Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 19 - Evidence - October 25, 2005
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 25, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 6:20 p.m. to examine and report on emerging issues related to its mandate.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: We are delighted to have the Minister of the Environment with us today, the Honourable Stéphane Dion and his Parliamentary Secretary, Bryon Wilfert who is, I believe, the vice-chair of the House Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development; am I right?
The Honourable Bryon Wilfert, P.C., M.P., Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment: No, parliamentary secretary keeps me busy enough.
The Chairman: I am sure it does. From the department, we have Mr. David Brackett.
Minister, I am delighted to welcome you back and we hope that you will be amenable to the idea of accepting some questions and having some discussion after the presentation.
[Translation]
The Honourable Stéphane Dion, Minister of the Environment: Thank you very much. I will be brief, as I have a committee that begins at 7 p.m. I would like us to take full advantage of our time together.
I would like to talk to you about the annual meeting of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change. Canada was invited by several countries to host this year's conference which will be held in Montreal from November 28 to December 9. This is an especially important event.
[English]
This conference is important as it is the first time that the Conference of the Parties to the Convention, COP, which is the conference of countries within the convention of climate change of the United Nations, and the Parties to the Protocol, MOP, members of the Kyoto Protocol, have conferred. Kyoto started this past February when Russia gave enough emission credits to other Kyoto countries to keep the Kyoto Protocol alive. This being said, matching these two groups may not necessarily be enough. There are countries within the Kyoto Protocol and countries outside the Kyoto Protocol. We need to reconcile that. Also, it is an important conference, because the world is more worried than ever about climate change. Public opinions are more aware of the issues and are questioning the governments. You have seen some agreements during the year that prove that. It would not have been possible to have the Gleneagles G8 Summit and the agreement on climate change, even two years ago. The consensus is growing but the differences between countries on how to tackle the problem are still there. There are three categories of countries. There are countries that have a Kyoto Protocol target, such as Europe, Canada, Japan and New Zealand. There are countries within the Kyoto Protocol but have no Kyoto target. This group includes most countries as we have 156 members in the protocol. Then there are the countries that are not in the Kyoto Protocol, including the developed countries, the major one being the United States with 25 per cent of the emissions.
We will try to bridge these three groups to build a stronger world. I have been travelling extensively with my officials. Mr. David Brackett, what is your title?
David Brackett, Special Adviser, Global Climate Affairs: My title is Senior Adviser, Global Climate Affairs.
Mr. Dion: He is between two entities always. There is Ms. Karen Kraft Sloan, Ambassador for the Environment; I think you know her well, and also Ambassador Jacques Bilodeau, my Ambassador for Climate Change. Mr. Wilfert is also working hard on the file. We have had 150 bilateral meetings with about 50 countries now and we have a sense of what is possible to achieve. We will work hard at Montreal. I would sum up what we have to achieve with the three I's. The first is implementation, the second is improvement and the third is innovation.
Implementation is implementation of the convention plus the Kyoto Protocol. We have 19 decisions to implement Kyoto. There are 156 countries that you need to convince for the 19 decisions. One decision will be the initiation of the Kyoto Joint Implementation process, which is the process by which two countries have a target and may work together on joint projects. This process will be important to decrease the respective targets. You have to be sure of compliance; this is the last chapter of the basic Kyoto Protocol rules that will need to be resolved in Montreal. I am confident this issue can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, but still we need to work on it. Once this agreement is done this last political piece of architecture will be complete and the compliance committee will be in place. So this is implementation. It is not done. It is a lot of work.
The second target is improvement of the Kyoto Protocol for 2006. We want some aspect of the protocol to be in good shape, which is not necessarily the case now. The Clean Development Mechanism is a key aspect of the protocol. It is a mechanism where a country who has a target, say Canada, tries to reach part of its target in a country without a target, say Mexico. If we help Mexico decrease its emissions, it will be credited to us, and will help us to reach our target. The problem is that the Clean Development Mechanism is slow and is not able to absorb all the requests from the world. We need to make it work and if we do, it will be a superb achievement. It will be perceived as a great result. We need to do different things to improve the Clean Development Mechanism. I may elaborate more in answers to questions. We need to develop adaptation. There are two aspects of climate change: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation is to mitigate the impact of human activities on climate. Adaptation is to adapt to climate change and all these natural disasters that come with it. We need to learn how to deal with climate change. An example is the North of Canada. When you develop a strategy for the North, you cannot do it for a North that existed 10 years ago. The North is not the same now. We agreed that the world would start a policy of adaptation, and we need to develop the adaptation plan in Montreal. This plan is a key aspect of what we need to do.
