Debates of Nov. 26th, 1997

The Environment

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address this very important issue on the minds of all Canadians and of the entire globe.

I speak on several fronts from my experience as an environmental biologist. I have experience from an academic point of view and from a practitioner's point of view in the fields of community forestry, community based aquaculture and a number of other community based industries striving for sustainable development in rural communities in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The basis of the experience I am bringing to this debate is my own personal experience working in the field of science, working in the field of sustainable development, and working in a province which I think is very nobly showing great leadership in moving ahead in the field of sustainable development and contributing to the solutions to global warming and the problem of climate change.

I come from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador where we have on our doorsteps one of the most vast offshore energy resources in the world. The Hibernia field and the Jeanne d'Arc Basin are producing and have the potential to produce significant energy resources that will be used by global trading partners.

This is why I am very pleased to contribute to the discussion on Canada's role in increasing energy efficiency, Canada's role in increasing responsible consumption, and Canada's role in providing global leadership on this issue.

We also have in our province one of the cleanest sources of renewable energy found in the Lower Churchill Falls project. Hydroelectricity will be for North America one of our great advantages in terms of producing sustainable successful results in reducing our carbon levels so that we achieve the greenhouse gas reduction targets that we have set out.

I speak as a scientist with a laboratory in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As has been raised during the course of this debate, I have been witness to the destruction of the northern cod stocks. While others in the House speak from third hand information, I was in northern Newfoundland during the time of the cod crisis and experienced first hand the consequences of inaction and the consequences of not listening to science.

I feel very strongly that we have to listen to the scientists on this issue. I note that my colleagues opposite are now publicly saying that we should strictly be basing fisheries management decisions on science and science alone; that administrators should be exempt from the process of setting total allowable catches, exempt from determining the total biomass availability; and that science and science alone should be the guiding consequence. Hon. members of the Reform Party are saying now that the issue of global warming and climate change is in their backyard that scientists are quacks.

That is an absolute outrage. When it is not in their backyard science should be the guiding factor, but when it potentially is in their backyard scientists are quacks. I think that is reprehensible. Quite frankly inaction, not listening to scientists, is what got us in trouble in 1990.

That is why we as parliamentarians have the responsibility to listen to the advice available to us. To do nothing is irresponsible.

While members opposite have found the new luxury of promoting their own environmental agenda and their own environmental performance of the past, it was the Conservative government of the day that refused to act on the science in 1990. It refused to embrace the challenges of fisheries management. Instead of listening to science in 1990 it began the process of listening to the major fish corporations. It said enterprise allocations, regardless of the science, quoting the then minister, the Hon. Bernard Valcourt and others—it is very important that this be noted on the record—“the economic consequences are far, far too great”.

Right now in Atlantic Canada we are experiencing the economic consequences of not acting appropriately and not acting in a timely fashion. While others may laud their fisheries management practices in terms of the west coast in putting together the Pacific Fisheries Treaty, I suggest on the Atlantic coast we have been witness in a very real and tangible way to the consequences of the inaction.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, I say that we are dedicated and committed to action on this issue in a way which is responsible, which meets the needs of Canadians. That is action.

I would like to point out that in Newfoundland and Labrador, while we are participating in the energy industry, we are also participating in the solutions. That is what Canadians expect of us.

I would like to point out some other examples of actions which are providing solutions. For example, Alcan Smelter and Chemicals Ltd. is replacing its older facilities with new plants built with the latest technology. Carbon dioxide emissions will be reduced at this facility by more than 350,000 tonnes.

There are examples across the country where we can employ energy efficiency, where we can employ better technologies and where we can respond to the science that we know exists today rather than burying our heads in the sand like ostriches and trying to pretend the problem does not exist. What we have to do is act. That is exactly what we intend to do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to participate in this debate. I know that it causes quite a high degree of debate between members as to who is responsible and who is not. However, I think that clearly we are all responsible as parliamentarians to participate in the solutions, to participate in developing answers rather than just simply saying “it is he or she who did not act in the past”. What we have to do is recognize that this is the time and the place to act. Let us start doing it.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a comment and question the hon. member across.

I am on the standing committee of environment and sustainable development. Over the last while we have had numerous scientists come to us as witnesses. One of the people who came to us was a scientist from Newfoundland, an oceanographer. He had quite a different view of what was going on. He studies the oceans and he did not think that there was quite the reaction occuring in the world that others did.

One question I tried to ask most of the scientists who came to us was with today's technology and computerization and the methods we have of measuring things, if you had five or ten more years of accurate data added on to the data you already have, would this help narrow down the projections that scientists are coming up with? Would you be able to be more accurate?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in response to the comments and the question.

Unfortunately, I cannot respond to the comment about the oceanographer because there was no specific information provided. I will suggest that new, more, better information is always important. That is one of the reasons why Canada is a world leader in providing satellite technology and providing environmental monitoring. Always as a country, as a globe we should be striving to provide better information on the environment. Canada is successfully developing a world class industry in that regard, providing services to countries around the globe and that is actually providing jobs for Canadians.

