Mr. Speaker, I participate in this debate with a great deal of anticipation given the importance of this issue and the personal interest I have in it and the interest my caucus has also taken in this issue.
I can certainly report to the House that our critic for the environment, the hon. member for Fundy—Royal who is only 33 years old and one of the newest members but one that we are very proud of, has worked extremely hard in helping us develop this position. He is not alone. He is going to join a number of members of this place and other houses in all political parties who over the years have cared a great deal about this issue.
I want to single out tonight the fact that we do have in the House of Commons the past Minister of the Environment, the member for Davenport, who has served in that portfolio in the past. I want to use this opportunity tonight to tell members that when I had the privilege of being the head of Canada's delegation in Rio, he accompanied the delegation.
I had the opportunity of doing some events with him and he was well remembered. I remember this distinctly because I thought gee, one day I may retire from the department. He was well remembered by his colleagues. He has maintained an interest in this issue, a sincere and real interest. He is here tonight. He is one of those who has made a lasting contribution to this debate.
Also the member for Lac-Saint-Louis was the minister of environment in the province of Quebec and the parliamentary secretary for environment. I had the added pleasure of working with him on a few key issues, cross-border issues. He was one of the most appreciated, well remembered ministers of environment ever in the province of Quebec. And so what, he is on the wrong side of the House.
A number of people have taken a keen interest in this issue. I do want to take a second to thank the leader of the NDP for her remarks in regard to Rio, in regard to the record. It is in fact a rare occurrence in this House when a member is able and gracious enough to correct the record in that way.
I suspect it may have something to do with the fact that a past member from the riding of Rosedale if I remember correctly was also part of the Canadian delegation. He himself was very involved in the leadership and in the way the delegation was conducted. He would have some intimate knowledge of what happened in Rio. And so, Mr. Speaker, on that lighter note I want to offer some of our views on this very important issue.
First, I would like to direct my remarks as to how this whole issue of environment and sustainable development relates to Canada and to the future of our country by saying as succinctly but as clearly as I can how important an issue it is for Canada more than any other country in the world. There are a few reasons for this. First is because we have this great land mass. We have the second biggest country in the world in terms of land mass. We have three oceans that surround us. We have a very fragile northern environment. For this reason alone this issue of climate change and global warming will have more impact on us by virtue of the geography than any other country.
There is another reason that is even more compelling, the economic reason. I stress here of all the developed countries in the world, not developing, Canada is the country that depends the most on its natural resources, in other words on its environment, to earn its way. That is of all the developed countries. We can easily understand why.
Think of what our economy is made of. What is it? It is the forestry sector with pulp and paper and softwood lumber. The mining industry was in town today lobbying on some of its concerns. The mining industry is very prominent in this country. Of course fishing on both coasts, even in the north, is very important. Think of the time and energy that we put into those issues, as my own caucus has put into fishing issues in this country. Then we can go on with energy, whether it is hydroelectric energy or hydrocarbons, and of course agriculture. The list goes on and on.
Let me repeat, of all the developed countries in the world Canada is the country that depends the most on its environment to earn its way. We live off our environment.
For us, this issue is not just one of trying to determine whether we want a pristine landscape or the Rockies or whether we enjoy the sight of the ocean. Actually our livelihood depends on how we will manage this environment and there is actually more to it than that, the future of our own children. Their standard of living will depend on how we manage this environment today. For that reason alone this is an extremely important issue for Canada. I would venture to say that this issue, all things being relative, is more important to Canada, whether it is global warming or other environment issues, than to any other developed country in the world that I know of.
There is another twist to this. If it is true we have this big land mass, that we depend on our environment to earn our way, let me add this other element that will really bring home how important environment issues are going to be for Canada.
We are also now one of the countries in the world most dependent on trade. Because of the success of the 1988 free trade agreement, because of the success of NAFTA, because of the role we have played in furthering the interest in the WTO, Canada is, with Germany, the developed country that depends the most on trade to maintain its standard of living. I think it is probably close now to 40% of our gross domestic product.
