Debates of Nov. 26th, 1997

The Environment

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I make mention of the fact that the hour right now is 22 minutes after 1 o'clock in the morning. I mention that only to illustrate the fact that the government is squeezing this very vital debate into a time slot that makes it almost impossible for members to be able to take part. This is a shame. When the debate started yesterday, we ended up with 10 days to Kyoto. We are now down to nine days to Kyoto and we still do not know what the government position is.

Let me explain what the Reform position is. As far as environmental protection is concerned, Reform along with governments, industry and Canadians all recognize that action needs to be taken to protect our environment where there is a demonstrable need.

The Reform Party supports environmental policies on greenhouse gas emissions based on concrete scientific evidence. The federal government has failed to provide documents that have formed the basis of the government's position on global warming. We wonder where the leadership of the government is coming from and obviously the Prime Minister is the leader of this government.

I draw attention to Hansard of November 5 and a question from my colleague, the member for Edmonton North concerning Candu reactors being sold without any environmental review by the government to Turkey and China. In part the Prime Minister answered: “We believe that exporting Candu reactors is very important for the Canadian economy. It is extremely important for countries which will use the electricity generated by nuclear power to replace coal, which is causing a lot of climate problems”.

I would like to know from the Prime Minister and the Liberal government why he would make this quantum leap, this connection, when he should have been answering a question about why the government is not doing any environmental review on the Candu reactor sales to Turkey and China, he turned it into a global warming issue.

I submit, as have all other Reform speakers, that this entire process we are involved in is one of watching lemmings run. It is one of very questionable science. I quote the consensus of 2,500 scientists that these members have been referring to. It is pointed out that 11 chapters of this supposed 2,500 scientist document were written by only about 80 authors. Most of the hundreds of contributors listed were simply experts who allowed their studies to be quoted without necessarily supporting the report's conclusions.

Further, they state that the earth's average temperatures have risen by a modest 0.3° to 0.6° in the 140 years since records began. They point out that most of this warming occurred before 1940 and was followed by decades of climate cooling from about 1940 through to the 1960s at a time when greenhouse gas emissions actually increased. Many climatologists feared the world was headed for a mini ice age. This was referred to by my Reform colleague earlier. Even the UN panel's chairman, Bert Bolin, admits that the pre-1940 warming is probably a natural recovery from an earlier natural cooling. Instead, of the 96 years of this century so far, 32 show a warming trend and 64 show a cooling trend.

One of the items I have yet to hear in this debate tonight is mention of other natural phenomena like El Nino. We can expect in my constituency where we had record levels of snow, cold and freezing weather last year that this year the temperatures are going to be moderated and we will be receiving less snow. Why? Greenhouse gases, global warming? No. El Nino. There are all sorts of impacts on our climate that are natural impacts. There are impacts that we as human beings can and do create but we do not understand the relationship between them.

Let us take a look at Kyoto. The countries that are going to Kyoto are countries like Canada. Notwithstanding all of the claims that we have the second highest per capita CO2 emissions, the fact is that Canada puts out 2% while the U.S. puts out 23%. China, Russia, India and Ukraine combined put out 27% and guess what? They are not going to Kyoto.

As my leader demonstrated earlier, there is a very real possibility that we will create serious problems for our economy in trying to achieve these objectives and we will destroy parts of this economy. If we are going to destroy our economy why are we doing it without a knowledge and understanding of the background of where we are coming from?

Where is Canada? Canada has already achieved 80% of its goals in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Most of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions is expected to come from developing countries. Countries such as China and India will be the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases by the next century, yet developing countries do not have to participate in the reductions.

The possibility of climate change is a global issue and must be addressed collectively. Developing countries are responsible for 40% of the world emissions. I repeat that this is a global problem and developing countries are responsible for 40% of the emissions, so why will they not be there? What are we trying to do in terms of paring down our economy for what goal or what objectives?

We must ensure in Kyoto that any commitments made are in Canada's interest and recognize Canada's unique circumstances. Any greenhouse gas emission targets must be realistic, achievable and based on sound scientific evidence. Therein lies the problem with the agreement from Brazil.

The problem there was that the goals were not realistic. They were not achievable. As we have clearly demonstrated they were not based on sound scientific evidence. A national consensus should be gained before international commitments are made.

It is very scary that the government has made the commitment to go to Kyoto to sign an agreement without even telling us its position. Who are the negotiators and what is the position the negotiators will take? We have no idea. Who is going to be giving them direction?

