Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 16 - Evidence, April 19, 2007
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 19, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C- 288, to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, met this day at 8:07 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Welcome to this morning's meeting of Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, which is considering its recommendations with respect to Bill C-288.
Appearing before us this morning is the author of the bill, Mr. Pablo Rodriguez, M.P.
Following Mr. Rodriguez this morning we will hear from the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable John Baird and Deputy Minister Michael Horgan.
My name is Tommy Banks and I am a senator from Alberta. Before we begin I should like to briefly introduce the members of the committee.
To my right is Senator Cochrane, Deputy Chairman of our committee, from Newfoundland and Labrador; Senator Angus from Quebec; Senator Dawson is from Quebec; Senator Robichaud from New Brunswick; Senator Kenny from Ontario; Senator Mitchell from Alberta; Senator Tkachuk from Saskatchewan; and Senator Spivak from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Pablo Rodriguez, M.P., House of Commons: Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me here today. I am honoured to be here to discuss my Bill C-288, aimed at ensuring that Canada respects its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
In fact, this bill is mainly about the future. It proposes concrete measures to be taken right away to improve our collective future. The environment is certainly something on which we can act immediately in order to improve the living conditions of our children and grandchildren.
I believe that my bill should not have been necessary. In fact, as a Canadian, I would have expected my country's government to intervene with regard to climate change. I would have expected it to honour international agreements. Unfortunately, the government seems to have no problem with violating international legislation. Nor does it seem to have a problem with the fact that we are on the verge of a climate catastrophe, leading to irreversible consequences.
[English]
The Prime Minister spent his career denying the existence of climate change, questioning both the science and the need to act. Now his government has spent more than a year, consistent with its Reform and Alliance past, trying to avoid taking action, looking for sound bites, excuses, misleading statements and misinformation instead of good policy. That is wrong.
As elected officials, we have the political and moral obligation to work toward building a better society, not only for those around us, but also more importantly for those who will follow us, for our children and for our grandchildren.
[Translation]
This is why inaction cannot be an option when facing climate change. Let us take the time to look at the current state of our planet. Without being alarmist let us stick to the facts.
For example, we now know that the concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is at its highest point in 650,000 years. We also know that the past 11 or 12 years were the hottest years on record. The Arctic is warming up almost twice as fast as the rest of the planet. Scientists have discovered that the ice in the Arctic seas is melting even faster than what they had forecast with their models.
The average temperature of the planet at the surface has already gone up more than 0.6ºC over the past years. If countries cannot agree on a way to radically diminish greenhouse gas emissions, the average temperature on the planet could rise by at least 2ºC over the coming decades.
[English]
Scientists predict that a rise in temperature by two degrees would mean: tens of millions of environmental refugees fleeing from rising sea levels; more intense rainfall and storms; tens of millions of additional people at risk of hunger from crop failures; and increased water shortages that could affect billions.
[Translation]
Let me speak of the economic aspect. The Conservative government is trying to scare Canadians by presenting apocalyptic scenarios.
[English]
The Minister of the Environment will be here today to speak to you. His presentation will be predictable and will demonstrate the absolute lack of leadership of the Conservative administration. Today's show will be nothing but sound and fury, signifying nothing. He will mislead, misinform and do everything he can but move forward with a real and credible plan to meet the challenge of climate change. He will make claims about the cost of meeting our Kyoto Protocol obligations. He will mislead you and say that Bill C-288 is about making a one-third reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada in each of the next five years. He will mislead you and say that the Kyoto Protocol requires domestic reductions of one third in each of the next five years. He will mislead you by relying on false assumptions that the reduction of emissions will result only in economic costs and no related positive economic benefits. He will ignore the positive economic benefits from better energy efficiency, lower energy use and jobs related to the development of emission reductions activities.
Senator Angus: Have you been reading his mail?
Mr. Rodriguez: For him, none of these benefits are worth mentioning or taking into consideration.
Finally, he will mislead you by ignoring the economic costs of not taking the kind of action needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. These costs will be far greater than the costs of action today. Expert after expert has said so, yet Canada's Minister of the Environment will ignore these economic realities.
The incompetence will be staggering. I am here today to say that enough is enough and that Canadians deserve better. We are dealing with a bill that might as well be called ``the Baird accountability act,'' and I know that the minister will fail us all.
[Translation]
I say that we must put an end to this outdated mentality whereby we should choose between the economy and a healthy environment. In the 21st century, governments — and this government in particular — must realize that economic growth and the protection of the environment go hand in hand.
In a highly credible study that you probably know, Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, calculated that if climate change was not slowed down, it would cost between 5 and 20 per cent of the world GDP.
On the other hand, solving the climate change issue would cost about 1 per cent of the said GDP. Thus, according to Mr. Stern's conclusion, it is good for economic reasons to intervene in the face of climate change. Ignoring it could create a recession in the long run.
In fact, we already see many companies and sectors that consider that measures to fight climate change are good for economic growth. British Petroleum reached its objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 10 per cent relative to the 1990 levels. It succeeded in this task in 2001, which was nine years earlier than planned, and it estimates that the changes it made to succeed in this have increased its value by $650 million.
According to the Forest Products Association of Canada, the forestry sector has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent relative to the 1990 levels over the past 10 years. It did so voluntarily. Why is this? It was because it is good for the environment and the economy.
As the Pembina Institute showed, it would be possible and affordable to set goals in line with the Kyoto levels for heavy industry. Even in the oil sands sector, we could reach those goals at a cost of approximately $1 per barrel; that same barrel currently sells for approximately $60.
[English]
I would like to table the following report entitled, A Cost Curve for Greenhouse Gas Reduction, which was recently released by McKinsey & Company, one of the most reputable business consulting firms in the world. The report concludes that the GHG reductions needed by 2030 to avoid a two degree average warming effect could be at costs below 40 per tonne, or CAN$60 per tonne. The study also concludes that the annual worldwide cost for making the needed emission reductions to avoid worse climate change by 2030 is only 0.6 per cent of that years' projected GDP.
Finally, the study also found that nearly one quarter of possible emission reductions involve measures to enhance energy efficiency that reduce demands for energy and carry no net cost and no changes in lifestyle. They are, in effect, free of charge.
[Translation]
As I stated earlier, this bill should not have been necessary. The government could have taken concrete steps to tackle climate change. Instead, it abandoned Kyoto, gave up and refused to act. Let me tell you that if a government does not comply with international law and does not respect the will of its own citizens, if it does not take responsibility for one of the most important challenges our planet faces, then Parliament has the ability and the duty to make it take responsibility.
The government tells us that achieving Kyoto will be difficult. So what? It is not just because something is difficult that one should give up and not make an attempt. On the contrary, one should forge ahead with courage, determination and strength.
[English]
The Prime Minister said that Canada's Kyoto target is too tough so he decided to abandon the target without even trying to meet it. He said that Canada is too small and that we cannot anything because the United States is not part of Kyoto or because China does not yet have a Kyoto target. Well, I would like to tell him today that Canada can lead the fight against climate change. We do not have to wait for other countries to show us the way.
[Translation]
There are solutions, they exist. All that is necessary is enough courage and determination to implement them.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Rodriguez, are you be amenable to answering questions?
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, with pleasure.
The Chairman: Senator St. Germain from Alberta has joined us.
Senator Cochrane: Mr. Rodriguez, I thank you for being here this morning to share your views on Bill C-288 and to give us your perspective on Canada's climate change obligations. From the content of your introduction, I assume that you have pre-knowledge of what the minister will say to the committee today; and you did quote him. I do not know where you got your information but you probably had something that we do not have.
Senator Dawson: The Globe and Mail.
Mr. Rodriguez: No, I simply mentioned figures that are as ridiculous as the ones that he will present to you.
Senator Cochrane: I will ask my question, please.
Mr. Rodriguez: Sure.
Senator Cochrane: I recently read an article in the Edmonton Journal. The article was written by Mr. Lorne Gunter, who raised a very good question that I will put to you today. He said that your bill, Mr. Rodriguez, begs the obvious question:
If having a law requiring the federal government to live up to Kyoto obligations is such a good thing and so easy to achieve, how come you didn't pass one when you were in power?
The Chairman: Mr. Rodriguez, this committee asked that question of the previous government.
[Translation]
Mr. Rodriguez: There are several parts to this answer, but before getting to the heart of my answer, I would like to make two points. First, Kyoto is international law. In not complying with Kyoto, the Prime Minister of Canada is voluntarily stating to the international community that Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of a G8 country, has decided to not comply with international law. This bill is necessary in order to force the Prime Minister to comply with his international commitments. International legislation is necessary in order to force a Prime Minister who does not want to comply with international law. The Liberal government not only signed the Kyoto Protocol, it ratified the Kyoto Protocol. It wanted to reach the Kyoto targets and in 2005, it even came forward with the Green Plan and provided $10 billion as a first step towards reaching the Kyoto targets.
Much was done, contrary to the inaction of the current government that has not even attempted to reach the Kyoto targets.
