Environment Committee on May 16th, 2007

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

When we had witnesses, that question came up a number of times, and a lot of comments have been made about intensity targets. We heard it depends on what those intensity targets are, whether emissions will be permitted to go up or emissions will be coming down. By 2020, your modelling is indicating an absolute reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 20%. Is that correct?

[Cécile Cléroux]

The 20% is the economy overall. It's not only the industrial sectors. So what we are putting on the table with the different actions that are taking place, the initiatives as well as the regulatory framework--the sum of all that--is leading to the 20% reduction.

Do you want to add to that, Alex?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Go ahead.

[Alex Manson]

As Cécile was saying, the 20% reduction by 2020 is across the economy. It includes the regulations; it includes the other things that were indicated in the regulatory framework: the government's intention to regulate motor vehicles starting with the 2011 model year, the energy efficiency regulations being put in place, the results of investments from the trust fund and from the technology development fund, and other actions we anticipate provinces taking, as well as the results of the impacts of federal programming.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

One of the documents we each received was from the Library of Parliament, which provided a chart under table 1, starting with 1990 as the benchmark. We've all seen the projected increases in greenhouse gas emissions. We saw greenhouse gas emissions increase dramatically under the former government, to the point now, according to this chart, where we are 29% above the 1990 level, while the target the previous government signed Canada onto was 6% below the 1990 levels. We've heard the previous government did not have an intent or even the support to meet those targets. There was a lot of rhetoric included with those commitments from Canada to meet those targets, but that could be deemed a political comment.

Where we find ourselves now is 35% above that target. We've seen greenhouse gas emissions continue on an upward climb. I'm repeating what I said before, but there seems to be some confusion on intensity and absolutes, so I want to confirm that, over the last number of years, we have seen greenhouse gas emissions increase. In the modelling and the framework, the plan that's being presented, which needs to be supported, I believe, is that there will be absolute targets. The increasing greenhouse gas emissions will be stopped and we will have absolute reductions. They will be going down instead of climbing. Is that correct?

[Cécile Cléroux]

This is correct. The stringency of the emission intensity target is the key to being able to bring the emissions down. It's not so much the cap. It is the 18% that makes the big difference, after the continuous improvement of 2%.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

I have a quote from Mr. David Suzuki. He said he certainly agreed with the Conservatives that the Liberals “just didn't do the hard things that were needed to meet the Kyoto target”. He said the fact is we are 35% above the target.

In an article that was presented by the David Suzuki Foundation called The Air We Breathe, it said that there is strong evidence that air pollution, which is the other part of the framework.... We're doing greenhouse gas emissions with absolute reductions, but it also deals with air pollution and the condition of the air in Canada. The David Suzuki Foundation in that document said:

There is strong evidence that air pollution is the most harmful environmental problem in Canada in terms of human health effects, causing thousands of deaths, millions of illnesses, billions of dollars in health care expenses, and tens of billions of dollars in lost productivity every year.

Now, in the deck you presented, I believe you used...I'm not sure which figure it was, but it was billions of dollars lost because of poor air quality, and you said the death of one in twelve Canadians is attributed to air quality. Can you comment on that and how important it is that Canada clean up the air pollution?

[Cécile Cléroux]

We are estimating that with the improvement that would be generated by the targets we are putting on the table for air pollution, we would have an air quality improvement benefit estimated at $6 billion annually, and there would be reduced occurrences of illnesses across the country. We would have an estimated 1,200 fewer deaths; an estimated 172,000 fewer asthma person days; and 5,600 fewer cases of child acute bronchitis. We did an evaluation of the benefits of going ahead with substantial reductions of air pollutant emissions and the direct impact on the health of citizens of Canada.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

We've heard that to this point greenhouse gas emissions have been climbing dramatically, and the plan is to bring them down to absolute reductions of 20% by 2020. The plan includes cleaning up air pollution. What has been the trend over the last many years on air quality in Canada? The framework plan is to have absolute reductions of 50% in the pollutants, I believe over the next eight years.

But what has been the trend over the last number of years for air quality?

[Cécile Cléroux]

The major pollutants of concern have plateaued over the last few years with the different actions by the different provinces across the country. So what we are doing with the plan is reducing them.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You have 15 seconds.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Again, I appreciate your being here. I don't believe any political party has ownership of the environment. I hope we all work together to find solutions, and I appreciate your work in providing guidance to the committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Regan and Mr. Godfrey, I believe you're sharing your time.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I'm sure most members here would agree that if you were to invite the witnesses to stay for the second hour, to be here with the people from Natural Resources, it would make sense to do that. I think you would find agreement from at least most of us, and hopefully all of us, to have them stay so that they might be able to hear other answers and maybe answer some more questions themselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

The arrangement we made with the four--we asked the four groups--and having them stay.... I think each group should have an opportunity to answer the questions. That's what Mr. McGuinty asked for.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

In fact, the motion that was carried was that we would have all four departments here. It didn't say separately. Perhaps it should have specified that they'd all be here together, but I don't think it was ever the intent that they should be here only one at a time, only for an hour each. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it should be the choice of the members of the committee on what kinds of questions they ask and to whom and when. I think that's the nature of Parliament.

That brings me to my next point, but let me just let you answer that, because that was the point of order, and maybe you could respond to it by inviting the witnesses to stay for the second hour.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

May I speak on the point of order?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, go ahead, Mr. Warawa, and then I would—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I think we have a very clear agenda, and to me it was very clear what Mr. McGuinty asked for. My understanding was that he asked for representation or a presentation from Environment, from Health, from Finance, and from NRC.

Surely the committee is not suggesting that when they didn't.... That was my first point, that they did not take up the opportunity for a two-hour briefing on April 26 when it was presented there, and now they want to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Three hours, Mr. Warawa, were offered.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

On April 26, and now they want to—well, I don't want to use the words “waste time”, but it may be perceived as that—use the valuable time of the staff. So I'm concerned that this is a tactic that will waste time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I'm concerned about the time as well, and I think everybody here is.

So, Mr. McGuinty, just be very brief, please, and then I would like to address our witnesses.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, I have to respond, as my name was raised twice, once by you and once by the parliamentary secretary. I don't share the parliamentary secretary's concern about having the guests stay with us for another hour.

Just for the record, what I put forward in our discussions, which we all know was opposed vigorously by the government, was to bring this committee an opportunity for all parliamentarians to hear from the four major line departments charged with responsibility for implementing the government's climate change plan, Turning the Corner.

Nowhere was a decision made by the committee to invite the departments one after the other—a decision that you made unilaterally, Mr. Chair. This is a very unusual occurrence at committee. I don't remember in the last three years of sitting on committees an instance when we've not had all witnesses together, as we've been doing here as a committee for months, where they all sit and participate in a two-hour panel.

I think you made the unilateral decision, without consulting the steering committee and any other member of this committee, to invite the departments one after the other, in sequential form, for one hour each. This is very unusual, because it doesn't allow our good guests coming from Environment Canada to interface with our good guests who are here from Natural Resources Canada, and allow for parliamentarians to get—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Be very brief.