Environment Committee on Oct. 5th, 2006

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

Do you believe that ethanol is a good approach in terms of putting it into fuels for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions in Canada?

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

As you know, moving to cleaner burning fuels is a very important way that we can contribute to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. As the environment minister, I will tell you that there are advantages to ethanol, but obviously biodiesel, as you know, makes a better contribution to the reduction in greenhouse gases. But I think the flip side of that is also the economic opportunity, particularly for the agriculture industry, as you know, both in the production of ethanol and biodiesel.

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

I asked in the House yesterday, and I appreciate that it was question period and it's difficult to have answers on hand, how much we have reduced our emissions from the auto sector with 17 months of the auto agreement, the voluntary agreement.

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

That's a very interesting question, because that's one of the concerns I have with a voluntary agreement. It was a good first step for the former government to sign the memorandum of understanding with the auto sector, but the problem--

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

Do we actually know?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen, your time is up.

Minister, just finish your thought there, please.

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

Sure.

It's only one year old at this point. The concern I have about using a voluntary memorandum of understanding is that the memorandum of understanding itself is with the entire association, so it precludes individual manufacturers in the auto sector from complying and reporting with specific requirements.

I will say, though, that the projected emissions reductions for the voluntary MOU are very good. As I said, it's only one year in at this point, and there are obvious advantages to moving to a regulatory framework, particularly on the reporting, the accountability, and the transparency for that sector.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to be splitting my ten minutes. I'll be using only five minutes and providing the other five to Mr. Harvey, and that way hopefully giving everybody a chance to ask the minister a question.

Minister, thank you for being here.

My closing question of the commissioner--and I really appreciated her report--was asking her about the importance of this committee working together on this file. She did impress upon us the importance of each member of this committee working together.

As you said in your presentation, we are at a crossroads. She said the same thing. And it's a very important crossroads. We have to move not in an adversarial role, but together. So I appreciate you being here today, and I'm excited about the days ahead where we're working together.

My question is on your involvement with international obligations and commitments. You were just recently criticized for not being able to be in two places at the same time. I know how busy you are and how hard you've worked on this file. Regarding Kyoto and our obligations to Kyoto, and the other obligations, could you share with the committee what you actually have been doing on the international front since you've become the environment minister?

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

Thank you for the question.

As I stated, it was a privilege and an honour to be appointed by the Prime Minister to be the chair, the president, of the Conference of the Parties to Kyoto. This has been an excellent experience, in terms of working with our partners, because as I indicated to you, we are not the only country that is facing challenges in meeting our greenhouse gas targets set under the Kyoto Protocol. We have a number of countries, and I believe it's around fifteen countries now, that are not on track to meeting their targets. What has come out of that, as a consequence, is a very strong consensus that we need to start moving forward to talk about what those challenges are, how we can face them, and what kinds of solutions we can use to address those.

Another thing that has come out of this exercise is that non-Kyoto parties are also interested in starting to dialogue with us and with other countries on this issue, namely Australia and the United States.

The other issue that's come out of this, of course, is that developing countries do not have any targets under Kyoto. China and India, for instance, are considered developing countries under the Kyoto Protocol, so another part of the discussion has become how will developing countries like China and India start to contribute to make reductions, because of course the United States, China, and India, are responsible for the largest percentage of greenhouse gas emissions in the world.

I think the important thing that has happened is that we have begun a dialogue on the international stage that was set in motion by Canada raising the profile of the challenge of meeting the first-term target, about how we are going to address these issues moving into the second period of commitment. So it has been an excellent experience for Canada. But what has come out of it for us, obviously, as a government is the need to put in place, as other countries have that have been successful in reaching their Kyoto commitments, a strong domestic agenda, and that's what Canada's clean air act will do.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Minister.

Early on, when you shared that we're not going to be able to meet those targets, you said that we would have to shut down every train, plane, and automobile. Just how close were we to meeting our targets, and what did you mean by that?

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

I asked the department early on to brief me on the opportunities for us to meet our targets and what that would mean. It would mean that we would have to shut down the majority of industry in Canada to be able to make that commitment, if we made that commitment here at home. The other opportunity would be to spend billions of dollars on international credits. Our government made a decision early on that we will not send money overseas to purchase international credits because of the increasing question around the lack of accountability for those projects and the real question of whether or not they're even achieving real reductions overseas.

I also asked the department to put together the economic costs of achieving our Kyoto targets through regulation only, which is exactly what Bill C-288 would entail. As you know, Bill C-288 does not have any monetary or funding attached to it, so it would have to be implemented through regulatory means alone. What that would entail, just to give you a specific example, is that would mean that electricity prices in British Columbia would increase by 40%, electricity prices in Ontario would increase by 65%, and natural gas prices would increase by over 300% in Alberta and over $130% in Ontario. These are the kinds of impacts of forcing the 6% target on Canada's industry today through a regulatory framework, which is exactly what Bill C-288 that was passed in the House last night entails.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Harvey.

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

Minister, under the Liberal government, international credits were purchased. Can you tell us approximately how much was spent on these purchases?

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

I can give you some examples of the money that was spent on international credits. I have in front of me a list representing at least $100 million that was used to purchase international credits.

