Environment Committee on Nov. 29th, 2007

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

How much are you spending in your plan on clean development mechanisms?

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

The targets, I think, are ambitious and will help break the back of absolute.... The clean development mechanism is one of the compliance mechanisms in our plan, and those costs will be borne by industry, not by the taxpayers.

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

While you're supportive of the mechanism, your government stripped $60 million out of it?

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

No. We're not stripping anything out—

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

I'm confused as to why this government is trying to seek credibility on the world stage. I agree that our reputation has been damaged by previous regimes. But this government has no validator that we are aware of who's taken a look at your plan and said it will actually meet the targets, including the National Round Table, the National Energy Board, and every other group that's looked at your plan. It doesn't pass the test. Why would you suggest the international community will think anything different?

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

We have the emissions framework with respect to the large final emitters; we have actions with respect to our engagements with the provinces; we have actions with respect to transportation, whether that's auto, marine, air, or rail; we have actions with respect to energy efficiency and conservation; we have other regulatory actions that we're taking; I think we're, for the first time, working constructively with the provinces in terms of financial support. I think the cumulative effect of all these will provide a substantial reduction in greenhouse gases, and we've been very clear on that.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, thank you for being here today.

I want to give you a little bit of interesting background—I think it's interesting—on what's been happening in this committee for the last year, approximately.

It was in June of this year that many of us went to Berlin for Globe G8+5, which was just before the G8 in Heiligendamm. The Liberals and NDP talked about our international credibility abroad. It was quite embarrassing to be there as a Canadian and have to face what happened over the 13 long years of Liberal inaction on the climate change file. They signed on—that was in 1993, when they were elected—and they promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; they did absolutely nothing.

So it was embarrassing. But Minister, I want to assure you that internationally there was a real optimism that we had turned the corner, that the rhetoric had ended, and that we were actually taking action. Our plan is very similar to what Japan is doing. We heard for the two days that we were there in meetings at that conference, in Berlin, the importance of focusing on solutions, as you are doing, Minister. We heard about carbon capture and storage and how important that is, particularly in Canada. We heard about the technologies that the world is hoping Canada will help create that will help the globe.

Minister, if I could ask you to turn back to slide number 4, it's relevant to what we heard when I was in Berlin too. They said....

I'm hearing some laughter. I would encourage the opposition members.... This is not a laughing matter; this is a very serious matter.

We were encouraged to come back and share what we learned here in Canada and look for solutions. Again, the government has provided a framework, and my hope is that we would, as a committee, focus on solutions. Carbon capture storage is the one. I've listed what we came back from Germany with: this list of solutions that we were assigned as a committee, internationally, to please focus on. “Canada, please focus on these solutions.”

Minister, unfortunately this committee has refused to focus on solutions, and what we see happening today is a focus on attacking the government instead of working on solutions, which I find very disappointing. The fact is, as that chart shows, that globally there is a huge problem, and Canada has committed to be part of that.

It was a week ago, Minister, that we had IPCC panellists here—we invited them—and on Tuesday of this week we had some people here. At the IPCC report, it was asked what would happen if emissions from Canada and the United States were dropped to zero—which is impossible, but hypothetically, if everything stopped in North America, what would happen to greenhouse gas emissions. We heard very clearly that emissions would continue to climb globally. That is why it is so important that Canada be a world leader in creating the technology that will help the rest of the world be able to bring down their greenhouse gas emissions. It was a challenge to which I was saying yes, because that's exactly what you're doing, Minister, and that's exactly what this chart is showing.

On Tuesday of this week, we also heard an example. A question was asked about aluminum. For every tonne of aluminum that is created here in Canada, four tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions are created, but in China it's seven tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. Your point and this chart support that we need to have not Canada, but globally all the emitters, participating. Without that, we will have growing greenhouse gas emissions, which means a continuing climate change crisis.

My question for you, Minister, is, in your opinion of a post-Kyoto deal, how important is it to have everybody...? You've elaborated on it, but looking at that chart again, how quickly do we need to get commitments from China, India, and the United States—all the major emitters—to start reducing their greenhouse gas emissions also and follow Canada's example?

Our targets are some of the toughest in the world: 20% by 2020, and 60% to 70% by 2050. How important is it that we get everybody involved, and how quickly?

