Environment Committee on May 29th, 2007

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

You're correct. Do you want to talk about it or do you want to do it?

The previous government loved to talk about it. It's kind of like talk the talk or walk the walk. I suspect Brian Mulroney didn't expect the kudos he received later.

I think we will deliver on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The previous government had four terms, and they were just getting around to it after 13 years in power. This was a priority from the Earth Summit in 1992. Apparently, under Stéphane Dion, after 13 long years, this finally made it to the priority list and they still didn't deliver.

Stéphane Dion worked with Mother Nature to cause a warmer winter and worked privately with Mike Harris on the privatization of Bruce nuclear reactors, which I was unaware of until I learned of it this morning.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Minister, you talked about the targets that were used by the previous Liberal government in their so-called green plan. What were they based on? They were voluntary, but could you elaborate?

Our targets are intensity based, with absolute reductions.

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

We have a slide that I think gives some explanation. My friend, Mr. Godfrey, is talking about industrial targets. These aren't from 13 years ago; these are from this year and last year, last fall and last winter.

It makes Canadians cynical when people say one thing and then do another. People may not agree with my position, but we're being honest, up front, and consistent.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Can you read the quote for us?

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

I'll read the quote to you from John Godfrey, Stéphane Dion's chairman of the environment committee, in the inner cabinet. He said, “Well, 'intensity-based' isn't bad, in and of itself—it's better to be doing more with less energy.”

Not long ago in the House of Commons, he then said, on the intensity target, it is recognized that Stéphane Dion's 2005 project green “was intensity based when it came to large final emitters”.

The difference is they had a 12% intensity target and we have a 33% intensity target. It's a target that is so tough it will break the back of the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, and, as part of a comprehensive plan, it will help us to have an absolute 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Twelve percent wouldn't cut it.

When people criticize intensity emissions, I agree that a 12% cut doesn't deliver the goods, but a 33% cut will lead to meaningful reductions in greenhouse gases.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Minister, when we had numerous witnesses at the committee, it was a question that was often asked. We were clearly told that if it was very stringent and intensity based, we would have reductions of greenhouse gases. But if it's very loosely intensity based, it would have the opposite effect. I thank you for that answer.

You've talked about turning the corner, meaning that instead of emissions going up, emissions will be coming down. Are those absolute reductions?

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

They're absolute.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

They're absolute.

Minister, one of my favourite quotes is from Mr. David Suzuki, who is someone I respect. His foundation did a study. There was a report, called “The Air We Breathe”, and he had a very important introduction.

It says:

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.

Your plan on turning the corner deals with greenhouse gas emissions, but it also deals with pollution, air pollution. We heard from department officials that there are direct savings in reducing the amount of pollution in the air. Is Canada unique in the world? Actually, is this government unique in Canada in providing absolute reductions of pollution, along with absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions?

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

We're the only country with a tough approach to both for industrial large final emitters, which I think is important. We're trying to expand the Canada-United States clean air regulations. When the head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency found out that we don't have any national regulations on NOx, on SOx, on organic compounds, and on particulate matter, he was stunned. They've had those in the United States since the years when Nixon was in the White House. So we're playing catch-up.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You have two minutes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

Minister, you mentioned that you had talked with Mr. de Boer, I believe in Montreal last week. Could you share a little bit more about what was discussed with him regarding Canada's plan?

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

We indicated to him our plan and our commitment for global action, working with other countries. I said to him that I thought Canada could have a constructive role as a country that is a recent convert to actually reducing greenhouse gases and that we were prepared to work with countries like the United States, like China, and like India to encourage them to join international action on reducing greenhouse gases.

I think we both agreed that as a successful next step, post-Kyoto, we had to involve all the major emitters in the world in a coordinated action. I told him that I was supportive of the G-8 plus five, the Gleneagles dialogue that Prime Minister Blair started when he was chair of the G-8, by bringing China, India, Mexico, and South Africa into the equation. I think there are other countries, like Brazil.

There are other countries that are not included, like South Korea, which is a major emerging economy. I think it would be helpful to get them as part of the equation. We will have failed if we don't deliver coordinated action involving all the big emitters. There are 15 or 16 countries—depending on whether you count Europe as one body, because they do establish policy collectively—that are responsible for 85% of the emissions, and we need to get as many of those, if not all of them, on board for reductions.

Mr. de Boer said publicly that he thought Europe might not meet its targets. I know that Spain and Japan and Poland are struggling with their targets. I know that Japan is struggling to meet its targets. I know that most of the countries I've just named don't have any targets or any responsibilities. I think where Kyoto failed was that we didn't get those other countries in the tent.

This isn't going to end next week at the G-8. It isn't going to end in Bali this fall. It's going to require a sustained effort to bring more and more people on board. I think it's absolutely critical. The one great thing about Europe is that they have everybody on board. So the major trading partners of European countries are all rowing together, and if we can get the Americans rowing with us....

When I go and talk about global warming in the United States, they ask how much in emissions we are over Kyoto. I say that we're 33% above Kyoto and they say that they're only 18% above Kyoto. So we don't really have much credibility in trying to get them to take action, since we've done such a bad job over the last 10 years.

