Environment Committee on Dec. 11th, 2006

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

I won't get into debating philosophy with you, but I do appreciate the opportunity to clarify the comments made. I've spoken to the Commissioner of the Environment about this as well, and I have also, as I said, subsequently spoken to the President of the Treasury Board about this.

There were a number of programs that were across the government, but there was no coherent policy framework around climate change. Every—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

But I would suggest, if I may, Minister, that they are not mutually exclusive. A program can be good—

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

If I could just answer your question—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Scarpaleggia, direct your comments through the chair, please.

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

Just let me answer your question. I'd be happy to.

Every program that was terminated by our government went through a review, but there are programs—for instance, the ones I have just discussed with you today and that you asked me to come forward about—that have never undergone a review. The Commissioner of the Environment personally said to me that it would be helpful if there were a comprehensive review of all climate change programs across government. That has never been done, but no program was cut without a review. That is why I've asked the President of the Treasury Board to take a look at and audit all of the program spending across government that was done in the climate change program.

We are also working toward putting in place an accountability framework so that we have policy direction and policy alignment across government. A number of departments, as you know, deal with climate change, including the Canadian International Development Agency, Foreign Affairs, NRCan, and Environment Canada. There needs to be an accountability framework across all of the spending, and there also needs to be some policy coherence moving forward. We've already started to do that work, and I think that is the responsible thing to do.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would submit that nobody is against coordination and accountability. What I am saying is that you can have a program that is good even if it doesn't exist within the most perfectly coordinated system. What I'd like to know is what was wrong with the EnerGuide program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Scarpaleggia, we are past your time. Possibly we'll get the answer to your question as we go along here.

Mr. Bigras.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Minister. Last week, you stated at a Senate committee that industry is not the only one that will have to make an effort to fight climate change, that consumers would have to do their part as well.

In addition to this statement there was the one made by your colleague the Minister of Finance in his presentation of the economic update a few weeks ago. On page 75 of the update, he says that any regulations regarding climate change would have to ensure that no industry would have to assume undue costs.

When I read your statement of intent when Bill C-30 was tabled I was forced to notice that you chose to calculate emissions according to their intensity.

In light of your statement last week, in light of the economic statement of the Minister of Finance, and in light of your choice of intensity of emissions rather than the absolute value, and in light of your statement of intent, would you not agree that you have actually bowed to the oil industry and have decided to spare it in the context of the climate change program? In other words, have you not shown a lack of political courage by choosing emissions intensity, which could avoid undue costs for the oil industry, as the Minister of Finance stated on page 75 of his economic update?

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

First, to address the issue of consumer participation, absolutely there needs to be a balance of efforts. Industry and government will not be able to solve this issue alone. Consumers will need to participate more. There's a great role for government to play in that, and we have every intention to help consumers make those kinds of choices. But again, it also gets down to individual responsibility and how people make choices in their own homes.

In terms of intensity targets, as you know, the oil sector is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, and this is a serious concern for the government. I'm fully aware of that.

You also know that at this point it's not technologically feasible for us to make the kinds of emissions reductions that we would like to short term without bringing on stream the important technology we need, like carbon capture and storage in the oil sector, to make those kinds of total emissions reductions.

So those are the kinds of conversations we need to have. We expect all sectors to make environmental gains, and clearly the oil sector is one of the largest emitters. I believe the environment commissioner stated that the oil sector and transportation sector together make up 78% of the greenhouse gases. We're fully aware of that. We have every intention of ensuring that the oil and gas sector, along with every other sector, makes contributions to reduce their greenhouse gases, and the important thing we need to do that is to start having a conversation about the technology necessary to do that.

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

I have another question for you. Your colleague, the Minister of Industry, Mr. Bernier, stated on November 14 of this year that your notice of intention was something that has never been seen before. He said and I quote:

This has never been seen before, and this is just the beginning. Never has the Canadian government gone so far in its efforts to fight GHGs and smog.

In addition, to demonstrate that you are a proactive government, we announced that starting on December 1, the new models of motorcycles sold in Canada will have to comply with new, stringent standards on pollution.

