Environment Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2009

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

I'm responding to your question.

The plan is what you've seen before from Michael Martin in terms of mid-term quantified emission reductions--

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Where's the legislation you promised three years ago?

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

Mr. Chairman, if I might have the floor....

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You have the floor, Minister.

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

I'm pleased to be here. I'm quite prepared to respond to questions. I'm not prepared to be harangued.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

But I need an answer. Do you have a plan? Where's the plan? Can you produce the plan for us here today, sir?

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

I have answered that question three times already today. Mr. Martin appeared before you. He laid out in considerable detail in a two-page summary--

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

A two-page summary.

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

--of what Canada is proceeding on in terms of our stated commitment to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020, from a 2006 level. That is Canada's domestic target. That is the target that we are taking forward to Copenhagen.

I'm quite happy to outline to you the basis upon which that target was arrived at, why we consider the target to be realistic, and the specific manner in which we intend to go about harmonizing with the United States to achieve it. One has to have regard to all of the sources of emissions in the Canadian economy.

The point I was making earlier is that in the United States, they have not yet decided if they are going to proceed with a cap and trade system, or, failing action by the U.S. Senate, whether the executive branch of their government will proceed with a regulatory approach. That is a critical distinction, because they are quite different ways of regulating the North American economy.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Minister.

Time has expired, so we'll move right along to Monsieur Bigras, s'il vous plaît.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the minister for accepting our invitation.

I am not surprised this morning, but I see that you are aligning yourself with the argument that has been made in this Parliament for nearly the past 12 years, that we need to implement absolute greenhouse gas emissions caps. It is the first time I have heard you say this publicly. I have been led to understand, based on that statement, that you are dropping emissions intensity targets in favour of absolute targets, meaning a real cap-and-trade system. However, you insist on sticking to 2006, not 1990, as the base year.

But a common front on climate change is being created in Canada. This initiative, led by the provinces, sets out the following reduction targets, based on 1990: 20% for Quebec, 15% for Ontario and 14% for British Columbia. Given those conditions, you realize that, in addition to being isolated internationally, you run the risk of also being isolated within Canada?

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

I will respond in English, if I may.

There certainly has been a great deal of work done with the provinces. You referred to a common front. Certainly, as you are aware, in order to prepare for Copenhagen, I've met with every single premier and every single environment minister over the close of the summer, in essentially face-to-face discussions.

My sense, based on that, is that there is actually quite a degree of commonality among Canadian provinces relative to climate change. I think there's a general acceptance that there is a need for a national climate change approach, one that respects the jurisdictions and roles of the provinces. There is a view that the approach should be fair and equitable and that there should be credit for early action. In particular, it should be an approach that is harmonized with the United States.

I think it's fair to say that this was something that was mentioned to me by every single premier with whom I met, the importance of harmonizing our efforts relative to greenhouse gases on a continental basis. Of course, that's entirely consistent with the government's policy objectives. Our approach to climate change must be harmonized on a continental basis.

Frankly, the concern that we have with Bill C-311 is that it does exactly the opposite. Bill C-311 proposes targets that are entirely discordant with the United States, making it extremely difficult--if not impossible--to implement on a North American basis. We are talking about a continentalized cap and trade system that involves absolute emission reductions, not intensity targets.

So to correct you, there is no suggestion that we are talking about the kinds of intensity targets that you might have seen in Turning the Corner. We are speaking about a cap and trade system.

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

I understand what you are telling us. You are moving towards caps. However, 1990 is fundamental, not only for environmental groups and companies that have taken steps in the past, but also for provinces that have action plans based on 1990.

Ultimately, do you have a proposal for all those who decided to take steps in the past? Do you intend to establish a program with off-set credits that would enable the provinces, companies, and everyone else who has taken steps to obtain their fair share of the credits, so that they can participate in this continental cap-and-trade market?

Without a compensation program, Quebec companies that have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions will be penalized and a considerable advantage will go to a single sector of the Canadian economy: the petroleum sector. Do you have a proposal for those provinces that have decided to go ahead and develop plans?

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

As per my previous comment, we have met with all of the provinces and premiers. One of the items of consensus was that there should be recognition of early action and that there should not be penalties imposed on any industry or any province by reason of them having been leaders and taking action--

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

Non, mais--

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

That was your question; I'm just responding.

In terms of how one would go about that in a continentalized cap and trade system, there would essentially be caps established for each industry and for each source of emissions. They would not be caps that are established and allocated on a provincial basis. They would be set on an industry basis.

And just to respond again to one of your points, there is no intent—

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

Mr. Chair, I do not have much time, and I understand what the minister is saying.

However, there does not seem to be consensus around the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment's table. Minister Beauchamp stated: "It is clear... that Quebec's ambition...must not be used as a free pass to enable other provinces to increase their emissions!".

