Environment Committee on Dec. 11th, 2006

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That clarification is helpful, because under the UN's own document, $1.5 million is still outstanding. Canada hasn't come forward with this.

Frankly, I'm a bit concerned, Minister. In the last meeting you had with this committee, some of the information that has been since clarified was, at best, inaccurate. I'm increasingly concerned in terms of the briefings you're getting on some of the critical issues. If Canada is standing on the world stage and we are committed to something like this mechanism and still owing a bill of $1.5 million, by far and away more than any other country owes, it's a worrisome statement to the world community.

Your leader and party have made strong words towards our international commitments. The term “we don't cut and run on our international commitment” has often been made by your leader in the House and in other places. When you say that we are staying within the Kyoto framework yet not meeting the targets, if Kyoto is not about meeting the targets, then what is it about, other than a set of meetings?

The whole point of the initiative is to reduce the impact we're having on climate change. You yourself have said this is a grave and serious issue. Yet to make a statement in Nairobi and here in Canada, almost misleading Canadians to believe we're staying in a framework but not meeting the central piece of that framework, is intellectually dishonest at best. I don't understand how you can square that circle.

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

I guess we square that circle the same way as the other fifteen countries that are in the same challenging position Canada is in. We enter this with what's left over from the last government. One percent of our Kyoto target has been achieved with no domestic plan in place. We've been working very aggressively over the last number of months to put in place new targets and a new framework, one that does not subsidize industry. That was a major concern I had with the last framework--the amount of taxpayers' money that would be subsidizing large industry. I think industry should take on the costs of those kinds of reductions themselves.

To clarify on the $1.5 million, I have always stated that we would meet all of our Kyoto obligations. We have honestly said to the international community the first time that I met with them back in May that we are not on track. We knew that when we took over government, and the previous government knew that before they left. To continue this divisive debate on whether or not the target can be met...you've had witness after witness come before you to tell you the only way to meet this target is to spend billions and billions of dollars overseas. If the NDP, the Liberals, and the Bloc believe that this is the best Canada can do to bring forward a framework to stay within Kyoto, to make emissions reductions, and to work with our international partners, that's a sad story. We can do a lot better than that.

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

Allow me just to understand, then, because when your government made the decision under some assessment and calculations that we could not make our targets, it seemed it would be incumbent upon you to set another target in that moment. Clearly you have the historical knowledge from all the departments. The election did not turn over all those people. The knowledge was in the offices. To be nine or ten months down the road and still not have those targets for Canada to understand--

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

Mr. Cullen, have you taken a look at the plan that was on the table? Have you looked at the analysis of the plan, which includes billions of dollars of spending overseas? There are Canadian companies right here in Canada that need our support.

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

Having been so recently in these chairs, Minister, you know that I will be posing the questions today. When you were in Nairobi and stood on the world stage and announced Canada's long- and medium-term targets, you neglected to mention that the baseline was suddenly moved to 2003. Now--

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

That's not true. We have adopted--

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

I spoke to a minister from Denmark, the Minister for the Environment, who had a meeting with you that very evening. She was perplexed as to why we were being so hard on you. I asked her if the minister had mentioned to her that Canada has unilaterally moved our baseline to 2003, which no other country in the world has done. Do you think that's fair?

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

Nathan, that's not true. If you look at my remarks, I talked about the good advice that we received from the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which is the opportunity for Canada, in a reachable and technologically feasible way, to make up to a 65% reduction based on a 2003 level.

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

Why move the baseline, though? I don't understand that.

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

This was the recommendation that we looked at from the national round table. Why, Nathan? It was because it wasn't set--

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

The entire world is using 1990.

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

It was because it wasn't set arbitrarily and it wasn't set politically; it was widely researched by the national round table with environmentalists and leading industry officials. Again, that's what's in our overarching notice of intent. We are still talking to--and I'm surprised that you don't know this--and still in negotiations with industry on what baseline to adopt, whether it's 1990, 2003, or 2001. There are advantages and disadvantages to all of them.

