[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, May 17, 1995.
.1520 
[English]
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): We are very glad to have you both here at the same time. It's a great honour. Without further delay and with the consent of my colleague Mr. Arseneault, we will defer to you, Madame la ministre.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment): Thank you very much. First of all, I want to thank the members of the environment and sustainable development committee and the natural resources committee for holding this special joint session.
[Translation]
Today we have the honour to hear from a person who is particularly interested in interventions by Canada and other industrialized countries in the area of climate change and global warming. His Excellency the Ambassador Neroni Slade is the permanent representative of Western Samoa at the United Nations.
In April last, the ambassador headed the delegation from Western Samoa to the Berlin Conference on climate change. He was also an important member of the Association of Small Island-States.
[English]
These AOSIS countries are on the front line of the climate change threat. They're Pacific, Caribbean and Indian Ocean nations that are at greatest risk when the effects of climate change are felt, and they're vocal and staunch advocates for strong and decisive action. Messrs. Chairmen, I wanted to bring him here because I was particularly touched by the very persuasive argument for world citizenship that was made by the AOSIS countries in Berlin. I was also particularly interested in trying to bring a different perspective.
A few weeks ago I was asked in the House about the effects of global warming and I made mention of the fact that if the sea levels rise at the rather conservative estimates that are being predicted by the interim report of the International Panel on Climate Change, we will see provinces like the province of Prince Edward Island actually becoming a series of small islands, and we will see certain countries literally disappear under water.
Now, when I said that in the House, it evoked a certain reaction, even laughter by some. I said that was the same kind of laughter that people evoked ten years ago when we talked about the death of the cod stocks and we see how funny that is right now.
But the reality is that you can hear from Ambassador Slade that in certain countries in the South Pacific they already have evacuation plans. They face extinction, civilized extinction of their people, whole countries disappearing. I thought it was important that Canadians hear that message, because too often we hear the message of a domestic and even more limited interest as opposed to looking at the global picture.
The ambassador has just come from the Yukon, where at my invitation he met with the environment ministers from Canada's provinces and territories. There the ambassador and I saw the tremendous vista of Kluane National Park. We saw ice-capped peaks, pristine lakes, and spectacular glaciers, some of the classically Canadian things we identify with that we will lose if climate change remains unchecked.
When you talk about the effects of climate change and global warming, you are talking about the number one concern of an island state like Western Samoa. Ambassador Slade is hopefully here to show us that there is a human face to climate change. This isn't just a scientific exercise. This is about a trend that could in fact result in the displacement of 1.5% of the population over the next century. A century represents two to three generations. By the time your grandchildren are around, we may actually see the dislocation of 1.5% of the world's population.
He's here to tell us that what we do and what we don't do has a very real effect on his country, thousands of kilometres away. He's here to tell us that climate change is putting the livelihoods of his people at risk. As I think he will express for himself, Western Samoa and the small island states of the world need Canada's leadership, the leadership we showed in the Montreal Protocol, the leadership we showed in dealing with sulphur dioxide emissions. When we identify and show leadership, we can deliver results.
We need to invest the same energy and determination in energy climate change that we invested in bringing the world back from the brink of nuclear self-destruction. The nuclear threat has been averted, but there is a greater threat. We cannot give any less of ourselves in defeating the threat that climate change poses to our health, to our economies and to our security.
.1525
To deter the climate change threat, we must do what we can in the same way that we deterred the nuclear threat. Let there be no doubt that what we are facing is a real problem of the greatest urgency. For many environmental problems, clean-up after the fact is an option, even if it is a costly one. For global warming there is no after-the-fact. If we wait to see if the scientists are 100% correct, it will be too late. It's crazy to play Russian roulette with climate change, and to do so would put our grandchildren's future at risk.
[Translation]
Today, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are 25% higher than all levels registered over 220,000 years of atsmopheric history.
[English]
I want to repeat that in English because my numbers in French aren't great. Today, the concentration of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is 25% higher than all levels registered over the 220,000 years that we have actually been able to test for the history of the atmosphere.
Tests done at the Mount Siple ice core in Antarctica show that carbon dioxide levels measured from the 17th century to the first half of the 19th century were constant and stable. After the year 1850, the line rises dramatically to the present. That was the beginning of the industrialized age, and as industrialized nations this is the responsibility we must bear.
Anybody who lives in southern Ontario will know that when we were kids we used to be able to skate in our backyards. The average world temperature today is only four to six degrees higher than during the last ice age. When we were in Haines Junction, we were told that it was under water during the ice age. Already, we know that if we fail to take action, average global temperatures will rise another 1.5 to 4.5 degrees within the next fifty years, something that has only happened since the ice age.
[Translation]
In other words, our children may face a temperature increase equal to that which melted the ice 10,000 years ago. Such an increase could have tragic consequences for island states such as Western Samoa. Canada should also be quite affected by that situation.
[English]
Coastal communities, such as cities like Richmond, British Columbia, under that scenario would be under water. The Atlantic Canadian island of Prince Edward Island does face the very real possibility of turning into twelve or fifteen actual small islands, or atolls, within the next hundred years.
[Translation]
In Canada, when global warming is increasing, not only our fish stocks, but our whole wildlife will be threatened, along with an industry valued at $11 billion that employs some 200,000 Canadian men and women.
