Environment Committee on May 29th, 2007

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know that the premier of the province of Ontario, Minister, has made some promises on coal-fired electricity plants that haven't been kept. Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty is actually brother to the Liberal lead critic here, David McGuinty, on this committee. He made some promises there on behalf of the Province of Ontario. Could you tell us about how those affect our overall greenhouse gas emissions levels?

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

This is actually a key issue, because it talks about making promises you can't keep.

Let me just find a slide.

Let's go to slide 5. It's easy to make promises on the environment. When a Liberal named McGuinty makes promises on the environment, people in my province are a little skeptical. I want to tell you a story, and this I think underlines the approach we're trying to take. We're trying to be honest and to be realistic about what we can accomplish. We're not going to tell people what they want to hear to get votes.

I was Minister of Energy in Ontario. We had five coal-fired generating stations. We said yes, you could close one immediately. It was convenient that it had four units, and on most days three of the units were down because it was so old and dilapidated. It was a plant to last 40 years; it had been operating for more than 50. We said, “Yes, you can close that one down, but you can't close the other four down like that.” And a Liberal named McGuinty promised that by 2007 you could close all the coal-fired plants. Now, when that promise was made, he did it with all this dirty coal all over his desk. And here's the promise he made, so it's unequivocal.

I am not going to make a promise I can't keep. I'm not going to make a promise that I know I can't keep when it's coming out of my mouth. And this is a perfect example of another Liberal making a promise on greenhouse gases and on reducing smog and pollution that can't be delivered. Not a single person in the world believed it was physically possible; yet they ran an election to do it.

The Liberal Party of Canada, when I became environment minister, actually put out a press release, one of whose parts, in the talking points to media, was that John Baird fought closing Nanticoke, which is the largest polluter in North America. I didn't fight closing Nanticoke. I said you could close it by 2015, but it wasn't possible to close it by 2007.

Here's a perfect example of a politician wanting to get elected who was prepared to promise the world and to lie to voters. And I am not prepared to do that. I am going to be open; I'm going to be honest. I believe global warming is one of the biggest challenges of our time; it's the biggest ecological threat. I think it demands real action, but achievable action, action in which the rubber will actually hit the road.

That's what we're trying to do in this country, to regain....The public sees this type of commitment and thinks all politicians are liars, and I'm tired of that. I think in Canada we have to rebuild our international image and make commitments that we can deliver on. That may be the approach some people take in this country, but it's not mine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Excuse me, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Rota has a point of order.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Just as a point of order, can I ask the relevance of this? It sounds very good, but I'm just wondering what the relevance is.

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

It's about Liberal politicians named McGuinty who lie and break promises.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Minister, not to take Mr. Vellacott's time, could you table in both official languages the copies of the slide presentation? We are having difficulty reading it. If we could have it all to the clerk, he'll distribute it to the members.

Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I did appreciate that because it does get me a little nervous. Breaking promises runs in the family, and we wouldn't want to have a repeat of that at the federal level here.

I have another question. I'm keen about nuclear power, particularly in my own province. There's great potential in Saskatchewan for producing safe nuclear power. Tell us about the impact that nuclear power in Ontario has had on reducing greenhouse gases, another step taken by the previous Conservative government under which you served in Ontario.

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

I think nuclear power is a big part of the solution. Although as a federal minister I should underline that these will be provincially led decisions. These will be provinces making their own decisions about what's best for their jurisdictions, and we respect that.

We saw, with increased nuclear capacity coming online, a reduction of 15 megatonnes because nuclear is baseline, so it's on 24 hours a day, whereas in many parts of the country coal is used to provide power at peak times. So I think nuclear power is a big one, but that decision will be made by the provinces.

My premier in Ontario wants to expand nuclear power, and frankly, I support him in that. It's a good idea, but we're not going to impose our views on others. Obviously we have a federal crown corporation that is in the nuclear build business, but I think each province should decide what's best for them. That's how France has been successful at its greenhouse gas numbers.