That is why I say that the challenge of global warming is significant and of a huge magnitude. However, the opportunities for Canadians to embrace the problem and seek solutions and to actively engage in the solution provides us with unique opportunities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources would answer a question. I know he was talking some time earlier about the fisheries and the role of science, et cetera. In his role of parliamentary secretary and given his proximity to the government's plan on how to deal with greenhouse gas emissions, I wonder if he could tell me whether there is any plan on the part of the government to reinvest substantially in rail transportation in this country and re-regulate the transportation industry in the country to favour rail transportation over other modes of transportation.

It has seemed to me for a long time and, in fact, my maiden speech in the House was to some degree about one thing we could do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be to create a transportation regime in the country that would move more freight and people by train. Instead, we have had 10 to 15 years of deregulation that has put more and more trucks on the highways. There are trucks on the highways that look like trains, for God's sake. There is less and less safety, more and more emissions and still there is no end to this madness.

I ask the parliamentary secretary, is there a plan? Does the government intend to use this opportunity that the climate changes presents it with to reverse the madness of the last 10 or 15 years by which we have deregulated in such a way to favour trucks over rail and have in fact created what I consider to be not only an environmental crisis, but a public safety crisis in terms of our highways and our environment.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, there is more than a plan. There is action. One thing the government realizes is that transportation is actually a major producer of greenhouse gases. It is one of the major, major producers of greenhouse gases. That is why the government has dedicated itself to increasing energy efficiency, not just in the transportation sector, but as well in the heating of buildings and other things. Energy efficiency is exactly where this country should be going and where we are taking it.

I promote very strongly that federal buildings and government vehicles right across the government increase their energy efficiency by using different types of energy sources. As well, we are always actively engaged in the debate regarding transportation policy and creating greater efficiencies.

That is one object of the Canada Transportation Act, which I will happily engage in debate about. It is providing economic efficiencies and also creating an opportunity for greater efficiencies in terms of the transportation routes. Instead of duplicating loads, companies are now providing better services more cheaply, but most importantly, with reduced use of fuel.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate, particularly after sitting here all evening and listening to the debate and being very annoyed at the gross distortion of the Reform Party position on this issue and the undignified and unwarranted personal attacks on members of the Reform Party.

The Reform Party certainly has never put forward a position that we should not do anything. That could not be further from the truth. Certainly we believe that all prudent measures to reduce emissions and pollution should be done that can be effectively done without committing economic suicide, which is what this government is bound and determined to achieve.

We neither want to commit economic suicide nor be isolated in the world by implementing a program that has no real plan, no global plan for implementation, forcing other countries around the world to participate.

I think it would be truly tragic to end up in a situation like that. For the life of me, I cannot understand how intelligent people can totally ignore any of the conflicting science on this issue. There is hard data written on pieces of paper collected by scientists that without any doubt prove that the global climate has not warmed since 1940. The data is there and is indisputable.

There are scientists who participated in the IPCC, 2,500 is the number talked about, who say that their scientific data was misinterpreted and misrepresented for political purposes.

How intelligent people can discount all those things and engage in psychological terrorism and coercing Canadians into taking some action that is going to be extremely costly and harmful to the Canadian economy is beyond me. Quite frankly, I think it is unethical and dishonest.

There must be a broad public debate and discussion in this country. We must bring ordinary Canadians into the discussion because after listening to this issue in the House, in committee and in the media, it becomes very obvious that the people who are going to pay the price are going to be the ordinary taxpayers.

Governments have engaged industry in the dialogue. Industry has presented a strong position. I think the government has listened to industry to a great degree in talks about tradable credits and the voluntary challenge program and a lot of these other things that will likely work for industry. However, industry is only one-third of the problem. Another third is the transportation sector and the other third is people themselves.

Certainly while some interests have been addressed, some certainly have not been. This shroud of secrecy over the Liberal government's position gives cause for great concern and fear in the general Canadian public and not unwarranted.

I heard the member for Ottawa West—Nepean tonight quote Maurice Strong as a world authority on this issue. Maurice Strong, for those who do not know, was the chairman in Rio who stood up and said that the only salvation of the globe was the total dismantling of the industrial society. It was the Liberal responsibility to achieve that. If that does not strike fear into the hearts of Canadians, I do not know what will.

This refusal to develop a dialogue and a position and to simply announce one-upmanship against the Americans indicates to me that the greatest interest here is not in the interest of Canada, it is in the interest of grooming someone to be a greener leader or the world's boy scout who is going to save the world faster than the next leader. I do not think that really serves us well.

The Canadian reality is that we are a huge country and a cold country with a very sparsely and disperse population and with great dependence on the resource industries. Based on that, it is important that we get this whole issue into perspective.