[English]
Senator Cochrane: I understand that your leader is supportive of this bill. As a former federal Minister of the Environment, I think Canadians would expect that he would be someone with a clear understanding of the Kyoto Protocol and how attainable it would be for us to reach the targets by 2012.
With that in mind, I would also like to quote from a National Post article published on Canada Day of last year. ``Stéphane Dion has conceded that a future Liberal government would be unable to meet its Kyoto commitment of reducing greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels.'' In the same article Mr. Dion is quoted as saying, ``In 2008, I will be part of Kyoto, but I will say to the world I don't think I will make it.'' These are his words. What do you say about that?
Mr. Rodriguez: First, I would say that the leader supports the bill. Anyone who cares about the future of the country and our children supports this bill, Madam.
Second, that is not a great quote. He stated that if the Conservatives stay in power until 2008 or even later, then it will not be possible to reach our Kyoto objectives.
[Translation]
Within that period, you will have given up and done nothing. At some point, if an election comes too late and the years go by, and you do nothing, then obviously it will be impossible to reach the Kyoto targets. He stated clearly that after a certain period of time under a Conservative government during which nothing will have been done, then it will obviously be impossible to reach those targets. We have not reached that point yet.
[English]
Senator Cochrane: Do you expect this government to pass this bill as is, right away, and within the next 60 days or so, expect us to have this legislation in force?
Mr. Rodriguez: No.
Senator Robichaud: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Just a moment, Mr. Rodriguez.
Senator Robichaud: On a point of order, it is not the government that will pass this bill, it is Parliament. This is quite different.
Senator Cochrane: You are correct, senator, I am sorry.
You expect Parliament to pass this bill rather quickly, even though your leader has agreed that he would not be able to do this right away if he became leader?
[Translation]
Mr. Rodriguez: With all due respect, senator, that is not what he said. He said that if too much time goes by under a Conservative mandate, and nothing is done during that time, then it will be obviously be impossible to reach the Kyoto targets. We are not at that point yet.
In terms of passing the bill, this bill has gone through all necessary stages at the House of Commons and I hope that with your support it will also go through the necessary stages to become law. At that point it will no longer be a private member's bill, but rather a Canadian law just like all the other laws.
The current Prime Minister started out by stating that he would not comply with Bill C-288 and the law. When he realized how ridiculous his comments were, and when he was characterized as a small dictator in choosing one law and not another, he backed down. If this bill is passed by the Senate, and I hope that you will pass it, then it will have been passed by both Houses and the government will have to comply with it.
[English]
Senator Cochrane: I will pursue this question later but I will pass now and wait for the second round.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: I would like to congratulate you. I think that any debate on this issue, whether it be through ``An Inconvenient Truth'' or through any other direct broadcast to the public on this issue, helps raise awareness in this area.
The fact that the House of Commons was able to pass this quickly so that it could be referred to us for study makes us responsible, as senators, to respect the will of the House of Commons and to ratify this bill as quickly as possible. This also gives us an opportunity to see the underhanded way in which the government operates, to see how it makes a fine presentation, and, through calculated leaks the day before the committee's meeting, ensures that everyone is interested. We are very pleased because, quite sincerely Mr. Rodriguez, it is important that this debate take place.
For the public listening to us, I would like to clarify the distinction between your Bill C-288 and Bill C-30. How can those who are less involved in the debate make the distinction between your bill and another bill currently under consideration? Where do they overlap and how do they differ?
Mr. Rodriguez: They are, to a certain extent, complementary. My bill deals with the short term, that is the first commitment of Kyoto, 2008 to 2012, and it forces the government to comply with the targets that were clearly established under the Kyoto protocol. The current version of Bill C-30 is the outcome of a long process. It started out being the ``Cleaner Air Act,'' put forward by Conservatives who were attempting to imitate their Republican colleagues in the United States. There was absolutely nothing in the bill. In the beginning, there were certainly no short-term targets, there were very weak mid-term targets, and the long-term targets were intensity-based, they were not absolute targets. We did not feel that this was a credible environmental plan. It was referred for consideration to committee, and it was reworked and amended by three opposition parties who agreed on giving it much more teeth for the mid-term. Kyoto is acknowledged, and not only is the protocol itself acknowledged, but the fact that it must be complied with and that there must be much more rigorous and serious targets for the mid and the long term. It is truly necessary to adopt Bill C-288 for the short-term work.
[English]
Senator Dawson: You made a number of suggestions about the Minister of the Environment misleading this committee. In a couple of minutes, can you tell the committee about any economic benefits from the reduction of emissions?
[Translation]
Mr. Rodriguez: I have not had the privilege of receiving this document; the minister has provided a few copies to his reporter friends, but certainly not to the opposition. One can only presume, in looking at the numbers, that there will be no emissions market and that there will be no provision for purchasing credits abroad, that is provisions for investing in good projects recognized by the United Nations abroad.
So, he has come forward with a report that has nothing to do with Bill C-288. This bill does not say that everything must be done domestically. It provides for an emissions market and for investment abroad. He has taken the most restrictive and costly measures, and has produced a report that states that it will be very costly to achieve Kyoto targets. Would he have said anything different in 1995 or 1997? He has always said that it will cost a fortune to reach the Kyoto targets. That is what we have always heard from him and that is what we will continue to hear in ten years.
They are using those numbers to arouse people's fears. I ask journalists not to fall into that trap. Other studies contradict those numbers are far more realistic. That is an excuse for giving up, justifying our withdrawal from Kyoto and not doing anything for the future of the environment.
[English]
The Chairman: I have never done this before, but I am going to do it arbitrarily today and ask everyone to limit themselves to one question until we get to a second round — if we are lucky enough, because everyone wants to speak. We have been joined by Senator Gustafson from Saskatchewan and by Senator Willie Adams from Nunavut.
Senator Angus: Mr. Rodriguez, thank you for coming here this morning and getting us involved in this very important debate. I agree with Senator Dawson that anything that can have us focusing on these important matters, not only for our present generation but for the ones to come, is important.
Clearly, your bill has become the centre of great discussion. I admire the members of Parliament who go to the trouble of developing a private member's bill. I realize how the system works, the lottery system, getting it right on to the Order Paper and getting it this far. You have done a great job in bringing it forward. You must have spent a lot of time on it.
Mr. Rodriguez: A lot of time, yes.
Senator Angus: I imagine you have considered all the consequences of your bill.
As you drafted this bill, sponsored it and pursued it through the process, did you conduct an economic analysis? Do you have a clear understanding of exactly what the bill would cost if implemented or did you just introduce it with no focus or understanding of the costs involved?
[Translation]
Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you for your kind words. It is indeed quite a challenge to carry a bill forward, especially as far as is the case here.
There are two kinds of responses to your question, senator. First of all, it is hard to know how much implementation will cost, because it is up to the government to decide which option it will take on. The bill allows for a number of options, including the option to impose absolute limits and create a trading market. It allows the government to work with the provinces. It also provides it with the opportunity to invest in worthy, UN-recognized green projects and to regulate various economic sectors, so that Canadians become more responsible consumers. Bill C-288 provides the government with all kinds of measures. The government is responsible for choosing the tools it wants to use.
At the same time, a number of studies show how all this can be carried out. I referred to the report by Sir Nicolas Stern, who stated that the cost of doing nothing is vastly greater than the cost of taking action on climate change, in the short term. We must take that into account. I also referred to a study that puts a very different price on one tonne of greenhouse gas. So the scenarios we are working with are not cause for distress. Once again, it is for the government to determine what has to be done. It is not for me to decide what the government will spend money on.
If the government decides to not spend a cent, it can do so by tabling very strict regulations. That is not what I would do; if I were in government, I would invest in green projects and create credit trading mechanisms. There again, Conservative government members have to decide which measures they will implement to achieve the objectives.
[English]
Senator Angus: That is it for me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rodriguez did not answer my question. Did he consider what it would cost? That could be a yes or no answer. We have evidence in the Commons committee from the very reputable Dr. Bob Page head of TransAlta who said we are looking at $19 billion for Canada.
The Chairman: Mr. Rodriguez, can you briefly answer the question? Did you take into account in drafting this bill the question of cost?
[Translation]
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, I saw that, but if that were to cost $19 billion, do you know how much a 1 per cent reduction of the GST costs? Some $5 billion a year, Mr. Chairman. That amounts to $20 billion over the next four years. They made that choice, and they are entitled to do so. Others could decide that my young daughter, our children and grandchildren are so dear to us that we might not want to make that 1 per cent reduction, but rather invest in the environment for future generations and make a difference today. It is a question of choice — they decided not to invest in the environment, Mr. Chairman. That is their choice.
[English]
Senator Mitchell: Mr. Rodriguez, I thank you very much for your impassioned advocacy of this very important issue and cutting edge bill. You are providing the leadership that has been lacking in this government. One of the core issues is the question of leadership. Even the Prime Minister says that he accepts the science that we have a problem. Nobody is disputing this, least of all you that it is a difficult problem to solve. Canadians are up to solving difficult problems. Canadians have historically met tremendous challenges and provided leadership in the world. It is a coincidence, of course, but the Vimy celebration demonstrated that leadership so very clearly.