How can you explain that the vision of the future developed by your government is based on exemplary regulations not for the large industrial emitters, but rather for the manufacturers of motorcycles sold in Canada?

Does this not prove that your efforts are slow and do not target the real polluters—namely, the oil industry and the large industrial emitters?

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

We have to focus on all polluters, and there are a number of regulations that have been coming on line for the last number of years by which we are trying to regulate, and we are regulating, things like ATVs and large construction equipment. All of the transportation initiatives we're taking to regulate greenhouse gases and air pollution are crucial.

The next step is to tackle industry emissions, and I would say to you that the plan that was in place previously, particularly the framework around the plan, was what I would call an easy ride for industry. It's my intention and the intention of this government to make sure we have a framework in place to reduce industry emissions in a way that will show substantial emissions reductions, particularly over the long term, moving to the kind of technology we need to make absolute reductions.

So no one is going to get a free ride, not from the transportation sector when we look at things like ATVs, motorcycles, and large construction equipment, and particularly not industry. And I would suggest to you that they're all ready to come to the table to make efforts to help reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases.

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

I would like to ask you another question about the clean development mechanisms.

You have said two things this morning. First, that we need to facilitate projects such as those put forward in the context of the clean development mechanisms. Finally, a third-party audit is required to assess the effectiveness of this mechanism provided for under the Kyoto Protocol. So you are telling us today that you are blowing hot and cold.

If you continue to have confidence in the clean development mechanisms, assuming that you hope that there will be a third-party audit, of course, how can you explain that Canada is the worst country internationally as regards its contribution to clean development mechanisms?

Could you tell the committee how far behind Canada is in its payments to the international community, to the bodies that manage the clean development mechanisms?

How much does Canada owe, and how does it rank compared to other countries as regards its contributions to these mechanisms?

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

As you know, Canada is on track to meet all of our obligations related to the funding of these kinds of mechanisms.

Again, I will continue to say that in terms of using the clean development mechanism as a market-based mechanism for private sector—

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

How much does Canada owe? It has probably received a bill. We need to be clear on this.

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

My understanding is that Canada does not owe anything, that we are paid up for all of our obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, that we're meeting all of our obligations. That's what my international department has told me. That's what the Department of Foreign Affairs has indicated. The only thing we're not on track to meeting, in terms of our Kyoto obligations, is our Kyoto target.

But the other thing that needs to happen is that we need to have an actual framework in place in terms of domestic regulations so that private sector companies have a reason to start to invest in this clean development mechanism as well. So it goes hand in hand. That's why we need to set short-term targets, so that we can move forward.

But again, if I had a choice between using public money to help private corporations facilitate the purchase of international credits or using public funds to invest in projects where we see verifiable emissions reductions to help further our Kyoto target, I would choose the latter for obvious reasons. Right now, with all of these programs, we've reached 1% of our Kyoto target.

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

Does Canada intend to live up to the $1.5 million commitment made by the previous government for the funding of the clean development mechanism, and does it intend to pay this money to fund the mechanism? That is the money to which I am referring, Minister.

Are you telling me that Canada is up-to-date in its payments?

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

Yes. My understanding is that it has, and that is funding for the operational side of the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation Office, through the Department of Foreign Affairs. It's operational. As we speak, there are private sector companies that deal with this program and this office through the Department of Foreign Affairs. That is the information given to me by the Department of Foreign Affairs and this office. If there are any officials here who would like to state differently....

That's the information that has been given to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Can you identify yourself, please?

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

This is David McGovern, my associate deputy minister of international programming.

[David McGovern, Assistant Deputy Minister, International Affairs Branch, Department of the Environment]

I'm pleased the minister has just promoted me. I'm the assistant deputy minister, but if she wants to—

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

Congratulations.

[David McGovern]

Thanks, Minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You have about five seconds.

[David McGovern]

Mr. Bigras is referring to money that was pledged in Montreal to facilitate the administration of the CDM in the UNFCCC. The department has prepared a proposal for the minister, but it's still under consideration. We haven't actually reached the minister's desk yet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you very much.

We will go on, please, to Mr. Cullen.