Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 10 - Evidence - December 7 2006
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 7, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 8:05 a.m. to examine and report on emerging issues related to its mandate.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: It is my pleasure to welcome you and viewers to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Today we have the pleasure of having before us the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Rona Ambrose, who I am happy to say, is the member of Parliament for a constituency which is immediately contiguous to the city of Edmonton, where I live.
Accompanying the minister is Mr. James Riordan, Executive Director of the National Office for Pollution Prevention; Ms. France Jacovella, Director of the Chemicals Sector Division; and Mr. Gord Owen, Director General of the Clean Air Directorate.
My name is Senator Banks, I am from Alberta, and I am chair of this committee. I would like to introduce the members of the committee. To my immediate right is Senator Cochrane, from Newfoundland and Labrador, who is the deputy chair of our committee. To my far left is Senator Adams, from the territory of Nunavut. Next to Senator Adams is Senator Tardif, who represents Alberta. On my far right is Senator Sibbeston, who is the senator from the Northwest Territories. To Senator Sibbeston's left is Senator Angus, who represents the province of Quebec.
Hon. Rona Ambrose, P.C., M.P., Minister of the Environment: I want to begin with my apologies for not making it here sooner. I know you have been doing a lot of good work on the CEPA review and I am thrilled to talk about the importance of the review and about our government's environmental agenda.
I have been following the work that you have been doing on CEPA, by way of your three case studies, and I know that the topics you selected include air pollution, mercury, and perfluorinated chemicals. Although I know you are no longer studying air pollution, I will include air pollution and greenhouse gases in my comments because of course they are serious environmental health issues.
I would like to outline some of our actions on these issues. In particular, I would like to describe, in some detail, the actions that the government is taking and is proposing to take as part of an integrated regulatory and legislative approach to both air pollution and greenhouse gases.
I invite you to consider how your work on the CEPA review could contribute to stronger regulatory action to reduce air pollution, to protect the health of Canadians, and to reduce greenhouse gases.
Let me start with air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. In October, our government introduced Canada's proposed clean air act, which amends three existing pieces of legislation: The Canadian Environmental Protection Act; the Energy Efficiency Act; and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act. Canada's proposed clean air act provides enhanced authorities to regulate and research, in a coordinated and comprehensive matter, emissions of both pollutants and greenhouse gases.
I will highlight five examples of the impacts of amendments to CEPA. I want you to consider these when you are thinking about the work you are doing on the CEPA review process.
For the first time, the ministers of the environment and health will be required by law to establish national air quality objectives and to monitor and report annually on their attainment. This is a very significant requirement that we believe will ensure that governments consistently attach a priority to improving air quality. Canada's clean air act will ensure that Canadians can hold their governments to account by making tangible progress on air pollution.
We will also be able to, through amendments to CEPA, set indoor air quality objectives and codes of practice, as well as to research indoor air for radon, the leading cause of lung cancer among non-smokers.
Amendments to CEPA will also enable us to fully utilize market-trading mechanisms in a North American context so industry can meet regulatory standards and we will be able to set the most competitive market possible. It will also expand our ability to regulate air pollution emissions from products. These are all enhanced authorities that we would be able to do through amendments to CEPA, so I urge you to think of that when you are considering the CEPA review process.
Our government is also committed with the provinces and territories to put in place a 5 per cent renewable fuel requirement by 2010. Again, you should know that this target is more stringent than the requirement in the United States and is on par with our European partners. Amendments to CEPA that we are making through Canada's proposed clean air act will enable us to regulate fuel blending to enforce a national standard on renewable fuel content in the most efficient and effective way possible. For the purposes of your CEPA review process, you should know that, at this time, CEPA does not contain those powers. Both Canada's proposed clean air act and the CEPA review process are obviously important for that reason.
With amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act, we will be able to introduce new energy efficiency requirements and labelling for 20 new consumer products, such as washing machines, dishwashers and electronic products, such as televisions and DVD players. Amendments to the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act will enable us to set enforceable fuel efficiency standards in the auto sector. You are probably familiar with this act, which, I believe, was introduced by the government of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau but not brought into force. The proposed clean air act would bring the MVFCSA into force and allow us to set fuel efficiency standards.
Past governments relied on voluntary measures and we believe that those days are over. From now on, all major industry sectors, including the auto sector, should have mandatory requirements, which we will enforce. Our plan puts the health of Canadians and the health of our environment first. We already have some strong legislative authorities to protect the health of Canadians from air pollution. We are using our current authorities under CEPA, as it exists, and we are not waiting for amendments to start our regulatory action. The notice of intent was published in the Canada Gazette on October 21, 2006. It describes a number of new regulations that we will put in place over the next 12 months and in the subsequent years under our current powers. We are working on the development of these regulations right now.
In the coming weeks and months, we will introduce air pollution regulations covering big equipment used in construction, mining, forestry and agriculture; outboard motors; snowmobiles and ATVs; heavy trucks, buses and forklifts; consumer products, such as paints, cosmetics and cleaning products; and new regulations to reduce pollution from the rail, shipping and aviation industries. We will be the first federal government to introduce mandatory regulations on all major industry sectors across Canada to reduce both air pollution and greenhouse gases.
The notice of intent sets out an ambitious timeline for the completion of this unprecedented and far-reaching regulatory agenda on air pollutants and greenhouse gases. We are committed to establishing short-, medium-, and long-term reduction targets for air pollutants and greenhouse gases. We have begun the process of consulting with Canadian industry and other levels of government on the overall regulatory approach and short-term targets that will come into effect in the 2010-15 period. The government will reach a decision on those issues by spring 2007. For air pollutants, we will equal or exceed emission targets in effect in the United States or in effect in other environmental performance-leading countries.
Regarding the impact of Bill C-30, the proposed clean air act, on reducing greenhouse gases, in particular, the October 21 notice of intent was crystal clear. We will regulate reductions in air pollution and greenhouse gases. By spring 2007 the government will announce sector-by-sector regulations that will come into force starting in 2010. For greenhouse gases, the government has adopted an emissions intensity improvement approach that will yield a better outcome for the Canadian environment than under the plan of the previous government that was proposed on July 16, 2005.
For the medium term, which is 2020-25, the government will implement intensity targets that are ambitious enough to lead to absolute reductions and emissions and, thus, support the establishment of a fixed cap on emissions for the medium term. As you know, the government has committed to achieving an absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of between 45 per cent to 65 per cent from 2003 levels by the year 2050. The government has asked the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy for advice on a specific target to be selected and scenarios for how the target could be achieved.
