Debates of May 28th, 1998

The Environment

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Given the criticisms levelled at the government this week by the commissioner of the environment for not meeting its international commitments and specifically those commitments made to reduce greenhouse gases at the Rio meetings in 1992, would he tell the House what steps are being taken by the government to ensure that Canadians and Canada meet the commitments made in Kyoto last December?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the commissioner's comments relate to that period before Kyoto. Since Kyoto and consistent with the commissioner's advice, Canada's first ministers have all agreed on a collaborative approach. All energy and environment ministers are now assembling the national implementation strategy.

We have both a federal and a national secretariat to co-ordinate the activity. We have allocated $60 million more to energy efficiency and renewals. We have committed $150 million more to building the foundation for longer term action and to trigger early action. The plan is well under way and Canada will meet its commitments.

Agriculture

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on February 19 the Western Producer reported that the Canadian Wheat Board minister was adamant that the government auditor not get access to Canadian Wheat Board books because it handles farmer money rather than government money.

Has the minister now changed his mind? Is he willing to allow the auditor general to audit the Canadian Wheat Board as recommended by the Senate amendments to Bill C-4?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the members of the other place for the work they have done on Bill C-4. They have proposed a number of changes in the legislation which by and large enhance and improve the legislation.

They have made some technical recommendations with respect to a particular role for the auditor general at that moment in time when the corporation ceases to be a crown corporation and becomes a mixed enterprise, while it is going through that rather delicate transition. We have that recommendation under advisement, but I would say at this time that I am reasonably well disposed to that idea.

Bc Mine In Black Lake

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the insensitivity that characterized former minister Doug Young, he had at least realized that abolishing POWA meant he would have to replace it with something else. This is precisely what the workers at the BC mine need.

Since these workers have been left with nothing, should the minister not fulfil the commitments made by his predecessor and propose an effective solution to help these people? Otherwise, he might suffer the same fate as Mr. Young.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am of course aware of the plight of older workers, to which I alluded on several occasions. I think we all agree that POWA, which has yet to be replaced, was rather unfair and did not treat older workers equitably.

For the time being, we have put in place important measures and general programs that are also geared to these people and that address, in a large number of cases, their needs. But we have to see what else can be done.

Business Of The House

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the government House leader if he would tell us about the business for the rest of today and for the following week. Perhaps he would give us some hint as to how long he thinks this session of parliament is going to go into the summer.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the House will continue with third reading of Bill C-26, the grain bill. I understand if there is an agreement that we may in fact suspend the consideration of this bill for reasons of convenience for some members of the House. We will not have additional business beyond that point other than private members' hour.

Next Monday shall be an allotted day. On Tuesday and, if necessary, on Wednesday we will attempt to complete Bill C-29, the parks bill, along with Bill C-39, the Nunavut legislation and, if necessary, Bill C-26. We will then proceed and by Thursday we will consider Bill C-37, the Judges Act amendments.

Bill S-3, the pension benefits bill, and Bill C-38, the Tuktut Park bill, when they come out of committee, are also items that the House must complete in June.

In addition, we will have to dispose of any amendments made by the Senate to any bills we have passed.

If the House makes good progress on these urgent items we would also very much like to complete the following: Bill C-3, the DNA bill; Bill C-25, the defence legislation; Bill C-27, the coastal fisheries bill; Bill S-2, the transportation safety board bill; Bill S-9, the bill on exchange legislation; Bill C-20 the competition legislation, and other bills that may be reported from committee.

With this in mind, now that the time for consideration of estimates is complete, I wish to urge committees with legislation before them to get down to work on the legislation in question as quickly as possible.

The program that I have outlined clearly takes us beyond next week and well beyond the middle of June. I think it appropriate to designate the two final allotted days, which shall be Monday, June 8 and Tuesday June 9. Members are reminded that under our standing orders the House may debate estimates up to 10.00 p.m. on June 9, unless of course the wishes are to end earlier on that day.

But, at the present time, that gives advance notice to all members of parliament to be prepared to be here until 10 p.m. on June 9.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Grain Futures Act, be read the third time and passed.

Canada Grain Act

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-26. This government has defeated a number of amendments to Bill C-26 that would have made it much better.

The amendments which were put forward by the hon. member for Brandon—Souris took into account an important aspect of the bill that is clearly absent. The majority of the stakeholders who appeared before the standing committee on agriculture wanted the specialty crops insurance program to be voluntary. The amendments that my party put forward spoke to this aspect and the government did not address it.

A resolution was passed at the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association annual meeting and similar motions were passed at the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association convention, the Western Canadian Barley Growers Association convention and by the Saskatchewan Pulse Crop Development Board. The motion reads as follows:

Whereas the majority of Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association members also are growers of specialty crops, and

Whereas the proposed Special Crops Rural Initiative Program would appear to favour the Canadian Grain Commission and not necessarily special crop growers, and

Whereas the Special Crops Rural Initiative Program is promoted as being voluntary, it is in reality a form of negative billing which all consumers reject—, and

Whereas the scheme has questionable support at the farm level, and

Whereas the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association rejects the compulsory nature of the Special Crops Rural Initiative Program, and

Whereas the special crops Industry has flourished without such a program,

Therefore be it resolved that the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association inform the federal and western provincial ministers of agriculture of their concerns and at the very least that the Special Crops Rural Initiative Program be truly voluntary at both the growers and the special crops dealers.

