the most accurate prediction, but when one hears large numbers of respected scientific bodies predicting, for example, that by the year 2100 the average global temperature will increase by 3.5° Celsius, we know that we have a very serious problem on our hands and that the full impact of changes that will result from those kinds of climate changes, those kinds of temperature increases, would be absolutely devastating.

There would be more frequent and severe hurricanes and storms, widespread drought in some areas. In other areas there would be flooding, the extinction of many plant and animal species, widespread coastal flooding and erosion and even the disappearance of low-lying islands. We are talking about islands of human beings that could literally disappear into the ocean if we do not face up to this problem and take some leadership. There would be massive economic losses in forestry, agriculture and fisheries for example.

We have heard a lot of arguments in this House in recent weeks, particularly from Reform but also from the regressive wing of the Liberal Party that seems to prevail in this debate, that we need to know the costs associated with meeting our commitments at Rio and any commitments that we make at Kyoto.

Let me say that I absolutely agree with that. Of course we need to know the cost. What I think a lot of Canadians find objectionable and what my colleagues and I find absolutely profoundly ignorant is the viewpoint that keeps getting put forward again and again that somehow there are no real costs associated with not doing anything about dealing with the impending crisis in climate change.

Make no mistake about it, there are significant costs. There are economic costs, environmental costs and health costs associated with the do-nothing approach that this Liberal government has taken to date with respect to climate change.

What scientists, doctors, economists, environmentalists all understand and what the government and my colleagues on the far right steadfastly refuse to understand is that doing something to reduce greenhouse gases, to taking up this challenge of dealing with the crisis of climate change can actually be a powerful job creator. The economy can and should benefit from addressing this problem if it is addressed responsibly, if it is addressed comprehensively and if it is addressed in an innovative way.

Preventing global warming means investing in people and in businesses who are developing clean technologies. It means investing in new technologies like solar and wind power that create jobs.

What Canada needs is a comprehensive plan that includes building retrofits, that includes electricity reform, that includes more fuel efficient vehicles, greater access to public transit and greater industrial innovation, all of which can be powerful job creators.

Let me give one example. The climate action network and the Sierra Club have developed a rational energy program, a program that calculates measures to reduce greenhouse gases and create jobs. Their proposal, which has been analysed by respected economists, would indicate that over a five year period the measures that they have proposed are capable of creating over 500,000 jobs, over half a million jobs.

The tragedy about how little this government has done to get on with this task is that it is not only important to do for environmentally sound reasons, it is not only important to do for energy conservation reasons, it is also important to do in a country that continues to have close to a million and a half people unemployed.

Surely any government worth its salt, any government that is prepared to call itself a leader has to understand that there can only be a win-win situation in environmental and economic terms resulting from our taking hold of this problem and getting on with it.

Let me just cite a couple of examples of the kind of job creation outcomes and the kind of job creation programs that are proposed by those who have taken a serious look and carefully analysed what it is we need to do.

Building retrofit programs that conserve energy. Some members scoff at that and say it sounds like Mickey Mouse stuff. The reality is that thousands and thousands of jobs can be created in comprehensive retrofitting programs and they can be paid for in the savings effected in energy consumption.

Urban transit and other transportation initiatives. It is not rocket science. It is not as if we were waiting for some kind of invention to know what to do. But the tragedy is that this government has virtually gutted some of the programs that had us on the right course with respect to a bigger commitment to public transit for example.

There are other jobs created through supporting research and development that are capable of greater energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.

There are additional economic benefits to reducing the effects of global warming. Direct savings in energy costs are a direct benefit. For those who insist on talking only about the costs associated with our tackling this problem, it is time to look at what some of the real benefits can be.

There is the growth of energy efficient and renewable energy technologies and the avoidance of environmental damage and health costs associated with pollutants such as sulphur dioxide that accompany greenhouse gases.

We heard earlier this week scientific evidence and some of it coming directly from the environment department about how worrisome it is to see the increasing health problems associated with greenhouse gas emissions and how much more severe that problem is going to be if we do not very quickly get on with addressing it in an urgent way. The fact is that our global environment simply cannot absorb our ever increasing pollution.

At the same time here in Canada and even more desperately in developing countries like China and India, people need jobs so that they can feed their families and they can achieve a decent standard of living. The people and the businesses that can develop clean and efficient technologies, that can take up this challenge will address those two fundamental needs, the need for jobs and the need to ensure a clean environment for future generations.

We already see evidence that innovative businesses that can accomplish this twin objective are going to be in great demand around the world. They will be the employers of the future who can provide competitive and exciting jobs and opportunities for our young people. Surely we need no reminder that this must be a very high priority since we live in a country where some 25% of our young people are unemployed and their first experience with a job is no job at all.

If we act now to prevent global warming, we can win on both counts. We can win in respect to jobs and we can win in respect to a cleaner environment. If we get on with it, we can lay the cornerstone for a new dynamic and a cleaner economy.

It is on that basis that my colleagues and I embraced a policy to commit to the reduction of greenhouse gases by 20% from 1990 levels by the year 2005. Some will say that surely that goal is no longer realistic. It certainly is true that this government has provided so little leadership and there has been so little progress in getting on with the kind of comprehensive measures that are needed that it does seem very difficult to imagine how we can attain those objectives. I have heard no argument as to why we should not get on urgently with beginning to tackle the job.

In case government members need a reminder, these targets were not pulled out of thin air. These targets could not be described as totally irresponsible and irrational. We remind the Liberal members that in their own red book in the 1993 election, they stated very clearly that that goal was attainable.

I believe the finance minister in his bid for the leadership of the Liberal Party said that we could do better than those reduction levels. The Liberals came to office in 1993 and the previous environment minister committed herself to those levels. She did so in writing. Surely it cannot be said that these are completely irresponsible, irrational targets to put forward.

The problem is that this government is going to Kyoto virtually empty handed without being able to demonstrate any progress toward these objectives because it has failed to put in place the kind of comprehensive strategies that are needed to ensure we make progress toward those objectives.

As important as it is for us to go to Kyoto and enter into an agreement to achieve some reasonable progressive levels of greenhouse gas emissions reductions, the real work begins when the delegation returns from Kyoto. We must ensure that we put in place the kind of plan of action that was not put in place after Rio. We need a plan that can get us on a path both to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to enhance our economy and our environment.

Some would say that surely this is all just a pipe dream, that it is not realistic, that it is just a lot of talk, that we do not really have at hand the concrete measures that are needed. That is simply not true. We talked briefly about Germany. The German government has actually implemented 109 different measures to tackle the problem of climate change. That means making a real commitment that goes far beyond the kind of token measures that the Government of Canada holds up and says “No, no, we are doing something”. It means going far beyond the voluntary programs and putting in place solid regulatory regimes and putting in place the kind of incentive programs that will produce real results.

Comprehensive programs to assist companies to become more environmentally sound and more energy efficient. Measures to assist the construction and expansion of public transit in its many different forms. Measures with the benefit of federal funding to put in place more energy efficient forms of housing and public buildings. What we have seen in the last couple of years is the Liberal government pulling the plug on its commitment to social housing for example, at a time when there is a job to be done here that would help us move in the direction of greater energy efficiency.