Canada only produces 2% of the world's greenhouse gases. China and India are huge contributors to the problem and they are not even part of this discussion. In fact, it is ludicrous that we would take leading action to solve the problem without engaging some of these other countries. If we, tomorrow morning, were to achieve the commitment that the government talks about, the achievement of 1990 levels by the year 2010, without engaging India, China and some of the other countries, it would take a mere 25 days for that benefit that Canada produced to be used up by the third world. Only 25 days and we would not have accomplished anything except to destroy our economic base in this country. I think it would be quite foolish to do that.

As I said before, what we are mostly lacking in this debate is a public debate engaging all Canadians in the issue. That has not happened and it is not likely to happen now until after Kyoto, until the government has signed a binding legal agreement that leaves it little flexibility if Canadians do not buy into this scenario.

If we think we hear emotions in the House tonight on this issue, wait until the government starts to implement this program and passes the cost of this program on to ordinary Canadians. We should think back to last winter when there was a large increase in the price of propane. For senior citizens in my riding on fixed income, the price of their heating fuel doubled and caused them great hardship. They could not afford to buy groceries. People called me from reserves in northern Alberta. They could not afford to buy heating fuel for their homes.

Look at the outrage in Toronto last summer when there was only a temporary spike in the price of gasoline. There were calls for investigation and government action immediately and it was nothing compared to what this government is proposing, I am afraid.

Canadians should be well aware of the fact that they are now paying over 60% of their income in one form of tax or another. Real take home income has been shrinking in this country for a long time thanks to ever increasing taxes. I do not really think there is a mood out there for further increases to the degree this government is proposing.

It is very important that we take a balanced approach, a careful approach, a cautious approach. We have never disputed and we do not dispute that Canada's environmental situation is in serious trouble. It is in serious trouble all around the world from a number of sources.

We heard the Conservatives talk about the wonderful things they had achieved. The member for Davenport, in spite of that wonderful achievement on cleaning up pulp mills, introduced a debate in the House about how this government has in fact exempted pulp mills and they continue to pour dioxins and furans into Canada's water system.

We have a potential Chernobyl in the suburbs of Toronto with a nuclear power plant and we have an ever growing stockpile of nuclear waste around the world that nobody has figured out what to do with.

Our environment is in serious trouble, but that does not mean we need to do the kinds of things this government is proposing to do to solve the problem. Prudent action is in order. Responsible action is in order and our party supports doing that. We just urge caution.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues across the floor, and particularly their leader, to take heed from a significant group of taxpayers in western Canada, the physicians from out west.

I would like to read the physicians' statement on climate change from the Alberta Medical Association, the British Columbia Paediatric Society, the UBC department of paediatrics, the Yukon Medical Association, the faculty of medicine at UBC and the Family Physicians of Canada, the Alberta chapter.

The first two signatories to this climate change are Dr. David Bates, professor emeritus from the University of British Columbia, and Dr. Tee Guidotti, professor and director of the occupational health program, faculty of medicine, at the University of Alberta. These people are not in agreement with members opposite and I implore them, if they will not listen to the scientists, at least listen to the physicians out west.

What these people are saying is that as physicians they fear that global climate change carries with it significant health, environmental, economic and social risks and that preventive steps are justified.

They say that all human health is ultimately dependent on the health of the biosphere. Scientists believe that climate change will have major irreversible effects on the environment with secondary consequences for human health and well-being that could occur within a matter of decades.

These impacts include increased mortality and illness due to heat stress, worsened air pollution, increased incidence of vector borne infectious disease, expanding populations of pest species, and impaired food production and nutrition. Extreme weather events such as floods, droughts and wind storms could endanger lives and create environmental refugees.

As physicians they believe in the wisdom of preventive measures, and therefore they urge prompt and effective action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Canada has one of the highest per capita emission rates of greenhouse gases in the world. It has become urgent that Canada provide scientific, technical, economic and diplomatic leadership in the worldwide effort to significantly reduce greenhouse gases.

I also want members in the official opposition know that this erudite body, some of whose members even voted for them, in separate resolutions and the CMA and the CPHA are calling on the federal government to reaffirm at the Kyoto convention on climate change in December its position of achieving 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2005.

I urge the Speaker to implore the official opposition to actually include a few more stakeholders in its consultations. The physicians of western Canada are watching.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the question was but certainly that erudite body the hon. member referred to is entitled to its opinion, as are all other Canadians.

The problem has been that all Canadians have not been engaged in this debate. They have not had a chance to express their fears and their opinions. Based on an implementation plan that the government would put forward, the group the member talks about could probably pay double what it is paying now for car gasoline without creating serious hardship.

I think there is also a very large group of middle income to lower income Canadians who would suffer huge hardship when this plan is implemented and the prices of energy rise significantly. There are both points of view out there.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to refer to the comments of the member about the IPCC, also preceded by his colleagues in the same vein.

