Debates of Nov. 26th, 1997

Canadians

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened as carefully to the Reform Party member who introduced the motion as I did to the government party member.

To a certain extent, if sovereignists had resorted to the same discourse, I am absolutely certain that it would have been interpreted as racist, but when it comes from the two federalist parties, who are very often on the same wavelength and who join forces in running down Quebec, everything is just fine.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Order. The member for Bourassa on a point of order.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to listen to the member for Berthier—Montcalm, but members of the House have never run down Quebec. We may have run down the Bloc Quebecois, but we never ran down Quebec.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is not a point of order.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Bourassa should know that this was not a point of order and that the only example of what I mentioned earlier is the Reform opposition day when they and the Liberals voted hand-in-hand to blame the government of Quebec, among others, for not having held consultations on the drivel called the Calgary declaration. If the member for Bourassa did not understand that yesterday, I am telling it to him now—he is in front of me—and I hope that now he will understand.

That having been said, I read the motion carefully and I must tell you—and here I agree with the parliamentary secretary when she says that this motion is in bad taste and ill-considered—that no matter how hard I try to read it from left to right and from right to left, I have difficulty understanding it. I would like to read it for those who are listening:

That a legislative committee of this House be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill in accordance with Standing Order 68(4) b ), to prevent the reference to and designation of any Canadian or group of Canadians in a hyphenated form, based on race, religion, colour or place of origin.

I read it several times, and I wonder what exactly he wants us to bring in a bill on? Will it be in the regulations made by this House or in the regulations made by a department? Will it be in the legislation, in the bills, in the acts? Is its purpose to make a law on private conversations between individuals and to prevent people from mentioning Canadians of Irish, Portuguese or Haitian origin, or even Quebeckers? Is its purpose to make laws on that? I do not know. Is it to forbid members in this House to use this language during debates. I do not know, the motion does not mention that.

There is one thing certain however. I agree with the parliamentary secretary. Earlier, I started by making a joke, but I agree with what has just been said on the government side. I would like to add that there is in Quebec a Charter on Rights and Freedoms. In Canada, there is the Canadian Charter on Rights and Freedoms, the Constitution Act, 1982. Quebec has never ratified it. No premier has signed it, as the member for Bourassa would mention, I am sure. But there is section 15.(1) which states:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

The Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms has an equivalent of this section. I believe that as far as protecting individuals is concerned, in Canada and in Quebec, we have the appropriate tools. I believe that we are even ahead of many countries when it comes to individual rights. I sincerely believe that this is a debate that we should not be having.

I think this is a pointless debate under the circumstances, given that there are already provisions that deal very efficiently with this issue. You will have gathered from what I said that I am opposed to this motion.

I will conclude with two comments. First, with his motion, the hon. member of the Reform Party managed to suggest that the concept of Canadian culture should be redefined. I think that he does not understand his motion all that well either, because that was not exactly his intention.

Second, on the government side, in interpreting the motion, they managed to say that they were in favour of a strong and united Canada. Again, both sides are showing great imagination. But they are not really addressing Motion M-24 before us.

For all these reasons, you will understand that I cannot be in favour of Motion M-24.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings of pleasure and great concern that I rise today in this House to speak about the motion presented by the member from the Reform Party.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to share my views on such an important issue. But at the same time, this motion proposing the creation of a House committee to draft a bill that would prevent any reference to the ethnic, cultural or religious origins of Canadians troubles me deeply.

Let us not be fooled by the wording of this motion. The Reform Party is out to destroy the multicultural policy that stands at the heart of our heritage and this comes as no surprise from a party that is promoting division and exclusion in its policies.

The member from the Reform Party presents his motion as an anti-discrimination measure that will ensure that all Canadians are considered equal in status. He refers to the use of hyphenated identification of Canadians from various origins as a way to create categories of citizens who are not just Canadians or simply Canadian. He argues that no one should be treated differently.

If the member thinks that being different means being less important, it is really sad. Does it mean that we should all forget our diverse origins and become white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Canadians? Does it mean that the only identity acceptable is the one of the majority? Does being Chinese-Canadian, German-Canadian or Italian-Canadian mean being less Canadian? No. It means being ourselves and wanting to be accepted as such.

The very principle of equality so often abused in Reform ideology is itself based on the idea that differences do exist. Being equal does not mean to be all the same. Equality means respecting differences and ensuring these differences will not limit the freedom of opportunity of individuals. This is what multiculturalism is all about.

Multiculturalism is about recognition, acceptance and celebration of differences. I am proud to say that this is the conception of equality promoted by the NDP. Equality means equality of opportunities. It means respecting and appreciating one's particular heritage, differences and characteristics. It also means that the government has an active role in promoting the right to be different and to counter intolerance.

To the contrary, the Reform Party wants multiculturalism to be purged from any government programs. The Reform Party thinks that the government should not participate in promoting multiculturalism because one's heritage is a private and personal matter.

Basically they say it is okay to be Indo-Canadian at home but let us avoid being multicultural in public. Why? Is it a shame to be different? Does it mean that we should all hide our roots in order to live together? Dangerous concepts and for many reasons.

It means that difference is not welcome and must be hidden. It also means that the government should not be active in promoting real equality of opportunities for minorities.

Does the member think the government has no business promoting justice or fighting racism and intolerance? Because multicultural policies are also about educating people on how enriching and powerful working together can be. Why is the Reform Party so terrified of multiple identities?

It is normal for people to cherish their specific heritages. Removing descriptions does not mean removing differences. The names we use to identify ourselves are ways of saying “Here I am. This is the way I am and I want to be respected as such”.

Being Cree, Quebecois, Indo-Canadian or Jewish is a way to express our specific heritage, our roots and a certain sense of collective belonging to a group but it is not a rejection of our common Canadian identity. In fact it is just the reverse. It is a strong statement strengthening the vibrant fabric of Canada.

Reform's rejection of the very idea that people have specific identities beyond their Canadian citizenship is also simplistic nonsense on the eve of the 21st century. When in the same day one can chat on the phone with someone from Rio de Janeiro, send an e-mail to a friend in Berlin, eat Jamaican patties while watching the news from Algeria or Afghanistan with a friend born in East Timor, multicultural we certainly are. To be multicultural we must fully participate in and understand this constantly changing and thriving world.

Canada has been recognized as a world leader in developing a policy that addresses today's multicultural world. Let us not give away what we have accomplished. Going back to what now seemed like stone age denials of different policies would be a major setback for this country. Sadly, this Liberal government has done little to defend multiculturalism from the unfounded and misleading attack from such groups as the Reform Party. Rather, multiculturalism programs have been whittled down bit by bit since the Liberals took office.

If the Liberals really believe in promoting diversity and participation of all Canadians in public life as a way to consolidate our national unity, maybe they could explain why this government has been following the politics of division and exclusion promoted by the Reform Party. Slashing social programs, cutting public education about multiculturalism and imposing burdens on newcomers like the infamous head tax, officially referred to as the right of landing fee, on permanent residency is not about inclusion. That is about exclusion and marginalization of a growing number of Canadians of all origins.

I and my New Democratic colleagues strongly believe that the state has an essential role in promoting a fair and just society. We think, as do the majority of Canadians, that multiculturalism policies are an important aspect of this role. In times of economic harshness, intolerance is on the rise. This should be a concern for all of us.

I personally think and history tends to confirm that in general when people can be open about and proud of their specific culture and ethnic origin, and when the state is willing to accommodate and promote diversity, there is harmony. It is only when attempts are made to suppress differences that troubles are developing.

I think it is possible, and even desirable, to live together in a spirit of co-operation and openness to one another. Only by recognizing our differences, not only our commons values, but also our distinct historical roots, can we build a Canada that respects our characteristic diversity.

Canada is by definition a country based on diversity: geographic diversity of course, but also the diversity of its people, cultures, languages and faiths. I think that, by emphasizing the role of the founding cultures—aboriginal, French and English—while at the same time promoting and cherishing the new multicultural reality of our country, we will learn to live together.

To recognize our differences, promote our common values and learn from each other and to enrich our cultural and social heritage is the way to a better future for Canada, not the politics of division and denial that we hear more and more from the other parties in this House. I will always rise to promote and defend our shared values of tolerance and inclusiveness that have made Canada such a cherished place to live.

I want to thank all the members for listening to my comments. I hope that I was able to convince some of them that this motion must be rejected.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the motion. I am a little bit concerned that the member for Surrey Central does not truly appreciate the implication of the motion he has put before this House.