This resolution aptly describes what Bill C-26 has failed to do. It fails to give farmers a choice, not unlike what the government did with Bill C-4, which failed to give farmers a choice in how they would sell their wheat. The compulsory nature of special crops insurance is a form of negative option billing. Today's producers run large operations and should not have to apply to opt out and then receive their money back if they do not wish to participate.

Farming businesses should have the right to decide themselves if they want to be bonded or licensed and, if so, to pay the bills themselves. Producers should have the choice to decide for themselves that there is too much risk selling to unlicensed buyers. Special crops producers would be better off having a choice between selling to large licensed grain dealers and small unlicensed grain dealers. That would make sense.

That being said, I must also mention the constructive work that was done at the committee level on this legislation. The committee looked at several issues of concern and the government introduced several amendments to make this legislation better for western Canadian farmers. The committee members from all parties actually supported some of the government amendments. To the surprise of many members on this side of the House, the government actually provided some reasonably sound amendments. However, Bill C-26 would have been much better for western Canadian farmers if government members had voted in favour of the PC Party's amendments at report stage.

The bill is composed of three parts. It would first repeal the Grain Futures Act. In essence, the Grain Futures Act allows for the province of Manitoba, through the Manitoba Securities Commission, to regulate the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange instead of the federal government through its Canadian Grains Commission. This is related to the Manitoba Commodities Futures Act which was enacted by the Manitoba government. This was an idea suggested by the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange.

The WCE wants to access the hog industry. Instead of working with two separate regulators, the WCE will conduct all of its business through the Manitoba Securities Commission. This is a positive change for the agriculture industry and the PC party supports this aspect of the bill.

Second, it would amend the Canada Grain Act to allow specialty crops, for example soybeans, to fall under crop insurance plans. This would also permit the separation of licensing and security provisions for specialty crops dealers. This government believes that the inability to separate these two activities has been the primary problem in developing an insurance plan for the special crops industry of western Canada. By forcing such a separation in law and by putting the administration of a voluntary insurance plan under the Canada Grain Commission, Bill C-26 would remove the onus on special crops dealers to post costly security against the possibility of their default in payment to special crops producers.

The Canadian Export Development Corporation, CEDC, would be the insurer.

Also the government would lead people to believe that the insurance plan is voluntary. There are many people in the farming community who are sceptical that this insurance plan is voluntary.

Third, the bill would incorporate the Canada Grain Act within the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, thereby allowing the Canadian Grain Commission to impose fines for most violations of the Canada Grain Act and its regulations. This is a positive legislative measure because it enables the Canadian Grain Commission to be more flexible and effective.

I conclude by saying that the PC party supports this bill. But we could have made this a much better piece of legislation if the government had supported the amendments put forward by our party. It is our job as legislators to work together in a non-partisan way, for the benefit of all Canadians, to try to do what is best for all Canadians and, in this instance, what is best for western Canadian farmers. I hope that in the future, and at all times in our deliberations in this Chamber and in the committee rooms, we try to work together, not against each other, to help all Canadians.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the Reform Party spokesperson on this issue is not available this afternoon and neither is the critic for the Bloc Quebecois.

Therefore, I move:

That we adjourn the debate to allow both their spokespersons to speak again on the resumption of debate, if they wish, and that, if the House accepts that motion, we proceed to Private Members' Business.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there agreement to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I propose that we see the clock as being 5.30 p.m., so that we may proceed to Private Members' Business.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there agreement to see the clock as being 5.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should, as part of a global effort to minimize climate change, develop a strategy for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in Canada possibly by 20%, based on 1988 levels, by the year 2005.

Madam Speaker, climate change is probably the most complex and difficult issue of our times because it requires the application of social, economic and environmental policies. This is a classical sustainable development issue.

Our geography, sparse population, climate and distances make for a high per capita production of greenhouse gases, second only to the United States of America. However, current federal policies require attention because they encourage increased production of greenhouse gases.

At the same time innovative thinking and policies in Canada have come forward mainly from municipalities. For example, members of the 20% club are municipalities that have committed to reduce their 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emission by the year 2000. Members of this club include the cities of Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, Regina, Edmonton and 32 other municipalities.

It must be stressed that the issue is not new to us in Canada. A delegation of the Canadian government participated in climate change conferences in 1991 in Geneva, in 1995 in Berlin and long before Kyoto. It might be useful to remember also that in Toronto the 1986 conference on energy and climate produced a resolution by the scientific community at that time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by the year 2005.

This is not a new issue and the political commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions soon followed. The Liberal Party made a commitment in the 1988 election platform and again in the 1993 election platform to reduce emissions by 20% by the year 2005 based on 1988 emissions at that time.

Today, having committed at Kyoto to reductions of 60% below current levels by the year 2010 when we are already 13% above those levels, we must honestly recognize that we are five years and 19% behind in terms of having to catch up. Nevertheless, as if nothing had been said so far, we seem to be blissfully continuing with policies which compound rather than resolve the problem. I will provide some examples.

