The member asks what I know about science. I wonder what he knows about science. I know what international science knows. That is why the international panel was put together.
The leader of the Reform Party tonight only reminded me of the other scientists we heard from recently who are still arguing that cigarette smoke is good for your health.
We could use exactly the same line, because there will always be a scientist somewhere who will say that smoking does not harm your health at all. They are out there. If he wants to line up with them as a member of the flat earth society, fine, but it speaks to those who continue to dwell in this paranoia.
I assure Canadians that with regard to the science this is a very solid case.
I would like to take a few minutes to discuss the process that has failed and that preceded this conference on climate changes in Kyoto. This in my opinion is where we find the greatest difference in approach between the current government and the Rio conference.
The minister is well aware, she is present this evening, she was also in Rio at the earth summit, as was the current Minister of Finance. What I want to point out this evening is that in the months and years prior to the earth summit in Rio, the government of the day made a commitment to involve the main actors, the principal decision makers in the delegation.
We did something fairly rare, we involved the provincial governments, environmental groups and the business community from the outset. We opened wide the doors to permit access to all government officials. We even involved municipal governments. The minister will recall that the mayor of Montreal attended the earth summit in Rio along with other big city mayors.
With this approach we wanted to reflect the very nature of our federation in the decisions made in Rio. There were four essential elements. There was what was termed Agenda 21, which was the basic document, the overall framework, making commitments on a number of subjects. There was also a proposal for a convention on climate changes, the topic this evening.
There was a second convention proposed on protecting biodiversity. The fourth document discussed at Rio was an agreement on forest management, which we wanted to see made into a convention, but there were objections by the developing countries when it came down to doing so.
In order to ensure that Canada could exercise its full authority at Rio and use its influence to the maximum, we acknowledged right from the very start the importance of involving all stakeholders. This was a wise decision for us, and I am very proud of that decision because it is an example of how Canadian federalism must operate.
So much so, that we also decided, within that context, to have an open delegation, which is to say that ordinary citizens had access to public servants. They could influence decisions, whether the department was Natural Resources, Energy, or Environment. As well, these people were directly accountable to them.
Every morning at Rio, there was a meeting of the Canadian delegation. Some mornings we were close to 200 people, with everyone taking part and being informed of the decisions of the day and the way we would be proceeding. For us, and for Canada, this was an extraordinary experience.
When we are told—and I take this opportunity to clarify this—when somebody tells us that we made commitments at Rio and did not know what we were doing, that is false. The attitude of all countries in attendance at Rio in making commitments was “We don't know exactly how we will stabilize levels, but we are committed to taking precise steps in order to reach an assessment of the actions to be taken”.
But to claim that in Rio we deliberately signed an agreement not knowing what we were doing, or misleading people into thinking we were going to do something when we did not know what, is false. It is completely false to make this kind of insinuation. The members who were there know that it was a very open process.
In his speech a few minutes ago the leader of the Bloc Quebecois illustrated just how open it was when he told us that only two governments in Canada ratified the agreement on climatic change. In fact, it was three governments, because the government of which I was a member ratified it. We were the first government in the world, among those who signed the Rio agreement, to do so. This Parliament was the first Parliament to ratify it.
We were followed by the Government of British Columbia and the Government of Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois leader himself pointed this out. I am sorry to turn his argument against him and I do not do so out of malice, but let us admit that it is hard to resist reminding Bloc members that this is one of the very successes of our federalism. Here we have the proof, and he himself admitted that the approach we took in Rio made it possible for the Government of Quebec to participate fully in the decision, actually formally ratifying the treaty on climatic change.
Now they remind us that only Quebec and British Columbia did so. Surely there must be provincial governments in Canada that are less federalist than Quebec is now. This, for us, is a demonstration of what federalism can be when this kind of issue is tackled the way it must be tackled.
I am sorry today to have to say the opposite. For some reason I do not understand, and I really do not understand, I wonder why the provincial governments were not involved from the start. I do not know why. They should have been though. The same applies to the private sector and environmental groups. However, that is not what we feel. In any case, if we are to believe the reaction of the people involved, this should not be the case. I do not know about the environmental groups. But the provincial governments were not involved from the start.
I can only conclude this evening that, basically, the Liberals have reverted quickly to their usual style. They do not tend to involve the provinces. It does not come naturally to them. This is why we find ourselves in the rather awkward situation of having a federal-provincial conference a few days before the conference, with the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources in attendance. I acknowledge their good faith, but we have to admit they got no help from their cabinet colleagues. My sympathy. It must be tough in cabinet. I can see them around the table. They raise their hands, and the Prime Minister gives them each a turn. The Minister of the Environment probably said “Mr. Prime Minister, Kyoto is coming up”. And the Prime Minister replied “Next item on the agenda. We will get to it”.