We get into the very idea of what it means to be a Canadian. It was not too long ago that we had a debate in this House. The issue was about people who had turbans were barred from legions, something that we as a government did not agree with. There was also the issue of people being able to wear turbans in the RCMP.

It is very important in some ways to recognize the reality of this country which defines us as Canadians. The strong pillars of that are tolerance, understanding, and being able to participate fully with one's different religious background, with one's different ethnic origin, with one's different place of birth and be truly Canadian.

I was not born in Canada. I came to Canada in 1957 when I was 10 years old. Since 1957 I have lived in Canada. First and foremost I am a Canadian. But there is no denying that I was born in Hungary and I would not want to deny that. My mother came here at the same time when she was 36 years old. She died very recently. She was 76 years old. She died as a Canadian. She was proud of being a Canadian, but she did not forget her homeland. She did not forget where she came from.

In many cases it is coming from other countries, coming from other cultures that we can bring the very best to this country that is called Canada, a country that is the best country in the world.

I say to the member for Surrey Central there are countries where people try to hide their background. They try to hide their ethnic heritage. They deny it. They do so because they are living in a totalitarian country. They are living in a fascist country. In those places great sanctions are taken against people who are not perceived to be the same.

One of the strong points of this country is we can be different. If we look at the demographics of Canada, what does it mean to be a Canadian? We know the native people, our First Nations came to this country first. We know that the French factor came to this country. We know that the English factor came to this country. But we also know that we have had people come to this country from all over this planet. They have brought to this country the strengths from around the world and together have built the very best country in the world.

The other day we were debating the issue of land mines. There was an incredible consensus in this House that this was the right way to go. When I took part in the debate I could not help but remember that in 1956-57 Lester B. Pearson invented peacekeeping.

One of the reasons this has happened is because in Canada we have the demographics. It does not matter where the problem is, where the conflict is, there are Canadians with the background. They have relatives, friends, acquaintances and a familiarity with the place where the strife is taking place and they are hurting.

That is one of the reasons we as Canadians are so good at peacekeeping. We can broker differences. We can recognize differences and try to build the best society that we can. To deny that reality is to say to the rest of the world that we have to hide our differences, we have to submerge our differences. Clearly that is not what Canada is about.

I have been disturbed over the years when people have tried to attack the whole concept of multiculturalism in Canada. The reality is that we are a multicultural country. That is one of our very real strengths.

It is a pleasure to attend multicultural festivals with many people in my community, such as Canada Day, because we are celebrating the inclusiveness of society and sharing the best experiences from around the world.

I cannot agree with the motion. It is misguided at best. I certainly hope that we as a government and as members of the House of Commons work together to build on our tolerance and understanding so that we can continue to be a beacon of hope to a troubled world often torn by strife based on religious differences, ethnic background and various nationalities.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion. I thank my colleague for raising the issue. I did not think I would have the opportunity to speak today, but I am doing so because this is a subject that is dear to my heart.

Before coming to parliament I was a teacher. That experience taught me a lot about society and about people. For almost 25 years I observed the things that happened in my classroom. I began to realize the classroom was a microcosm of society, a small society within a larger society.

As teachers we were given direction from those above us who thought they knew better than teachers how to handle the affairs of the classroom. From time to time we received directives telling us to make children more sensitive to students with certain characteristics.

When we tried to implement policies in the classroom to cause students to be more sensitive to other students with certain characteristics defined as ones we should be sensitive to, the result was very interesting. It created a problem for me in the classroom. I relate this story to the House because I think the same problem is being created within society.

Students began to resent each other when certain ones became specially identified. I began to have tensions within my small classroom because of the policy. I suggest the same thing is happening in Canada. Students became jealous of each other because some were singled out as having a special sensitivity.

One student asked me “Are we not all special? Don't each one of us as individuals have certain characteristics that others should be sensitive to?” I am sure you have certain characteristics, Mr. Speaker, that, if we were to become aware of them, we would all like to be sensitive to. We would treat you very carefully.

The students taught me something about people. Each person as individuals want to be respected because they are who they are. They do not want somebody from above telling them to be sensitive to people who have a certain characteristic.

When are children in classrooms the happiest? It is when we are sensitive to each and every one of them and do not divide them into groups or cause certain ones to be singled out as needing special attention.

We are important because we are individuals. We will run into trouble, and we already have, within the society when we begin to implement policies from above that cause resentments and jealousies.

If we single out certain characteristics, we have to ask about all other characteristics that define us. We have a very wide variety of characteristics, not just our ethnic background, religion or whatever defines us or that we feel is important. We have all these things. I do not think we should use those characteristics to set ourselves apart from others in society. There are many other characteristics we could use.

I want to give an example. Saskatchewan has problems that are compounding as time goes on because aboriginals have been given the right not to comply with certain laws. Those with some aboriginal blood are now claiming the same right not to obey these laws. As a result people are beginning to be concerned about their safety and the preservation of the environment.

When we create differences we run into problems, as we already have. We should not be creating particular differences and giving people special consideration in certain areas.

I lived overseas in third world countries for almost five years. In my experience I was happiest, as the children in my classroom were happiest, when I was accepted for who I was and not because I was white, bald, of a certain religious persuasion or any other external characteristic.

We are important because we are people. Each one of us has many wonderful qualities. We are each special. Government should not be trying to define or meddle in areas that can actually divide us. That is counterproductive. It could create the problem we are actually trying to solve.

We could apply the lessons I learned in the classroom to the situation of today. We need to move toward equality. Multiculturalism is fine but government should not be involved in such things. When it is involved the big policies it tries to impose on the country do not work. One size does not fit all.

We should respect each other's background. We have many wonderful things to contribute. Let us as individuals contribute and not allow the government to become involved, as it will only make more of a mess than the one we have. We need to move toward equality. That will do more to solve the problems.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in politics for 15 years to fight against people like Bloc Quebecois and Reform Party members. Why? Because they always talk about ethnic groups.

Jacques Parizeau said that the referendum was lost because of the Jewish, Italian and Greek votes. Then, during the election campaign, the Reform Party was saying “Canadians should not elect another Prime Minister from Quebec”. Now, these people want to tell me what to do. They want to tell me what a Canadian is. I feel insulted and outraged by these extremists.

There is no doubt that multiculturalism is an asset. What is multiculturalism? It means being different but equal. In my riding of Bourassa, 20% of the population is Italian and 5% is Haitian. Many Haitians have settled in my riding of Bourassa.

It is a real asset to share with these people. The fact that I can speak Italian is something positive. Mi fa molto piacere do parlo italiano, signor .

This is what being Canadian is all about. Being Canadian means to benefit from all these cultures.

To me, being a Canadian is to allow people to grow while respecting their roots and traditions. All these cultures make me a better Canadian. This is what makes up the people of Canada.

When I see people constantly trying to define what a Canadian should be, using the highest possible common definition, saying that we are good or bad Quebeckers, I realize why the public is cynical toward politicians. Thank goodness the Liberal Party is in office with a majority. I would be concerned if we were stuck with the ethnic policies of the Reform Party or the Bloc Quebecois.

If, instead of having a national vision like that of the Liberal Party of Canada, we constantly talk about regionalization, as do Reformers and Bloc members, no wonder there are problems.

I wish to commend our Secretary of State for Multiculturalism on her work. I wish to commend her, and I wish to commend all of the members of the Liberal Party of Canada, regardless of place of origin, as well as all of the members of the Reform Party, regardless of place of origin. They all have the opportunity to be in Canada because of equality in difference. Now, today, they want to scrap all of that. I cannot understand the logic of some members of the Reform Party. They should join the Liberal Party, because that is where openmindedness is found.

One thing that is certain, I hope this motion will be defeated. It ought not to have even been moved, because it insults people's intelligence. It is an insult to my Canadianism. I trust, however, that these motions can be taken advantage of as an opportunity for the Bloc Quebecois to ask pardon of those Canadians who are of Jewish, Italian or Greek background, so that it will be possible—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary Centre on a point of order.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand it is customary that the person who moves the motion normally has the opportunity to sum up. I request that the person who moved the motion would be next up when the member speaking concludes, which I hope will be fairly soon, looking at the clock.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The ruling given by the Chair on the first day of Private Members' Business in respect of the rule about the five minutes for the member who moved the motion indicated that if members kept rising in debate the member who moved would not get that opportunity.

