Environment Committee on Nov. 29th, 2007

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Warawa, I thank you for your point, your argument; however, it is my responsibility to maintain order in this meeting and not to allow back-and-forth arguments and interruptions. As you yourself point out, it is the time of the member to use as he sees fit, and therefore, if the minister wants to go on and on in response, it is my job to cut him off when required. And that works both ways. I'll apply it to your side as well, I assure you.

Mr. Godfrey, you have 15 seconds.

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

There was somebody in the room, at the discussion in Montreal in September, who was actually an adviser to the Minister of the Environment in 1987, and she simply says that had Canada adopted the approach that is being offered by the minister today on climate change, there would have been no Montreal Protocol.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. Vellacott, five minutes.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have something in hand, Mr. Minister--you probably have seen it, but maybe other members have not read their mail as yet--and it actually reinforces--it's another bolster to it--the point that your government has taken and that the Prime Minister has made very effectively in Kampala, Uganda. It comes from the British High Commission, and they make some statements in respect to their aspirations coming up to Bali on December 3 to 14.

In particular, they summarize in fact the key elements of what they believe to be an effective future international framework. I'm just quoting some of the top three here. It says:

In particular, we seek: - Universal participation.

That's the British High Commission address in Ottawa here. It goes on to say:

- Agreement on a global long-term stabilisation goal.

- Deep absolute emissions reductions by developed countries.

I think it's always better, of course ,if one leads by example and sets the tone in that way, that we lead abroad, but only insofar as we're as well able to show that example on the home front here. At least this is what I'm told in respect to leadership in my family and in my community, and other places as well, that one must lead by example.

I need to commend you on a few things here, because I do believe that the government's agenda, your agenda as the Minister of the Environment here, is focused on some concrete examples. I have children. I have grandchildren, little ones, for whom it's a little hard to understand this complex back-and-forth business, but they know what concrete action means, and for the good of my children and my grandchildren, and those not yet born of course, we do need to see the practical things on the home front here in Canada and realistic results, achievable results, in cleaning up our environment.

So I would like you to respond on a few things here, because it came up before in terms of the absolute reductions. I'm referring to your agenda in respect to absolute reductions of greenhouse gases of 20% by the year 2020, further reductions of 60% to 70% by 2050, and a domestic carbon market; the fact on the local front here in Canada of a comprehensive strategy for the Arctic, including a world class Arctic research station; national air pollution regulations for our country, which are much needed; also a new water strategy to protect our lakes, and our rivers, and our oceans.

And then also I think the real crux of this thing is that you've got to have the enforcement mechanisms and also tougher enforcements that will make polluters accountable.

So I would like you to respond. We've gone from the big global picture of the universal, which I think is fine, but I think it's pretty important to be leading by example on the home scene here and in respect to your agenda on that front.

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

I certainly believe leadership means going first. That's why, after 10 years of rising emissions, after Kyoto, we're moving aggressively to first slow down, stabilize, and then see absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

I'll just go back to the previous example of the Montreal Protocol as it compares to Kyoto. Kyoto has no binding targets for the overwhelming majority of countries--none--and some people are proposing to go to the future with that as well. And that just doesn't cut it. That would be a failure, and Canada will not support a failure in this regard.

The science is demonstrably stronger. The effects are demonstrably stronger with respect to the impacts of climate change, even more so than the ozone-depleting substances. That's why we need everyone on board. That's the kind of aggressive action we're going to seek abroad.

It's an interesting strategy to negotiate. It's almost akin to negotiating a pay raise by saying, “By the way, if you don't give me the pay raise, I'm going to work for you anyway because I love my job. By the way, if you don't pay me at all, I'm going to continue to work at my job.”

We think we have to work constructively at those meetings in Montreal, the 20th anniversary, in September. We saw real leadership from the United States and China, which was welcomed, I think, at some of the international forums. We've seen a bit of a change in tone from China on this issue, which is very encouraging. And we're going to work constructively over the next two years to get them on board.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I want to commend you, because I do believe that if we're going to make any headway on the world scene here, we have to be assertive, and we have to be persistent and consistent in terms of prodding those countries forward.

As we saw in the slide here, anybody who's looked at any of these escalating amounts of pollution in the air because of the coal-fired plants, and so on, in China.... Unless those countries--China, India, and the U.S.--are onside, it occurs to any sensible person that we're not going to make the headway we need to for the future generation.

So I thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Vellacott.

Monsieur Lussier, pour cinq minutes.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, one very important principle in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is that countries have common, but differentiated, responsibilities.

There are two very important words in that principle: first, the word "common". Everyone agrees that we all live on the same planet, and breathe the same air. Thus, every country's contribution has an impact on total greenhouse gas production.

The second word in that important principle is "differentiated". To describe what that means, I will give you a few examples. For instance, the U.S. produces some 20 tonnes of greenhouse gases per capita; Canada produces 25 tonnes; and China produces 2.3 tonnes. If we take other figures to illustrate the word "differentiated", we could say that, in the 1990 to 2000 period, the United States and Europe contributed over 60% of all greenhouse gas emissions, while China contributed 8%.

We are trying to understand your position. We observe that you want China to pay for the consequences of development that the Chinese did not enjoy. You want to impose restrictions on China when China did not contribute much to greenhouse gas emissions between 1990 and 2000.

This brings us to the notion that developing countries need clean, new technologies. I was very surprised a few moments ago to learn that Canada's contribution of $1.5 million to the clean development mechanism has not been paid.

Have you no confidence in the clean development mechanism? Do you plan to boycott the mechanism, and to destabilize it by failing to contribute Canada's share?

That is my first question.

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

I have already said we support the mechanism. I don't know whether you were here when I said that. I don't understand your question.

In the first part of your comment, you said—

In your comments you talked about common but differentiated responsibilities, and we do support those. I guess it just comes down to the fact that rising greenhouse gases are causing great problems in our world, and we need to see those rising greenhouse gases go down--go down absolutely. Canada and the current developed countries cannot do it alone; we need everyone to do it.

Just to make my point--if we go to slide 2--if we can eliminate our emissions, as shown on that chart, it's going to have huge consequences on the health of our planet and vulnerable people around the world. We need to act and we cannot do it alone.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Minister, do you trust the studies carried out by the Australians?

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

I beg your pardon?

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

The graphs are from Australia. Do you have confidence in the studies carried out in Australia?

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

Of course.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

That does not answer my first question. I was saying that Canada had not paid its $1 million contribution.

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

I have already answered that question.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Are you blocking the clean development mechanism?

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

No.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

No?

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

Mr. Cullen has already asked me the question. I answered that we support the mechanism and will pay our contribution.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

But isn't it rather frivolous to be saying you support it when you fail to pay your contribution?

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

I am saying, for the fourth time, that we will pay our contribution.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I believe we already heard the same answer when you last appeared before the committee six months ago. So am I to understand that, in six months—

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

When I last appeared before you, the budget had not yet been established.

So are you making a comment when you actually know that the opposite is true? That would be political gamesmanship, yet you say that is something only I indulge in.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I would like to come back to the issue of the Montreal stock exchange and the carbon exchange. You know about the project to merge the Toronto and Montreal stock exchanges, which is currently being negotiated. Is that affecting your decision to decide where the carbon exchange will be located?

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

The Montreal stock exchange team has told me that that decision will be made by the market, not by the government.