[English]
It's not just the human species that is at risk. The potential devastation that could be faced by our forestry and by our biodiversity could cost us $11 billion in absolute costs. About 200,000 Canadian jobs could be lost if we fail to take action on global warming.
In Canada, we see cod stocks depleted by almost two-thirds. One of the reasons for the cod stock tragedy was overfishing, but there is also a link with global warming. With the slight global warming we've experienced in the last fifty years, the spawning grounds for the cod stocks have gotten colder because the icebergs from the Arctic are moving south. The frigidity of the spawning grounds is causing the fish to be born sterile.
There are scientific implications for that, not to mention the economic implications. In the House, we hear every day about the cost of programs like TAGS and about what we have to do to try to get people into a new culture. That industry is at risk not just because of bad management and overfishing but also because of the very specific effects of global warming.
To anyone who questions whether the environmental issues have to be addressed, I say Atlantic fishermen cannot wait. In Western Samoa, where we see an economy very dependent on coastal activities, it isn't just an issue of displacing the people, but in economies where they will not likely go under water - If you take a look at some of the other small island states such as Trinidad and Tobago - the chair of the AOSIS group at Berlin was from Trinidad and Tobago - they will not be submerged under water, but they will see that their coral reefs, which are a very fragile and important part of their ecosystem and helped build the tourism dollars to keep them afloat, will be gone. It's a devastating loss of coastal infrastructure and beaches. It means a loss in his community alone of over 50% of their GDP.
.1530
[Translation]
His Excellency the Ambassador Slade has come to tell us that we must act and we must do so right now. The meeting that was held in Berlin in April last was a significant step not only because the Departments of the Environment of 127 countries have reiterated their commitment to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at the 1990 level by the year 2000, but also because we have made a commitment to increase the use of ecotechnologies throughout the world, in particular in the developing countries.
[English]
Countries like Canada have made strides in manufacturing new technology, and we want to help build on that technology. We want to put that green technology into the hands of the world's nations and into the hands of developing countries.
Berlin gave Canada a real and meaningful way to contribute to the global climate change solution, but we did not do enough. As a federal government we certainly have to continue to pursue our red book commitment to work with the provinces, the municipalities, and the stakeholders to achieve the 20% reduction that was in fact the goal of the AOSIS countries.
[Translation]
Our responsibility is to have Canadian men and women understand that what is important in that area is not only the scientific aspects, but also our responsibilities as human beings and our economy. I am convinced that His Excellency will be able to describe the situation better that I could ever do myself.
[English]
I hope we can hear his concerns, his views on what we can do to help, and I hope we can all learn something about our obligations as citizens of the world community.
I will now ask Ambassador Slade to address the joint session.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you. You couldn't have been given a more passionate introduction.
Mr. Ambassador, the human face of climate change is one we welcome around this table, because your message is one that many of us were looking forward to hearing.
Before you start, would you mind if we go around the table so that each member present can introduce himself or herself. Then you would know where each one comes from and you would therefore have a better idea of the parliamentary representation around this table. I invite each member to proceed.
Mr. Taylor (The Battlefords - Meadow Lake): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Len Taylor. I'm the New Democratic Party environment critic from northwest Saskatchewan.
Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Welcome, Mr. Ambassador. My name is Paul Forseth. I'm the Reform caucus member for New Westminster - Burnaby in British Columbia.
Mr. Gilmour (Comox - Alberni): I'm Bill Gilmour from Vancouver Island in British Columbia, and one of the two Reform environment critics.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies (Abitibi): Good afternoon, Mr. Slade. My name is Bernard Deshaies. I am the official opposition critic for mines. I am a member of the Bloc Québécois and I represent North-West Quebec.
Mrs. Guay (Laurentides): Good afternoon. My name is Monique Guay. I am the environment critic for the official opposition and member of the Bloc Québécois. I represent the riding of Laurentides, in Quebec.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Arseneault): Good afternoon. My name is Guy Arseneault and I am Member of Parliament for Restigouche - Chaleur, in New Brunswick. I am the Vice-Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.
[English]
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): I am Charles Caccia from Davenport in Toronto.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): My name is Karen Kraft Sloan. I'm the vice-chair for the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I'm a Liberal member for York - Simcoe, a riding in Ontario. Thank you.
Mr. Thalheimer (Timmins - Chapleau): Good afternoon. I'm Peter Thalheimer, the member for Timmins - Chapleau, in northern Ontario.
Mr. O'Brien (London - Middlesex): I'm Pat O'Brien, Liberal member of Parliament for London - Middlesex. Welcome to Ottawa, sir.
Mr. Finlay (Oxford): I'm John Finlay, Liberal member for Oxford and a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
Mr. Adams (Peterborough): I'm Peter Adams, Liberal member for Peterborough. I'm a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and within our caucus I'm chair of a committee that deals with resources, oceans and environment.
Mr. Rideout (Moncton): I'm George Rideout, Liberal member for Moncton, New Brunswick.
.1535
Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): I'm Julian Reed, a Liberal member from the riding of Halton - Peel near Toronto. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Slade, you have the floor.
[English]
Mr. Tulloma Neroni Slade (Ambassador/Representative of Western Samoa to the United Nations): Distinguished Co-Chairmen, hon. members, and Madam Minister, this is a moment of exceedingly high honour for me personally, and for my government, to be able to appear in this manner before this joint session of your committees.
