Evidence of meeting #16 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was targets.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Let me call the meeting to order, please.
We'll start off. All of us would like to welcome the minister. Thank you very much for appearing. You look rather lonely sitting there by yourself, but what the heck.
We welcome your opening statements. I'll remind members that we will stick very closely to our time. A lot of you have indicated that you have questions.
I will ask the minister, please, to begin.
Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
It's my pleasure to be here today to discuss a number of environmental issues, including our new government's commitment to protecting the health of Canadians and their environment.
I'd like, first, to begin my presentation today as I had indicated last week, discussing the report of the Commissioner of the Environment.
I would like to thank the commissioner for her report and her recommendations, which she released last week. This report is very timely, as it comes at a critical juncture for Canada.
I would like to thank the environment commissioner for her report. Our government accepts all of her recommendations.
We are now at a crossroads in terms of the protection of our health and the environment of Canadians. We are also at a crossroads when it comes to environmental protection and enforcement, which have long been talked about but not acted upon.
As everyone knows, the commissioner's report demonstrates that to tackle climate change, neither advertising campaigns nor preening on the international stage can substitute for strong domestic action. What Canadians got from the old government was a lot of talk but few results.
Fortunately, Canadians have elected a new government, and what they are getting from us and will continue to get from us is action.
The commissioner commented in her report that she was troubled over the previous government's long-standing failure to make progress on the issue of climate change. The commissioner clearly stated that there was a lack of credibility, a lack of monitoring, and a lack of reporting in the previous government's plans.
The most disturbing thing, however, is that after spending over $1 billion, there were still no results on the environment.
Last week, I think some were surprised to hear the harsh truth from the commissioner that due to Liberal inaction, Canada is not on track to meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.
When I first was appointed Minister of the Environment, I was, with great honour, also appointed by the Prime Minister to become the president of the Conference of Parties to the framework Convention on Climate Change of the United Nations. I made a very early decision, albeit a very difficult one, to inform our international partners in the Kyoto Protocol—and subsequently informed the Canadian people—what the environment commissioner conveyed to Canadians last week, which was that Canada was not on track to meet our Kyoto commitments. I was honest. It was a difficult message to deliver to Canadians. We told Canadians, though, that this was something we needed to address.
I said very clearly at that time that it is impossible for Canada to reach its Kyoto targets. As the environment commissioner stated, we need new targets. This does not mean an abandonment of Kyoto. In fact, Canada works very closely within the Kyoto process and the Kyoto Protocol with our international partners to move forward, to look beyond what the next stage of Kyoto will be beyond 2012. However, the commissioner confirmed, as you know, what we already knew and what I stated early on in the spring.
On Tuesday, when the commissioner appeared before this committee, she said:
It has become more and more obvious that Canada cannot meet its Kyoto Protocol commitments to reduce greenhouse gases. In fact, instead of decreasing, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada have increased by 27% since 1990.
She also has concerns about the arbitrary target that was set by the previous government. Let me quote again from what the commissioner said on Tuesday:
...when we looked at where this 6% below 1990...came from, it was obvious that there was no sound analysis to support that. ... The federal government picked that number based on what the U.S. was going for. So that's clear. There's no doubt about it.
It also appears that about as much thinking went into the target as went into the expensive programs that the previous government developed to help Canada meet that target. Setting a target that was unachievable set in motion, I believe strongly, a set of subsequent bad policy decisions to actually try to reach the target.
It's time for a brand new approach to the environment. This new approach is going to address the real priorities of Canadians in a tangible and accountable way. Our approach will deliver clean air to Canadians to protect their health while also making genuine progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well as other contaminants that are harmful to our health.
I'm looking forward to announcing very soon a real and responsible approach that actually delivers a healthy environment for all of us. I know Canadians want to see progress on the environment. Canadians understand full well the challenges that face us. They do not expect answers overnight, but they expect action and they expect progress.
As Commissioner Gélinas has recommended, a new approach is needed based on leadership, accountability, and measurable results. We agree with all of her recommendations. These are the key dimensions of our approach, and that is why we will succeed where the previous governments have failed.
The commissioner also identified a number of areas we need to focus on, and our government is already taking those into consideration and taking action. In the area of leadership, environment is a government-wide priority led by our Prime Minister. As the Minister of the Environment, I am in the lead on all issues related to the environment, whether it's climate change, clean water, or clean air and air pollution. I am working also, though, with a strong commitment from a number of my cabinet colleagues around the cabinet table, including the Ministers of Health, Natural Resources, Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities, Industry, and also the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as we move forward with our environment agenda.
