Debates of Nov. 26th, 1997

The Environment

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes an interesting point. I would like to congratulate him by pointing out that we should not point fingers at regions of the country. Very clearly, this is an issue for all Canadians and the solutions and the benefits of solving this problem are going to be realized by all Canadians. Acceptable and workable solution strategies will have to very clearly recognize that particular point.

The member talked about the commercial viability of adjusting technologies and he touched very briefly in the area of cogeneration. Does he see cogeneration as a commercially viable option?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question.

I did not have a chance to deal at any length on cogeneration. In my view, it is an opportunity that we should look at, particularly right now in the context of Ontario where we have some nuclear capacity that is not in use and there are questions around reinvesting in that nuclear capacity.

I know from my experience in the natural resource sector that there are huge opportunities to use cogeneration as a competitive tool to be more competitive with the United States and other jurisdictions. It also has a huge environmental impact.

In the forest industry, for example, you are using biomass, wood waste. If you set up an electrical generating plant, you can fuel your own plant through wood waste biomass which really does not create very much of a problem in terms of greenhouse gases. Usually they build a capacity so there is some excess electricity. You sell that to the grid, Ontario Hydro. You are selling electricity at the margin.

The problem with electrical generation capacity and nuclear capacity is the huge capital cost of those plants and that translates, of course, into the cost of energy or electricity. I think there is a unique opportunity in Ontario right now, instead of ramping up this nuclear capacity, to look at cogeneration as a reasonable alternative.

As more cogeneration comes onstream, you are avoiding some of those huge capital investments. You are getting electricity at a marginal cost and cheaper electricity for the plants that are producing it. You are creating some competitive advantage for some of the companies that exist in Ontario now.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we should note that it is now November 27, Thursday, and there are only nine days left between now and Kyoto.

This government has once again withheld vital information and refused to be held accountable for the position going into Kyoto. Industrialists and environmentalists alike are puzzled by this government's lack of leadership, openness and lack of consultation as it crams together a last minute position for Kyoto.

I can hardly believe, with Kyoto just a few days away, and one less now, that we are still in the dark about Canada's position. It is no wonder that public skepticism about government accountability is at an all time high.

This government reminds me somewhat of a disinterested student who rarely attends class and even when he is there, he never bothers to listen to what is being discussed until the night before the final exam when he begins to panic, wishing he had paid attention and desperately crams, trying to understand principles in the hope of scraping together a passing grade.

This government has had years to formally consult the public, environmentalists, industrialists and their provincial and municipal counterparts. But no, they decided to sit on their legally binding protocol and do nothing. From the onset, this process or lack thereof has been marred by the absence of leadership, a lack of meaningful dialogue and, most importantly, an infuriating lack of openness and consultation.

The government's refusal to get together and develop workable targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions leads me to several conclusions. It never took its responsibility seriously or the government shuns accountability and it has something to hide.

Really, to present a position at an international forum without having reached consensus in the domestic arena is a recipe for conflict. It is an affront to Canadians that the government was not confident enough to sell this agreement at home, but is willing to take a secret agreement to Kyoto for the rest of the world to see.

Perhaps it would fare the government well to brush up on environmental diplomacy and maybe start relearning what it means to negotiate effective global agreements. Strategies to deal with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions must be developed with input from representatives of all levels of government, while balancing public, environmental and industrial concerns.

This government is hypocritical in its approach to environmental strategies. Why even bother to entertain the concept of environmental harmonization if in reality there is no intention of using provincial consensus for the really big issues like signing international agreements?

This government had ample opportunity in the last four years of governing to learn from the mistakes made by the Mulroney government when it signed a deal in Rio without even thinking through the method of implementation.

Those targets have come and gone with absolutely no progress being made and still the same mistakes are repeated. Evidently, issues such as consensus and feedback are not priorities with this government. If the government has not yet even hammered out realistic and achievable targets, I will presume that it has failed to work out an implementation strategy.

The tremendous responsibility associated with signing a legally binding protocol in an international forum necessitates an incredible amount of consultation, research and planning. If the government had done its homework, it would have been able to answer such crucial questions as how much the implementation of said targets will cost.

The Conference Board of Canada in its comparative review of the economic impact of greenhouse gas reductions on Canada estimates that reducing CO2 to 1990 levels will cost the average Canadian family of four between $2,000 and $3,200 each year and those estimates will be much higher in Alberta.

The Minister of the Environment has already told Canadians that this agreement will cost them money. However, Canadians still do not know what form these costs will take.

For the past eight years J. Allen Coombs, now retired chief of International Energy Markets and Environmental Emissions of Natural Resources Canada, worked on the stabilization of emissions to 1990 levels, stating that it would be virtually impossible. Canadians deserved answers months and months ago. Now, as time runs out, Canadians are more concerned than ever that this government has refused to protect their pocketbooks from arbitrary and Liberal closed door decision making.

Weeks ago President Bill Clinton put the American position out for all to see. The American government is firm on the fact that it will not participate in an agreement unless developing countries sign on, but the Liberal government remains silent. Canadian provinces have agreed that Canada should not sign on unless the majority of countries responsible for greenhouse gas emissions sign on. But the government's silence continues.

If developing countries that are responsible for 40% of the world's emissions are not participating, will the Canadian government still take part despite the lack of a level playing field?