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

I have used these specific examples in the past, and I will use them again. I think it is more than just hoping that other countries will do their best. If we want to obtain genuine environmental benefits, we need to have everyone on board.

My premier is closing the coal-fired plants in Ontario. We're providing more than half a billion dollars to help them do it. We can close the Lambton coal-fired generating station in southwestern Ontario--it has four units--but if we simply import electricity from Michigan, across the river, we won't have accomplished anything. So we don't want to see any perverse environmental impact. What we could see is that we pay twice the price for imported electricity and then have Canadian manufacturing jobs simply move across the river and locate there. We won't have accomplished anything for the environment.

The growth in the Chinese economy, whether it's the steel sector or even cement.... If we simply move production from Canada and Europe to the United States or China or India, we won't have accomplished anything for the environment. That's why it's absolutely essential that we get everyone on board.

That doesn't mean that we all have to carry the same weight. We can have a common but differentiated approach by which we would recognize countries, whether it's poverty eradication, whether it's those countries with a growing population versus those.... It's exciting, the growth in the Chinese economy, but it's awfully hard to convince folks in other countries to be closing coal-fired plants while new ones are being opened there every five weeks. It simply doesn't make sense.

So what we need to do is get everyone on board. And if you have the developing world--China and India--and our major trading partner, the United States, on board, I think we'll all be able to go farther faster in terms of effort. We haven't seen that. I think that was the mistake made over the last 10 years.

If we look at the success of the Montreal Protocol, everyone acts together. National circumstances are part of that equation, and there are different timetables for different countries, which is interesting.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

How much time do I have?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

You have two minutes and 20 seconds.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, the now-leader of the Liberal Party, in July, was quoted as saying, “I will be part of Kyoto, but I will say to the world I don't think I will make it”.

I read an interesting book called Hot Air: Meeting Canada's Climate Change Challenge, and it talks about the billions of dollars the previous Liberal government had planned to send over to buy hot air credits. It talked about all the political rhetoric and basically dealt with all political parties. No one was exempt.

We now see a commitment from you for some really tangible targets.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

For the record, could you tell us who the authors are?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

The authors of Hot Air are Jeffrey Simpson, Mark Jaccard, and Nic Rivers. It's good reading; it's very interesting.

Minister, I'd like to ask you about the billions of dollars the previous Liberal government had planned to send out. You talked about how important it is that every major emitter has targets and participates in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions so that globally they're reduced. But the billions of dollars that was encouraged by the previous government to send out of the country, what would that have done in accomplishing a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions?

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

It wouldn't have been a heck of a lot. I think that approach has been rejected. We need to keep our eye on the future in terms of what we're going to do.

I do think that the science has become stronger and stronger. We are all compelled to act. I think there is a lot of talk on this issue right around the world, not just here in this country, but very little action. We need more action and less talk, and we need everyone on board. We don't need excuses about why some countries cannot be involved. We need to encourage them to all be on board, and that's the message we're going to continue to take, as we have taken it to APEC, as we have taken it to the G8, and as we have taken it to the Commonwealth and the United Nations. It is essential that we get everyone, all the big emitters, acting.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

The Prime Minister has taken very strong leadership at G8+5, at APEC, at the United Nations, and at the Commonwealth. Are we making headway toward--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Warawa, I'll take that as a comment. Your time has concluded.

Mr. Godfrey, five minutes.

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

Well, thank you.

And welcome again, Minister. I always enjoy your slide shows.

Did I hear you say, a little while ago, that you believe in hard targets?

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

Yes.

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

So do you mean, by hard targets, absolute targets?

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

Yes.

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

So how does that reconcile with the position of your own plan, which deals with intensity targets?

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

I believe the ambitious nature of the intensity targets, 6% a year for the first three years and a constant improvement of 2%, does break the back of rising emissions.

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

But I didn't ask you that question. I say, if you believe in hard targets, why is your plan based on intensity targets? That's one question.

And the second question would be, as I try to sort out what you believe in, when the Prime Minister says--and he said it at Kampala--that he wants binding targets for all emitters, does he want binding intensity targets, which may be a bit of an oxymoron, or does he want binding hard targets, the way you seem to?

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

I think the negotiating we seek over the next two years is that if we can get all the major emitters to accept binding targets, Canada would be prepared to accept those.