In 1996 the Minister of Finance introduced a special tax concession for the oil sands industry, an industry which produces several times the amount of greenhouse gases produced from conventional oil extraction. This tax concession, in addition to making the task of reducing emissions more difficult, may cost Canadian taxpayers up to $800 million in forgone revenue. How can we successfully achieve the Kyoto goals with this kind of perverse tax incentive?

Another example is that Canadians who use urban transit regularly need recognition. The Minister of Finance seems unaware of the importance of making employer provided monthly transit passes a tax free benefit. On the other hand a tax free status is provided to those who provide their employees with monthly parking permits. On this subject the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has asked for this concession every year since 1990 without result so far.

Another example is the embarrassing sight of landfills producing methane and other gases at present being flared off into the atmosphere and increasing greenhouse gas emissions rather than their being captured and converted to energy. The municipalities need assistance from federal and provincial governments to capture these gases, to redirect them to district heating systems and at the same time to lower these emissions.

To make it easier for Canada to achieve the Kyoto objective, we therefore need something that could be called a Canadian atmospheric fund. It would be patterned on the Toronto atmospheric fund established in 1992.

The Canadian atmospheric fund needs start-up capital. In the case of Canada, it could easily require $300 million, which would be used for loans to projects such as landfill gas initiatives. The interest earned on loans and other investments can then be recirculated to other worthy projects.

In Toronto the fund has grown by over 100% since 1992, making it almost certain that Toronto will meet its 20% goal by the year 2000. This is a remarkable achievement.

In the case of railways, the Minister of Transport is currently presiding over the closure of railway lines all over the prairies. Grain elevators are being served more and more by diesel trucks emitting four times as many greenhouse gases as trains do.

Incidentally it must be also noted that in Canada the use of diesel trucks increased by 30% between 1990 and 1995. Obviously the policy of closing railway lines ought to be reversed if we are serious about Kyoto. This will certainly cause a major and difficult problem.

In addition, fleet performance is a low priority in the Department of Transport. There seems to be no visible action yet to provide impetus and incentives to the automotive industry to produce lower consumption vehicles.

There is no progressive taxation of gas guzzlers in order to register a clear message with consumers. There are no mandatory fuel economy standards. In short, there is very little to write home about.

Over the years it has become evident that natural gas will be the answer. We have plenty of it and we need a gradual conversion to natural gas and away from the other fossil fuels which produce much more greenhouse gases.

Therefore, in the light of this, Alberta could be the great winner in the race toward reduction of greenhouse gases, provided of course that Alberta legislators take a leadership role rather than wait as it seems to be doing now for the electorate to give it the green light.

The House may recall that at the time of the oil shock we discovered something we have since forgotten. Let me cover this aspect for a moment, namely the value of conservation and efficiency through building insulation and through retrofitting.

Successful programs were launched in the late 1970s and early 1980s to encourage Canadians to insulate their homes, to switch from gasoline to propane powered engines and to engage in all forms of energy conservation. These programs unfortunately were discontinued during the Mulroney years.

Then we come to the never ending saga of renewable energy sources, the poor cousins of non-renewable sources. Since 1985 the proponents of renewable energies have asked successive finance ministers that a level playing field treatment be given to them, that they be given the same preferential treatment given to petroleum and other fossil fuel industries. This area requires particular attention.

A word or two now about the recently created climate change secretariat, which is definitely a step in the right direction and a good measure. It is supposed to deliver the Kyoto commitment through the combined efforts of two departments, natural resources and environment.

Important as they are, these two departments alone cannot deliver the required results. The secretariat has to pull in other key departments: finance, transport, public works, agriculture and industry. The secretariat needs to develop an integrated effort with all these departments.

Why? It is because the transport sector alone is responsible for almost one-third of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. Why again? It is because the Department of Finance is responsible for the perverse and, if it is willing, beneficial tax subsidies it can introduce. In other words, the scope and authority of the proposed and now in place secretariat need to be expanded and reinforced if it is to accomplish its difficult task.

Before concluding I will say a few words about being seduced by promises of reductions through emissions trading or joint implementations and other clever mechanisms meant to make Canada and other countries look good on paper without delivering real substantive reductions; in other words hot air as some people call it in the climate change world.

There are at least four requirements that I submit would be meaningful and useful in connection with emission trading. First, an emission trading system must be accompanied by a cap on total emissions. Trading without a cap does not produce the desired results. If we are to reduce greenhouse gases the cap must be moved downward as time progresses. Second, reductions must be real and not merely reductions on paper. Third, reduction must be quantifiable and verifiable. Fourth, the system must be enforceable. If reductions are not met then there must be meaningful sanctions such as progressive fines that increase for every tonne of emissions above the agreed upon level.

Joint implementation—and I hate to use this technical word but it is inevitable in the climate change business—is usually understood to mean claiming credit in one country for reductions achieved abroad. There are limits to its value. Taking credit for reductions in other countries is not a substitute for reductions in Canada, for instance. The use of Canadian technology and innovations to achieve reductions in developing countries is a very useful endeavour. I do not deny that at all. However taking credit for reductions abroad should not prevent us from taking substantive action in Canada.

