Evidence of meeting #52 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was plan.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you all for appearing. I particularly appreciate being able to appear in Mr. Scarpaleggia's absence as his replacement.
The minister in his presentation, which some of you heard, said that he valued our insight and welcomed our suggestions, and I'm hoping you would continue that theme with this discussion.
He indicated on page 4 of his presentation that the government had developed a comprehensive plan to achieve real emission reductions and at the same time maintain Canada's economic competitiveness and capacity to create jobs. I want to speak specifically about ecoAction and the ecoENERGY initiatives, which were a continuation of what the former Liberal government had presented under the enerGuide program. We're frankly appreciative of the continuation of that program, notwithstanding its rebranding.
If I can personalize this for a moment, in Guelph a company developed around that ecoENERGY program called Guelph Solar Hot Water. It created jobs installing hot water systems on buildings. When that program was surreptitiously abruptly ended last year, the owner of that company, Steve Dyck, came to me. We spoke and he was literally in tears from the loss of opportunity, the loss of jobs for his employees, and the loss of income for himself. It was just a terrible experience.
I then received e-mails from I can't tell you how many people, including a lady from Mount Forest, Corey La Chanse. She owns Green-Seal Technologies, which installs insulation in people's homes, and her business has also been affected. This is a program that allowed people to participate in climate change mitigation. It helped local economies. It spurred innovation and created jobs.
The minister indicated, “I will be a fierce champion for those programs that have proven effective over the course of recent years”. He said that, and yet he has already signalled in the House of Commons that this is a program that would not be coming back, which I regret.
So these are my questions to you. Was that program successful? How many jobs did it create? How many jobs have been lost because it has stopped? In your capacity working with the minister, will you be recommending to him that those programs be reconstituted?
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I'll just pause here for a minute. As all members know, in chapter 20 of O'Brien and Bosc, starting on page 1068.... I'll just read this:
Particular attention is paid to the questioning of public servants. [...] ...committees ordinarily accept the reasons that a public servant gives for declining to answer a specific question or series of questions which involve the giving of legal opinion, which may be perceived as a conflict with the witness' responsibility to the Minister, which are outside of their own area of responsibility, or which might affect business transactions.
I just say that because I believe this program is under NRCan rather than Environment Canada.
If you feel comfortable in replying, you're welcome to. If you don't, we have reasons for excusing you from answering those questions.
10:10 a.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment
Mr. Chairman, that was going to be my response. I apologize to the member. I don't have information about this program because it's not an Environment Canada program. It's an NRCan program. So I don't know if we can track down some information and provide it to you through the clerk of the committee.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
I'd very much appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I am sharing my time with Mr. Kennedy.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
We'd like to believe that you're giving advice that could be discussed in public to the minister. I see the references to confidential advice. The Ministry of the Environment is responsible for the overall plan on GHG reduction. That's one of your special roles. I see it referred to in a number of ministerial statements in your plans over the last few years. Is that correct?
10:10 a.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment
I would say I'm responsible for giving advice. The government and Parliament, ultimately, are responsible for the plan.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
If there are programs that are contributing substantially, we'd like to know. We'd also like to know from the responsible officials as well as the minister, when he's available, that there is actually a plan.
My colleague was asking whether this was an important part of the plan. The minister is on record that he's not advocating for this to continue. We're not asking you to contradict him, but it must have figured in the plan. So you've said you have a plan. The plan, I assume, adds up to the right number of megatonnes being removed by 2020, because we assume the government is sincere in its goal.
You say you don't agree with the environment commissioner. The national round table on the economy and the environment has given an estimate to suggest that the government, with the lead of the ministry, is going to reach 3% above 2005 levels, not 17% below.
Can you table a plan now in which things like retrofits are no longer part of the plan? The reasonable question is, how significant was that? Does the environment ministry know whether the plan was effective and efficient? Did it deliver? Could we see the plan that articulates not just the 65 megatonnes, a slight majority of which comes from the provinces, but the rest of the reduction as well? Are there numbers to support that?
I think that's what most people understand a plan to be—a numerical achievement we're trying to get to. So there are two things here: one is in respect of the reminder on the climate retrofits; the other is on the overall plan.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Mr. Kennedy's time has expired, so just give us brief response, and only where you feel comfortable.
10:10 a.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment
I'd welcome the opportunity in questions to talk about our plan. If you look at the chart in the backgrounder to the minister's speech that showed the share of emissions in the various sectors for 2005, you can see that the approach is quite straightforward. We are going to use a regulatory approach for each of those sectors and work our way around the pie chart.
We began with the transportation sector. I already talked a bit about that with Mr. Ouimet, so I won't repeat myself. The minister mentioned coal-fired electricity. That is well under way and we're hoping to roll out a pre-publication draft of those regulations soon.
The next is oil and gas. We've begun informal consultations with oil and gas—
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Could I ask the minister, through you, to come back with the figures that support the plan he's referring to? I think all members would benefit from that. Or we could come back in a subsequent round. That's what I'm really looking for.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We will have time for a third round and the minister has already said he's more than happy to come back. Maybe we can put a resolution together to ask him to come back on the budget and the main estimates. He could address the plan at that time.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
We're hearing that there is a plan, and I'm trying to get that information.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We can ask them to forward it. We can do that as well.
We're going to continue.
Mr. Calkins, you have the floor.