Commissioner Gélinas has also pointed out the need to take into consideration energy and climate change. As she pointed out, the previous government had difficulty working between the two departments, Natural Resources and Environment. I can tell you those days are over. Energy and climate change must be dealt with together, because they are linked. It's important that all sectors be involved in addressing this issue facing us, particularly the energy sector, and we will continue to consult and collaborate with all economic sectors moving forward.
She also talked about the need to reduce greenhouse gases, and our approach will see reductions not only in air pollution but also in greenhouse gases.
Throughout her report, Commissioner Gélinas pointed out the importance of the transportation sector and industry sector to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. She noted that the previous government failed in this respect, and by contrast, our government is committed to succeeding by bringing forward legislation.
Specifically, I was encouraged to see that the commissioner saw the inadequacy of the previous government's approach, which relied on unaccountable, voluntary measures. She also highlighted the need to address adaptation.
I was privileged to host the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference on adaptation in my own hometown of Edmonton.
We need a realistic and effective plan to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, but it must also include appropriate policies, strategies, and measures to build upon Canadians' capacities to actually adapt to what already is a changing climate. Environment Canada is in a position to lead and collaborate with others on scientific, technical, and socio-economic impacts.
On governance and accountability, that is another issue on which the commissioner placed a high priority. The committee members know full well that accountability is also of paramount importance to our government. Canadians demand accountability on all files of the government, especially on the environment, and we will deliver. Accountability on the environment consists of having clear goals, being able to measure progress, and transparently reporting on your results to Canadians.
On monitoring, Canada doesn't currently have a systematic way of measuring air quality. The previous government did not make use of leading technology that could measure the pollution released into the environment in real time. The previous government also didn't develop a systematic way to link environmental performance in Canada with the impacts on human health, especially with respect to air pollution. This is why our air is in poor condition and why our health is suffering. This is unacceptable to Canadians and it's unacceptable to our government.
On reporting, Canadians have not been provided in the past with clear, comprehensive information on environmental performance. This is simply unacceptable. Through clear reporting, our government will be able to show real progress to Canadians.
On enforcement, accountability also means that when the rules are broken, polluters are held accountable. For years, prosecutions and violations were rare under the previous government. In the isolated cases of conviction, the penalties were weak and often inconsequential. Cases were frequently settled for absurdly low amounts of money. For too long, federal prosecutors gave the environment too low a profile and made it too low a priority. Enforcement only consisted of issuing warnings rather than taking action. All Canadians agree that this is unacceptable. It's also unacceptable to our government.
While the commissioner's report highlighted a number of key issues and recommendations moving forward, I also want to address a number of other issues that are of importance to Canadians.
Canadians are concerned about growing rates of asthma and are concerned about cancer from environmental sources. The commissioner's report focused on climate change, and our government is addressing that issue. However, in addition to the previous government's lack of action on climate change, another troubling aspect was the lack of political will to address air quality, which is the number one environmental concern of Canadians. That is why my main priority is to protect the health of Canadians.
Canadians do have reason to be concerned. We all know someone who suffers from the effects of air pollution. It's an issue that has touched every family in Canada. The Lung Association has confirmed that air pollution has a significant impact on health. It irritates, inflames, and destroys lung tissue, and it weakens the lungs' defences against contaminants. Even low levels of air pollution can cause health problems. In the Lung Association's national report card on pulmonary disease, which includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema, the association stated that pulmonary disease is caused not only by smoking but also by exposure to outdoor air pollution. Smog and poor air quality continue to cause thousands of deaths each year and hundreds of thousands of severe episodes of asthma and bronchitis, particularly among children and the elderly.
During an average year, exposure to air pollution results in an estimated 60,000 emergency room visits and 17,000 hospital admissions in Ontario alone. Air pollution is now a factor in one out of every twelve deaths in Canada. Poor air quality also remains one of the most serious threats to biodiversity, forests, and freshwater ecosystems.
We know the direct and indirect costs of air pollution on health and the environment are in the billions of dollars.
A recent study by the Ontario Medical Association estimated damages in Ontario alone at $374 million in lost productivity in work time, $507 million in direct health care costs, $537 million in pain and suffering due to non-fatal illness, and $64 billion in economic loss due to premature death. This total in Ontario alone is expected to increase to over $11 billion by 2026. These are all very compelling reasons for us to take action to reduce air emissions and to make our air cleaner.
A report issued in August by the David Suzuki Foundation, called The Air We Breathe, stated the following:
There is strong evidence that air pollution is the most harmful environmental problem in Canada in terms of human health effects, causing thousands of deaths, millions of illnesses, billions of dollars in health care expenses, and tens of billions of dollars in lost productivity every year.
