Environment Committee on Nov. 29th, 2007

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

I am sorry about that.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Okay. You're all done. Thank you Mr. Scarpaleggia.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister here today.

It has been testified by environmental groups at this committee recently that they would like to see China get a 10-year, to up to 20-year, pass on emissions with a post-2012 agreement. Is it realistic to give that kind of pass to China? What would that mean for everything from, say, manufacturing in Ontario to our ability globally to tackle GHGs?

I think most would accept that if we took the largest emitters at home and gave a pass to some of them on emissions, we wouldn't reach our target. If we're supposed to arrest global GHG emissions, it would seem logical that you can't give a pass to some and expect that the rest that are left are somehow going to hit the goal for you.

I'd like your comments on that.

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

If you read all the science, the cumulative science, particularly four of the panel's report this year, they require global reductions in GHGs, and then a stabilization in the growth of these emissions in short order. To say to the biggest countries that we should let them off the hook is simply a recipe for disaster, quite literally.

Al Gore, the U.S. vice-president, after signing Kyoto, came home and said that they had to get China and India on board. He's right. Ralph Goodale had said this before Kyoto. The Prime Minister-elect of Australia has said this. Quebec's environment minister has said this. I think it is just foolish to try to exempt all the big polluters from taking meaningful action. We will not succeed in stabilizing or reducing greenhouse gases with that approach. It is a guaranteed recipe for failure, and we will not support that type of approach.

We're going to act aggressively first here in Canada. The previous government did not act—and those are not my words; those are the words of three of the environment ministers that led that department, and the words of the deputy leader of the Liberal Party.

We're taking action. I can appreciate that it's not as aggressive as some would like to see, but it is action, and it is action that will get us in the direction in which we need to go.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Minister, I've been actually timing the allocation between opposition member questioning and your ability to answer, and it's been nearly 2:1 in favour of opposition question and comment to your answer. I'd like to yield the rest of my time, if there are some other questions that you'd like to answer.

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

It just comes down to the fundamental question that we have to stabilize and then reduce greenhouse gas emissions on this planet, and anything other than that simple environmental scientific fact is lunacy. It's a recipe for disaster.

I almost get the sense with many people around the world that they'd rather talk about it than do anything. If we could reduce a tonne of GHGs every time someone talks about this or says they care about it, we would probably have solved this problem by now.

So we're moving; we're moving aggressively. I think the more that people outside of Canada take action, the more action we'll be able to take here in Canada, and that's a good thing.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Watson. It's now my turn.

By the way, Mr. Warawa, I'll take your advice and try to be as non-partisan as possible in asking my question and acting as chair, and I appreciate your comment.

Mr. Minister, it seems to me that Canadians would feel, and do feel, that every person on the planet should do their share in terms of combating the problem of climate change. In that regard, I have the feeling that this whole issue of China and India is a bit of a red herring. Yes, we're concerned about it, but we have to do our part, and it's not clear to me that we are doing our part.

But in this regard, if you look at the graph on slide 4, it seems to me that in view of the fact that we think every person should do their share, this graph would be much more meaningful if it were presented in a per capita form. In other words, for each of us as individuals, divided by country, how would it look?

First, how different would it look from the graph you presented if it were in fact per capita? Second, wouldn't that be a better graph? And last, will you ask your officials to prepare and provide to this committee, in electronic form and paper form, a graph in per capita terms of the same sort?

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

I would be happy to pass that on to my officials.

Let me say this: the protocol that we're seeking to negotiate at the meeting in Indonesia under the auspices of the United Nations is one between nations. The urgent requirement for action, simply put, does not allow us to give the biggest emitters a pass. It will just not meet with success. The dire consequences of rising GHG emissions are powerful, and if we are to be successful in this fight we need everyone on board.

To send a message to a country whose GDP is two and a half times that of Canada's, a country with nuclear weapons.... They could simply not accept any target. I think it's not in the best interests of Canadians or people on the planet.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Minister, I don't hear people arguing that those countries shouldn't accept any target, frankly, but I think Canadians feel that we have our own responsibilities to meet, and I think it is reasonable for us to look at our own performance on a per capita basis and compare that to those countries. Yes, they're going in the wrong direction, right? But so are we, unfortunately, including under your government.

The point is that I think Canadians want to see us take real action at home and be leaders here in terms of taking action with hard targets on climate change, hard caps for emitters across the country, instead of intensity targets.

I guess what I have trouble with is that you don't seem to recognize that.

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

I agree with you that Canadians want to see their governments take real action.

We have an approach that, frankly, sir, when you were around the cabinet table your cabinet endorsed, in fairness. Ours are much more aggressive than anything that was proposed under the previous government with respect to the ambitious nature of the targets. They are greater.

I think we do need to move beyond--and some people don't want to hear this--we need to move on. The big emitters, the big polluters, have to do their part. Government has a very strong, important role to play in this, but the cultural change also has to come from individual Canadians.