I urge hon. members to check the ruling of the Chair on the first day of Private Members' Business. The ruling was given that day. The five minutes is available if no one else rises to speak.

The hon. member for Bourassa rose to speak. He has 10 minutes in his speech. If he uses his full time I am afraid there will not be five minutes left. If he chooses to sit down and no other member rises in debate, I will certainly recognize the hon. member for Surrey Central at the appropriate time. The hon. member for Bourassa may bear that in mind as he wishes.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so open-minded that I am going to conclude my remarks quickly to enable another member to speak.

One thing is for sure, however, contrary to what the member for Laurentides has just said to me, I will never shut my trap, I will never stop talking in defence of Canada and the interests and values of Canadians.

If there is to be open-mindedness and appropriate policies, we have to have a Liberal government. I thank the good Lord that we finally, once again, have people like the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism because thanks to her and people who have chosen Canada, we can combat people like those opposite. They have greater merit than I. They chose Canada. They know about Canadian values. They know about Canada's passion and intrinsic value.

I hope that the people of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party will be open-minded and will apologize for wanting to have such a motion passed. This is an insult to a person's intelligence, and it is certainly not what Canada represents.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion the member of the Reform Party tabled in the House perturbs me quite a bit.

As I stated earlier in the House, I am a Canadian. I am a Canadian who is black, of African origin. I am of French Canadian origin. I am of Belgium origin. I am of aboriginal origin. I am of Metis origin. I have many different ethnic origins coursing in my blood. I am very proud to be a Canadian.

When I hear someone proposing that Canada become a homogenized, white bread Canada, I am scandalized. Canada has never been white bread; Canada has always been whole wheat.

[An hon. member]

Multi-grained whole wheat bread.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Multi-grained whole wheat. My colleague recalled to me multi-grained whole wheat bread. It is very good for us and full of fibre.

As the doctor will tell us and our mother will tell us, we need fibre in our diet every day. As Canadians we have that fibre.

It is really interesting to talk about how he wants to abolish the appellations, Italian Canadian, Greek Canadian, Jewish Canadian, Ukrainian Canadian. The point is we are all Canadian. As the hon. Secretary of State for Multiculturalism mentioned and stated quite clearly, people and individuals do not define themselves by one thing—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the item is dropped from the Order Paper.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Surrey Central on a point of order.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since the employment of dirty tactics in the debate, I was not given time to close my debate and give answers to some of the questions raised in the debate.

I will ask you, Mr. Speaker, to seek unanimous consent on the motion and I implore the House to call for a recorded vote on motion 24.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the proposal of the hon. member. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is no consent.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been moved pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 25, 1997.

The Environment

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that this evening parliamentarians of all parties have the opportunity to record their opinions in this House on the important subject of climate change.

Climate change, the most serious environmental issue this century, has been much talked about by members during the last few months here in the House of Commons during question period, in the standing committee on environment, in the press and no doubt in homes and communities across this country.

We know that this issue, climate change, is of great concern to Canadians. According to our most recent polling, 87% of Canadians believe it is likely, or somewhat likely, that climate change will have serious negative effects on both the environment and our economy within 10 years.

Seventy-two per cent of Canadians believe that the government should take necessary actions to curb greenhouse gas emissions, even if such actions could have negative impact on the economy and their lifestyles. Seventy per cent of Canadians believe that individuals can play a part in doing something about climate change.

The phenomenon of climate change is the most serious environmental threat of this century. In a statement released by the international panel on climate change in 1995, over 2,000 internationally renowned scientists from all across the world told us that human activity is having a discernible impact on the global climate. Nevertheless, some skeptics still refute the science suggesting an enormous hoax has been perpetrated upon the global community and that we can carry on with business as usual or at least wait 20 to 40 years before taking preventative action.

As responsible members of Parliament, as responsible government with the authority to act, we are compelled to respond to this environmental threat with at minimum the attitude of precaution. As a government we must show leadership by working with all Canadians, all governments, provincial, territorial and municipal, all industry and business leaders and our scientists in order to put in place both realistic and achievable targets for greenhouse gas emissions reductions and implementation plans which reflect the engagement of all.

It is important to note that if we take up this challenge, as we must, we will not only correct a serious global environmental problem in the long term, but we will also experience some shorter term environmental and health benefits along the way. The measures we promote to tackle the climate change problem will also help to address smog, acid rain and lake water deterioration. Smog accounts for an estimated 1,500 premature deaths in Ontario alone, to say nothing of the cost of hospitalization, asthma attacks and chronic bronchitis. Committing ourselves to reduce greenhouse gases will contribute to cleaner air and purer water.

It is important to reflect upon why this issue is important to Canada. A series of studies released this fall outline the impacts of climate change on the different regions of Canada, B.C. and the Yukon, the prairies, the Arctic, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

The Mackenzie Basin impact study of the north reveals that the north has already warmed at three times the global rate. We now know that climate change will result in melting glaciers, ice caps and permafrost which will result in higher sea levels, more frequent forest fires and changes in migration patterns of wildlife.

The Mackenzie Basin impact study goes on to outline how in contrast to sea levels, lake and river water levels will actually drop. This will affect freshwater sources and fish and wildlife habitat. There will also be an impact on agriculture, forestry and fishery industries because of more frequent droughts and fires.

However, despite these serious threats, there are those who suggest that in a cold northern climate like Canada, climate change will be a benefit, this despite the fact that climate change would cause unprecedented upheavals in our environment, in our economy and in our lives. Key sectors of our economy such as forestry, fisheries and agriculture will be affected in all areas of Canada. Canada will not be a winner if the phenomenon of climate change continues unchecked, and this must be understood.

Scientists predict that with present levels of greenhouse gases we will see more severe weather events like the B.C. snowstorm last December, hailstorms that hit Alberta in 1991, floods such as those that struck the Saguenay and Manitoba in the last two years and possibly more tornadoes and severe storms across the country.

According to the insurance industry, there have been record losses in recent years, much higher than previously recorded. In 1996 alone extreme weather events resulted in losses of approximately $165 million. This is the reality we face in Canada, a country which on a per capita basis consumes enormous amounts of energy, the second highest per capita rate worldwide, second only to our neighbour the United States. This means we contribute significantly on a per capita basis to the problem of climate change.

It is also important to put this reality within the global context. Our world population continues to grow at an unprecedented rate and all human beings are consumers of energy and contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. Most of the population growth occurs in developing nations. Most of these people live in poverty with no or little access to electricity. Poor people use every tree available for cooking and heating.

Developing nations are among the largest smog ridden countries in the world. The air is rank with wood, coal and charcoal smoke in combination with dirty fuel emissions from cars, trucks and buses. It is a real chemical soup with serious health and business costs, to say nothing of the environmental implications.

We must ask ourselves if it is fair to tell developing nations that they cannot grow and develop because this would perforce increase their countries' emissions. No. Despite the reality of dirty air in many cities of the developing world and incredibly high populations, it is still the developed world that accounts for 58% of global carbon dioxide emissions.

Is it possible to allow developing nations to grow with business as usual unchecked growth in greenhouse gas emissions? No, but it is possible for them to grow with an equivalent effort at reduction of greenhouse gases in relation to developed nations.

This proposal offers many opportunities for a country like Canada, opportunities to share our technologies, our science, our expertise, opportunities to invest in developing world growth in a green and environmentally friendly fashion.

Canada has some of the world's best environmental technologies, some of which must be used more in Canada but which are very attractive to developing nations as well. For example, we have some of the best technologies to assist in the clean burning of coal.

Since 1975, the government has spent $10 million annually on coal research and development, 40% of which has gone to clean coal research and development. Environment Canada has participated in this program and the program is expected to continue for the next three to five years.

As I have said earlier, the science is sound and compelling and that is why, when the Canadian government goes to Kyoto next week, it goes in search of realistic, meaningful, achievable and equitable targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We want to make it clear that all countries in the world must participate in reducing emissions globally. The agreement will also underscore the need for flexibility mechanisms which will allow all nations to make significant domestic reductions and earn credit for reductions achieved internationally.

We are doing this because it is right for the world and because it is right for Canada.

But Kyoto is not an end in itself. I do not wish to downplay the importance of the Kyoto meeting. It will be a real challenge to reach an agreement acceptable to everyone, to developing countries more concerned with feeding their growing populations, as well as to small, insular countries that run the danger of sinking under rising ocean levels.

