Environment Committee on May 12th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras, please.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First off, on behalf of the members of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to say that we stand with you in solidarity during the trying times you are experiencing. We know that your communities were greatly affected by disasters, and I wanted to say that we stand behind you, as we have in the past and will continue to do in the future.

Minister, you or your officials have probably read Bill C-474, which sets out 10 worthy and desirable objectives, which, at the same time, are more than simple objectives. You said that the problem wasn't setting objectives, but rather finding ways to achieve them. You repeatedly spoke of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment as a forum for discussion, cooperation and partnerships.

Am I to understand that you prefer a forum such as the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to a piece of federal legislation that sets out not only the objectives, but also their various components?

[Roland Haché]

I would first like to thank you, Mr. Bigras, for your question.

As you wholeheartedly supported the people of New Brunswick during the recent flooding there, so did New Brunswickers when you lived through the ice storm. We all remember the famous images of the house that was isolated and suspended in mid-river. I recall that very well. I think that both of our provinces support one another very much.

You've asked me whether I prefer federal legislation to discussions between ministers at the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. I think we cannot have one without the other, and that's how things should be. It is essential that the federal government, together with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, be there at the table with all stakeholders. You said that you were a member of the Bloc, and I have absolutely no problem with that.

Allow me to share with you what I really think, and you might agree with me, Mr. Bigras. And others might as well. Given that the environment is such a crucial issue today, I believe that we must raise the debate above partisanship in order to really confront the problem. Regardless of their partisan leanings, all elected representatives who value the environment share our objective, i.e., to make the world a better place for our children and our grandchildren, and, if I may, for ourselves, and to do so today. In my view, this is a rather urgent problem.

I am not exactly a defeatist and I am not saying that we can't do anything anymore, that we should abandon our efforts and give up. On the contrary, we cannot give up. I do not agree with those who say it is too late to do anything. That isn't true. It isn't too late to do something. On the contrary, it is time to act. I'd say that it is high time to move forward. That is the purpose of our discussion here today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Haché, could you keep your answers quite brief? We are running into a bit of a problem with time.

Mr. Bigras, one brief question.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Minister: there needs to be good federal-provincial cooperation. However, my question is more specific and addresses the substance of the bill. Would you be willing to support targets on such issues as urban land use? Would you accept federally-legislated targets for farmlands? That is the question. Wouldn't it be better to have a global strategy, with common objectives? Once the common objectives have been set, provinces can then agree on how to achieve them. That was the gist of my first question.

[Roland Haché]

Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Chair, I will try to be brief.

I think we have to make sure that the federal government and the provinces cooperate. It is basically through such discussions that we will make progress. Mr. Bigras, we should never lose sight of the environment. That truly is the key issue. As for how we will achieve our ends, I think that is up for discussion. I'm sure that, as Jesse Owens said:

If we can walk long enough and talk long enough, I'm sure we'll find a solution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Cullen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, Minister.

I will ask my questions in English.

To realize this policy in effect rather than in theory, the current government and parties in Parliament have struggled with and considered the issue of biofuels as an example of sustainable development. Is this a good and proper measure for the targets and achievements we want?

With the concepts you've given us today, how is it that you consider policies under a sustainable development lens in New Brunswick? Could you use a specific example, whether it's biofuel consideration or something else, and place it in practice for me so I can understand how you lay the lens of economy, society, and environment on top of a decision? In this case I'm using the example of biofuels, but you can choose another one that might be more pertinent to your situation.

[Roland Haché]

Certainly that is a very interesting question. As I mentioned in my speech, it's quite a balancing act between economic development, social development, and environmental departments. We must try to strike the balance among the three. We have different groups that are not necessarily in accordance with other groups concerning, let's say, social development, environmental development, or economic development.

But as an example of what we've done in New Brunswick, as you've seen, in Penobsquis we've made sure that we provide water for people who do not have any water at this time, because there was a problem with the mine, etc.

I'm not sure exactly what your question was, but what I can tell you is that to me there cannot be any sustainable economic development if you don't have the other two, if you don't have social development and environmental development. And you can't have environmental development if you don't have social development and economic development. This is the perfect trio, I would say.

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

Mr. Minister, I appreciate that and I've read the document. In theory, what you say is true, but in practice we do it all the time in government: we put policies into place that are not balanced, that don't balance the three initiatives.

While I understand the intention of what you're saying and appreciate that New Brunswick has done a great deal of thinking and work in this area, I'm trying to have a specific policy application, for which I'm using the example of biofuels because it is in debate right now in Parliament, wherein an environmental and economic question has been put to policy makers: what type of biofuels, what to subsidize, what not to subsidize. It's a relevant topic for us as policy makers to understand and try to put into practice—not in theory. If you don't have a comment specifically on biofuels, that's fine, but if you have something else that demonstrates where you had to make choices....