It is an honour that is rare for us and therefore very precious. It is deeply appreciated, and more so in that I appear before you to speak on behalf of the member states of the United Nations that are within the Alliance of Small Island States. We are very grateful indeed, especially to Minister Copps, whose very kind invitation has ensured our presence here.
May I say to Minister Copps that no more powerful advocacy has been given to the principles that we stand for, and the things that are dear to us, than what she has just said. In Berlin, we were beginning to feel that we were speaking to ourselves and amongst ourselves.
Hon. members, may I also say from the outset that we in the island states have long admired and appreciated the leadership role and the ethical stand of the Canadian government and its citizens in the protection of the environment and in the promotion of sustainable development worldwide.
Canadians such as Maurice Strong led us all to Rio in 1992 at the Earth Summit. We now have, since Rio, Elizabeth Dowdeswell as head of the United Nations Environment Program. They continue to urge us on in the work we must do and to inspire the international community to work harder for the global environment.
Canadian cities, through their hospitality and support, have lent their names to major international initiatives to protect the global atmosphere. The 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer comes easily to mind, as does the 1988 Toronto world conference on the changing atmosphere.
It is not surprising to us small islands to find Canada a frequent ally in international environmental negotiations. Like Canada, small islands have been entrusted with a very solemn stewardship over vast areas of the earth's surface. The stretches of the open South Pacific and the endless range of the tundra and the ice above the Arctic Circle, still relatively unspoiled and unpopulated - these areas play a crucial and often neglected role in the life and the health of our planet.
We share common goals in urging international cooperation to prevent damage to these sensitive ecosystems within our jurisdictions, ecosystems that are often threatened by activities beyond our boundaries and beyond our control.
One such ecosystem dear to our island hearts is the marine environment. Might I also say in respect of the recent confrontation with the Europeans in the Atlantic that we, along with many others, understood fully the reasons for your reactions and we applauded Minister Tobin in the stand your government took in that matter. The underlying causes are about sustainability and the protection of a natural resource that is fast depleting. These are of course issues that are being addressed now before the United Nations Conference on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.
.1540
Canada and the small island states are both working very closely and working very hard in the fish conference. You have important concerns in the straddling fish stocks and we, particularly in the South Pacific, are not only fully dependent on the marine resources; we are also understood to be the custodians to some 45%, if not more, of the world's highly migratory fish stocks.
Distinguished Chairmen, before I turn to address the particular challenge that we must continue to undertake together in the climate change area, let me perhaps say more on why I, a representative of the Pacific state Western Samoa, am here today and about the group I represent, the Alliance of Small Island States or AOSIS.
For the last seven years the world's leading meteorologists and energy specialists working through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have sent the international community a consistent and increasingly warring message. A burgeoning of human economic activity in the transport, industrial, energy and agricultural sectors is gradually thickening the layer of atmosphere that keeps our planet warm. Continuing this pattern of emissions will increase global average temperatures to levels and at rates previously unknown to humankind.
Rising temperatures will lead to rising seas as waters expand and the ice caps recede. We small island states have thus found ourselves literally at the forefront, as the minister mentioned, of climate change - the weather vanes for the global climate system. Whether as atolls or volcanic peaks, each of our island states is ringed by a fragile ribbon of coast where our cultural, our economic and our political activity and life are concentrated.
Many island states are now experiencing the suspected and the predicted effects of climate change: intensified and more frequent storms; dying coral and reef systems that offer natural protection to our islands; and more so, the fear of rising seas becoming real.
With sea level rise there is little room for retreat. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predictions of increased temperatures mean that if the global warming goes on unchecked some of the small island states might cease to exist within a human lifetime. Let it be remembered, hon. members, that we speak not simply of geographical entities but of peoples, cultures, sovereign states. The Maldives, large parts of the Seychelles, the Marshall Islands and others in our part of the world will be among the first to be overcome.
The urgency of this threat to our island existence and the recognition that we needed the support of the entire international community to check this threat has drawn together 36 small island and low-lying countries from the Atlantic, the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean and the Pacific to form AOSIS. All are developing countries and members of the United Nations.
At AOSIS we have worked together with allies from the north and from the south to negotiate, draft and bring into force the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The convention, of course, establishes a legal and institutional framework for responding to the causes and to the impacts of climate change.
.1545
The rapid coming into force of this convention and the fact that it now is supported by 120 countries is a remarkable testament to the international spirit of cooperation on this matter, but alas, it is not enough. We in AOSIS believe the convention suffers from some significant shortcomings. For a start, the commitments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases do not take us beyond the year 2000. The commitments are generally acknowledged by parties to the convention to be inadequate.
In particular, the convention fails to specify in clear, simple language what concrete measurable commitments developed countries would undertake to demonstrate that they are fulfilling one of the cardinal principles of the convention, namely, that of common but differentiated responsibilities. This principle, hon. members, finds expression of course in many other important environmental instruments: the climate change convention; biodiversity; the Rio Declaration; the forest principles - agenda one, indeed. Its widespread acceptance was a major contribution in the Earth Summit process, we feel. It set the basis for global cooperation in approaching a global problem.
It is important, we feel, to appreciate fully the fact that the largest share of historical and current emissions originates in developed industrialized countries. The climate change convention notes this; indeed, it recognizes the differentiated responsibilities, financial and otherwise, of countries to respond. Both of these elements point to the need for developed countries to bear the greater burden of responsibility in combating climate change and its adverse effects.
