Environment Committee on March 8th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Woodworth, you have the floor.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Welcome, Minister. It's great to see you at this table. We're all very excited and interested, and we're anticipating your work in this role.

There is a particular area of interest for me. It's in a way related to the climate change issue, but of course climate change is a complex matter, and our government is well aware of that. In particular I note that the presentation you gave mentioned Canada's part in assisting with climate change adaptation. We know of course that Canada is responsible for only 2% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, but that around the world the need for adaptation and mitigation of climate change is very pressing in some areas.

I would like to ask you about our government's commitment to fast-start financing of these adaptation initiatives and the degree of importance that our government attaches to investing heavily in adaptation plans.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you.

Again, in our continuing dialogue, colleagues, and certainly in continuing discussions and debates, on some occasions, with environmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, Canadians at large, and our international friends and partners, we need to conduct these discussions on the basis of facts and science. Sometimes we get somewhat derailed when there are exaggerations, misrepresentations, or deliberate untruths made to score points on one side or another of these arguments.

As we go forward, it is always relevant to remember that Canada does in fact contribute barely 2% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. If I may remind the committee again, transportation and the coal-fired electricity generation sectors are the largest contributors of those gases. Some other sectors receive more domestic and international coverage, but they are minor contributors to total greenhouse gas emissions.

I can't say this enough: Canada is a leader in the global science effort to address the phenomenon known as climate change. We are an active participant and contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As my colleagues will know, recent scientific results published in a variety of highly respected scientific journals have illustrated the significant contribution the scientists at Environment Canada are contributing on the world stage. They have also shown Canada's commitment to addressing the challenges of climate change and to encouraging the largest emitters to reform and remediate and adapt, because adaptation is a large part, certainly, of Environment Canada concerns and programs.

For example, in the Canadian Arctic, some damage that has been done and some challenges that need to be addressed cannot be fully corrected. With regard to plants, animals, and the human beings who live in those parts of Canada and in affected regions around the world, there needs to be funding and support in terms of adaptation.

With regard to that, the $400 million commitment made to the fast-start program, to which money is already flowing, is being applied to developing countries and to places such as small island states, which are already seeing rising sea levels. In some extreme cases they will require the eventual relocation of populations to other islands or higher ground.

You have seen in the supplementary estimates (C) the redirection of funding to CIDA for application in Haiti, where a large part of the environmental remediation is going to require reforestation on a scale that is probably unprecedented anywhere in the world.

The commitment is there. I offer to all of my colleagues, both on the government side and on the opposition side, any supplementary information, briefings, or updates you require. I will ensure that the information is made available and that we work together. This is one of those areas where we can and should put partisan dynamics aside, because, and I can't say it enough, there is so much good that is being done by the various departments within Environment Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Minister Kent and Mr. Woodworth.

Your time with us has expired. We're already over the time you had available. Time goes by quickly when you're having fun.

I will suspend briefly, and we will continue with round two with officials. The minister is always welcome to stay, but he has also extended his willingness to return to committee at a later date to talk about the budget and to continue our discussion on the main estimates.

Thank you, Mr. Kent.

We will suspend for five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll call the meeting back to order.

We're going to continue on with our second round of questioning. We have been joined by Michael Keenan and Basia Ruta, who will help with answering questions.

With that, we're going to continue with Mr. Ouellet.

You have five minutes.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for staying on with us. It gives us an opportunity to continue asking some questions. Also, thank you very much for appearing today with the minister.

Mr. Boothe, in the speech Minister Kent just gave, and I'm sure you're very familiar with the content, he said "We have put in place a plan that is already—I emphasize the word 'already'—reducing greenhouse gas emissions, GHGs." Then he said that he didn't want to give incorrect information.

But if we look at your department's website, we see that emissions, in megatonnes, went down between 2008 and 2009—obviously because there was a crisis—but that they increased from 701 megatonnes in 2009 to 718 megatonnes in 2010, and that emissions are expected to be 720 megatonnes in 2011 and 728 megatonnes in 2012. But the minister is saying that there are reductions.

On your site, it is also stated that, with the federal measures, the emissions in megatonnes are continuing to go up. So there's no point in having federal measures in place, knowing that the figures relating to emissions in megatonnes are going up, if we go by the numbers I just gave you.

So, could you explain to me the difference between what the minister just said and what appears on the website of your department?

[Paul Boothe, Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment]

First, thank you for your question, Mr. Chair.

This is an important question. I'm happy to have a chance to respond to it. Basically, when you look at the website, what you see is the historical path of emissions and then three additional pieces of information for 2020, which is the target year.

The first piece is where we think the Canadian economy would be if there had been no government action. When I say “no government action”, I mean not just federal government action, but also provincial government action. Environment Canada, under Michael Keenan, runs a sophisticated model to do these kinds of estimates, but they are estimates. Our measure of the 2020 amount would be about 850 megatonnes, with no government action.

