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

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

And—let me just finish the question—is it also true that, as a result of that, it caused emissions of carbon dioxide from coal to rise 124%, emissions of sulphur dioxide to rise by 114%, and nitric oxide emissions to rise by 22%? Is that true?

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

The reality was that the problems with the nuclear generating station at Pickering and the problems we had previously at Bruce--I know the Liberal government of the day had to close down four reactors at Bruce, and the Conservative government had to close down reactors at Pickering because of nuclear safety concerns--resulted in an increased reliance on other sources. I was pleased, in my last month as Minister of Energy, that we were able to bring power online, through Bruce and through Pickering, and that that was able to lead to an immediate 4% reduction in the reliance on coal. If you look at—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

If I might ask, Minister, I have just one last question, because my time is up here.

Can you tell us now, yes or no, whether the government is going to introduce a cap and trade system to achieve our greenhouse gas reductions? If you are going to introduce a cap and trade system, Minister, can you please explain to this committee and Canadians how you expect that cap and trade system to be fundable with the emerging international trading system under Kyoto and the emerging American system south of the border? Can you explain that to us, please?

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

I'd like to answer the previous question. I was pleased to see the reduction of 4% based on the new nuclear generation that we were able to bring on in Ontario in my last month. We certainly left the government that succeeded us in a good position because we were able to bring so much nuclear on line in my last month in office. That will certainly set the next government up to look pretty.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you, Minister.

Monsieur Bigras.

A point of order, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, the purpose of this committee on Bill C-30 and the agreement of all members here was to work together to create a strengthened piece of legislation. I didn't want to interrupt Mr. McGuinty's questioning, but I would encourage that the questions be relevant, that they be non-partisan, and that we try to work together for that ultimate goal of creating stronger legislation, instead of making questions into an aptitude test, Mr. Chair. We have a minister who's committed, and I encourage that we all work together for that common goal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Go ahead, please, very briefly.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

If the parliamentary secretary can point out a single question that was asked of the minister that's not relevant to Bill C-30, please let me know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Let's cut that off there.

I'll remind everybody that this is not question period. This is a collaborative committee. We are here to get to a destination that will benefit all Canadians on all sides of the House and in all parts of the country. If everybody could just remember that, I think we'll all get along better.

Monsieur Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, minister. You've been strong on rhetoric since you became Environment Minister when it comes to the previous government's record combating climate change.

I have reviewed Bill C-30, the notice of intention and the announcements you made. You seem to want to set intensity-based targets. You are recycling old Liberal programs which didn't work, and which didn't provide for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. You are continuing to favour a sectoral approach in the fight against climate change. That is basically a Liberal policy which turned out to be ineffective, inefficient and inequitable.

Mr. Claude Villeneuve, an eminent climate sciences academic told the committee on Monday that one of the reasons for Canada's failure is this push to treat everybody the same way, on the pretext that it is fairer to have a one-size-fits-all approach even though the players aren't all the same size.

Minister, can you admit that the problem today is that you are copying the Liberals who favoured a sectoral approach which was unsuccessful? Would you be willing to bring forward amendments to Bill C-30 so that provinces, like Quebec, can adopt a provincial strategy in their own provinces, enabling Quebec for example to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 6%?

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

Of course our planet's future really is a top priority. Canada and Quebec's energy security and economic growth are also priorities, I think, for Canadians and Quebeckers.

It is not easy to change things overnight. If you look at the chart we have before us, you'll notice that greenhouse gas emissions have risen every year for many years. And so it will take a number of years to turn things around, but this will happen, and it is our goal to make it happen.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

But minister, will the approach be changed?

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

I'm open to hearing your ideas. I want to hear them. The Bloc Québécois has already made a number of suggestions to me over four committee meetings. I appreciate the fact that you carried out research and that you are taking a stand. And we are prepared to listen to any specific amendments you may have.

Let's talk about the sectoral approach. The bulk of electricity produced in Quebec comes from hydroelectricity. Now, if you favour a coal-generated electricity approach, obviously that will not affect the majority of—

If we took a sectoral approach, for example, to electricity, which is a significant part of greenhouse gas emissions, obviously those provinces like Quebec or Manitoba wouldn't be particularly hard hit. Newfoundland would not be particularly hard hit because of the generation mix they enjoy.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

When the Conservative government came into power you said that you wanted a more effective and efficient policy for combatting climate change, and you reassessed a number of programs.

In order to maximize greenhouse gas emission reductions, wouldn't it be better to adopt an approach whereby Quebec, for example, would get a $328 million transfer payment to combat climate change? That would give us the opportunity to, for each dollar spent, maximize greenhouse gas reductions.

Isn't this a principle of efficiency and effectiveness you should understand, given that you wanted to apply this rule across Canada? Would you support a transfer of $328 million to Quebec enabling it to maximize its greenhouse gas emission reductions for each dollar spent?

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

When I was appointed Minister of the Environment and I spoke with my counterpart the Quebec Minister of the Environment, I told him that I was prepared to listen to new ideas and new requests from the provinces. And I am open to that.

A few days ago I had a very good meeting with the Quebec minister. I'm now discussing this with my colleagues and hearing from other provinces. I think it's important for a new minister to be open to new ideas. And so we are going to work together with all of the provinces.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I understand, Minister, but we've been working on things for years. In the recent past three environment ministers have been appointed in Ottawa, and Quebec's requests still haven't changed. Mr. Dion said no, Ms. Ambrose said no and you intend to continue consulting and discussing the issue.

What are you waiting for?

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

I was only appointed minister a month ago.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Yes, I understand, but you did have a predecessor.

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

I know that the relationship between the governments in Quebec and Ottawa is better now than it was between the former Liberal and PQ governments.

I know that Mr. Boisclair as environment minister didn't achieve anything meaningful. And I know that Mr. Dion didn't work very effectively with Quebec.

I'm sure the current government will be more successful because of the federal and provincial governments' desire to cooperate.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I have one last question.

Would you and the government be prepared to support an amendment to include the Kyoto Protocol objectives in Bill C-30, yes or no?

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

I'm open to considering your proposal regarding the Kyoto Protocol objectives. The objectives are very clear: there needs to be action here in Canada and throughout the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I am—

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Would you be willing to support an amendment to include the Kyoto Protocol objectives?

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

I'd be prepared to consider all your amendments, Mr. Bigras, and if you give me an opportunity I'll always be open to hearing your opinion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Cullen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Minister, for being here today.

With the recent announcement by the UN on the current state of the climate change crisis, coupled with items in the Stern report costing out the effects of inaction on economies, it seems that urgency and action, particularly for countries like Canada, are most needed. So to this point, we've established that--and I see your graph as an indictment of previous governments' lack of effectiveness....

We've also established, from previous colleagues of mine, that there's suspicion about your government's true commitment to the environment. These are both facts that we'll allow on the table for Canadians to judge--they both seem to be accurate--yet they lead us not towards the type of action that both the UN and Sir Nicholas Stern's report call for: that Canada has to change course dramatically. The graph you show us clearly points that way.

Are you prepared to put a hard cap on heavy polluters in this country, a hard emissions cap? Are you prepared to bring in absolute, world-class, mandatory fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks that are made in this country? Is your government prepared to have and establish an ambitious home energy retrofit program, particularly for low-income families? And are you prepared to end the perverse subsidies to the tar sands?