Accordingly, the convention does provide for and calls upon developed countries to demonstrate that they are taking the lead in doing so. It was for this reason that AOSIS, at the first possible opportunity, submitted to the parties to the convention the draft of a protocol that would, in our opinion, strengthen the specific commitments of developed country parties by requiring developed countries to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 20% of their 1990 level by the year 2005.
Our protocol effort also sought other requirements, for instance, for the developed country parties to adopt specific targets and timetables over the control of emissions of other greenhouse gases, by providing a mechanism for the coordination of specific measures designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This target and timetable were not chosen arbitrarily, but because they accord with the unilateral pledges made by many industrialized countries that have been accepted by these countries domestically since the World Conference on the Changing Atmosphere here in Canada in 1988, which put forward the Toronto target setting out an initial basis for further global action.
We are told by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that 60% to 80% global reductions are needed in order to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Therefore, the 20% we propose is just a first step, and it seems to us a very moderate first step. We believe firmly that the first step is nonetheless a very significant one, because it would place emissions on a downward track for the first time since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
We should also note that the 20% reduction continues to find scientific and political support as an appropriate step towards realizing the convention's objective. This is certainly how we heard it in Berlin. Germany announced there that they have largely achieved this target and are working and aiming to go further. In Berlin, we also heard from the head of UNEP and the secretary general of the World Meteorological Organization, who supported this.
Because it is based on the convention's principle of common but differentiated responsibility, the AOSIS protocol would not impose specific emissions reduction obligations on developing country parties additional to what is already contained in the convention. We think there is a powerful argument of equity that asks those who have contributed the most historically to the build-up of concentrations of greenhouse gases to take the lead in reducing their emissions. However, from our perspective as island states, uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions from whatever source, be they developed or developing countries, is bad for the global climate system.
.1550
We do feel that all countries at some point must play their full role in reaching common goals. Our protocol encourages developing country participation in the progressive development of climate change policy through the mechanism for coordination of measures, and by focusing on the need for the accelerated transfers of relevant technologies to developing countries.
It would take a while to explain to you the trouble we small islands had to go through to promote our protocol effort through the developing country forum of the G-77. Perhaps I can do this on another occasion.
At any rate, as I have indicated, hon. members, AOSIS carried its draft protocol to Berlin at the First Conference of the Parties. It was the only formal proposal before the conference.
We spoke, as I do here now, of the great sense of urgency that we feel. We heard again from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that their essential conclusions and predictions about the seriousness of the threats to the global climate system and the urgency of the action the international community must take remain unchanged.
From the vast majority of our developing country colleagues, we heard a call for greater leadership from the industrialized world, and a willingness themselves to cooperate in good faith on global efforts.
We heard from the European Union a commitment to begin negotiating specific reduction targets. I would need to say here, and to be very honest with you, that it would have been our dearest hope to hear a similar message from Canada.
We heard from a vast battalion of non-governmental organizations that have expertise and conviction speak on behalf of environmentalists, indigenous people, and local communities, urging action for the protection of the climate system. From major OECD countries, including our own neighbours in the Pacific, we heard a distinct and a disappointing reluctance.
Now, of course, we are not impervious to the difficulties faced by the industrialized countries. It would be wrong and silly for us to take this attitude, but we do have a serious global problem that we believe calls for immediate global action.
Our own position as island states is totally vulnerable. We face a threat, not of our making, and we will be the first to feel the impact of climate change.
Lest it be thought that we take a self-benefiting position, let me add that we speak for the vast majority of countries with coastal populations, and it is said that some 65% of the human population live in coastal settings. We speak also for countries like Bangladesh, Egypt, and others who face a very similar vulnerability to climate change and the rising seas.
Let me also note that the global warming takes place slowly over decades and centuries. The precautionary principle enshrined in the convention means that we must act now, for uncertainty is no excuse for inactivity.
Our failure to act means that it is the next generation that will have to pay the highest price. Global warming represents an ecological debt imposed without consent upon the next generation by a very small fraction of today's population.
Hon. members and distinguished chairman, common fear has given birth to the Alliance of Small Island States. I would put it to you that in the interest of our home earth, the international community has really no other choice but to come together in an alliance of urgent global effort for our common future.
I am most grateful and I thank you.
.1555
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Arseneault): We thank you, Ambassador, for being here today and for your presentation.
It doesn't happen very often that we have a joint session of committees, so you can tell how important your subject-matter is to have the joint session of committees here.
We'll proceed with a few comments and questions. Some members have indicated their requests to ask some questions. There is to be only one question per member, please, and a very short comment. We have some commitments later on.
First on the list is Peter Adams.
Mr. Adams: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ambassador, it's a great privilege for us to be here. We hear your appeal, and we're very sympathetic to it.
As you said, the link between us actually is the ice caps and sea level, because we have the ice caps and you have the sea level. It's the melting of our ice caps, and I think more particularly the ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica, that present a threat to you.
I thought you'd be interested to know that this week only, there was a study done of the ice caps in Canada. There is some bad news, I suppose, and a little bit less bad news from that. The study showed that indeed in the last 30 years, in general, our ice caps are smaller, which means that your sea level should have increased. The not-so-bad news is that, at least with the methods we used, it was not possible to show that there is a trend. In other words, they're smaller, but you can't show that there's a definite trend in reduction in size of our ice caps.