It is why our government is taking a strong stance on removing the pollutants from our air by introducing national legislation. Unfortunately, in the past decade, Canada's performance on the environment has lagged behind that of our international counterparts.
The Sustainable Planning Research Group at Simon Fraser University completed a study in 2004 using data from the OECD. The study examined 29 key environmental indicators, and Canada's environmental performance ranked an embarrassing 28 out of 30 countries.
In the same study, the United States performed better than us in a number of areas, including the emissions of sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and carbon monoxide. Canada's performance on greenhouse gas emissions since 1990 has also lagged behind that of the United States in terms of a percentage increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
We are all committed to doing better on all of these fronts. It is why this will be the first time the federal government will put in place a broad national framework to achieve real reductions in air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
In the past, the government has relied on a patchwork approach, and this was a major failure. The previous government's strategy of throwing money at the problem and voluntary agreements simply did not work.
Canada's new government has promised a cleaner and a healthier environment. We will deliver strong legislation and a real action plan that achieves results and measurable reductions in air pollution and greenhouse gases.
Air quality is a national concern in Canada, and air knows no boundaries. Therefore, we need national legislation, we need national objectives, and we need national standards.
We have a mandate from Canadians to act and that's what we will continue to do, but we've already begun to deliver on a number of these areas.
As you know, and as the environment commissioner pointed out in her report, transportation is one of the leading causes of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Our new government has invested $1.3 billion in public transit and infrastructure. This funding will assist in the building of the infrastructure necessary to deal with increased ridership.
Starting July 1 of this year, our government provided a transit rider tax credit. This means transit riders who buy monthly passes will receive almost two free months of transit per year. For example, the credit could be worth as much as $635 a year for a commuter in Barrie who might travel to work in downtown Toronto.
Renewable energy has great potential for providing clean alternatives for power. This government is also helping Canadians make cleaner fuel choices by increasing the average renewable fuel content in gasoline and diesel fuels by 5% by 2010. This target is more stringent than the United States and it's on par with our European partners.
Increasing the renewable energy content of fuels can help us achieve numerous objectives. From the standpoint of environmental conservation, 5% renewable content in engine fuels will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
These actions alone, the transit rider tax credit, the transit infrastructure, and the 5% renewable content, all have tangible results that Canadians can see. They will promote increased public transit usage, which will help reduce congestion in our urban areas and reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. These actions will be equivalent to taking 1.5 million cars off the road, year after year.
According to the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association, there will be a 4.2-megatonne-per-year reduction in net greenhouse gas emissions. There will also be 10,000 direct and indirect jobs created and $600 million of annual economic activity added to the Canadian economy when the ethanol and biodiesel production facilities are up and running.
On toxics, Canadians are increasingly concerned about their exposure to toxic substances, including the low-dose chemicals in their food and the pharmaceuticals in their water. Our government has already taken significant steps to protect the health of Canadians by taking action on a number of toxic substances. We have taken action to regulate two harmful substances used in the production of some commonly used stain repellants and fire retardants, known as PFOSs and PBDEs. We have introduced a measure to reduce the amount of mercury in Canada's atmosphere by ten tonnes over the next ten years by removing mercury switches from scrapped cars before they are recycled. As all of you know, mercury is a highly toxic substance that can cause serious human health and ecological effects.
In addition, Canada is the first country in the world to publish an action plan addressing certain toxic chemicals found to be sources of what's known as PFCAs. Such substances are commonly used as water and grease repellants for materials found in our homes, such as paper, fabric, leather, and carpets.
As many of you know, the Conservative Mulroney government took action in 1985 to begin removing PCBs from the environment. Our new government has set in place a regulatory plan that will remove 50% of the PCBs still in use and 100% of the PCBs that are currently in storage.
Many of these substances that we have taken early action on are linked to cancer, blindness, and birth defects, to name only a few of the health effects. It's clear that our government is committed to taking concrete action on toxic substances, and this is only the beginning. On September 14 of this year we became the first government and the first country in the world to complete a full review to assess the risk to human health posed by all 23,000 chemical substances in use or produced prior to 1994. This is a significant milestone to protect the health of Canadians.
In the very near future, our government will be releasing a comprehensive action plan to build on this tremendous achievement and take further action to protect the health of Canadians against toxic, cancer-causing chemicals.
Earlier this month, the Canadian Cancer Society applauded our government's action on this important issue, saying:
We welcome this action…. We believe that Canadians should not be exposed to cancer-causing substances in the environment…. It was heartening to see many groups come together on this important review and we hope this collaboration continues.