The third ``I'' is innovation. It is clear we need to do our homework on the Kyoto Protocol. Outside the Kyoto Protocol, there is also a world and this world is America, our big neighbour to the south. The Kyoto countries that have a target today represent 35 per cent of the gas emissions of the world. In 2012 at the end of the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol, Kyoto countries will represent 25 per cent or so of the emissions. It is not ideal that three quarters of the world's emissions will not be captured by the Kyoto Protocol. The Americans do not want to be part of Kyoto and it is clear we will not convince them, at least not before Montreal.
A declaration from all the countries is possible to start a process to learn from each other, to better build an international regime. In doing so, we will focus on six elements. The first one is to be sure the deep cuts we need in greenhouse gas emissions will not be done in a corner, but the policy will be linked to all our environmental goals, for example water. Water is the most important and crucial issue to many countries because fresh water is disappearing. We need to link these goals together. It is easy to do. Water is about the ecosystem, which is about the forest, which is about avoiding sending CO2 into the atmosphere. There are links among all these things. The second point is to link our climate change strategy with our economic development goal, such as the UN Millennium Development Goals. It is easy to do because climate change and economic development are linked to energy efficiency and security. The way to succeed is to build a plan like the one we have in Canada where it is clear that climate change is there to help the economy to become not only cleaner but also more competitive because it is more energy efficient. The third element of the declaration is to listen to what the experts say to us, the decision-makers, about the way to improve the participation of all the countries, so we need a principle of broadened participation. The experts have come up with ideas on how to develop a system that contains more incentives for greater participation than we have today. The fourth element deals with the world carbon market. How can we set a price for carbon that will relate to every area where there are climate change initiatives? Currently, a carbon market is being created in Canada. The Europeans have created a carbon market this year as well. Again, there are many ideas on how to create a global carbon market but the linkages leave something to be desired. Some American states would like to set up a market. It would be wonderful to have a world carbon market that is better connected.
[Translation]
The fifth element is to determine how to bring about this technological revolution that is so critical to our success: hydrogen, harnessing CO2, isolating CO2, clean coal, wind energy technology that is being perfected every year, and so forth. How do we go about accelerating the pace of technological innovation and disseminating this technology throughout the world?
The sixth element involves adaptation. I always come back to this point: How do we devise a global strategy for adapting to climate change? We are still having problems devising a national adaptation strategy. Canada has not been completely successful in devising a sound strategy. Eventually, we will get there, but you can well imagine that formulating a global strategy is a highly complex process. This matter warrants serious consideration.
[English]
Therefore, I have three objectives — the three I's: Implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol; Improvement, especially of the Clean Development Mechanism; and Innovation — a process by which the countries would strive to build a better regime for the future. If Montreal delivers that at the conference, it will be deemed an historic moment. We will experience some success and, I hope, all the I's will be realized.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: As the conference date draws nearer, I note that the general public does not appear to be aware that this event will be taking place. Nor do stakeholders, the press, industry and environmental officials. Is a media information and awareness campaign being planned, as the event approaches, to inform the public? I appreciate that you have made a number of speeches and that getting the public's attention is extremely difficult in a highly competitive world. Some issues receive considerably more media coverage.
Mr. Dion: The conference will receive extensive media coverage, but as always, there will be a lot of press coverage after the fact. They will all wake up at the same time when the conference rolls around. When we speak to the press, they all tell us that they want to report on this story. They always tell us that they will get to it later. When they actually do, it will snowball. The One-Tonne Challenge Program has proven to be very informative. Environmental groups know about this conference. I would be very disappointed to learn that they were unaware of this scheduled event. The group Équiterre is responsible for mobilizing all environmental groups, particularly in Quebec, but throughout Canada as well, when it comes to global conferences. When climate change is the topic of discussion, environmental groups are highly mobilized, not to mention that a phenomenal amount of correspondence is exchanged daily.
As far as the conference goes, a great many parallel meetings will be held for environmental groups and industry officials. Businesses are clamoring to be a part of this media event. Parallel meetings will be held for aboriginal and northern groups. The provinces and territories have organized their own conference with our help. The Conference of Leaders will bring together business leaders, state governors and provincial environment and natural resources ministers and municipal leaders for a parallel meeting. Mr. Tremblay from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is organizing a major conference as well, the biggest of its kind ever staged in Canada outside of a sporting event.