I want to quote Dr. Bert Bolin, chairman of the IPCC: “This thorough and completely open process has guaranteed that the summaries of a wide ownership in no way can be described as the work of a select few. The process provides justification for the description of substantial scientific consensus”.

I think the hon. member's whole set-up about IPCC is the work of the oil and gas lobby that has been parroting this thing in the States and here for a long time.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, pure greenhouse gas. I said in my presentation that I was not speaking on behalf of the energy industry or any particular industry. I think it has done an excellent job of representing itself and I think to a great degree it has protected its interests.

What I said was there were scientists who were part of those 2,500 scientists who were most upset because their scientific evidence was distorted and misrepresented. I think that is a valid position for them to take.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is totally false. Name them.

[An hon. member]

John Balling, Jr.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

John Balling, Jr. represents Western Fuels and British Coal Mining Association. That is who pays him. He was not part of the IPCC. He was paid by the oil and gas industry, a trillion-million dollar industry. But Michaels, Balling, Singer, Dr. Richard Lindzen, all paid by the oil and gas industry, are the people the member's leader quoted.

In the fall of 1987 as minister of the environment of Quebec I was a member of the Canadian delegation of the United Nations when Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland presented the now famous report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, “Our Common Future”.

The lead speaker after Mrs. Brundtland was the President of the Maldive Islands, Mahmood Abdul Gayoom. He described the natural beauty of his island state of many hundreds of islands in the Indian Ocean south of India as ecological jewels on a cushion of blue. He told us about the tidal waves that had started to visit his islands. He explained that the water surrounding the islands had always been steady and calm until the eighties when they were visited for the first time by giant tidal waves. The first time the waves caused significant damage. The second time they were more fierce and damage was correspondingly severe, and the third time they caused havoc which included considerable destruction and, sadly, human injury and death.

Way back then, 10 years ago, President Gayoom addressed us, the rich industrialized world, in this way:

Scientists tell us that in the next century the seas could rise drastically, maybe between 1 and 3 meters. If it was something in between, my island-state would disappear under the sea completely. We have no plants and no factories that spew carbon gases into the atmosphere, yet our innocent people must pay the price of your activities, and your negligence. Is this right, is this fair?

I ask is it right and fair? Is it acceptable to Canadians who believe so strongly in equity and justice? Is it right, fair and acceptable that we should be the second ranking world champions per capita of carbon emissions, a close second to the greenhouse champions the United States?

I realize that some continue to pretend that climatic change and the huge global threat posed by the increase in greenhouse gases are just a myth spread by environmentalists and tree huggers.

As I was listening to the leader of the official opposition earlier and after many years of environmental work, I wondered if the hon. member and I live on the same planet. The hon. member should talk to people from the Maldives, from Barbados, from the Marshall Islands, or from 40 small island states, who live in constant fear that sea levels will continue to rise.

Meanwhile, the leader of the opposition speaks like the dinosaur he is.

I wonder how many people from Burundi and Mali and Benin he has spoken to about the visibly encroaching desert in Africa.

The very limited time at my disposal does not allow me to mention in detail the countless examples which clearly demonstrate that the impact of greenhouse gases is not only real but has already begun to cause dramatic climatic changes in many parts of the world.

As mentioned earlier, the UN intergovernmental panel on climatic change includes some 2,000 of the greatest scientific experts on climate, whose work and findings are systematically analyzed and reviewed by their peers.

There is an impressive number of examples that show how the greenhouse effect has intensified over the last 25 years, because of the spectacular acceleration of the industrialization process and the increase in the use of energy.

Let me cite only the example of Antarctica where in January 1995 a vast section the size of Prince Edward Island broke off from the Larsen-Shelf. Two months later a 60-kilometre long fissure appeared along the northern part of the same Larsen-Shelf, Scientific measurements show that the mean temperature in the Arctic peninsula has risen by nearly 20 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 20 years.

In the book The Heat is On by Ross Gelbspan, the author quotes Argentinian scientist Dr. Rodolfo del Valle as follows: “Recently we have seen rocks poke through the surface of the ice that had been buried under 600 metres of ice for 20,000 years”. Sadly in spite of repeated commitments by industrialized countries of the north which have the means, both technological and financial, to stabilize and reduce excessive greenhouse emissions, the evidence shows a very different and a very sad tale. Emissions are not stabilized, let alone reduced, compared to 1990 totals. On the contrary, they have increased substantially.

In Canada in spite of categorical commitments by successive governments, our greenhouse gases have actually risen by 8% over 1990 results. In fact the UN climate change secretariat has reported that among developed nations the U.S., Japan and Canada were responsible for 85% of the increase in greenhouse gases between 1990 and 1995.

Yet, we are a rich and influential nation, a member of the G-7, a country whose natural resources are among the most abundant in the world, a country of knowledge and first-class technological achievements. We can and must do better.

