Environment Committee on May 29th, 2007

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

[Inaudible--Editor]...put it all in legislation.

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

But you didn't, sir.

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

Because we worked with the opposition parties and weren't able to find a consensus.

There has not been a consensus developed anywhere on this issue in this country. Environmentalists and industry disagree. The premiers can't come to agreement.

I met with the ministers of environment yesterday. Half of them wanted credit for having a big forest. It came down to a discussion of who was going to get credit for what.

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

Don't pass the buck to the ministers.

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

I'm not passing the buck. I am telling you I am not. That's why we're acting. We're the national government; the time has come to act, and we are acting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Allen, please.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for attending.

I don't like to pick on Mr. McGuinty, but it was kind of fun when you opened up the meeting today by saying you were objectively disappointed. I find that amusing. I'm sure if we took a poll around here, everybody would find you completely objective on our plan.

First, we've talked about the base year, 2006 versus 1990, and last week there was some evidence given. When we talked about 2006 and 1990, there was no detailed information going back to 1990. We had only 2004. We had some national....

I just want to clarify that. I think, Ms. Cléroux, you gave us evidence last week.

Since I'm a firm believer that you can't manage it unless you can measure it, do we have the segments or numbers by industry from back in 1990?

[Cécile Cléroux]

The detailed information at our disposal goes back to 2004. We don't have detailed information from 1990 to 2003. What we have is estimates that have been done on different occasions for different attendance at international meetings, but a national inventory for Canada goes to 2004-05 and after.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Okay. So basically, in order to come up with a comprehensive plan and for it to be effective, choosing a year like 2006 is much better from an industrial standpoint if we're going to set targets on industry right down to the facility bases. Is that true? Would you agree?

[Cécile Cléroux]

What it means is that you have a reference base that is an informed, detailed inventory, compared to an estimation, so it's a lot more equitable and it's a lot more reliable.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

A lot has come up on the oil sands in discussions today, and in the study we did in the natural resources committee as well. Certain claims of how the oil sands could grow by three times, five times...and considering the labour issues associated with that, I question whether we could get that much anyway.

There was also a comment on the news this morning about Alberta. It has more of a problem with its electricity generation sector than it may have from an oil sands perspective. Also, the Premier of New Brunswick has suggested some serious concerns about going down the Kyoto path too quickly, from an electricity generation sector.

Can we talk a little bit about the dollars that are going to be invested from an energy perspective in the electricity sector?

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

I think the Premier of New Brunswick has been a voice of reason in all of these discussions, recognizing the reality that it's going to be hard to meet the Kyoto commitments in the Kyoto timeframe. I think coal-fired electricity generation will undoubtedly be one of the biggest challenges we face in dealing with climate change. It's not easy, as my premier has discovered.

I think for some provinces, like Alberta and Saskatchewan, like Nova Scotia, and I think there is a coal-fired plant or two in New Brunswick, it is going to be a challenge--even in Ontario it's going to be a challenge--under these regulations, in order to meet them.

I think carbon capture and storage in some parts of the country is a big part of the solution. I do believe, though, that where that's not an option, it's going to be very tough unless new technologies are developed and deployed. That's a big concern, particularly for the competitiveness of our industry.

What I don't want to see is any perverse environmental effects. We can close down the coal-fired plant in Lambton, Ontario, but if we're going to import dirty, coal-fired-generated electricity from Michigan, we won't have accomplished anything, for clean air or for climate change.

I think technology has to be our friend in this. I think it's also an area in which Canada can, hopefully, provide some leadership around the world, to developing countries, for the use of carbon capture and storage. I don't know enough about the geology and geography of New Brunswick to know whether that's an option for them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Very briefly, half a minute.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Really quickly, on the comment that was made, the $844 million that we're to be spending in 2007-08 on climate change or the environmental file versus $1.5 billion in the last six years, do we see that escalating quickly, because we've heard a $9 billion figure given as well?

[Basia Ruta]

The $9 billion comes as a result of initiatives announced prior to Budget 2007 and also Budget 2007 initiatives, and they extend for many years. The 2006-07 one deals with clean transportation, other environmental measures in the order of about $2.9 million, as well as investing in cleaner energy, $1.5 million, and $255 million protecting Canada's natural heritage and national water strategy.This continues on in the order of--from Budget 2007--about $1 billion, 2007-08; in 2008-09 about another $1 billion; and then it goes on for many years, up to about 2016-17.

I think, Mr. Chair, you asked that we provide details of this, and we can make this available to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

We will go to Mr. Rota and Mr. Scarpaleggia. Are you splitting your time?

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

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, we spoke of the Pembina Institute earlier, and you think very highly of them, as all of us do. They put out a report dated May 28. In that report they identified 20 important design details that allow for loopholes to be widened and new ones to be created. In listening to you this morning, your plan is...you say perfect, but I'll simply say you say it'll work.

Now, there's a significant discrepancy between saying that something works and that there are significant problems with it. My question to you is, who is misleading Canadians? Is it the Pembina Institute or is it you?

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

I think Mr. McGuinty or Mr. Godfrey already spoke about people who are independent and objective. While well respected, if you offer the competing plan...you know, Coca-Cola isn't going to say anything good about Pepsi.

I can tell you that we made a conscious decision on these various design elements to actually work with provinces. We respect that this is a shared jurisdiction. We want to work with industry. The offset system was one thing we spoke about. We haven't come forward with all the mechanics of it because we do want to consult, and the consultations began the week after we tabled our plan. We've come forward with the targets; we've come forward with the architecture of the regulations--

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

How do you answer to this report then? Maybe if you can just—

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

We're going to consult. That's why we're actively consulting. We've already begun. We began that the week after we tabled the plan in Toronto.

You face a choice: either you're accused of not consulting and ramming everything through or you're accused of not having all the details. I think having a period of several weeks or several months of consultation with environmental groups, with industry, and with the provinces is worthwhile. The provinces actually asked for expanded involvement in the consultations, which I was happy to do with the department just yesterday.

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

Let me move on to another question then.

Over the weekend you stated that the main reason for the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada between 2004 and 2005 was the reduced reliance in Ontario on coal-fired electricity. In particular, you pointed out that nuclear power production increased that year, and as a result of that decision made by the Ontario government, the summary of emissions report states that:

The flattening of the growth curve between 2003 and 2005 is due primarily to a significant reduction in emissions from electricity production—coupled with reduced demand for heating fuels due to warmer winters and a reduced rate of increase in fossil fuel production.

I want to ask you why the department attributed the reduction of greenhouse gases in Canada to reduced reliance on coal-fired electricity when in fact there was a 10.5% increase in emissions from Ontario's plants in 2005. Are you aware that the whole of Canada's 23 largest coal-fired electric stations increased their emissions by 3.7%, or 3.8 megatonnes? How did that benefit Canada's emissions?

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

What we did was point out the facts as the department presented them to me with respect to the warmer winter and with respect to increased nuclear generation in Canada.

I'd be happy to ask my senior associate deputy minister or assistant deputy minister to explain that. Those are the facts as they presented them to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Do you want the answer, Mr. Scarpaleggia, or your time?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

You can give the answer—well, I'd like my time. I'd like both, in fact, but I can't have both; okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Go ahead, Mr. Scarpaleggia.