I think that's significant because, as you know, the greenhouse warming is supposed to be four or five times greater at the high latitudes, and perhaps zero at your latitudes.
First of all, I wanted to give you that piece of information, for what it's worth, but I wonder if you can give us some sense of detectable changes in sea level. I know you mentioned the reefs and the coral and so on, but are there in the island states now already detectable changes in sea level? My point is that in Canada, at least, we have not yet got detectable reductions in the ice caps.
Mr. Slade: Thank you very much. Studies, of course, have been put into place and people are working on them. From the information I have, there is no conclusive basis for coming to any firm answer or an indication of an answer.
What I can tell you is that the older folk observe the phenomenon of seas eating away and causing erosion of their beaches. There is a fear. Of course, the normal variability of climate does produce these unusual events, but within the living memories of the elder folk, they cannot remember things happening all at once.
I think if I were to respond to your question as a 70-year-old folk living on a small island, I would tell you that there are signs. The corals are definitely dying, and that takes away the natural protection of the reefs. We can be sure of that.
Ms Copps: This may be something you will want to follow up in a future hearing. The international climate change committee of scientists, from which we have a scientist from Environment Canada here today, has in fact done a preliminary report. This indicates that the levels will rise between 25 and 82 centimetres over the next 100 years. In fact, NASA detected satellite measurements that indicated in 1993 and 1994 there was an average annual sea level rise of 3.9 millimetres.
They set up an intergovernmental committee of scientists, representing all the stakeholders, to actually analyse the question, because people would come and want to know what the scientific gobbledegook was.
They have, in fact, an interim report that does give very specific predictions on the conservative estimate of sea level rise in the next century.
It's between 25 and 82 centimetres by the year 2000, which would lead in our country to effects in the lower mainland of British Columbia, with the city of Delta being under water. Prince Edward Island would in fact become a series of small islands; they'd become sort of underwater atolls.
.1600
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay: Mr. Ambassador, I have a short comment before asking my question. In the Red Book, the government promised to reduce gas emissions and later on, the minister announce that it would not be possible. Today, you are saying that we are going to reach our targets. I hope that this time, you are right and that you will convince more industrialized provinces that have been very reluctant in this area to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. Ambassador, during the Berlin conference, Canada referred to a credit system put forward by our minister of the Environment who is present today and that would link developing and industrialized countries. I would like to have your comments about it.
[English]
Mr. Slade: We at AOSIS have taken a position of interest in the implementation of joint activities, but we feel very clearly - because nobody really knows what it's all about - that there should be an experimental phase, if you like, for a start. Until that phase has been completed, and until we know the results, we have taken the position that there should be no crediting. This is the position that we supported before in Berlin. It seems to me that this is a natural apprehension about something, a process we do not know a great deal about.
I think politically there is also the apprehension that the industrialized countries may be taking this process as an opportunity not to fulfil their obligations under the convention.
I can tell you that we small states, particularly the smaller developing countries, were caught sitting on the fence on this one. On the one hand, we called out for the need for technology advancement, and the industrialized countries were clear enough; they offered us technology. We're caught in the middle somewhere. We've taken the position that we do not refuse it but let us find out what it means.
Because of the reason I've just given you, let us leave the question of crediting aside for the moment. Thank you.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): I have a brief announcement, Madam Minister and Mr. Ambassador. We've been joined, as you proceeded with your presentations, by the Clerk of the Parliament of Malawi and by four officials from the Senate Secretariat of the Philippines who are visiting Canada.
They are here on a parliamentary exchange program. Not only do we welcome you, but we invite you to take advantage of the few seats left and to come forward so that you don't have to test the strength of your legs for too long.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Arseneault): Mr. Gilmour, please.
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Ambassador, you have said that you felt as though you were talking to yourselves in some cases in Berlin, and the minister has said that in fact we didn't do enough at the Berlin conference. There appears to be a real lack of commitment on behalf of the major players. In fact, a number of countries seem to be backing away from the real commitments.
I'll use China as an example. In the next 10 years China is going to need as much electric power as the U.S. currently has today. They're going to get that mainly from burning coal. There isn't a lot that I can see where they're going to back away from doing that.
.1605
So what, in your opinion, is the way? How do we get the major countries, the major players, on side? How do we get them to listen? Right now, as far as I can see, we're getting lip-service. We're getting yes, 120 countries agree, but we're not getting anywhere.
Mr. Slade: There are important arguments on both sides. China will be a problem not only to China in global climate terms but for us all unless something is done about it, because China is saddled with the problem of development at the same time.
From our perspective, whether developed or developing and contributing to a problem, it's bad. One of the answers that seems fairly clear now is that the technology is already present to produce clean, effective results. The problem of how we can make use of that technology is a problem not only for me, who has a cause to plead, but for you as a parliamentarian, as a legislator.
I think we need to convince ourselves at all levels right from the start. Public education is absolutely essential to understand and to facilitate a global approach. We have the immense problem of convincing industries in your country and in many other countries. I have a tough problem at the political level convincing and persuading the oil-producing, oil-exporting countries. I think we just have to approach it at all levels.
The simple answer for me is to immediately target reductions, not just go for objectives in reduction - whatever that means - but in clear, simple, understandable language. That is our preference, but we cannot prefer in the dark or be unrealistic about it, because it is not for us to reduce; it's for other countries to reduce.
