Thank you for the consent. I happen to think this is a good speech but I am sure you did not want to hear it twice.
I welcome the opportunity to speak about this important topic and would like to congratulate all parties for the co-operative effort that resulted in this debate being possible.
In terms of the consequences of atmospheric change, I hold the opinion, and I will preface this by admitting freely that I have absolutely no scientific background, but I hold a rather simplistic view that non-sustainable practices are going to catch up with us in a number of significant areas.
If someone is waiting for indisputable empirical confirmation of the problem, I would suggest that they will be waiting a long time because nature does not speak through science. She speaks through symbols and signals, like climate change, like increased acidity in water systems, depleted resources, the extinction of species and any number of other signs directly linked to environmental degradation.
The Reform Party has shown signs of enlightenment specifically in two of the three r's , reduce and recycle. It has effectively reduced its credibility on this issue to zero and its stated position so far has contained 95% recycled material.
In addition to supporting research and simple observation, we can also see confirmation of the problem from the corporate sector. The insurance industry, a sector that survives with the successful calculation in management of risk is all over this issue like a cheap suit. The very real threat of claims involving too much water, too little water or water at the wrong times of year have set this industry on its ear.
While I readily admit that I could not tell the difference between CO2 and CO1, I do know that money does not talk, it swears. I need no further proof that we have an impending problem. I also believe that this is just the tip of the melting iceberg.
My greatest fear is that this argument, which is not unlike the one that plagued progress on smoking legislation, will delay action at the expense of future generations. I feel we have a moral obligation to address these issues in a responsible, logical, timely and co-operative manner. The clock is ticking and the earth is warming and we are not going to get too many chances at successful intervention.
What is important is not our position going in to Kyoto. It is the nature of the agreement coming out. Simply reducing the argument to green versus growth may be strategically sound but it shows a fundamental lack of knowledge on the issues involved.
Clearly growth strategies and the pursuit of wealth do nothing to help the environment. I am not saying growth is bad. What I am saying is that unless we discover life on another planet, in the long term it is a dead end street. It is in the long term interest, the environmental interest, economic interest and social interest of all Canadians that we lead the world in the adjustment to this new economy. We certainly need to strike a balance between short and long term interests.
The challenge we collectively face as politicians is this. Addressing these issues is going to involve leadership. It is going to involve increased levels of co-operation. It is going to involve making decisions with the goal of improving the human condition for future generations.
We are being asked to take a certain amount of risk to effect change in a world in which we will have no direct share. The potential Kyoto agreement is an excellent start and will serve to jump start an upward spiral of net economic gain through the adoption of sustainable practices.
In conclusion, it becomes clear that our country and indeed our planet is faced with a number of environmental problems that are paralyzing policy makers by both the severity of their implications and by the complexity of the measures necessary to solve them.
It is not unlike the mythical Medusa. If we stare at this problem, it is paralyzing in its scope. Perseus managed to slay this demon by using a shield to reflect the image. I would like to suggest that we let our shield be the ingenuity, creativity and co-operative spirit of the Canadian people, of Canadian industries and I dare say Canadian politicians.
I will leave members with this final thought. If not Canada, who? And if not now, when?