Environment Committee on Feb. 12th, 2009

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Let me ask you then, Minister, how many more seniors are riding the bus because of your transit pass.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Well I can tell you that the calculations were done on the basis that—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

How many?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

—the tax measures would have increased ridership on transit by 2.5% in each of the two years.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Where is that? The commissioner—

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

That's the basis upon which the calculations were done. That's what you asked for.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I do ask that you allow the minister to respond.

I'll give you a couple more seconds here, but we are urged to show appropriate courtesy and fairness when questioning witnesses.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

To carry on responding to your question, you've also raised the transfers to the provinces, the dollars that were transferred, the $1.5 billion that was transferred to the provinces. You've publicly said that this amounts to eco fraud on the part of the Province of Ontario and the other provinces who received the dollars.

I'd say to you today, in this public forum, if you have specific information to table about activities of fraud—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I didn't say.... Where's the—

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

—I'd like to see that.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Minister, here's the question: where's the money?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

The money was transferred to the provinces—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Where's the money?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

—and if you have specific illustrations or concerns about fraud on the part of the Province of Ontario—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Just like the predecessor.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

—or any other province, I'd be pleased to see that from you and we'll investigate.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Time has expired and we're going to move on.

Monsieur Bigras, sept minutes, s'il vous plaît.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Minister.

This morning, you distributed your speaking notes to the committee. However, my questions are not on the portions of the notes you read, but rather on the paragraphs you skipped and did not read, for example those near the top of page 10 of the English version, where you indicate that Canada has a variety of natural resources, including oil and natural gas. In your notes, you state that this could be, and I quote: "[...] an obvious way for many border states to reduce their reliance on coal-fired plants."

In an interview you granted the Ottawa Citizen on February 5, 2009, you said that the energy impact of tar sands would have to be assessed, as well as their repercussions on the environment, but that the major share of greenhouse gas emissions in North America were currently generated by coal-fired power plants in the U.S.

If I remember, on February 14, 2002, in response to a U.S. proposal on climate change, your predecessor, David Anderson, said, and I quote:

We can help the U.S. achieve its targets by developing clean energy in Canada, but there must be continued recognition that Canada wants energy credits, credits for exporting clean energy.

Do you plan to suggest to the U.S. that Canada obtain energy credits for exporting oil from tar sands, by arguing that this would contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in comparison with emissions from coal-fired plants? Do you want to put that hypothesis on the table before the Americans?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Thank you for your question, which I will answer in English.

I think in answering that question one has to have regard to the overall situation in North America. We are interested, as a country, in ensuring that we responsibly develop all of our energy resources. That includes hydrocarbons as well as renewables.

The United States faces significant challenges with respect to coal-burning thermal electricity plants. That's their challenge. The new President has really challenged the American nation to deal with that in the context of clean coal as well as renewables. Similarly, in Canada our challenge is to deal with clean oil and renewables. But I think you need to bear in mind the quantum of relative emissions that we are talking about.

The emissions in North America, in the United States specifically, from coal burning plants are 60 times the size of the emissions that come from the Canadian oil sands. The total emissions from the Canadian oil sands amount to 0.05% of the emissions of greenhouse gases from the United States. That's the relative situation we're speaking of.

Does this need to be a common objective? Absolutely. We need to ensure that Canadian resources are developed in the most reasonable way and that we bring on as many renewables as possible.

The other factor that I think is important is the relative balance in Canada and the United States. Canadians have done an extraordinary job in developing non-emitting energies. Seventy-three per cent of Canada's electricity stock is non-emitting. In the Untied States it's actually the converse. Over 75% of the American electricity stock is emitting.

So they face quite a different challenge from ours.

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

I understand very well what you are saying. However, your emissary, Preston Manning, published an open letter in the Globe and Mail yesterday, if I'm correct, in which he wondered what was happening with "dirty oil."

Oil from tar sands is of course a potential fuel, but perhaps a fuel that would be less polluting than coal. In view of that, do you agree with what your predecessor, David Anderson, said on February 14, 2002—that Canada could obtain clean energy export credits if it exported oil from tar sands to the U.S.? Do you believe that Canada should be recognized because it contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

I'm not going to delve into previous commentary by anyone, but I would say that as we have discussions with the United States and with other members of the international community, everyone is working towards an architecture of a system that reduces greenhouse gases while simultaneously ensuring that we have the energy sources to fuel our society. There is no doubt about that.

In the context of North America, that needs to take into account the very extensive hydro resources that we will produce as a country. It needs to reflect smart use of renewables. It needs to reflect the reality of the hydrocarbons that we consume in North America, across the border.

You asked the question of whether there will be credits. None of this, at this point, has been agreed upon. Obviously, you start from common targets and common principles and then delve into what the architecture of a system might look like.

What has been proposed to this point in the United States is a system of cap and trade, whereby all carbon emissions in American society will be capped, there will be a 100% auction of those allowances, and they will then be traded in the American marketplace.

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

Second, with regard to the supplementary estimates, I should say that it takes some gall for the minister to appear before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to request $13.965 million more to cover operating costs for regulatory measures applied in the industrial sector under the Clean Air Regulatory Agenda—while you, Minister, have since 2006 been promising greenhouse gas emission regulations but have tabled nothing. In all honesty, how can you appear before this committee and ask for more funding for regulatory measures in the industrial sector, when you have not even deigned to publish those regulations?

If I may point out, as recently as yesterday your website stated that you were to table the regulations by the end of last year, in 2008. The regulations were to have been published by the end of 2008. So how can you justify asking us for supplementary funding now? You have not even deigned to publish the regulations. Today, you appear before us and ask us for more funding. I must say that I cannot understand this. We are not only lagging behind internationally, but also behind our neighbours to the south, the United States.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Time has expired, so I expect just a very brief response.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The dollars in question, the $13.9 million, are necessary to carry on with the work of developing the regulatory framework. I would say to you that the regulatory framework we are developing in Canada is one of the most comprehensive in the world. It is far reaching. No one else has regulated the industrial sector in the manner that's being proposed in Canada. It's complicated. It will fit well together with what is happening in the United States. We will continue to develop that in the way we've promised.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Time has expired. We'll move on.

Ms. Duncan, the floor is yours.