I do not know what consensus the minister is talking about, but it is clearly not a consensus endorsed by the Quebec Minister of the Environment last week. You are talking about a consensus, but I feel that Ottawa and several Canadian provinces that want to take action are simply not listening to each other.

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

I've had repeated meetings with Minister Beauchamp. She has made that position very clear to me. I simply say to you that there's no suggestion before anyone that the system we are working on, harmonized with the United States, will penalize any particular Canadian province to the detriment of itself, or favour any other.

Under any cap and trade system, however, the architecture has to define the caps, the allowances, and the structure for each industry. These targets are not set on a provincial basis. They are set on a national basis and then implemented through industrial sector-by-sector caps.

In that context, those provinces and industries that have moved more quickly will be in a preferable position to achieve their objectives. They will be in a preferable position to sell offsets and allowances. Those who have not taken action will essentially be punished in the marketplace because they will be required to buy allowances from others who are early actors.

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

I understand, but your—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time is up, thank you very much.

Ms. Duncan, you have the floor.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Bezan.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for coming. We were advised that you would not be available. I very much appreciate you adjusting your schedule to accede to our request.

Mr. Minister, I'm going to ask you a couple of questions together, and then you can give me a fulsome reply.

Do you support the principle that federal environmental standards should be founded in science? I'd like just a yes or no to that, but I have a couple of questions that go with that.

We heard from a number of senior scientists, Canadian scientists, including scientists working for your own department. Overall, probably 100%, their testimony was that they stood by the international panel targets and the need to address those. We also heard from quite a number of scientists, including the scientist who prepared the report commissioned by the federal government, talking about the impacts we're already seeing in Canada, the impacts we may in the future see from climate change, and specific impacts to agriculture, the north, and so forth. Given that, it's all the more necessary that we stick to the international targets.

You've spoken a lot about the need to harmonize. I know this common refrain from Alberta, because I hear this all the time from the Alberta government, that they need to balance the environment and the economy. Given my first question about making sure that our standards are founded in solid science, I wonder where the environment is in these targets.

Coupled with that, as a minister of the crown and as an officer of the Government of Canada, you take your responsibilities very seriously, I know, and I appreciate that, but I wonder how you would rationalize your clear intent to violate the internationally binding targets under Kyoto. I wonder if the blockage in meeting the more necessary science-founded targets is the insistence by Alberta to stabilize at 58% above the 1990 levels.

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

That's a long question, but I'll do my best to respond.

Firstly, I am not a scientist; as you know, I'm a lawyer, as are you. But I'm a passionate believer in science and I'm a passionate believer in empiricism as the basis of sound public policy. I spoke about a month ago to all the employees of Environment Canada in an open forum and emphasized exactly that, that their responsibility as scientists is to produce results based on observation and analysis that has integrity. The integrity of science is extremely important; we all succumb simply to orthodoxy in its absence.

So from my perspective, yes, science is important, and our positions relative to climate change need to be based on science. Canada has been quite clear in this regard. I was personally quite clear in saying early on in the major economies forum, struck by President Obama, that we should be embracing the concept that we should limit emissions to a temperature increase of two degrees above pre-industrial levels, that this should be the target that we agree on. Of course, in the time that has followed, the G-8 has taken exactly that approach, as has the Commonwealth, and certainly that's the basis of what's taking place at the UNFCCC.

There are a number of things implicit within that if you adopt that science. One is the recognition that, in the developed world, emissions must have either peaked or be peaking quite quickly and beginning a downward trajectory. I think it's fair to say that's happening, but there's also the requirement that in the developing world we need to see significant abatement of what are projected to be the business-as-usual emissions.

Stated simply, the problem with the Kyoto Protocol is twofold. Firstly, the Americans did not ratify it--

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

But we did, Mr. Minister.

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

—and therefore 25% of the world's carbon emissions were not covered the treaty.

The second problem is that Brazil, India, China, and the so-called G77 did not have any emission reduction obligations under the treaty. So Kyoto essentially never could work as a construct.

What we need at Copenhagen is an approach that brings in all the principal emitters and contains obligations for all of them. It needs to be an approach that the United States is prepared to ratify so that we can all get about the serious business of reducing emissions in an orderly way and, frankly, in a real way. That is something that Kyoto has never achieved.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

You haven't answered my final question, but I'll give you something to go with that.

Your official, Mr. Martin, appeared before us previously and presented to us the two-page summary of the presentation, the essence of what Canada is standing by before the international negotiation table.

In that document, he presented that Canada's position was that coal-fired power is being phased out in Canada. I had expressed some dismay with that, given the fact that coal-fired power plants are, as we speak, being built in Alberta and with every intention of expanding those.

I had asked the question about Alberta, and I would appreciate clarification. We look at the commitments by the provinces across Canada, many of which are clearly committing to the science-based targets. The one that is way out of line is Alberta. Coal-fired power, as I understand, is the highest if not equal to the highest source, and the tar sands come in closely. So...what about Alberta?