The real work will begin, however, when we come back from Kyoto, for it is then that we will have to decide how we are going to achieve the targets on which we have agreed.

When my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, Ralph Goodale, and I met with our provincial and territorial counterparts in Regina two weeks ago, we agreed to formulate this plan together. The federal government alone cannot reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

It was after consultation with provincial, territorial and municipal governments and with industry and environmental groups that we formulated Canada's proposal for the Kyoto meeting. We will take the same approach in working out the plan for meeting our commitments.

We want the plan we come up with to be consistent with the environmental, economic and social aspirations of Canadians.

No, it will not be easy. Everyone will have to take part: governments, industry, environmental groups, communities and each member of the Canadian public.

We are all going to have to make changes, changes in the way we generate electricity, changes in the way we get around, changes in how we heat our homes and changes in the way our industries use energy. These changes will be significant, but I have faith in the willingness of Canadians to make the necessary changes.

Who would have thought a decade or more ago that Canadians would spend the time required to separate their garbage, rinse tins and jars and carry different loads of garbage out on garbage day?

Today, curbside recycling is so much a part of our lives, not many of us think about it any more. We just do it. Many, without access to the program, are actually taking their recyclable garbage to another area of town that has the program so that they can contribute to the recycling effort.

Taking action to reduce emissions can be as simple and inexpensive as changing or cleaning filters in your furnace and having it serviced once a year, driving more slowly and keeping your vehicle's tires fully inflated.

Canadians across the country are already doing what they can to reduce emissions. They are helping to reduce the number of cars on the road.

The people at the Toronto Region Carpool initiative have worked with large employers in three areas of Toronto not well served by public transit to organize car pools for employees.

Another example is in Edmonton. The EcoCity Society is building greenways from abandoned rail corridors for cycling, walking and in-line skating creating a green link between inner city communities and downtown.

Again, the Cambie Corridor Consortium in Vancouver provides ride matching services and oversees preferred parking for vans and car pools, transit pass discounts, and showers for those who walk and cycle to work.

In Whitehorse, Yukon a 10 kilometre trail will provide residents with a safe and direct route for cycling and walking in the summer, snowshoeing and skiing in the winter.

They are making it easy for drivers to have their emissions tested.

Citizens in Fredericton and Saint John, New Brunswick competed in the Emissions Impossible contest to see which community could have the greatest number of cars tested for emissions. One participant even had the problem fixed and brought his car back the same day to pass the test.

In Edmonton a campaign called SMOG FREE, Save Money On Gas From Reduced Exhaust Emissions, provided drivers with free emissions tests and a coupon good for $10 off on any emissions reducing work of more than $50.

Canadians are helping homeowners make their homes more energy efficient, saving them money and reducing emissions at the same time. Green home visits in Cornwall, Ontario have saved homeowners anywhere from $300 to $10,000 on their heating bills. In St. Catharines, Ontario home visits have helped to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 369,000 kilograms per year.

The 20 Per Cent Club is a group of more than 30 Canadian municipalities who have committed themselves to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2005. One of the members of the club, Toronto, has just been recognized by the United Nations as the most successful city in the world at reducing emissions.

Business too is participating in the effort to reduce emissions because it is good for the environment and because it is good for the bottom line. Between 1990 and 1994 Chrysler Canada decreased total energy use by 5% at its largest Canadian operation at the same time as production increased by almost 50%. Over the same period Falconbridge reduced its overall energy consumption by just over 6% by modifying compressed air systems in several parts of its operations.

Just this week Petro-Canada announced a joint venture with Iogen to develop Canadian technology to produce ethanol, an alternative fuel, from straw, waste wood and other byproducts of agriculture and forestry. Producing ethanol from biomass in this way reduces carbon dioxide emissions by more than 90% compared with the production and use of gasoline. Petro-Canada is committed to exploring the commercial potential of this process because it believes that harnessing our powers of innovation is the way to reduce emissions.

Government too is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Besides several other significant budget measures taken by the federal government in the last few years, I was very proud earlier this week to announce that my department will be purchasing 100% green power for its Alberta facilities from Calgary's ENMAX. This is the first ever institutional green power purchase in Canada. By choosing to power our facilities from wind power supplied by Vision Quest, Environment Canada will be reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 2,000 tonnes annually, enough electricity to power about 250 homes.

That may not sound like much but that is how we will reduce emissions, step by step, with each step leading to the next step.

Despite everyone's voluntary efforts, we are far from achieving the goal of stabilization of greenhouse gases at 1990 levels and we know we must reduce our emissions well below stabilization as the years go on. We must redouble our efforts, work together to select and focus on implementing those measures which will have the greatest cost benefit for the environment and for the socioeconomic well-being.

The federal government will develop an implementation plan in collaboration with all our partners.

Climate change poses a real challenge for Canada, but as with any real challenge real opportunities exist. As an international leader in energy research and development, Canada's private sector will be well placed to take advantage of an increased global demand for renewable resource expertise and clean energy efficient technology. Canadian companies such as Ballard and GFI are already taking advantage of this global opportunity with support from the federal government such as Technology Partnerships Canada.

Our children and grandchildren deserve a future free of environmental and economic uncertainty. There will be costs associated with reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, but the cost of inaction will be much higher and more profound. Together with the spirit and determination which shaped our country, Canadians can meet the challenge of climate change. In so doing we can demonstrate the international leadership for which this country is renowned. Our children and our grandchildren deserve no less.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this take note debate on global warming. Our aim is to hold the government accountable for its approach to the development of Canada's position on this issue in preparation for the third conference of the parties to the UN framework convention on climate change to be held December 1 to 10 in Kyoto, Japan.

The minister has previously indicated in the House that Canada is committed to signing a medium term, legally binding agreement for reducing CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2010. However with only a few days left until Kyoto, the minister has yet to lay before the House in a definitive way the science on which Canada's position is based. The science, she said tonight, is sound and compelling and then she failed to present any of it.

The minister has yet to lay before the House a definitive statement of the economic, sectoral, regional and taxpayer impacts of pursuing its CO2 emissions reduction targets. The minister cited public opinion polls, but opinion polls conducted in the absence of the presentation and knowledge of any of the impacts would certainly change the results.

The minister has yet to satisfy the House that the government has a workable agreement with the provinces or with anyone else for achieving its targets and paying the bills. In the absence of such a plan, the minister was relegated to listing anecdotes of emissions controls which however laudable do not even scratch the surface of the emissions controls required.

I suggest that surely the time for a take note debate is long overdue. Given the government's ineptitude in approaching this issue, it is time for an accountability debate and that is what we intend to present.

I would like to confine my remarks tonight to three aspects of the issue: the science of global warming; the public interest in global warming, in particular the taxpayer interest; and an alternative to the approach the government is taking.

My colleagues, particularly the official opposition critic for the environment, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni, and the official opposition critic for natural resources, the hon. member for Athabasca, and other colleagues will be analysing the government's approach and position in greater detail from their perspectives.

I would like to start with global warming from a scientific perspective and present some of the information which I frankly had expected to hear from the minister tonight.

I believe that most of us as MPs should attempt to do this, to outline our layman's understanding of what science is saying on an important public issue, even at the risk of exposing ourselves to correction by experts. By doing so, we acknowledge that science has a major contribution to make to the issue at hand. By outlining however imperfectly our understanding of what science is saying, we can learn and improve our application of science to public policy. So let me try my hand at describing the greenhouse effect and global warming from a scientific perspective.

Science tells us first of all that the greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon vital to the existence and preservation of life on this planet. This phenomenon is described in many scientific textbooks and in the introduction to most policy discussions on global warming. I will go through a few of these.

They usually begin by reminding us that interstellar space is a cold place. Its average temperature is -250°C. The average temperature of the earth on the other hand is 15°C, a difference of 265 degrees. The difference is explained by the impact of the sun's radiation as a source of global warmth and the effect of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere.

Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and water vapour which occur naturally in our atmosphere have the following properties: they are transparent to short wavelength radiations such as sunlight, but they are opaque to longer wavelength radiations such as the infrared radiation emitted by the earth. These gases therefore let sunlight through to warm the earth, but trap the infrared radiation from the earth and warm the planet by about 20°C.

Let us therefore pause, especially those of us who live in a northern climate, to express thanks for the greenhouse effect because without it, the average surface temperature of the earth would be -5°C and of course it would be uninhabitable.