What we do not have from this government is the ability to understand that Canadians can and do rise to challenges. They are incapable of providing the leadership that problem requires. They reduce this debate to economy versus the environment, and they underline that economy versus the environment dichotomy by saying explicitly that of course anything we do to get to Kyoto will hurt, diminish, kill the environment, kill jobs, but that fundamentally is not true. They do two things.
They quote the studies that have rigged assumptions that do not fully assess the economic benefits of pursuing proper environmental policy. They also ignore the examples, case after case, of where large environmental challenges have been pursued and met. They have cost far less than people have imagined, and they have not hurt economies or businesses. They have helped economies and in fact stimulated businesses.
Could you talk a bit about some of the historical examples of where environmental initiatives had been undertaken to solve huge environmental challenges that in fact have benefited economies and businesses?
[Translation]
Mr. Rodriguez: If I may, I would like to draw a brief parallel between the current situation and how things were done in the past. The Minister of the Environment will come here today to do one thing: He will come here to arouse fear. That is all. This is something we have often seen in the past. You will recall the discussions on acid rain. Do you remember that debate? It was all about how much reducing acid rain would cost and how it would ruin the economy. But we succeeded. The economy is sound. You will also recall the fight to protect the ozone layer, with the Montreal Protocol. We were told that such structural changes would throw the economy into a tailspin and that businesses would not survive. But there also, we achieved what we set out to do.
[English]
The economy is still doing well. We are still alive.
[Translation]
Some of you might not remember when Lee Iacocca said something I will never forget, that structural changes needed to be brought to the automobile sector. He was the Ford chairman at the time and said that doing so would cost 800,000 jobs in the U.S., lead to a massive recession, incur $5 billion in lost revenue, et cetera. As far as I know, those things never happened.
Those who want to maintain the status quo will not admit to their inaction and will try to justify it; and that is what will happen here this morning.
I would also say that such scenarios were based on economic models that proved to be false. I ask myself why the economic model the minister will present this morning should be any more realistic than the others. I ask you to keep that in mind.
To answer your question, we must enter into the economy of the 21st century. We have to stop reacting as if we were in the 19th or 20th centuries. Environment and economic development are two sides of the same coin. Just think about job creation in new technologies. Think about how those new technologies can be exported to countries such as China, India, Mexico and Brazil. There are incredible opportunities in that sector.
[English]
Senator Spivak: Mr. Don Drummond, who is in today's papers, is talking $195 a tonne. Do you think he is omitting the offsets? The oil sands development is about 40 per cent of our greenhouse gas emissions, and the Pembina Institute has said their costs of complying with Kyoto could be about $1.76 to $13.65 a barrel.
Many people talk about costs of $30 a tonne.
We have not seen Mr. Drummond's evidence. Do you think he is considering carbon offsets? Do you think that the Pembina Institute is reputable at estimating costs? My third and final question relates to intensity targets. According to documents within government, those targets would result in a 179 per cent increase in the oil sands company's commissions. Those are my questions.
You can just answer one question and write me a note about the others.
[Translation]
Mr. Rodriguez: I did not see the study Mr. Drummond referred to. The government and John Baird, the Minister of the Environment, only want to strike fear into the hearts and minds of committee members and Canadians at large.
I did not see the study. However, in order to come up with such ridiculous numbers, I can only assume that it does not account for all the measures provided for in the Kyoto Protocol and Bill C-288, namely the emissions trading markets and investments in UN-recognized green projects.
[English]
Senator Spivak: Green development mechanisms.
[Translation]
Mr. Rodriguez: In my view, the Pembina Institute is very credible and has a vast working experience in this field. Intensity-based emissions reduction is not the way to go, because it allows for an increase in emissions. We have to have specific and absolute targets if we are to deal seriously with climate change.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: Thank you very much for appearing before us today. Mr. Rodriguez, I wanted to remind you that you do not have a monopoly on caring for children, grandchildren or the people of Canada. We are having a debate here about how to solve a problem; a climatic change problem. We have different points of view.
I do not agree with your point of view, although you may think it is correct. You seem to be able to predict the future very well, but have a hard time remembering the past. It was your government that was in power between 1996- 2005, and emissions grew during that time. There was no plan to meet the Kyoto Protocol. Admitted not only by critics like The Globe and Mail, but also admitted by people in your own party. Admitted by Mr. Ignatieff, for whom you were the campaign chair in the last leadership campaign, in that famous debate where he said, you did not get it done on the environment, Mr. Dion.
Do you agree with Mr. Ignatieff when he said, ``I think our party has gotten into a mess on the environment?'' As a practical matter of politics, nobody knows what Kyoto is or what it commits us to. He said this while you were his campaign chair.
[Translation]
Mr. Rodriguez: I would first like to respond to your opening remarks. I know that we share this love for our generations.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: Answer the question. We only have about five minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Rodriguez: I would simply like you to demonstrate your interest in our future generations by taking action on climate change.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: Do not point your finger at me.
[Translation]
Mr. Rodriguez: I am not being impolite, senators — and I would also ask you to show some respect.
I want to remind you that it was the Liberal government that signed and ratified the Kyoto Accord and had a plan in place, in 2005, to meet its objectives. At the outset, the plan included $10 billion, which is a lot more than what the current government has allocated. Over the past year, there has been total inaction and regression on the climate change front. This is extremely worrisome for the future of our planet.
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Rodriguez, you have said on a number of occasions that the minister was to appear before us and would try to scare us. I want you to know that we are not afraid.
Mr. Rodriguez: I know. That is why it will not work.
Senator Robichaud: You talked about Canadians at large, and I believe that they will be able to distinguish between measures that are sensible and those that are not. My colleagues spoke about the past. This government, through its minister, took an initiative that failed. The minister was replaced and perhaps the new minister will suffer the same fate. Canadians will be able to make the distinction.
Whether we act or not, there will be costs involved. The models deal with climate change and its effects on tides — a serious issue in my part of the country — the climate, and storms. Have these studies examined the effects on health and the costs of not acting on the plan?
Mr. Rodriguez: A number of studies were conducted, including the one by the group of experts on climate change and others by organizations in the health sector working to fight climate change. We are already witnessing disastrous consequences. Millions of climate refugees will have to leave their countries or areas of residence, whether because of floods or changes in temperature. For example, there will be an increase in the incidence of malaria. Major areas will be flooded.
We are already seeing significant changes, and some facts are simply overlooked. The culture of people living in the Far North has already been affected by the phenomenon. Some people have to leave the lands on which they have lived for generations and generations. These changes will no doubt occur and some of the consequences are now irreversible.
We must take courageous steps to limit the damage and reduce the changes that are already occurring. Did I say that respecting the Kyoto Protocol would be easy? Of course it will not. Did I talk about miracle solutions? I did not. All I am saying is that we have to show strength, courage and determination. We must start taking action now.
Unfortunately, that is not what the Conservative government is doing. Rather, it is in denial about the problem and, at times, even about the causes. In my opinion, honourable senators, this bill provides us with a necessary and important tool to take action today. That is why I urge you to support Bill C-288 so that, together, we can make a difference, as you have said, for our children and grandchildren.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you. Due to the constraints of time, Mr. Rodriguez, we will write to you and I would invite you to respond to those written questions. I suspect that we may want to have you back again because there are other members who wish to ask questions, but we have unfortunately run out of time.
Our next guest is here. We will therefore adjourn briefly for our next guest to arrive.
Honourable senators, we now have before us this morning the Honourable Minister of the Environment, Mr. John Baird. Minister, thank you for being with us today, and we also welcome the Deputy Minister, Michael Horgan. We are delighted you are with us.
Mr. Minister, I am sure you would like to tell us things about Bill C-288. The floor is yours.
[Translation]
Hon. John Baird, P.C., M.P., Minister of the Environment: Mr. Chairman, I believe Canadians want real action on the environment. Canadians want to see climate change addressed and harmful greenhouse gases reduced.
They also desperately want to see smog and air pollution reduced so that the air we breathe is cleaner. Canadians demand leadership from their government: for both a clean environment and a growing economy. Canadians also want their elected representatives and their government to act responsibly on both fronts.
[English]
Nearly three months ago, the House of Commons passed the Liberal environmental bill, Bill C-288. This bill requires the government to ``ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.''
In 1997, the Liberal government agreed to the Kyoto Protocol. In the following nine years in government, the Liberal Party did absolutely nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. While they promised big cuts to these harmful emissions, instead they sat back and watched them rise dramatically. Consider the evidence. In 1997, when the Liberal government signed on to the protocol, Canada was 22 per cent above its target, but the good news was that we had 15 years to make it. By the time Canadians chose change in 2006, Canada was 35 per cent above its target.