Mr. Reed: Mr. Ambassador, I express gratitude to you for giving Canadians a wake-up call about this pressing situation. There are still Canadians who publicly express doubts about the seriousness of greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on the ice caps, and so forth.
I think as Canadians, too, we have a rather special responsibility. The last time I looked at the Statistics Canada report, we were the world's largest consumer of energy per capita, albeit not all that energy is greenhouse gas producing. But certainly it gives us a special responsibility, I believe, to take this issue in the most serious manner.
The question I would like to ask has to do with weather and the changes in weather patterns. Have you been able to document those changes specifically? We're hearing this year about these gargantuan floods in the southern United States and so on, about what appears to be serious changes in weather patterns. While we haven't experienced those extremes here yet, we wonder if there is enough of an information base now for us to be able to say yes, that's a serious symptom of this problem.
Ms Copps: Can I at this point intervene only because Henry Hengeveld, who is an atmospheric scientist with Environment Canada, is here, and if you want to get some technical answers, he may be happy to add to whatever Ambassador Slade has to say on the diplomatic level.
Mr. Slade: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I can only answer it in the way that I know best to do so.
.1610
My own country, as documented in the last seven to eight years, has experienced the effects of unusually serious storms, to the extent that we are now revising our building codes. The buildings that withstood the trade winds and hurricanes that came at the predicted season of the year can no longer withstand the occurrences of the last eight years.
So we are going to the fundamentals. We are having to deal with putting up new buildings. I can tell you that in AOSIS regions like the Caribbean it is now almost impossible, because of the prohibitive cost of insurance, to cover for damages that are consistently being wreaked on small islands by severe hurricanes.
Mr. Henry G. Hengeveld (Canadian Climate Centre, Environment Canada): Perhaps I could add a few words. The weather events of the last five or so years have not proven -
Ms Copps: Excuse me, I apologize. He was not introduced originally. I did make reference to him.
[Translation]
He's a scientist working with Environment Canada and who can inform us on science matters. This is the reason for his presence among us.
The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Please go on, Mr. Hengeveld.
[English]
Mr. Hengeveld: As I mentioned, over the last five years there has been a series of weather events, including droughts, floods and wind storms, that have made the international community sit up and ask what is happening. Individually, each one cannot be directly linked to climate change. In general, they are events that have happened before. They're called ``one in a hundred years'' storms, but all of a sudden we've had a series of ``one in a hundred years'' storms within five years. It now has the reinsurance industry globally very concerned because it is being devastated.
It's perhaps an indication of the kind of surprises climate change will actually bring with it. It will not be a gradually warming situation that brings warmer weather to Canadian winters. It will be a series of extreme events that will catch us by surprise. Most of these will not be predictable in advance.
The bottom line is that we do not have proof that these strange events are directly linked to climate change, but they are consistent with what we expect to happen more and more as this trend moves forward.
Mr. Thalheimer: I'm interested in the sea level. Is there any scientific evidence of what the sea level was at the beginning of the industrial revolution? I say that because Minister Copps has mentioned that by the year 2000, at the rate we're going, the sea level is expected -
Ms Copps: The year 2100.
Mr. Thalheimer: If it were 2000, my mathematics show I would be in water up to my neck by the time I was 85 years old.
Obviously all of us must accept the theory of evolution, that the earth evolves. Is there any evidence of what the sea level was at the beginning of the industrial revolution and how it has accelerated, particularly in the last fifty to a hundred years? Has it accelerated? I assume it has.
Mr. Hengeveld: Over the last hundred years, about the only references we have are tide gauges. There is a complete global network of tide gauges, but the problem is that in addition to sea level rise, we have the sinking and rising of land masses. This is different in different parts of the world. So there's a lot of debate as to what the real record of the tide gauges shows.
The best estimates are that it's somewhere between 10 and 20 millimetres of rise over the last century. There is no indication it has accelerated significantly over this period of time. But as was just indicated, over the last couple of weeks we have had the first results of the satellite measurements, which are now fairly independent, precise measurements of rise. They show that the rise of the last two years is about 2 mm per year. That's at the upper range of that longer trend. Whether it persists, we will have to see. Two years does not make a trend.
.1615
Mr. Thalheimer: That measurement is at sea level itself; it's not the depression or the effect of the other factors.
Mr. Hengeveld: It is global average sea level.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: Mr. Slade in your presentation you said that there was a need, within the framework of sustained development, to transfer technology to developing countries. At that time, did you have in mind any specific technologies or were you talking in general terms?
[English]
Mr. Slade: I'm talking in general terms. Many of us in developing countries are already copying what has gone on in developed countries. In my country, we've had to inherit diesel fuel for the generation of electricity. We are now trying to change as fast as we can to hydro power. I was speaking generally, but this is the type of technology we will obviously be talking about.
Because we're island states we have a great deal of wave power; we have a great deal of constant trade wind power. We know what's going on in other countries and maybe we should put more into this sort of renewable energy type of development. It has to be relevant technology that can be implemented, maintained and looked after by our own people. That is what I have in mind.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: We are indeed honoured by your presence here today and want to thank you for coming before the joint committees.
I'm glad to hear you talk about equity. We're talking about intergenerational equity as well as equity between north and south. I think if we're really going to understand the problem we have to understand the real causes and the real roots of the problem in all its dimensions.