In this context it is important to note that when questioned about the merits of joint implementation in the emissions credit the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development said this week that it will take a long time before credits and joint implementation can be part of an overall plan.

In conclusion, we have already waited a long time. That is why we will likely fail to meet our commitments made before Kyoto and if we are to meet our Kyoto commitments we must act very soon. There are reasons why at present we produce such a high quantity of greenhouse gases. I indicated them at the beginning of this intervention, but now we have to change our ways and our policies.

The Kyoto commitment could benefit our economy to a considerable extent because it would force us to use energy in a judicious and more efficient manner, removing unnecessary and costly tax concessions. It will also force us to concentrate efforts on the production of energy via renewable resources in the long term and a shift to natural gas, of which we have plenty. In the process I am sure we will become more competitive in our economy and we will earn the respect of the international community.

We have to pull our weight. We have agreed to do that. Therefore we have to come to grips with the root causes of climate change and launch probably one of the most exciting and difficult plans that the Government of Canada has ever come across since its inception.

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

Madam Speaker, the motion put forward by the member for Davenport proposes that the government should, as part of a global effort to minimize climate change, develop a strategy for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in Canada possibly by 20% based on 1988 levels by the year 2005.

This target is far more ambitious than the target agreed to by this government last December in Kyoto when an internationally binding agreement was signed to reduce Canada's emission levels by 19% by the year 2012.

It is ironic that we in the House are debating this motion in the same week that the standing committee on environment, which the member for Davenport chairs, has tabled a damning report on the environment department's enforcement of its Environmental Protection Act. It is also the same week that the commissioner on the environment has tabled his report on the environment that essentially gives this government an F on its ability to manage our environment.

The target set by this motion is highly unrealistic given that the commissioner on the environment just reported that he does not believe it is possible for Canada to reach the goals established at Kyoto.

The timeline for this motion, approximately 20% emission reduction by the year 2000, is clearly unrealistic. The environment minister probably will not have a strategy in place by the end of 1999.

Clearly a lot of work needs to be done before this government is capable of sorting out the details that must be considered before it can get close to devising any sort of strategy.

One of my serious concerns that this government fails to recognize and which is missing in this motion is the other players, the provinces, industry and Canadians.

Government cannot unilaterally establish a target. It must work with the provinces. It is not enough to just consult with Canadians. It is absolutely essential that government work in co-operation with the rest of Canada.

Reform has clearly taken the position, before and during the negotiations at Kyoto, that the federal government work with the provinces to set a mutually agreed on target. That was the purpose of the Regina accord.

Last November federal and provincial governments met and established a joint position on emissions and reductions. They agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2010. Yet a month later the government singlehandedly overturned the Regina position when the Prime Minister announced his own target of 3% below 1990 levels by 2010.

The Prime Minister was more concerned with beating the Americans than with setting realistic, acceptable standards for Canada. Surely Canada's interests deserve more consideration than this.

It appeared there was no other rationale behind these randomly chosen targets. No wonder the provinces were up in arms. These targets clearly placed Canada in a bad negotiating position when it went to the table in Kyoto.

To make matters worse, this government came out of Kyoto with a deal that was even worse. Without the support of the provinces, the Liberals agreed in Kyoto to a reduction of 6% below 1990 levels, which means a 19% reduction in only 10 years. This was not a national position but a federal government initiative. That is why to date the Liberals have failed to gain the co-operation of the provinces.

What the Liberals fail to recognize is that responding to climate change is an area of shared jurisdiction. Under the Constitution Act of 1867 there is no explicit mention of the environment and the division of federal and provincial powers. The provinces have jurisdiction over their natural resources, including energy production. They have control over power generation, building codes and transportation. The federal government has jurisdiction over transboundary air pollution. Therefore responsibilities for taking action and for developing public policies to address issues such as climate change are shared.

Unfortunately, as we noted in the House time and time again and as the commissioner of the environment pointed out again this week in his report, the Liberal government refuses to work with the provinces. There are no clear and transparent agreements between governments that specifically define their respective roles and responsibilities in achieving the stabilization goal.

At the same time, federal roles and responsibilities have not been made clear. Leadership has been split between the natural resources and environment departments but nobody seems to know who is in charge. On one hand, the Liberals want to have the lead role in climate change but on the other hand, they refuse to hold themselves accountable.

According to the environment commissioner, the federal government has failed to devise an acceptable means by which it can be held accountable for its leadership on the climate change issue and for federal participation in implementing Canada's national action program on climate change, the NAPCC.

Not only is there an absolute lack of accountability with this government, there is also a vacuum of information. According to the environment commissioner, there is no written plan to implement the strategic direction of the national action program on climate change. The national action program on climate change is silent on the regime to measure and monitor results. There is no information on the results achieved from government actions.

Clear and concrete performance expectations have generally not been established. Implementation milestones and interim targets have not been defined. Before we devise a strategy as proposed by Motion 38, we must understand the implications and costs of the deal. This should have been done before Canada signed the Kyoto agreement. Yet six months after Canada has committed itself to legally binding emissions reductions, this government is still unable to give Canadians an estimate on the cost of living up to these obligations. The only studies that have been available are from external sources. These are the only studies that department officials have been able to refer to and they show the cost would be enormous.