Let me remind the government that in the next 15 years it is estimated that developing countries will be responsible for 60% of the world's emissions. Without the participation of the main players, global benefits of pollution reduction will not be achieved.

Canadians deserve to know what means of pollution reduction have been studied, whether or not voluntary incentives will be utilized or if a tax increase is the only option this government will consider.

I strongly urge the government to consider voluntary industrial incentives and for it to encourage Canadian companies to make environmental modifications within their companies.

Canadians are desperate to know just what the government has considered, what it intends to present and what it is willing to sign and under what preconditions.

The Liberal government has had ample opportunity to promote responsible energy development principles and maximize voluntary efforts within industry but chooses instead to do nothing.

Has the government decided that the co-operation and support of Canadians upon entering a legally binding protocol is no longer an issue? Has this government even got support from its own cabinet? Over the last few months contradiction after contradiction has emerged from the government side of the House.

For instance on November 12 in a last minute effort to appear diplomatic, the Minister of the Environment met with her provincial counterparts and a provincial accord was reached targeting 1990 levels by the year 2010. At first this seemed like a breakthrough until of course the Prime Minister hastily brushed it aside and made it clear he is more interested in beating out the American position and that he feels no obligation to stick to the provincial agreement.

This government refuses to co-operate with Canadians on all fronts. It has refused to engage in an open and meaningful democratic dialogue.

In conclusion, the position to be tabled in Kyoto on December 1 will be the product of closed backroom politics. Unfortunately Canadians will likely pay the price for this government's lack of democratic consultation.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will preface my question by saying that I am in the back row over here and the hon. member is in the back row over there and we really did not have much to do with the Kyoto process. So let us take that out of the loop. Let us pretend Kyoto is not going to happen.

I am curious as to what the hon. member thinks independent of that process. I agree that the correlation between what happens there and the reduction of greenhouse gases is a subject of debate. So let us take that out of the way.

What course of action in very general terms does the hon. member think Canada should take just to handle the problem independent of the Kyoto process because I realize it is a bone of contention.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have to keep in context the size of the problem. Canada puts out 2% of the world's emissions. Since 1990 that has grown only by 8%. It was thought it would be 13% but it has been reduced. There have been programs implemented and voluntary moves by industry.

I would like to see municipal governments more involved to get down to the grassroots people and education of our young people. We only have to look at what we are doing with recycling. The hon. member referred earlier to a couple of r s. What happened there? Everybody in this country recycles because we trained our children. If we start education with voluntary programs there is lots that can be done.

The thing we are worried about and the thing we wish would have been put to rest a long time ago by this government is the fact that we do not have a $4 billion solution to a $1 million problem. We have to make sure the reaction we come up with to this problem is somewhere close to the problem that it is intended to solve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the House's attention to the fact that while Canada emits 2% of the world's total greenhouse gases, we are also the ninth largest emitter and we are ranked second in our emissions per capita.

This is a very serious problem and it is a serious problem for all Canadians to engage in. I am very curious to understand where these $4 billion costs are coming from. The hon. member sits on the same committee that I do. When we were sitting on that committee we received representation from a witness who told us that by a very modest investment of around $16 million from NRCan they were able to undertake energy efficiency and conservation initiatives that saved the Canadian economy $4 billion in energy costs.

I do not think this is such a terrible thing and I do not think members of the House would agree that this was such a terrible thing to do.

There are many no regrets sorts of things we can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. My hon. colleague who is a medical doctor spoke earlier in the House. She talked about the severe medical problems that might befall Canadians if we do nothing on this file as the member opposite suggested because he was concerned about some mythological $4 billion cost. I am not sure where that figure comes from.

I wonder what the cost would be to the health system let alone the cost of illness in one's family or losing a loved one. Those are costs that cannot be quantified. Does the hon. member not think it is a good idea to implement a no regret strategy for investing in energy efficiency where we can begin to increase that $4 billion saving?

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, some of the ideas we have heard tonight from the government side of the House are the kinds of things we have been asking for during the past three or four months. What are the types of programs we are going to have in place? What are we going to do? What is the government proposing to be done to meet these emissions reductions?

Any voluntary action that can be made to reduce emissions would be tremendous. My comparison of spending $4 billion to solve a $1 million problem was just a comparison. It was not right. Let us not spend a huge amount of money to solve a small problem unless we can prove that the problem needs those kinds of funds to take care of it.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and as the member of Parliament for Nepean—Carleton, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak on the issue of climate change.

We hear a lot about this issue these days with the United Nations framework convention on climate change in Kyoto, Japan that is approaching this December. Much attention has been focused on the implications of climate change not just in Canada but certainly around the world.

Environment ministers from around the globe will meet in Kyoto to try to deal with this issue and take steps toward a solution. The eyes of many in the international community are upon Canada as the conference in Kyoto approaches. The world looks to Canada for leadership and it is leadership that we must and I believe will demonstrate at Kyoto.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment have stated that they are committed to working together with partners across Canada including other governments, non-profit organizations and the business community to seek creative solutions to this problem. I sincerely applaud their efforts and their commitment and I wish them Godspeed.

