Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP):

Mr Speaker, this is an important debate, but it is kind of extraordinary and bizarre in many ways that we are having it.

I talked to people from the western part of my riding to the east, north and south throughout the election and before that, as someone who was involved in environmental issues. They would find it extraordinary and bizarre that we are having to debate this rather than getting on with the work on the important issue of climate change.

We know what climate change is doing. I shake my head at the fact that we having to convince the government that more action should be taken on this. I wonder what will be asked in a generation or two. Will they ask, what did they do at that important time when they were at crossroads? Did they stick their heads in the sand, tar sands perhaps? Did they get up and do something about climate change?

The climate change issue is one that not only affects Canadians. It also affects people throughout the planet. As has been stated before, we only have one planet and we are doing an awful job of taking care of it.

In generations to come the record will show that we went through massive resources with terrible consumption and poor stewardship. That is an embarrassment. What have we done? We have decided to go for the quick and easy and look at the next six months and perhaps the next year. However, we have forgotten the notion of looking after the next generation, taking care of what we have.

I sense there might be some debate about the fact that climate change is a significant scientific issue. I would like to take a look from where this stems. We just have to go back to the first world climate conference in February 1979. It identified the issue. Then in June 1988 there was the World Conference on Changing Atmosphere in Toronto. Then in November 1998 we had the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In August of 1990 the IPCC issued its first assessment report, which talked about the concerns. In December 1995 the second assessment report by the IPCC was issued. It talked about the balance of evidence suggested a discernible human influence on global climate. Then in 2001 the third report was issued. In May 2001 a further report was issued.

In June 2001 a report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, commissioned by President George W. Bush, talked about how greenhouse gases were accumulating in the earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities. Even George agrees now.

In November 2004 an unprecedented four year scientific study of the Arctic, conducted by the an international team of 300 scientists, was released. It stated that the impacts of global warming were now affecting people in the Arctic, and it goes on.

I want to address this because the minister talked about it earlier. In June 2005 the national science academies of the G-8 nations, plus those from China, India and Brazil, signed a declaration warning world leaders of the clear and increasing threat of climate change. They called for immediate action.

It is pretty clear at this point, and we can all agree hopefully, that climate change is an issue and we are not responding. We are bystanders watching it go by.

What does this mean? In terms of Canadians, it means socio-economic impacts. We talked about the pine beetle epidemic. Even the global insurance industry claimed that $44 billion in insured losses were due to extreme weather events such as floods and hurricanes. Recent scientific evidence suggests a link between human induced climate change and an increase in storm intensity and duration. We could talk about Katrina.

Do we want to talk further about whether climate change is a problem? In British Columbia warmer waters are affecting the spawning and migration of salmon. The B.C. interior forest industry is facing a widespread infestation of the mountain pine beetle, to which I referred. What keeps their numbers in check? Cold weather.

In Alberta and Saskatchewan severe droughts have been ravaging the prairie provinces. Environment Canada reports that the prairies are actually drier now than they were in the 1930s. There is further evidence.

In Ontario warmer weather causes more air pollution and smog. I am sure we could agree on that. In Ontario alone smog costs more than $1 billion a year. Mr. Clement, the Minister of Health, is here and he might want to hear this. It is $1 billion a year in--

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

Order. There were two things. First, the member referred to a member by name and second, he mentioned the presence or absence of a member in the House.

Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP):

My apologies, Mr. Speaker. Someone who is involved in the issues of health might want to know that it costs more than $1 billion a year in hospital admissions, emergency room visits and absenteeisms. This is according to the Ontario Medical Association.

In Quebec the flooding of the Saguenay Valley in 1996 caused almost $1.1 billion worth of damage and killed 10 people. Damage from the 1998 ice storm was also in the billions. In Atlantic Canada sea levels are rising and severe storms in New Brunswick and P.E.I. in the past few years have damaged coastal communities.

In northern regions, as we have talked about, scientists are already reporting serious changes in the polar bear population. Warmer arctic weather patterns are causing earlier ice breaks and are affecting the feeding habits of bears as well as the use of ice as a platform for things like the seal hunt.

What can we do? I have laid out the argument. We have climate change and what is affected. We can do a heck of a lot more than what is being proposed by the government.

We need to strengthen the emissions reduction targets. We need to enforce them and implement backstop legislation for automakers, so that if they do not do the right thing voluntarily, we make sure that it is enforced to ensure they make the transition.

We need to provide incentives to promote the adoption of energy efficient technologies and non-polluting renewable electricity generation.

We need to set building efficiency standards. I am proud that in the western part of my riding of Ottawa Centre, Mountain Equipment Co-op, bar none, set the standard on how to create and build energy efficient buildings. It can be done. It needs support. We should move on it.

We need to use the partnership funds to lever actions from the provinces and territories on the implementation of renewable energies.

We could also take a look at how we generate energy. I do not think there has been enough done. We could take a look at wind energy in Europe. Spain set targets and exceeded them. What we have right now in Canada is just a blip on the map. We have not gone far enough in terms of wind energy.

We know it can be done. We are looking for leadership. We are looking to the federal government, and the current government in particular, since it seems to want to do something about climate change, to invest. Sadly, we did not see that in the budget. With all due respect to bus passes, we need to go further than that.

We need to make sure there is infrastructure. We need to make sure that there is clean green energy to drive those buses. We need to make sure that when people go to work they have options that presently are not in front of them. Quite frankly, that is an issue in my own riding.

I started off my comments by saying it is an embarrassment in having to have this debate today. We should be talking about how much further we could be going. Instead we are trying to convince people of the fact that there is a necessary call to arms on this, that this is the issue, and that this is something we should all be focusing on daily. We hope that when we look back at this debate 10 years from now, we will be able to say that we actually listened and we took action.