According to a study prepared by the Business Council on National Issues, achieving the Kyoto target levels would require one of the following measures.

We would have to remove all Canadian cars and light trucks from the road or we would have to remove 90% of commercial trucks and air, railway and marine transportation, or Canada would have to eliminate heating of all homes, all commercial buildings and all national gas distribution, or Canada would have to shut down three quarters of its fossil fuel power generation.

These are examples of the magnitude of the deal signed at Kyoto. The Kyoto agreement could cost billions to Canadians. Clearly governments need additional information on the costs and benefits of inaction as well as the costs and benefits of action. Such information is needed to make a sound cost-benefit decision.

Yet a 1996 review of the NAPCC reported that little or no work was under way in Canada to assess the economic implications of inaction. Canada must be a leader in setting high environmental standards while maintaining a global competitive position and good economic performance. In addressing emissions reductions nationally, the needs of both industry and the environment must be balanced.

Canada's economic interests must be protected. Yet the only way to protect Canada's economic interests is to ensure that internationally we have a level playing field. Developing nations must be an integral part of the solution. 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 early next century. However, developing countries do not have to participate in reductions and they did not sign the agreement in Kyoto. The possibility of climate change is a global issue and it must be addressed collectively.

Developing countries are responsible for 40% of the world's emissions. Canada is only responsible for 2%. In the next 15 years it is estimated developing countries will be responsible for 60% of the world's emissions.

The American government is taking the position that it will not participate in an agreement unless the developing countries sign on. The provinces have agreed Canada should not sign unless 75% of the countries responsible for greenhouse gas emissions sign on. If developing countries are not part of the discussion about climate change and rising greenhouse gas emissions, there will not be a solution.

Any proposed goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions will not be achieved without their participation. Before Canada ratifies any agreement, both developed and developing countries must participate equally in the protocol.

We must ensure that any commitments made are in Canada's interests and recognize Canada's unique circumstances. A national consensus should be gained before international commitments are made. Any greenhouse gas emission targets must be realistic, achievable and based on sound scientific evidence.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today on an issue of paramount importance. The hon. member for Davenport is giving us an opportunity to address the important issue of climate change and this government's inability to develop a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

I shall take a moment to read this very interesting motion:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, as part of a global effort to minimize climate change, develop a strategy for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in Canada possibly by 20%, based on 1998 levels, by the year 2005.

Let me go over the key elements of this motion: global effort, strategy and 20% reduction. These are the elements I will address today in the time allocated to me to speak on this issue.

I shall focus first on the global reduction effort referred to in today's motion. This is an important point because Canada has traditionally been a world leader in the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but that was before the Liberals took office in 1993.

If we take a look back at the 1992 conference in Rio, we can see that Canada was then actively involved in safeguarding our environment. Canada was in fact the first of more than 150 nations to sign the framework agreement. It worked hard on bringing these nations to join forces in fighting greenhouse gases. In those days, Canada took a leadership role on the international scene, encouraging other nations to act responsibly and take positive measures to counter climatic changes.

Unfortunately, one year later, the world lost a key player after the Liberal Party came to power in Canada. That party made Canada go from the position of world leader on the environment to that of a burden for the international community, and this is no exaggeration.

First, Canada is the world's second largest per capita polluter, in terms of greenhouse gases. As such, it cannot act as if it is not concerned by the issue. The Liberals came to office in 1993, one year after the signing of the international agreement in Rio.

What is the situation now, after five years of Liberal government? We produce 9% more greenhouse gases than we did in 1990. If the pattern is maintained, the Liberal Party will lead us to a 13% increase by the year 2000, while the Rio accord provided that emissions should be stabilized, which means a 0% increase. The Liberal Party has totally ignored Canada's international commitment to reduce greenhouse gases.

But there is more. The list of this government's environmental failures at the international level continues. As we know, the all important Kyoto negotiations took place last year. Once again, countries from all over the world got together to agree on targets for reducing greenhouse gases. The issue was very important, because this time the parties were trying to agree on objectives that would include legal obligations.

Let us take a look at Canada's role in these negotiations. First, while the governments of most developed countries were holding national debates on the issue of climatic changes in the year preceding the Kyoto summit, the federal government merely watched the train go by without worrying about anything. After discussing these issues internally, the G-7 members began to adopt a position on the international scene. In other words, these countries were already beginning to negotiate at the international level a position with which they would be comfortable.

Where was the Government of Canada? What was the position of the country that played a leading role in 1992? No one could tell. In fact, the Canadian government dragged its feet to the point of being the last G-7 member to present a bargaining position. While other countries were openly negotiating at the international level, the Liberal cabinet kept wondering what position to adopt. Some leadership.

The federal government has, of course, done everything in its power to cover up the amateur and incompetent way it has handled this. It has, for example, tried to justify its immobility by invoking the need to consult the provinces. Who could be opposed to consultation?

The problem here is that the federal government woke up a month before the Kyoto deadline, when it finally got around to calling together the provincial ministers of environment and natural resources at Regina.

