Environment Committee on Oct. 5th, 2006

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

Yes.

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

Do you believe humans are in fact contributing to this problem?

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

I think all of us contribute to this problem.

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

That's interesting. The Prime Minister doesn't seem to. It seems that in casting doubt over the very science of climate change by inviting skeptics like Dr. Ball and others--have you attended any of Timothy Ball's sessions? No?

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

I'm not familiar with him.

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

A lot of your caucus members have.

The Prime Minister cast a doubt over the very science of climate change only last week, asking how can we possibly have any certainty over what's happening in the climate over decades if we can't predict the weather next week. That seems to me an irresponsible comment, considering the incredible amount of research that's gone into this and your own admission that it is an important and pressing problem. Why would such irresponsible comments be coming from the leadership of your government over such an important issue?

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

What's irresponsible is that we're still having this debate and you are still asking questions about the science of climate change.

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

I didn't ask those questions, Minister; it was actually the Prime Minister who posed those questions.

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

In our government's Speech from the Throne within the first week of coming into power, one of the commitments the Prime Minister made was to show measurable improvements to our environment by reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases and to put in place a strong domestic agenda to address both of these issues.

That's commitment, and we've already shown action on both of those fronts.

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

We signed the Kyoto Protocol, and in that protocol we have commitments for a certain amount of reductions in pollution in Canada by 2012. You've said we won't abandon Kyoto, yet we won't abide by Kyoto.

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

No, those are your words.

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

Will we meet our targets under Kyoto?

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

We know that Canada is not on track, as the commissioner very clearly stated, to meet the target under Kyoto. Does that mean we're abandoning the protocol? No.

Does that mean we're participating with our international partners on this important issue within the protocol, within the G-8 plus five, within the Asia-Pacific partnership, and with our neighbour, the United States? There are a number of ways we can move forward to contribute to this international challenge.

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

The commissioner, when asked whether it was possible to meet our 2012 targets, said it was possible.

Your leader asked for suggestions. The New Democrats put forward suggestions. Are you planning to pick those up and actually make an attempt to meet the 2012 targets?

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

I've reviewed some of the suggestions you have made, and I encourage you to raise those issues again when the clean air act is tabled and comes to committee. I know you've made a number of very good suggestions on the environment file, and I look forward to working with you.

I know you have not spoken to me directly about these, although I've invited you many times to bring forward amendments to CEPA that we could potentially support together. I think this committee has a great opportunity right now, in undergoing the review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, to make it stronger.

So I would encourage you to focus on ways to make the Canadian Environmental Protection Act work better, become more effective, and show stronger results for Canadians, instead of being caught up in the partisanship in which you are always caught up.

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

Sure. Interesting.

Are you interested in emissions-intensity reductions or absolute reductions, specifically when it comes to the tar sands?

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

In terms of the energy sector, there are two issues. There's upstream oil and gas. There's the conventional oil and gas sector and the oil sands sector. There are different ways that we can measure pollution, whether it's through intensity targets or hard targets. When it comes to pollution, we would obviously consider hard caps as well.

We will consult with industry, provinces, and territories about all targets, whether short-, medium-, or long-term. Our government will not set arbitrary targets like the previous government did. It's very important that we put in place achievable targets because--

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

Will they be absolute? That was a simple question.

I'm a bit confused. I appreciate the briefing on the energy sector, but I asked a specific question on whether you will use emissions intensity or absolute targets. It's not complicated; it's a straightforward question.

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

As I said, when the clean air act is tabled, this committee will have an opportunity to address a number of issues related to the best form to take when it comes to targets. Short-, medium-, and long-term targets are obviously key, but short-term targets set in place the most pressing reductions of greenhouse gases for the energy sector. It's important that we set in place reachable and achievable targets so we're not actually forcing money out of the country.

We first of all want to ensure that industry sectors are making investments in their own in-house technology, in-house reductions. Second, we will hopefully put in place compliance mechanisms that will see money stay within the country.

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

That's something we all see as laudable.

Are you planning to stop the $1.5 billion by which Canadian taxpayers are subsidizing the tar sands every year?

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

The oil and gas sector, as the environment commissioner has pointed out, has to be a key contributor to the environmental agenda. We had a very good first meeting with the oil and gas sector last week, and we met with a number of CEOs who are implicated in this environmental agenda. We indicated to them that we will be moving ahead with legislation and they will have to be a part of that.

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

Will you remove the subsidy to the oil and gas sector?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Allow the minister to finish, please.

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

That's just my point, Chair. I'm asking a very specific question and I'm getting a general answer.

In your plan, will your government stop the $1.5 billion subsidy to the oil and gas sector that has been going on under the Liberals and continues under you?

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

As the environment minister, what I can tell you is that the oil and gas sector has to be a big part of our plan. We have met with them early on and indicated to them that we're moving ahead with legislation and they will be a big part of it.