It is not the greenhouse effect itself that is the current cause of consternation and the subject of international conferences like Rio de Janeiro and Kyoto. The cause of consternation, the subject of this take note debate, is the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect, the greenhouse effect enhanced by human activity, in particular the burning of fossil fuels and the probability of so-called global warming as a result.

In 1896 it was the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius who put forward the hypothesis that the addition of greenhouse gases from human activity would trap more infrared radiation and consequently lead to an increase in atmospheric temperatures. Today it is not disputed that man's activities over the past two centuries, in particular the burning of hydrocarbons and the destruction of forests, have led to an increase of between one-quarter and one-third of atmospheric CO2. Similar increases of other greenhouse gases have occurred.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution we have therefore increased the equivalent CO2, the increase in all greenhouse gases by approximately 50%. That said, the hypothesis that global temperatures are in fact increasing over the long haul is still and should be still the subject of scientific debate. The hypothesis that increases in CO2 emissions are the principal contributors to global warming is also and should also still be the subject of scientific debate.

The scientific literature on global warming includes evidence and argument for and against both of these hypotheses.

For example, climatologists observe that global temperatures in the 1960s and 1970s were cooler than in the 1950s. If you go back and look at their literature, particularly the popular literature of that period, the global warming theory lost ground during those years to the ice age theory.

Books such as Ice by Sir Fred Hoyle, an eminent scientist, The Cooling by Lowell Ponte, The Genesis Strategy by Stephen Schneider, all purporting to be based on solid science, argued that global temperatures were falling, not rising.

In 1988 however—and I am talking mainly about the North American context; you can follow a line of development in Europe and other parts of the world—the global warming theory regained attention from testimony before the U.S. Senate energy subcommittee of the commerce committee by James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Hansen said: “I have a high degree of confidence that the current climate is related to enhanced greenhouse effects. Global warming is now sufficiently large that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect”.

In 1990 the UN published its scientific assessment of climate change, authored by a scientific panel. It is commonly referred to as the IPCC report. This was a scientific report, prepared and reviewed by scientists.

Its findings, however, were challenged even at the time by other scientists, leading the influential scientific journal Nature to say in an editorial at the time that IPCC's failure to discuss dissenting opinions, perhaps even to dismiss them, was a mistake.

The UN subsequently convened the conference on the environment and development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. This led signatories, including Canada, to agree to limit CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.

Incidentally, according to Environment Canada, a greenhouse gas inventory prepared a year after put Canada's emissions at 461 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, for the year 1999, 3.7 million tonnes of methane and approximately 92,000 tonnes of nitrous oxide.

In addition, under a business as usual scenario, it was believed that by the year 2000 Canadian emissions of carbon dioxide would grow by between 11% and 13%.

While these measurements were going on, scientists like Patrick Michaels, a climatologist at the University of Virginia, in both scientific articles and in popular books like Sound and Fury challenged the validity of the global climate models. These are the computer models on which much of the global warming theory is based.

DFO scientist Allyn Clarke, testifying before the parliamentary committee on the environment on November 6, 1997, said: “I don't believe that our current crop of climate models are particularly good at predicting the future. I can explain away each new climatic index as being within the range of natural variability”. He is a Canadian scientist, working for the Canadian government.

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the Global Hydrology and Climate Centre at the University of Alabama, argues that global temperature data collected from satellites, which is more modern than the data collected from earth based meteorological stations, do not support the theory of global warming.

A 1991 study by Friis-Christiansen and Lassen and similar studies found a correlation between solar cycle length and global temperatures, suggesting that fluctuations in solar radiation levels, not greenhouse gas emissions, were the controlling factor in climate changes over the last 100 years.

All of this brings me to the following observation on the government's approach to global warming from a scientific perspective.

An underlying weakness of the government's approach is its inability to sort out good science from bad, real science from pseudo-science and basic science from science as applied by those with vested interests in its application on either side of the issue.

Indeed, this is a special case—and this is something I have noticed since I came to this Parliament—of the government's general lack of ability and mechanisms to bring science to bear objectively and effectively on any issue of national importance.

Despite the importance of science to every aspect of our national life, this is not a science oriented government. There are very few science stories in the clipping service subscribed to the by government. There are never any science illustrations, contemporary ones or anecdotes, in the speeches of the prime minister or senior ministers.

The government knows how to put on cocktail receptions for Nobel laureates but does not know how to tap into their wisdom and apply it to national policy issues.

To illustrate this further, when the minister was asked in the House the other day by the member from Kelowna which particular scientists and which particular studies she had used to form the basis of Canada's position at the Kyoto conference, she said:

Mr. Speaker, there are thousands of respected scientists throughout the world who are telling us that this is an issue we have to be concerned about. There are all kinds of science in support of the international community's signing an agreement in Kyoto, Japan.

That was all that was said.

She then jumped from this totally vague reference to thousands of scientists and all kinds of science to quoting particular references from various interest groups.

This is a completely unacceptable and, I suggest, a completely unscientific answer to a perfectly legitimate question on relevant science.

The official opposition is therefore sceptical about the alleged science behind the government's position, and for three particular reasons.

First, we are aware that one of the unfortunate byproducts of government policy demanding results oriented science is to create a market for biased science designed to serve political and bureaucratic interests rather than a market for free and independent science.

In the U.S. this trend is most aptly illustrated by a quote from Dr. Stephen Schneider, a global warming protagonist and adviser to U.S. Vice-President Al Gore. In an interview given by Dr. Schneider to Discover magazine on October 1989 he said:

On the one hand, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but—which means we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs, and buts.

On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we have to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This `double ethical bind' that we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

Before accepting the government's position on global warming, as based on legitimate science, Canadians want to be assured that it is not based on, to quote Dr. Schneider, scary scenarios made simple and dramatic with little mention of doubts, simply in order to capture public imagination and support and, I might also say, research funds from gullible governments.

Second, with respect to the record of this government in bringing science to bear on public policy, the official opposition is well aware that this House has been misled in this area before. I refer particularly to the record of this government and the previous government in bringing science to bear on the sustaining of the fisheries, particularly the Atlantic fishery.

Time and time again this House was assured that the goal of the government was the sustainable development of the fisheries, a goal which balances economic and environmental interests, the same type of thing only in a different context as what we are talking about tonight. Time and time again we were assured that science was guiding the government's pursuit of sustainability. All hon. members have heard that said at one time or another.

Now in more recent days we read stories of fishery scientists who say their science was ignored or, worse yet, twisted to serve political and bureaucratic ends, for example, to justify opening a depleted cod fishery for a short time just before a federal election. I wonder what scientific study led to that conclusion?

Most damning of all, we have the auditor general's recent report saying that in reality there is no clearly stated policy for sustainable fisheries in theory or in practice. Excuse us, therefore, if we are sceptical of the claims of a government that now claims it can harness science to public policy to save the planet from CO2 emissions when it obviously could not harness science to public policy to save a fishery.

Third, we are particularly sceptical about the capacity of governments to harness science to public policy at high level conferences like Rio or Kyoto because of what I call the Meech Lake effect or the law of Meech. I am heading into new scientific ground.

The law of Meech is based on observations made at the high level constitutional conference held at Meech Lake in 1987. This was conducted with politicians, not monkeys, because it was found that the technicians were less likely to develop a personal attraction to the politicians.

At that conference 11 first ministers were locked up for three days to come up with a constitutional agreement while over 200 media persons waited outside for a dramatic pronouncement. The agreement reached at that meeting under those kinds of circumstances was so out of tune with the needs of the country and the thinking of the public, so devoid of common sense, that it was eventually discredited and rejected.

According to the law of Meech, therefore, the capacity of politicians in high conference with each other to deceive themselves is directly proportionate to four things: the number of politicians involved, the rank of the politicians, the length of the time they are together isolated from ordinary people, and the number of journalists, media persons, waiting outside the door panting for a story.

I suggest that this Meech Lake effect was in full operation at the Rio summit in 1992 where over 100 world leaders met in isolation from their publics for almost a week with almost 9,000 media people panting for an instant, simplistic solution to a complex problem.

I see increasing evidence of the Meech Lake effect coming into play again as the Government of Canada rushes down the road to Kyoto. Can we offer any constructive advice on how better to harness science to the development of public policy on global warming or on anything else?

Time will not permit me here to elaborate on an alternative science policy to the federal government. I think we should have a debate like that some time in this House.