In terms of emission reductions, the long-term target means that based on Canada's greenhouse gas emissions projected to be in 2050 in a business-as-usual scenario, the 65 per cent reduction target would reduce our emissions by 1435 megatons. That is a reduction of almost twice our current total greenhouse gas emissions. A 65 per cent reduction from our 1990 emissions level would require reductions of 1485 megatons from business-as-usual scenarios. For comparison sake, some, particularly the NDP, have called for a long-term target reduction of 80 per cent. This would reduce emissions by only 1575 megatons, which is about 10 per cent more than the emission reductions we would realize under a 65 per cent target.
In its June 21, 2006 report entitled, Advice on a Long-term Strategy on Energy and Climate Change, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy provided a possible scenario on how a 65 per cent reduction from 2003 emission levels might be achieved. The key elements of the scenario include increasing energy efficiency, carbon capture and storage, coal generation, and increased use of renewable energy. As well, you might have seen the recent Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, which stresses the vital importance of coherent policy on greenhouse gas reductions to provide long-term policy certainty for industry. We have asked the NRTEE to provide us with ongoing advice on the precise long-term target, on the role of technology and on the realities of capital investment cycles.
All of this is addition to what we have already accomplished. Our government has already invested $1.3 billion in public transit and public infrastructure. This funding will assist in the building of the infrastructure necessary to deal with increased ridership. Beginning in July, the government provided a transit-rider tax credit. This means that transit riders who buy monthly passes will receive almost two free months of transit per year. These actions — the transit-rider tax credit, transit infrastructure, and the 5 per cent renewable content I spoke to previously — all have tangible results that Canadians can see. They will promote increased public transit usage, which will help to reduce congestion in urban areas and to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. These actions will be equivalent to taking 1.5 million cars off the road year after year.
Our government put some urgency on the need to pass the proposed clean air act. Canadians must feel that they can trust their government to put in place real measures that will reduce smog and result in healthier Canadians who will suffer less from asthma, chronic bronchitis and lung cancer. We believe that our health has suffered long enough and that our environment has suffered long enough. We need the proposed clean air act to make progress.
I am pleased that you have selected mercury as a case study. It is recognized as a highly toxic pollutant that can cause serious human health and ecological effects. This is why the government has proposed that mercury be included as an air pollutant under the proposed clean air act. The government is serious about further reducing the risks to Canadians posed by mercury and is taking action on a range of fronts. Domestic emissions today are about 7 tonnes per year. The largest remaining sources include electricity generation, base-metal smelting, waste incineration, the steel sector and the cement industry. All of these sectors are subject to the October notice of intent that I spoke to earlier.
My government has already begun to take other actions. Along with my provincial and territorial counterparts on the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, we endorsed, on October 11, 2006, Canada-wide standards for mercury emissions from coal-fired electric power generation plants. These standards address reductions from existing and best-available technology for new plants. Under the Canada-wide standard, the federal government has committed to continuing to pursue further reductions in the global pool of mercury, with support from the provinces and territories.
Canada's international work includes bilateral initiatives with the United States and China, regional work with North America, international work with Europe and with Arctic countries, and globally through the United Nations Environment Programme's Global Mercury Project. While most facilities in Canada are currently meeting emissions targets under a Canada-wide standard for this sector, one facility is still exceeding that standard — the Hudson's Bay Mining and Smelting Company facility in Flin Flon, Manitoba.
A pollution prevention planning notice for the sector under the CEPA, 1999 was published in the spring. It includes stringent atmospheric mercury targets for the facility in Manitoba. I will be publishing a proposed pollution prevention planning notice this Saturday in the Canada Gazette, using my authorities under CEPA, which will reduce mercury releases from switches in scrapped cars before they are recycled. This action will prevent up to 10 tonnes of mercury from being released into the environment over the next decade.
I will also be releasing a strategy in the coming weeks outlining plans to manage mercury contained in products. The risk-management objective of this strategy will be to reduce mercury releases to the environment from new and end-of-life consumer products to the lowest possible level. Implementation of a product strategy will also prevent Canada from becoming a dumping ground, as other countries are taking action to limit mercury in products.
I also appreciate the significance of studying the very large class of fluorochemicals. Canadians are increasingly concerned about their exposure to toxic substances, including the low-dose chemicals in their food and water. Our government has already taken significant steps to protect the health of Canadians by taking action on three groups of this very large class of compounds: PFCAs and their precursors; PFOA, which is one specific PFCA; and PFOs, its salts and precursors, which represent about 50 industrial chemicals. I will not try to overwhelm you with the details of this very complex and broad class of compounds, which are collectively referred to as PFAs, perfluorinated alkyl compounds.
Let me give you an overview of how CEPA has enabled the government to take action on PFAs, which are widely used in industrial processes and commercial products such as water and grease repellents for fabrics, carpets and tiles. Some of them are also used in non-stick cookware and breathable, all-weather clothing.
Early in 2006, assessments of these four PFAs were updated to account for new science, which led to the government's proposal in June of this year to add these four substances to the list of toxic substances in Schedule 1 of CEPA. At the same time, proposed regulations under CEPA were published to keep these four new sources of PFCAs out of the Canadian marketplace. The proposed regulations are a first step toward a more comprehensive plan to manage PFCAs.
In June, Canada became the first country in the world to publish an action plan addressing PFCAs that will, among other actions, prevent other similar new substances from coming into Canada, seek action from industry to reduce the presence of PFCAs in products and take other scientific and global action to reduce these specific types of PFCAs.
In July, the government proposed that PFOs, its salts and its precursors, also be added to the list of toxic substances of Schedule 1 of CEPA. The risk management strategy was published in July for public consultation. It outlines the government's intention to prohibit the import, manufacture, sale and use of these industrial chemicals through regulations under CEPA. Work is progressing on these regulations. A risk assessment of PFOA is also under way to determine if it poses a risk to Canadians or the environment.
This is a very challenging set of substances. Not all of the substances in this class are dangerous, but the ones on which we have taken action have characteristics that cause us concern. They generally persist in the environment for a very long time and some bioaccumulate in living organisms. They also may move up the food chain and become more concentrated. Laboratory tests have shown that some cause cancer in rats and adverse affects on the immune system in mice. Current concentrations in the environment right now are low, but the actions the government is taking will ensure concentrations do not increase in humans to levels that would cause harm.
In conclusion, the government has begun to demonstrate to Canadians that we take the protection of their health very seriously. We are making progress in improving the environment in which Canadians live, work and play, and we will continue to show progress to Canadians in tangible ways that they can see.
Before I open up to questions, I would like to thank each of you for being here today, and for the hard work that the committee is doing on the CEPA review. The act is a very important piece of legislation for all Canadians.