When the starting pistol went off in what was to be a 15-year marathon to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada under the Liberal government, Canada began to run in the wrong direction.
[Translation]
I believe the Liberals' Bill C-288 is an irresponsible piece of legislation. It would not allow our country to maintain a balance between, on the one hand, aggressive environmental action and, on the other hand, responsible economic stewardship. Canada's new government believes leadership demands getting this balance right. Our goal is to provide aggressive action on the environment, while also growing the economy, to make sure that Canadians can keep working and building bright futures in this country. Let me explain.
[English]
I believe our government has an important responsibility to Parliament and to the people of Canada to report on the full consequences of this bill. As such, we have had some of our government's leading economists look at the bill. We went further and had their work reviewed and validated by some of Canada's best economists outside of governments. They include Jean-Thomas Bernard, a professor in the Department of Economics at Laval University; Mr. Mark Jaccard, a professor in the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University; Don Drummond, Senior Vice-President and Chief Economist of the Toronto-Dominion Bank; Carl Sonnen, the President of Informetrica; and, Chris Green, a professor in the Department of Economics at McGill University.
The conclusions of our economists and outside of government experts are quite striking. They give you cause for sober second thought of this bill. Our economists found that Bill C-288 requires asking every Canadian family, business and industry to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by one third, beginning in just eight months.
That includes cutting by one third the emissions from the gas in all of our cars and the diesel in all of our work trucks. It means cutting by one third all of the following: the natural gas we use to heat our homes; the electricity we use in all our places of work; and, the emissions from all of our factories and industries. There is only one way to make that happen: the government would need to manufacture a recession.
The government would need to introduce major punitive measures to get the deep cuts in emissions in the very short time frame required by Bill C-288. To be effective, these measures would have to impose costs on the entire economy, impacting not only large final emitters of greenhouse gases but also individual businesses and everyday Canadians. Regulations to limit emissions would have to be so severe that plants would be forced to stop production and make dramatic cuts to their workforces just to meet the imposed targets and short time frames. Average natural gas prices would more than double beginning next year. Electricity prices would need to rise by more than 50 per cent over the course of the next five years. This means the electricity bill for an average Canadian home would go from about $90 a month to almost $145 a month. Frankly, the cost to maintain a home or business would skyrocket, with prices going up for everything from heating fuels to electricity to power equipment to appliances and gasoline.
At the pumps, Canadians would see gas prices jump by more than 60 per cent. Hard working Canadian families would have to get used to gasoline costing more than $1.60 a litre over the 2008-12 period. If that is not enough to cause concern, let us look at the bigger picture.
The punitive nature of these measures would require businesses to scale back or cease production in response to reduced demand and energy costs. Our analysis shows that by 2009, over 275,000 Canadians working today would lose their jobs and become unemployed. What does that mean? It is the equivalent of every worker in Saint John, New Brunswick, Saguenay, Quebec and Regina, Saskatchewan losing their jobs and their capacity to provide for themselves and their families. I believe that is a massive and unacceptable cost for Canadian families. Statistically, these dramatic job losses would cause Canada's unemployment rate to rise by 25 per cent by 2009. That is simply unacceptable.
Higher unemployment rates and energy costs are not the only areas in which Canadians would feel the pinch if they are pushed down this path. The size of Canada's economy would decline by over 6.5 per cent relative to current projections in 2008, falling to about 4.2 per cent below the 2007 level. That implies a deep recession in 2008.
Allow me to put that into context. The 1981-82 recession, which was the worst Canada has seen since the Second World War, saw Canada's GDP fall by 4.9 per cent. In actual dollars, the predicted recession would result in a decline of national economic activity in 2008 in the range of $51 billion below 2007 levels.
Hearing these facts, substantiated by some of our country's most well-respected economic experts, it is easy to see how implementing such deep emission cuts beginning next January would have such a devastating effect on the Canadian economy and it is easy to understand why such a plan would not fly with Canadians.
Clearly, we need to proceed with care, mindful that whatever course we follow must strike the right balance between economic prosperity and environmental protection. Please, however, do not take my criticism of Bill C-288 as a condemnation of Kyoto. In fact, I want to be perfectly clear: Canada, under our government, remains committed to the principles and objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. We accept our international obligations and will make our best efforts.
[Translation]
We accept our international obligations and will make our best efforts. We are big believers in the need for international action. We would like to see more cooperation and leadership among all major emitting countries, particularly the G8 plus five, which includes not only the big western economies like Britain, France, Germany and the United States, but also the big emerging economies like China and India.
Canada's New Government was elected to make decisions. The global challenge of climate change and global warming requires concrete action. Leadership and determination are required in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.
[English]
We have taken significant steps that not only prove our commitment to action but that will also make a difference for Canada's environment and for the health of all Canadians. We have unveiled a wide range of initiatives to promote clean energy and clean transportation, the two biggest sources of greenhouse gases and air pollution.
We are increasing the use of renewable fuel through regulation and supporting the growth of our biofuels industry. We are providing financial and tax incentives to Canadians to drive eco-friendly vehicles. We will regulate mandatory fuel consumption standards on the vehicles that Canadians buy. We are supporting the growth of renewable energy resources like wind and tidal power. We are providing incentives to Canadians to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. We have partnered with the Province of Alberta to create an ecoENERGY Carbon Capture and Storage Task Force that will recommend the best ways to deploy technology to capture carbon dioxide from the oil sands and to store it deep underground. We have provided $1.5 billion to the provinces and territories to support concrete energy efficiency, technology and other projects they have identified to achieve real reduction in both air pollution and greenhouse gases.
Budget 2007 also demonstrates our commitment to the environment with an investment of $4.5 billion to clean our air and water, to manage the legacy of chemical substances, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, most importantly, to protect our natural environment.
Combined with over $4.7 billion in investments made since 2006, the resulting investments in environmental protection total over $9 billion. However, these investments alone will not drive the changes in energy efficiency, technology, innovations and investments in industrial facilities that must occur if Canada is to do its part to reduce the global burden of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. That is why, going forward, our focus is now on implementing tough but realistic regulations to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution from large industrial sources while ensuring that our economy continues to prosper.
Our government cannot take responsibility for the inaction and mistakes made by the previous Liberal government, but let me be clear: We will take responsibility for cleaning up the mess that we inherited. By doing nothing to reduce the harmful greenhouse gas emissions, the previous government focused far too much on the economy, and now, with the bill before us, they focus entirely on the environment, with no thought to the economic consequences for Canadian families and businesses.
While industry pushes for minimal action and environmentalists push for perfection, the problem is getting worse. It is time for Canada's government to act, and we are acting.
Soon, we will unveil our regulatory framework for industrial air emissions. Our strategy will ensure real reductions in both greenhouse gases and air pollution. It will include tougher rules and regulations that will require Canadian industry to reduce pollution that threatens the health of Canadians and causes climate change. For the first time in our country, we will have a strategy, one that is real, concrete and realistic for reducing greenhouse gases and air pollution.
If they all had the facts, I wonder if Canadians would not prefer a more realistic plan than the Liberals' Bill C-288, one that allows them to maintain a quality of life they have worked hard to obtain, a plan that makes them part of the solution without pulling every last penny from their pockets. Of course, Canadians will have to make some adjustments. We all need to take on more responsibility. It is something we believe Canadians are prepared for. Our citizens want urgent action on the environment and they are ready for some tough but fair medicine.
But how much is too much? Where do we draw the line? Canadians expect us to deal with these issues with responsibility and balance. We also need a balanced approach that reduces both greenhouse gases and preserves Canada's economic growth. Based on what we already know, Bill C-288, with its deep reductions and emissions beginning in January, is not the answer we are looking for. The economics just do not add up.
With this bill, the Liberals are seeking to recklessly correct 10 years of bad environmental policy with a further 10 years of bad economic policy. That is why our government has set out to craft a more realistic way forward, a path that is more balanced, with concrete, tough, yet realistic goals.
Will everyone like our approach? Probably not. Some extreme environmentalists will say it is too weak, while some in industry will say it is too tough. Someone has to take the lead, and that is the responsibility of the Government of Canada. We were elected to make tough decisions on behalf of Canadians and not duck them. As legislators, I believe we have a choice. We can play politics with the environment — and I think Bill C-288 is that path — or we can pursue a course that is more balanced, a course that allows us to take aggressive actions to improve the environment while also working boldly to grow our economy and to keep Canadians working. That is a path our government wishes to chart.
The Chairman: Thank you, minister.
Senators, we are constrained not by the time of the minister but by the fact that this room must be vacated by us at a particular time, which is no later than 10:25 a.m.
For that reason, I will continue with the unusual practice in this place of asking each of the senators on the first round to ask one question of the minister, and not a question that contains three questions. We will then come to the second round. I hope that we will fit everyone in.
Senator Kenny: Mr. Chairman, I object to that. I will forego my turn so that senators can follow some reasonable questions. To simply have the minister here and say ``you can ask one question and that is all you can do'' makes absolutely no sense. It is not the custom in the Senate and it is not an appropriate way to proceed with examining this bill.