I agree with you that the media is somewhat late in raising public awareness of this event. However, that is generally the case.
Senator Dawson: Where I come from in the communications world, there is an expression ``you pray for P.R., but you pay for advertising,'' meaning that while you expect some support from the media, when it comes to matters under your control — and I am careful when it comes to the notion of publicity — some things cannot be left solely to prayer. I realize that in November, the media spotlight will be on the Gomery Report, while in December, it will shine on the CdP 11. Would an Internet campaign raise public awareness of this event? The Internet can be a useful tool for disseminating information to the public.
Mr. Dion: There will certainly be some publicity surrounding this event, but our advertising budget is not huge. I can tell you that hotel rooms in Montreal will be very hard to come by during the conference. I am not worried about the ripple effect that this conference will have. Nor do I believe we need to spend large sums of public money to let people know about the event, because it will have an impact. Opinion polls show that the public is already ahead of the politicians when it comes to climate change. I need to convince my colleagues from all parties that climate change is not merely a product of people's imaginations. After the events of this past summer, the public tends too often to link weather events to climate change. We have seen storms in the past, and these were not due to climate change, but people are gaining a better appreciation of what is at stake. The message is no longer being delivered only by fanatical environmental groups. The world's largest insurance companies are telling people that climate change could be the biggest obstacle encountered by businesses during this century. This statement has given people much food for thought. Business leaders will be well represented at the event. I fully expect that you will not be disappointed by the conference's outcome.
[English]
Senator Cochrane: There are differences of opinion across the country on climate change. Some people are willing and some are not so willing. My question is related to the same subject. What level of support have you seen within the federal government, both around the cabinet table and throughout your department? Is there a consensus on how best to approach the Montreal conference? What are the objectives?
Mr. Dion: The objectives are the three I's — Implementation, Improvement and Innovation, which are supported by my colleagues. They help me to clarify what we want to do. In February, it was decided that the conference would be in Montreal. Many countries asked us to accept and we did so. At the time, I would not have been able to describe precisely what I wanted to achieve because we had not consulted on the issues. What I have communicated to the committee today is the result of 150 meetings. Last week, I met in Nairobi, Kenya, with 52 ministers of the environment for Africa. I made the same presentation to them that I have made this evening. I received a great deal of support. This objective is backed by all of cabinet.
Senator Cochrane: Is it backed by all of cabinet?
Mr. Dion: Yes. It is a governmental policy. I speak on behalf of the government with the strong support of the Prime Minister.
Senator Cochrane: I want to talk to you about Project Green launched in April, 2005. How does it relate to other federal initiatives, such as environmental sustainability and the competitiveness framework? What is the main plan for putting Canada on the path to sustainability?
Mr. Dion: In fact, Project Green is the level for all our environmental strategy. The Climate Change Plan for Canada is an important piece of it. All this is well integrated in the vision of our Prime Minister, which is to be sure that Canada will be a champion of the new industrial revolution in which we are the sustainable economy.
We need to have productivity, but now productivity is resource productivity. That means for each GDP percentage you gain, make sure it will not decrease your capacity for growth in 10 or 20 years from now. That means, do not use too much water. Do not use too many natural resources. Have energy efficiency. Be good in recycling, composting and so on.
The climate change strategy is an additional incentive to do the right thing. We have to refurbish 70 per cent of our coal power plant facilities in Canada in the next 20 years. The private sector and the public sector will have hundreds of billions of dollars to do it. Once you have a clean coal power plant, it is for the next 40 years. The Climate Change Plan gives us an additional incentive to be sure these new plants have the best technology available to be as clean as possible — and to speed up the invention of the new technologies that we need.
I use coal as an example because it is the most polluting way to generate electricity. It is not possible for all our provinces to close down their coal capacity. If we still need coal, we need to speed up the invention of the cleanest coal we can have. Once we have it, the Climate Change Plan uses the Kyoto Protocol mechanisms to speed up the transfer to other countries.
For example, let us take China. China has a population of 1,200,000,000. For this country, wind power is unlikely to be enough. The coal they are using with poor technology is very polluting. It is terrible for them and terrible for Japan. Now, 20 per cent of the mercury that we have in our lakes and rivers that is manmade is coming from China — and mercury is awful. In addition to greenhouse gases, you also have these other pollutants.
We need to use Kyoto mechanisms to speed up the transfer of technology such as clean coal and CO2 sequestration — and to be sure that the Canadian technology will be the best. With that, we will decrease megatons of greenhouse gas and make megatons of money.