While there is the problem of nuclear waste, at least it's contained, rather than spewing smog and harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Lussier.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, you will soon be involved in G8 discussions. Have the premiers of Quebec and Ontario told you that exports from Canada will be taxed by France or other countries if we do not comply with Kyoto? Has that been discussed with the provincial premiers recently?

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

No, nor has the Government of France discussed that with us.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Do you have a strategy in the event that European countries decide to levy taxes in the future?

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

No. I'm going to put all of my energy into actually reducing greenhouse gases, rather than anticipating Canada being punished for the Liberal's inaction on climate change.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

So the provinces are not concerned and you have no strategy to prevent those potential international measures.

Page 25 of your regulatory framework for air emissions contains a graph on the overall health benefits. The health benefits in Quebec will be approximately $2.2 billion whereas those in Ontario will be approximately $1.7 billion, therefore there is a difference of $500 million. Saskatchewan and Alberta also show the same $500 million discrepancy.

How do you explain such a significant gap between two neighbouring provinces?

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

When you talk about health benefits, Quebec's abundant hydroelectricity resources have obviously been a source not just of great economic pride for the province but also of better human health because they don't emit smog and pollution.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Would you admit that the smog in Quebec is caused by pollution from Ontario?

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

I can't speak about the Quebec airshed because it's not something I'm familiar with, but I can say that I know there are 160 coal-fired generating stations in southern Ontario's airshed, in addition to the four that are operated elsewhere in Ontario, that do have a huge effect on smog and pollution.

I've already begun formal negotiations with the United States to reduce emissions. I think some of Quebec's neighbours—namely, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine—have better environmental track records than other U.S. states. Southern Ontario is in the same airshed as the Ohio valley. I don't know the air patterns for southern Quebec or your constituency, for example.

I can tell you that smog does not know borders, and that's why it's so important that we get the Americans and the Chinese and the Indians on side on global action on greenhouse gases, because you also have a twin effect of reducing smog and pollution.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I am concerned about the methods used by the Health Department to calculate these benefits. I don't know if Ms. Cléroux was involved in those discussions and calculations. A mathematical model was raised as well as a number for mortalities.

Regardless, a $500 million discrepancy between two provinces is enormous. Given that it is such a huge amount, could there be grounds for legal action? Could a province that is being polluted by its neighbour take action on the grounds that those emissions are having an impact on human health?

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

The provinces obviously are free to do that; I think it's incumbent upon us in Canada to clean up our own act. My job as Minister of the Environment is to clean up our act. In my first three months on the job, we have begun negotiations to expand the Canada-U.S. environmental accords, particularly on particulate matter, which is one of the most harmful ones.

There is no doubt that coal-fired generation is bad for human health. There's no argument with you on that. That's why we're clamping down on it with the Clean Air Act and with our regulatory package on industrial smog and pollutants.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Ms. Ruta, did one of your colleagues attending the meeting participate in those economic studies, given that finances appear in her description of responsibilities?

Did you participate in those calculations?

[Basia Ruta]

No, I did not, Ms. Cléroux did.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Ms. Cléroux.

[Cécile Cléroux]

All assessments of health impacts were undertaken by our colleagues of Health Canada. Last week, or two weeks ago, Ms. Fletcher from Health Canada came before the committee to report on the studies that were done.

Environment Canada provides information on various aspects of pollution, but it is Health Canada's model that is used because they are the department that has the federal expertise required for undertaking that type of assessment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Monsieur Lussier.

We'll go to Mr. Harvey.

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

People have spoken about broken promises. To some people here, the Kyoto Protocol was so important that it had to be drafted on a napkin. Two weeks ago, to everyone's surprise, officials from the Finance Department told us that an analysis had been undertaken in 1992 with respect to the potential costs of reducing CO2. Then nothing more was done until 2007. There were no consultations with industry, nothing was done and a magic number was pulled out.

Furthermore, just before Christmas, within our study on Bill C-288, there were some discussions about how long it takes to develop new technologies. All the witnesses told us that at least four, five or six years were required to develop these technologies.

The Kyoto targets focus on the year 2008. How could we build a nuclear power plant in eight months? Is that possible?