In conclusion, I simply want to once again reiterate the plea to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of the Environment and to the entire Liberal government to begin taking this seriously, to begin to understand and tell Canadians the truth, that we can only win, it can be a win-win scenario for Canadians in terms of both jobs and the environment if we get on with the task. Let me say that the failure to do so is a failure to protect the interests, the health and the livelihood of future generations of Canadians.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I participate in this debate with a great deal of anticipation given the importance of this issue and the personal interest I have in it and the interest my caucus has also taken in this issue.

I can certainly report to the House that our critic for the environment, the hon. member for Fundy—Royal who is only 33 years old and one of the newest members but one that we are very proud of, has worked extremely hard in helping us develop this position. He is not alone. He is going to join a number of members of this place and other houses in all political parties who over the years have cared a great deal about this issue.

I want to single out tonight the fact that we do have in the House of Commons the past Minister of the Environment, the member for Davenport, who has served in that portfolio in the past. I want to use this opportunity tonight to tell members that when I had the privilege of being the head of Canada's delegation in Rio, he accompanied the delegation.

I had the opportunity of doing some events with him and he was well remembered. I remember this distinctly because I thought gee, one day I may retire from the department. He was well remembered by his colleagues. He has maintained an interest in this issue, a sincere and real interest. He is here tonight. He is one of those who has made a lasting contribution to this debate.

Also the member for Lac-Saint-Louis was the minister of environment in the province of Quebec and the parliamentary secretary for environment. I had the added pleasure of working with him on a few key issues, cross-border issues. He was one of the most appreciated, well remembered ministers of environment ever in the province of Quebec. And so what, he is on the wrong side of the House.

A number of people have taken a keen interest in this issue. I do want to take a second to thank the leader of the NDP for her remarks in regard to Rio, in regard to the record. It is in fact a rare occurrence in this House when a member is able and gracious enough to correct the record in that way.

I suspect it may have something to do with the fact that a past member from the riding of Rosedale if I remember correctly was also part of the Canadian delegation. He himself was very involved in the leadership and in the way the delegation was conducted. He would have some intimate knowledge of what happened in Rio. And so, Mr. Speaker, on that lighter note I want to offer some of our views on this very important issue.

First, I would like to direct my remarks as to how this whole issue of environment and sustainable development relates to Canada and to the future of our country by saying as succinctly but as clearly as I can how important an issue it is for Canada more than any other country in the world. There are a few reasons for this. First is because we have this great land mass. We have the second biggest country in the world in terms of land mass. We have three oceans that surround us. We have a very fragile northern environment. For this reason alone this issue of climate change and global warming will have more impact on us by virtue of the geography than any other country.

There is another reason that is even more compelling, the economic reason. I stress here of all the developed countries in the world, not developing, Canada is the country that depends the most on its natural resources, in other words on its environment, to earn its way. That is of all the developed countries. We can easily understand why.

Think of what our economy is made of. What is it? It is the forestry sector with pulp and paper and softwood lumber. The mining industry was in town today lobbying on some of its concerns. The mining industry is very prominent in this country. Of course fishing on both coasts, even in the north, is very important. Think of the time and energy that we put into those issues, as my own caucus has put into fishing issues in this country. Then we can go on with energy, whether it is hydroelectric energy or hydrocarbons, and of course agriculture. The list goes on and on.

Let me repeat, of all the developed countries in the world Canada is the country that depends the most on its environment to earn its way. We live off our environment.

For us, this issue is not just one of trying to determine whether we want a pristine landscape or the Rockies or whether we enjoy the sight of the ocean. Actually our livelihood depends on how we will manage this environment and there is actually more to it than that, the future of our own children. Their standard of living will depend on how we manage this environment today. For that reason alone this is an extremely important issue for Canada. I would venture to say that this issue, all things being relative, is more important to Canada, whether it is global warming or other environment issues, than to any other developed country in the world that I know of.

There is another twist to this. If it is true we have this big land mass, that we depend on our environment to earn our way, let me add this other element that will really bring home how important environment issues are going to be for Canada.

We are also now one of the countries in the world most dependent on trade. Because of the success of the 1988 free trade agreement, because of the success of NAFTA, because of the role we have played in furthering the interest in the WTO, Canada is, with Germany, the developed country that depends the most on trade to maintain its standard of living. I think it is probably close now to 40% of our gross domestic product.

By the way, for those who may be surprised by that statistic, maybe we need to remind them that how could it be otherwise. How could we otherwise explain that a country of 30 million people only, if we put it in the context of the G-7, could have such a high standard of living if it were not for the fact that we sell abroad? Trade for us is important, so important that the jobs that have been created in Canada in the last few years have been created because of an increase in trade, in particular, trade with the United States since the signing of the 1988 free trade agreement. Had it not been for the trade agreement and the jobs that ensued in the last few years Canada would have been in a recession and we would not have had any jobs created. That is how significant it is.

Let me finally try to tie this together. Our land mass is very vulnerable. We live off our environment. We are dependent on trade. This also means that of all the countries in the world on this issue we are very vulnerable.

If ever there were to be a movement for green protectionism in the world, and there are signs of that, of sanctions leveraged against countries that are not perceived as respecting environmental standards, Canada would suffer, immediately and immeasurably.

I will speak to some of the comments of our colleague, the leader of the Reform Party, who based all his arguments on science. In all honesty and sincerity I would have to add this to the colleagues of the Reform Party. They would be wise to pay attention to the fact that in the international marketplace science may not have a lot to do with decisions taken by certain countries that perceive Canada as not living up to environmental standards. If they come to the conclusion, right or wrong, that we are not respecting environmental standards and they decide to act against us, we will be in big trouble.

Do not take my word for it. Ask those in the pulp and paper industry. Ask those companies that try to sell paper abroad what they went through in the early 1990s. I will forever remember as minister of environment the industry's asking me to bring in tougher environmental regulations which cost the industry between $3 billion and $5 billion in adjustment. This was at a low time in the cycle while it was coming out of a recession. Why was it asking for the regulations? It was getting hammered in the marketplace by its European competitors that were accusing it of not living up to the environmental standards that they were supposedly imposing on themselves.

Let us be under no illusion here. It is great to talk about the science, which I do want to talk about, but there is more to it than that. Let us look at this issue in terms of our self-interest as Canadians. We need to understand that we have an opportunity for some enlightened self-interest. The enlightened self-interest of Canada is to be ahead of the game in the area of the environment. We should be ahead of the game whether in terms of sustainable development, the pulp and paper industry or global warming, energy or sulphur dioxide emissions.

If we are not ahead of the game, if we are not doing as well or better than the highest standards of our competitors in this area, we are vulnerable to sanctions and we will be the first to suffer. We will suffer environmentally, from a standard of living perspective and also from an economic perspective. That is the bottom line.

I have some good news for those listening who may be scared of these issues. As many Canadians, they may see these issues as insurmountable problems. There is reason to feel that way at the outset. When we are confronted with this problem of global warming it is complicated and technically difficult to understand. We hear of scenarios of countries being gobbled up by the sea with rising sea levels, terrible catastrophes if we do not deal with the problem. The same is true for a number of environmental issues.

