Environment Committee on March 22nd, 2007

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

Mr. Minister, a little earlier, the answer that I was given was that the announcements amount to approximately 800 million dollars, but if I take into account the ecoTrust, the investments with regard to methane, and all of the rest, I come to an amount of more than 3.3 billion dollars. Are my numbers correct?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

There's the existing budget. In the budget, there is obviously support for the Canada ecoTrust at, I think, just over $1.5 billion.

There is also the funding for the Nature Conservancy of Canada partnership that we announced north of Toronto, on preserving about half a billion acres of ecologically sensitive land in southern Canada.

There are also initiatives with respect to the Great Bear Rainforest, where we're working with the Province of British Columbia. There is $60 million of privately raised money, much of it from outside this country, to protect a significant ecologically sensitive land. I believe it's in the constituency of our colleague Mr. Cullen.

So there are all kinds of initiatives, and they're making a real difference.

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

With regard to recycling, what is the difference between the initiatives under the ecoEnergy program and the previous program?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

There wasn't one, period. Don't believe me; ask Gary Doer. Ask Quebec. Did Stéphane Dion ever give any money to Quebec? Nada.

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

I am not talking about the ecoTrust program, but rather about the ecoEnergy initiatives.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

We do know that of the $6 billion highlighted by the environment commissioner, of the $6 billion-odd budgeted, only about $1.35 billion was ever spent, and that obviously is a concern to Canadians.

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

With regard to the funds allocated for families and businesses for energy efficiency improvements to their home or facilities, what is the difference compared with the previous program?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I think a significantly lower percentage will be spent on administration and more good work will actually be done on a dollar basis. My colleague the Minister of Natural Resources could give you more information on that.

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

Indeed, that does not come under your department.

And what is the situation with regard to the announcements of investments in the development of new technologies?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

We're very much a science department at Environment Canada. My colleague Gary Lunn, the Minister of Natural Resources, did announce in early January significant investments in research and development and in science and technology.

Obviously there's also Sustainable Development Technology Canada, which has a significant amount of public resources in it as well. There are a variety of departments. Transport Canada does a bit also.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You have one minute left, Mr. Harvey.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I could give you another example. We recently announced the establishment of a task force on carbon capture in Alberta. This will be very beneficial not only to Alberta, but perhaps also to Saskatchewan. It could also be worthwhile in the case of Ontario; it all depends on the geography of the province. This involves not only research and development, but also looking at how this technology might be marketed. There are also matters of regulation, accountability and funding mechanisms. We are presently studying all of these aspects.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

Go ahead, Mr. Bigras.

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

I would like to re-establish certain facts. There are limits to anything, Mr. Chairman. I remember the EnerGuide Program that used to be in place and that there was an agreement with the Agence de l'efficacité énergétique du Québec. Proof that Quebec benefited from this is provided by the fact that organizations such as Équiterre, that you are probably familiar with, were responsible for its implementation throughout Quebec. That is another issue.

The Montreal Exchange came to see us to ask that rules and hard caps for an emissions trading system be announced as quickly as possible. Europe has clearly told us that this market could be worth close to 70 billion dollars, which is why Europe was able to move closer to its Kyoto targets despite an impact on its gross domestic product of less than 1%.

Mr. Minister, we are at a loss as to what to do to convince you that this strong instrument provided to us under the framework of the Kyoto Protocol, which is the joint enforcement mechanism, could help Canada improve its greenhouse gas emission reduction record and perhaps even at some point in time reach its Kyoto targets.

Do you acknowledge that such exchanges have been set up elsewhere and have allowed others to reach their Kyoto targets while at the same time reducing the impact on the economy of their communities? A less than 1% impact on the European economy! Is that not proof that there is a way of setting up such a system while respecting the Kyoto Protocol and minimizing the costs for our economy?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Many European countries have rather modest actual GHG emission targets today...than certainly Canada does. As I said, I believe greenhouse gas reductions are best done so that we get the twin benefits of clean air, reducing air pollutants, which I think is a priority for Canadians, as well as addressing climate change. Plus we get the benefit of the green economy.

I think what Canadians want to see is a real effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, not an exclusive effort to simply send taxpayers' money abroad.

I can appreciate that there's an honest difference of opinion—

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

No, it's not what—

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

—but in our notice of intent to regulate, we spoke to one of the compliance mechanisms. It could be a domestic system. I've spoken publicly on that. If we could do it with the same airshed, there'd be a great benefit in that. We see many states in the northeast of the United States wanting to go to a system.

So I think there's great potential there.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would not want the minister to mislead the people. The opposition has never stated that it wanted the government to buy hot air.

On our side, we have never said that we should be sending the money provided by taxation and the taxes paid by our citizens to other countries. However, could you implement regulations based upon absolute reductions and establish a system that would allow Canadian businesses to take advantage of foreign markets? By establishing intensity targets, not only are you granting a considerable advantage to the large oil companies, but you are also compromising an important mechanism that would allow Canadian businesses to take advantage of foreign markets while at the same time helping Canada move in the direction of its Kyoto targets.

We are not asking you to buy hot air. We are not asking you to use taxpayers' money. We are simply asking you to put in place a system that would allow companies to benefit from this.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Bigras, you voted in favour of the Kyoto Protocol. You are persevering. You are defending the same viewpoint. These are mechanisms, that is true!

In the Kyoto Protocol, which you supported, which you signed on to, intellectually, these mechanisms were part of it. So I don't think it's unfair to say that at all.

I've acknowledged at this committee, I think very clearly, that personally I would like to see real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. I've also said...and you say the opposition “parties”--in plural--in your response. Mr. Dion had a plan where he was guaranteeing the price of carbon at $15, and taxpayers would subsidize it if it were above $15. That was exactly in Stéphane Dion's plan. Stéphane Dion had a plan that the polluter did not pay, the taxpayers paid for the big polluters. And I disagree with that.

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

Mr. Minister, are you telling us that if a country is unable to reach its Kyoto targets — and you know it —, these reductions will be able to be put off to the second reduction period? Are you telling us that because it supported the Kyoto Protocol, the opposition wants to see the government carry forward its reduction targets?

Let us be serious. You have golden mechanisms and powerful instruments at your disposal in order to respect the Kyoto Protocol, and you are killing and butchering the Protocol through inadequate decisions made by your government.

Would you at least recognize that not only do you not believe in the Kyoto objectives, but that you do not place any trust in the instruments provided for under the Protocol?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Minister, very quickly.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I don't believe in the hot air credits contained in the Kyoto Protocol. No sir, I do not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

I would like to thank the minister and his people for appearing.

I would remind members that if you want any amendments for the private members' bills, we need those. We have to get that completed and reported back before the end of this term.

I apologize to you, Mr. Rota, for not getting you on--I think you were the only one--but possibly it was because of what happened at the start of this.

Anyway, thank you very much.

We are adjourned.