I need not point out that these negotiations had been so well prepared by this government that they ended up in a disagreement between Quebec and the Canadian provinces. The provinces did, however, manage to reach agreement on a minimum position for reductions.

A month later, the very day they were leaving for Kyoto, the Canadian ministers of the environment and natural resources finally made public a negotiating position, a 3% reduction. Because they were the last to do so on the international scene, one would assume that this position was at least the object of consensus within Canada.

Unfortunately, this was not the case. The Canadian position was denounced immediately by the provinces, which had agreed to a different objective just the month before. In short, the federal government did not play a leadership role on either the national or the international level. In both cases it failed miserably at getting its vision across.

This is why the reference to the world-wide effort in the motion of the hon. member for Davenport is so important here. While it did not commit to reduce gas emissions to the same extent as the United States, France, Germany or England, Canada must at least take steps to honour its commitment. To this end, the government must implement a strategy, and this is the second topic I want to address today.

Strategy is too strong a word to describe the Liberal government's action in connection with climate change. In fact, unless the Liberals had actually planned for their reduction effort to fail, it would be more appropriate to talk about Liberal ad-libbing. I am not the only one to say this, as the sponsor of today's motion knows.

This week, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development tabled a report in which it makes caustic comments on the current government. It explains clearly why the federal Department of the Environment is presently unable to protect public health and the environment.

In our view, two serious problems are undermining the department's very credibility as far as meeting any environmental challenge is concerned: the chronic lack of resources and the possibility of unacceptable interference by senior management in the decision making process.

We were astonished to learn, for instance, that only half of the regulations for which the federal government is responsible in Quebec will be implemented in 1998-99, for lack of resources.

In addition, employees told of several cases of undue interference on the part of senior management in the past. During the standing committee's hearings, one manager even refused to answer our questions on this issue, for fear of reprisals.

The federal government has been aware of this situation since at least 1995. Why did it not change the decision structure which continues to favour such interference? In this case, as in the case of climactic change, there is a flagrant lack of political will on the part of the Liberal government to protect the environment and honour international commitments.

In addition to paralysing the Department of the Environment through draconian cuts, the Liberal government has not established who would be directing federal efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. I refer to the report by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. He pointed clearly to federal improvisation in the reduction of toxic gases.

In conclusion, I support the motion of the member for Davenport and I wish that his government would read it and take note as soon as possible. I have my doubts, however, because the motion repeats verbatim a promise in the 1993 red book. Up to now, the Liberal Party has forgotten anything in the red book more often than not, now that it is in power.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am speaking on Motion No. M-38 submitted by the hon. member for Davenport, that in the opinion of the House the government should as part of a global effort to minimize climate change, develop a strategy in reducing carbon dioxide emissions in Canada possibly by 20% based on 1988 levels by the year 2005.

I commend my hon. colleague for his efforts to bring this debate to the House. It is very timely. Next week delegations from Canada and throughout the world will be gathering in Bonn, Germany in preparation for the Argentina talks that will take place in Buenos Aries in November. COP-4, as it will be deemed in Argentina, will decide on many of the major initiatives the nation states of this world can make toward reducing greenhouse gases.

As the New Democratic Party representative on the standing committee, it has been an honour for me to participate with the hon. member who serves as chair in the dialogue on greenhouse gases. The committee set out directions for our negotiators in Kyoto to emphasize a solid foundation for long term emissions reduction and to initiate public education and engagement in activities by the public, research and development, science and technology, and to make sure there is cost efficiency when dealing with emissions trading or joint implementation, that it is not just window dressing for greenhouse gases for industries to buy their way out of trouble.

Another major issue is that we need quick start initiatives immediately. That was also a contention of the environment commissioner. Those have not started at all. There could be cost shared basis projects, pilot projects for communities and municipalities, major research projects with industries and institutions of higher learning and engaging with developing countries on joint implementation issues.

These two major topics were a challenge and a major test for this government. My hon. colleague mentioned that his party platform was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20%. I believe the Progressive Conservatives took that position. The Bloc advocates major reduction targets of up to 20%. The New Democratic Party advocates a 20% reduction target.

The only party that still will not take this test is the Reform Party. It will still not admit that greenhouse gases will have a major impact on our society, our world and our way of life. Its bottom line is still dollars, what it will cost.

The provinces have to acknowledge that there will be costs. There will be a cost for the impacts associated with addressing the greenhouse gas emissions issue. But the issue is one of transitional measures. The provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Nova Scotia have been dragging their feet in coming alongside this because an industrial transition is involved here.

As Canadians and as citizens of the world we should take this challenge. In the test we have gone through this week, the environment department is a battered department. It should be taking the lead. A secretariat for dealing with climate change was recently established and two ministers were appointed as its co-leaders. Only one minister should take the lead on this issue for Canada. It is a sad fact that we should take on ourselves collectively as Canadians and as a government.

If we target to 2005 the 20% reduction, that is a major reduction within seven years. In seven years there is a measurable target we can take. In that measurable time we should be bringing on our youth, our children, the future generations, the people of the new millennium, the people we are going to leave our state of the nation with.