Saying that we need to balance all three, we've said lots; every government does. But when push comes to shove, as you know when those different pulls are happening, what filter have you applied to put into effect the thing you've talked about in theory here?

[Roland Haché]

Let me give you an example, about the water situation in the Moncton region. I suppose you know about the Moncton region. It was done city by city: Riverview, Moncton, Dieppe. What we've done is take the parties and join them together. They work very well together; they work in collaboration. Now the water is on a regional basis.

So it's possible to have economic development in certain fields or in certain areas, because they've come together and worked together.

I don't know whether that's the example you're looking for, but certainly in New Brunswick that is a great thing that we've done, and we're very happy about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Harvey.

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

I would first like to thank you, sir, for being here with us today.

Last week, I was in Africa and I saw pictures from New Brunswick of all the damage that you sustained. On behalf of my government, I would like to express all our support, and our thoughts go out to you.

I take it you read Bill C-474. It addresses a number of national and constitutional issues. My colleague Mr. Bigras asked you a few jurisdictional questions. Have you identified any elements in this bill that could cause problems for New Brunswick?

[Roland Haché]

I am not sure whether we have been lucky or not—I haven't been in politics for all that long—but we, in New Brunswick, are working rather well with the federal government and the Minister of the Environment. We haven't really identified any problems with the substance of your bill. For the time being, things are going well. There might be a few little things that we would like to negotiate, but nothing of great importance that is worth mentioning.

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

So you are satisfied with the bill's proposed regulations. It does deal with the management of municipal waste, which really falls under provincial jurisdiction. We are trying to quantify things and see how to proceed while respecting provincial areas of jurisdiction. Are there any elements that need to be raised? That is important for us today.

[Roland Haché]

I must say that New Brunswick is quite advanced in terms of waste management. I will give you an example. Compared to all other provinces in Canada, New Brunswick produces the largest amount of compost. For us, this bill does not contain any major problem. I can understand that other provinces can have legal and jurisdictional problems with it. However, I can tell you in all openness and honesty that New Brunswick does not really perceive any problems with this bill, in its current form. Without wanting to go out on a limb or sounding too pretentious, I would say that New Brunswick has already gone further than what this bill proposes.

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

New Brunswick was very dependent on electricity generated by coal-powered plants.

Are there plans to reduce that dependency?

[Roland Haché]

Obviously, no Canadian province would take pride in wanting to continue producing greenhouse gases through the use of such power plants. All provinces would agree to reduce such emissions. In New Brunswick, we are currently renovating Pointe Lepreau, which you have probably heard of. We are also considering the possibility of building a second Pointe Lepreau and channelling natural gas to northern New Brunswick, where the Belledune and Dalhousie power plants are coal-fired. We are looking to convert them to natural gas, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Yes, New Brunswick is making real efforts. This is not something that can be done by snapping our fingers, but through hard and ongoing work. That is what we are doing.

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

As for the eventual use of natural gas, how many years would you need to adjust?

[Roland Haché]

I cannot give you a specific answer because, in the case of the two power plants located in northern New Brunswick, an implementation plan will have to be drawn up in order to carry the natural gas to the region. That is part of our plan for change, our election platform. Unfortunately, I cannot tell you how long that will take.

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

I am not asking you for a very specific answer, give or take a month or a year. Rather, I would like to know whether it can be done in five, ten or twenty years, whether it is a short, medium or long- term project.

[Roland Haché]

You said five, ten or twenty years, and I could answer like facetiously that it could indeed take five, ten or twenty years. In fact, we have to conduct a feasibility study of the project to carry natural gas to northern New Brunswick. I think that might take five years. I think that it will take between five and ten years before we have a definitive decision, that is if the feasibility study is conclusive, and if natural gas can be used in our power plants. They are located in my region; it is therefore in my best interest to conduct such a study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you very much, Minister Haché. In respect of your time, thank you very much for joining us. We appreciate and understand, certainly, that you need to leave us, so thank you very much for appearing.

[Roland Haché]

I want to thank you again, Mr. Chair, for the invitation.

I thank the members of the committee for their very interesting questions.

I hope this will help you with the bill that is in front of you now, and I wish each and every one of you very well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Good. Thank you very much.

I'd like to move on now to welcome our popular ambassador from Sweden. Lots of us have gotten to know you and enjoy your company.

I'd like you to introduce your colleague on video conference, and we'll ask for a statement. Then we'll go back to Mr. Martin and carry on with questions.