Environment Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2006

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Let me stick with targets for a moment. You talked about the government and Canadians needing to align their efforts in achieving targets. Are you talking about the Kyoto targets and the Kyoto timeframe, or a need for new targets and a new timeframe?

[Johanne Gélinas]

This government has said that the Kyoto targets were unrealistic and unachievable. So it's up to this government to come up with new targets. It's not my job to say what the targets should be. I don't know. I'm not the policy-maker; I am the auditor reporting on progress made on whatever commitments were made by previous governments or this new government.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Agreed. You've also agreed with the assessment that we're not on track to meet Kyoto targets in the timeline. Are you suggesting agreement that a new target and a new timeline are necessary?

[Johanne Gélinas]

I guess my key message is that I'm suggesting bold action.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

You say that a massive scale of effort is needed going forward. I want to turn to emissions trading for a moment. In chapter 1, page 32, you say, “the gap between Canada's Kyoto target and its emissions during the commitment period could exceed 270 million tonnes”. You suggest that only about 21% of the estimated Kyoto gap could be made up by domestic trading, which leaves 80% to be met on the international market. That's a pretty massive effort, if under the previous government's way of trying to meet our commitments....

Did you see anything in your audit that would have led you to conclude that the previous government's proposed measures could have kept Canada compliant with Kyoto without massive reliance on international credits?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Your answer has to be very brief, Ms. Gélinas, as we are running out of time.

[Johanne Gélinas]

It's basic math. It was clear that the plan was supposed to get some of the GHG reduction through buying credits offshore.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Rodriguez.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner, I thank you and your team for coming.

The Prime Minister recently said, shortly before your report was published, that climate change should be taken with a grain of salt. He added that if we are unable to predict the temperatures for tomorrow or the next day, how could we anticipate what climate change will occur in 10 or 20 years? There are even some members who do not really believe the science around climate change.

In your opinion, is the science around climate change reliable? Can we say today that climate change will truly have a concrete impact?

[Johanne Gélinas]

I will give you a very quick answer. If I may, I will then ask my colleagues to tell you what we based our comments on.

We take for granted that the government has recognized the scientific analyses conducted, namely by the United Nations' committee on climate change, as well as other scientific reports that are based on decisions made by Canada to reduce greenhouse gases. I take that as a given.

I do not challenge science. I am not a scientist, and I am not an expert in the science of climate change as long as the government, on the whole, recognizes that the problem exists and bases its position on scientific facts, I will act accordingly.

If you want any further information, my colleagues will be able to tell you more about the scientific aspect of the question.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you.

We hear a lot of talk about smog, air quality and climate change. They are all important considerations.

In specific terms, how important is the effort to counter climate change? Do you think the government should consider this a priority?

[Johanne Gélinas]

I repeat, it is not my job to set the government's priorities.

I understand that climate change is a priority for the federal government. I have reported on the progress made so far.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Are you not concerned about the fact that climate change is not one of the government's five priorities?

[Johanne Gélinas]

I think the results achieved so far are disturbing. If climate change remains a priority for Canada, it is disturbing that we do not have a much more aggressive and rigorous approach in order to move from slowing down emissions to actually reducing green house gas emissions in Canada.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

The government often talks about the costs, sometimes astronomical, for setting up an effective climate change program. It always comes back to the issue of money, to the fact that this is expensive.

In your opinion and that of the members of your team, is there not also a huge cost involved in not dealing with climate change? Is there not a price to be paid for this?

[Johanne Gélinas]

We often talk about the cost of inaction. It is true that inaction does involve a cost. However, in the course of our work, we saw no studies that provided any information on the cost of adaptation and the consequences of climate change, for example. This information was not made available to us.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

You have made some suggestions for the future, but if the government were to develop a made-in Canada plan containing all the points I mentioned earlier, such as air quality, smog, climate change, and so on, will that be enough, or do you think it should be a specific climate change program?

[Johanne Gélinas]

We will give the government an opportunity to develop a plan. We will look at it. As the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, my job will be to report to Parliament and to Canadians about the implementation of the plan, whatever it may be.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Do you think we can deal with climate change on our own, or must we be part of a bigger effort? Should there be international cooperation through treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol?

[Johanne Gélinas]

Combating climate change must happen first within the federal family. It does not involve just two departments. It involves a concerted effort from the part of all departments.

Mr. Bigras was asking me a question earlier about the relationship between the provinces and the federal government. There is no doubt that in various areas such as adaptation, the federal government will have to work with the provinces and the territories. So there should be some sharing in this regard.

The problem of climate change is global, and Canada, through CIDA and other agencies, is working to better reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in developing countries. So the problem is global, but there must be efforts made at the local level as well.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

It has been mentioned, Ms. Gélinas, that the previous government wanted to invest close to $6 billion in climate change activities. $1.6 billion was actually spent, which means that there is still $4.5 billion floating around somewhere. Actually, I am not sure I understand correctly. We really do not know whether this money has been spent. We do not know what became of the sum of four billion dollars that was left over. Is that correct?

[Johanne Gélinas]

No, the $4 billion was announced, but never spent. So that money is not floating around somewhere. The money has not been spent at this point. The new government will have to determine its priorities and decide whether or not this money will be spent.

The budgets of certain programs have been frozen. So for a significant number of the programs, no money is being spent.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Earlier, you were talking about the types of foundations.

[Johanne Gélinas]

Yes, I am referring to the foundations.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

You said that the foundations had this money. Is the remaining $4 billion in these foundations? Where does the money for the foundations come from?