With the actions that have been taken so far—that have been announced so far—both federal and provincial, we believe that we will be in 2020 at about 785. That brings us down about 65 megatonnes, which is about a quarter of the distance that we have to go to reach our target in 2020—607 megatonnes. That's why the minister says the actions that have been taken to date move us about a quarter of the distance that we have to go to reach our target in 2020. We readily acknowledge that there's still lots more work to do. We have to go from 785 down to 607.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Boothe, I'm going to stop you there. The question is not about whether we need to have more measures or better measures. The question is finding out how it is that the minister just spoke to us about reductions, when, really, your website says it's a matter of increases. That's the contradiction I want to understand.

[Paul Boothe]

Okay, absolutely.

The easiest way to explain this is to say that in the case of a growing economy, in a country with a growing population, it's not possible to go in a straight line from our current level down to our target. We have to take measures that take effect over time, and this approach will bend the line down to our target.

We look at the 2020 number without government action, and then we take actions that over time will start to bend the line down. We believe we're about a quarter of the way there, but there are still many more actions that need to be taken to get us to the 607 target.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

You are saying the same thing over again, about what will happen in 2020. But that's not what I want you to talk about. I'm saying that the minister said that there were reductions, but your site shows increases.

I would like to come back to another topic. The environmental commissioner said that you had no plan to offset climate change. I'm not talking about GHGs, but climate change. So, what is the basis, in your department, for engaging in significant spending on climate change if you have no plan?

Let me give you an example. The minister just talked about actions that will be taken to reduce automobile emissions. Not a word about a general plan for using public transit, such as trains. Nothing, as if trains didn't exist! You do often make reference to the United States, but just for cars. But we know quite well that the Obama administration is heavily promoting trains. In Canada, don't we know that the train has worked before?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Give just a brief response, please.

[Paul Boothe]

First of all, I guess I would have to respectfully disagree with the commissioner when he says we have no plan. In fact, as the minister said, we are pursuing a regulatory approach.

Let me just focus on the area you spoke of, rail. When you look at the transportation sector, which is the largest sector, we divide that sector into light-duty vehicles, heavy-duty vehicles, air, rail, and marine. For light-duty vehicles, the first round is done. We are working on the heavy-duty vehicles. Our colleagues at Transport Canada are currently working on rail, marine, and air. Of course marine and air are going to require some international discussions, but they are working on regulations for the rail sector to reduce emissions in that sector. So we do have a plan.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here. Thank you for sharing the good news and dispelling some of the myths we hear all too often from the opposition members. There is very good work happening, as we've heard. We do have a plan, and we are well on our way to meeting our very aggressive goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17%. We are a world leader and we're very proud of what Canada is accomplishing.

I'd like to focus on page 116 of the main estimates in my questions, and one of the two issues I want to ask about is aboriginal consultations. We're increasing that by $1.5 million, so I'd like to know what the total amount will be. Also, we're increasing by $1 million to deal with litigation costs. Ms. Duncan's response to the $30 million was, well, do as the activists demand and that way you will save that $30 million--just buckle down and buckle under and do what the activists say. I don't think it's quite that simple. Of course the NDP Bill C-469 brought by Ms. Duncan calls for even more expenses and dramatic increases of litigation if that were to go ahead. Hopefully it never will see the light of day.

Also, under the study of Bill C-469 there was no consultation with first nations, unfortunately. I think it's very important that we do have consultation with first nations. So the aboriginal consultations are going up. What is the total amount now that's being proposed?

[Elaine Feldman]

Thank you very much.

The agency provides funding both for aboriginal groups and for the public to participate in environmental assessment. Our total envelope for the two programs is in the order of $4 million annually.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So that's going up from $2.5 million to $4 million?

[Elaine Feldman]

Right now we're spending about $4 million. The amount we spend each year varies a bit. It depends on how many major projects are going through environmental assessment and whether the groups to which we allocate the funding are able to spend the money in the year in which it's allocated. Sometimes we have to move money from one year to the next. But we look at our total envelope as approximately $4 million.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

And that has been the same for the last couple of years?

[Elaine Feldman]

That's correct. It has been in that order.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So in the explanation where it says there's an increase of 1.5%, in fact it's just moving it from one year to the next. Is that what you're saying?

[Elaine Feldman]

That's correct.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Could you comment on the increase in litigation costs of a million dollars?

[Elaine Feldman]

As I think I said earlier, some of this money also represents some funding that we had put aside for litigation costs that wasn't spent last year, so we're moving it into this fiscal year, and that's litigation in which the agency is appearing as a defendant. The agency is not acting as a complainant in these cases but is defending cases brought against it.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Correct. Are we seeing the cost of litigation going up, or is it static over the last five to ten years?

[Elaine Feldman]

My sense would be that our litigation costs are always going up.