I want to share this good news with those Canadians listening tonight. When we were confronted with similar problems, when we faced them head on based on good science, good common sense, strong political will and clear leadership, we were able to make real progress in dealing with some equally difficult issues.

I would like to say it was only under Progressive Conservative governments but I cannot, although I am very proud of the role we played. I am extremely proud of the role former prime minister Brian Mulroney played on the world stage. He was known and he has a clear record as one Canadian prime minister who made this one of his top issues.

I have other examples of success stories for everyone in the area of the environment. One of them is the Montreal protocol of 1987. If memory serves me correctly, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis attended that conference as minister of environment for the province of Quebec in 1987. He is saying yes, and that may explain why it was partially successful.

In 1987 we were faced with the issue of ozone depletion. Let me point out to the leader of the Reform Party who went on ad nauseam about science that what he said tonight about science are things we heard only a few years ago about ozone depleting substances.

As far back as 1985 we heard exactly the same thing coming from the naysayers who denied that there was any problem at all. Now we are stuck. Future generations of Canadians are stuck with a problem that is still going to be around in 50 years from now. Why? Because there are a number of people who did not want to admit that there was a problem until they had the absolute, total truth.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

The smoking gun.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

The smoking gun, the member for Davenport says as an example. I remember that. They wanted the smoking gun. They discovered the smoking gun in 1985 and now there is a number of people who think it was too late.

Nonetheless, the Montreal protocol was signed and there are very real examples of progress to follow with regard to what it has been able to accomplish.

First of all, one of the things done in the Montreal protocol was the recognition for the first time that developing countries and developed countries needed to be treated differently. There was a very lucid view brought to the signing of that agreement in 1987 to the effect that if we imposed on developing countries the same standards we were going to ask of developed countries, they would never live up to them, it would never happen; that it was wiser and better to actually impose and ask them to adopt a different schedule that was slower, but at least allow them to meet the targets. That is what was done, and done successfully.

The second thing I remember about the Montreal protocol that was successful was the commitment to develop substitutes to ozone depleting substances like CFCs, thus the development in Canada in particular of HCFCs which, by the way, let us be very clear, are not pollution free products. In fact, there are no pollution free products. They do not exist. But they were a substitute that was a lot less damaging than CFCs. Real progress was marked and we were able to move from there.

From the Montreal protocol on, we were able to make some real progress and today this is an issue that I think is well understood. The science is well established. It happened maybe a little too late. It did happen too late, actually, for people who continued to be the naysayers, but here is an example where Canada, I am proud to say, played a very real role in bringing about an environmental agreement that worked.

The same is true in the second example about sulphur dioxide emissions. Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, what sulphur dioxide emissions are about? I know the member for Davenport and also the member for Lac-Saint-Louis know what I am talking about. I am talking about acid rain.

Acid rain was probably the number one issue, one of the number one irritants between Canada and the United States in the 1980s. It was one of the top issues between the previous Conservative government and the Government of the United States from 1984 to 1990. I remember what was said in industry, much as the leader of the Reform Party said tonight, when confronted with the importance of our cleaning up our own house first.

Those who were there will remember that Canada could only make a case to its southern neighbour if it started by cleaning up its own act. So we had to make a commitment to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions at home, which we did in the signing of an agreement, if I remember correctly either in 1986 or 1987, committing us to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by 20%. Low and behold, if we went back and saw the record and the reaction of industry at the time, which I am sure was sincere, it said it could not be done, that this would kill jobs, that it would kill the economy. Guess what. It had exactly the reverse effect.

Again I want to be cautious. My memory may not be exactly correct on this, but it was Inco in the region of Val D'Or in northern Quebec. Through this commitment it was forced, coerced, into reviewing its production processes and by doing that not only did it reduce sulphur dioxide emissions, but it was able to reduce the cost of producing its product. That is one of the consequences, one of the very positive consequences that emerged from that initiative. Yet it was not described as that from the beginning.

In fact, what we heard was very similar to what the leader of the Reform Party said tonight, the sky is falling, from the reverse side of the coin. There is a real example.

Then we went on from there to sign an agreement, the clean air agreement of 1990, with the American government.

The problem of acid rain is not solved, far from it. We should debate that another day because there are issues on the horizon with regard to that agreement. We certainly met our objective at the time. We made progress since then. We were proud of what we were able to accomplish.

I hope this language is not unparliamentary but it needs to be said because much like the leader of the Reform Party tonight, the American president at the time, Mr. Reagan, also said there was no acid rain problem. Some members may remember because it was reported—I do not know whether it was true—that apparently the American president, Mr. Reagan, said that acid rain was caused by “duck shit”.

The Minister of Natural Resources has said that though it may not be the best parliamentary language, he can live with it. Being at the cabinet table I will take his word for it.

Does that not remind us of how some political leaders can get embroiled in their own rhetoric and ignore the science or the basics? Yet we had to persevere. Yes, we did and we were able to come to an agreement.

I want to speak on the science aspect. Let me be very clear that I am not a scientist. In fact, when I was minister of the environment it was one of the most challenging areas for me to deal with. Believe me, ministers who have been there know how tough a department it is. It is a department that is on the cutting edge of science, of law and of public administration. It is very challenging.

We are lucky in Canada because we have within the Department of the Environment some of the best scientists in the world. We certainly have the best public servants in the world.

I will take a second to attest tonight that when we were in Rio, Canada's delegation was the best served delegation in the world with regard to its public servants. Whether it was the Department of Foreign Affairs, CIDA, natural resources, energy at the time or the Department of the Environment, they represented the absolute best, no question asked, of public servants in the world. It is still true today.

When as a layman in the department I had to rely on them for science, I found them to be rigorous and honest in their assessment. I also found it was very useful for me to have no knowledge of science, because by the time they explained it to me and I could figure it out I could explain it to anyone else. That was a real advantage for me.

On science, just to reassure Canadians, there is no one who takes it lightly. We have in excess of 150 countries involved in the agreement signed in Rio. Does anyone think for a second that all these countries got involved in it, not caring what the consequences would be and what it would lead to? Of course not. I do not take it for granted that they were all right because they were all there, but I can report how the science was developed. Again Canada was intimately involved.

There was a conference here in 1988 on the changing atmosphere in Canada. From that conference emerged the commitment to put together an international panel on climate change, known as the IPCC, which then produced a report and followed it up with others. The latest was in 1966 at the Geneva conference that resulted in the declaration calling for commitments to control emissions in a post-2000 era to be legally binding.

The conference also endorsed the IPCC climate change 1995 report which concluded that the balance of evidence—and the words here are carefully chosen—marks a “discernible human influence on the global climate”, which has a destabilizing impact on the globe's ecosystem.

There is no one who ever pretended for a single second that the science in this regard was ironclad and absolute. Rarely is the science on anything ironclad and absolute. To pretend or imply that is the case is to deliberately mislead. That should never be allowed to happen.

Beyond that, I can certainly reassure Canadians we are working on very solid science that has been verified. I hear members of the Reform Party laughing.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

What do you know about science, Jean?

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

The member asks what I know about science. I wonder what he knows about science. I know what international science knows. That is why the international panel was put together.