In conclusion, clearly it's time for action. We have already begun demonstrating to Canadians that we take this issue very seriously. Our new government is making progress on improving the environment in which Canadians live, work, and play, and we will continue to show progress to Canadians in tangible ways that they can see.
We've lagged behind our international counterparts for too long. That has to change, and it will change. The most important way we can make a contribution to these important international challenges is by putting in place a strong domestic agenda here in Canada.
Finally, before I open it up to questions, I would like to thank each of you for being here today and also for the hard work that I know the committee is doing on the CEPA review. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a very important piece of environmental legislation for Canadians, and I want to thank you. I have heard from my parliamentary secretary, Mark Warawa, all of the good work that you've been doing on the CEPA review and all the work you've been doing in scoping the issues for consideration. I appreciate all your cooperation on that and look forward to your questions.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Thank you very much.
I would remind members to keep to your time. If we could stick with that, everybody will have an opportunity to ask questions.
We'll begin with Mr. Godfrey.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Welcome, Minister. I want to spend my time talking about Kyoto and global warming, and I simply want to make sure that when I use the word “Kyoto”, you and I mean the same thing. I assume we mean an international treaty designed to reduce greenhouse gases whereby various countries like Canada make commitments to specific targets over time. Is that what we would mean by Kyoto?
Conservative
Rona Ambrose Conservative Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB
Mr. Godfrey, there is only one Kyoto Protocol that Canada is a party to.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Okay.
I was fascinated the other day, in response to a question in the House, when you said that your new plan--or, as I gather it's now called as of today, your new approach--would go beyond Kyoto. From a plain-language reading of that, that would mean we would not only meet our targets but would go beyond them. Is that what you meant?
Conservative
Rona Ambrose Conservative Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB
Mr. Godfrey, it's very important to our international partners that we start to think about what we're going to do beyond 2012. The target your party set, set in motion a subsequent series of very bad policy decisions that have basically brought us to the position we are in today. We are now in a situation of working with our international partners to find a way to contribute to the Kyoto Protocol.
As I said, the most important thing we can do as a government and as a country to contribute to this important international challenge is to put in place a strong domestic agenda, which many of our international partners have done.
When we talk about going beyond Kyoto, we talk about also addressing issues like air quality and air pollution. As you know, Kyoto deals with a number of precursors to smog and it deals with greenhouse gases. We also need to deal with air pollution. We need a national framework that deals with both of those issues.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Kyoto is not about air pollution. We agreed that it's about the reduction of greenhouse gases.
Let me then ask you, because you answered another question this week when somebody was talking about international credits.... And I want to tell you, by the way, it reminds me of what the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said about this on page 32 of chapter 1:
Investing in Kyoto credits from international projects can have economic and environmental benefits.... Project-based Kyoto mechanisms, such as the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation, can result in real emission reductions and provide opportunities for sustainable development in developed and developing countries.
When you were asked about that, you said the money we could be spending on those credits could go instead to garbage plants and water treatment plants. How would we meet our Kyoto targets--which we agree are about reducing greenhouse gases--more effectively by investing in a water treatment plant instead of in the international credit system, which the Commissioner of the Environment thinks is an effective way of reducing greenhouse gases? Why is that domestic choice going to be better in our fight against climate change?
Conservative
Rona Ambrose Conservative Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB
Mr. Godfrey, as you know, the clean development mechanism is one process a country can use to meet its target under the Kyoto Protocol. Remember, most countries have a target that is achievable and realistic, and as the environment commissioner pointed out, the target set by your party was an arbitrarily set target. What has been set in motion by having an unachievable target and by not having a domestic plan in place led your government--and now to the situation we're in--to the point where the only option was to buy international credits.
Most industry sectors will tell you that the government was forced into a situation whereby billions of dollars of credits would have to be purchased, through the clean development mechanism, from third world countries to reach that target. Most industry sectors will tell you that they will happily come to the table and make changes in their own technology based on the best available technology. But your target basically put a restriction on them to be able to meet what was technologically available to them and forced them to invest money in the clean development mechanism by purchasing international credits.
I would also point out to you that there is a lot of evidence now about the lack of accountability around these kinds of projects. So while your government was investing money in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan and all of those places--and I could list 100 projects where taxpayers' money was involved--I'll tell you what a clean development expert said at the Institute for Policy Studies. She said that because of the lack of accountability around these kinds of projects, which by the way involve firms that are being paid by project participants--the project participants themselves are developers for the projects and also their own inspectors. You're giving a negative response. She said, “You're creating all kinds of incentives for corruption.”
