Environment Committee on May 12th, 2008

[Katja Awati]

I can try, and if not I can get back to you.

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

There is some debate going on in this country right now as to how to go about pricing carbon. Some suggest a straight carbon tax that would be applied on all fuels, fuel sources that produce greenhouse gases. Others have suggested a cap-and-trade system.

Can you just very briefly explain the current state of affairs in Sweden with respect to carbon taxation, or the valuing of carbon, placing a price on carbon?

[Katja Awati]

We have very good experiences from carbon taxes. I think that's what we evaluate as the most important instrument used to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide. Of course we also discuss the cap-and-trade that's used in the EU emissions system, but at the moment we are working to raise the carbon tax, we are not discussing to exempt or reduce it. We find it a very useful instrument.

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

What do you do with the revenues that come from the carbon tax?

[Katja Awati]

They go into the state budget.

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

Just into general revenues or—

[Katja Awati]

They're not earmarked. Yes.

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

They're not earmarked at all. That's interesting.

What does Sweden do with the argument that regardless of what attempts you make to reduce greenhouse gases, they will be nullified by the Indias and Chinas of the world, that the growing economies in the developing world will wipe out any effort, and therefore any sacrifice on behalf of Swedes is not useful?

[Katja Awati]

For one, we see that we need to be a good example. We need to show it's possible to decouple emissions from environmental growth. It's possible to still have environmental growth and reduce emissions, and we've proved it is possible.

And then we also believe we need to change into another type of economy, that we can gain from it with environmental technology. This is also a welcome change for us. We need to put pressure on the industry to make this change, to adjust to the new world, where the environmental technology may be a very good market to sell and to export.

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

I can recall the previous Minister of the Environment being before this committee and being pressed quite often about the rising greenhouse gases in Canada. At one point the answer was that the economy grew. That coupling of the environment, particularly a coupling of pollution and a growth in economy, is one that seems to exist in some places still as old-world thinking.

From my reflection on your presentation and also seeing Sweden on the world stage and your performance, you're in an enviable place, from the view of a Canadian citizen, in the sense that you have mirrored your politics and policy into a positive result, that you are attempting to achieve greenhouse gas reductions while growing the economy and making some attempts to become carbon neutral as a nation some time in the future.

The question was put earlier by my colleague about the way this was crafted through. We've heard from the Canadian government time and again that there's a silo effect, that the Department of Finance might not be listening to the Department of Transport and Transport not listening to Environment, and in general the environment department losing out and the environment minister being unable to make the changes required.

Can you point to one or two specific things you've done to overcome the silo effect?

[Katja Awati]

We have that here as well. I know your system is different, but we have organized the government authorities in a way that helps the communication between ministries. I also believe we have focused very much on sector integration, and that, I believe, is a key. If the system is so transparent that they can define themselves, then the other departments also have to see and be there and be able to respond to their sectors.

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

What consequences arise from not hitting these departmental or regional targets you've spoken of, whether it's the pollution rate, greenhouse gases, or what not? In Canada there seems to be little or no consequence, that we've been able to find, for repeated failures, as reported by the auditor of this country. Do you implement any? How is it that you encourage people to achieve the promises made?

[Katja Awati]

These are politically formulated objectives. It is mainly for the politicians to actually show that this is for real. Then, when it comes to the county administrative boards, they get some extra resources, of course, to work within this system. That also goes for the central government agencies.

At the end of the day, I think, mostly it's the political agenda that needs to be very much focused on these issues. We need to have a lot of political support to be able to keep focused.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

To the witnesses--Ambassador, Ms. Awati, Mr. Martin--thank you for being here today.

Before I start my questioning, Chair, we cut off Mr. Martin about halfway through his presentation. I'm wondering if we could at this time hear the rest of his presentation. After that, I would like to begin the questioning, if that's okay with you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Sure.

I apologize, Mr. Martin. Obviously we had a miscommunication with our previous minister. If you'd like to just complete your presentation, go ahead. Then I will start the timing for Mr. Warawa.