I trust that I have given you a good sense of the significant improvements that the proposed clean air act will make to CEPA and other key legislation, so that we can get on with implementing the regulations that our government has planned, which are so important to protecting the health of Canadians and the environment.
Thank you once again for inviting me, Mr. Chairman. I welcome your questions and the opportunity to join you in a discussion on these important matters.
Senator Cochrane: You have certainly given us a lot of food for thought and I am sure Canadians were awaiting all these details that you have just given us. We appreciate your coming, as well. We know how busy you are in your portfolio.
I will begin by saying that the previous governments seem to have been big on talking about and spending on the environment but short on implementation.
What would you say to Canadians who are watching this at home and wondering how Canada's new government's plan is any different from previous governments' plans?
Ms. Ambrose: Thank you for the question. I would say that the challenges facing the environment file are huge challenges for Canada. They are huge challenges for our government and for the governments that came before us. However, the difference is that we are at a place in time where everyone, including all parties in the House, believes that it is time to move forward.
Frankly, I think that industry has been able to set its own standards. The previous governments used voluntary approaches. When you think about voluntary approaches, you are allowing industries to set their own standards and I do not think that is acceptable. I do not think Canadians believe it is acceptable anymore.
I think we are at a place where public consciousness is on our side. We have the public support to move forward, to push industry to a regulatory framework, and I think that is what we have to do.
I encourage all of you, and all parties in the House, to take advantage of this opportunity to work with the government and work with the public to move forward, to abandon the voluntary agreements we had in the past and move to strict regulations. Otherwise, we cannot have the enforcement mechanisms we need to ensure industries reduce their pollution and take the action we need them to take on toxic chemicals to protect the health of our children. It is our government's strong belief that targeted, effective, strong regulation is the way to go.
Senator Cochrane: Some witnesses who have appeared before this committee through the course of our review of CEPA have suggested that there is no need for a clean air act; rather, CEPA provides government with all the tools it needs. Could you comment on that specifically? Also, perhaps you could give us a sense of why you chose to go the route of bringing in new legislation, instead of working with the existing CEPA framework and improving upon it, if necessary.
Ms. Ambrose: The proposed clean air act amends three different pieces of legislation. I referred to all three of them. One, in particular, is the piece of legislation that Mr. Trudeau brought in years ago, but which was never brought into force. That is a perfect example of past governments relying on voluntary approaches. They allowed the auto sector to set its own standard of emissions' reductions for fuel efficiency. We are saying we need to bring this act into force so that we have regulations for the auto sector and we set mandatory fuel efficiency requirements for the auto sector.
Like any other sector, it should be regulated to ensure that we can tell Canadians year to year that we can report on their emissions reductions. If they do not meet their emission reductions, they would face penalties, like any other sector.
In terms of CEPA, I know you are undergoing a CEPA review right now, which is why I highlighted all the things that the proposed clean air act does to amend and strengthen CEPA. However, there are things that CEPA could do better, like looking at ways that we can address greenhouse gases and air pollution in an integrated way — both from a regulatory side and a research component side.
It also, for the first time, will require us to set national air quality objectives. It will also require, in a very prescriptive way, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health to report to Parliament on an annual basis about our progress under the programs and regulations we set in place. There are a number of prescriptive elements to the proposed clean air act that enhance CEPA.
I talked about the biofuels agenda. We need to have a national biofuels strategy in this country; we are falling behind. We look at what the United States is doing to invest in bioenergy, biotechnology and biofuels. Canada cannot move ahead with the regulation to blend fuels in an effective and efficient manner under we amend CEPA; and the proposed clean air act does that.
There are a number of ways that the proposed clean air act amends CEPA and makes it stronger on a trading mechanism. Years ago, when CEPA came in, no one recognized the importance of a trading system for air pollutants and greenhouse gases. There are rudimentary elements of CEPA that would allow for a potentially a trading system, but not an effective and efficient one that we need today to ensure the best possible trading system in a North American context.
There are a number of ways that the proposed clean air act strengthens CEPA and speaks to the modern age and the kind of enforceability we need, the kind of flexibility we need for an environmental agenda in 2006. That is why the proposed clean air act is necessary. It also amends the Energy Efficiency Act. We need strengthened powers for labelling requirements and new products to ensure they are more energy efficient in reducing emissions. Right now, we have, for example, no means to regulate a wood stove. We can regulate the emissions from a wood stove, but we cannot regulate the actual consumer product. This proposed clean air act allows us to do that.
It is very important that we can regulate indoor air quality. Right now, we cannot do that. As you know, that is a huge problem for the health of Canadians. That is another way that the proposed clean air act enhances our current powers.
The Chairman: Minister, since the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act already exists and has for some time, but has not been brought into force, why not simply bring it into force?
Ms. Ambrose: Bill C-30 will bring it into force. We are also making amendments to it to make it more modern and that we can use it in the most efficient way for 2006. We know we need this when working on regulations with the auto sector. This is something the auto sector wants to see as well.
The Chairman: So the proposed legislation amends some aspects of the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act.
Ms. Ambrose: Yes, it does.
Senator Spivak: Thank you for coming, minister. I am very pleased to hear you speak of mandatory regulations rather than a voluntary approach because we know that has failed.
I am sure you are aware that very eminent people, such as James Hansen of NASA, are talking about only ten years before we might have a runaway effect. In a general way, my question is: How do you view the urgency of what you are doing?
In a more specific way, however, I want to ask you about regulations. Here is British Columbia, about to build three coal-fired plants, and it does not appear that it will be using the most effective technology, which is liquidation. Then there is Ontario, with all those coal-fired plants, which it cannot get rid of immediately because it would not have any power. Here is an opportunity for the federal government to say: You have to use the latest technology so that you do not continue to put greenhouse gas emissions into the air. And, we may only have 10 years.
With respect to the automotive industry, I do not know whether, if I were in your shoes, I would wait until 2010. Are you going to ask that we at least meet California standards?
There are people in the United States who have said the energy efficiency of cars could be absolutely maximized if they were built with carbon instead of steel.
Ms. Ambrose: Thank you for your questions. Everything you say encapsulates the feeling a lot of Canadians have right now; there is a sense of urgency and concern. What do they do when new coal-fired plants open up nearby and pollution reduction technologies are not in place? People are worried. We understand that and we are concerned too, which is why we are working with industry across this country to talk about things like best available technology and to ensure we put in place regulations. Sectors are taking into consideration their capital stock turnovers, making sure that we take into consideration the timing of their investments, their investment cycles, so they can make those decisions quickly and with consideration so that they are investing in best-available technologies. By all means, this is a conversation we have with industry about this being part of our regulations.