We should have our young people out there, empower them to be a conscience to our way of life. Why are they not knocking on the Bank of Canada's door every night when the Bank of Canada leaves its lights on 24 hours? Why are they not knocking on government department doors to be a conscience?

In the headlines we read of language officers in the province of Quebec being conscious about protecting their language in businesses, advertising and with the people of Quebec. Why could we not do that and empower our youth right now who are in dire need of employment?

We could do it this summer as a quick start initiative. We could send our youth to senior citizens homes. They could install R-40 or R-60 insulation in ceilings, put second and third panes on house windows to keep the temperature cool inside in the summer and the warm air inside in the winter. Let us do it now. Let us empower our children now. Let us empower our youth. Let us challenge ourselves.

Let us challenge ourselves as the hon. member mentioned and not abandon our railroads. Our railroads are the cleanest form of transporting goods in this country. The railroads were designed to unite this country from coast to coast. There is no northern railroad that connects the third coast or along the midportion of Canada. It only connects the southern portion. We cannot be selfish in that way.

We can talk of the whole issue of sinks in the equation of emissions trading, deciding how much our country has created in emissions. We deduct the sinks so our land use policies, our reforestation policies have to come into play. We must reforest immediately the vast tracts of land which have been left bare. If man can cut the trees down, man can grow the trees. Let us do it.

The farmers and our agricultural community do not know the impact of what greenhouse gases and the future of the Kyoto agreement could have on their industry. Let us be fair, honest and forward and talk in a language that is not beyond anyone's terminology. Let us be open with the media. There should be public dialogue. There should be a public exchange. A secretariat should be formed immediately and be open to the public. I do not even know where they are on Parliament Hill. They have to be active now.

We made an agreement in Rio de Janeiro that should have been started, enacted and completed by the year 2000. Nothing is going to be done about it. We know we have failed on that measure.

Let us take the Kyoto agreement and take the challenges as the hon. member for Davenport has done. Let us raise the height of the bars and improve ourselves and look at the impact. I challenge the Reform members, I challenge the provinces, I challenge anyone who questions this issue to look at the impacts to the permafrost in the north.

As the permafrost falls and the heat rises in the northern regions of this country, the permafrost will no longer hold and bind the biomass and the soft soils will erode. As the heat rises in the glacial areas in the northern regions, heat deflects off of white and when the white glacier melts the heat will be attracted to the darker ground and the vegetation under that glacial melt.

The national action program on climate change has to be invigorated with a multi-department initiative not only by NRC the odd time when it is politically correct. We need the power of the Prime Minister behind this whole initiative. As leader of this country we need the Prime Minister's office to take a lead on this most drastic issue that is going to have an effect 100 to 150 years from now. We are going to generate a huge impact on our grandchildren in a higher climate and a higher economic travesty we will not even know.

Unfortunately there is no time to continue and I am only half way through my speech. I put my weight behind the challenge that the member for Davenport has stated and and the Kyoto deal that this government and all the nations of the world have signed. Let us take on the challenge, the transportation challenge, our lifestyle challenge and let us empower our youth and create jobs by doing it.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to join the dialogue on this motion. This motion has been tabled before the House in the most constructive way in order to raise further attention to a very critical issue that challenges our country, our economy and the world community.

It was only a few months ago that a number of individuals who spoke participated in a take note debate leading up to the climate change conference in Kyoto. During that debate we had the honour to listen a number of individuals who have a very sincere interest in protecting our environment. I was very pleased to have had the opportunity to listen to a former environment minister, the hon. Jean Charest, who participated in that debate. He contributed to the world community with respect to climate change and played a role in Rio. I was very honoured to be a member of his team during that debate.

I was also very honoured to listen to other individuals, in particular the member for Davenport. He is definitely a well respected environmental crusader. Ultimately he deserves a fair amount of credit with respect to initiatives on the environment that may come to fruition and an increase in budget.

The issue of why this creates so much topic these days, when we look at it from our country's perspective, is that perhaps no country lives off its environment or natural resources more than we do. Whether it be our industries of pulp and paper, mining and other resource industries, a fair amount of our economy relies on living off our environment.

The other thing that drives our economy is export. A high proportion of our gross domestic product is exported. We currently export over $210 billion each year to the United States. Later on I will explain how that comes into play.

The issue we are talking about is why is climate change an issue in the first place. I would like to read the second paragraph of a press release tabled by the commissioner for the environment earlier this week: “Climate change is perhaps the most difficult of all environmental problems facing governments around the world. Possible long term affects such as drier summers in the prairies, increases in forest fires and insect infestations, coastal flooding and more frequent extreme weather events could be devastating for Canada and all Canadians”. These are some of the effects of climate change.

One thing I am very sad to point out, reading from section 3.28 of the auditor general's report, is that there is still one political party in this House that denounces the signs on climate change. It is too bad the member for Calgary Southwest is not here to listen to this debate. I can assure members he has an awful lot to learn when it comes to scientific evidence with respect to this very important issue.

I read from the IPCC report issued in 1995. The international community of esteemed scientists throughout the world clearly stated that the balance and evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate change. The science on climate change is from a practical perspective beyond dispute.

We as parliamentarians have really failed in the last number of months with respect to this issue. We focused a lot on targets and timelines. To some degree this motion focuses on that as well.