Allow me to make one observation. This Parliament, indeed this government, has no effective mechanism for bringing science effectively to bear on big issues like global warming without having that advice filtered or amplified by the departments and interest groups with a strong vested interest in the content and the direction of the advice we receive.

In retrospect, it was probably a mistake to do away with the science council of Canada and the office of the chief science adviser to Canada. We should re-examine whether such institutions are in fact required. If they are, and I suspect they are, we should take particular care to ensure that their terms of reference enable them to provide that basic, objective, unfettered, scientific advice which this Parliament and this government so obviously need to deal with an issue like global warming.

I want to turn from science to consideration of the issue of global warming from the public interest perspective. This Parliament has a responsibility to determine what policy, what position on global warming is in the Canadian public interest, and the public interest is rarely, if ever, synonymous with a single interest.

It is not a matter of choosing between the protection of the environment or the growth and development of the economy, but the best balance between the two, the course of action that reconciles the two at lowest cost.

It is not a matter of choosing between the federal interest in this matter or the provincial interest but finding the position and the policy that activates and co-ordinates both federal and provincial responsibilities in this area.

It is not a matter of choosing between the interests of the coal and the oil producing provinces and the interests of the other provinces, but the position and policy that balances and reconciles the best interests of both producing and consuming interests.

I saw this neglected in the minister's presentation. Above all, since we are the Canadian Parliament and it is the position of the Canadian government we are seeking to devise, it is the interests of Canada and Canadians in all these matters that we must keep paramount.

Let me talk for a minute about balancing environmental and economic interests. Let me first of all say categorically that Reform is committed to the protection of the Canadian and global environment. We do not believe that this country or any other country can be indifferent to the real and potential environmental damage that can arise from the combustion of hydrocarbons.

When our party was founded, its statement of principles included the following statement: “We believe that Canada's identity and vision for the future should be rooted in and inspired by a fresh appreciation of our land and the supreme importance to our well-being of exploring, developing, renewing and conserving our natural resources and physical environment”.

We understand from the laws of conservation of energy and mass that the total weight of materials taken into an economy from nature must ultimately equal the total weight of the waste discharged plus any materials recycled. It is a great fundamental principle, economic in one dimension and ecological in another.

That means the only way to reduce the pollution burden on ecosystems in this country in absolute terms is either to reduce our economic activity or to dramatically improve our recycling capability.

Nations like ours, indeed all nations of the world, should begin to give as much attention to the measurement and disposition of the gross national pollution as we do to the gross national product.

We are convinced the real standard of living of our country and other countries of the world cannot be measured by GNP per capita alone as it often is. Real standard of living equals GNP per capita minus gross national pollution per capita. That equation should guide both our economic and environmental policies.

To give a more human dimension to this point, I frequently visit schools, particularly when I am on the road. I try to visit an educational institution at least once a day. When I do that I try not to give long speeches like this one. I try to get young people themselves to talk.

I often ask them what kind of country they want to live in. I have been impressed over the last 10 years by the fact that over 40% of the answers I receive are expressed in environmental terms. I want to live in a Canada where there is clean air, where there is clean water, where there are forests, where there is unpolluted land, and so forth.

Whereas our grandfathers may have defined Canada as a partnership between the English and the French and our generation may wish to define it as a partnership between equal citizens and provinces, I suspect our grandchildren may well insist the most primary definition of Canada should be as a partnership between its people and the land, between its people and its ecosystem. That would not surprise me at all.

Let it not be said that this side is indifferent to the protection of the environment and questions the adequacy of the government's approach to global warming from that perspective.

Just as we believe and I think most members in the House believe that major proposals for industrial projects require an environmental impact assessment, we believe major proposals for environmental protection require an economic impact assessment.

We have not seen that from the government with respect to CO2 emission reductions. How can we find the right balance between economic and environmental impacts and effects if we do not have them in the same degree of specificity on the table at the same time?

The federal government is apparently prepared to commit itself to significant reductions in GNP over the next one or two decades to stabilize CO2 emissions at 1990 levels. If some industrial concern came before parliament or one of its committees with an industrial proposal that would increase our GDP by 1% to 3% over the next 20 years, we would insist that it provide us with a detailed assessment of the environmental impacts.

We have the government coming to us with an environmental policy proposal that could require a significant reduction in GDP. The government fails to provide an economic impact assessment. It fails to provide sectoral impact assessments. It fails to provide regional impact assessments. It fails to provide a tax impact assessment.

Where is the impact assessment from the Department of Finance or the Department of Human Resources on the number of jobs that will be lost as a result of a GDP reduction required to hit the proposed Kyoto targets?

Where is the assessment of the impact on loss of revenue to the government and the increase in the deficit? We are not arguing at this point whether it is right or wrong. We are saying where is the assessment of the impact so we can make a judgment on whether it is worth the cost.

Where is the economic impact assessment that supports the job creation and economic activity are associated with new technologies and exporting to which the minister referred?

Where is the assessment that indicates the value of that activity would come even remotely close to compensating for the job loss and curtailment of economic activity required to reduce CO2 emissions to 1990 levels?

Where is the assessment from the transportation minister? That minister has been silent on the contraction of that sector which will result from the measures required to reduce CO2 emissions to 1990 levels.

Where is the assessment from the natural resources minister on the contraction of the energy sector?

Where is the assessment of the trade minister on the trade impacts? Why has this not run through the entire government if the government is serious about the matter?

Where are the assessments of the so-called regional development ministers on the impacts on the west, Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic region and the north?

In the absence of these impact assessments from the government, we have no choice but to rely on impact assessments prepared by the interests that would be directly affected.

Some hon. members may consider the assessments biased, but they are more substantive than anything the government has produced. They are so sobering in their content that even if they were discounted by 50% by 75%, they could hardly be ignored.

I apologize for taking so much time, but I am doing what I had expected the minister to lay before the House. For example, the Business Council on National Issues attempted to illustrate the nature and the magnitude of the measures needed to reduce Canadian CO2 emissions to 1990 levels. According to their calculations reductions to 1990 levels—and this is the stated Canadian position for Kyoto—would require the equivalent of one of the following measures: a shutdown of 40% of Canada's agricultural, petrochemical, industrial processing, metal production and other industries utilizing hydrocarbon processing or combustion in the production process; or a shutdown of the entire upstream oil and gas exploration industry; or a shutdown of all agriculture and the heating of 25% of Canadian homes; or the removal of 50% of all Canadian passenger vehicles from the highways.

If members think those measures are bad, take a look at the aim to reduce CO2 emission to 1990 levels minus 5%, which is the Japanese position. That would require the equivalent of one of the following measures: the removal of 85% of all Canadian passenger vehicles; or the removal of 75% of commercial transportation vehicles, that is trucks, and the elimination of all air, railway and marine transportation; or the elimination of the heating of all commercial buildings and virtually all homes.

What they are doing here is simply illustrating the magnitude of what is involved with even a so-called small percentage reduction in GDP over this time period.

Our Prime Minister is striving to compete with the nations of the world to see who is the greatest leader. If the aim is to reduce CO2 emissions to 1990 levels, minus 15%, which is the EEC position, that would require the equivalent of one of the following measures: the removal of all Canadian passenger vehicles and 80% of all commercial vehicles, that is just about all of Canada's motor vehicles being off the road; or a shutdown of all hydrocarbon fuel generation and all air, railway and marine transportation; or a shutdown of all Canadian industries which utilize hydrocarbon processing or combustion in the production process.

That is only one set of analyses, the economic impact analysis by an interest group. Even if it is discounted by 75%, the magnitudes are far bigger than we have ever heard said by the minister.

Turning to another model developed by the Government of Canada, the DRI McGraw Hill analysis has been done on various regional impacts of stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels. We are talking about regional impacts, not gross economic impacts. This analysis demonstrates the effect of stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 as compared to business as usual projections.

Its conclusion is that all regions suffer considerable declines through to the year 2010. The biggest impacts occur in the fossil fuel dependent provinces, with Alberta suffering increasingly negative impacts through 2020. Negative impacts are suffered by all regions, with the negative impacts in Ontario almost equalling those in the western provinces.

An analysis done by Charles River Associates in the U.S. has been used to look at the trade impacts. We expected the trade minister to bring this analysis to the House. It has not come and we are only a few days from Kyoto.

This study shows Canada to be the worst affected among the G-7 countries. This trend continues to the year 2030. The DRI model has also been used to analyse the export performance of various sectors under emission constraints compared to a business as usual scenario. Not surprisingly, the biggest decline is in the energy sector, particularly coal. Also significant is the impact in energy intensive sectors such as iron and steel, chemicals, mining, and pulp and paper. Many of these sectors will lose market share to competitors in developing countries.

