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

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

You have four questions there, so I'll take them one at a time.

With respect to world-class motor vehicle efficiency standards, I think our notice of intent spoke to our desire to adopt the dominant and high standards used in North America. I think that's important. I think the voluntary agreement has been tougher on pollution than on greenhouse gases. I think you also have to look at the different vehicles, the range of vehicles, that make up the fleet that is the Canadian fleet. Ours is very different from Europe. Ours is very different from Japan. Even the United States is very different from us. So I think we are committed to do better.

Our standards here, with respect to pollution, are certainly better than they are in California today. We took note of the American administration's desire to raise the CAFE standards, and if we could have the California standard, the raised CAFE standard, and the Canadian standard, that would certainly be something that I would be enthusiastic to learn more about. And it would also be better to help pollution in our airshed, given the huge influence of the Ohio Valley airshed that comes up—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

In the interest of precious minutes—

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

Sure. I'll go on to the next one. With respect to hard emissions caps and with respect to pollution, we've indicated in the notice of intent our desire to have hard emissions caps to deal with pollution.

With respect to an ambitious home retrofit program, I know this is something that Mr. Layton has spoken to and that Mr. Flaherty will be presenting in his budget, and I'll allow him to do that. But we did come forward--my colleague Gary Lunn did come forward--with an initiative that has a significantly lower percentage being spent on administration. I hear the concern about low-income people, though, and I guess that will be something Mr. Flaherty considers in his budget.

With respect to the taxation of the oil industry, that'll be another issue for Mr. Flaherty to speak to.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Has your government accounted for and added up the total cuts that your government has made to climate change initiatives in this country since taking office?

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

I think we're taking a new approach, so I don't see reductions. I think we'll be spending more than the previous government, by any measure, with respect to climate reduction programs.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

But the numbers are the numbers, and when a program is cancelled, a program is cancelled, and money is taken out of the system to—

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

I would remind the minister that we're not here to speak about child care. We're here to speak about climate change.

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

I was just making a parallel with phantom programs. That was after thirteen years, so I'm not sure that something announced a year ago was ever going to actually happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Let's all try to focus on the topic.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

As important as child care is to our party, we'd rather focus on the environment at this moment.

I assume your department and Minister Lunn's department did some analysis to come to the conclusion that programs were phantom or ineffective. Is that true?

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

On phantom programs, there wasn't much analysis if there wasn't a dollar or a dime spent on them. That required little analysis. They looked at other initiatives. I think Mr. Lunn can speak to that.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Can you provide a list to this committee of which programs you perceived as phantom, or never having been rolled out, and the analysis of programs that you found to be ineffective?

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

We'll certainly take that back and provide whatever we can. When I say “phantom”, they were talked about but never rolled out.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Let me move to a different topic.

Canada has a deadline of February 23 to produce to the United Nations an update on our efforts on the Kyoto Protocol. It's a promise we made to analyze future cuts in emissions that this country is planning and the effectiveness of current action--a very specific and detailed analysis. Europe has already presented its report. Canada to this point has prepared nothing other than a list of announcements made--no analysis of effectiveness.

How is it that with a particular issue like this, which requires sincere global effort, Canada is presenting this disingenuous face to the world body and hoping to be seen as an honest broker in future negotiations?

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

I don't say we've been disingenuous; those are your words not mine. What I do believe is that Canada has fallen behind on all reporting requirements. That's not acceptable to me as Minister of the Environment. There were reports due in January 2006 that were not submitted, and there are ones due this winter. You certainly have my commitment that we will file all requirements as soon as humanly possible.

Frankly, I'd like to see the actions of Bill C-30 and the follow-through on the intent to regulate be part of that. That's important, because they represent the most significant actions Canada will have ever taken.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Your government has committed to staying within the Kyoto Protocol, and it has also made claims as to how far Canada would overshoot its target. Has your government costed in the effects of the penalties Canada is required to pay under the Kyoto Protocol for missing that target?

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

I know it's in the order of a 30% penalty. That's certainly something I've asked for.

We're behind the eight ball, there's no doubt about it. Kyoto was a 15-year marathon to reduce greenhouse emissions, and when the starting pistol went off on that marathon the previous government began running in the opposite direction. That's why we're 35% above our target. We're going to work as hard as humanly possible to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Sorry, your time is up, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the minister for being here today.

I mused that when you were appointed minister the warm temperatures in Ottawa here suddenly returned to normal cold ones. I don't know if that's indicative of the influence and the action you've already taken, but thank you for your hard work already. You're a minister of action.

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

Winterlude's back on; the canal is frozen.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I really appreciated your announcement coast to coast of $30 million for the Great Bear Rainforest in British Columbia. Coming from British Columbia, I was very excited to hear that announcement, and the announcement of $2 million to help with repairs to Stanley Park.

But from coast to coast, I really appreciated the action you took in dealing with the Sydney tar ponds. It's an issue that's been in need for years, and finally action has been taken. So thank you so much--coast to coast action.

We're here today to talk about Bill C-30 and to see how we can strengthen the issue of healing our environment and dealing with climate change.

How does Bill C-30 strengthen the government's ability to regulate greenhouse gases and pollutants?

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

I think the framework is a much stronger one. It has greater capacity for equivalency agreements. We have greater tools to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as the energy efficiency standard regulation provisions and the biofuels provisions. It allows us to regulate indoor pollutants.

I think Canadians are telling us to move on the challenge of both climate change and pollution and smog. I think the framework contained in Bill C-30 is a far superior way to go. If the old CEPA was the way to go it would have been used, but it wasn't.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Minister, we've been told by Liberal members on this committee that CEPA is the framework, but the very question that is left in my mind is if it was the framework, then why wasn't it used? The chart you have on the wall for us indicates the trend we're on.

How is government going to get tough with the big polluters? How is our plan different from the previous Liberal government's?

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

The previous Liberal government presented four plans. They had lots of plans. It was almost as if they spent everyday getting ready to go on a big trip; they got the car all packed up, but they never left the driveway.

We have some significant, specific initiatives to regulate industry for the first time in Canadian history on both greenhouse gas emissions and on smog and pollution, particularly NOx, SOx, VOCs, and particulate matter. I think that integrated approach is the one Canadians are looking for. In the past there was a voluntary approach in certain sectors, and we think a regulated mandate is more appropriate.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

How are we going to get tough on the big polluters, Mr. Minister?