Environment Committee on Oct. 5th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

The bill that's going to be coming before our committee and how people voted are not part of the issue.

I think if you can get on with your question, it might be helpful.

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

You do not intend to participate in a national emission trading market nor to the Green Project internationally. You cut some excellent programs, including EnerGuide. So I'm wondering if you really intend to do anything about greenhouse gas reduction. What's left?

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

What I would really like to do is to work with this committee on bringing forward a piece of federal legislation that for the first time is going to set the stage for a broad national framework to deal with air pollution and greenhouse gases.

I would ask you and every committee member to work with the government. You have an excellent opportunity here. As the environment commissioner stated, we are at a crossroads. The environment is an issue that Canadians want all of us to work together on. They want this committee, and they want Parliament, to show them that we want real progress and real results. They know the environmental challenges Canada faces are not insurmountable, but they know we aren't going to solve everything overnight. What they do ask from us is that we work together and show progress.

That's what our government has already started to do. Soon we will be introducing a piece of legislation that this committee will get a chance to participate in shaping as we move forward. I invite you to be a part of that, and I ask you to bring forward any of your ideas and amendments to that piece of legislation as we work through it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Watson.

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

I'm really sorry about the kind of translation you will hear of what I say, but if I understood what the minister said, she's here to announce that she will eventually announce the time for the announcement of what she has to announce. This is what I understood, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Let's go to Mr. Watson, please.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

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

What I would say, Mr. Rodriguez, is that I am not an environment minister of press releases and announcements. We are doing the hard work behind the scenes that Canadians expect us to do and expect this committee to do.

I again ask you, when the clean air act is tabled, to work with this government to show Canadians that all of us care about the environment and are willing to put aside partisan politics to do the right thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

Perhaps a little cold water for Mr. Rodriguez.

I'm going back to the transcripts from the committee with Madam Gélinas. My colleague to the right of me, Mr. Vellacott, made a very simple statement, and I'm going to quote it: “...whether the government changed, the new targets are needed.”

Madam Gélinas' reply was: "That's absolutely right.” It wasn't “kind of right”, “maybe”, or “no”; it was, “That's absolutely right.” Even had the previous government won the last election and continued to govern, Madam Gélinas makes it absolutely clear that new targets are needed.

Mr. Rodriguez brought forward a bill, Bill C-288. Unfortunately, it was passed, and it's going to shackle us to the failed approach of Kyoto with respect to the timeframe and target.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Watson, again, let's stay away from the bill; it's coming before the committee. Carry on with your question, please.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

The question to the minister is this. Should we be shackled to a failed Kyoto approach in terms of the target and timeline? What are your comments on that?

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

I would simply say that Kyoto did not fail this country. The Liberal Party of Canada failed Kyoto. That's exactly what has happened and what's transpired over thirteen years--four plans and no results.

This government will continue to work on moving forward with our international partners within the Kyoto Protocol, the G-8 plus five dialogue on climate change, and the Asia-Pacific partnership.

It's important, though, and I've tried to make it as clear as possible that the best way we can make a contribution internationally to this agenda is to have a strong national framework in place. Every country that has succeeded in this area has put in place a very strong domestic agenda. It is what the clean air act will provide this country.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I'm thinking of the old proverb that a dog returns to its vomit. Clearly, the Liberals haven't learned.

I want to turn to the broader part of your speech. It was not only on greenhouse gas reductions but on the need to talk about human health and the broader environmental question.

Down in Essex County, where I come from, of course, we have high miscarriage rates, high rates of respiratory ailments, and high rates of cancer. Clearly, human health effects on the broader pollution question are important.

In the last Parliament, one of the things I was very frustrated with was that whether we talked about water quality, water levels, air pollution, or smog, the one-word answer from the Liberal Party at the time was “Kyoto”. It seemed to be the panacea that was going to cure all ills. We know that's not true.

Can you elaborate a little more on everything from land conservation to water quality, and things like that? Can you talk about the broader environmental agenda, specifically with respect to human health and the importance of that?

I'm pleased the agenda is moving in that direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

A minute and a half, please, Minister.

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

I would say we've made it very clear that the health of Canadians is what will guide our environmental agenda. I made that clear when I talked about the fact that we know the number one priority for Canadians is air quality. We are concerned about the impact of air pollution on the health of Canadians.

I also indicated, as you know, that we do not have proper reporting and monitoring mechanisms in Canada right now for air quality objectives. We do not have national standards or national objectives because we do not have a national framework.

This will be the first time the federal government will embark on a comprehensive approach from a national perspective to dealing with the issue of air pollution and greenhouse gases. It is an ambitious achievement, and it's an ambitious agenda.

When Canada's clean air act is tabled, I ask all the members of this committee to work with us to make sure the proper compliance mechanisms are put in place. We need to work with our counterparts around the House to show Canadians this is a priority not only for our government but for all of us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Lussier.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Minister, I often hear other members say in the House that Canada's emissions of greenhouse gases increased by 35%. The chart you showed us clearly indicates that the increase is 26.6%. If you add the 6% reduction target, we get 32%. Can you explain the figure of 34.6% shown on the chart?

I would also like to know how much the Athabasca tar sands contributed to the increase of 26.6%.

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

Thank you for your question.

The graph you see in front of you is actually directly from the environment commissioner's report. You'll see on the right-hand side of the graph what's called the “Kyoto gap”. It is 34.6%. That is what's referred to when people refer to the gap we would have to close to meet the Kyoto target.

To answer your question about the oil and gas sector in particular, as the environment commissioner pointed out, the oil sands and the transportation sector make—I believe her statistic is—78% of the greenhouse gases in Canada. So as I've said, and as you well know, we have met with both the automotive sector and the oil and gas sector in the last week to indicate to them our government's intention to move forward with legislation. These two particular sectors have the most opportunity to make environmental gains in this area, which is why they're key to our plan and key to making sure we can try to close this gap moving forward.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

The environment commissioner says that oil companies or simply tar sands production will double their greenhouse gas emissions by 2015, which will cancel out all reduction efforts made by the industry in that area.

How do you react to this statement by the commissioner?

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

Well, the commissioner is stating something that's clearly a challenge to Canada. Canada is a net energy exporter. The fact that we have a high level of greenhouse gases emerging from that particular sector is a challenge for Canada, which is why, as I said, we've indicated to both the oil and gas sector and the automotive sector, which is another large contributor to the greenhouse gases in Canada, that they have to be a big part of our plan, and we'll be working with them moving forward.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

What action should be taken then?

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

We need to put in place a national framework, and that includes legislative measures. As I said, I look forward to having Canada's first clean air act come to this committee to deal with this issue directly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras, you have about a minute and a half.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've been listening to you for some time and I have to conclude that you refuse to put in place a credits market in this country, that you refuse to integrate the joint implementation mechanism provided for in the Kyoto Protocol and that you reject the clean development mechanism.

You're saying this morning that it will be difficult if not impossible for Canada to meet the Kyoto targets. Didn't you in fact come here today to tell us that Canada's role on the national and international scenes will simply be to destroy the Kyoto Protocol instead of improving it and ensure compliance with its provisions?