We are now seeing, belatedly, various industrial and economic interests throughout the country beginning to come forward to the natural resources committee, the environment committee and individual members of Parliament, presenting their own assessments of the possible impact of various CO2 emission control levels on their industry, on their companies and on their unions.

We see estimates of job losses including—and I will just give two that I am familiar with—up to 10,000 to 12,000 jobs lost to the coal industry alone, 2,500 to 3,500 direct jobs in the coal industry in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, and direct and indirect oil and gas job losses as high as 56,000 including spinoff effects.

These interests will concentrate on one side of the story. We know that. Perhaps some of them will exaggerate the impacts. We know that. However, our task is to try to get all major impacts on the table to assess them as objectively as we can and to define the proper balance.

There is another interest I want to touch on. What is most disturbing of all to us is that the one interest most likely to be dramatically affected by whatever positions we take at Kyoto does not even seem to have entered into the equation or the calculation of the government's position. I refer to that long suffering, oft forgotten interest, the interest of the Canadian taxpayer.

When the UN framework convention on climate change was agreed to in 1992 with the aim of limiting CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, there was much talk at that time among the governments and trading blocs involved about meeting this target through the imposition of a tax on fossil fuels. That was the most frequently mentioned mechanism for paying for the targets that were agreed to in Rio.

The precise form of this tax was not specified but most economists talk about a carbon tax, which would mean that at some point in the chain from producer to consumer a levy, probably paid to the government of the state in which the sale took place, is imposed on the sale of fossil fuels. The size of the tax would be proportionate to the carbon content of the fuel, with coal having the highest carbon content and methane having the lowest.

Canadians know that Liberals have an instinct. It must be bred into them. We do not know where it comes from. This would perhaps be a good subject for a scientific study. They have an instinct to try to solve every problem ultimately by increasing taxes. That is how the finance minister effectively tackled the deficit. Most of it was through an increase in tax revenues. It is the solution they put forward for fixing the Canada pension plan, a 73% hike in payroll tax.

The suspicion is that at the end of the day, after all the fuzzy talk, the approach the government will take to endeavour to pay for whatever it commits to in Kyoto will be a tax.

It is time for the federal government to come clean, although it is pretty late in the day, on how will it pay for its targeted reductions in CO2 emissions. Will it be carbon taxes, energy taxes, fuel taxes, greenhouse taxes, direct taxes or indirect taxes?

Energy industry analysts have estimated that if the bulk of the cost of meeting the target of CO2 levels is borne through fuel taxes, this could result in a price increase at the pumps of 10¢, 20¢ or 30¢ a litre, depending on which assumptions we use. If the government has ruled out a carbon tax, as the Prime Minister has said, if it has ruled out a fuel tax, what other taxes does it have in mind?

The federal government has a moral and fiscal obligation to come clean on the subject with the public, and it has singularly failed to do so.

We have looked at the environmental impacts, the economic impacts, the sectoral impacts and the taxpayer impacts. Let me look at one more combination of interests, the balancing of the federal and provincial interest in this matter. We are, after all, a federal state.

In a federal system like Canada, the development of any position on environmental protection, particularly one that has significant ramifications for the economy, must be a co-operative effort between federal and provincial governments. Under our constitution responsibility for environmental protection is a shared responsibility. Both federal and provincial governments have responsibilities in the area of economic development as well.

As I have previously stated, we do not believe the federal government, even at this late date, has clearly stated what interest it intends to advance and protect in developing its negotiating position for Kyoto, or how it intends to implement and pay for its commitments. This makes it extremely difficult for the provinces to know where they stand or even to be able to agree to the commitments.

We do know, from the meeting of federal, provincial and territorial energy environment ministers on November 12, 1997 in Regina, that the provincial ministers are prepared to agree to the following: one, reliance on joint implementation and technology transfers as ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally; two, continued scientific research on such subjects as reforestation, alternate energy sources, technology transfers and research into climatic change itself; three, expansion and promotion of the volunteer challenge registration program, which we support; and four, the expansion of innovative approaches, such as emissions trading, which of course would require major changes in all of Canada's regulatory legislation which we have not seen any evidence of at all.

What strikes the objective outside observer is that this hastily prepared short list barely scratches the surface of what would be required to meet the stated target of reducing aggregate greenhouse gas emissions in Canada back to 1990 levels.

Again there is a gaping hole in the Regina statement as to how any such effort is to be financed. Even the overall target referred to in the November 12 statement was put in doubt just eight days later—this is how permanent these commitments are—when the Prime Minister implied to Premiers Tobin and Klein that in his misguided desire to look better than the Americans on this issue, perhaps a new target should be adopted by lowering GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2007. That was eight days after the firm commitment was made in Regina.

Parliament must therefore conclude that the federal government has not even scratched the surface in identifying and reconciling federal and provincial interests in implementing and paying for an action plan for reducing CO2 emissions.

This task, which should have been accomplished prior to Kyoto, apparently will be tackled, from what the minister said tonight, after Kyoto. It is a classic case of getting the cart before the horse.

Repeatedly in the House the minister, in an obvious effort to divert attention from the poverty of the government's approach and position, has asked what is Reform's position. It may be that the minister is subconsciously anticipating the day when Reform is the government. However, as of this hour we are the official opposition, the Liberals form the government, and our task is to hold the government accountable for the failures and weaknesses of its positions.

We do not have the resources to do the work of the Department of the Environment with its 4,000-plus employees and its budget of over $575 million. However, what we do have to offer is an alternative process for ascertaining and reconciling the legitimate interests—the environmental interest, the health interest, the business and commercial interest, the provincial interest, the consumer interest, the worker interest, the taxpayer interest—which must be reconciled if the government is to have a credible position.

The government has put the cart before the horse. It goes to international conferences where it is subject to all the pressures of the Meech Lake effect and it agrees in advance to certain targets and standards. It has, in effect, agreed to sign a treaty at Kyoto even before that treaty has been negotiated, having made commitments and having held the press conferences, which seem to be the most important part of this exercise. It then will proceed to negotiate with the people who will be directly affected by those commitments, the private sector and the provinces while, as I have mentioned, ignoring certain interests, in particular the taxpayers' interests, altogether. It is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse.

Our alternative process is simply this. Number one, get the Canadian position first by negotiating with our key players. Define a Canadian position on CO2 emissions that is particular to this country; a big, cold, northern, exporting country.

Number two, having secured some agreement in principle on appropriate CO2 emission levels for this country, then secure agreement on implementation and who pays. I do not think someone is serious on this issue until they address the issue of who pays. It is always the last thing to be considered in this House. It ought to be the first. It is because it was the last thing in this House to be considered that we ended up with the deficits we did and a $600 billion debt.

Number three, having reached that position at home, that is the Canadian position which should be taken to Kyoto to be negotiated in good faith with the other players.

Number four, if an agreement is reached that is close to or better than the Canadian position, then sign.

Number five, if no such agreement is reached, do not sign. It is better to be honest and say we cannot meet commitments beyond our capability than to sign simply for the purposes of temporary favourable press clippings, only to fail to keep our commitments, which is exactly the case that happened in Rio.

This is our alternative. It is an alternative process and we firmly believe it would lead to a more responsible position than that of the government, a scientifically sound position, a position in the Canadian public interest and a position capable of implementation.

I have one final word for the Prime Minister. I cannot for the life of me understand where the Prime Minister is coming from on this issue. In his desire to be seen as a good green fellow at international environmental gatherings, he seems to have forgotten where he lives and whom he represents.

The Prime Minister needs to be reminded that he is not the Prime Minister of a unitary state. He is the Prime Minister of a federation where joint action on the environment requires federal-provincial agreement prior to making international agreements.

The Prime Minister needs to be reminded that he is not the Prime Minister of Fiji where they can survive without much extra energy. He is the Prime Minister of Canada, a northern country, with one of the coldest climates in the world.

He needs to be reminded that 24 Sussex Drive is not on the Equator. It is at 45° north latitude in Ottawa, which the diplomatic corps assures me is the coldest capital in the world next to Ulan Bator in Mongolia.

He needs to be reminded that he is not the Prime Minister of Belgium, a small country that can be driven across in a few hours. He is the Prime Minister of the second largest country in the world, a northern exporting country of immense distances that has an energy requirement for transportation, an energy requirement for heating just for survival, an energy requirement for manufacturing and processing that is particular to this country and requires a particularized approach to CO2 emission limits.

