ENVI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, September 16, 2003

1110

The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.))

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP)

1115

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.)

The Chair

1120

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

The Chair

1125

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

1130

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

1135

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

1140

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Tim Williams (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

1145

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

1150

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Andy Savoy

The Chair

Mr. Andy Savoy

The Chair

1155

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

The Chair

1200

The Honourable Allan Rock (Minister of Industry)

1205

1210

1215

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Bob Mills

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Bob Mills

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Bob Mills

1220

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

Hon. Allan Rock

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Hon. Allan Rock

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

1225

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Hon. Allan Rock

1230

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Hon. Allan Rock

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. John Herron

1235

Hon. Allan Rock

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

1240

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Joe Comartin

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Joe Comartin

Hon. Allan Rock

1245

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

1250

Hon. Allan Rock

The Chair

Mr. Andy Savoy

1255

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Andy Savoy

Hon. Allan Rock

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.)

1300

Hon. Allan Rock

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Hon. Allan Rock

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Hon. Allan Rock

1305

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

1310

Hon. Allan Rock

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

Hon. Allan Rock

1315

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

1320

Mr. Bob Mills

1325

The Chair

Hon. Allan Rock

Mr. Bob Mills

Hon. Allan Rock

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Hon. Allan Rock

1330

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Hon. Allan Rock

The Chair

Hon. Allan Rock

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

NUMBER 028

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, September 16, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1110)

[Translation]

The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this meeting.

[English]

We have a nice little space before the minister arrives for a good exchange, and I would invite you to look at the agenda.

First, I would welcome you back from a strenuous summer, I'm sure, considering the issues that have emerged over the last two weeks, including the blackout for those who are from Ontario.

In the agenda you will find basically two items, and I would invite you to look for a moment at the second item, the request from the Embassy of Mexico. We are alerted to the visit by a commission from the Mexican senate. The senators from Mexico would like to meet with this committee. So is this committee willing to meet with them? Also, we may consider their interest in the management of water in Canada, of which many members of this committee have considerable knowledge and experience. The date is not finalized, but it will be in the last week of September. Are there any questions or comments? Can I be authorized to give a green light to the Mexican embassy?

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Chair, when I read their list of questions, the first part would obviously be, I suppose, information and knowledge we could share with them on management of the resource in this country, but with the last couple of questions, I didn't know if it would be appropriate for you, as chair, to direct them to where they could go to get a tour of a hydroelectric dam site and a water management site. I don't know if they're making other inquiries within the public service for assistance in that regard, but if not, perhaps, Mr. Chair, you could direct them to the proper area where they could get assistance in that regard. Otherwise, I think it is appropriate that the committee meet with them.

Á (1115)

The Chair: We will ask the clerk to inquire whether they would like to be given some guidance in relation to hydro stations and the like. That would seem more of a provincial character, and I suppose by now the embassy will have made some arrangements on their own for them.

Keep in mind that there will be four to six senators, so it would be nice if the Canadian side had a similar number. Could you please make an entry in your diary for September 25 in the morning? On your behalf, I will ask the clerk to obtain soon a list of the senators and their particular backgrounds and a more precise indication as to the time and place for the meeting, so that when they arrive, you have already some background.

The clerk is whispering in my ear that he thinks they have already made arrangements about hydroelectric plants.

I apologize that I will be away that week on parliamentary duty; the committee will govern itself accordingly. But we have a concurrence on proceeding with this particular item. It will be a great opportunity for many of you to practise your Spanish, I'm sure.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, the correspondence that comes from the Mexican authorities talks about an integrated water program. There are so many jurisdictions with respect to water quality, provincial, local. I take it that we're leaving it to the Mexican authorities to choose which authorities they should be meeting with, but I wonder if it's appropriate for us to leave it at that. I wonder if we should provide some direction, in order that their trip can be as comprehensive as possible. They may not be aware that they should be setting up meetings with the municipal and provincial authorities with respect to the follow-up that comes out of the Walkerton report and so on and so forth. It's just a suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that one of the committee could act as a liaison, or a member of staff, to work with the Mexican authorities to make sure it is as close to an integrated program as is possible. That's a challenge we ourselves face, how we can satisfy ourselves that the checks and balances are in place for an integrated approach to water quality in Canada.

