Environment Committee on Oct. 5th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Monsieur Bigras.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Before I ask my first question, Madam Minister, I would like to submit a petition signed by more than 80,000 people from Quebec and Canada who want to see the Kyoto Protocol implemented.

Minister, I think we had to do this today. Indeed, it seems to me that since you became Minister of the Environment, you have not listened to what parliamentarians had to say. Since May, that is since the passing of the motion by the House of Commons, you have been in an awkward position towards the Quebec and Canadian people who want to see the Kyoto Protocol implemented. Today, you are talking to us about new targets and new approaches but there is nothing to convince us that you intend to abide by the Kyoto Protocol.

Do you realize that your attitude is leading to a loss of confidence, not only in the House of Commons but also among the Quebec and Canadian people?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Thank you for your question, and thank you for the petition you've brought before me.

This petition is of no surprise to me. I know full well the commitment that Canadians have to the issue of climate change. I also know the full commitment they have to seeing the improvement of air quality. As you know, air quality is the number one environmental concern to Canadians, and it's also a concern to Quebeckers.

What I will say is that our government has never stated we would abandon Kyoto and has never stated we will not participate in the Kyoto Protocol process. What we have stated is that we need new targets. The environment commissioner stated that very clearly last week. So what I would say to you is that I encourage you to work with us moving forward.

As I said before, the best way for our government and our country to show a commitment to the Kyoto Protocol is to put a good domestic plan in place with all of the provinces--a national domestic agenda to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution. That is what we will be bringing forward for this committee to examine and what we will be bringing forward for this committee to comment on and hopefully improve upon.

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

You said that we need new targets. You even said that you intend to go beyond the Kyoto Protocol.

Does that imply that Canada is asking the international community to delay its commitment to a 6% reduction of its emissions between 2008 and 2012 to the second greenhouse gas reduction period? Are you saying that you will abide by the Kyoto Protocol, but only in 2025? Is this part of the strategies and assumptions you are suggesting today?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

I think I understand your question, but the Kyoto Protocol has very strict mechanisms in place for compliance. As I said, very early on I made the decision--albeit it was a difficult one--to inform the Canadian public that we were not on track. Not only were we not on track, but we were off the rails in terms of reaching our Kyoto target.

But I also sat down with the United Nations Secretariat. I sat down with our international partners in advance to let them know where Canada was at, but also to tell them that we are fully committed to working with them in this process. And what we will do to show action and progress to our international counterparts, to the Kyoto Protocol members, and to Canadians is we will be putting in place a domestic agenda in short order to show progress.

As you well know, there are many countries around the world that are involved in the conference of parties subject to the Kyoto Protocol that are not reaching their targets. The Kyoto Protocol was the first big international step. We are also involved in the G-8 plus five discussions on climate change. Our chair, Bob Mills, just came back late last night. He was kind enough, with all his expertise—and I value him so much for that—to go to the G-8 discussions, because I was unable to be there.

We're also involved in discussions on the Asia-Pacific partnership. There are a number of regional groups emerging in the eastern United States. California has just introduced a piece of domestic legislation to address greenhouse gases. This is an issue of global importance, and Canada is participating on a number of fronts. But what we have said to our international counterparts is that we will in short order put in place a domestic agenda to contribute to that international challenge. Again, this is the best way we can help reach the goals the international community has set for us.

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

Minister, I understand that you intend to go to all international fora in order to remind everyone that Canada wants to tackle climate change. With all due respect to our Chair, I would suggest that it would have been better for you to attend the G-8 meeting instead of asking the chairman of our committee to go. If ministers of all other countries attended this meeting, you should have been there. I think your absence was unacceptable.

At the end of your presentation, you mentioned national programs to be implemented in Canada. The environment commissioner clearly stated, on page 27 of chapter 1 of her report on climate change, that the benefits of emission trading have been demonstrated.

As recently as yesterday, the chairman of the Montreal Climate Exchange said he was encouraged by your statements suggesting that you may want to create an emission trading exchange in Canada. Can you confirm this intention to the committee today? I am not asking you to talk about [Editor's note: inaudible] or the purchase of international credits. I want to know if the government really intends to create this exchange.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Thank you for your question. As you well know, credit exchange markets do not need the government's permission to emerge. There is not a national regulatory framework for greenhouse gas emission reductions in the United States, and we have the Chicago Climate Exchange that is operating.