The Chairman: It is not, and it is unusual in the extreme; however, in this circumstance, in order that everyone has an opportunity to pose a question, I will impose that limit on us, regretfully. I hope that we will get to a second round.
Senator Cochrane: Minister, we know how busy you are and we are glad you gave us an hour and a half of your time. We appreciate your presence here.
I am concerned about the environment, but I am also concerned when you mention the word ``recession.'' I am from Newfoundland and Labrador. We are very concerned about jobs and the economy there right now.
My question is this: Over many years, Canadians have grown accustomed to a lot of talk but no action on the environment.
The fact is that under the previous Liberal government, greenhouse gas emissions went up and not down. That concerns all of us.
Do you, as Minister of the Environment, have a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a short while, and when can Canadians expect to know more about this plan and what will it include?
Mr. Baird: Over the last number of months, we have come forward with initiatives with respect to transportation. We have come forward with initiatives on energy efficiency and on science and technology. We have come forward with initiatives in our budget. For the first time ever, we are engaging the provinces, which is something that had not been done before.
Senator Robichaud: You have really engaged the provinces.
Mr. Baird: We are working with all the provinces. We have initiatives that are flexible and that respond to the different needs of different provinces. What they do in Manitoba will work differently than what they do in New Brunswick. In Ontario, it will work differently than British Columbia.
The key part of that plan or overall strategy, though, is to go after the 47 per cent of emissions that come from the industrial sector. We will be coming forward in very short order with a strategy for the first time in Canadian history to regulate the large final emitters, the 700 big emitters in this country, with mandatory regulation for both greenhouse gases and for air pollution. This plan will be coming forward shortly. It will put Canada in a real position of leadership around the world to demonstrate that we not only take this issue seriously but we are prepared to act, and we will act responsibly for both jobs and the quality of our environment.
Senator Cochrane: We should hear about that soon.
Mr. Baird: Yes, very soon.
Senator Dawson: Mr. Baird, I remember being here last summer and talking about the fact that legislation that had passed in the House of Commons should be passed by the Senate as quickly as possible, since it was the will of the people. I guess that logic does not apply to all the legislation that comes in front of you, Mr. Baird.
On other occasions, we have heard that the sky is falling. The catalytic converters would kill the auto industry, and after that, if we did not control acid rain we would kill the forest industry. The sky is falling. We have seen the movie An Inconvenient Truth, but I guess this would be the convenient lie. Every time we talk about changes to the environment, people tell us it will destroy the economy. It was not true in 1960, it was not true in 1970, and it will not be true in 2000.
That being said, I am impressed: Each Canadian, $1,000, and a family of four, $4,000. If that is the logic behind the economy, will they each have a home? Will they all have cars? Will they all have furnaces? Will they all have the same level of production? Lots of money was well spent on a strong economy on this.
We will have to go through this, Mr. Chairman, over the next few weeks, because the document is quite substantial. Why is there nowhere in the analysis that you have presented to us a discussion what will happen if we allow things to continue as they go now? What will be the consequences? We did not see that in your presentation.
Mr. Baird: I do not think anyone is advocating doing nothing. We are advocating taking some of the most aggressive action in the world. If this problem was so simple and so easy to tackle, I suspect the previous government would have tackled it, but instead of going down, emissions went way up. I think you have to ask why Stéphane Dion was not more supportive in cabinet, as some of his cabinet colleagues have said, because he did not want to ruffle the feathers of the provinces.
One of the previous ministers of the environment, Christine Stewart, said she could not get any money out of Paul Martin when he was Minister of Finance. I believe the previous government's approach was far too focused on the economy and that Bill C-288 is far too focused on the environment. Canadians want a balanced approach. To a great extent, senator, the bill before us today is more about saving face than saving the environment.
Senator Spivak: Suncor Energy, for example, has said that they can meet Kyoto targets, and the chemical producers have reduced their emissions by 43 per cent. They are not going broke.
When I look at your assumptions on page 24 of your analysis, there are many caveats. I am sure there have been many previous analyses in the department on the economic impact of Kyoto, and it would be very helpful to us if we could see them. Would you be willing to share some of them with us?
Mr. Baird: I am prepared to share anything we have. I can tell you that if you talk to Mr. Rick George, the head of Suncor Energy, he would say that the characterization that you just gave is incorrect. I would encourage you to contact him. I am sure he would put a letter before the committee and tell you that is not the case.
Many industry associations say we are well below our Kyoto target already. I want to ask why. Is it because so many Canadian pulp and paper mills have closed? That is not an action with a cause and effect of reducing greenhouse gases. In the chemical industry, one company, DuPont, has done a phenomenal job of changing its process. They are the only company that has really tackled the problem. They are the cause for the decline themselves. That is why we will come forward with tough emission targets that are responsible to force all large industrial emitters to do their part.
The Chairman: 3M has done that as well. We have an invitation out to Suncor Energy. They will be appearing before the committee.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you for coming. I want to say just briefly that I really think you are not providing leadership. You accept the problem, if you do, and the science and you have to provide leadership. Your assessment of Canadians' ability to meet great challenges is diminished, and perhaps your inability to lead them is right on.
It is very interesting to me that when you look at what Canadians did to restructure the economy in 1939 to win that war; it did not ruin the economy. Today, you talk about spending billions of dollars on tanks and helicopters and bullets for a war effort, and that does not diminish the economy. In fact, for perhaps the wrong reasons, it actually stimulates the economy. You are reduced to somehow saying that kind of investment stimulates the economy, but investment on the environment, on the future and on tackling climate change, on achieving this great challenge of Kyoto, creates a negative economic impact. You defend that in this study. This is a classic study for people on your side of the argument, because it is rigged. It denies assumptions about what the positive economic impact and the growth of environmentally sound policy will add; the jobs that are created because of new technology and the economic efficiencies that are created that in turn create great increased productivity.
How can you base your conclusion of negative economic impact on a study which itself admits that this analysis cannot credibly incorporate such long-term transformational technology as carbon capture and storage?
That fundamental initiative would create great economic benefit and great economic stimulation. It cannot include the emissions impacts of long-term energy infrastructure projects. How else would you do Kyoto? You do long-term energy infrastructure projects. I can go on. This is a rigged study, and the one thing that it demonstrates is how effective you are at spinning the media. In fact, I would say that if we could capture that spin, we would have an alternative energy source.
The Chairman: Senator Mitchell, please ask a question.
Senator Mitchell: I want to know how the minister can come to such a conclusion when he states that the study is incomplete. How can he point to a negative impact study? This analysis, it says, cannot credibly incorporate such long- term transformational technology as carbon capture and storage.
How could you come to that conclusion on a study that does not at consider that?
Mr. Baird: I will be accountable to the electorate for every action that I take as minister and as a member of Parliament. In Alberta, I think we will have that soon with respect to the upper house.
You talk about carbon storage. The Kyoto Protocol in this bill deals with the period 2008-12. Can tell me one person in the entire planet, in the entire country who thinks we can have carbon capture and storage in the short term? The Kyoto Protocol speaks to 2008-12.
Senator Mitchell: I can tell you one person. The Prime Minister just put $150 million into our pipeline to capture carbon.
The Chairman: We are not doing this.
Senator Mitchell: Well, he asked me.
Mr. Baird: There is not one person who thinks this technology can be deployed in a major way in the short term, within eight months.
Senator Mitchell: The Prime Minister does.
Mr. Baird: We are supporting it in a major way which is something the previous government did not do. Maybe you can explain that in your next round. We hope to get carbon capture and storage deployed in a major commercial way, but that will not happen in the next eight months or in the next four years. I think it can happen in 2012 or 2015, but that is beyond the scope of this bill. We cannot consider long-term good investments and good choices that will happen as part of Bill C-288 because it is exclusively pre-2012.
I would encourage you to read the Kyoto Protocol and know that these decisions would have to be made and up and running within eight months. There is no one who thinks we can reduce that many megatons.
In Debates of the Senate, you said:
The estimates to achieve our 270-mega-tonne reduction target by 2012 range between $10 billion and $20 billion. I have explored those figures and they seemed light to me.
We are putting forward $9 billion of new environment spending, which is certainly more than we saw under the previous government.
Senator Mitchell: ``Light'' as in reasonable.
Mr. Baird: They seem ``light''?
Senator Mitchell: As in reasonable. I am saying they are reasonable.
Mr. Baird: So you would like it to be more than $20 billion?
Senator Mitchell: No. I am saying that it is very reasonable.
Mr. Baird: Mr. McGuinty has said it could cost $40 billion and the Canadian people will ``scream'' when they see the costs. These are not my words. They are the words of the Liberals' environment critic. I will look to Michael Ignatieff, who said the previous government did not get the job done. This government will accept its responsibilities and will deliver for the Canadian people and our environment.
Senator Mitchell: Keep spinning, Mr. Baird.
Mr. Baird: You could burn off a lot of energy running in an election, senator.