At the United Nations earth summit in 1992 many countries including Canada promised to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Rather than contributing to a solution however our country and others have had a less than impressive record. While Canada is not the largest polluter overall, we have the second highest rate of greenhouse gas emissions per person on the planet. Canada along with Japan and the United States are responsible for the lion's share of greenhouse gas increases between 1990 and 1995.

Wherever you live in Canada, whether it is in Placentia Bay, Newfoundland, Nepean, Ontario, Brandon, Manitoba or Whitehorse, Yukon, you should be concerned about global warming. According to the “Canada Country Study: Climate Impacts and Adaptation” by the federal environment department, in my own province of Ontario average annual warming of 3°C to 8°C felt especially during the winter months can be anticipated by the latter part of the 21st century. As this warming progresses, Ontarians could be subjected to increased frequencies of extreme weather events such as severe thunderstorms and tornadoes or even long summer droughts as a result of global warming.

As Liberals we are not going to try to evade our environmental responsibilities as the Reform Party is attempting to do with its faulty science theory. We know what our responsibilities are to future generations of Canadians and we are going to face them head on. This Liberal government is committed to endorsing emission targets that can be realistically achieved on a step by step basis.

I believe an effective strategy in the global response to climate change must involve all levels of government, federal, provincial, and I put special emphasis on municipal governments because they are without question the level of government that is closest to the people.

To make such change happen throughout the country, we must look to individual communities for ways to enhance energy conservation, reduce energy efficiencies and improve our environmental record.

How do we as Canadians begin this process? First, because it is obvious that human activity causes climate change, I believe simple and even small changes in our own behaviour can help alleviate this problem.

We all remember not so long ago the concept of recycling and how it was the furthest thing from our minds. Yet the vast majority of Canadians now recycle newspapers, cans, glass and plastic products without giving it a second thought.

We need to look to other aspects of our daily lives and rethink some of the ways we conduct our lives, do business and travel from destination to destination.

Addressing the issue of climate change means doing things smarter and in many cases saving money in the process. We must remember that there are many benefits to a cleaner environment: improved air quality, better environmental health, increased efficiency and I would venture to say as well increased national competitiveness.

While the agents of the status quo, the Reform Party, paint a doom and gloom scenario about the aftermath of Kyoto, the reality of improving energy efficiency and reducing waste is much more positive. One thing that is also evident in terms of Canada's response to Kyoto is that there is no one magic solution which we can rely upon to deal with the problem. In my view it will take a wide range of creative individual measures which are targeted to reduce our emissions in specific ways.

Let us look at one particular aspect of the problem, transportation. It is estimated that the transport sector is responsible for almost 27% of total greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and that this number may grow even larger.

One issue which I believe the government must address on a national basis is that of declining public transit ridership. This is an area where I feel some substantial progress on our emissions could be made in a relatively painless manner. How do we do this?

Speaking as a former municipal representative and transit commissioner here in Ottawa, I believe we can and should use our tax system to get people out of their cars and into public transit. Nine tonnes of pollutants a year are saved by just one busload of passengers. That is why taking public transit is a key step in taking solid action on climate change.

A recent study by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute called “Employer Provided Transit Passes—A Tax Exempt Benefit” argues very convincingly that making employer contributions to transit passes tax exempt would help to improve the cost competitiveness of public transit in relation to the private automobile.

The study notes that the average commuter who owns an automobile and receives free tax exempt parking at the worksite pays approximately the same to drive as to ride a bus. The value of free or subsidized parking to employees is calculated at approximately $1,772 in average pretax income for each employee. This includes $1,200 in direct costs and $512 in tax exemptions.

The study also observes that while Revenue Canada ostensibly collects taxes on parking benefits, it also provides exemptions for which the majority of employees qualify. Therefore from a policy standpoint the existing tax rules favour the private automobile over public transit, inefficient over efficient travel modes, and the economically more advantaged auto driver over the economically more disadvantaged transit rider. Surely this policy area needs re-examination.

I am not the only one who believes that this type of measure could yield some significant benefits. A number of my colleagues and several organizations have thrown their support behind the transit benefit tax exemption proposal, including the Canadian Urban Transit Association, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Transportation Association of Canada, our own House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

So far, the federal government's response to this proposal has been cautious as one might expect. Both the Department of Finance and Revenue Canada initially opposed the idea of tax exempt transit passes citing lost revenues and insignificant reductions in automobile transit.

In a 1995 letter to the Canadian Urban Transit Association the finance department estimated this initiative would cause lost revenue of $140 million or $2,550 for each new transit user.

However, according to the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, experience in the United States where this type of tax break has been available for 10 years suggests that our federal government may be grossly overestimating potential lost revenues.

The initial government analysis assumes that transit benefits would be available to 50% of all transit riding employees, but the American experience indicates that less than 10% of employers provide such subsidies. However, where such benefits are available, reductions of auto commuting of 10% to 30% are possible.

Based on a request made at the environment committee the Department of Finance is currently reviewing the proposal and is taking a closer look at the benefits and logistics of this initiative. I sincerely hope the department gives this more than a cursory examination.

Those of us involved in this initiative realize that results cannot be expected overnight. However, as coverage of transit tax exemption is gradually extended to more and more employees, the benefits in terms of reductions in traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, road and parking costs, and traffic accidents can be significant.