Senator Cochrane: My concern is how do you assess the progress that will take place with this Project Green? What are the indicators of success? How will they be measured?
Mr. Dion: What are the main indicators of success for the Climate Change Plan?
Senator Cochrane: Yes.
Mr. Dion: The Climate Change Plan —
Senator Cochrane: For Project Green.
Mr. Dion: For Project Green, before the end of this year, we will release new capacity to have good indicators for resource productivity. I will be pleased at that time to discuss with your committee how much these new indicators will help us to measure improvement of resource productivity for Canada.
For the Climate Change Plan, the main indicator is the amount of greenhouse gas emissions you reduce. The indicator used worldwide is emissions equivalent to a tonne of CO2. CO2 is the main gas creating greenhouse gas emissions, and the order of gases is computed in equivalence to a tonne of CO2.
Canada has to decrease its target by the equivalent of 270 megatons of greenhouse gases. That means 270 million tonnes of CO2. It is by far the toughest target of all the Kyoto countries. It is demanding because, as you know, our emissions are going up instead of going down. In the coming years, we need to stop the growth and to start a deep decrease.
It is achievable, if we work hard; if we have a population that is well aware of what we need to do; if we give good incentives; if we create a carbon market, which is what we will create in the coming months; and so on. It is what we need to do. In doing so, we will have more energy efficiency, a more efficient economy.
The Chairman: Thank you, minister. I have to interrupt for two things. First, I must apologize to committee members for two things, the first of which is that there will be a short in camera meeting at the end when the minister leaves us. The second thing is to tell you — and I apologize for this, I did not know and I should have known — the minister, together with Mr. Wilfert, has to leave for a cabinet meeting at 7 p.m. I will go to the list now and ask everybody to ask a question. We will go to a second round if we get there.
Minister, I will contact your folks to see if we can get together again soon. It is difficult for us to say hello in 45 minutes.
Mr. Dion: Do you suggest that everybody ask their questions and I answer everyone at the end?
The Chairman: If it is agreeable with you, we will go one at a time.
Mr. Dion: I will try to be —
The Chairman: Better to answer them while the iron is hot.
Senator Spivak: Your energy is contagious and I think the macro plan is good. Some of the ideas have been around for so long. It was Michael Porter of Harvard University, during the Mulroney administration, that produced a study saying that to be green is to be competitive. I will not ask you that question. I will ask you a microcosm question: Why do we not have a green procurement plan in place? We should. That is easy to do, it seems to me.
Mr. Dion: We have some green procurement policies in place, but I agree with you we still do not have a green procurement strategy. It is coming. It is a commitment of the Climate Change Plan.
We have asked each Canadian to provide their tonne in the One-Tonne Challenge. Each of us as a consumer, on average, sends five tonnes a year of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We asked each Canadian to decrease it by one, down to four tonnes.
The Government of Canada has its own one-tonne challenge, but it is one megaton. The government sends three megatons a year into the atmosphere. For 2010 to 2012, we want to be able to decrease it to two megatons a year. For that, we need a very compelling green procurement policy. You may bring before this committee Minister Scott Brison or President of the Treasury Board Reg Alcock, or the two of them, and you will see how much they are committed to deliver this policy.
The Chairman: We will do that. Senator Angus?
Senator Angus: I was glad you said what you said a moment ago because, frankly, I thought we were coming tonight to hear the minister talk to us and be questioned by us on the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. That commissioner was here before us the other day.
I heard the minister say when we started at nearly 6:15 p.m. that he had a cabinet meeting at 7 p.m. Since there are only three or four minutes remaining, I will reserve my questioning until we have a proper chance because this really makes a mockery.
I did not come here to hear the hyping of the Montreal conference. I agree with Senator Dawson; it is great to get some free publicity and this is being televised. I salute you, minister, not only for taking advantage of that opportunity, but also for showing great leadership in green procurement. I happened to see you driving up in your Prius the other morning and I wish all your colleagues would follow your example.
Mr. Dion: On the report of the commissioner, she is doing a great job. Her report is helpful in identifying what we need to improve. It is well done, because since then I know that Minister Geoff Regan came with new ocean-protected areas, and that is what she requested.
Regarding biodiversity, one of her concerns is that we do not have any indicators of whether we are doing well or not. I agree, except that a lot of our levers are provincial and there is no use having indicators if they are not national indicators.
