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.