To sum up, the benefits add up to an improved urban environment, lower costs and a better quality of life for all Canadians.

There are many other areas such as district energy where the potential for energy efficiency cost savings and emission reductions are also significant. Hopefully I will have the opportunity to address some of those subjects at a later date.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in his presentation the hon. member made reference to an average annual warming of 3° to 8°C. He probably misspoke himself and meant 3° to 8°C by the year 2050. Even that comes from a 12 year old computer model which has long since been discredited even by global warming enthusiasts. A computer model can be made to give an infinite number of results. The present global warming dogma now puts 3°C by about 2050 at the top end.

That being said, I am wondering if the hon. member is familiar with the work of Drs. Christy and Spencer, a climatologist and an astrophysicist, who for the last 17 years have been measuring the temperature of the earth's atmosphere on a continuous basis with satellite based microwave sounding units. These are real measurements, real science, not computer models. They have discovered that for the last 17 years at least the warming trend we are supposed to be so afraid of appears to be on hold and that there has actually been a very slight cooling.

This is probably of no statistical significance. Nevertheless, it flies in the face of the conventional wisdom which says we are well on the way to being fried off the surface of the planet.

Guess what? Theorists who compose these computer models actually had the temerity to say that the results of these scientific measurements could not be right because they did not reflect the predictions made in the computer models.

Is the hon. member familiar with the program and could he comment on it?

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis certainly addressed some of the scientific issues, but it is clear that parts of the planet are cooling and parts are warming. However on balance the warming effect is very clear. The vast majority of the scientific community would certainly agree with that analysis.

As a general principle we as elected representatives have a responsibility to address issues with the best possible information we have available. The government is certainly attempting to do that. The initiatives that will flow from Kyoto will make a lot of sense not just from an environmental standpoint but from an economic standpoint in terms of reducing waste and enhancing our cost competitiveness. We can expect a lot of very beneficial things coming out of Kyoto.

I have to categorically reject the suggestion that somehow or other the science is not clear on this issue. The debate this evening has pointed out the problem with the Reform Party's analysis. Everyone in the House is virtually agreed but the Reform Party.

In terms of the average Canadian and how they would look upon this debate, the average Canadian would have to come to the conclusion that perhaps the other parties seem to have something and the Reform Party seems to be a bit off base on this issue. That is unfortunate. In terms of the committee's work over the course of the last month or so the testimony has been very clear and rather conclusive.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if we repeat something loud enough and often enough eventually it becomes a excepted dogma or universal truth.

I would like to begin by referring to a polemic statement written a little more than two decades ago. It indicated that it was cold fact global cooling presented humankind with the most important social, political and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for 10,000 years, and that our stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance to the survival of ourselves, our children and our species.

If one merely substitutes the word warming for cooling, the statement could readily have been made by an exponent of the doomsday scenario of human induced climatic disaster today.

This cooling statement was made during a period when the media and the public were much more skeptical and generally better informed with respect to science than they are today.

During this new ice age scare—and I am sure there are people in this room who remember it clearly—there was no expectation that humankind could favourably alter climatic events by, for example, firing up their automobiles full tilt and injecting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Proposed actions were not remedial but they were more rationally protective and adaptive. The scare died out and in due course the dogma of global warming became fashionable.

The second major difference between then and now is that informed debate about the merits of the cooling theory was possible. We did not yet have an entire generation of adults who had passed through the educational system with virtually no exposure to any type of scientific training. Today scholarly dissent is scorned. Scientists including many eminent climatologists who dare to question the popular doctrine are branded as thoughtless, uncaring enemies of the public good or tools of vested interests.

The members from Lac St. Louis and Davenport and the leader of the third party excelled themselves this evening in invective and ad hominem attacks on anyone who dared to disagree with the popular dogma. That indicates a certain weakness in their arguments. If you cannot win it with rationale arguments, you win it by shouting louder and calling the Leader of the Opposition names. It always works.

The scientific method of investigation has been almost casually rejected. Solid empirical temperature data have actually be disputed, as I mentioned a few moments ago, on the basis of mere computer modelling. The modellers have won the battle for public acceptance of their theories. Such is the state of scholarship near the end of the 20th century.

On the basis of computer generated temperature projections which reflect the preconceptions of the people making them, proponents of the theory of anthropogenic global warming are predicting natural disasters which would make much of this planet uninhabitable.

The minister who is technologically and scientifically challenged has yet to issue a news release predicting that the skies will turn to buttermilk, but I am expecting to hear something like that from her any day now.

Climate is a cyclical phenomenon. It always has been and always will be. Let us consider, for example, the little ice age which afflicted the northern hemisphere from about 1350 to the early 1880s. At its coldest during the late 17th century many thousands of European peasants died from exposure to the cold or starved because of crop failures brought on by this terrible climate change.

We have had since the end of the little ice age an average temperature rise of between half a degree and one degree centigrade. That is in the last 150 years. I submit that is normal, predictable and reasonable in a cyclical system. It is a rebound toward but not yet up to long term averages. Temperature measurements 150 years ago were pretty spotty, but I accept the proposition that the world is slightly warmer now than it was then.