I just put that out as a thought. Perhaps there are other members of the committee who might make some suggestions in that regard.

The Chair: Yes, it's a very good thought, and certainly for the purposes of liaison, the clerk has volunteered to perform that role. But since we have at least four levels, international, national, provincial, and municipal, to say the least, and the record is a bit spotty, it would be good if perhaps some speakers on the Canadian side were to decide which aspect they would like to present to the Mexicans, along the lines you just defined. That would be extremely helpful, and you may want, as parliamentary secretary, to allocate different assignments. That would be very helpful.

Mr. Herron.

Á (1120)

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I'd just like to put it, Mr. Tonks, that a purely departmental response would probably be disingenuous in respect of where the Canadian populace is and where parliamentarians are on this particular issue. I would speak in particular, sir, to the issue of national drinking water standards. There is an immense amount of legal opinion from a constitutional perspective that the federal government does have the right to set national drinking water standards under the purview of Health Canada. So if there's going to be something prepared by the department.... If it's going to be a parliamentary delegation to meet with parliamentarians, I would hope that all perspectives would be represented there. If not, then they should just meet with the department and not even bother with the committee.

The Chair: The Mexicans have a federal system as well, but different from ours. It would certainly be desirable to explain to them some of the constitutional difficulties we have. They would certainly appreciate that. You may want to focus on that in your presentation--who knows?

Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would not want to throw a monkey wrench into the works or necessarily reject the visit by the Mexican delegation, but we need to look closely at the three lines describing the purpose of the visit. It is to find out more about the management and distribution of water in Canada. Personally, I even wonder what authority we have to inform this delegation about the various aspects and points set out in its request.

We are being asked to inform them and perhaps organize a visit to Hydro-Quebec, Mr. Chairman. I think we must clarify things quickly and let them know that we do not have the authority required to provide them with information concerning the objectives of the meeting. I think we need to set the record straight out of respect for the delegation that is coming to Canada. I think this is crucial, particularly since the subject of the visit is far away.

Even if my colleague, Mr. Herron, wants to continue his campaign for a national standard for water in Canada, I do not think the objective of the visit is in keeping with the issues he just brought up, but deals rather with the matter of water management and distribution, something which is far from coming under federal jurisdiction, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Well, this was to be expected. The reality is that when this Mexican delegation arrives in Ottawa, it will already have met with many other bodies at various levels of government. So it reaches Ottawa not unequipped. It will have had consultations and will have been briefed, and the meeting with our committee will be simply to become aware of a federal perspective. There will be differences of opinion, because of different constitutional interpretations. Keep in mind, however, that we have a fisheries act that gives Ottawa considerable powers, the navigation act, CEPA, if you like, and so on. But we don't want to burden our Mexican friends with our constitutional differences. As Mr. Bigras says, we want to inform them, and we will to the best of our knowledge. If there's going to be a debate on constitutional powers, they will enjoy it, I'm sure. I don't know whether that will help them, though, when they go home in getting clear ideas as to what is happening in Canada. I'm inclined to think it would be better if we gave them as realistic a picture as possible, and then they can draw their own conclusions.

Monsieur Bigras, you're certainly more than welcome to make your points to them when they come.

The clerk has indicated to me that there is already a chart of meetings on their part. It is in Spanish, but he will be glad to distribute it so you know when they arrive here what they have already done.

So we move to the next item. A brief explanatory note is simply this, that with the help of Tim Williams, we have here two draft letters that put forward the interest in water that has been expressed by members of this committee, in a particular manner more recently by Andy Savoy, who gave us his message quite forcefully when we met, I believe, in February-March discussing future business. The two drafts are addressing two different audiences. One addresses the audience of deputy ministers. These are officials in various departments who were asking for specific policy directions that are being taken as a result of and following the conclusions of the Johannesburg summit. The third and fourth paragraphs are probably the engines of that letter, so to say.