Senator Angus: He may do it. He has done that before.
The Chairman: He has done that and won.
Mr. Baird: I did that to get here.
Senator Angus: We are here to consider Bill C-288. I think it is safe to assume that you would be happy if we were to not pass that bill and let it die. That would be your preference. In that context, I am looking for the alternative.
David Suzuki, who is well known to all of us, recently said that he agreed with the Conservative government that the Liberals did not do the hard things that were needed to meet the Kyoto target. You have elaborated on that. Are you and your government ready to make those hard choices the Liberals did not have the guts to make?
Mr. Baird: I think we will.
Senator Angus: What would they be?
Mr. Baird: With our plans, Canada will have a comprehensive agenda to reduce greenhouse gases. We accept our responsibilities under the Kyoto Protocol to make our best efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We will do that in a comprehensive way. We will go where no government has gone before, but we cannot replace bad environmental policy with bad economic policy. I think Canadians want us to take a balanced approach. Canadians want to see our country take international leadership at home and abroad. Far too often, we spent far too much money on the international cocktail party circuit preaching the gospel, while at home our actions did not follow our rhetoric.
We are committed to real action. I think the industrial regulatory package will be solid and perhaps environmentalists and industry will not agree, but it is our responsibility as the elected government to take action and to lead.
Senator Kenny: Mr. Baird, you cannot have it both ways. You are criticizing the previous government for having bad economic policy, yet your government and Canadians are benefiting from the strongest economy Canada has ever seen. We have had a series of surpluses and have done well economically. To suggest that the Liberal proposal coming forward is bad economics and to keep looking backwards simply does not make any sense.
I would like you to tell me which clause in the bill will require that greenhouse gas emissions be reduced by one third beginning in just eight months and then pick any one of the examples you have given us, whether it is the 25 per cent unemployment rate, the 50 per cent increase in electricity prices, the 60 per cent increase in gasoline brings and work it out for us. Please explain to us how you arrived at these figures. It looks a lot like fear mongering when you come in with headlines like these and do not give us an explanation.
For the benefit of the committee, you pick which one you want and go through it. Tell us how you arrive at these increases.
Mr. Baird: I encourage you to read, The Cost of Bill C-288 to Canadian Families and Businesses.
Let me use, as an example, a province that is a heavy consumer of fossil fuels and electricity generation mix. Nova Scotia has some 80 per cent of its electricity generated by coal. If you are to require Nova Scotia to reduce its dependence on fossil fuel generations within the next eight months by one third, prices would skyrocket or people will be in the cold.
Senator Kenny: How did you make your calculation?
Mr. Baird: It is all in the documentation, senator.
Senator Kenny: Given us the pages, please.
Mr. Baird: If you look in the document, it is very clear. You asked for a specific example and I have explained. The Kyoto timeline is in the title of the bill; you do not have to go beyond the first words in the bill. It says that you will meet your obligations under Kyoto. The Kyoto Protocol is specific that those obligations begin in 2008 to the 2012 average.
I can remember being Minister of Energy in Ontario. We had a Leader of the Opposition who promised to close all the coal-fired generating stations within four years. Not a person in the province of Ontario believed him. Here we are 2007 and they have not closed the coal-fired generating stations.
When people speak in words that just do not add up as facts, I think they have to be called on that. I do not think you can get that average within eight months. I do not think you can move that quickly on generation. In Ontario, 20 per cent of our electricity is from coal-fired power; in Saskatchewan it is 70 per cent.
What you might see is some real perverse environmental reactions. In Canada, we can reduce our coal-fired generation only to import dirty coal-fired electricity produced in the United States. Our air quality will be just as bad, our greenhouse gas emissions will be twice as bad. Our prices will be twice as high. That is not in the interests of Canadians. It does not advance the environment. We want to move forward with a balanced approach.
If it was so easy and simple to meet Kyoto, why did the Liberal government have 10 years and still fail. I used this analogy before, Kyoto was a 15-year marathon to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and when the starting pistol went off Canada began running in the opposite direction.
You must realize we cannot continue to do things as we did before. The Liberal bill before us is more about saving face than it is about saving the environment.
Senator Kenny: Mr. Chairman I was given one question. I asked the minister to give us one example and to show us the calculations and he has not picked a single example and he has not shown the calculations. He is fear mongering before the committee and cannot substantiate any of the information before us.
Senator Angus: Hogwash.
Senator Kenny: One question does not work, Mr. Chairman. He is ducking the issue.
Senator Angus: No he is not.
Senator Kenny: He is playing to the crowd. He is fear mongering and trying to scare Canadians.
Senator St. Germain: You are the fear monger, you and your Liberal colleagues.
Senator Kenny: Minister, I asked you for one example.
Mr. Baird: I gave you the very clear example of fossil fuel generation.
Senator Kenny: Tell us how you get to the figure of 50 per cent.
Senator Tkachuk: Mr. Chairman, I have one question.
Mr. Baird: This is validated by the experts within the public service. Five or six leading Canadian economists have said that the information I am putting before you is fair and balanced.
Senator Kenny: Explain it to us — walk us through it step by step. It is a reasonable question.
Mr. Baird: I will speak slower the next time I answer a question.
The Chairman: Minister, I presume you have taken note of that question so I would ask that in response and with respect to the materials you have given us today, you would forward your answer to the clerk of the committee. Would you show us one of the examples and the exact calculations that have given rise to your conclusions, which are very specific. The committee needs to understand precisely how you arrived at the conclusions. I have looked through the materials that you have given us today and I do not see the arithmetic formula that led to those conclusions. Would you undertake to do that for the committee?
Mr. Baird: Sure. I will have officials come here and take you through it.
The Chairman: It is likely that we will pursue that.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Minister, thank you for your presentation. I am not sure if I should laugh or cry because at first blush, this document borders on the ridiculous. I do not think you could have written a more negative report than this one, at first blush, as I said.
Given that you like to talk about the past, I would like to know in what way your words differ from those of your predecessor and what direction your predecessor took off in when you took over at the Department of the Environment. Please give me some background.
Mr. Baird: My predecessor announced our intention to regulate the industry last October. We are working very hard. We have received input from environmental groups and we are also consulting industry.
Our intentions are much more specific for the next five years. My predecessor announced $5 billion last year. We worked harder and we were given another $4.5 billion.
[English]
We have been able to build on the actions. The Prime Minister said in early January that Canadians wanted us to do more. We have heard that call and we are building on last years' initiatives. I will take responsibility for the action of my government over the last year if members of the other party will take responsibility for the inaction of 10 years.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: You have no choice but to take responsibility for the government's action, especially with regard to the environment. If I understand correctly, your predecessor was not headed in the same direction. The only difference is that you talk louder.
[English]
Mr. Baird: Money talks and $4.5 billion in new resources is a substantial amount of money. For the first time, we are working with the provinces. I made an announcement in Manitoba with Premier Gary Doer, who said that he never received even $1 from the previous government to fight climate change.
We have been able to work successfully with the provinces and territories from coast to coast to coast. We have added extra money for the territories than initially was envisaged. We have expanded it to include adaptation. We have done a considerable amount of work but more remains to be done. We will follow up the actions that we have taken in the last year with the industrial regulation regime, which will be meaningful and significant. It will be an honest plan that we can deliver on.
I will come back to the coal-fire generating commitment. The Ontario Leader of the Opposition in the last provincial Parliament of Ontario made a commitment to all Canadians to get rid of dirty coal, but he had no plan to do it. We still have more than 20 per cent of electricity generated by coal in Ontario.
I am not prepared to make a commitment that I cannot keep. We will deliver on our promises.
Senator Tkachuk: Former Prime Minister Chrétien's Chief of Staff, Mr. Eddy Goldenberg said about the Liberal government:
Nor was the government itself ever ready at the time with what had to be done. The Kyoto targets were extremely ambitious and it was very possible that short-term deadlines would, at the end of the day, have to be extended.
I find it to be an incredible admission by an adviser to a Prime Minister as he was signing onto an agreement — the Kyoto Protocol — that he did not intend to meet the targets. He seemed to sense that the evidence at the time was such that they would not be able to meet the goals. At the Montreal UN climate talks, the member countries failed to agree on any binding emission targets after the year 2012, and 2012 is the end of Kyoto.
I would like you to comment on the responsibility of the previous Liberal government to make the kind of commitments that they made while knowing full well at the time, as the evidence shows, that they had no intention of ever keeping it. Obviously, their evidence at the time showed that they could not be met.
Senator Kenny: Mr. Chairman, this study is on the bill, and he is asking a question about what the former Liberal government said. His question is completely out of order.
The Chairman: Minister, could you answer the question in terms of the current study of this committee on Bill C- 288?