The leader of the Reform Party tonight only reminded me of the other scientists we heard from recently who are still arguing that cigarette smoke is good for your health.

We could use exactly the same line, because there will always be a scientist somewhere who will say that smoking does not harm your health at all. They are out there. If he wants to line up with them as a member of the flat earth society, fine, but it speaks to those who continue to dwell in this paranoia.

I assure Canadians that with regard to the science this is a very solid case.

I would like to take a few minutes to discuss the process that has failed and that preceded this conference on climate changes in Kyoto. This in my opinion is where we find the greatest difference in approach between the current government and the Rio conference.

The minister is well aware, she is present this evening, she was also in Rio at the earth summit, as was the current Minister of Finance. What I want to point out this evening is that in the months and years prior to the earth summit in Rio, the government of the day made a commitment to involve the main actors, the principal decision makers in the delegation.

We did something fairly rare, we involved the provincial governments, environmental groups and the business community from the outset. We opened wide the doors to permit access to all government officials. We even involved municipal governments. The minister will recall that the mayor of Montreal attended the earth summit in Rio along with other big city mayors.

With this approach we wanted to reflect the very nature of our federation in the decisions made in Rio. There were four essential elements. There was what was termed Agenda 21, which was the basic document, the overall framework, making commitments on a number of subjects. There was also a proposal for a convention on climate changes, the topic this evening.

There was a second convention proposed on protecting biodiversity. The fourth document discussed at Rio was an agreement on forest management, which we wanted to see made into a convention, but there were objections by the developing countries when it came down to doing so.

In order to ensure that Canada could exercise its full authority at Rio and use its influence to the maximum, we acknowledged right from the very start the importance of involving all stakeholders. This was a wise decision for us, and I am very proud of that decision because it is an example of how Canadian federalism must operate.

So much so, that we also decided, within that context, to have an open delegation, which is to say that ordinary citizens had access to public servants. They could influence decisions, whether the department was Natural Resources, Energy, or Environment. As well, these people were directly accountable to them.

Every morning at Rio, there was a meeting of the Canadian delegation. Some mornings we were close to 200 people, with everyone taking part and being informed of the decisions of the day and the way we would be proceeding. For us, and for Canada, this was an extraordinary experience.

When we are told—and I take this opportunity to clarify this—when somebody tells us that we made commitments at Rio and did not know what we were doing, that is false. The attitude of all countries in attendance at Rio in making commitments was “We don't know exactly how we will stabilize levels, but we are committed to taking precise steps in order to reach an assessment of the actions to be taken”.

But to claim that in Rio we deliberately signed an agreement not knowing what we were doing, or misleading people into thinking we were going to do something when we did not know what, is false. It is completely false to make this kind of insinuation. The members who were there know that it was a very open process.

In his speech a few minutes ago the leader of the Bloc Quebecois illustrated just how open it was when he told us that only two governments in Canada ratified the agreement on climatic change. In fact, it was three governments, because the government of which I was a member ratified it. We were the first government in the world, among those who signed the Rio agreement, to do so. This Parliament was the first Parliament to ratify it.

We were followed by the Government of British Columbia and the Government of Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois leader himself pointed this out. I am sorry to turn his argument against him and I do not do so out of malice, but let us admit that it is hard to resist reminding Bloc members that this is one of the very successes of our federalism. Here we have the proof, and he himself admitted that the approach we took in Rio made it possible for the Government of Quebec to participate fully in the decision, actually formally ratifying the treaty on climatic change.

Now they remind us that only Quebec and British Columbia did so. Surely there must be provincial governments in Canada that are less federalist than Quebec is now. This, for us, is a demonstration of what federalism can be when this kind of issue is tackled the way it must be tackled.

I am sorry today to have to say the opposite. For some reason I do not understand, and I really do not understand, I wonder why the provincial governments were not involved from the start. I do not know why. They should have been though. The same applies to the private sector and environmental groups. However, that is not what we feel. In any case, if we are to believe the reaction of the people involved, this should not be the case. I do not know about the environmental groups. But the provincial governments were not involved from the start.

I can only conclude this evening that, basically, the Liberals have reverted quickly to their usual style. They do not tend to involve the provinces. It does not come naturally to them. This is why we find ourselves in the rather awkward situation of having a federal-provincial conference a few days before the conference, with the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources in attendance. I acknowledge their good faith, but we have to admit they got no help from their cabinet colleagues. My sympathy. It must be tough in cabinet. I can see them around the table. They raise their hands, and the Prime Minister gives them each a turn. The Minister of the Environment probably said “Mr. Prime Minister, Kyoto is coming up”. And the Prime Minister replied “Next item on the agenda. We will get to it”.

I am exaggerating a bit, but this cannot be far from reality. Otherwise, how do we explain that we are on the eve of an international conference with monumental consequences for Canada and we are so ill prepared. It is a disaster.

And this is disastrous, not only disastrous politically, but also because it raises the following question: how are we going to implement the decisions taken at Kyoto, if the provincial governments are not fully involved in the debate?

Even if the federal government were to come back to Canada with a commitment to a 20% reduction within ten years, if no provincial government is involved, nothing will happen, period.

This is very serious. This government must, unfortunately, be told that the fault lies, in this connection at least, with the fact that there is a lot of catching up to do if we are to prove to Canadians that they are capable of making this federation move in the direction of real progress, so that an issue like climatic change can be successful.

As we now look ahead to this conference and its results, it is very difficult for other parties in the House of Commons, given the lack of preparation, to give a commitment, to give a good sense of what Canada's commitment should be. I am being very honest tonight as we try to assess ourselves. We have been as honest and forthright as we can in trying to estimate what Canada's position should be.

Given the lack of work done around this, it is going to be very difficult for anyone to put forward a position. I thought the leader of the NDP was quite courageous tonight. She expressed the view that her party would support a 20% reduction in 1990 levels by the year 2005. That is very ambitious. I would beg to disagree with the leader of the NDP on that. I would think given the circumstances and what we know, that is beyond what is reasonable.

The leader of the Reform Party has shied away. He is still arguing that there is a world plot against Canada. The skies probably let them figure that out, a world plot working against us. Apart from that fact, he would probably defend that cigarette smoking is good for your health.

He also says that the government cannot make the difference between good and bad science. One of the arguments he gave for that is that apparently there are very few science stories in the clipping service of the government. Now there is a good scientific measurement. There is a real test of absolute rigour. I hope no one from any other country is listening. This is embarrassing.

I have to congratulate him on developing the Meech Lake effect because the Meech Lake effect extends all the way into the Reform caucus. Everyone will remember Meech Lake.

The leader of the Reform Party has made a career of arguing against the distinct society clause but he may not have picked this up. The government has said a few times that the unique character clause means exactly the same thing as the distinct society clause and now he is in favour of the unique character clause. I guess that is new science also.

I guess we will leave him alone with the grand plot to unthrow the world.

I want to add in regard to the position that we in this party, in this caucus, will support the position that Canada should strive to stabilize its 1990 greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2010 as was agreed to by the provincial governments, except for one provincial government, that of Quebec. That is the position this government will bring into this conference.