If over the last five years India, a country far less favoured financially and technologically than our own, can invest some $600 million Canadian in solar energy as well as make significant investments in waste recovery energy, in wind energy, in biomass energy and in district energy, surely we can do substantially more.

What we must do first of all is rebalance the economic and fiscal incentive and subsidy program which over the years and even today heavily favours the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. Unless we change our ways and direction toward energy efficiency and renewable energies, unless we have the courage and determination to redirect our subsidies and fiscal incentives toward environmentally clean energies, we will continue to move from conference to conference to conference, not only spinning wheels but losing ground in the global battle to stabilize and reduce greenhouse emissions.

Over the last 20 years we have spent literally billions of dollars in subsidies and tax incentives to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. In the oil and gas industry alone, according to figures from Natural Resources Canada for the year 1993, the value of tax deductions totalled a staggering $6.247 billion.

With a determined co-ordinated program backed by adequate financial incentives, we can stabilize at 1990 levels by 2005 and reduce our emissions substantially by 2010, some reliable experts believe by as much as 10%.

We have not scratched the surface of what is possible and available: waste recovery energy, district energy, wind energy, solar energy, biomass energy, better public transportation and clean transportation fuels such as cellulose ethanol and of course energy efficiency.

What we need is a determination that turned the acid rain situation around in the eighties, when Canada took a bold leadership position including tight timelines and substantial reduction targets of 50% involving the federal government and seven of the affected provinces. Rather than worrying about lack of action by the United States, we took a bold lead and the U.S. eventually followed by amending its Clean Air Act.

Canada must continue its role as an international environmental leader regardless of the timid and pussyfooting positions of the U.S. Canada must continue to set an international example, for only when rich nations like our own set a convincing example will we in turn convince less favoured countries of the developing world to follow our lead.

For besides being good for our environment and our health, clean energies are immensely beneficial to the economy, creating investments, creating wealth through advanced technologies and creating jobs.

I will describe one last example. Denmark now depending on coal for 50% of its energy has established a bold program to replace its total coal energy by wind power by 2030. Danish and German wind power turbines now provide energy not only in Europe but in Africa, Asia, North America and South America, to communities large and small. Why should these turbines not be Canadian?

Indeed climate change solutions, very far from being an economic burden, on the contrary are a sustainable economic opportunity. Let us be bold rather than timid. Let us lead rather than follow. Let us bet squarely on energies of the 21st century, renewable energies, clean energies. Let us bet on a clean and sustainable future for our children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had a couple of hours for a one on one debate with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis. Since that is not possible I would like to address some of the misrepresentations, or perhaps I should say the omissions in his presentation wherein he was so selective about his choice of science and scientists.

I would commend him to Frederick Selz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University, chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute and a member of the IPCC who said, “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the events that led to the IPCC report”. Of course he was referring to the 1966 report.

He and a group of fellow scientists went through line by line the original version of the IPCC report before it was butchered for political purposes. I would like to quote a few select lines from the report. Now these are not quoted in context and I am open to attack because of that. However, these are actual quotes from the report: “None of the studies cited has shown clear evidence that we can attribute changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases”. That is a direct contradiction to the paragraph which appeared in the summary, which has been quoted by hon. members opposite at great length today.

The report continued: “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate change to anthropogenic causes”. The report continued: “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total variability of the climate system are reduced”.

That does not give anybody great credit or anybody great discredit. What it does do is establish the fact which our leader mentioned earlier in the evening that there is not universal acclaim within the scientific community for the theory of human induced global warming. It is a theory. It is an interesting theory. I find it very interesting, but I do not swallow it holus-bolus. I want to see more evidence.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the member quoted Frederick Seitz.

I am going to refer to the book entitled “The Heat is On”. The quote is from an article in the Wall Street Journal . Frederick Selz is a director of the Marshall institute. He castigated another scientist, Santer, for allegedly excising references to scientific uncertainty. He wrote: “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the events which led to this IPCC report”, which is the quote the hon. member cited.

Several months later Seitz conceded the reports of his own Marshall institute which consistently denied that any threat to the global climate were not based on science but merely “represent opinion”. So much for Selz. It was purely an opinion. He admits himself that it did not represent scientific fact.

If the hon. member would care to read “The Heat is On”, all the references are there to the Marshall institute, to Selz, to Bolin, to the IPCC, to Michaels, Balling, Idso, Frederick Singer and Dr. Lindzen, who are all paid consultants of the trillion dollar oil and gas lobby, who would want us to believe that the world is not changing.

They would want us to believe, as tobacco scientists used to that tobacco does not cause cancer. They would want us to believe that the fish are not disappearing off the shores of Newfoundland. They would want us to wait until the world is a desert, until the seas have risen and the islands have gone. Then the Reform Party could do something but it will not be here any more, thank goodness.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of this House to share my allotted ten minutes with my colleague, the hon. member for Laurentides.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the House grant unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the scientific community generally agrees that the phenomenal amounts of pollutants released into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution are making the earth's temperature rise at an unprecedented rate.