When you say 2010, you have to remember that is when they have to comply with the regulations. The regulations come into force in 2010. Believe me, industry is nervous. Industry knows we are in the middle of talks with them right now about these mandatory new regulations and in the enforcement provisions around them. I have to tell you that industry wants certainty and regulations. The people who run the industries have grandchildren and children, neighbours, and they want to reduce pollution; they want to reduce greenhouse gases. They are a willing partner.
Of course, there is always that tension. The government wants to push them farther than they might like to be pushed, but it is the responsibility of government to ensure we address the health of Canadians.
It is a huge undertaking to regulate every industry sector across this country. The past government never had any intention of regulating air pollutants at the federal level, so we are looking at benchmarking a number of air pollutants for every single sector and facility across this country. There is intensive work going on at Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada with the provinces and industry sectors across this country right now. We want to ensure that we get this right and we are not crippling our industry, but are giving them opportunities to invest in technology that hopefully we can promote across this country. Canada has a wealth of technology that we can share amongst one another, amongst provinces and also export to the rest of the world.
I am hopeful and optimistic that we are at a crossroads in our history where we have the support of the public, we have the government that wants to act on the environment, that has made this a priority and we have Canadians on our side. We have the public on our side to help us push industry in the right direction.
Senator Spivak: I could not agree with you more. If we are to save the planet, it will be industries that do it. It is not the old tree-hugger philosophy anymore, unfortunately; I wish it were.
I wonder if you could answer my question directly. Are the regulations for the auto industry going to be as stiff as those in California? Will the federal government insist that British Columbia and Ontario and anyone else who is building coal-fired plants use the best technology, even if it is more expensive?
An investment up front pays dividends down the back. We know what it costs us to deal with the impact of the coal-fired gases. Will the government do these two things? Is that your plan?
Ms. Ambrose: I would love that to be my plan, but I will be frank with you. When talking to industry about facilities, we are looking at existing facilities that could be highly polluting and new ones coming on line. We have to take into consideration that if we shut down, people would not have power. We have to figure out ways to help them to reduce pollution in their existing facilities through regulation and to ensure that when they are opening new facilities, they are using the best available technology.
The other thing to consider is the integration of air pollution and greenhouse gases. Depending on the kind of technology that industry chooses, the way in which they interact makes a difference because they can have perverse effects on one another. You need to look at that as well. We are discussing those effects with industry. There needs to be a balance of efforts to ensure that we are not having a negative impact and creating more air pollution by reducing greenhouse gases, or vice versa, in respect of the kind of technology we impose on industry. These discussions are ongoing so that we have a balance of efforts to ensure that we address the health of Canadians by reducing air pollution, especially mercury in coal-fired plants, which is a huge concern to Canadians, and by reducing greenhouse gases.
Senator Spivak: With respect, minister, I appreciate your efforts, but technology is available for coal-fired plants that would greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It does not look as though either of those provinces will go that route, in part because of money, yet Ontario will invest the same amount of money in nuclear plants that will not come on line for 10 years. In the meantime, Ontario could invest that money in fixing up its coal-fired plants. This is not rocket science but basic common sense. It takes a strong government to say what must be done.
Ms. Ambrose: We have every intention of doing that. Our hope is that the provinces will cooperate. Obviously, regulation is the way to do it so that government can enforce the legislation. We have to take a collaborative approach with the provinces on this issue. It is a huge undertaking for all of us. Regulations need to be achievable and enforceable. We have to work with the provinces. This is about energy security and about ensuring that Ontarians have electricity for their homes. Premier McGuinty is fully aware of the challenges that he has in Ontario just as the other premiers across Canada are aware of the challenges in their respective provinces. The federal government has said with no uncertain terms it is moving ahead with regulations on all air pollutants and greenhouse gases. The government will enforce the regulations, and the provinces and industry are expected to work with the government.
Senator Spivak: In other words, the government might be able to tell Mr. Campbell or Mr. McGuinty or any other premier that they cannot use certain technology because the regulations suggest that another technology must be used and it might give them some money to help put that in place.
The Chairman: I am not sure that was a question but it could be a useful suggestion.
Senator Angus: Good morning, minister and officials; we are delighted that you have come to the committee. I congratulate you on getting a grasp, in such a short period of time, of this highly complicated issue. We appreciate the fact that one has to get up to speed and, as you have said, it is a broad and complicated undertaking in all its aspects.
Your excellent introductory speech and your answer to the questions of Senator Cochrane and Senator Spivak indicated that government is trying to introduce an entirely new approach to the environmental concerns. If I may paraphrase, it is moving from a self-regulatory kind of environment to a more stringent rules-based system. Experience has shown that is needed now. As well, your message to Canadians is that a cooperative approach to the issues must be taken by the three levels of government, ministries, industry, policing authorities, and the various political interests. If we are all fighting with each other, we will never get anywhere. It is important that Canadians understand the issues and the possible solutions and, to that end, this committee is being webcast.
You stated how urgent this is and this committee agrees. First, Bill C-30 is the proposed legislation on clean air — this government's approach to environmental issues. I believe that the bill has been referred to a legislative committee of the House, which leads me to think that on the face of it, it is off the front burner and on the back burner.
Could you explain to us and to other Canadians the process of this proposed legislation and what exactly is happening with Bill C-30?
Ms. Ambrose: I would begin by saying that it would be a shame to lose this opportunity to make these kinds of important amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and to two other pieces of legislation through this proposed clean air act. I have said repeatedly that the opposition members love to criticize Bill C-30 but none of them has mentioned which clause they have a problem with. I am glad that the proposed legislation has been referred to committee.
I know this is a highly emotional and political issue but I have asked the opposition parties to work with the government on this bill. Important amendments to our current powers are proposed in this bill that are significant for government's ability to move forward on both air pollution and greenhouse gases; and I have named and outlined some of those for the committee.
This is a great opportunity for the House of Commons to show Canadians that we can work together on the environment. We are open to amendments, which we have said repeatedly. Clearly, I want certain parts of this proposed legislation protected, in particular clauses on indoor air and biofuels. We need to push forward on these key aspects.
The bill contains stringent methods for research and regulation of greenhouse gases and air pollution in a much more effective and integrated way. We have learned from the past that addressing one issue and not the other is not the answer. We have to integrate the two as we move forward and regulate industry. Otherwise, they can have perverse effects on one another.