I can go through the list and share it with you: $5 million went to the Canada-China consortium; $3.7 million to the State Development Planning Commission in China; $2 million to the State Power Corporation of China; $2.5 million to Global Investment Management for Panama; and $375,000 to Paraguay.

I could go on: $5 million was spent through the Asian Development Bank to be paid to the People's Republic, the Ministry of Science and Technology in China; $4.2 million through the World Bank to be paid to the regional areas of China, India, and other Asian countries; $2.3 million to the South Pacific; $3 million to Bangladesh; another $2 million to the State Power Corporation of China; $1.5 million to the Government of India.

I could go on and on. There are hundreds of millions of dollars in the purchase of international credits to be able.... Some of these projects actually didn't even earn us Kyoto credits.

The problem with this is not only that this money was not spent here at home on the priorities of Canadians, on things like cleaning up sewage in local communities.... We have over nineteen municipalities in Canada that are still dumping raw sewage in the ocean, and a small sewage facility can cost as little as $2 million.

When we see this kind of list, it is troubling that the priorities of the Liberal Party were to spend this money elsewhere, with no plan in place. Thirteen years and four plans later, there have been no reductions in greenhouse gases; and there is no national framework for air quality or greenhouse gases. This was the only plan: to buy international credits.

The troubling thing is that, increasingly, even those people involved in the Kyoto Protocol process and with the clean development mechanism are concerned at the lack of accountability around the transfer of funds from the Government of Canada based on these project proposals. Many times private accounting inspection firms are used to validate the projects through which money is transferred to third world countries, and these firms are then paid by the project participants. The actual project participants act both as the developers of the projects and as the project verifiers at the same time.

Daphne Wysham, who is the clean development mechanism expert, said that, “You're creating all kinds of incentives for corruption”, in giving a negative response.

Also, in this rush to try to certify emissions reductions through the clean development mechanism, particularly in India, the Centre for Science and Environment has uncovered breaches of Kyoto rules requiring developers to consult with local communities and to make sure there's actually accountability for these projects. His quote was, “We were really very disgusted.”

The concern is that these countries also have environmental priorities, and this is not the way for us to help them meet their priorities either. So there has been a lack of accountability, clearly, and a lack of priorities in this country, and we've done nothing to help these countries achieve their local priorities either.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Harvey, your time is up. I'm sorry.

We're now into the second round, and this is for five minutes. I'd ask you to be very brief in your questions so the minister gets a chance to answer. I understand that Mr. Dion and Mr. Rodriguez will split their five minutes.

Mr. Dion or Mr. Rodriguez, go ahead, please.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Good morning, Minister.

You have a very enjoyable ministry. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

You spoke about moving from talk to taking action. I would like to put on the record that everything you have said about toxics was in the book of the previous government. The 23,000 listed chemicals were done after years of hard work by hundreds of Canadians. I'm sure you will not try to steal the credit for that.

Because I only have a few minutes, I will list regulations that I'm surprised are not going through after eight months. I would like to know where they are.

The first one is the 45 megatonnes of reduction by the large final emitters--a reduction of 11% of their emissions. It was almost ready to go. Where are you?

The second one is about clean air. Let's talk about clean air. Where is the air quality agreement progress report 2006 between Canada and the United States that was supposed to be published in June?

Another one is on the sulphur and fuel for rail, marine vessels, off-road construction, and mining equipment. It was proposed by me and announced in a speech. Where are we?

Another is the bus standards that would require a reduction of 85% from current allowable levels of noxious emissions and 95% for particulate matter.

Another one I'd like to know about is the ozone depletion substances, including methyl bromide.

The other is on the--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I would just remind you that you only have two and a half minutes and you've used two.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Yes. I will conclude with the volatile organic compounds in paints and consumer products.

The last, last one is on recreational vehicles. Where are these regulations? Can you announce them? I want action. They were almost on my desk.

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

Thank you for being here today. Thank you for your comments and questions.

What I will say is that our government has made it clear through the actions we've already taken, and the actions we will continue to take, that we are not afraid to act in a regulatory manner to deal with air pollutants, toxics, and greenhouse gases. I have maybe not raised a number of the issues in my speech that you raised, but I can assure you that actions are being taken on all those fronts.

What I will say, though, is that I was encouraged to hear you speak publicly about the challenge that Canada faces in reaching the Kyoto target. I'm sure that was difficult for you to say. I think it's very important for you to send that signal that it's important for us to continue to work with our international partners, but to also recognize that the target by your government is not achievable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Minister.

If Mr. Rodriguez would like to finish off, please proceed.

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

Minister, I am wondering why you came today. You have no plan, no targets and no timelines. Last night, you voted against Kyoto while the prime minister was attending a hockey game in Toronto, which was obviously more important to him then a vote on the environment. Yesterday, when you voted again Kyoto, you voted against international law. What kind of example are you setting by doing this?

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

As I've said repeatedly, your legislation that you put forward last night, in a very, I would say, irresponsible manner.... The environment commissioner herself said the target that your government put in place is unachievable. The target was within that legislation. We also know, and the environment commissioner stated this, there was no economic, environmental, or social analysis done for that target. Your piece of legislation included that target. I have repeatedly said this government respects the Kyoto Protocol--

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

I'm sorry, but you don't. You're out of Kyoto.

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

--and we will work with our international partners to make a contribution.