It occurred to me that it might be desirable to have the input of committee members before the letter is finalized and sent off, and the same applies to the other letter, which goes to the co-chairs of the assistant deputy ministers' interdepartmental committee on water. This is a committee that has been created very recently, and it has met. We would like to know from them what they intend to do. We indicate an expression of interest in their work, and we want to know to what extent the issue of water will be identified internationally and domestically. So it is, in substance, slightly different from the letter to the deputy ministers, but it is desirable that we write to this interdepartmental group as well and indicate the committee's interest.

Á (1125)

The reply may be slow in coming. I think we are only giving a political signal, an expression of interest. Then we will see what they come forward with when they reply, maybe in a month or more. I really don't know exactly when.

I invite your comments.

Mr. Savoy.

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We talk specifically about the safety of our water resources; we don't talk a lot about the security of our water resources. That may be something we would want to include in the letter, because the security of our water resources in Canada is certainly an issue, especially post-9/11. I think the security of water resources around the world is an issue. We may want to include that as part of the letter, where you're speaking, I think in the third paragraph, of integrating water management plants by 2005, support for the developing countries and countries in transition gaining knowledge about their water resources, how to best manage them. You might want to include the security of our water resources as an additional point.

The Chair: Thank you. I've taken due note.

Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to reinforce Mr. Savoy's comments, we learned at the agricultural technology conference last June that the biggest single issue regarding agricultural production on the planet is the availability of water, fresh water of any kind, safe or otherwise. When Mr. Savoy talks about water security, given that in Canada we have what is understood to be an abundance of water, which we often tend to waste and use very unwisely, it does suggest that for the future water security is going to be a huge issue.

Á (1130)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, I'm looking for some consistent way this committee can get information as to what's happening with the requests for export of water, in the Great Lakes in particular. I'm just wondering if we could seek that information through this process we're initiating now with the departments. The eight states that adjoin the Great Lakes on the American side are, from my information, persistent in attempting to expand the amount of water that can be taken out of the lakes. To Canada's credit, up to this point we've been able to withstand that. But I think we need to be updated periodically. There are negotiations going on, I understand, or at least meetings, on this. If there is some way we could include in there a reporting function on that issue, I think it would be appropriate for the committee to have that information.

The Chair: We're taking note of that. Keep in mind that we did pass legislation on export of water from shared waters some 18 months ago. It's there, and it is something also we may want to bring to the attention of the Mexicans.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, at the very least, it would be nice to get a report on an ongoing basis as to whether any licences under that legislation have been issued to permit a greater export of water.

The Chair: All right. Yes. Thank you.

Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am far from being against this initiative, but I would like a few clarifications from Mr. Savoy, who is the person who wrote the letter. I would like some guarantee that the following objectives will be achieved: that we would invite, of course, the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Environment to a meeting on the federal policy on water and that any study of this issue be done solely in an international context designed to achieve some of the commendable objective set out in the principles of the Johannesburg summit, namely, to increase the access to and supply of drinking water in developing countries.

In other words, can he guarantee that this study and this meeting on water policy will be confined to the international context as regards accessibility to drinking water for developing countries? And can he guarantee that the study will not be broadened to include other matters? I would just like to have that guarantee; if necessary, I would be pleased to support this initiative.

[English]

The Chair: That's quite a tall order. Because it will be useful in the near future, may I draw your attention to a study on groundwater published in early June by UNEP? It is accessible on the Internet.

In that report UNEP paints a picture of the situation of groundwater that is rather alarming. But we don't have to go as far as UNEP for that. If you speak to the farmers in the country, they will tell you that the level of groundwater has been receding over the years at a considerable pace. In other words, groundwater is becoming further and further, in distance, in order to be accessible.

In addition to that, in Canada we do not have a complete map of groundwater. Some provinces have it, some don't. But we don't have an overall national picture yet. This is why this interdepartmental committee may have an important role to play in finding where the lagoons are, the gaps, and what is needed in terms of initiatives that will give us at least an inventory of where we are, and secondly, a trend of where we are heading with water in general, be it surface water and groundwater or be it in terms of quantity and quality. I think the letter as drafted here intends to convey these points.