Yes, we need cooperation from the opposition parties; and yes, we need cooperation from the provinces and territories. There is good leadership across the country. I have received calls from premiers and provincial ministers of the environment who say that they want to work together on the environment issue. However, we also need cooperation from Canadians.
The consumer side of this issue is huge and industry alone will not be able to solve the problem. Canadians have to make choices in their homes to turn off the lights more, use less water, buy more fuel-efficient vehicles, and to take public transit. We need Canadians to cooperate with government. As an individual citizen, I am trying to make small and big changes in my life, such as buying a more fuel-efficient car, using energy-efficient light bulbs, and other things in my home that my husband and I can try to do to make a difference. We need every single Canadian to do this. Government alone cannot do this. I hear this from my colleagues and from industry. Industry says that it will accept tough regulations and do its part but consumers must do their part too. How is government engaging consumers? We have outreach programs but even the One-Tonne Challenge had little effect on getting Canadians out there.
Every parliamentarian — everyone who is a part of government, including the opposition — needs to reach out in their respective communities and talk to Canadians about doing their part. This has to be a collaborative effort by the public and by government and opposition parties.
Senator Angus: Minister Ambrose, that is interesting. So that we understand this so-called legislative committee process, your bill was introduced but it did not seem to receive wide acclaim. I do not think this nice message that you are giving us today, which sounds like it makes a lot of sense, was getting out there. What can we look forward to? Is the committee sitting? Is it holding hearings on the bill? How does it work? We would love to have the bill before this committee and we would get it through for you in no time.
Ms. Ambrose: The legislative committee is made up of members from all parties. They will be able to address the proposed legislation and bring amendments to the bill forward for consideration. Like any other committee, it will move the bill through the committee process and back into the House and then to the Senate. I am sure it will be before you at some point.
It is very important to us to get this piece of legislation through, so we are obviously willing to cooperate with the other parties in a collaborative manner. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of moving ahead with this piece of legislation because of issues like the health of Canadians — addressing air pollutants, but also the issues around biofuels, ensuring we can have a biofuels industry in this country.
Indoor air quality is extremely important for the health of Canadians — 1,900 Canadians a year die from this issue. This is air pollution that a lot of people do not understand and do not think about or talk about because it is indoor air pollution. This is something that is crucial to move ahead with to ensure we make these important amendments to our current powers, and give the government all the power we need to move forward.
Senator Angus: Are you getting the cooperation you were hoping for from our opposition parties in Parliament to make this process happen?
Ms. Ambrose: So far, yes, we are, particularly from the NDP. The NDP has been very collaborative. They have put forward a private member's bill with some interesting ideas that we could collaborate on. We are not very far off from them in terms of where they are at on certain issues. Again, there are things in our legislation that we would like to protect; and there are things that they would like to also see happen. We are there to cooperate and collaborate with all the opposition parties.
Senator Angus: You mentioned market mechanisms, which is a term that obviously interests us. It conjures up the concept of trading these greenhouse emission credits. At this committee, we have a very pejorative impression of these things, especially when we are dealing with a wealthy country like Canada. One wonders what is involved. I am not sure that is what you meant by market mechanisms, because you glossed over it in your comments. Could you elaborate on that?
Ms. Ambrose: There is a difference between buying credits internationally, which is something our government has long opposed. We are building a regulatory framework that will ensure Canadian investment stays here at home. That is where we want to see industry investing — in Canada. However, market mechanisms can be very efficient and effective in reducing overall greenhouse gases and air pollutants. The United States, for instance, in its electricity sector, has a very effective cap-and-trade system for NOxs and SOxs. It has been very effective in reducing air pollution at a very low cost to industry. The acid rain agreement is another example of that kind of mechanism.
Those are some examples of how market mechanisms can work. We are looking at a trading system. We would like to see a trading system emerge in Canada that would have linkages to other trading systems, and that is one of the things we are discussing.
We have a national round table next week with a number of stakeholders from across the country, and also people from Europe. Mr. Stern is sending someone from the U.K.; the European Union is sending some representatives, if they are able to attend. We have people from the international community and from across the provinces to come and discuss what a trading system could look like, ensuring it is effective and efficient and that it actually leads to real reductions and not purchase of hot-air credits. It is all in the design of how the market system would work.
Senator Angus: Chairman, I know others are interested in questioning the minister. I hope you will have a second round. I would like to stop here. It is very exciting. As you can see, this government is really doing something about the environment.
Senator Adams: My question may be a little difficult. Where we live in the Arctic, the pollution coming up from the south is affecting our food, especially mercury pollution.
In the beginning, CEPA worked with the ministers at that time — Allan Rock and David Anderson — to make sure that there would be more testing of country food for mercury or any type of pollutants that would affect the bodies of the people in the community. We studied the effects of mercury in our committee. We found out, especially in the area of Nunavut, that 68 per cent of the people had unacceptably high levels of mercury in their bodies. In Canada, as a whole, it was only 7 per cent or 8 per cent.
Those of us who live in the area know about the movements of the mammals that live in the water, what areas they use as their birthing grounds every year. For example, in Hudson Bay, the belugas gather around the Churchill area. Every summer, the whales move to warmer water. Like any animals, such as geese, they follow regular migration patterns. Whales go to the warmer water to give birth to their young. They come from the Beaufort Sea to the Mackenzie Delta. I know the department used to tag the fish to find out where they spawn each year. That is what the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does for freshwater fish.
Now, with the new technology, I think DFO also monitors some of the humpback whales around the Baffin Island area. Last summer, they took skin samples from the whales to check for pollutants.
It is the same thing with our food. We have about four or five big herds of caribou in Canada. There is a big herd in the Keewatin area and Labrador has a herd too. Mostly, in the community, we do not bother with those big herds. We just hunt in the local area where the caribou come in.
I think it would be better to tell the local people the results of government testing on our food and our environment. Sometimes scientists come up there and half the time we do not know what they are doing. Even up there, sometimes they do not tell us what they have found for a year or more.
We had a meeting with the DFO last August near the shore of the Beaufort Sea; people came from Nunavut, the Mackenzie Delta and all over. We are really concerned about the pollution there. The community would like to work with the government to help monitor what is happening. If I hunt caribou, I can take a little bottle or something and I can take a sample of the blood to send to a lab or something like that. We could help with the sampling of the whales and seals also. We could remove a piece of the liver or whatever would be the best part to test for mercury.
Mercury is coming in the ground and the water and everything. If 68 per cent of us are showing the effects of mercury in our blood, we need to find out where it is coming from — whether from Canada or somewhere else.
Officials from the department have told us that among the signers, we are the biggest losers. We may be losing in Canada, but what about the other countries? That is a long question but perhaps someone can answer it.