I am exaggerating a bit, but this cannot be far from reality. Otherwise, how do we explain that we are on the eve of an international conference with monumental consequences for Canada and we are so ill prepared. It is a disaster.
And this is disastrous, not only disastrous politically, but also because it raises the following question: how are we going to implement the decisions taken at Kyoto, if the provincial governments are not fully involved in the debate?
Even if the federal government were to come back to Canada with a commitment to a 20% reduction within ten years, if no provincial government is involved, nothing will happen, period.
This is very serious. This government must, unfortunately, be told that the fault lies, in this connection at least, with the fact that there is a lot of catching up to do if we are to prove to Canadians that they are capable of making this federation move in the direction of real progress, so that an issue like climatic change can be successful.
As we now look ahead to this conference and its results, it is very difficult for other parties in the House of Commons, given the lack of preparation, to give a commitment, to give a good sense of what Canada's commitment should be. I am being very honest tonight as we try to assess ourselves. We have been as honest and forthright as we can in trying to estimate what Canada's position should be.
Given the lack of work done around this, it is going to be very difficult for anyone to put forward a position. I thought the leader of the NDP was quite courageous tonight. She expressed the view that her party would support a 20% reduction in 1990 levels by the year 2005. That is very ambitious. I would beg to disagree with the leader of the NDP on that. I would think given the circumstances and what we know, that is beyond what is reasonable.
The leader of the Reform Party has shied away. He is still arguing that there is a world plot against Canada. The skies probably let them figure that out, a world plot working against us. Apart from that fact, he would probably defend that cigarette smoking is good for your health.
He also says that the government cannot make the difference between good and bad science. One of the arguments he gave for that is that apparently there are very few science stories in the clipping service of the government. Now there is a good scientific measurement. There is a real test of absolute rigour. I hope no one from any other country is listening. This is embarrassing.
I have to congratulate him on developing the Meech Lake effect because the Meech Lake effect extends all the way into the Reform caucus. Everyone will remember Meech Lake.
The leader of the Reform Party has made a career of arguing against the distinct society clause but he may not have picked this up. The government has said a few times that the unique character clause means exactly the same thing as the distinct society clause and now he is in favour of the unique character clause. I guess that is new science also.
I guess we will leave him alone with the grand plot to unthrow the world.
I want to add in regard to the position that we in this party, in this caucus, will support the position that Canada should strive to stabilize its 1990 greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2010 as was agreed to by the provincial governments, except for one provincial government, that of Quebec. That is the position this government will bring into this conference.
We view this as being an interim position or a position that we take going into the conference that will be susceptible to change as Canada emerges from the Kyoto conference hopefully better enlightened about what the world community is ready to do and committed to develop a real action plan and not allow this issue again to go back to, not to put a pun on it, the back burner of the cabinet.
Among the things we would like to see this government speak to very clearly in regard to Canada's position are these few. First of all, much as we did in the case of sulphur dioxide emissions, which is a success story, that proves this can be done. We need to recognize that in Canada there has to be regional variances. The economy of Alberta is not the same as the economy of the province of Quebec. We have to recognize these differences to allow each region of Canada to carry its fair share of the load.
For example, the Canadian petroleum producers make the argument that part of the greenhouse gas emissions they produce, a good part of the increase is due to exports they send to the United States. I think they make a very good case to the effect that the increase in economic activity happening in another country has had an effect on greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. In all fairness it should be recognized that they in that respect carry a heavier burden than other regions of Canada vis-à-vis the United States and there has to be some recognition of that.
That is the first principle we would like to see the government adopt as it goes to this conference and emerges with a position.
The second one has to do with joint implementation. Here Canada should really lead the way. Canada takes great pride in the role it plays in developing countries. Here is a real opportunity for us to recognize that if we wanted to have the biggest bang for our buck in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, if we wanted to have the most effect at the most rapid rate, we would certainly put the bulk of our resources in helping developing countries acquire basic technologies. We do not have to get the last version of the best high technology in the world, but basic technologies to help them diminish greenhouse gas emissions.
By doing this we would help the cause in a way that would be measurable quite rapidly. We would also help developing countries have a better environment within their own land mass and ecosystems. We would also help them have more productive means of producing energy. It makes sense all around. It makes sense for us. It makes sense for them. This should be an issue on which Canada should lead in Kyoto on joint implementation.
