Conservatives don’t have to take a back seat on our environmental accomplishments

After 45 years in the field of environmental conservation and resource management, it is clear to me that most public debates on environmental policy in Canada are mostly specious, useless, and border on the ridiculous. I am a biologist by training and was a member of the Canadian delegation to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero when the climate change issue took centre stage. I left graduate school in 1975 and have witnessed the evolution of environmental policy. While I have not “seen it all,” I have seen most of it. My parliamentary career was spent as a member of the House Environment and Sustainable Development Committee and the House Fisheries and Oceans Committee. Firstly, let’s dispense with the inevitable, and stupid, “climate denier” charge, often levelled at Conservatives, by saying I agree that global anthropogenic climate change exists. But the real question is “what environmental policies are in Canada's best interest?" Justin Trudeau revels in international virtue signalling but his environmental policies are degrading our economy, harming national security, and do not address real environmental issues. While we have a duty to the world to conserve our precious natural heritage, environmental policies must prioritize the needs of Canadians first. I am a “traditional” natural science biologist and it is frustrating that Canada’s environmental policy seems to be “reducing carbon emissions equals environmental policy.” Period. Really? What about water quality, fisheries management, wetland conservation, wildlife management, forest management, species at risk, invasive species, flood control, soil erosion, or lake eutrophication, to name a few. Are they really suggesting that reducing CO2 emissions via a carbon tax in Canada will deal with these problems? British Columbia’s carbon tax has been in place for many years yet serious flooding and wildfires still occur. How can that be? We have a carbon tax! This is silly but it is the logical conclusion when someone says that we need to reduce CO2 emissions in Canada to deal with these weather events. My response? Prove it. Optimum climate change policies for Canada should focus on adaption and mitigation. Farmers adapt to changing crop conditions by developing farming practises that adapt to severe weather fluctuations. Many communities have built wetlands to store water for flood control or tree planting programs to deal with erosion. But perhaps the greatest example of resilient infrastructure is the Winnipeg Floodway built by the sainted premier Duff Roblin to protect Winnipeg from extreme flood events. Projects such as this need to be replicated across the country. Environmental policy in Canada is largely driven by “dreamers,” i.e. Elizabeth May types. In their brave new world, will we still have advanced health care? How about plane travel? How about secure energy to heat our homes? How about abundant, and inexpensive food, provided by modern agriculture? But as recent events have shown, we can take none of these for granted. Empty grocery shelves and empty automobile lots are prime examples. Notice that “dreamers” never explain their end game knowing how that would alarm Canadians. Just as an aside, take a look at May’s Green Party environmental policy document entitled “Mission Possible.” Recommendation 14 says that we should promote small scale diesel production, “primarily (my underline) from used vegetable fat from restaurants.” You just can’t make that up. And we are taking advice from them? Regarding environmental policy I am firmly in the science and technology camp where we apply human ingenuity to solve real issues. And this is where Conservatives shine. From the implementation of the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations, to the Acid Rain Treaty, to the Montreal Protocol on ozone depleting substances by the PC government of Brian Mulroney (Mulroney was named the greenest prime minister in Canadian history) and to the Natural Areas Conservation Program by Stephen Harper, our focus as Conservatives has been grounded in the optimistic belief that environmental problems can be solved. Other examples include the Sudbury Miracle where the application of scrubbers to remove sulphur dioxide emissions allowed for the rejuvenation of forests, to the construction of wastewater treatment plants, the track record of using advanced environmental technology has been effective. Deep down, however, the dreamers want to see an end to modern life. This Conservative firmly believes that “modernity is not the problem, modernity is the answer.” There's a big difference. Furthermore, any environmental statement that is not based on numbers should be dismissed out of hand. Nature can be measured and conclusions drawn. If someone says, “Canada’s air is polluted,” my response is, “by which compounds and in what concentration? Or “where in Canada; which province, which city?” If someone says “wildlife is diminishing,” I say, “which species, where, what are the population trends?” Just as an aside many wildlife species (waterfowl) are thriving in Canada while, sadly, some are diminishing (Prairie ground nesting birds). This same principle applies to any environmental statement or policy. In other words, do the math before you draw a conclusion or develop a policy. Doing the math creates efficient environmental policies. Bad environmental policy has national security and economic implications. I recall meeting with an ambassador from an Eastern Europe country and senior officials from Taiwan. I asked whether they would like to buy Canadian energy. All answered with an emphatic “yes,” given their current reliance on unstable suppliers. Haven’t those chickens come home to roost now that the Northern Gateway, Energy East, and Keystone pipelines have been shelved? One can only dream about the economic boom for Canada that would have resulted as well as the leverage the West would have had in Europe and Asia. Such is the seriousness of bad environmental policy. My advice to my Conservative colleagues is to admit that climate change is real, but to not take the bait that a carbon tax is the only possible environmental policy. Conservatives need to focus on delivering real and measurable environmental results that address the real and local priorities of Canadians. And that adaptation and mitigation is the only meaningful policy that can allow Canada to deal with climate change. I have yet to have someone prove to me that any Canadian CO2 reductions, given that we emit 1.5 per cent of the world’s CO2, can make any direct and measurable difference to the climate in Canada or the world. If you challenge my statement, my response is, “prove it.” And the burden of proof is on you, not me. Lastly, in terms of Conservatives. We do not have to take a back seat to any party in terms of our environmental accomplishments. They will stand the test of time. Robert D. Sopuck is a former Conservative Member of Parliament for Dauphin-Swan River-Neepawa, Man. The Hill Times