I've met with the Montreal Climate Exchange proponents, and what I will say is that there are a number of compliance mechanisms that we can look at as a government. I look forward to discussing all of those with this committee in terms of ways whereby we can help industry achieve reductions. As you know, there is only a certain amount of in-house reductions that industry can make based on best available technology or potentially near coming available technology.

Beyond that, what they look for is other compliance mechanisms, and there are a number of those that we can discuss. When the clean air act is tabled I look forward to discussing those with you. As I said, trading itself is one of those compliance mechanisms that's available to industry, but what I will tell you is that this government will not be a part of the trading market. We will not use taxpayers' money to play the trading market. We will not put together a pool of taxpayers' money of credits, which is what the last government did, to buy and sell credits or to create an inflated, artificial market.

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

I'm not talking about the Chicago Exchange, which I know fairly well. I'm talking about the credits market in which the government has a responsibility. If your government considers that markets rules apply to the economy, I find it difficult to understand why it should be different when it comes to the environment. There are concrete examples of emission trading, in Europe and elsewhere. This process was used to improve the acid rain situation with the United States.

Don't you think you would be making a mistake by refusing to create a credits market? We may not be able to reach our targets otherwise. We would be delaying by 10 years a target we should already have met.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

In your question you mentioned the Montreal Climate Exchange's comments that our government is indicating moving with legislation. That is because a regulatory framework or legislation enables the opportunity for the creation of a market, but the government does not create that market; it emerges around a regulatory framework. As I said, when the proposed clean air act is tabled and comes before this committee, I look forward to looking at all the compliance mechanisms available to industry sectors, but as far as the government is concerned, we will not be using taxpayers' money to play in that market; we will not take risks with taxpayers' dollars that way. The emissions trading markets are still relatively new. In the European market in particular we've seen a recent crash that caused losses of hundreds of millions of euros and dollars to taxpayers and governments in Europe, and we will not embark on a risk like that with taxpayers' money.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

For the record, I just want to correct something you stated. At the G-8 plus five meeting, at which twenty countries were represented, many of those countries were represented by bureaucrats. Few of them were represented by elected, accountable members of Parliament, so you are incorrect in saying that all the ministers were there; they were not. Thank you.

Mr. Cullen is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thanks for showing up.

Let's start with some things we agree with. The Liberals, over the years that they were in charge of greenhouse gas emissions, were an unmitigated disaster. Is that a fair comment?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

I will say what the commissioner said--

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

Please.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

--that there has been some attempt to make progress. I recognize that, because I think it's important. The environment department in particular has a strong foundation of science that can enable us to move forward quickly on a plan--a strong domestic agenda.

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

That would be A for effort, but not so great on the results.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

As I said, I think it's difficult to show results with the lack of framework that voluntary measures provide us with.

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

Does your department agree with all the recommendations in Ms. Gélinas' report, the commissioner's report?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Yes.

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

I have a quick question in terms of the analysis you folks use when you're distributing. A part of her recommendations were that there wasn't much analysis made of our first commitments under Kyoto. You cite that as a serious flaw, correct?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Yes.

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

What analysis did you make when your government decided to kill the EnerGuide program?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

As you know, the commissioner's report clearly indicated there was a serious concern with lack of accountability and effectiveness--and therefore results--on all of the climate change programs. Our government, for that reason, cancelled a number of these programs and put a number of these programs under review.

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

Do you believe EnerGuide wasn't working?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

What I will say is what she said, which was that there was a foundation, and it was moving in the right direction.

However, I know the Minister of Natural Resources is coming forward with an energy efficiency plan that he believes will be enhanced and will provide more accountability, results, and effectiveness on energy efficiency and conservation matters.

I think Commissioner Gélinas very clearly pointed out that all of these programs, including EnerGuide, can work better. I believe it's the wish and the strong intent of the Minister of Natural Resources, who oversees this program, to bring forward a more effective program.

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

It was a program that had a strong foundation and, according to Madame Gélinas, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, was working, and your government decided to cancel it.

The question I have around greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in general is, do you believe it's a serious problem?