I hope the minister will do that, that cabinet will press that and that the government will do it. We will certainly back them up on this so that we can receive credits for the efforts that we were able to allow. Again this will allow Canada to continue to play a lead role in the world in promoting these technologies elsewhere.
The third principle should be some flexibility also in the commitments we make. This is a little more complicated and it is new. What we should strive for if we want an honest and lucid agreement is an agreement emerging from Kyoto that would allow some countries to have a different target and to vary that target given their own realities.
Canada in this respect is a very solid example. Our land mass, our climate, the distances. There are obvious reasons why we would produce more energy per capita than other countries in the world. Given this reality, given the efforts that we are ready to put into this issue, there are good solid reasons why we could also have recognition of some differences and some variation in the commitments that different countries make.
The fourth principle is one I and my party are very interested in and which carries a great deal of potential. That is the use of economic instruments. Here we have to be clear. Economic instruments in the area of the environment embrace a broad range of tools, including carbon taxes to which we are opposed. We are opposed to the use of carbon taxes. Let me take a second to explain why.
We already use energy in our country for the purposes of taxation. We hear our American neighbours talk about carbon taxes and they compare them to Canada and forget one essential element. In the southern part of the United States and in most parts of the United States the gasoline at the pump is not used as a source of taxation. In Canada it is. In this respect we could argue that we already have a carbon tax. Going that route from our perspective is certainly not the best idea.
But there are many other instruments available to us, including tradable permits. This is something rather difficult to understand for the public. It was developed around the acid rain agreement on sulphur dioxide emissions. Our American neighbours are using it. I have heard that for the first time in the last few months these permits are actually being traded and profits are being made. This seems to demonstrate at the outset that they will work. I say seem to because it is very early in the area of tradable permits to determine whether they absolutely work, but they seem to carry a great deal of promise for reasons I believe in.
If we are able to offer real economic incentives to deal with this issue, we will get results. We live in a market based economy. A market based economy works if it is directed toward incentives that allow and encourage people to be more efficient with the environment and with their greenhouse gas emissions.
Tradable permits could very well and should be part of the initiatives that Canada embraces. The American president in the statement on the American position has alluded to the fact that they are interested in such a system on a world basis. We could certainly interpret from that that if he is interested in a tradable permit system on a world basis, geography being what it is, we happen to be neighbours and it would involve us. Certainly any initiative that goes beyond the United States will have a continental impact and we would be natural partners in implementing such a system.
I encourage the minister to do that. I encourage both ministers. But I encourage you to start doing the homework because the government failed in doing its homework around this. You failed in doing the homework around this, Mr. Speaker. Not you personally, Mr. Speaker. I know you have been nodding incessantly since I have been talking, positively, and I thank you for that. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources should not assume that any movement of your head has the same significance for him as it would have for me.
I want to say to the government that on this issue it has certainly failed any reasonable test of following up on work that had been left behind. There was a commitment that the environment and finance departments would produce a working paper on this. The paper that was produced was quite weak. The introduction described the paper in very clear language, that the mandate was very narrow, and the work was quite weak.
The government should be encouraged since others have taken up the cause. The environmental commission in Montreal which was struck as a result of NAFTA has done some excellent work in this area. That commission would be able to help all countries, especially the three NAFTA countries, to develop a tradable permit system.
Fifth, the government should get some recognition for the management of our carbon sink. For those who are unfamiliar with a carbon sink, it is an ecosystem that is able to absorb carbon dioxide, our forests being an example.
The best known carbon sink in the world is the Amazon forest, which we would feel very strongly about because we do not live in the Amazon. There are people all over the world who would be very shocked at the idea that the Amazon forest would be cut down. This would naturally preoccupy us since the Amazon represents the most important carbon sink in the world, although the oceans are also carbon sinks. Carbon sinks absorb carbon dioxide.
Canada's land mass contains 10% of the world's forests. We have a responsibility in the management of our forests in terms of softwood lumber and other issues today and tomorrow for our children's sake, and for those who work in the industry. Canada has come a long way in the last few years in the way it manages its forests. There is a lot of enlightened self-interest involved here also. Although I understand it will be difficult for us to get recognition for that, we should get some recognition for the carbon sinks.
Others have spoken about measures to get more economy out of the use of energy. Efforts in that area will be spoken of. Our environment critic, the member for Fundy—Royal, will speak on this issue. He will detail some of the work we have done. As someone said earlier, in the end this is not a partisan issue and I agree. We wish the delegation well in Kyoto. We did well in Rio. We will do everything in our power to help advance this debate for the sake of doing what is right not only for our economy today but for future generations of Canadians.