We view this as being an interim position or a position that we take going into the conference that will be susceptible to change as Canada emerges from the Kyoto conference hopefully better enlightened about what the world community is ready to do and committed to develop a real action plan and not allow this issue again to go back to, not to put a pun on it, the back burner of the cabinet.

Among the things we would like to see this government speak to very clearly in regard to Canada's position are these few. First of all, much as we did in the case of sulphur dioxide emissions, which is a success story, that proves this can be done. We need to recognize that in Canada there has to be regional variances. The economy of Alberta is not the same as the economy of the province of Quebec. We have to recognize these differences to allow each region of Canada to carry its fair share of the load.

For example, the Canadian petroleum producers make the argument that part of the greenhouse gas emissions they produce, a good part of the increase is due to exports they send to the United States. I think they make a very good case to the effect that the increase in economic activity happening in another country has had an effect on greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. In all fairness it should be recognized that they in that respect carry a heavier burden than other regions of Canada vis-à-vis the United States and there has to be some recognition of that.

That is the first principle we would like to see the government adopt as it goes to this conference and emerges with a position.

The second one has to do with joint implementation. Here Canada should really lead the way. Canada takes great pride in the role it plays in developing countries. Here is a real opportunity for us to recognize that if we wanted to have the biggest bang for our buck in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, if we wanted to have the most effect at the most rapid rate, we would certainly put the bulk of our resources in helping developing countries acquire basic technologies. We do not have to get the last version of the best high technology in the world, but basic technologies to help them diminish greenhouse gas emissions.

By doing this we would help the cause in a way that would be measurable quite rapidly. We would also help developing countries have a better environment within their own land mass and ecosystems. We would also help them have more productive means of producing energy. It makes sense all around. It makes sense for us. It makes sense for them. This should be an issue on which Canada should lead in Kyoto on joint implementation.

I hope the minister will do that, that cabinet will press that and that the government will do it. We will certainly back them up on this so that we can receive credits for the efforts that we were able to allow. Again this will allow Canada to continue to play a lead role in the world in promoting these technologies elsewhere.

The third principle should be some flexibility also in the commitments we make. This is a little more complicated and it is new. What we should strive for if we want an honest and lucid agreement is an agreement emerging from Kyoto that would allow some countries to have a different target and to vary that target given their own realities.

Canada in this respect is a very solid example. Our land mass, our climate, the distances. There are obvious reasons why we would produce more energy per capita than other countries in the world. Given this reality, given the efforts that we are ready to put into this issue, there are good solid reasons why we could also have recognition of some differences and some variation in the commitments that different countries make.

The fourth principle is one I and my party are very interested in and which carries a great deal of potential. That is the use of economic instruments. Here we have to be clear. Economic instruments in the area of the environment embrace a broad range of tools, including carbon taxes to which we are opposed. We are opposed to the use of carbon taxes. Let me take a second to explain why.

We already use energy in our country for the purposes of taxation. We hear our American neighbours talk about carbon taxes and they compare them to Canada and forget one essential element. In the southern part of the United States and in most parts of the United States the gasoline at the pump is not used as a source of taxation. In Canada it is. In this respect we could argue that we already have a carbon tax. Going that route from our perspective is certainly not the best idea.

But there are many other instruments available to us, including tradable permits. This is something rather difficult to understand for the public. It was developed around the acid rain agreement on sulphur dioxide emissions. Our American neighbours are using it. I have heard that for the first time in the last few months these permits are actually being traded and profits are being made. This seems to demonstrate at the outset that they will work. I say seem to because it is very early in the area of tradable permits to determine whether they absolutely work, but they seem to carry a great deal of promise for reasons I believe in.

If we are able to offer real economic incentives to deal with this issue, we will get results. We live in a market based economy. A market based economy works if it is directed toward incentives that allow and encourage people to be more efficient with the environment and with their greenhouse gas emissions.

Tradable permits could very well and should be part of the initiatives that Canada embraces. The American president in the statement on the American position has alluded to the fact that they are interested in such a system on a world basis. We could certainly interpret from that that if he is interested in a tradable permit system on a world basis, geography being what it is, we happen to be neighbours and it would involve us. Certainly any initiative that goes beyond the United States will have a continental impact and we would be natural partners in implementing such a system.

I encourage the minister to do that. I encourage both ministers. But I encourage you to start doing the homework because the government failed in doing its homework around this. You failed in doing the homework around this, Mr. Speaker. Not you personally, Mr. Speaker. I know you have been nodding incessantly since I have been talking, positively, and I thank you for that. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources should not assume that any movement of your head has the same significance for him as it would have for me.

I want to say to the government that on this issue it has certainly failed any reasonable test of following up on work that had been left behind. There was a commitment that the environment and finance departments would produce a working paper on this. The paper that was produced was quite weak. The introduction described the paper in very clear language, that the mandate was very narrow, and the work was quite weak.

The government should be encouraged since others have taken up the cause. The environmental commission in Montreal which was struck as a result of NAFTA has done some excellent work in this area. That commission would be able to help all countries, especially the three NAFTA countries, to develop a tradable permit system.

Fifth, the government should get some recognition for the management of our carbon sink. For those who are unfamiliar with a carbon sink, it is an ecosystem that is able to absorb carbon dioxide, our forests being an example.

The best known carbon sink in the world is the Amazon forest, which we would feel very strongly about because we do not live in the Amazon. There are people all over the world who would be very shocked at the idea that the Amazon forest would be cut down. This would naturally preoccupy us since the Amazon represents the most important carbon sink in the world, although the oceans are also carbon sinks. Carbon sinks absorb carbon dioxide.

Canada's land mass contains 10% of the world's forests. We have a responsibility in the management of our forests in terms of softwood lumber and other issues today and tomorrow for our children's sake, and for those who work in the industry. Canada has come a long way in the last few years in the way it manages its forests. There is a lot of enlightened self-interest involved here also. Although I understand it will be difficult for us to get recognition for that, we should get some recognition for the carbon sinks.

Others have spoken about measures to get more economy out of the use of energy. Efforts in that area will be spoken of. Our environment critic, the member for Fundy—Royal, will speak on this issue. He will detail some of the work we have done. As someone said earlier, in the end this is not a partisan issue and I agree. We wish the delegation well in Kyoto. We did well in Rio. We will do everything in our power to help advance this debate for the sake of doing what is right not only for our economy today but for future generations of Canadians.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this special debate on climate change. I am glad to have an opportunity to say a few words and to hear what other members of the House have to say as well. I hope our overall discussion this evening will be useful, constructive and realistic.

This debate is really another step among many, another phase in the ongoing public dialogue on the issue of climate change in which many Canadians have been thoughtfully engaged for a long time. Scientists, environmental experts, non-governmental organizations, think tanks, business leaders, industrial organizations, municipalities, federal, provincial and territorial officials, government ministers at all levels, individual citizens and consumers have all been advancing ideas and debating possible solutions. Our government has been participating throughout.

Many different and sometimes conflicting points of view have been put forward but despite the intensity of feelings on various sides, for the most part all of those participating in the public debate have tried to be reasoned and helpful. I hope that spirit can prevail in this House as well.