What is at stake for people in my constituency of Kootenay—Columbia? Elkford, Sparwood and Fernie are all communities that are completely based on the coal industry. The south country, Cranbrook and as far away as Creston, are the bedrooms for many thousands of workers from the Elk Valley. In Golden and Revelstoke, CP Rail workers will be affected because of the amount of coal that is shipped through there.

What does that mean? If these people do not have work they will be moving out, which means the regional districts will no longer be able to collect their revenues. What will happen to municipal budgets? What will happen to libraries, garbage collection, water and sewer, and for what?

This reminds me so much of lemmings. Mr. Speaker, you may be old enough—I know I am—to recall a movie put out by Walt Disney. It showed lemmings, which is what speakers from the other parties reminded me of, all headed in one direction. They all jumped off the cliff. That was not true either; that was a fabrication of the moviemaker.

In conclusion, a UN panel report stated:

A prudent way to deal with climate change is through a portfolio of actions aimed at mitigation, adaptation and improvement of knowledge. The appropriate portfolio will differ for each country. The challenge is not to find the best policy today for the next 100 years, but to select a prudent strategy and to adjust it over time in light of new information.

I beg the government not to let the word Kyoto become a word for needless economic suicide.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it is a rather frightening array of opportunities that I have to address as a result of what the member opposite just said. Once again he evokes the pseudo-science that the Reform seems to have such great comfort in. He talks about El Nino which has to do with southern oscillation.

El Nino right now is the most intense and longest El Nino we have seen in almost 2000 years. Many climate scientists are talking about the connection of El Nino and global warming. There are connections the member seems to ignore.

He spoke about a cooling period, but he neglected to tell Canadians that this was a period where ozone depletion substances were gathering and acting as a cooling. This is a very clear piece of information.

He went on about developing countries not participating in Kyoto in the reduction of greenhouse gases. Again he is misleading Canadians because developing countries have ratified the framework convention on climate change. They are taking significant steps to reduce growth in greenhouse gas emissions. Brazil, India and Mexico, for example, have dramatically increased energy prices and have launched specific programs to improve energy efficiency.

The member opposite does not seem to believe in any of this. I would like him to speak on behalf of his constituents and tell something to the people of the south island state. I had the opportunity of meeting the president of Micronesia who implored me to make sure that Canada did something significant on the issue of climate change. His country of Micronesia was shipping rice to nearby island states because its taro fields were being flooded.

Will the member's constituents welcome these people into their homes when they find out that rising sea levels have completely drowned out south island?

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, where the member and I have a difference of opinion is that I do not profess to have any idea of the source of El Nino. I am rather surprised she has taken a quantum leap on—I have no idea—its actual source. There may be a relationship but we simply do not know. Until we know, to trash our economy and trash the communities I represent are not acceptable alternatives.

In terms of the developing countries taking significant steps, I ask where Canada started. Canada is in a position of having done a tremendous amount of reduction of CO2 emissions from 1990 to 1995.

I do not really understand if we are at a level of only contributing 2% of CO2 emissions. We are not just talking about CO2 emissions. We are talking about greenhouse gas emissions that are broader than CO2 emissions. We are at a point of having things in a position where we can continue to improve but are only contributing 2%. She says we must do something significant on climate change. Let us assume, just for the sake of argument, that Canada is in a cost effective position to reduce its CO2 emissions and greenhouse gas emissions by 10%. This would be a quantum leap. In the case of CO2 it would reduce worldwide CO2 emissions by .2%.

When we do not have the developing nations, Russia, China, Ukraine and India at Kyoto, nations which combined contribute 27% of the CO2 emissions, where are we going with this? Once again the position of the Liberals is one of do good, feel good.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to contribute something to the debate that at this point I have not heard mentioned. I am referring to the scientific method.

Repeatedly in the debate I have heard members of the Liberal Party refer to the science of global warming. However, before we can even attempt to purport to have a scientific basis for a theory, the theory should have passed the scientific method which is a randomized, double blinded clinical trial.

In other words, in the case of global warming we would need two solar systems. We would have to give the power to someone to increase carbon dioxide levels on the earth in one of the solar systems. The person would be blinded to knowing in which solar system he or she would be increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

Then we would measure the temperature of the earth in the solar systems, determine if there was any change and report the findings. The findings would show that nobody knew, neither the earth nor the contributor of the carbon dioxide, which one was being contributed or which one had or did not have an increase in temperature. These would be the results. We would see that either increased carbon dioxide caused the increase in temperature or did not, and to what degree. I am not saying that carbon dioxide emissions do not increase temperatures of global climates.