The first item on the agenda of a meeting a couple of weeks after the report was precisely that. I am confident that next year we will be close to starting the process that will allow us to have good indicators for biodiversity in Canada. It is a helpful report.
Senator Angus: Mr. Minister, you may be surprised, but I defended you the other day. I know that you have great enthusiasm for this portfolio, and I know how hard you are working. I understand that it was not easy to meet with all the environment ministers in a rather difficult place. The inference of what the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said the other day was that you, as a minister, may be spinning your wheels, that there is no plan, and that your predecessors had the same problem because you do not have the necessary support, although you have the tools.
I would like to explore that with you. I believe that you are acting in good faith, but we were ranked 28th out of 30 by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, and that is bad news for Canada.
Mr. Dion: However, the day before, the Conference Board of Canada ranked us eighth. The bottom line is that we need to do much more, whether a study ranks us eighth or second in the OECD, as some studies have, depending on the indicators used. With regard to water quality, we are one of the best. With regard to water consumption per capita, we are one of the worst, because Canadians use water without any sense of what they are doing, compared to other countries with little water that are more prudent in their use of it. It depends on the indicators used, but the bottom line is that we need to do much more.
Senator Angus: Thank you for that, sir.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: I would like to thank you for your personal commitment to Project Green and to the climate change plan.
My question concerns universities. Many institutions — including several in my province — have invested a significant amount of time and money in environmental research. In your opinion, are these research efforts in line with the government's proposed sustainable development plan? Do you feel that sufficient funding is allocated to scientific research in this area and what role should universities be playing?
Mr. Dion: Yes, these efforts are in line with the government's plan and no, universities do not receive adequate funding. Funding shortfalls are an ongoing problem. We need to step up the pace of research in environmental technology. Canada must make this a priority, otherwise it will be left behind. I am not certain that this type of research should be pigeonholed into the ``energy and environmental technology'' category. Renewable energies should be part of a broader energy strategy. The same holds true for universities. It is critically important, in my view, that the Canada Foundation for Innovation focus on environmental research.
As for the plan itself, I would emphasize that by creating a market for fossil fuels, we will encourage people to look for solutions, because funding will be available for those who do find solutions. This is the best way to promote research. We are telling people to come up with projects and if they help lower emissions, then they will receive funding. Business, municipal and community leaders will seek out expert advice.
The same goes for contaminated sites. The government has plans to decontaminate all federal sites within the next 10 or 12 years. The cost of this exercise has been pegged at $3.5 billion. It is all well and good to want to decontaminate these sites, but we need to have the know-how to do it. We need to call on the top experts in this field and that will not be possible if we fail to create a market for them. And a market will be created very soon. There are thousands of sites across Canada that need to be decontaminated and each one represents a scientific challenge. Just think of how research will be fostered once the clean-up process is completed.
Getting back to climate change, we will be establishing a fund for technology research. Businesses will be able to meet a portion of their target by increasing their R&D into ways of reducing greenhouse gases. In the process, funding will flow to our researchers and universities.
[English]
The Chairman: We have not even tickled, let alone scratched, the surface of the things about which we want to talk to you. This committee issued a report recently that talked about making sustainable development an integral central governing factor of the Government of Canada, which would be to the advantage of the things that you and we all seek. We want to explore those things with you in depth.
As well, we want to talk to you about some things we learned during our recent trip to meet with environmental and energy people in Europe — Paris and Venice, in particular — from the OECD and others. We want to explore those things in more depth than we have had time to do today. Therefore, I will take you up on your generous offer to come back soon. We will be in touch with you to arrange that.
Senator Cochrane: My question is on an issue of importance to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is about the cessation of Environment Canada's weather forecasting services in Gander. The decision to provide service for Newfoundland and Labrador from Nova Scotia has resulted in entirely inadequate service. We have had countless major snowstorms with as much as 50 centimetres of snow when little or no snow was forecast. As well, the opposite has happened. We have had heavy snowstorms forecast, with schools closed as a result of the predictions, and then had no snow, let alone a storm. The service is simply inadequate.
Does your department monitor the inaccuracies in weather forecasting that have plagued our province since the federal government axed the only weather forecasting service in the province? If so, what actions will you take to address the issue?
Mr. Dion: I agree that we need to monitor the results of that change. If you have any information for us on this, I would be pleased to look at it.
Senator Cochrane: Thank you so much.
The Chairman: Thank you all for being with us. We will see you again soon, I hope.
The committee continued in camera.