We do not need histrionics and hyperbole. We do not need the verbal excesses and abuses which too often prevail in Parliament. What we do need is careful thought, common sense, a sense of common purpose and the will to pull together in a real and serious way to address what most of the world has identified as a genuine problem demanding an effective global solution.

The climate change challenge is especially perplexing for Canada because of some of the unique and, ironically, some of the most desirable features of our country, features like the sheer size of our land mass, the long distances and the tough topography over which we must transport our people and goods, the extremes of our weather conditions from 40° below to more than 40° above, our resource based, energy intensive and export oriented economy, an economy which is growing faster than the rest of the industrialized world, our record setting exports and our growth in population, the second highest growth rate among all developed countries.

Each of these Canadian characteristics contributes more to our national total of greenhouse gas emissions which in turn contributes to that discernible negative impact upon the climate which can be attributed to human conduct.

In coming to grips with greenhouse gases and climate change, we in Canada have a difficult circle to square but that does not mean that we can ignore or deny the problem. We cannot shrink from the challenge or shirk the responsibility.

I heard the Leader of the Opposition tonight spend a good deal of his time condemning the national and international science upon which the concern about global warming is based. The only logical extension of his reasoning is that Canada should go to Kyoto to prevent any agreement from being reached or, if one is reached, Canada according to him should opt out.

He may or may not agree with the science, but does he seriously contend that Canada can simply stand aside? Ours is a more open society, a more open economy than most others in the world. We are more dependent upon world trade and global economics than almost any other industrialized country. Forty per cent of our gross domestic product is derived from exports. Eighty per cent of our trade is with the United States.

There is global momentum toward an outcome in Kyoto, an agreement including the United States. In the face of that thrust, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, we do not have the luxury of simply holding up our hand and hollering “whoa”. We cannot say “Stop the world, I want to get off”. What we need to do is to try our best to be constructively influential, to achieve the best possible result in Kyoto in concert with the rest of the world, a result that works for Canada and one that works for the globe.

I am very pleased that the provinces and territories have adopted a constructive attitude in common cause to achieve that kind of outcome. They have been very much involved with the Government of Canada in consultations over the last many months, not the least of which was the joint meeting of federal, provincial and territorial energy and environment ministers in Regina last month.

The provinces and territories have acknowledged that Canada needs to be part of a realistic global agreement on climate change. They have agreed that based upon the current understanding of Canadian circumstances and the current understanding of the state of international negotiations, it is reasonable to seek to reduce aggregate greenhouse gas emissions in Canada back to 1990 levels by approximately the year 2010.

The provinces and territories also agreed that it is desirable to do better than that if at all possible. They have emphasized the need for flexibility, flexibility to take into account the inevitable give and take, the ebb and flow that is inherent in international negotiations and flexibility in terms of implementation techniques and methodologies.

The provinces and territories also agreed on a collaborative and inclusive approach on implementation. We need to make a solid, comprehensive team Canada effort. We must all strive to be part of the solution. We must all work very closely together as partners. That is the provincial attitude overall and it is helpful.

A great many in the private sector, in business and industry have also worked very hard to be helpful and constructive. They have not buried their heads in the sand. They have not tried to deny reality. They have offered useful ideas and advice and they have started to take concrete actions within their own sectors, organizations and companies to reduce emission levels and move forward.

The private sector, the provinces and territories, a broad range of other stakeholders, indeed all Canadians have been invited to work closely with us to build together a sound and sensible implementation plan for the Kyoto agreement.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly reaffirmed that we are not interested in a carbon tax. We are not interested in seeing any province or region or sector bearing a disproportionate burden. However, we are keenly interested in greater energy efficiency for vehicles, homes, buildings and industrial processes. We are interested in the greater and more cost effective applications of renewable and alternative energy sources.

Just this week a groundbreaking agreement between Petro-Canada and Iogen Corporation will help us to move in that direction.

We are interested in the implementation of co-generation projects and their integration into power grids. We are interested in the very substantial acceleration of science and technology, commercialization and transfer, projects like the Ballard fuel cell, for example.

We are interested in the use of joint implementation schemes with other nations. We are interested in the creation of credits and the trading of credits to recognize our relatively cleaner and lower carbon exports and our advanced technology. We are interested in the broadening, deepening and strengthening of the self-initiated measures launched and pursued by business and industry.

These and perhaps other measures are likely to be part of the overall package. Through extensive and exhaustive consultations, both within Canada and abroad, we have built a platform for the kind of meaningful partnerships that we will need in spades after Kyoto to deliver on our commitments. We have positioned our country to build bridges of consensus internationally to facilitate an agreement when the end game of the global negotiations beings in earnest about 10 days from now.

We want a deal that works. We want a deal that makes sense both environmentally and economically. We want a deal that transforms problems and challenges into opportunities for jobs and growth, for technological sophistication and for trade. We want a deal that is right for Canada and a deal that is right for the world.

It is with that conviction and determination that we go to Kyoto a week from now to make a real difference for Canada and the world.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the minister and would like to draw his attention to a program in 3,000 Toronto households. That program is called Green Saver. It shows people how to improve home comfort, save on bills and reduce household energy consumption. The green saver program works with clients and shows some improvement in terms of their individual homes. It shows the impact on climate change and emissions. They have documented the progress that individuals have been able to make.

I want to ask the minister if individuals and communities with some assistance, acting on their own, can reduce greenhouse emissions, what is the federal government taking into the international forum to show how the federal government itself has been putting its house in order? In other words, how can we show some of the efficiencies that we have done in our federal buildings and what can we take to that forum for discussion?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on the basic questions of can Canadians as individuals make a difference, I think the answer to that is profoundly, yes. Indeed, when we hear some of the debate we may get the impression that the big enemy or the bad culprit is the upstream oil and gas industry in the country. In fact, on the production side with respect to oil and gas, that sector would account for roughly 15% or 16% of emissions overall.

The largest part of the challenge here is not on the production side of the equation, it is on the use and the application side of the equation. It is obviously necessary, important and possible for all players, whether they are in business or industry or in their own private residences, in community groups and organizations to participate and to make a very large difference.

The hon. member referred to one very useful example. There are literally thousands of examples across the country where Canadians as individuals may be well ahead of their political process in grappling with the issue and developing innovative ideas that can truly make a contribution.

I think it is important for us, as we have already begun to do, to make a complete inventory of all of those initiatives, to determine to what extent those initiatives can move forward and be successful on their own foundation without any kind of stimulation or encouragement and where, in the appropriate circumstances, would there need to be some kind of incentive that might come through the government sector or through a collaborative effort among organizations in the private sector.

I think we will need a mix of instruments, some of them voluntary, some brought about by incentives and other forms of encouragement so that all Canadians can be actively engaged in building solutions. I think those individuals to whom the member just referred who are already active in this field in the city of Toronto deserve a great deal of praise and commendation.

In appropriate circumstances, yes, I believe there is a role for government incentives to encourage further and greater progress in that direction.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the minister stated very properly that we should try not to be too partisan when discussing this issue.

I wonder what he thinks of the stridently anti-intellectual comments of the leader of the fifth party when he was ridiculing other people's take on science. I suspect the only physics that man ever took was Ex-lax.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I should comment on the biological theories of either party in the opposition. I think they are perfectly capable of demonstrating their abilities in one way or the other in that regard.