[Michael Martin]

Thank you.

I was explaining the current situation with respect to the sustainable development strategies.

In December of 2006, on tabling the fourth round of sustainable development strategies, the Minister of the Environment specifically noted the commissioner's observation in 2005 that the failure to develop a federal sustainable development strategy “ will leave Canadians and parliamentarians without a clear idea of the government's overall plan for sustainable development, how it will get there, and what progress it has made.” The minister noted that the government agreed with the commissioner that more needs to be done to improve sustainable development reporting, and indicated that a range of options would be examined, including legislation, with a view to making further progress towards putting sustainability at the heart of the government's activities.

Environment Canada began a review at that time, with a view to developing options for improvements for the fifth round of strategies beginning in 2009. Subsequently, the commissioner also undertook a 10-year retrospective evaluation of the existing approach and recommended that the government undertake a thorough review by October 2008, a recommendation which the government accepted.

I should tell the committee that Environment Canada has worked collaboratively with the commissioner and his staff throughout this process. The review that is currently underway has several areas of focus, including examining options for a strengthened framework or overall strategy with clear goals and indicators. I am confident that this work will be completed by the October deadline set by the commissioner.

Turning now to Bill C-474, I would like to note two issues that relate to the possible or the potential implementation of the bill as currently drafted—and this is based on my own examination of the bill.

First, the bill would require the development of a national, as opposed to a federal, sustainable development strategy. As the committee is aware, responsibility for the environment is not defined in the Constitution Act. Over time, a variety of mechanisms have been developed to facilitate federal-provincial cooperation in improving environmental quality in Canada, including a wide range of work done under the authority of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

As a practical matter, if we expect the provinces to be full and willing partners in the implementation of a national sustainable development strategy, it would, in my view, be important to engage them in its development, including the definition of its goals and its targets and in a discussion of which level of government would be held accountable for their achievement.

That brings me to my second point—namely, the goals and targets that are currently proposed in the draft bill. I think the commissioner has been very clear that defining measurable goals and developing performance indicators to track progress towards those goals is essential to any effective sustainable development strategy. Indeed, these are characteristics of effective, accountable public management.

As currently drafted, clause 8, for example, requires the establishment, within two years of the act coming into force, of short-, medium-, and long-term targets and an implementation strategy for meeting each item listed in column 2 of the bill's schedule.

Clause 10 subsequently requires the minister, following the tabling of the strategy in the House, to make regulations prescribing targets and caps for each item. I assume these regulations would be based on regulatory authorities in other existing statutes, as the bill does not provide any new regulatory authorities.

As I understand it, these two provisions together would therefore require the government, potentially, to prepare regulations for all 60 of the items listed in the schedule, including all 323 of the discrete substances covered by the national pollutant release inventory, and to do so within 30 days of the tabling of the national sustainable development strategy.

Regulation can be a very important instrument in improving environmental outcomes. However, if regulation is to be successfully implemented, it requires good science, close cost-benefit analysis, and careful consultation with those who would potentially be subject to or impacted by any new obligations.

Experience suggests that there would be major challenges in developing such a large number of regulations in such a short timeframe. Furthermore, regulations may not be the most appropriate instrument for addressing each of the many items listed in the schedule.

I look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you very much, Mr. Martin.

Now we'll go to Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you so much, Chair.

I'm just realizing the time back in Sweden must be quite late, so in the interest of permitting you to go home, I have one quick question.

What is the price of gasoline? Is it per litre or per gallon, and what is that price?

[Katja Awati]

It's 13 Swedish kronor per litre. Is that $5 per litre?

[Ingrid Maria Iremark]

It just went up today. It's $2.30 Canadian per litre.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you so much. I wish you well as you go home and have a good sleep.

I have questions for Mr. Martin.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I would like to thank you, as well, for staying so late and for your input. I'm sure the committee appreciates it.

Certainly we understand. I believe all the members have asked the questions they would like. And I hope the ambassador will stay. We can ask her any further ones.

Thank you so much, and get home to the baby.

[Katja Awati]

Thank you very much.