I also accept the absolutely solid data collected by Drs. Christy and Spencer. They are not local data. They are data for the whole planet. These satellites are in different positions every second and the measurements are being taken constantly. The measurements have been checked wherever they were able to get a juxtaposition of one of their readings with a reading from a radiosonde instrument, and the checks are perfect.

This is true science. First you come up with a theory. Then you do the experiment. Then you decide if the theory is correct. The global warmers have put it backward. They came up with the theory, say that it is true, and then reject any experimental data which contradict their preconceptions.

I spoke about the cycles of climate. I would like to mention a couple of them with which I have some personal familiarity. These things have been going on forever. I have examined mining operations dating from early Islamic times in North Africa and on the Arabian peninsula. That would be 950 AD or thereabouts.

Very obviously, from the debris around these places, the people who ran the operations had abundant water and abundant timber. Now these areas are deserts. They have been deep deserts for hundreds and hundreds of years. It did not happen due to any human activity. There were not large numbers of humans on earth in those days. What they did as far as contributing emissions to the atmosphere was perhaps to build a few campfires. Yet there were these drastic climatic changes.

When the Vikings came to southern Greenland they found a climate much similar to the climate in northern Scotland right now.

They built their settlements and these settlements disappeared during the little ice age when they were overridden by the glaciers. Now the glaciers are in retreat because we do have this slight warming trend coming out of the little ice age and the old settlements, the old stone walls, are reappearing. They are an archaeological treasure.

Nothing is static on this earth and nothing that petty little man can do is going to make a major difference in the vastness of space. Sure, we can mess up the earth where we can see it, touch it and smell it. We can destroy our personal, immediate environment but we cannot destroy the climate of the earth or change the climate of the earth any more than we can do like King Canute and bid the tide not to come in.

It did not work for him and it will not work for us. This is not science. The IPCC is not, as the hon. members, now absent have, attempted to tell us, a monolithic organization. It has very large divergences of opinion within the body.

There is actually a divergence between the climatologists and environmental people on one side and the non-experts, the mathematicians, the computer wonks, the chemists, the biologists on the other side.

To be cruel, one might say perhaps the division within the IPCC is between those who are experts in this field and those who are not.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I hate to be cruel, too, but the hon. member's time, I am afraid, has expired.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. member is very simple. China agrees with the facts of warming, the average temperature, and realizes the immediate impacts on its northern region. Does he believe that the Chinese are part of his conspiracy theory?

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member lost me. I do not know what she was talking about with her conspiracy theory. If stating there are different schools of thought among scientists is a conspiracy theory, then I guess I believe in conspiracy theories.

As far as the warming of northern China, I imagine it would welcome that rather heartily at this point, but that is not the subject for discussion tonight.

The northern parts of China may be warming. The world is warming. We have already said that most people will agree on that. What we do not agree on is that this is man induced. This is something that I will not accept until somebody shows me some real empirical data, which to this point do not exist.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is so much here I am going to have to try to take an nanosecond and sort through it.

The member I guess is suggesting there is absolutely no damage that the human race can do on the earth that is not irreversible or will not have any sort of significant effect.

I really take exception to that. I suggest that as technology advances, our capacity to degrade the environment in significant and irreversible ways is increasing.

Having said that, back to the issue of global warming and specifically the globe, the member took us down memory lane here. I am just wondering, in the historical context is the member prepared to admit that the earth is round or does he still think it is flat?

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is typical of the level of debate which we have heard from members opposite tonight. We try to discuss something rationally on a scientific basis and we get smart mouthed. That is all we get.

If they want to debate something, debate it, do not enter into this silly ad hominem stuff. We are adults here, at least some of us.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be short.

Obviously there are many countries around the globe that are going to be at Kyoto and signing on to some sort of climate change package and commitment. I would ask the hon. member if the scientific evidence on which they have based their decisions to participate at Kyoto is all false. Are all world governments operating with incorrect or faulty scientific information. Is it only the Reform Party that has the straight facts on this one?

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, science is not determined by a show of hands. I would answer the hon. member's question with an analogy. If he can recall Copernicus and Galileo, they were thought to be out of their minds. The whole scientific community, the whole bureaucratic community, the whole ecclesiastic community, said these people were mad because they believed that the earth was not the centre of the universe, that in fact the earth and the planets rotated around the sun. They received much the same treatment that some of your eminent climatologists today are receiving from the herd when they speak out against a theory which they say, in their opinion, is not proven.

I am not a scientific scholar but I did work in a scientific discipline for 30 years and I am capable of reading and understanding a scientific paper. Unfortunately the majority of the people who have entered into this debate are not and cannot. I hope that does not sound to egotistical. Maybe it does but it is an unfortunate truth. Unless one studies and learns how can one stand up and say “my god, I am an expert, I know it all”?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, I think the Bloc Quebecois should be first.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Yes, but the Bloc Quebecois member was not present. Consequently, the hon. member for Lotbinière has the floor.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for his kindness.

My speech will deal with two important issues. I will talk about the St. Lawrence River and then I will tell you about how little the Liberals and Reformers care about the environment.

You know how important the St. Lawrence River is to my riding of Lotbinière. My riding is bordered by the St. Lawrence on one side and includes the following municipalities: Saint-Pierre les Becquets, Deschaillons, Leclercville, Lotbinière, Sainte-Croix et Saint-Antoine de Tilly. These villages located on the shores of the magnificent St. Lawrence River are tourist attractions along highway 132. They are part of Quebec's history and of Lotbinière's heritage.