We cannot lay our economic policies on the back of so-called science when in fact there is no science. There is hypothesis, there are suggestions to some observations and what effects may or may not be happening, but there really is no science.

The carbon dioxide emissions of our country apparently contribute to approximately 2 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. Many of the major nations with industries which emit carbon dioxide will not be at the table in Kyoto. What is the point of such a small player in the world, a minor contributor to global carbon dioxide emissions, taking a world leading stance in what should be done when we do not have any real science on which to base our position?

The real disturbing thing is what the Liberals are proposing. The hon. member from the Liberal Party who spoke prior to me made reference to a dramatic increase in energy prices in some other countries in an attempt to curb their carbon dioxide emissions. This concerns me deeply.

Why would we curb the economic growth of Canada? Why would we suppress our economic activity? Why would we increase the price of energy, the cost of heating our homes and putting gasoline in the vehicles of ordinary Canadians? I would add that it could be a very substantial increase depending on what position the Liberals take in Kyoto which to this point they have been either unable or unwilling to reveal.

What would be the point in harming families, increasing the costs of heating their homes and fueling their cars when it would have no demonstrable or significant impact on the amount of carbon dioxide emissions in the world?

To conclude, I would again refer to what the hon. member from the Liberal Party stated when she referred to the fact that Reform members of Parliament are raising concern with this issue. She referred to our position as pseudo science. My point is it is all pseudo science to suggest that the world is heating or the world is cooling.

Last winter in my constituency of Saskatoon—Humboldt we had record cold temperatures. For as long as they have kept records, it was never colder. That in itself is no evidence that the world temperature is not increasing but on the other hand it would tend to suggest that maybe it is not.

I have a real problem. Despite the fact that the impact our carbon dioxide emissions will have is insignificant we may try to be a world leader. Despite the fact that this may not have a basis in science, that it may not be true, and despite the fact that our measures are really not going to have significant impact on the carbon dioxide emissions of the world, we are going to implement serious tax increases for Canadian families on their fuel consumption for heating their homes and fuel their automobiles. This will hurt ordinary average Canadians.

In view of the tax increases which ordinary average Canadians have been exposed to by this Liberal government, the previous Conservative government and the Liberal government before that, I implore the Liberals to use and exercise common sense when they go to Kyoto and not subject Canadian families to yet another tax increase with no basis.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise an issue with the hon. member. He was discussing taxes in his speech. Does the member realize that $600 million has been given to the oil sands industry? If we took that money out and the industry decided to raise taxes, it would be a carbon tax.

There is a huge industry out there making profits and it will raise the pump prices during mid-winter when we need fuel in our backyards to keep our homes warm. All of a sudden the petroleum industry raises prices without warning. Nobody talks about that, but for the last two months all we have heard is this carbon tax issue.

They finally recognize that there is an environmental problem. Maybe some common sense person deep down in their ranks had written that there is environmental consciousness in the Reform ranks.

They have been snagging their scientific facts from a satellite scientist way out in outer space. That is where their policy seems to be. Satellites have been measuring temperature in the atmosphere, but if you measure temperature on the outskirts of greenhouse gas levels of course it will be colder. Those gases are trapped inside the atmosphere.

When I was young I thought the sky was immense and there was no end to it. However, when we grow up and look at the facts, we know that we live within the realm of our globe, our planet and our atmosphere. We live and breathe as a species, collectively. We are interconnected. That is what we have to realize.

What does the hon. member tell his children and grandchildren about his beliefs? His children and grandchildren will be the voters of the future. They will be the ones to decide who will lead.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really know how to respond to that somewhat disjointed and incoherent speech by the hon. member, except to say that when I go home to my constituency what I will tell the people I represent is that I am opposed to increased taxes on fuel, increased taxes not only on fuel for their automobiles but on fuel for heating their homes. I am also opposed to a carbon tax which would cripple the petroleum industry and kill employment in the region of the country which I represent. I would like to see taxes scaled back.

The last thing I want to see this country do is impose a 30 cent or 40 cent tax on gasoline. That would kill even more jobs in this country.

We are already facing increases in Canada pension plan premiums which will take effect if the government manages to ram through its legislation. Payroll taxes will increase. The cost to employers will increase. It will affect jobs. It will affect wages.

I am here listening to a member of the New Democratic Party who is proposing more taxes for ordinary Canadians.

We are crippled by taxes. I cannot even comment on what the man said. It made no sense. All I can say is I am for lower taxes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 25, the motion is deemed adopted.

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1.50 a.m.)