Ms. Ambrose: The mercury content in the water in the Northern communities is a major concern. It is a concern because it is ending up in breast milk and ending up in children. It is causing many developmental problems for children in Northern communities. In terms of getting into the fish, I understand that has led to a lot of advisories against fishing.
Mr. Owen was telling me that much of the mercury in the North comes from South Asia. That leads us to the importance of working with our international partners, because it is the same on the greenhouse gas issue.
Canada can do everything to push our industry, but we are only one player. We must set an example at home by indicating that we are willing to make emission reductions at home. We must push our international partners in the right direction and work with them collaboratively.
Gord Owen, Director General, Clean Air Directorate, Environment Canada: A large volume of mercury comes to Canada from the south. By "the south" I mean China, India and other places. Because the degree to which their economies depend upon coal — coal which contains minute amounts of mercury — we see that as a concern for us. It is a problem in Canada's North as the mercury, travelling on the trade winds and the winds around, hits the cold air and drops. There is much more evidence of mercury in the North, as you have described.
For that reason, we have undertaken, through several international processes like the United Nations, to try to make progress with other countries such as China and India. We are trying to transfer technologies, processes and information so that China, India, and other countries can reduce the amount of mercury coming out of their coal plants.
Senator Adams: Especially now, it is very typical with what is causing climate change. You have new bills that involve climate change. Many people are concerned about some of the mammals, especially polar bears. I have been home about a month and I have talked to some people in the North. This year, they have many polar bears coming into their communities. Every community is now affected. It was not like that before. Early in the fall, they go to the mainland looking for food — anything left over from the caribou. This is something in the land. I do not know how we will do it. That is not your department; another department is responsible. You are talking about clean air, and so on.
In 1999, CPAC said that five departments would have to work together; that is, Health Canada, the Department of Transport, the Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans, and the department responsible for the clean air act. In order to test a piece of property or land anywhere in the North, you had to go through those five departments. That is frustrating to people in the North. If you are a construction person, where will you start? I do not know by how much you will reduce the climate change. We talk about Arctic sovereignty, but I do not know what will happen if this continues. Maybe some of the departments know what is going on in other countries; I do not know.
Ms. Ambrose: When we took over government one concern as a result of the environment commissioner's report was this notion that you are talking about where there are several departments involved, but not one department is in the lead. This led to a lot of difficulties identifying who is responsible for what. There was not a cohesive or comprehensive approach to the climate change file.
I was pleased to see that the Prime Minister put Environment Canada in the lead. He also tasked us to work with the other departments to create an accountability framework and to create an overall policy framework for the Government of Canada approach instead of each department having its own. There is now a cohesive element and that is very important. We accepted all the recommendations from the environment commissioner. That was one of them. I think the environment department should be on the lead on this issue. We should then work with CIDA, Foreign Affairs, Industry Canada, and Natural Resources in particular.
It has been nice to see the commitment from other cabinet ministers. When we have done consultations with CEOs, one-on-one, face-to-face, I had the support of Minister Flaherty, Minister Bernier, Minister Cannon and Minister Lunn. All of them are engaged on the environment file. We created a new cabinet committee just for the environment to deal with this to ensure that all the departments involved in the file are focused and moving ahead, supporting one another.
We needed leadership on the file. We are at a juncture in Canada where we need to focus efforts to address this because it is an urgent matter. Canada has fallen behind on the international stage, in particular where we are at on our commitments under Kyoto. Frankly, we did not do a lot leading up to today. We have more work to do to show our international partners that we are cleaning up our own backyard and putting in place a strong domestic agenda to address greenhouse gases. As a result, we will be able to return Canada to its rightful place as an environmental leader on the international stage. I do not think we have been there since Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister.
Senator Sibbeston: Welcome, minister. I will follow up on what Senator Adams stated with regard to the North.
We love the North, love the country, love how pristine it is and love the fact there are only a few of us that live in the North. With global warming that we have seen the North, we say, "I hope it does not get too warm." We do not want people from the south to come to the North. We want to keep it to ourselves.
We have noticed the effects of global warming. The winters are less severe. There are just enough signs to make you believe that, yes, there is a slow, gradual change. The North is feeling the effect of global warming.
Since coming on this committee, I have come to realize the extent to which there is pollution in the North. We think it is a pristine land up there. There is no industrial development nearby, so it should be pristine and pure. However, we learn that there are a lot of pollutants that come to the North by the winds from Asia, and some from Ontario, the industrial heartland of our country. Senator Adams alluded to the fact that 70 per cent of the women who eat traditional foods in the Arctic have higher levels of pollutants in their bodies. That is of great concern to us.
Scientists in the Beaufort Sea found higher-than-usual levels of mercury in whales. It is believed that some pollution occurs naturally with the melting of the ice cap and thawing of the permafrost that release mercury. The Mackenzie River flows into the Beaufort Sea and it is deemed that the oil sands in Alberta could be the cause of some pollution that ends up in the Western Arctic via this route. Something needs to be done.
Ms. Ambrose, you are the Minister of the Environment. Northern people look to the federal government to do something about it to keep the North pure, pristine and free of pollutants. I urge you to do all you can and to go to foreign countries, such as Asia, which is polluting the North with mercury.
As well, if indeed pollutants from the Alberta oil sands are entering the North, you should do something about it. One report stated that contaminated moose were found in Northern Alberta. Is this a sign of further pollution? I do not know. Would you please do something? Can you assure northerners that you will do the best that you can for them?
Ms. Ambrose: When I was in the Northwest Territories recently, I met with some of the chiefs who told me about the issues that you are describing and how it is affecting the migratory patterns of the caribou that they traditionally hunt for food. There is no doubt that these environmental issues are having an impact in the North. Mercury is a huge problem because of the issue, with most of it coming from South Asia. The problem with mercury is that it does not break down. It sticks around and that is why we have taken a number of actions on mercury and are targeting that pollutant specifically because of its detrimental effects on the health of all Canadians.
On the matter of other countries, I have raised this several times in the context of greenhouse gases and air pollution. It is difficult when Canada is taking a number of aggressive actions while countries like China are opening up coal-fired plants on a monthly basis that will cause more mercury to drift into Canada. We have to engage them, pressure them and encourage them to take on targets not only for greenhouse gases within the context of some of the agreements like Kyoto but also as part of the Asia-Pacific partnership. They are showing some progress in looking at new technologies and bio-energy. When they take those kinds of actions, we need to encourage them to do more because their actions affect us directly.