However, partisanship aside, the only point I would like to make is that this issue is real and it is serious. It demands real and serious attention. I hope that all members of the House, members of the other place and all Canadians will address it in that spirit so that we can at Kyoto and beyond Kyoto arrive at results that are good for our country and good in terms of our responsibility in the global community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the importance of this debate is being shown by the people who are addressing it tonight. Two ministers, the leaders of all the opposition parties, shows the significance of the debate to the House and to Canadians.

However, I have to ask why we are having this debate when we are 10 days away from Kyoto? This should have happened a year and a half ago.

The government is asking for comments and advice from Canadians and from the other parties. It is too late. It is 10 days from Kyoto, and we are still waiting for the government's position. This is not the way to go to an international event.

I would like to address some of the issues that have not been touched on so far. I suppose if we had to pick a date 1990 would be as good as any. I thought the minister was on the right line about a month ago when she said there had to be a formula to address Canada's particular conditions. She withdrew her comments within a day. Obviously some people in her caucus got to her.

Canada is a different country. It has a smaller population and wide expanse. It is a cold country. If we compare the Europeans we do not try to lump Scandinavia in with Spain. Yet, with Canada's expanse, we are trying to that. That is incorrect.

There needs to be a formula to address a country's unique perspective, whether it be Australia, Canada or whatever. It needs to be addressed so that 1990 can be picked as a date, wherever one is in the spectrum.

For example, Canada has done a pretty good job in many areas. Other countries, particularly the European bloc, are at the beginning. Why would we have one country up here on level of attainment compared to one below it? There needs to be a balancing. What I am suggesting is a level playing field.

That formula has not been addressed by the government. I do not believe it will be addressed at Kyoto. I think the President of the U.S. will address it because he wants to level the playing field. I think that is correct.

Another issue is that 35 of the 165-odd countries 35 will be asked to sign on. This is a global problem which requires a global solution. All the countries in the world going to the conference need to be part of the solution. We cannot have Canada, for example, signing on to a particular agreement when Mexico, China and India, which will be major contributors to greenhouse gases in the future, are not being asked to sign on the dotted line. Perhaps it should not be to the same degree as Canada but at least they should be asked to make a commitment. That commitment to my knowledge is not being asked for. There has to be some agreement that gets all of us into the arena together.

We keep hearing that Canada's problems are huge. We need to bring into perspective that Canada is responsible for 2% of global emissions compared with the U.S. at 25% and China at about 20%.

We often hear the minister and the government say that Canadians have been consulted, that the provinces have been consulted. The provinces were consulted in the last couple of months. To my knowledge there has not been a broad cross-Canada forum for Canadians to address the issue; for Canadians to say yes, they believe there is a problem or no, they do not; or for Canadians to say the degree they would like to address it and to indicate some solutions. Whatever the issues they should be bring them forward but a forum does not exist and did not exist.

We are going to Kyoto. The government will come back with the solution, ram it down our throats and say “This is it, Canada; like or leave it”. That is backward. It is top down government instead from the bottom up. The consensus of the players, the Canadian people, the provinces and the industry should be taken to Kyoto.

There was not consultation other than the last month, and I have to question that. What happened two weeks ago in Regina? The Minister of Natural Resources just commented on what a good deal that was. However, to my knowledge only eight days later the Prime Minister was stating a different target. The year 2010 was arrived at by the provinces; 2010 was the year the Prime Minister quoted to Premier Tobin and Premier Klein.

Where is the commitment? If this was a consensus or commitment as a result of the provinces and the Government of Canada working together, it did not last for eight days. There is a huge credibility gap between the Prime Minister, who is taking the commitment to Kyoto, and the provinces that will have to implement it down the road.

Where is the economic analysis? We can take various scenarios. We can take the emissions down to 2005, 2007, 2010 or 2015 and work out the different scenarios. How do we get to them? How will we get the standards whether they be fuel taxes or voluntary commitments? However we get there Canadians need to know the numbers. We have yet to see an economic analysis from the government of the different alternatives, the different costs and who will pay them.

The government has dropped the ball. It is going to Kyoto 10 days from now with a stance Canadians have yet to hear. That is not the way to do it.

Hopefully in the next couple of days we will hear it and we will be able to get on side. I fear that the government will sign on to something in Japan, bring it back to Canada, and be forced to push it down the throats of Canadians. I fear it will be a position we may not agree with. I hope this can be avoided in the future.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni the following question.

Why has he not brought to the attention of his leader the statement made by the intergovernmental panel on climate change “Greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to increase and the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate?”

This statement was made by more than 2,000 experts worldiwide. participating in the drafting and reviewing of the intergovernmental panel report on climate change. Why has the hon. member not brought this statement to the attention of his leader?

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

Madam Speaker, I am delighted the hon. member for Davenport raised the panel on climate change made up of 2,500 renowned scientists.

If we were to listen to the government, we would get the impression that these 2,500 scientists were all using the same song sheet but they are not. There is a vast difference of opinion in the climate change report.

Some sentences were politically written in the front summary by analysts for Vice-President Gore which do not reflect the inside of the report. If we pick selective sentences from that summary, they can be exceedingly misleading.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of questions for my hon. colleague. I find a couple of points to be a bit confusing.

The hon. member said that this was a global problem which required a global solution. I do not understand. Some of his remarks, and definitely those of his leader, actually refuted science and questioned whether the science actually existed.

Why would they recognize on the one hand that the science is questionable and then on the other hand come forward and say it is a global problem?

I find rather confusing. Reform is all over the map on this issue.

The hon. member was reported in the Ottawa Citizen of October 25, 1997 as saying that environmental taxes may be part of the equation if they are dedicated. I actually believe the Reform Party does not like taxes, but I do not understand why it would advocate taxing something that is not a problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that we hear this from the Conservative Party. It was the leader of the Conservative Party who was in Rio and got us into this glue pot in the first place.

I suggest the member should hold on to the coattails of his leader because they are going nowhere. I also suggest they should listen to the Reform Party because the Reform Party is questioning the science.

This is one of the few times people should say “Let's all jump on the bandwagon”. This is not the time to jump on the bandwagon. This is the time to question the science.

We did not question the science in the cod fishery. The member is from the east coast. He knows what happened to the cod fishery. The science that we were promised was okay in the late seventies, was okay in the early eighties and was okay in the mid-eighties. We some the decimation of the cod fishery because the scientists were not allowed to put forward straight science. It was political science, and that is what we are listening to here.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to briefly make a few comments on speeches that have been made so far. I congratulate the Minister of the Environment for her thoughtful intervention, for her emphasizing the importance of harnessing innovation, and for bringing to the attention of members of the House the situation in the Mackenzie basin.

The Minister of Natural Resources made an intervention indicating to us what is the composition of the package that Canada will bring to Kyoto. Evidently, when it comes to dealing with distant deadlines, it is quite understandable that governments would want to make their position known when it is very close to the deadline of the event. Therefore it is not a question of Canada going empty handed to Kyoto. It is just doing its homework very thoroughly. The speech of the Minister of Natural Resources is an indication that the package will be a thoughtful and fairly comprehensive one.