The scientific commission mandated by governments world-wide demonstrated that the planet was warming and this was most likely due to carbon dioxide emissions and other gasses produced by burning fossil fuels as well as the destruction of forests.

Scientists are sending a warning about the consequences of global warming, one of which could be the rising of the sea level by nearly one metre. In Quebec, the St. Lawrence River would be the hardest hit, as its flow would be substantially reduced. Other examples could include more droughts—more land will turn into desert—, more hurricanes, the spread of famine and disease, vanishing forests and animal species becoming extinct. Without being alarmists, these researchers foresee disastrous consequences.

According to scientific forecasts, temperatures could rise by anywhere from 2 to 6 degrees Celsius in Quebec over the next century, which is the most dramatic climate change since the end of the last ice age.

The Minister of the Environment corroborates these statements with her statement that this climate change might impact upon our natural resources, including forests, water, fisheries, agriculture and a number of other sectors. Yet this government is suffering from an unprecedented inertia when it comes to the positions taken at the earth summit.

During the 1992 earth summit, the world governments agreed to bring their greenhouse gas emissions back down to 1990 levels by the year 2000. Yet only a rare few have made an effort to keep that promise. The Liberal government is, in fact, living proof of this, with its inertia and its slowness in taking a position in preparation for the Kyoto conference which is about to start. The Bloc Quebecois is asking the government to shoulder its responsibilities.

With her lack of leadership at the Regina meeting, the Minister of the Environment, by signing the final communique, is in danger of jeopardizing Canada's environmental credibility in the eyes of the international community. This agreement backs off from the commitments made at Rio and proves how easy it is to let oneself be intimidated by a sector of Canadian industry, the fossil fuel sector.

No one in this House has any doubt that the time has come to take preventive measures in light of the possibility of climate change. It is vital that the industrialized countries adopt very stringent objectives at Kyoto. Quebec, through its Minister of the Environment, has dissociated itself from the Regina agreement and by taking a firm position has demonstrated that it was possible in America to attain the objectives set for the year 2000. As for the federal government, however, it has demonstrated nothing except the weakness of its position.

It is vital that the objectives be higher than those of the United States and even Japan and that the objectives set at the Kyoto conference be ratified by all provinces of Canada. Let us not forget that only Quebec and British Columbia ratified the Rio agreement in 1992. A province such as Alberta, which produces more than a quarter of the greenhouse gases, cannot remain recalcitrant.

Greenhouse gases are a threat to humanity. Canada, excluding Quebec, came up with no project in response to the commitments made at the Rio summit. In fact, emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and others increased by 13% this year.

We know the position of the Quebec government, environmental groups and all the countries participating in the Kyoto conference, but we still do not know the position of the federal Minister of the Environment.

Is it too late for the government to do its homework? We cannot accept mere wishful thinking. Too many young people are expecting us to preserve their planet.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the inexplicable about-face of this government in the greenhouse gas issue is unbelievable.

The problem of greenhouse gases is not a new one. When I was environment critic, I rose on several occasions in the House to warn the Liberal government about the dangers of greenhouse gases. But apparently the minister back then and the one we have now seem to have been chronically deaf because nothing has been done. On the contrary, things are going from bad to worse.

I would like to remind the Minister of the Environment, in case she has forgotten, that the Kyoto conference in Japan takes place from December 1 to 12, five days from now, and that Canada is still the only G-7 country with no specific position on the greenhouse gas issue.

In addition, in case the minister has forgotten this as well, the purpose of the conference is to review the situation of greenhouse gas emissions with respect to what was agreed in Rio in 1992, in addition to adopting new objectives for the reduction of greenhouse gases, accompanied by short term, 2005, and medium term, 2010, legal controls.

At the Rio summit in 1992, 154 countries, including Canada, signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, thereby undertaking to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at their 1990 level by the year 2000.

At that time, Canada was considered a leader and a hero in this area, but today it is a real zero on that score. Even Canada's ambassador for the environment, John Fraser, expressed harsh criticism, and rightly so, against the government and its policies on greenhouse gases, which he described as lacking in commitment and leadership.

In fact, Canada's performance is disastrous. By the year 2000, Canada will have increased its greenhouse gas emissions by 13%. How can this be when the Liberal government committed in Rio to stabilize its emissions during this decade and then to reduce them gradually? What we see is the exact opposite.

What the Department of the Environment does not seem to realize is that greenhouse gases destroy not only our environment, but also our economy and our social fabric.

The minister should stop catering to cabinet and to the Alberta oil lobby, she should finally get her act together and adopt a responsible, firm and clear position.

Being penny-wise and pound-foolish to help oil companies save money by not taking drastic steps to eliminate greenhouse gases will undoubtedly cost us dearly in the future. The minister should consider the tremendous economic losses that thousands of companies would suffer because of climate change, not to mention all the health and environmental costs.