India is another example. Canada suffers the effects of their actions. At the end of the day, as you all know, this is a global issue. We will continue to pressure our international counterparts but we feel very strongly that it is important that Canada get its own house in order. We are working with our international partners through the United Nations and the Kyoto Protocol to ensure that we stay on track to meet our Kyoto obligations. When it comes to the target, we have stated clearly to our international partners and to Canadians that we cannot meet the target of -6 per cent. We need new targets, which the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said. Canadians need to understand that it is important for Canada to move forward, to stop the fighting and the debate about the -6 per cent because we have ample evidence from economists, from environmentalists and from people across government departments that this is not feasible.
We need to move forward and we ask all opposition parties to work with us to set these new targets. We are on track with industry in our negotiations to set those targets for January, we hope. Canada can then get on with making reductions in greenhouse gases and air pollutants. Air pollutants are equally important. The federal government has never regulated air pollution in Canada's history. When we talk about mercury, it is important to set tough regulations at the federal level to ensure that we have national standards on the issue.
I would encourage senators to speak to their colleagues in the House; in particular, those members sitting on the legislative committee, to work with the government to get Bill C-30 through and ensure Canadians that we take the issue seriously. We want to see results.
Senator Sibbeston: I have one more question with respect to greenhouse gases. Your target reduction is 45 per cent or more from the 2003 levels to be reached by 2050. The Kyoto Protocol had a base year of 1991. How does your target compare to the Kyoto Protocol with respect to greenhouse gas emissions?
Ms. Ambrose: I believe that I outlined that in my presentation. I will reiterate the impact of the long-term targets that we have set. Importantly, you should recognize that this target was recommended by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. The study was commissioned by the former government, which asked the NRTEE to look at what is achievable given Canada's unique circumstances, like our resource base that makes us unique. We have a great many fossil fuels on which we depend, but we would like to move to a renewable energy, for obvious reasons. The NRTEE did an in-depth study and produced a very comprehensive report on what is achievable in Canada based on certain assumptions.
That is the target adopted by this government because we do not believe we should choose an arbitrary target, like the last government did, and then force and impose that target on industry when such a target bears no scientific basis or assessment. The -6 per cent was just that. The current Leader of the Liberal Party, Stéphane Dion, former Minister of the Environment, admitted in an interview with the National Post that the target was set because former Prime Minister Chrétien wanted to outdo the Americans. That is not good policy and that is not a scientific assessment; rather, that is pure politics. We have adopted a target that has been widely researched and consulted on by the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy. We think that is the way to proceed.
The 65 per cent reduction from 2003 levels would amount to a 1,435-mega-tonne reduction, based on a business-as-usual scenario, with which I am sure you are familiar. A 65 per cent reduction from a 1990 emissions level, which is what you are asking about, would amount to a 1,485-mega-tonne reduction based on a business-as-usual scenario. These projection figures were prepared by my department. In his private members bill, Jack Layton, Leader of the NDP, has asked for an 80 per cent reduction, which would reduce emissions by 1,575 mega-tonnes. I assume that is from 1999 levels because that is what he has asked for in his private members bill.
The department prepared this information and can provide it to the committee. The important thing to recognize is that the target we have adopted was widely consulted on and researched. Members of the NRTEE, which put this together, are leaders from environment and from industry. The target is based on Canada's unique resource base, the urban and rural population distribution, and the geographic uniqueness. We adopted this target because we know it has the scientific backing and will be achievable for Canadian industry.
Senator Tardif: I noticed that with the exception of your reference to mercury, your opening statement is very similar to the one you read in the House of Commons a few months ago. Could you tell us, what has changed in your thinking and in your department since then?
We know that at the international level, there was much criticism of our present government "missing in action," if you like, in its attempts to meet its Kyoto obligations at the international level.
In your role as chair of the Kyoto committee, can you tell us what progress was made in Nairobi?
Ms. Ambrose: I would be happy to Senator Tardif. It was a productive meeting. Currently the Kyoto Protocol family includes countries responsible for about 30 per cent of the world's emissions of which Canada is one. Contrary to what you might have seen in the media, we had a very productive meeting and Canada played a key role. It was an interesting experience for me to work with other ministers from around the world. I participated in some very small groups and intensive negotiations with key ministers on the four key negotiation areas.
We succeeded in achieving everything that Canada sought going into Nairobi, which, I believe, would help set the scene for a more productive post-2012 engagement for Canada.
I will tell you the key issues we worked on. These are technical for those of you who follow the Kyoto Protocol. There were four main issues: The ad hoc working group for the post-2012 commitments for industrialized countries; the review of the Kyoto protocol; the dialogue on long-term cooperation under the convention; and the review of procedures for voluntary commitments, the non-industrialized countries, the non-annexed countries. On each issue our negotiators were actively and constructively engaged.
All of the positions we took were laid out early in spring on the United Nations website. We have always been transparent about our position within the protocol. I chaired four meetings as the president of COP and learned a great deal. I think we positioned Canada in a way that will lead to our opportunity to participate in the next phase of the Kyoto discussions.
Within the ad hoc working group, there was an extensive work program to inform considerations for commitments in the post-2012 period, which is important to Canada. We know and informed the international community we cannot meet our 2012 -6 per cent target. We had good meetings and negotiations about the work plan moving forward for Canada. That will begin next year.
On the review of the Kyoto Protocol, there was a consensus between all countries, over 160 countries including Canada, on all of these issues. It is very important.
There was an agreement reached to review the Kyoto Protocol in December of 2008. It is important because our government has said repeatedly that it has concerns with the way the protocol is operating. Every other country agreed; there are good things and there are things that have not worked. This is the first comprehensive review. It was important to reach that consensus especially when we look at developing a work plan for the next phase. This was important for Canada to secure.
On the issue of procedures for voluntarily taking on commitments, this was very important. It was a negotiation that Canada led.
We supported Russia, who submitted a motion, to encourage or allow some type of a discussion so that countries who would like to become members of Kyoto and take on targets voluntarily would be able to do that. Right now there is no mechanism for that.
We repeatedly have said the countries that are in Kyoto that have targets cannot do this alone. They cannot carry this load alone. They will not solve global warming with only the 34 countries that have targets. We need more countries to take on targets. We need this to be a much more inclusive protocol. We need to expand the debate to all the countries that are part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
All of this was very productive for Canada. It positioned us in a way that allows us to continue to work with our international partners. What we found in Nairobi, through the consensus reached, is that Canada's position is very similar to a lot of our international partners.
There are 15 other countries not on track to meeting their Kyoto commitments in terms of their target. Canada is on track to meet all our obligations under the Kyoto Protocol other than our target. It was productive for us to be able to address that issue with international partners so we can move forward.
