Environment Committee on May 29th, 2007

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

With your permission I will answer in English.

When we talk about technology, it's not exclusively about inventing new systems or new processes; it's about deploying, in many cases, the technology that already exists.

For example, there are alternatives to dirty coal in terms of generation. You can bring in demand-side management initiatives. You can bring in energy efficiency and conservation initiatives. You can bring in renewable power. You can bring in nuclear power. You can bring in micro-hydro, biomass, and large-scale hydro.

There is so much that can be done that exists today, but it does take time to do it. For example, a new nuclear plant will take 10 years to build, 10 to go through all the processes. And that's not unique to Canada. That's why the coal-fired plants...there's no nuclear plant being built in Ontario, so they actually won't be able to close them before 2014. It could be 2017, if the starting pistol went off today.

A high-efficiency natural-gas-fired plant can take five years to build. In northern Manitoba, the Conawapa expansion, which I am very supportive of, could take 10 or 12 years before it is fully up and running. The tidal power off the coasts of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia...you can't just flick a switch and turn it on today. If New Brunswick chose to put another reactor by Point Lepreau, again, it's 10 years.

Rehabilitation of nuclear takes a substantial amount of time, and many of these can be very costly. We hope the technology fund would help to enable investments to be made, to actually lead to real reductions. And if we just buy all the credits today, we're going to have that same problem on January 1, 2013.

I think one of the fundamental principles of Kyoto is that action should be based domestically. The European Union, for example, is saying to one member country, I understand, that they shouldn't look at any more than 30% from international credits. The object of the game here is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at home. And we can get a great advantage, a great economic response, by making those investments here.

But it isn't going to come in eight months. A carbon capture and storage pipeline, for example, would not be up and running, and we wouldn't see the economic benefits of it for at least five years. The economic benefits of expanding other energy sources don't happen overnight. I wish you could just flick a switch. That's why it's essential that we get started, that we get these new technologies deployed. I think what's good about the technology fund is that it's capped and it goes down. It's not an unlimited amount. It's essential that we get on with it and get those investments made so that we can clean up our act.

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

How much time do I have left Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

One really brief question.

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

Once again, the Liberals are making up stories and telling us that there will be no limits on greenhouse gas emissions coming from oil sands production. What exactly is the situation?

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

We're going to require every industry in this country to reduce their intensity of greenhouse gases. That is absolutely essential. The 33% reduction in intensity will break the back of the continuing cycle of us not going down. They will actually begin to see real reductions in conjunction with the many other initiatives we're following, whether it's on eco-transportation, on energy efficiency, on renewable power, or whether it's on important investments with the provinces. It's absolutely essential.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Minister, are you aware of any other ratifier to Kyoto that is using the baseline that you've suggested of 2006?

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

I'm just not familiar with what other countries are doing.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Can any of your officials respond to that?

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

I know that many countries are struggling to meet their Kyoto targets. I'm not responsible for other countries; I'm responsible for Canada. And I'm responsible for the situation I find Canada in today.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

When we show up at international meetings...I recall the last minister, your predecessor, talking to other environment ministers around the world about our targets and not referring to the actual baseline that she was using at the time, which was 2003. You've now moved it to 2006. There is no other country—I'll inform you if you don't know—that is a ratifier to the Kyoto Protocol using the baseline that your government has suggested.

When this breaks down to a question—you've talked about accountability and trust on such an important issue—you are asking Canadians to trust your government when it has not received a single validation from any of the environmental groups working in this country on this issue, not one on this plan. Your suggestion is that your government, a new convert, as you say, to the issue of climate change...to trust you over that, using baselines and showing up at international events trying to push other countries. And as you've said, Canada will not have a leg to stand on if it continues to fail and to mislead.

When your government brought forward the Clean Air and Climate Change Act, it was sent to committee. Many Canadians looked at this as a way for Parliament to attempt to work together. Amendments were moved by members from your party and accepted, by members from all of the opposition parties and accepted, and some failed. I assume you didn't have the expectation that you were going to get everything you wanted out of that negotiation, did you?

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

Certainly not.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

In the spirit—as Mr. Harper called for it on election night—in a minority Parliament of working together to try to achieve results for this country, why will you not bring back a bill that was constructed by all parties in this place and that I would contest meets the standard for Canadians, which is a Parliament working to improve the environment, rather than continuing this Hatfield and McCoy show you have running here between you and the McGuinty family?

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

I genuinely had hoped that we could have found a balanced approach with Bill C-30. I think you know that. I think you know I made best efforts to try to find a bridge to get a bill that all parties could support. We didn't find that consensus.

The premiers—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Excuse me, I just want to understand the—

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

I'd like to finish this.

We didn't find a consensus. We did that on the Federal Accountability Act, and I think it was a tough one but a good collaborative effort. It does disappoint me that the government and the opposition parties weren't able to find consensus on that bill.

I do know that the provincial premiers can't find consensus. I do know that the provincial ministers of the environment can't find consensus. I do know that industry and environmentalists can't find consensus. It is a tough issue to find consensus on, and that is why it is absolutely essential that we take action and Canada's new government prepares to lead—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Here's an offer for you.

You dislike certain aspects of the rewritten climate change bill. You've said you like other aspects of the bill. Is that true?

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

Yes, there are some things. I like the energy efficiency, I like the biofuels, I like the indoor air pollutant stuff, but I don't like the unlimited licence to pollute. I don't like the fact that the Minister of the Environment, with the stroke of a pen, could exempt a particular area from the clean air portions of the act.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

You have the opportunity to bring this bill back to Parliament and make amendments. Will you do this, sir?

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

I have certainly signalled that I am willing to work with anyone who wants to be constructive on that, and I've indicated that to you and your party.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

There is a specific action you can take, your government, to bring this bill back, make the suggestions you wish to make by amending the bill as you see fit, and put it to the will and test of the Canadian Parliament. Will you do this?

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

Part of our parliamentary process is that on government bills the government does have the capacity and a responsibility to be involved and to have an element of leadership. I think we were shown a degree of good faith, and I really regret that it didn't work out. I'm not going to allow—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

You refused to take that moment of leadership to reintroduce a bill and allow the changes you wish.

On a question about legitimacy and trust—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Last question, Mr. Cullen, please.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

—as you've set this piece up, it's done by regulation. Is it not true that by the stroke of a pen some future minister or some future government can eliminate this entire package by not seeking the will of Parliament?