We owe Canadians, we owe the environmental community, we owe the global community more of a contribution on how we get the job done as opposed to focusing more on mere targets and timelines.

Targets and timelines are necessary from the standpoint of what gets measured gets done. We need to start addressing some of the issues that are most important. Any decision made by government with respect to the environment I believe should follow three principles.

It must be based on science. In this case it is. It is the government's role to actually enhance it. Therefore it must be enhanced by government and it must be anchored in society's will.

The Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces and industry have a moral obligation to ensure the Canadian population is engaged in this very serious and real issue.

We should focus immediately on true quick start initiatives in terms of providing industry with aggressive tax incentives with respect to research and development on energy efficiency initiatives, with aggressive tax incentives for industry and for private citizens for the use of renewable energies.

We should have research and development of an aggressive nature with respect to energy efficiency initiatives. Those three things we should really focus on right from the start. We should move in that direction.

Look at some of these no regrets philosophies in terms of what we should be doing ultimately. For other reasons from a transportation perspective, and the member for Davenport talked about this, why would we not want to provide tax incentives for the use of public transportation passes?

There are many gains in terms of what would benefit our economy. I clearly support that initiative and I assure members I will be talking to our finance critic on that issue to make sure he is on side as well. I am sure the member for Davenport will be working on his finance minister on that topic.

Why this becomes a very important issue for us as a country is that we trade $200 billion to $210 billion each year with the Americans. Our ability to compete on the world stage relies on our ability to actually trade and compete.

The Americans have pledged to spend as much as $7.4 billion U.S. on energy efficiency initiatives, on the use of renewable energy sources. When Americans do something they usually do it quite well. If they are to engage in making their industries that much more energy efficient, that much more cost competitive, if Canada does not have similar initiatives within our economy led by the Minister of Finance that will have very negative implications on our country's competitiveness because our industries simply will not be able to compete in the long run.

What this requires is prime ministerial leadership like we saw with respect to the earth summit with former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and former environment minister Jean Charest. We need that kind of involvement as well.

Although we know this is a very daunting task, we have been challenged like this before. I refer to the issue of acid rain. Initially industry said it would be economic armageddon if we had to change the way we operate our industries. The bottom line was that a lot of those industries were actually able to be that much more energy efficient and that much more cost effective by actually changing the processes in terms of how they operate. Acid rain is an example that we can look at and say this issue can actually be addressed.

The Minister of Finance loves to talk about our record. I love to talk about our environmental record. I am sad that the Minister of Finance does not have the opportunity to actually listen to these comments.

I applaud our initiatives in terms of acid rain, the hon. Jean Charest's initiative with respect to the green plan, the former Prime Minister's leadership with respect to the earth summit, a national packaging protocol and Tom MacMillan and Jean Charest when they brought in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Those are the kinds of things I like to look back on at our environmental record. I want to work in the most non-partisan fashion possible so we can address this very serious issue of climate change. I applaud the member for Davenport for continuing to add to this debate.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me very quickly thank all the participants in this debate for their comments and in some cases their suggestions. I thank the members for Rosemont, Churchill River and Fundy—Royal for their intense and active co-operation in committee where we work together.

The member for Saskatoon—Humboldt made an interesting point which I agree with that there has to be in achieving the Kyoto goal very a intensive form of co-operation with the provinces, the municipalities and the private sector. He found the motion before us today ambitious or a bit too strong, but it was written three months before Kyoto. As it stands now, six months later it is only 1% of the mark.

One has to aim high in order to achieve the Kyoto commitment five years after the year 2005. As to his reference to the BCNI paper one can only say that it is shortsighted and ill informed, bordering on lunacy, intent only on fearmongering.

I agree with him when he emphasized that a national commitment is needed. We now have a national commitment. As indicated by the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of National Resources, it has been achieved well after the meeting in Kyoto.

Unfortunately during his 10 minutes the member for Rosemont engaged in partisan politics at great length. He gave us an historic overview as seen from the opposition benches month by month in very precise chronology. It was basically a partisan attack on federalism intended to prove that federalism does not work, which of course is something that we do not and cannot agree with. There are faults and shortcomings, that is true, but on the whole for a country of the size of Canada if we did not have federalism we would have to invent it.

I look forward to another debate when the member for Rosemont will give us the benefit of his ideas on how to tackle climate change and the ideas of his party. I am sure he has some very valuable and interesting ideas to put forward which we have been deprived of today.

The member for Churchill River made a very constructive intervention. He referred to the Bonn meeting, which is a good reminder. He spoke about transitional measures, a very interesting concept. He spoke about the new millennium people which I find a very interesting aspect of this issue because it is a long term intergenerational issue. There is a lot of potential in what he said.

He also made an interesting reference to buildings which are lit up all night, which is a luxury that we should do without.

I conclude by thanking the member for Fundy—Royal. He spoke about the three principles, which are very good, and the importance of becoming more effective in energy production.

If we are to achieve the Kyoto goals we have to have a very strong secretariat and very strong political leadership.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

Pursuant to order made Tuesday, February 17, 1998, the House stands adjourned until Monday, June 1, 1998 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 4.14 p.m.)