Mr. Baird: It goes directly to the core when you speak in the abstract of being able to accomplish something that no one intended to accomplish. The Liberal member of the current House of Commons said this February, just two months ago, ``We are so far behind now that catch-up is impossible without shutting the country down.'' That is not John Baird talking. A senior member of the Liberal caucus said that in February. Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin did not provide support to successive ministers of the environment, like Christine Stewart, who said that Mr. Chrétien did not get it on the environment and that she could not get any money out of Mr. Martin. Mr. Anderson pushed hard in this regard and did not get support from people like Stéphane Dion on this issue. It is important.
I have another commitment from another Liberal member of Parliament: ``I am pleased to tell the House . . .
Senator Kenny: Mr. Chairman, this is not on the bill before us. This is out of order.
The Chairman: Minister, is the material that you are reading relative specifically to Bill C-288?
Mr. Baird: Yes.
The Chairman: Could you tell us how it is relevant?
Mr. Baird: Let me finish and you will see. I will repeat it.
I am pleased to tell the House that the government is fully on track not only to meet but likely beat its commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions from its own government operations.
That commitment was to get 20 per cent below 1990 levels by the year 2005 and, of course, they did not make it. There is a history of saying one thing and delivering nothing, and that is relevant to the discussion on this bill.
The Chairman: I am not sure that it is.
Senator Tkachuk: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a point. When the previous witness spoke, he spent one-half of his time talking about what Mr. Baird might say rather than speaking about Bill C-288. He brought into the debate the matter of what our government is doing versus what the Liberal government was doing. Now, he has to face up to that debate. Had his presentation stuck to Bill C-288, I am sure that Mr. Baird would have done so as well.
Senator Dawson: I would add that everything the previous witness ``predicted'' has turned out to be true.
The Chairman: That is beside the point and not a question. Senator Adams, you have the floor.
Senator Adams: I am concerned about climate change. We are talking too much about politics here this morning.
Those of us living in Nunavut are concerned about climate change because it is affecting us in many ways — for hunting, in travel and the land. We understand that the climate is changing because the weather is changing every year.
When I was up there last week out on the land, we had hardly any snow. The snow is different now. Usually, at this time, I would see caribou and the ground would be packed with solid snow. Now it has melted and there is already slush.
I have done some studies on this. I do not have enough copies to give to everyone on the committee now, but I can send it to the clerk. People who are living in Nunavut and the territories want to know what is happening. A lot of scientists go up there every year but they never tell us what is happening. However, we know ourselves, from the water and the ice in the lakes and on the land, that everything is changing. Right now, it is dangerous to travel sometimes. It is not the same anymore; you used to be able to stand on the ice, but you cannot do that now because there is movement in the sea ice. You can no longer travel by Ski-Doo over the land. It is too dangerous.
The Prime Minister announced in Montreal about a month ago that he was going to put another $150 million toward the study of climate change. Will the people also be studying climate change in the Arctic?
Mr. Baird: One of the things that is most concerning about global warming is that it has an incredibly unequal effect around the world. Canada will pay a bigger price than the United States and Canada's North will pay an even bigger price than southern Canada.
I do not think we need to study the science of climate change much more. I think it is universally accepted. We certainly accept the science, as do all the other G8 countries. We need to focus on adaptation measures to understand what is going on.
We are all particularly concerned about some of the stories and the facts that we see presented; for example, schools coming off their foundations where the permafrost is melting and the huge toll it is having on public infrastructure in highways.
The recent report from Belgium about the effects of climate change requires a focus on adaptation and mitigation. However, the first major conclusion of that report is that action to fight, reduce, and slow down climate change around the world should be the first priority.
That is very much our first priority. We have invested a significant amount in the International Polar Year, which will encourage more science in the Far North. We have come forward with some early investments for the three territories. It was supposed to be population based and the three premiers came forward and fought for more. We agreed with them and came forward with $5 million each, allowing them to use it on adaptation as well.
We need to do additional measures on mitigation and adaptation. That is currently something we are working on, to build on the announcements we made on the International Polar Year approximately six weeks ago.
As bad as some of the challenges are that the North and the Arctic are facing, I do fear that without some real action, with some of the ice melts that we are seeing, we have a very fragile ecosystem up there that could be affected in a serious way by increased shipping. We have come forward with some significant initiatives in the last two months and I think you will see some more measures.
We must realize, however, that the Arctic and the Far North is bearing the burden more than any other part of Canada or even the world. That just underlines the need for action.
Senator St. Germain: Thank you, minister, for coming here this morning and presenting to us a balanced, pragmatic approach to the situation. I know the Liberal hypocritical rhetoric is flowing through this place this morning, but I think Canadians want to know if Bill C-288 will create a direct financial obligation on the federal government if it is passed.
Historically, from my experience — having been an elected member, like you are, in the House of Commons — if it does, how do we reconcile this? I was always under the impression that private members' bills could not be money bills. Could you explain this to Canadians, please?
Senator Robichaud: On a point of order.
The Chairman: I am not sure that has to do with the bill. What is your point of order, Senator Robichaud?
Senator Robichaud: It has to do with the question, which was answered by the Speaker of the House of Commons. This bill has been deemed to be in order and it has passed the House. I do not think it serves any purpose to go back to that.
Senator St. Germain: Why not? I am entitled to ask any question I want and I do not need a Liberal telling me what I can ask. Now get that straight.
The Chairman: We are, however, asking questions that relate to the bill; and the fact is that the Speaker of the House of Commons —
Senator St. Germain: I do not care what the Speaker of the House said. I am asking the minister, who is part of the government; I am asking the government.
Senator Spivak: Mr. Chairman, order, please.
The Chairman: Okay. Minister, will you answer that question briefly please? However, the answer, which we all know, is that the Speaker of the House of Commons has determined the answer to the question.
Senator St. Germain: Who cares?
Senator Kenny: We care.
Senator St. Germain: He could be wrong; he is not God, after all.
Senator Robichaud: The minister is not God either.
Mr. Baird: I appreciate the real deference of many senators to the House of Commons.
The Chairman: That is not what I said, minister.
Mr. Baird: I did not say it was. I think Bill C-288, the Liberal bill, is more about saving face than it is about saving our environment and saving the planet. It does not authorize any money or give any new regulatory power to actually reduce greenhouse gases.
If you look at the various bills, Mr. Layton has a bill that has more power in it than this bill. We talk about sober second thought; should sobriety prevail in the Senate, we would be saving the Canadian economy from a disaster.
Having said that, I think the bill, if you read it, speaks to more studies, and then those studies being sent to other committees like NRTEE; the government would to a study and a plan and that plan would be sent for further study. That is why we are not waiting for the Senate and for both Houses of Parliament to complete their work on this. We are acting on climate change now because we do not want to perform any more studies.
I think it is just more talks, creating false expectations that cannot be met — expectations that, in fact, were not met. The best way we can look to what will happen in the future is look at what has happened in the past. I think this is more of the same.
Senator Gustafson: Because of the large and expansive land of Canada, our farmers are very concerned and excited, in fact, about the fact that the new government is consistently supporting the idea of ethanol plants and an environmental approach that is positive for agriculture. They are waiting with bated breath to see how it will be handled by the new government. I think it is a very important point.
Our farmers are concerned. The land and land use is a very important factor in Canada. I would like to hear your ideas and suggestions in those areas.
Mr. Baird: I am a huge supporter of biofuels and ethanol. I am particularly excited about the cellulosic technology developed right here in Ottawa by Iogen. It is cutting edge world leading work. For many, many years, Iogen has tried to get federal support to build a commercial plant rather than their small demonstration plant. I was pleased to see that mentioned in the budget. They are proposing to build a plant in Saskatchewan. They use not just the corn but the entire stalk. Cellulosic technology offers great hope for the future for our environment but also with respect to our energy security which is something that is incredibly important to us in North America.
Senator Gustafson: Especially because it is a renewable resource.
The Chairman: Thank you, minister. You have talked about the government taking firm action to reduce greenhouse gases. Will the alternate plan to C-288 that you will bring forward use the reduction measurement device of intensity-based emission measurement as opposed to actual, overall reduction? If we anticipate intensity-based measurement to determine the success of those programs, how will that reduce GHG emissions?
Mr. Baird: You are asking a detailed question about a plan that has not been put forward. I can tell you that I believe that Canada must reduce its greenhouse gases. I know the previous Liberal government were big supporters of an intensity-based approach. John Godfrey, the chair of the Liberal's environment committee, said late last year that it is better to do more with less energy.
I know Canadians are looking for real reductions. I think our plan will speak to that.
The Chairman: If I heard you correctly, you are not sure that we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. Baird: No.
The Chairman: Okay. We will check it.
Senator Cochrane: Minister, do you think establishing our Kyoto target in such a law as C-288 would be the best course of action for Canada to take at this stage?
Mr. Baird: I think it is somewhat unrealistic to expect some eight months before the Kyoto period kicks in to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It has been a 15-year marathon in Canada. If the previous Liberal government had done nothing, they would have been doing our environment a favour. Now we have to do more in demonstrably less time because the problem got worse, much worse.
