Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 27th, 2013

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you.

In my next question I'm citing the Harris/Decima report on this advertising. This is about the use of advertising and it is taxpayers' money. What it said is that the groups—these were Americans—looking at these ads that your government spent taxpayers' money on were befuddled by the ads. The focus groups were displeased with the tone of the ads, and the Canadian Press also reported that the focus groups in Washington, DC told the Harris/Decima researchers that the ads launched in the spring during the heat of the Keystone battle lacked a cohesive and direct message to the American public.

You're spending $40 million of taxpayers' money. It's very poor quality, and the focus groups told you that. How do you justify spending that money?

My secondary question is this. When you've got one of the most profitable industries in North America, our oil industry, which could be sponsoring those ads and paying for them, why are you spending $40 million of taxpayers' money on poor-quality ads? How do you justify that expenditure?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Well I don't know whether you don't know the facts or whether you're being deliberately misleading, but the point is that we have a legal obligation to go to focus groups when we are launching an advertising campaign, to test the efficacy of those ads. The comments you are referring to deal with the focus groups prior to the ads going out.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

That's not what the article says.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Let me finish. As a result of the focus group input, we made changes to the ads. They were effective ads and we're happy with the results of them.

As to why we're doing it, as I explained, we're dealing here with an industry that is generating hundreds of billions of dollars, and there are a number of critical projects that are in play here internationally, as you know. Therefore this amount of money is cost-justified given the potential benefits that can flow from them.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, through you to the minister, what the Canadian Press clearly states is that this was after the ads were already launched in the spring. For the record I think that's important to mention.

This represents about a 7,000% increase from the ministry expenditures in 2010-11 on advertising.

My next question is very simply this. We've had President Obama say very clearly that Canada is not playing a role on climate change, is not being responsible when it comes to the environment. We had the Europeans saying the same thing. In a sense, this government has become the poster boy for irresponsible action. Canada of course finished 58th out of 61 countries this year in terms of putting in place the policies to combat climate change. So the reality is that this government has failed mightily in convincing Americans and Europeans that the government actually understands the importance of environmental action and action on climate change.

Why are you spending all of these tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money that could be funded through the most profitable industry in North America, the oil industry? It could be paying for those ads itself. Why are you using taxpayers' money rather than addressing the key issues that our allies and partners around the world are raising, condemning this government for its lack of action on the environment and climate change?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Julian, you're misrepresenting what the President said and what the Europeans said.

The President was very clear in his comments about Keystone. He raised one critical criterion, which is that he didn't see it would be in the U.S. national interest to approve that project if it would result in a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions. It does not. I can talk about that issue.

I can also talk, if you want, about my recent visit to Europe where I met with many of my counterparts to discuss the flawed and unscientific fuel quality directive and the movement on the part of many European countries to see that directive change so that it reflects science in an objective way. We had an excellent reception.

Let me just say that we have a record to be proud of. We have strengthened our position in clean energy and clean electricity generation by becoming the first major coal user to ban construction of traditional coal-fired electricity units. We have passenger vehicles and light trucks emitting half as much GHG as 2008 models. We have decoupled economic growth from the increase in GHG emissions. Since 2005 our emissions have decreased by 4.8% while the economy grew by 8.4%. As a result of the collective actions to date by government, consumers, and industry, Canada is estimated to have reduced its projected 2020 GHG emissions by 128 megatonnes relative to where the emissions would have been without action.

So we have a lot of accomplishments and a lot to be proud of.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Go ahead, please, Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister and Deputy Minister and your officials, for appearing here today.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I trust you'll give me the same leeway in answering questions that you gave the minister in making his opening statement, so I'll look forward to that.

I'm sure you're aware that members opposite believe strongly in openness and accountability, not to mention ethics in government. Supplementary estimates (B) identify more than $32 million in additional funding, including $15.6 million for AECL and $12.3 million for the National Energy Board.

Would I be correct to assume that your office, Minister, has some input into these funding requests and that the members of your staff approve of them?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Well, yes, we do—

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Okay, thank you.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

—but we take into account, of course, the independent nature of these organizations and will not compromise on environmental safety.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

In view of that, Minister, did you choose to hire Chris Woodcock as your chief of staff, or did the Prime Minister's office or anyone else suggest that you do so?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Regan—

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I don't see the relationship between the two questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Regan, how does this relate to the supplementary estimates (B)?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Well, I just asked the question about the fact that members of the minister's staff, in fact, are involved in the process. They approve of them, and I don't know how you can expect the minister's office to oversee the activities of the department without his staff being involved. So the activities of his staff and their ability to deal with these things are certainly appropriate and relevant to this matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Oliver, if you want to answer, go ahead.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

First of all, I understood the question to be a broad one relating to both the department and our staff. Of course the department is very heavily involved in the details, but our political staff is as well.

I have every confidence in the ability of Mr. Woodcock.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

At the time you hired Mr. Woodcock, were you aware that he'd been involved in the whitewash of a Senate report—

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Ms. Block.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

—and do you think that the Natural Resources files had been affected by the bombshell RCMP court filings naming Mr. Woodcock?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Regan, there is a point of order here by Ms. Block. I had recognized her, so hold off until Ms. Block—

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I do not see what this line of questioning has to do with the estimates (B). I think Mr. Regan has done a good job of spinning it so that it sounds as though it is somehow connected to the supplementary estimates (B) but I would ask that you make a ruling on that point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chairman, on this—