Furthermore, the minister should consider the economic benefits of more energy-efficient technologies. In relation to this, there is in my riding a very innovative and imaginative organization called CEVEQ, which specializes in assessing the compatibility of electric vehicles marketed with government standards.

This is a concrete example of where the federal government should be investing our taxes in order to reduce greenhouse gases. But obviously, the Liberal government prefers and considers it better to bow to the wishes of the oil companies that are polluting and endangering the lives of the people in Quebec and in Canada.

While we are still waiting for a clear position from the Minister of the Environment, the other countries have already announced their position on greenhouse gases for the Kyoto summit.

I invite the Minister of the Environment to read the Bloc Quebecois' position on reducing greenhouse gases. Contrary to the government opposite, the Bloc Quebecois takes the issue of greenhouse gases very seriously.

I urge the Minister of the Environment, out of respect for Quebeckers, for Canadians and for the young people who will be building tomorrow's world, to assume her responsibilities immediately in the area of greenhouse gases, in order to ensure for future generations the quality of life and the prosperity they have a right to expect.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask a question and perhaps seek support for a position a fellow member raised earlier. Members on the government side did not answer him. I ask the member for Laurentides to speak on the perspective of a national transportation strategy.

Rail transportation is a low emitter. A big issue for transportation is public freight and people who travel from one end of the country to the other. Our country was built on rail. Bullet trains are used elsewhere in the world. These trains could be used from Quebec City to Toronto. Maybe a Bombardier, using Canadian technology, could build an electric train that could travel at 300 kilometres per hour.

What kind of support would we get from the Bloc concerning a national transportation strategy to look at low emission transportation?

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, naturally, for us in Quebec and in the Bloc Quebecois, rail transportation is a non-polluting alternative and, as such, should be used more. Except that we note that this government is dismantling any rail transportation system we may have had. So, there is one side of the issue that does not sound right.

I referred earlier to the electric car as being another mode of transportation. We cannot rely on ethanol to save our environment. We have a technology, the electric car, that is currently under development. The mayor in my riding has been driving around in an electric car for more than two years, and it is very efficient.

Instead of investing haphazardly, the government should invest in areas where there are opportunities, and have a vision for a change. These investments will require time and research, but at least the end result will be products that will be useful, while preventing pollution in our country and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

So, yes, with respect to rail transportation, the government will have to invest in that area instead of dismantling the existing system. Perhaps an analysis should also be made to ensure that this system can be developed across the country and in Quebec.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on greenhouse gases and climate change.

I am one who believes that greenhouse gases are a threat to our planet. The balance of probabilities indicates that we should be taking action. The risk of inaction is just too great. We really cannot put this problem off into the future. We have to deal with it now.

The questions for me are how we improve our environmental performance with respect to greenhouse gases, at what pace we proceed, and how we implement these policies without negatively impacting our industries and our competitive position.

Reducing greenhouse gases is a very complex global issue. It involves matters of public policy. It involves matters of scientific and technical research. It is a very politically charged issue as well.

As with most issues of public policy we would generally ask the following questions. If we make a public policy change who loses and who wins? Are there winners and losers? Is it a win-win or is it a lose-lose situation?

If we look at the question of climate change and greenhouse gases we clearly cannot measure all the benefits. Nor should we try. We cannot really deal adequately with the benefits of a climate that is more stable, that minimizes the frequency and the severity of natural disasters, and that avoids the severe impacts on agriculture and other negative consequences of dislocation which climate change can cause.

These are some of the benefits of addressing climate change but there are other benefits as well. One that has been brought to the attention of our natural resource committee relates to insurance costs. Insurance premiums that cover natural disasters are getting to be totally out of hand and quite unaffordable. If we do not deal with greenhouse gases insurance premiums will become astronomically high and force our businesses and taxpayers generally to deal with a very difficult problem.

There are benefits such as that but some have argued there are other benefits. If we deal with climate change we will create a large movement in technology development.

The argument which has been repeated in the House goes something like this. If we set aggressive targets for greenhouse gases new technologies will help us reach our goals. The argument continues with the thought that as these technologies develop in Canada new industries and new export possibilities will be created. We will be able to sell and license these environmental technologies abroad.

I have oversimplified the argument but basically that is the essence of it. I hope it comes true. I am sure a lot of this will happen.

We should also ask ourselves what happens if these technologies do not materialize What happens if they do not meet the test of being commercially viable? We need to contemplate these possibilities as we negotiate greenhouse gas emissions. We need to have a fallback position. We should only bet on those technologies that are proven today and have been demonstrated to have commercial viability.

At the same time we can do a better job of removing obstacles and creating the right policy and tax environment, favouring the development and commercialization of environmental technologies. The agreements we reach in Kyoto must be achievable. We know from the Rio experience that targets must be realistic and achievable. To do this in Canada we need to do a few things.