We have to do two things. We must come forward with a meaningful plan of action. Most of the elements of that plan are out. The industrial part is obviously the biggest one because it deals with 47 per cent of our emissions. That plan has to be realistic. Canadians are very sceptical about politicians talking about the environment because they saw the record. They saw Mr. Ignatieff say we did not get the job done. They saw Mr. Dryden, another Liberal M.P., say why did not we do better or get the job done.
We want to come forward with a plan that is real, that we can deliver for Canadians. To try to accomplish 15 years worth of work in an eight-month period is a pretty big challenge. Again, I think past actions will speak to future results better than any rhetoric.
The Chairman: Thank you, minister.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: The Stern and Makenzie reports stated very clearly that if nothing is done, there will definitely be costs, job losses and real effects on the economy.
In fact, Senator Kenny, the only time he mentions 25 per cent, 50 per cent, 60 per cent and the famous $4,000 for four individuals, is in the minister's letter, on the first page, signed by the Hon. John Baird. This minister's letter accompanies the document containing those figures. That makes the presentation somewhat less credible.
You do not support Bill C-288 nor do you support Bill C-30, given that you have put it on the backburner at the House of Commons. You stated, during your appearance last summer, that the will of the House of Commons must always be respected by the Senate. Today, you are asking us to reject a bill that was passed by the House of Commons. I am trying to follow your logic. Furthermore, if you do not support these bills and if you acknowledge that Makenzie and Stern are right in saying that there are enormous consequences to not taking action, then how do you intend on convincing us that there is a better alternative? These are two concrete bills. You should allow them to be adopted so that we have goals to strive for, rather than saying you will be bringing forward a new bill in six months. We could then convince the Canadian public that we are acting on their needs and that we have understood that we need to take action. There are two bills before us. If you do not support Bill C-288, then give us Bill C-30 as quickly as possible. I can assure you that the Senate will cooperate with you in order to do what you asked us to do last summer.
[English]
Mr. Baird: If you want to talk about the validity of the report we put before you, you do not have to believe the experts in the public service. You can look to some of the most well-respected economists in the country who have looked at the report. Given that Bill-288 is before Parliament, I can understand why you directed your officials to undertake a study that I have reviewed.
I hope no serious consideration is being given to implement this policy. The economic costs are not acceptable. I look to Don Drummond, one of the most well-respected economists in the country; Christopher Green from McGill; Marc Jaccard from Simon Fraser; Carl Sonnen from Infometrica and Jean-Thomas Bernard from Laval. There is a considerable amount of concern over the contents of the bill. We have come forward with initiatives on transportation, energy efficiency and renewable power and working with the provinces. Those initiatives have been very well received across the country. The last component of the plan will be the centrepiece, which will be the industrial regulation approach.
I do not apologize taking the time to get it right. This will be one of the biggest regulatory regimes every established in Canada.
Are you okay?
Senator Spivak: No, I am fine.
Mr. Baird: Every time I start speaking you start coughing.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: You did not answer my question, but thank you anyway.
[English]
Senator Spivak: Since everybody else has had a preamble, I am going to have one too. I think that Canadians are less interested in what Americans would call the blame game than a reasoned analysis of alternatives, which I had hoped would happen here.
While the Liberals may not have gotten it done, it is quite correct to say that the Conservatives were opposed to Kyoto during that whole period. You would not want to have all those comments brought before this committee.
One of the reasons I asked for the reports is because a leaked report in Le Devoir suggested that intensity emissions in the industrial sector, at least in the oil sands sector, which is about 47 per cent, would result in a 179 per cent increase in greenhouse gas emissions. This is because there is such an increase in oil sands development.
I want to ask about offsets in trading. I am sure you believe that climate change is global. It is not just made in Canada.
I want to know your opinion on offsets, international carbon trading. This would give us time to get to technical kinds of things with carbon capture and so forth.
It is difficult to understand where the government stands on this issue. Can you give us a clear answer?
Mr. Baird: That is about our upcoming policy, not about Bill C-288, but I am happy to answer if the committee would give me the leeway. I know you were very strict on that before, Mr. Chairman, but I am happy to answer the question.
I have real concerns. The previous Liberal government did vote for the Kyoto Protocol. I think you have to differentiate the legitimate, meaningful concern about global warming and climate change from the one document, the document that is the Kyoto Protocol.
Kyoto specifically contemplates — and the Liberal government voted for — allowing Canada to trade emissions with hot-air credits, which would not see real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Canada would trade with such countries as Ukraine and Russia.
It is like saying everyone must go on a diet.
Senator Spivak: It is not on the only option.
Mr. Baird: I must lose 20 pounds but I cannot, so I will pay someone in Russia to lose 20 pounds. By the way, they have not lost the weight recently; they lost it 20 or 30 years ago. It is just madness.
If you look at the Kyoto Protocol, the whole centrepiece is domestic actions to reduce greenhouse gases, and that will be the centrepiece of our initiative. The European Union has said to Spain that they can only have 20 per cent of their emissions coming from trading.
Kyoto is all about domestic actions rather than being a filler. If you got 90 per cent of the way domestically, you could get the rest through the international trading regimes. I have serious concerns. Ten days ago the carbon market in Europe crashed and became a penny stock overnight.
Senator Spivak: Yet America is doing fine. They have carbon trading.
Mr. Baird: No, they do not.
Senator Spivak: Chicago; yes.
Mr. Baird: My job as Minister of the Environment is I must get the facts. They have no regime.
Senator Spivak: They are trading NOx and other things.
Mr. Baird: NOx and SOx, but not carbon. We do not have a partner there as yet. I must consider the consequences. I would rather see making real investments in Canada.
Let me give you an example. If we can have capture and storage, other investments made in Canada, we will not only reduce greenhouse gases; we will also be able to reduce NOx, SOx, particulate matter, and volatile organic matter. We will also get the benefit of the green economy. You do not get the benefit of the green economy if you are shipping $10 billion or $20 billion to Russia and Europe. We want that Iogen plant here. We do not want to spend $140 million in Russia or Europe. I would rather take that $140 million, work with Iogen and have that investment made in Canada.
We can get the twin benefits of reducing greenhouse gases and reducing smog and pollution. Talk to a parent with a young child with asthma, an elderly senior that cannot go out. When I was elected 12 years ago we did not have smog days in Ottawa. We only had one smog day in Toronto; now we have 27-37 smog days.
The Chairman: Bill C-288, minister, is not about smog.
Mr. Baird: You said I could answer the senator's question.
The Chairman: It was about emissions trading.
Senator Mitchell: A document has been circulated called ``draft.'' It looks very much like a draft Conservative government environmental plan — and I will table it — to meet some kind of greenhouse gas emission standard.
Mr. Horgan is this document a paper that your staff and department are working on.
Second, if it is, then I want to express my concern that, like the study that we have pretty much discredited, it underestimates the economic impact of pursuing Kyoto targets properly, environmentally. It overestimates the costs of doing exactly that, and it establishes what looks like a new base for targets of 20 per cent of 2006 levels, which would end up being way over the Kyoto targets we have committed to under an international agreement.
I wonder if you could confirm the nature of this document and whether you have thrown out any reasonable set of standards whatsoever. You are maligning costs, underestimating benefits and setting up something that has absolutely no credibility whatsoever.
Mr. Baird: This is the first time I have seen the document that is before us. I am excited about our plan that will come forward in short order.
I can tell you the option of doing nothing is not an option. The option of allowing greenhouse gases to skyrocket is not an option. Michael Ignatieff said Stéphane Dion did not get the job done. I can tell you Stephen Harper will get the job done.
The Chairman: I will confirm the question.
Senator Tkachuk: I would like to know where this document came from. It has nothing that signifies anything to it. For all I know someone printed it off a machine next door. It is not a good way to do business.
The Chairman: The question asked by Senator Mitchell was: Is this a document on which you are presently working, Mr. Horgan?
Michael Horgan, Deputy Minister, Environment Canada: I would have to look at the document.
The Chairman: Would you, please.
Mr. Horgan: Yes. We can come back to you and confirm whether it is something that we are working on.
Senator Mitchell: Could you not just look at the front page? Are you considering 20 per cent of 2006 levels?
The Chairman: Mr. Horgan, by looking at this document, can you tell us whether your department has been working on it? If it is not, the question is irrelevant.
Mr. Horgan: It looks like something that the department might be working on, but it is certainly not something that the minister has.
The Chairman: Then we will ask, Mr. Horgan, if you can confirm through the clerk whether or not this is something the department is working on and will present to the minister.
Senator Kenny: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. When the minister could not substantiate any of the facts, you asked him if he would substantiate one. If he is going to his officials, we would like all of these substantiated and returned to the committee in a timely fashion before we dispose of it. All we have had today is fear mongering. It would be nice if we had some facts.
Mr. Baird: All of the documents are validated by Don Drummond or Christopher Green.
The Chairman: The minister has undertaken just a second ago, in answer to Senator Kenny's point, that he will substantiate these things. We look forward to that.
Thank you, minister, ladies and gentlemen.
The committee adjourned.