In India, the Centre for Science and the Environment uncovered half a dozen breaches of Kyoto rules requiring developers to consult with local communities about accountability for these projects. He said--
Conservative
Rona Ambrose Conservative Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB
Let me just tell you what he said. The director in India--
Liberal
Conservative
Rona Ambrose Conservative Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB
--who deals with the clean development mechanisms himself said, “We were really disgusted.” It was because of the lack of accountability and the use of private accounting firms and inspection firms to make sure that these projects were actually delivering real reductions.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Now I'd like to move to the subject of targets. You say we couldn't meet our target. The Commissioner of the Environment said two things. One is that if you can't meet that target, you should set another target. She also said that we need short-term targets as well as long-term targets, and that would be a measure of the success of any future plan or approach.
When we asked her what a short-term target was, she said, for example, a Kyoto target of 2010-2012.
My question is, will Canada have regulated greenhouse gas targets in effect by January 1 of 2008?
Conservative
Rona Ambrose Conservative Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB
Canada will have, for the first time, a national regulatory framework to deal with air pollutants and greenhouse gases that will clearly involve and must involve short-term, medium-term, and long-term targets.
But what I will tell you is that this government will not set arbitrary targets without consultation with industry, provinces, and territories, which was what led your government to leave us in the position we are in today.
We will consult with industry particularly and with provinces and territories on short- and medium-term targets.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Since you want to move from talking to taking action, and since it would take about five years to pass a clean air act and bring in the requisite regulations, and since we have a mechanism called the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which everybody agrees--including the commissioner when we put it to her here on Tuesday--is ready to go, both on dealing with pollution and on dealing with the regulation of greenhouse gases, why would we need a new piece of legislation, a clean air act, if we want to take action now?
What is to prevent us from using CEPA to get on with it right now, and won't bringing in a new piece of legislation, which is unnecessary in the view of the Commissioner of the Environment, slow things down unnecessarily?
Conservative
Rona Ambrose Conservative Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB
Canada's clean air act will establish a regulatory framework for the first time to deal with both air pollution and greenhouse gases at the federal level.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a very strong and important piece of legislation in Canada, but what I will say to you is that it could be stronger. There are elements in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that need improvement, particularly around the areas of monitoring and reporting and enforcement.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Why would we not simply use the review process for CEPA to bring about those improvements and do it possibly through regulation? We know we have everything in place. All the powers are there, says the commissioner, so we don't need a new piece of legislation. We just need to make the current one, which we're reviewing right now, do the job through regulation.
Conservative
Rona Ambrose Conservative Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB
As I said, Canada's clean air act will set in place the powers that the federal government will need to act on air pollution and greenhouse gases at the federal level. It will also give us increased powers on reporting, enforcement, auditing, and monitoring, which is key to making sure we can show progress to Canadians on this important issue.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
If, through testimony before this committee, it turns out that in fact all the powers you describe are contained within CEPA, would you still insist on going ahead with the clean air act?
Conservative
Rona Ambrose Conservative Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB
As I said, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a very important piece of legislation, but Canada's clean air act will enhance our powers at the federal level to deal with air pollutants and greenhouse gases, particularly in the area of auditing and monitoring and enforcement and reporting to Canadians.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
If the committee could prove, however, that everything you want could be achieved through CEPA reform rather than a new clean air act, would you accept that instead, if you're anxious to get on with action rather than talking?
Conservative
Rona Ambrose Conservative Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB
As I said, when the Canadian clean air act is tabled, I look forward to working with this committee on amendments to make it stronger. I think you will be very pleased with what you see, and we look forward to having your participation.
The environment is an issue that matters to all Canadians, and I hope this committee will put aside its partisanship and recognize that for the first time in a long time you will have a piece of legislation in front of you that will provide you with the opportunity to show Canadians your commitment, not only on air quality but on the issue of climate change.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I have a fast little question because I'm getting the evil eye from the chairman here.
Will your government allow emissions trading for greenhouse gases in your new approach/plan?
Conservative
Rona Ambrose Conservative Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB
What I will tell you is how our government differs from the Liberal government on this issue.
We will not use taxpayers' money to play the emissions trading market, nor will we use taxpayers' money to create an artificial market to buy and sell credits. As you know, the emissions trading market is relatively new. The European Union market crashed only a few months ago, and hundreds of millions of euros and taxpayers' money in European governments were lost.
So what I will reiterate is that our government will not take those kinds of risks with taxpayers' money. We will not use taxpayers' money to trade credits, to buy credits, or to set up an artificial market for credit trading.