Several mayors and representatives of these municipalities have contacted my office to express their fears about the alarming information that appears in the national media about the future of the St. Lawrence River. They wanted the Bloc Quebecois and its environment critic, the member for Rosemont, to continue their attacks on the Liberal government, which does not seem to be concerned about the future of the St. Lawrence, preferring to give in to the western oil lobby supported by the Reform Party.

I would ask the Prime Minister who is responsible for environmental issues in his government. The Minister of the Environment or the Reform Party?

On the subject of the St. Lawrence, scientists agree that the greenhouse effect will seriously affect it. According to a study issued last month by Environment Canada, the St. Lawrence will suffer the brunt of the negative effects of any warming trend; its flow would be substantially reduced. This negative impact would mean the disappearance of the aquatic grass bed, a key element in the reproduction of some 100 living species. This study indicated as well that the average temperature would rise by 4 degrees Celsius.

Once again we can see how the government treats Quebec when it has to make a decision on a subject as important as the environment.

I had hoped that the future of the St. Lawrence, the river that led our country's pioneers to discover Quebec and Ontario, would wake up the Liberals. But, no. They were put to sleep by Reform gases from western Canada.

The Minister of Finance claims to be concerned by the greenhouse effect. He said that the question should be managed by several departments. He even had the gall to say that the issue is often talked about during cabinet meetings. That is the way the Minister of Finance usually speaks, although he sometimes forgets things in his fiscal analyses. For example, he said that his government must invest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but he did not mention any specific amount.

The Minister of Finance tried to tell us that he would propose concrete solutions, when, at the same time, he continues to subsidize to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars the development of oil and gas resources. For example, he gave almost half a billion for the tar sands project. Here again we can see where the Liberal government stands.

The commitments of the Liberal government with respect to the environment are clearly inadequate. If the Minister of the Environment wants to be taken seriously at the Kyoto summit, she should go back to the drawing board.

Recently, John Fraser, the Canadian environment ambassador, sent a pressing message to the Liberal government, asking it to review the position adopted in Regina in mid-November. He said that regardless of what we have done in terms of reduction, we have not done enough. And he went on to say that we all know that we can do more.

These words came from one of the many and invaluable collaborators appointed in 1994 by the current Prime Minister, but the Liberals are ignoring one of their own. Canada should follow the example of Quebec, which is the only province, with British Columbia, to have ratified the United Nations Convention on Climate Changes signed in Rio in 1992.

The Bloc Quebecois is proud of what Quebec has done in recent years in this area and intends to continue to pressure the federal government so that it understands once and for all the high stakes involved, the quality of life of the people of Quebec and of Canada.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate on global climate change. Like other members, I regret the 10 minute time limit. I would be glad to speak at great length on this topic and I am sure members would be glad to listen to me if the rules allowed.

As we have heard this evening from the Reform Party, there are still those who believe that climate change is not occurring. They think we have nothing to worry about and we can go on living and consuming as we have done for decades.

It is true there is a debate about the nature of climate change but no informed person could possibly believe that human induced changes are not occurring at an ever increasing rate.

The great forests of the earth are disappearing rapidly. Perhaps I should say that the great forest of the earth is disappearing rapidly. Huge areas that were previously covered with vegetation are now regularly laid bare for agriculture. Some of them have become deserts. Automobiles and factories with their emissions are still multiplying and so on.

All of these things, including the very existence of our cities, have already affected climate. Some of the direct effects on the atmosphere of such changes are already well established. It is not a matter of conjecture.

Carbon dioxide, CO2, has been increasing in the atmosphere for generations. This is one of the greenhouse gases which traps heat in the atmosphere.

Increases in other greenhouse gases have become measurable in more recent times. These include methane, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide and tropospheric, that is to say near the ground, ozone. Increases in these and other greenhouse gases should cause global warming.

Despite the selective science we have heard from the Reform Party, there is no scientific debate about the increases which I have mentioned. The debate arises as to the long term nature, magnitude and rate of change. The global system is so huge and complex that it is not easy to predict how the system will ultimately react to such changes and what its feedbacks will be, but the great weight of informed scientific opinion around the world is on the side of global warming.

The fact is that we insignificant human beings have got to the point where we can measurably interfere with this huge global system of which we are a part. I do not know which is more scary, the fact that we can significantly alter this global system in a situation where we can predict the effects or the fact that we can significantly alter this global system when we cannot predict the effects.

I happen to believe that one of the results of the changes, like those I have mentioned, is global warming. I believe that the warming, with its various and enormous side effects, has already begun.

I say this despite the fact that, with colleagues, I am in the process of publishing three papers on glaciers and a lake which, for particular reasons, failed to demonstrate measurable global warming. I thank God that the changes we are looking at are not yet so large that they can be detected with the data and time periods that we happen to have available.

From the point of view of this debate, from the point of view of us as members of Parliament, does it matter whether we are sure about global warming? If there is a chance of it, surely we should take reasonable steps to prevent it on simple precautionary grounds.