By the way, for those who may be surprised by that statistic, maybe we need to remind them that how could it be otherwise. How could we otherwise explain that a country of 30 million people only, if we put it in the context of the G-7, could have such a high standard of living if it were not for the fact that we sell abroad? Trade for us is important, so important that the jobs that have been created in Canada in the last few years have been created because of an increase in trade, in particular, trade with the United States since the signing of the 1988 free trade agreement. Had it not been for the trade agreement and the jobs that ensued in the last few years Canada would have been in a recession and we would not have had any jobs created. That is how significant it is.
Let me finally try to tie this together. Our land mass is very vulnerable. We live off our environment. We are dependent on trade. This also means that of all the countries in the world on this issue we are very vulnerable.
If ever there were to be a movement for green protectionism in the world, and there are signs of that, of sanctions leveraged against countries that are not perceived as respecting environmental standards, Canada would suffer, immediately and immeasurably.
I will speak to some of the comments of our colleague, the leader of the Reform Party, who based all his arguments on science. In all honesty and sincerity I would have to add this to the colleagues of the Reform Party. They would be wise to pay attention to the fact that in the international marketplace science may not have a lot to do with decisions taken by certain countries that perceive Canada as not living up to environmental standards. If they come to the conclusion, right or wrong, that we are not respecting environmental standards and they decide to act against us, we will be in big trouble.
Do not take my word for it. Ask those in the pulp and paper industry. Ask those companies that try to sell paper abroad what they went through in the early 1990s. I will forever remember as minister of environment the industry's asking me to bring in tougher environmental regulations which cost the industry between $3 billion and $5 billion in adjustment. This was at a low time in the cycle while it was coming out of a recession. Why was it asking for the regulations? It was getting hammered in the marketplace by its European competitors that were accusing it of not living up to the environmental standards that they were supposedly imposing on themselves.
Let us be under no illusion here. It is great to talk about the science, which I do want to talk about, but there is more to it than that. Let us look at this issue in terms of our self-interest as Canadians. We need to understand that we have an opportunity for some enlightened self-interest. The enlightened self-interest of Canada is to be ahead of the game in the area of the environment. We should be ahead of the game whether in terms of sustainable development, the pulp and paper industry or global warming, energy or sulphur dioxide emissions.
If we are not ahead of the game, if we are not doing as well or better than the highest standards of our competitors in this area, we are vulnerable to sanctions and we will be the first to suffer. We will suffer environmentally, from a standard of living perspective and also from an economic perspective. That is the bottom line.
I have some good news for those listening who may be scared of these issues. As many Canadians, they may see these issues as insurmountable problems. There is reason to feel that way at the outset. When we are confronted with this problem of global warming it is complicated and technically difficult to understand. We hear of scenarios of countries being gobbled up by the sea with rising sea levels, terrible catastrophes if we do not deal with the problem. The same is true for a number of environmental issues.
I want to share this good news with those Canadians listening tonight. When we were confronted with similar problems, when we faced them head on based on good science, good common sense, strong political will and clear leadership, we were able to make real progress in dealing with some equally difficult issues.
I would like to say it was only under Progressive Conservative governments but I cannot, although I am very proud of the role we played. I am extremely proud of the role former prime minister Brian Mulroney played on the world stage. He was known and he has a clear record as one Canadian prime minister who made this one of his top issues.
I have other examples of success stories for everyone in the area of the environment. One of them is the Montreal protocol of 1987. If memory serves me correctly, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis attended that conference as minister of environment for the province of Quebec in 1987. He is saying yes, and that may explain why it was partially successful.
In 1987 we were faced with the issue of ozone depletion. Let me point out to the leader of the Reform Party who went on ad nauseam about science that what he said tonight about science are things we heard only a few years ago about ozone depleting substances.
As far back as 1985 we heard exactly the same thing coming from the naysayers who denied that there was any problem at all. Now we are stuck. Future generations of Canadians are stuck with a problem that is still going to be around in 50 years from now. Why? Because there are a number of people who did not want to admit that there was a problem until they had the absolute, total truth.