Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on Feb. 8th, 2007

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Yes, because I'm asking the question.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Go ahead.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

You say we have to work in a non-partisan manner, but you keep coming out with this idea that the Liberal government was going to pay Russia for hot air credits. The former Commissioner of the Environment denied that was the case, so why do you keep spreading falsehoods about this issue? Do you disagree with the previous Commissioner of the Environment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

A very short answer.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I could give many quotes from the previous Commissioner of the Environment and all seven of her reports. I would ask you whether you agreed with her condemnations of Mr. Dion and the previous Liberal government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Watson for five minutes, please.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to the minister.

I want to talk first about targets. Speaking of the former environment commissioner, she said before the environment committee that the Liberals' Kyoto target of 6% below 1990 levels was made without analysis and was based more on political considerations, in other words, the desire to one-up the United States in the establishment of a target.

With respect to this government setting short- to medium-term targets, I first want to be assured whether there is any danger of one-upmanship in the setting of those targets, especially as this issue takes centre stage in public opinion.

My second question is about the interim time we're in right now, since the notice of intent to regulate and the discussions around Bill C-30. Has it been or is it being used for analysis of and negotiation on what the short- and medium-term targets should be?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

The former Liberal environment critic said Kyoto was written on the back of a napkin.

Certainly in the time that I've been minister, we have been working incredibly hard on the industrial targets. On weekends, late into the evening, the staff at the Department of the Environment and others have done yeoman service--a gigantic, Herculean effort. We hope to be able to come forward in the coming weeks, in the coming month or two, with those targets. We think it's important that Canadians see some short-term action.

Canadians are very skeptical of this government, of the previous government, of all politicians when it comes to the environment. They have seen a lot of talk from everyone, from all of us, but not enough action, and we have to bridge that gap. I take that very seriously. Canadians want to see some action in the short term on both greenhouse gas emissions and on efforts to reduce pollution, and we're committed to doing that.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

Having been an auto worker before I was elected to Parliament, it's probably no surprise that I'd like to talk about fuel efficiency.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'm meeting with Buzz today.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

He testified before our committee this week as well.

The North American auto industry is highly integrated. Depending upon the auto part and what component it's assembled to, it could travel between five and seven times between southwestern Ontario and Michigan, for example, before it's in a finally finished vehicle. There's a problem, in other words, if we have several unique environmental standards across North America. That could increase costs for tooling or retooling, or even affect a decision on whether automakers will tool or retool their plants.

The U.S. federal government has reformed its fuel efficiency standards. They've done it within vehicle class, so that all manufacturers are on a level playing field for fuel efficiency improvements. The California standard, which is for one state, proposes an average improvement of the entire fleet, which would favour manufacturers that have smaller vehicle fleets.

Do you accept that we need a fuel efficiency standard to have a dominant North American standard, or do you accept that we should have unique standards by jurisdiction, that we should exceed this standard or that standard?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Lester Pearson is often remembered for social policy. Probably one of his biggest efforts was the Auto Pact. I think Canadians accept the integration of the North American auto sector, so that's not lost on me. I don't want to do anything that would put investment in jeopardy, put jobs in jeopardy, in this sector. What we do want to see is real action.

You've got to be very careful that in an effort to reduce pollution you don't increase greenhouse gas emissions...or fuel efficiency, which has often been the case. So we want to look at all proposals. I think if we could work with all of the auto manufacturers and if we could raise the incentive.... Right now the Canadian standard is better than the California standard. It's better than the CAFE standard in the United States.

I mean, California is obviously pushing to go demonstrably lower. I think we've said we want to go with the best and dominant standard. If Canada and California and the U.S. Congress can get our action together, so that we'll reduce both greenhouse gases and pollution, that would be great for everyone, because we share an airshed. It would be a significant effort to get greenhouse gas emissions reduced in the United States, as well as in Canada.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay. Fuel efficiency improvements can be—

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

And of course when I refer to technology, I'm not an expert on this. I am meeting with Mr. Hargrove later today and some of the auto companies next week.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Well, he testified that we need reachable targets, at a stretch but reachable, so you'll find that out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Watson, sorry, your time is up.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Everybody has been so good and concise in their questions and answers that we do have time for one more round, so we'll have one more questioner from each party.

We'll have a five-minute round, beginning with Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, if you could take note of a couple of questions in a row, I would appreciate snappy answers to them. That would really help Canadians to understand.

I think you agreed here earlier that it is true that your government—and you've confirmed—cut $5.6 billion in environmental spending of your budget of 2006. This week we learned that on top of this you have just cut two other programs, one of which was the commercial building incentive program, perhaps the most successful energy efficiency program in the country for commercial buildings, particularly new ones, through which the buildings that are being built with this assistance are 35% more energy efficient than they previously were or otherwise would have been. And then we learned that you cut the program funding the Northern Climate ExChange, a key organization that's studying—studying—the science of climate change. I thought I heard you in Paris talking about the science of climate change and how you had learned that human activity was in fact causing climate change, but you've eliminated this program.

Can you tell us, then, in precise terms, how much money you have spent on climate change this fiscal year?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Well, I reject the—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Just give me a second, because I want to put some of the facts on the table, and then I'd like you to answer.

Your Minister of Finance stated that there would be $2 billion provided for programs to be designed to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. So you've got the tax credit for transit passes, which he counted, but it can only be redeemed after taxes are filed this upcoming April. You've got no money towards the nuts and bolts of ethanol and biofuels expansion and production. The wind and renewable power programs were frozen for a year, then scaled back two weeks ago, along with R and D funding. EnerGuide was eviscerated with a $777 million cut and the watered-down revamp doesn't begin until April. There's nothing on your website to tell Canadians what to do about their homes and how to go energy efficient.

So how much money, how much funding, for climate change actions has actually been delivered, say, in the past 12 months?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I think a heck of a lot more than was delivered in the previous 12.

I don't accept the premise of your question. The Northern Climate ExChange was something that was funded out of the One-Tonne Challenge, so you're double-counting everything. I think what we said is that there is a pot of money, some room in the fiscal framework, that delivered that result. We wanted to come forward with a different plan that would deliver a different result from that.

I think the time has come to stop studying things and talking about it—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Well, let's talk money, Minister. Let's talk money now.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

People want to see more action.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Let's stop studying for a second. How much money have you spent in this fiscal year on environment and climate-change-related initiatives?