First, we need to agree on realistic targets. Second, we need to obtain the commitment of all stakeholders, and that includes all Canadians, to achieve these goals. Third, we need to provide and refine economic instruments to create the right incentives and the right market signals to industry to improve our greenhouse gas reduction performance.

The economic instruments referred to are generally classified in two broad areas, non-tax instruments and tax instruments. In the area of non-tax instruments we have heard a lot about tradable permits for emissions trading.

Although it is a complex issue it boils down to a very simple scenario if we assume we have a certain jurisdiction, oversimplify it and make it hypothetical. There are two plants, two factories, and to reach certain greenhouse gas targets those plants together are allowed, say, 1,000 units of emissions. One plant is allocated 500 units and the other plant another 500 units of emissions. One plant is able to achieve the target, in fact exceed it and perhaps reduce it to 300 units of emissions. The other plant is having difficulty with achieving the 500 units and will be over by 200 units.

What happens is that the plant that will be over buys the surplus capacity the other plant will not utilize to meet the reduction targets. There is a consideration. One plant pays the other to buy its unused emissions target. This places a market value or opportunity cost on the cost of not being able to comply with the emissions targets.

It has some interesting possibilities. Although it is not a long term solution it provides some phasing of the problem. It allows companies and other creators of greenhouse gases some opportunities to step up to the issue.

We do not have much experience with tradable permits. The United States has some. We really do not have a lot of experience to draw on. It is something we should be looking at and seriously considering. Whether we could apply emissions trading on a global context is more of a challenge.

I am not sure it is workable in the short run, but it is something that perhaps is a target to look at. I mention that as one non-tax instrument. There are others. There are voluntary measures.

I am not sure over the last number of years that voluntary measures, unfortunately, have really done the job. I say unfortunately because I know there are many companies that have worked very hard at improving their environmental performance with greenhouse gases.

I can think, for example, of the industry that I came from, the forest industry, the pulp and paper industry. If we look at the greenhouse gas emissions in 1995 for the Canadian pulp and paper industry, they have been reduced by 20% from 1990. That is at a time when the production increased by a similar amount, 20%. Those were through voluntary measures.

I can look at my own riding of Etobicoke North where I have Bayer, the pharmaceutical company, BASF Canada and Parker Amchem, large chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturers which have really put a great effort into voluntary measures and have achieved some significant reductions in their emissions.

I would hope that voluntary measures will be part of the solution because there are some sectors and some companies that are working very hard to reduce their emissions.

If we look at other non-tax instruments, there are concepts like user charges for water supply, disposal charges or deposit refund schemes. There is a myriad of non-tax instruments that could be embellished and expanded.

If we look at tax instruments, we could look at accelerating depreciation allowances for environmental investments, for example, waste heat recovery. We waste a lot of heat.

There are a number of other tax instruments, but to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, we must recognize some important facts. Twenty-seven per cent of greenhouse gases originate in the transportation sector.

Secondly, if we adopt a policy of business as usual with respect to greenhouse gases, greenhouse gases will increase by 36.1% over 1990 levels by the year 2020.

We have seen this debate pitched as an Alberta oil patch issue versus the rest of Canada. In fact, that is not the case. The greenhouse gas producers in the next number of years will be British Columbia, Ontario and other provinces like Quebec, the Atlantic region and Saskatchewan.

To reach our goal, all Canadians will have to contribute. The end result will be worth it but it will involve a huge commitment by all Canadians. I think the goal will be worth it. I look forward to continuing discussion on this important topic.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate much of what the member says. I agree with much of it but this concept of tradable emission permits or credits is an interesting theory until you start to really examine it.

The government member from Ottawa West—Nepean raised the concern that if they start down that road, it will very soon become much like the dairy quotas in Canada. These permits become more and more expensive and fall into the hands of fewer and fewer corporations and companies.

It seems to me that it quickly becomes unworkable or a real hindrance to free economic activity. When you take the scenario even just a little further and start talking about the worker who has to commute into town to work every day and does not have access to public transit and has to use his automobile, does he then need to trade emission credits with the little old lady who just drives her car to church on Sunday?

It just becomes in my view unmanageable. How would the member see that system working?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member opposite. With emissions trading, the experience we have as I mentioned is quite limited. When they get to the micro, micro level of individuals, clearly it is not workable, no.

I think it has some potential if you are looking at a transition phase where you have different regions or different contributors to greenhouse gases. What it does is it puts a market price on the result of not meeting certain targets. If those permits become concentrated in the hands of a few and the price goes up, the entity that is producing the greenhouse gas emissions faces a higher cost. The economics start to move more toward taking the measures that will be necessary to meet their own target.

The market pressures are reasonable. It has some practical challenges to fully implement, certainly on a global basis, and even implementing it here in Canada, but it would provide some transitional relief and it is something we should try.