We had very productive bilateral meetings with China, India and South Korea. We also met with the European Union, Germany in particular, and Finland. It is productive to be able to explain the regulations we are bringing into force in a short while to all of the countries, including Britain. They are pleased to see that Canada is moving forward with mandatory emissions reductions.
It was a productive meeting for us.
Senator Tardif: Thank you, minister, for that clarification. Like anybody else, we are always very concerned about our international reputation. We did not get gold star awards at the meeting in Nairobi. I think, our international reputation was quite tarnished. People are wondering what Canada's role is and where we are in consideration to Kyoto. I am glad you mentioned the word "Kyoto" it seems to be a word that is no longer being used. I think that is confusing to the general public.
You say we are not meeting our targets but that other obligations will be met. That needs to be clarified. We appreciate your comments today.
You mentioned that the 2050 target you have identified is based on research and not on an arbitrarily set target. I wonder how relevant that is, if we are close to the point of no return.
Ms. Ambrose: How important is science?
Senator Tardif: How important is a target set for 2050, which is so far down the road? It is so far away. We have a very short period of time in which to act.
Ms. Ambrose: Which is why we are setting short-term targets which will come into effect within four years. We are setting targets for the 2010 period within a month. January is around the corner. These are intensive negotiations. This will be the first time Canada moves to regulate all industry sectors across the country for greenhouse gases and air pollutants. Intensive work is going on in our department and the Department of Natural Resources. It has to happen; it is urgent.
As Dr. Stern's report indicated, one of the big discussion items in Nairobi was the issue about long-term targets. He encouraged all countries in Nairobi to think about a 2050 target. He said it is a long-term project. We have to have long-term targets in place. If you think about the kind of capital stock turnover time that most industry works on, a lot of it is 20-25 years. We have to put in place, not just short-term targets for 2010 or 2012; industry needs to know where we are going in 2050 and further.
It is key to making sure this is not just about short-term gain. It has to be a long-term project for Canada. We need to look beyond where we are today. That includes also setting a long-term target for mid-century.
There are some countries that moved in that direction. Canada is ahead of the game. We should have a target for 2050. It is crucial that we have one. It is also crucial that it is well researched and that it takes into consideration Canada's unique context, especially our resource base, so it is achievable.
Industry wants to see the numbers, science, and assessments that have been made. We have that backing with this kind of a report and the support from the national roundtable.
Senator Tardif: I would agree you need short-term and long-term targets. We have to look at that.
Senator Mitchell: I believe this is the issue of our generation of the 21st century. I believe you have one of the most important responsibilities ever accorded a cabinet minister. You have an unbelievable opportunity to do something significant in the world.
I feel deeply that this government, under your stewardship in this portfolio, has failed to grab this issue and create the kind of leadership within Canada and internationally that it could. To be more specific, you cancelled — arbitrarily, I would argue, the climate change programs that had been implemented by a previous government. Your argument was, and it has been repeated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, that these programs are inefficient.
On May 31 of this year, I submitted a written question asking for the documentation — the studies, the backup — that would defend your position. I have not received any information, any documentation or any kind of defence.
Senator Angus: On a point of order, please, chairman. We have been waiting for quite a few months for the minister to come here. The people who attend every meeting of this committee, who are valid members of this committee and who are prepared and have followed our study, have a lot of questions to ask the minister. Now you have allowed a senator to come in here who has never been at one committee meeting — and as I understand from the clerk, is not a member of the committee.
You are telling us we have five minutes left. Yet you are letting him ask the minister questions and he is asking them in an aggressive and political way. That is why I am making my point of order. If you are cutting off valid members of the committee, with questions that are right on the topic of what we are studying, and allow this senator to come in here in this way, I protest. I urge you to cut him off and let the members of the committee ask questions.
The Chairman: I do not agree that there is a point of order. I have cut myself off, as well.
Senator Angus: This is completely out of order.
The Chairman: I do not think it is.
Senator Mitchell: Senator Angus has appeared at committees that I sit on regularly —
The Chairman: Excuse me, I have the floor. I do not find there is a point of order because the senator is asking a question that he has asked on the floor of the Senate. It is the last question. We undertook to the minister that she would be gone from here by 9:30 a.m. and we are past that time now. This is the last question.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you. The first part of my last question is: Why am I not getting any response to my written question? Second, how is it that in the absence of that, the only documentation I have is a response to an access to information request, which is a memorandum to the Minister of Natural Resources, who oversees many of these programs?
It says:
All NRCan programs were assessed to be on track to meet or surpass their objectives. The energy conservation and renewable programs were found to be effective in stimulating emissions reductions. They will contribute over 20 megatonnes in reduction by 2010, mainly at a cost of less than $10 per tonne, which is extremely cost-effective.
This is your own government documentation; yet you continue to take the position that these programs have been inefficient. Could you please argue, or give the documentation that would prove that they are inefficient? In the absence of that, we can only conclude that your information is wrong and you have made a critical decision to cancel these programs based on incorrect information. They have been efficient.
Could you also make an effort to get me any documentation you might have in answer to my written question on the Order Paper?
The Chairman: Minister, I will presume that is not an answer that you can give at the moment; and that you have heard the question and that you will undertake, to the extent possible, to answer Senator Mitchell's question.
Ms. Ambrose: I will be happy to try and answer his question. I would encourage you to read the environment commissioner's report, who stated there was no clear leadership or comprehensive policy on climate change under the previous government. It is a serious concern. There was no one in the lead. There were programs scattered across departments.
You should also know there has never been a comprehensive audit or review done of the climate change programs across government, ever.
Senator Mitchell: How would you know they are inefficient if there has never been a comprehensive review done? You have just answered my question.
Ms. Ambrose: I would be happy to give you many examples.
The Chairman: We are not going to have a debate here. The senator has asked a question. It is not reasonable to ask that the answer be given right now. Order, Senator Mitchell.
Ms. Ambrose: There was never one done. We did a comprehensive review —
The Chairman: Minister, I am sorry to interrupt you, but —
Ms. Ambrose: — an internal review by the PCO of all of these programs. They were given a standard and a status on whether or not they were effective. Any ineffective programs or inefficient programs were cancelled. This is why we cannot make progress on the environment, because the Liberals want to continue to politicize the issue instead of moving forward.
The Chairman: The question has been asked and the question will be answered at the pleasure of the minister, I am sure, if she is able, in writing either to the clerk of the committee or directly to Senator Mitchell. That was not the answer to the question.
Thank you, minister, for appearing before us. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for being with us.
The committee adjourned.