The changes which we have measured are bad enough in themselves. Who wants to live in an atmosphere of increasing ground-level ozone or nitrous acid, even if the climate is not warming? Ground-level ozone affects our lungs. It makes breathing difficult for those with lung problems. It decreases athletic performance. It also has a significant impact on agricultural production. Studies show that it already costs tens of millions of dollars a year in Ontario alone.

The fact is that a polluted atmosphere is an effective greenhouse atmosphere. Who wants to live in a poisonous greenhouse, whether it be warm or cold?

Greenhouse gases, including ground-level ozone and acid gases, can be reduced and air quality can be improved by tough emission standards for vehicles, factories and homes. We can use gasolines with lower amounts of volatile organic compounds. We can also reduce those gases by saving energy through recycling and other sensible measures mentioned by the Minister of the Environment.

We should never consume energy unnecessarily. It is inefficient, uneconomical and unhealthy to do so.

Greenhouse gases and atmospheric pollution can also be decreased by reforestation and proper forest management, and by low till and other appropriate agricultural practices.

As has been mentioned today, there is another well-known example of human interference with the only atmosphere that we have, and that is depletion of ozone in the stratosphere. I have to say that we are in a very difficult position because of these human actions of trying to increase ozone in the stratosphere and decrease ozone near the earth's surface as a result of the complications we have produced.

The ozone in the stratosphere shields us from ultraviolet radiation which causes skin cancer and other horrors. The action in slowing and one day stopping the depletion of ozone, in which Canada played a key part, is often touted as an example of what nations can do to prevent the deterioration of our globe.

Members should remember that despite the unprecedented international action on ozone depletion, the ozone layer will not be restored for 50 years. Until then, skin cancer rates and other effects will still be high.

As I have said, we are dealing with a huge system: our atmosphere. By the time we can detect effects, it is often too late. It is a bit like trying to turn a supertanker around, only more so. I believe that the people of Canada want their government, their businesses, their unions, all their leaders to set an example in combating global change. They know that in the long run the only development that is possible is sustainable development.

Let's take the lead in this matter in Kyoto and beyond.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his speech.

It is my understanding that the hon. member used to teach at a university. Having had this experience, I am sure he is familiar with the peer review process. It has come to my attention numerous times in this House and in other arenas within the parliamentary sphere that the so-called scientific experts that the Reform Party is continually using to quote to debunk climate change science are individuals who are often citing opinion as opposed to scientific fact and they are certainly going without peer review.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment on the peer review process and why it is so significant for scientific research.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment for her comments and question.

It is true. I have listened carefully to the Reform Party. I am very wary of people who depend on authority, who depend on the name of a scientist. In general, we have to look at the literature, as the parliamentary secretary has said, weigh it up for what it is worth, where it came from, whether it was peer reviewed.

The peer review process is quite simple. It is when a scientist submits an article to a journal. That article is sent to a range of experts, not just experts who have one opinion, but to a range of experts, and then the paper is returned with comments and is either published or not.

I mentioned three papers of my own. Two of those are refereed and will appear in international journals. The other is not refereed. I think it is important to distinguish between those two.

With regard to my own work, I have worked now for 30 years. I have mainly worked on glaciers and on lake ice. If I can give the example of one of the papers because I deliberately mentioned the fact that these recent papers of ours do not demonstrate global warming. No doubt that in some other house people like the Reform members opposite will use those as examples of the fact that global warming is not occurring, but in the case we looked at, if I can give one example, we studied two glaciers for 30 years. At the end of that time, the glaciers were smaller, but in all honesty, with the methods that we were using and over the time period that we had, we could not demonstrate a trend. It is in fact a trend that we are talking about.

The member opposite was talking about the fluctuations of climate. The climate of the globe continually fluctuates. The discussion today is about whether since the industrial revolution human changes, and I mentioned the very well established increase in carbon dioxide which has now been measured since the middle of the last century, are systematically moving the climate in a particular direction.

If greenhouse warming is true, the climate is going to continue to get warmer and get colder in a natural way, but when it is getting warmer the warming will be reinforced by the artificial changes which are occurring, the greenhouse effect, and when it is getting cooler the cooling will be reduced by the artificial warming which is occurring.

We are not debating whether the climate was going up and down a thousand years ago. We are debating whether since the industrial revolution there have been changes which have significantly affected the way climate varies.

We would not expect climate with the greenhouse effect to simply keep warming and warming and warming. It is going up and down and the greenhouse effect would gradually steer it toward higher temperatures.

I would say one more thing if I might because the member opposite spent some time on this matter. It is not just a matter of statistics and gathering figures and putting trend lines to them. There is also the matter of physics. I have mentioned the changes which have been measured, CO2, nitrous oxides, methane and so on. It is true those gases have increased in the atmosphere.

The physics of that is that interacting with radiation they will warm up the atmosphere. We do not just have to depend on figures and trends. We have to use the science which is available to us in this century to support our opinions. That is in fact what the scientific community is doing at the present time.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to stress the importance of acting immediately on the issue of climate change.

On the eve of the Kyoto conference, we have a responsibility toward our children and future generations to put forward a responsible strategy that will protect our environment while ensuring a viable economy for years to come.

The protection of our environment is logical for several reasons. The most obvious one is, of course, maintaining a sound environment for the future generation.