You also spoke about the small island states as being weather vanes. The environment committee recently travelled to the Arctic. I think if there was ever a weather vane out there letting us know what a fragile ecosystem is currently undergoing, that's a tremendous example, especially for a part of the world that is not responsible for the environmental degradation that's occurring. That's certainly something you share as well.
I am pleased to see we have a joint committee here today because it's often difficult to bring different points of view together. You spoke about the importance of public education. My original question had to do with our role as parliamentarians here in Canada and what we could do to encourage action, because I think the time for debate, discussion and analysis of the problem is over. We have to move toward action. So that was one of my questions, and it may have been partially answered.
A second question is that in our examination of the review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which is what the committee is currently doing, we have been hearing witnesses speak about voluntary methods or regulatory methods to work toward environmental pollution control and prevention. I'm wondering if you could tell us what you think about voluntary methods versus a regulatory regime in working to reduce some of the effects of climate change.
Mr. Slade: Thank you very much. A great deal of public education is needed, even in small countries. One has to acknowledge and compliment first the role of the non-governmental organizations, which are absolutely essential from the grassroots level.
One obviously has to cater to the social roles. Mothers are very important in many of our communities, so the role of women in the process of development is absolutely crucial.
There are other things that are otherwise simple and yet so fundamentally important. Island states have the natural use of lagoons, which allow people the normal type of fishing for their daily subsistence. But as populations have increased, they have cut away the mangrove swamps for firewood and they have overfished the lagoon areas. They now need to go out and fish commercially, buy fish commercially or, even worse, import fish in cans.
.1620
So we have an awful situation. I mean it in no other way but that the distant fishing nations - I will not name it, so let's leave it at that - are taking our stocks, putting them in cans, and selling them back to us. So we need to educate our people to conserve the mangrove swamps in order that they can try to rehabilitate the stocks and so that they can continue to feed themselves.
Simple things like protection of forests from river-banks are also very essential, because the pressure of population has made people forget the habits of old, the historical, simple things they used to practise.
Thank you.
Mr. Forseth: I'd like to ask one question of the Minister of the Environment.
In generally evaluating climate change, I'd like to first of all ask about who does the testing. Is it just the Environment scientists or is there contracting out to private agencies and so on?
There are people who believe these climate changes and other things we are looking at are just part of a natural cycle, and there are those who believe it's really a problem we can militate against. If both these sides can back up their claims with so-called studies, would the government, and especially the environment minister, be prepared to direct that we have some kind of third party to evaluate testing and to evaluate the academic literature. Certainly, a most reasoned and studied approach enhances credibility. Maybe the minister could enlighten me about the approach to how these conflicting views on global warming is sorted out by her department.
Ms Copps: You don't have environmental scientists and industrial scientists. People are atmospheric scientists without carrying a brief on one or the other. I think I mentioned earlier that there has in fact been an international scientific organization, of which we are a member, that has pulled together all the countries that are signatories to the Rio Declaration. That includes Canada, the United States, Japan, industrialized countries, and also AOSIS and other countries. This panel of international scientists has produced the interim report dealing with the scientific bases for global warming.
If we look at our own human experience, I don't think there is any doubt. I'm not a scientist and I'm not going to get into the scientific data, but in my own lifetime I can see how my own community's industrial base is leading to a warm situation. I mentioned earlier that when I was a kid we used to skate in my backyard. You can't do that any more. There's no doubt that global warming is occurring. There is a question about how quickly it will impact on sea levels and other issues.
I think the point made by the ambassador is that the precautionary principle we signed at Rio underlines that we have to take steps to prevent the potential disaster. That in itself may range from a small disaster to a large disaster, depending on the range of sea level change, which is put forth in the interim report tabled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
They have tabled an interim report that reckons that the sea level rise will be between 25 and 82 centimetres over the next hundred years. There's no doubt it will rise. There's some discussion over how much it will rise, but there's no debate on whether global warming exists or not. It's not a phenomenon of natural climate forces. It can be directly linked to the rising use of energy from certain man-made sources over the last hundred years.
I'd like to ask Henry to speak, because he's a scientist.
.1625
Mr. Hengeveld: Perhaps I could address the two questions. One is, who does the assessment and the scientific work?
Most of the science relating to global climate change and to global change in general is done within the academic community. It involves some 70-plus disciplines of science.
It really is an issue of trying to understand how the planet works, which is very complex. It is largely coordinated by the International Council of Scientific Unions, which is the umbrella for the academic institutions, through the International Geospheric Biosphere Program.
Within Canada, that is coordinated by the Royal Society of Canada through the Canadian Global Change Program. It does not have government involvement in terms of the primary function. This is primarily from the academic side.
On the climate change side, much of it is coordinated through the World Climate Research Program, which is jointly administered by the World Meteorological Organization and the International Council of Scientific Unions. Again, it's cooperation between government agencies and the academic institutions. Within Canada, it's the Canadian Climate Program Board, which consists of members from academia, from industry, from provinces and the federal government.
Ms Copps: I was going to say, because I heard somebody say fossil fuels, that I think if you actually look at the contributing factors that lead to global warming in Canada, certainly fossil fuels are part of the problem.
There are also other parts of the problem. I think what we have to emphasize in the job we have to do, both at the federal-provincial level and even the municipal level, is - Part of the problem is attributable to automobile emissions from fossil fuels; part of the problem is actually the farming practices that have led to a level of fertilization that releases nitrous oxides. That represents about 20% of the problem in Canada.