For 45 minutes we were treated to the unique review of the issue by the Leader of the Official Opposition. It was unique for its sequence of asinine statements, the like of which we have not heard in the House for a long time. He trotted out all the cliches that have been heard over the last 10 years on the issue. Having mentioned a couple of U.S. scientists who have doubts about the question of whether or not there is a climate change in place or in action evolving on the face of the planet, he concluded that actually we had to be sceptical, that we could not accept the science.

As I just indicated to the Member for Nanaimo—Alberni, some 2,500 scientists, worldwide experts, participated in drafting and reviewing the second report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change of December 1995. Their conclusion in two lines is simply that the greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to increase and the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.

To prove that the Leader of the Official Opposition did not do his homework properly, he made the capital mistake of quoting a witness who appeared before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, Dr. Allyn Clarke, and did not quote his conclusion. He chose to quote the opening remarks but failed to tell the House that the very same person concluded on that occasion that climate change must be taken seriously.

Not only that, but he also asked the committee to pay attention to the work done by oceanographers and sought support for their work.

Evidently the basis of information and research on the part of the people who are advising the leader of the Reform Party is very thin, if not very shaky.

When he ran out of arguments about the question of the scientific validity of this issue, what did he do? He invoked the spectre of taxes, which is always done when arguments run out, when short of convincing themes. Then the flag of possible potential taxes is waved. This is totally absurd in this political debate tonight.

As the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party just said a few moments ago, we have plenty of carbon taxes already imposed on gasoline at the present time.

It is very difficult to deal with gladiators who are ignorant and we have too many in this House of Commons. Speakers after the leaders of the various parties have only 10 minutes to deal with uninformed, ignorant and distorted information as was done tonight, unfortunately, by the leader of the Reform Party, thus contributing really nothing to the substance, to the search for answers on this extremely complex issue that is engaging the minds of scientists, of politicians of course, of decision makers and of governments around the world. Enough said about the pathetic performance by the leader of the Reform Party. What a shame I must say.

This issue is posing to us a number of interesting conclusions. Let me put the first one. The conclusion that one inevitably comes to when analysing this issue is that here there is, in a very rare moment, a rather unique convergence of economic and environmental goals.

The economy can only benefit from energy efficiency. The economy can only benefit from energy innovation and the economy can only benefit from prolonging the life of the reserves we have in our country through more careful consumption now and in the near future.

This convergence is unique. It is good business to apply energy efficiency and innovation and it is also good environmental policy.

Second, this issue offers us a unique opportunity to switch, gradually of course, from the use of oil to the use of natural gas with which we are abundantly endowed and which is an ideal fuel for its high calorific value because it is also clean. It is efficient in use and available in large quantities, particularly in our western provinces.

Third, this issue is indicating the urgent need for us to examine tax expenditures, fiscal and taxation measures, either direct or indirect, subsidies, you name it, which presently are offered to the petroleum, the oil sands and the coal industries.

We have to ask ourselves do these particular measures make sense when we are trying to move in a direction whereby we want to discourage, gradually, the use of these fossil fuels.

Fourth, this issue offers us a unique opportunity to examine and change our transport policies. Our transport policies are in urgent need of being redesigned because we have to link them to the aim of reducing greenhouse gases, to their reduction, wherever possible, particularly with respect to the potential offered in this country which is far from being achieved, namely public transit.

Fifth, this brings to our attention, in a frustrating manner actually, the issue which can be witnessed by anyone who watches landfill sites which are emitting greenhouse gases, the burning away of waste gases, mostly methane, instead of being utilized for district heating purposes, as it is done in many other jurisdictions, particularly the highly populated jurisdictions of Europe.

Sixth, this issue brings to our attention with crystal clear evidence the necessity of giving momentum to and paying much more attention to renewable sources of energy. They were recognized in the last two budgets but we are far from having given them the favourable tax treatment which is presently being given to the non-renewable sources of energy.

Then the unique model comes to our attention when we are looking for answers to this particular issue, the unique model offered by the Toronto Atmospheric Fund whereby the municipality has adopted a number of energy efficiency and innovation measures in the public and private sectors which have now made Toronto the leader in this respect in the reduction of greenhouse gases.

To conclude, let me indicate that this issues also reminds us of the poverty issue in developing countries and of the necessity to improve, accelerate and strengthen the efforts of the developed countries in reducing poverty in order to come to grips with this very complex and far reaching issue.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to comment on this debate and on one particular item which I hope the government will pay close attention to. It was the proposal put forward by the leader of the fifth party concerning tradable emission permits.

I remind him and the government that when one sets up a system of tradable permits of a limited stock, and as the leader of the fifth party says, they are starting to trade at a profit, the end result is they end up in fewer and fewer hands. Competition in the economy is therefore reduced and the ends are not necessarily achieved. Something which is a permit to pollute basically takes on a tremendously large value.

I ask the government, before it goes down that road, to consult with municipalities across this country that are desperately trying to get out of exactly that same system. That is precisely what has happened. Competition has disappeared. More and more of the resource has been concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and nobody benefits.

To the member for Davenport, he and I had the privilege during the 34th Parliament of working on a series of reports on our planet. They were all put together at the end of that Parliament by the committee in a compendium that I would recommend highly, particularly to the members of the official opposition.

I want to go back to some of the comments made in that report about the situation the globe faces. I want to quote from the president of the World Watch Institute: “On the environmental front the situation could hardly be worse. Every major indicator shows a deterioration in natural systems. Forests are shrinking, deserts are expanding and crop lands are losing top soil. The stratospheric ozone layer continues to thin. Greenhouse gases are accumulating. The number of plant and animal species is diminishing. Air pollution has reached health threatening levels in hundreds of cities and damage from acid rain can be seen on every continent”.

Maurice Strong said: “If we continue our present course, life as we know it will not survive the 21st century. Indeed, our grandchildren, even in this blessed nation, will be experiencing a very severely deteriorated quality of life if we continue on our present course. The course we are on is like a cancer, headed for terminality. We simply cannot survive the pathway”.

I wonder if the member for Davenport would care to comment on whether he feels the situation on the globe has changed in the now nearly six years since our last report on global climate change was produced in that committee.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, the short answer is yes. We have noticed in a variety of ways the deterioration of natural systems. That is the reason why we have at the present time a world commission on forest and sustainable development. That is why we have disputes in fisheries on the east coast and on the west coast. That is why there is the emerging issue of water in many populated countries. That is why we are engaged tonight in this issue which is part of an overall deterioration. This is why in the 1980s we had to deal with the question of the ozone layer and the damage to it which, as the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party said, has been one of the success stories so far.

There is deterioration and we cannot hide our heads in the sand, as the Reform Party seems to be inclined to do. We have to look at the issue and boldly make certain difficult decisions that have to do with the long term. Governments must make decisions relating to the long term. Evidently it is not an easy matter. This will be the test of openness and the farsightedness of this government in coming to grips with this, probably one of the most difficult long term issues.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by asking for unanimous consent to divide my time into two five-minute speeches.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to divide his speaking time with his colleague from Portneuf?