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.