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

I'm sure there are.

Minister, I will be running out of time. I have a remaining question for you. Does your government support the continued rapid expansion of the oil sands in northern Alberta?

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

I'll tell you how I feel as the Minister of the Environment and as an Albertan. I'm very concerned, both from an infrastructure perspective and from an environmental perspective, about the pace of development.

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

Why do you continue to subsidize it then?

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

As you well know, we do not subsidize the oil industry, but I would ask you why you put forward subsidies for the auto sector as one of your demands for the support of the Clean Air Act.

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

An accelerated cost allowance for the oil sector does encourage that development to move faster. That was the reason it was put in. It is taxpayer money that you keep referring to; it is going into the most profitable sector in the country right now to encourage them to do more, while all the while your government proclaims it wants to reduce emissions. You have set intensity targets--which are not going to cut it, frankly; you must go to a hard cap. You have encouraged the companies to go out and actually do more damage to the environment. You're the only Minister of the Environment perhaps in the world who has brought forward a doomsday scenario about meeting our Kyoto targets, the only environment minister who has stood up and said every industry will shut down and doom will befall us, when all the other countries are talking about the reverse--that if we don't act, these are the serious economic consequences. I don't understand how you can do that.

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

The other environment ministers whom you refer to do not face the fact that we have before us an unachievable target. The international community even recognizes that, when they find out that we're 35% above our target and that we've made a 1% move in that direction.

What we need is targets, as quickly as possible, with a framework that is achievable and that gives maximum opportunities for the development of Canadian technology, not investment outside of Canada—

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

So why cut more than $1 billion in climate change funding for programs that were acting in Canada, if your stated goal is to achieve reductions? The first move you did was to cut more than 22 programs.

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

As you know, in our budget we put $2 billion towards the development of climate change—programming and regulations—and as you can well imagine, all of that money will be used, and it will actually be more money than has ever been spent before on this important environmental issue.

Again, I would ask you to get past this debate about whether or not we can reach our Kyoto target. Michael Ignatieff recognized it. The new leader of the Liberal Party at one point recognized it, but then changed his tune. People around the world recognize that Canada is in a challenging place, more challenging than the other fifteen countries are in that are also not on track to meet their target. If we continue with this debate, we are not going to come to an agreement on targets. Industry needs targets as soon as possible, and that's why we're working—hopefully together—to set those targets and a new framework by January. To continue this debate is fruitless.

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

I think it might be you promoting this debate. I haven't actually raised it as such.

Minister Lunn, Minister Strahl, and you yourself made a commitment to the biofuels industry to have a meeting early in the fall to consider what the programming would be to increase the use of biofuels in Canada—not just the announcement.

That meeting has never happened. Why not?

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

We're working on the regulatory framework around it. As you well know, right now under CEPA we don't have the regulatory authority we need to blend fuels in the most effective and efficient manner to regulate both ethanol and biodiesel. I'd ask all of you again to help pass the Clean Air Act so that we can move forward with a national regulation for ethanol and biodiesel in this country and start to engage, like all of our other trading partners, in a bioenergy strategy for the country. We need those regulatory authorities, and the amendments to CEPA that are involved in Canada's Clean Air Act, to be able to do that.

Again, in terms of a framework that we're trying to put forward, we'd like to see potentially the opportunity for industry to have a trading system. Canada's Clean Air Act provides the amendments for CEPA to have an efficient and effective trading system. If we don't pass those amendments and get Canada's Clean Air Act through, we won't be able to do the kinds of things we need in this country to have a modern emissions reduction and trading system.

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

But that very trading system has said that the Canadian government must involve itself in that trading system in order for it to work.

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

Absolutely.

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

But you've said you'll set up the framework and let it be, while the trading system has said you must involve yourselves in the purchase of credits in order to stabilize.