A woman I met at a grocery store recently said she thought we should do more for the environment. I looked down at her grocery cart as she was leaving the grocery store. She had 29 plastic grocery bags. She then took them to her Cadillac Escalade and put them in the back.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

A Conservative voter.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

For the peanut gallery comment, thank you.

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

I'm going to miss you. I do want to wish you all the very best in your future field.

This is, unfortunately, the attitude of many folks. They want someone else to deal with it.

I spoke to two of the Canadian scientists who worked on and helped write one of the first reports that came out in Paris. After discussing the report with policy-makers, I said, “What's the answer?” The first one just looked at me and said, “I don't know.” The second one looked at me and said two things: cultural change and technology.

I think we need government leadership in both of those areas, but it's also going to require individual Canadians to do their part.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I want to assure you that at the back of my Prius I do keep a number of cloth bags for groceries, etc. I remember to use those, taking them with me whenever I go into the grocery store.

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

Congratulations.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

But it's easy to forget to do that, as I'm sure you understand.

My time is up, so I'll pass now to Mr. Comuzzi.

Mr. Comuzzi, the floor is yours, sir, for five minutes.

[Joe Comuzzi, Conservative, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize to you and the committee for being late. I was at another meeting and hoped to get here earlier.

I apologize to you, Minister.

I know this meeting went on for an hour or an hour and a half and that you didn't have very many opportunities to complete the questions that were asked by our colleagues across. You may want an opportunity to complete the answers to those questions, but first let me just make one comment, Minister.

Recently you were on the north shore of Lake Superior, at which you dedicated, along with the Prime Minister, 10,000 square kilometres of shoreline for the first marine conservation area in Canada. This is the substance of my question: as you stood there over that vast, expansive lake, did the thought occur to you of what role the largest freshwater lake in the world--which we are trying to protect, and we compliment you on that--plays in global warming? There's some real doubt in the minds of the scientists now with respect to precipitation, the loss of the water surface into the air surface, and so on.

I wonder if you've thought of that and if there's anything else we should be doing with respect to the water supplies that we have on all the Great Lakes in order to assist in your particular problem of global warming. Is there a connection?

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

First, I know you've been a big champion of that conservation on Lake Superior.

The scientists can't definitively say global warming, but I suspect the hotter summers and less snowpack in the winters have led to less precipitation, and that has had a contributing effect on water levels, not just on Lake Superior but on the other Great Lakes and Georgian Bay as well. That's a huge concern to many Canadians. This is just one of the many examples we see around the country of what is likely the effect of climate change. It's incredibly disturbing, and we're pretty concerned about it.

On conservation, we're blessed with a lot of the world's forests, and protecting the boreal forest is important. We're working hard on conservation measures to do that. I don't think you can ever do enough, but I think in 11 months, from the Great Bear Rainforest to the Nahanni, to the Sahtu Dehcho lands in the Northwest Territories--they're twice the size of Nova Scotia--to the two announcements we made just last week, to the $220 million for the Nature Conservancy of Canada.... We made an announcement in Essex earlier this week. We're making good progress and we need more of it.

That's a huge concern. I recently met with some officials from Indonesia, and the deforestation in Indonesia is a big concern. That's one of their biggest challenges. That was a big issue for Australia—I suspect it will continue to be—so we can take these Canadian lessons to the table on how we can work constructively with other countries on these important issues.

[Joe Comuzzi, Conservative, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Thank you for that answer.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Comuzzi, pardon me. One minute.

[Joe Comuzzi, Conservative, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

That's all right, Geoff.

Greenhouse gases. We're all so concerned about them. You don't do it in one fell swoop; you do it in little bits and pieces, as we did on Lake Superior. The value of what we did there isn't being expressed throughout the country, the importance of those small steps we take to prevent greenhouse gases.

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

One of the big topics of a book I read was the full history and discussions between Canada and the United States with respect to the acid rain issue. If you don't meet with success, keep trying. You're not going to measure success in a matter of days, weeks, or months; you're going to measure it in years and decades, and we're going to work aggressively on this issue.

This is going to be the defining issue of my generation and the next two or three generations. It's not about tabling one plan and calling it a day. It's going to require constant attention for this generation and the two or three that follow it. We can't let perfection be the enemy of the good. We're moving forward. We're moving forward aggressively. For some it's not enough, but it's important that we get on with it, and that's why we're committed to real action.

[Joe Comuzzi, Conservative, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Comuzzi.

Thank you, Minister.

For the third round, I'd ask that members indicate to the chair if they wish to speak, and then I'll ask the clerk to keep a list. Given the time, only a few minutes left—about seven minutes or so—how about if we allow a two-minute round, two minutes each? We'll start with the opposition, followed by the government, and then return to the opposition.

I understand there's also a motion, which we'll get to, I think, in a few minutes.

Mr. McGuinty, the floor is yours.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, one of the slides I really liked. You put up slide 15. Can I see slide 15 again?

About the letter you have here, signed by these different groups in the country, do you have a copy of that letter to table in the House right now?