We had a project in the Department of the Environment, and the reason I want to underline it is because I think for us to have a solution, we need to have a multi-stakeholder solution. We sponsored a program in the province of Ontario on eco-farms; in fact, we visited one in Lambton - Middlesex.
What we were able to show through that program is this - and I'm not a farmer, so somebody here who is a farmer will probably correct me. Normally in traditional farming if you're using fertilizer and you're tilling several times a year, when you till you release gases into the atmosphere. We adopted some model programs of what we called no-till farming. In fact, what it did was succeed in reducing the input cost to farming - for this one particular farm we visited, by $170,000 annually. It reduced the amount of fertilizer that was actually used, and the individual tilled once a year with a special machine. So his input costs were about $25,000 for this particular machine, and then he did not till.
He told us that for him to embark on this program, he had to wait first of all for his father to pass away, because if you have a certain way of farming and you've done it in a certain way for years and years, you don't want to change. When his father passed away, he decided to start looking at an alternative. On his own farm, he actually did an experiment where he had no-till crops and his neighbour had tilled crops. They got the same yield on those crops, and he was able to reduce his input costs by no-till farming.
What we have to do in response to global warming...and I appreciate the comments made by the member for the Bloc, because as a federal government we have not reached stabilization. When I made the comments I did last spring, it was in recognition of the fact that if nobody does anything as a nation, when we reach the year 2000 we will be 13% over 1990 levels.
What we hope to do this fall as a federal government is to actually table an action plan of what we can do federally, in the same way as the Province of Quebec has already tabled an action plan for stabilization. We are going to move on alternative-fuelled vehicles for the federal government. We are moving now on retrofitting a federal building. Regarding building codes themselves, if provinces modify building codes to require triple-glazing and environmentally sustainable practices, that can have an effect.
.1630
We're hoping to table our plan in October. One of the reasons I invited the ambassador here is that when we went to the federal-provincial ministers meeting I wanted to take the debate away from a federal-provincial fossil fuel fight onto the plane of what we can do in a constructive way. It is partly changing our energy habits; it's partly changing some of our agricultural practices; it's also partly changing our own per capita energy consumption and moving toward cleaner fuels and other alternatives. But at the same time, it is doing our bit to share cars, to avoid the kind of situation that has unfortunately put us in this position.
We've had a fairly inexpensive level of energy available to us as a nation, and widely available, for many years, and so we're in the position where we have abundance of hydroelectric power, fossil fuel power, nuclear power, and it's all available. It has created a situation where we are the number one per capita energy consumer in the world.
I appreciate the comments that were made, Bill, by China. In fact, China was one of the parties at the Berlin meeting that really didn't want to do anything and did move forward with a pilot program. What we've done on technology transfer is say that for the next five years we can do pilots with no credits, and if they work after the year 2000 we will be able to move with credits.
The problem with always looking at somebody else and saying, oh, it's fossil fuels, or oh, it's somebody else, is that we also don't evaluate our own energy consumption patterns. Do we have fluorescent lighting in our homes? Do we do the things that make our energy use as efficient as possible? Individually they may not sound like a lot, but if you add them all together - In our own building in Hull alone we'll save $91,000 on energy costs this year because we changed the lightbulbs. That's something you can do in every department of government, in every home.
I hesitate to fix it on one body and say - There is a bunch of things we have to do and we would have to show leadership at the federal level, but I do think if people like Ambassador Slade can provide us some insights into the human face of global warming it will help all of us to say - The municipalities of Canada were the first ones to sign on to the 20% club. They took the Toronto commitment and they have started to make changes in public transit policy in every city. That particular model, the 20% club, is actually being exported now to Japan, and they're signing on 20% cities in Japan.
There are lots of things we can be doing constructively. This is just to try to engage people in realizing, first, that it's a serious problem, and second, that there are solutions that can start in your own home.
The Chairman: Mr. Forseth, thank you for your question, which has somehow triggered a concluding remark.
We have only at this point, Mr. Arseneault and me, to thank you, Minister, for your initiative that has made it possible for us to meet with Ambassador Slade.
We want to thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for your presentation. We also thank you for reminding us about the draft protocol by the alliance, and particularly for having reminded us of the importance of targets and timetables, which we will certainly keep in mind. We want to wish you well and to ensure you of the fullest understanding of those who see this issue as one of the most difficult the global community has faced so far.
Both Guy Arseneault and I would like to thank the members who have appeared at this historical joint meeting of the natural resources and environment and sustainable development committees. It was a very fine initiative. We thank you all and we adjourn now.
Ms Copps: Charles, before you adjourn, can I add that if there are people who feel - and I made this offer to the provincial members, and I think Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland are going to take us up on it - that you have other contacts in other legislatures or cities or places who would like to hear from Ambassador Slade and you would like us to bring him back from New York at another time - if the Government of Quebec, for example, wants to look at expanding in the area of reductions and other strategies - we would be very happy to try to encourage his availability here in Canada. So if those from Alberta or anybody else want to tap into some of his experiences, we would try to facilitate that.
.1635
The Chairman: Before adjourning, I want to tell you to please feel free to pick up the literature at the back of the room that deals with the potential impact of sea level on Atlantic Canada, including Saint John and Charlottetown. With that, again we thank you.
We will adjourn this meeting for three minutes, and we will reconvene the environment committee shortly afterward to continue with our normal work.