My honourable colleagues from other parties have pointed out the cost associated with the use of energy in a responsible way, but they never talked about the consequences of not developing an environmental strategy.

I will give you an example. Not long ago, I was sitting on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources when our colleagues from the Reform Party asked: “Why should we in Canada undertake environmental prevention procedures if the other countries do not to so?” To that I responded that I was proud to be a Canadian. Canada has often shown the way to other countries, which then followed suit. It is because of attitudes like the one displayed by the member of the Reform Party that we sometimes have problems.

I am surprised to hear tonight the speeches of Reform Party members on the environment and on respect for our planet. They show a total lack of respect for our planet. These speeches should not even be tolerated. It is all fine and well to talk about scientists and experts. It reminds me of when I was working in a mine where there were 250 Diesel engines about which the experts said that they did not affect the miners' health. Why? Because the company was profitable. Without saying that they were bought, it is still because of experts such as these that I have a damned problem. Please excuse my language, Mr. Speaker.

Do these members want to tell us that our children's illnesses do not involve any cost, that entire communities are not penalized when fish no longer have an habitat and fish stocks disappear?

We have a responsibility toward Canadians, namely to create a context that will ensure a prosperous economy, while protecting our environment.

The approach put forward by this government obviously does not work. Following the Rio summit, the government set up a strategy which called for voluntary participation in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. What happened? Greenhouse gas emissions did not diminish. They did not even remain at the same level. In fact, they have increased over the last five years.

At one point, the government wanted to put a stop to pollution along the highways, right across the country. Now, when someone throws something out of his car window, it costs him $1,000. I can guarantee that the roadside is much cleaner than before. It is so because the government took concrete steps that led to this improvement. I can guarantee that people would not have acted voluntarily, if it had not stepped in.

Today, if the government told people it is giving them an opportunity to have a clean environment along the roads, coffee drinkers would not throw their cups out of the window. With a fine of $100, or even $1,000 in certain provinces, people keep their cups in the car and wait to throw it in a garbage can. I just do not believe in voluntary participation.

There are colleagues in this House who do not think that it is very serious that Canada has been acting irresponsible for the last five years. They talk of the costs involved if we adopt a responsible position. But we are already paying the price for failing to act.

In fact, the government has conducted a study on the impact of climate change. According to that study, in my region of the Atlantic, we will be especially vulnerable to a rise in the level of the sea. That will mean more floods, the loss of habitats for certain species of fish, changes in the landmass and a drop in the reproductive success rate of marine birds.

The costs are very high when there are floods. When fish stocks disappear, communities suffer. When will the government stop playing the ostrich and take its head out of the sand? The time to act is now and not 15 years down the road, when we will no longer be able to save our environment. We must act and act now.

Acting now does not mean that our economy will be the worse off. There are alternatives that can create jobs while protecting our environment. Through simple measures such as ensuring proper maintenance for their vehicles, Canadians can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by three tonnes per year.

Instead of using 250 trucks that pollute the environment, we could use three locomotives that could do the same work but create much less pollution.

I was speaking with CN officials this week. I asked them how many trucks on the road three locomotives would replace. They told me they would replace 250 tractor trailers. In addition to these 250 exhaust stacks, there are also 4,500 tires. What will happen to these tires later on? Most likely they will be another source of pollution. Now, six locomotives would do the same job as 500 trucks on the road. So, we can take our 4,500 tires and call it 9,000. Picture this, I drove my car from Moncton, New Brunswick, to Sussex and that took me 50 minutes. During this trip, I met no less than 120 trucks coming the other way, and that is not counting those that were going in the same direction as I was.

Strategies could be developed to make the burning of coal less polluting. I have information here about new technology that uses coal to dispose of hospital waste in the United States. This technology is not only good for the environment, it is less expensive. Using this technology could mean savings of up to $400,000 a year for a hospital.

Environmental protection can be good for everyone. Other strategies could create more well-paid jobs over time.

Through research and development, we could develop skilled labour that acquired its expertise here and that could then go and work outside the country. Denmark is a good example of a country that decided to invest in energy produced by windmills and that now exports its expertise throughout the world. We are already behind Europe on these issues. We must act now to remain competitive in the energy sector.

Canada is recognized worldwide as one of the best countries to live in. We have this reputation, because we are the leaders in a number of areas. We show the world that assuming our responsibilities means creating a better world.

In a week's time, leaders from all over will be gathering here in Ottawa for the signing of a treaty prohibiting anti-personnel mines. Without the courage of the Canadians, this historic event could not occur.

Canadians are courageous. They want their government to act responsibly and fairly. They want us to be brave now. This means setting specific objectives that will guarantee slower climate change. This means we must all do our part and use less polluting forms of energy. This common effort must focus on strategies that are based on new technologies and that create jobs.

For the most vulnerable industries, we must look towards diversification of local economies. In the Atlantic region, we have seen what happened when the disappearance of an industry was not anticipated. Now we no longer have any fish and entire communities are suffering.

In order to avoid such a situation, the government must develop long term strategies to prevent the disappearance of certain industries. We must not just do the responsible thing, we must do the humane thing.

Canada has never benefited when its government has refused to be courageous and do the right thing. Protecting our environment is not only the right thing to do, but it is also the strategy that will ensure that Canada will still be the best country in which to live in the next century.