These are the facts. These aren't the facts according to John Baird. If you ask Christine Stewart, the Liberal environment minister, if you ask Sheila Copps, the Liberal environment minister, if you ask David Anderson, the Liberal environment minister, if you look at the quotes of the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff, if you listen to the quotes of Eddie Goldenberg, Jean Chrétien's right-hand man, they acknowledge that they didn't get the job done.

We are committed in this country to finally taking action, and we are taking action. We are moving forward. The time for debate and haggling and study and hosting expensive conferences is over. Canadians want to see us actually begin to reduce greenhouse gases, and we are committed to doing that.

It's easy for people—the has-beens, the people who were there and didn't get the job done—to sit on the sidelines and throw peanuts. They had their chance. They had 13 years. They failed. Canadians have elected a new team to lead change on the environment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We're now going to the second round, which is five minutes. I'll try to keep members as tight as I can.

I will go to Mr. Godfrey.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Regan.

Thank you for the publicity, Minister.

I find the problem with the scenario you have presented us in your plan is that it is completely unbelievable because it starts with false assumptions.

We cannot get to the 2020 target of minus 20% for the following reasons.

Take the first year you speak of, which is 2010. In your plan—and this was agreed to by your departmental officials—where you indicate that you expect reductions of 49 megatonnes, if you go to page 13 of your plan, you can get rid of that obligation. You have to subtract 34 of those megatonnes because you can pay up to 70% of your obligation in the first year into a technology fund. You can then subtract another 5 megatonnes because you get special credit in an R and D fund. You can then subtract another 5 megatonnes for early action. So from a projection of a 49-megatonne reduction, which you've talked about, you're now down to a residual of 5 megatonnes. When I asked your officials, was this a credible scenario, an alternative scenario, they agreed.

If you then use the same calculations for 2011 and 2012 and do the math, you say that you can be at a 161-megatonne reduction. Under your own plan, on pages 13 and 16, you could be as low as 27 megatonnes. That's the base on which you're building.

If the opening years are that bad in terms of the real way of the loopholes to avoid your obligations, why should we trust your figure for 2020?

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

Let me speak very directly to that.

We do believe that technology is a major component in helping us reduce greenhouse gases. So does the Liberal carbon budget proposal. It has this technology fund, these green accounts, which are not compliant with Kyoto and won't deliver anything, as you've suggested either, immediately.

So here's what we've done. With our technology fund, we're capping it at 70%. You can only put up to 70% of your investments into technology, and it goes down each and every year. By 2020, no contributions can be made to technology. It is capped and it goes down, and it gets stronger and tougher and better each and every year.

What we hope is that those investments in technology will begin to yield real reductions in greenhouse gases, things like carbon capture and storage, things like more renewable power, things like different industrial processes and harnessing that.

Bill C-30, which you voted for, had an unlimited licence to pollute. I don't agree with that. I think it's wrong. That's why our plan is tougher.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We are splitting the time, so we will go to Mr. Regan, please.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The minister will understand that he clearly has time for rebuttal when his members on his side ask questions. As we've seen, he had a half hour to speak at the opening. This really is our time, members of the committee, and it's a chance for us to ask questions. So I'd ask that he get to the answers once we pose our questions.

First of all, I'm going to ask that he table the slide show that he has on the screen today, which we don't have copies of. So I would appreciate it if you'd provide the committee this week, perhaps as early as today, with copies of the slide show.

Now, the big claims you're making in your plan—so called—is that you'll stabilize emissions by 2012. Well, the fact is we now know that emissions have been stable in Canada for the last three years. So that's achieving nothing whatsoever in that claim.

Secondly, you're claiming that you will have absolute reductions in emissions by the year 2020. But your officials, your own officials, admit that these claims cannot be made because of all the unknown pieces. They can't verify. They can't substantiate how the basis of these claims is founded. Meanwhile, you have no credible third party—scientists, environmentalists, or economists alike—who have stated that your claims can be achieved. Your own officials said before this committee that it's a target. In other words, it's not really precise, we can't really measure it, we can't back it up; it's a target.

Will you disclose the details that will let independent third parties fully assess whether your numbers even come close to your claims? So far, you have refused repeated requests to disclose the details—the basis, the analysis—that supposedly back up your plan.

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

Earlier, one of your colleague cited the Pembina Institute, which I think is a very well-respected body. Matthew Bramley is one of the authors of the carbon budget plan, so I don't think....

Are you denying he's had any role in that?

Oh, so he's refusing to answer on the record. He nods his—

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

[Inaudible--Editor]...should not consult environmentalists and he should simply ignore them? Is that what he is suggesting?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Reagan, you'll have to wait for the answer.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

But he's asking me a question. I think what he's suggesting is that even though he ignores environmentalists, even though he does no consultation, we shouldn't do it when we're preparing a plan. In fact, we consulted widely.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

If you just asked the question without a preamble, you'd probably get an answer without a preamble as well.

Greenhouse gas emission reductions in our plan, our strategy, would yield 150 megatonnes of reduction from 2006. That's 20%. We believe 60 megatonnes can come from the industrial sector, from those 700 large emitters. We're bringing forward a package of other initiatives, which we've spoken to at great length today and over the last three months.

I know that the best forecast for the future is to look at past results, because past results are the very best predictor of future results. The result was that the Liberal government didn't get the job done.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Again, to the minister—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I'm sorry, your time is way over.

Mr. Vellacott, please.