In other words, the Prime Minister needs to be reminded that he is the Prime Minister of Canada, in all its dimensions, federal, ecological, and economic.

If he forgets that, as he and his government appear to have done, the road to Kyoto will be a road to failure, not the road to a better world and a better tomorrow.

Take note, Prime Minister, please. Take note.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on a matter of utmost importance: global warming.

As we speak, millions of tons of carbon dioxide are being released into the atmosphere. North America alone is responsible for more than 25% of these emissions that are having an unprecedented effect on our atmosphere.

How should we react to this major challenge? That is the question we must ask ourselves, the purpose of the debate we are having tonight.

But first of all, let us take a brief look at history. Society took a long time to realize basic things concerning the environment. For some time already, scientific experts around the world have been noticing that, over the past century, the globe has been warming up faster than before. Many research teams have looked into this serious problem to seek out its causes. One after the other, these teams have released their troubling findings, that human activity is responsible for global warming.

Their findings were immediately challenged by numerous sceptics, and from what I could see this evening, the leader of the official opposition is one of them. However, many sceptics, not counting the leader of the official opposition, were shocked to learn that humans could have such a major effect on the atmosphere. For the longest time, like the environmentalists, these scientific experts were doomed to be a voice crying in the wilderness. But since the mid-1980s, a growing number of people have started to realize how serious this environmental problem is.

Having recovered from the effects of the 1982 economic crisis, society is realizing how extensive and diverse environmental problems are. The ensuing expansion of the debate was beneficial to us all.

The environment quickly became a major concern for the whole of society. Public opinion developed an awareness and began to support experts and political leaders for greater protection of the environment.

After facing the numerous challenges relating to the protection of our water, air, forests and soil, we turned to issues of a more global nature, such as greenhouse gases. At the international level, these issues require the implementation of global and co-ordinated measures by all the nations.

This led to the signature in Helsinki, in 1984, of the first international protocol to reduce transborder emissions responsible for acid rain.

Three years later, in 1987, Montreal hosted an international meeting that led to the signing of what was called the Montreal protocol, the purpose of which is to reduce the production of gases harmful to the ozone layer.

Five years later, in 1992, over 150 nations got together in Rio for the earth summit. This meeting led to the signing of a UN framework agreement to limit concentrations of greenhouse gases. At this unprecedented summit, developed countries set as a common goal to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at the 1990 level by the year 2000.

Today, five years later, we are faced with the same potential disasters. Why? Because several countries, including Canada, did not manage to reach their objectives.

The Liberal government, which has been in office since 1993, seemingly put more effort into using doublespeak regarding the environment than in applying concrete measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There are numerous examples. On April 24, the Liberal government came up with an advertisement highlighting their achievements, in which it claimed to have been a leader on the international scene, by helping reduce the causes of climate change in the world. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Canada's performance regarding greenhouse gas levels is one of the worst.

Indeed, compared to other OECD members, Canada did poorly in terms of reducing greenhouse gases, in spite of Quebec's good performance, which should not go unnoticed. It should be remembered that in Quebec, there is an average of nine tons of carbon dioxide emissions per capita, whereas the Canadian average is 18 tons, while in Alberta, it reaches the unacceptable level of 56 tons per capita. Quebec is in a position to meet the objectives set in Rio. However, for the whole of Canada, observers expect that instead there will be an increase of 13% in emissions by the year 2000. Quite a performance for a government that likes to brag about its leadership in this area.

Unfortunately, the government's failure to act in this issue extends beyond that. Of all the G-7 countries, Canada will be the last one to present its negotiating position at the Kyoto summit. That is some leadership when hiding one's own position seems to be the objective.

Since we are still waiting for this so-called final position, we have to rely on the only public position that was endorsed by the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources, the so-called Regina agreement.

During that meeting, the environment and natural resources ministers from all ten provinces were invited by the federal government to discuss the objectives for greenhouse gas emission reductions. The rest of Canada managed to agree on only one thing: to delay for ten years the environmental commitments made by Canada at Rio. No reduction objective was discussed.

That meeting is an unfortunate setback for the environmental cause in Canada. That meeting showed the ministers giving in to the demands of the oil lobby.

Having recorded one of the worse increases in emissions among the OECD countries, after being the last G-7 country to submit a negotiating position for Kyoto, with what is called the Regina agreement, the Liberal government is assured of presenting one of the lowest reduction objectives among the industrialized countries in attendance at Kyoto.

Yet at the international conference at Berlin in 1995, the attending countries clearly agreed that stabilizing emissions would not be sufficient to eradicate the negative effects of global warming caused by human activity.

It is inevitable that what we do not do today, we will have to do tomorrow. Not taking action today means saddling future generations with an even heavier burden. In deciding to restrict itself to a sensible stabilization of emissions until the year 2010, the Canadian government is choosing inaction as its action plan for meeting one of the most important challenges facing the planet, contrary to its promises.

This government got itself elected in 1993 by promising to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% before the year 2005. Today, it is putting its 1992 commitments off for ten years.

In their government publication, the Liberals tell the public that it is time for action to reduce greenhouse gases. Yet, when they sit down together at Regina, they decide instead to put their promises off for another ten years.

The federal Minister of Natural Resources, seemingly totally unconcerned by any contradiction, has taken the Liberal derision further still. He said a bargaining position like Regina's would enable Canada to build bridges and promote consensus in Kyoto. Since when does the individual with the weakest position at the bargaining table promote consensus?

Are we to understand from this statement that it is the firm intention of the Liberals to go to Kyoto to build international consensus around immobility? This would seem to be the government's position.

On the same day that the Liberal government and all the provinces but Quebec reached an agreement in Regina, the Minister of Finance was making a speech at the University of Toronto. In it he said that the economic growth we are aiming at is a reflection of the quality of life Canadians deserve.

If Canadians' quality of life is really of interest to the Minister of Finance, perhaps he should have a look at the major studies done by the Department of Environment on the impact on Canada of the rapid warming of the climate. The most significant of these studies indicates that we should expect higher mortality and more disease if we do not act quickly to stop climate changes. More specifically, the study provides that the heatwaves caused by global warming will raise the rates of death and disease particularly among young people, old people, the chronically ill and those whose health is fragile. In short, the consequences of failing to act now could be disastrous.

With only a few days before the start of international negotiations in Kyoto, all speakers in this House should drop their arguments and work together to find a constructive solution to this major problem of humanity.

Our era has been marked by frenetic, even aggressive development. Now it is time to be cautious, self disciplined and mindful of nature. This is the message sent in 1986 by the United Nations commission on the environment and development chaired Prime Minister Gro Brundtland of Norway. The work of this commission gave rise to what we now call sustainable development. Growth and the environment are not mutually exclusive, rather they should be used together.

We have to recognize that the extension of respect for individuals lies in respect for their surroundings. We have to protect the environment of this planet out of respect for what our forefathers bequeathed us and a sense of responsibility toward future generations.

For its part, the Bloc Quebecois, through its environment critic, the member for Rosemont, has been calling for serious commitments from Ottawa for several weeks now. Throughout the debate, we have stressed the importance of this issue for the environment and the economy.

We feel that the federal government must make serious formal commitments at the Kyoto conference with respect to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Only serious objectives to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions would confirm its desire to tackle this major problem.

In addition, the provinces, particularly the worst polluters, must also undertake to do more.

There must be clear and concrete objectives in order to avoid backsliding. We must do better than the Americans' timid objective. We must aim even higher than Japan's objective, which is to reduce by 5% from 1990 levels by the year 2012.

Ratification by all provinces of the Kyoto convention is vital in attaining the objectives set. The Rio agreement, it will be remembered, was ratified only by Quebec and British Columbia. All provinces must make efforts consistent with their situation. It is a question of equity.

Finally, while the Bloc Quebecois is interested in the objectives, it is even more interested in seeing them met. This is why an independent compliance committee composed of experts and private citizens should be created to ensure that, within Canada, the federal government and the provinces follow up on the commitments made in Kyoto through periodic public reports.

In closing, I would like to stress the major role governments play in protecting the environment. As parliamentarians, we must set an example and be attentive to the possible impact of our actions on the future. Global warming is a major problem, and the long term impact on society may be devastating.

We all have a collective responsibility to protect our environment.