Mr. Bob Mills.

Á (1135)

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly want to reiterate the importance of water and our consideration of it. I think it's obvious that we can't have life without that water. To reiterate what you've said, I met with the lady--I can't recall her name at this point--who's in charge of our Environment Canada water studies and so on. She was very, very blunt about the fact that we, as you point out, do not have a Canadian map of our aquifers, because they cross borders, and there are all kinds of reasons why we don't. Without knowing what you've got, it's very difficult to plan long-term use of a resource.

I think it's critical that as a committee we point out the necessity to map our aquifers, and along with that, of course, the need for the cooperation of provinces with the federal government because water crosses boundaries. You know all the work I've been doing on the Sumas project. Here we have a U.S. company taking the water from the aquifer that is actually mostly located in Canada. That's possible, largely because that aquifer hasn't been accurately mapped. The company was able to say it comes out in the U.S., even though most of it's in British Columbia, so there's no problem. In other words, had we staked out our territory on that aquifer and had the scientific background, we would have had a lot stronger argument there.

I would say two things, then. The mapping of aquifers and the encouragement of cross-provincial-federal cooperation on the whole issue of water would have to be two issues we should really, really emphasize. This would be totally non-partisan, or should be, and I think we could interest the provinces in that sort of thing.

The Chair: Very, very wise words.

I'm ready for comments. Mr. Tonks, please.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Chairman, it's always interesting when we're attempting to lay out a strategic plan for consistent follow-up on policy that the committee already has established. We then shop it out to the various parts of the civil service to brief the committee and keep the committee vigilant according to that strategic plan. Basically, that's what we're doing now.

My question comes from what Mr. Comartin indicated with respect to bulk water removal. This committee, out of the WSSD, in an earlier decision indicated it wanted to be kept up to date with respect to bulk water removal. In fact, the auditor, in that report she gave us on May 16, indicated that the committee review the government's progress in implementing the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence water basin agreement and in particular the federal bulk waters removal strategy. So there is an indicator that as part of the strategic plan for this committee we should be monitoring and receiving reports with respect to that. Corporate memory always is an issue with an organization as large as the federal organization, but we should be able to say we have agreed on that process and this is what should happen.

I say that, Mr. Chairman, because I would like to be assured that this letter you're sending out is cross-referenced to the Auditor General's letter with respect to our working plan.

The Auditor General's letter that I have referred to and that you put on the agenda of May 16 also gives a little bit of history with respect to the implementation and monitoring plan of the UNCSD. They are talking about two-year cycles and about evaluating water, sanitation, human settlement from 2004-05, and then working into climate change, air pollution, and so on in 2005-06.

My question is, first, to explore, I would hope, that whatever letter we're sending out kind of puts the template in place that reflects the WSSD as the process that's taken at the UN, and then reflect that through the process that we're using at committee, as has been suggested by the Auditor General. As well, that we do it not only with respect to water quality, but with respect to the various areas we are responsible for that are part of the total sustainable development.

I simply put that out as a suggestion.

The question really is, how much have we cross-referenced, both in terms of substance and process, the suggestions that are raised in the Auditor General's letter to you, Mr. Chairman, of May 16?

Á (1140)

The Chair: There have been a number of important inputs, so to speak, on water security, on mapping of aquifers, on inventory, on export of water and now on cross-referencing to the Auditor General's letter or putting a template in place, as Mr. Tonks put it. Tim Williams has made notes, so the letter will be amplified, expanded, to incorporate all these points as well as can humanly be done so that we have a really comprehensive letter.

Are there any further comments?

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, I was concerned, I guess is the only way I can put it. I read the commissioner's letter closely as well. What I would like to see is this committee not delay to 2006-07 on the items she listed there, that we not be bound by the role the UN is playing but that we request that reporting function to begin at the same time as we're requesting the information on water. I am particularly concerned that we would be asking for the information around air quality in the country and that we begin to ask the departments to report now.

It is my understanding that the UN process is not going to kick in until 2006-07, but as a country we could begin to see what is happening and have a similar reporting function to this committee starting at the same time as we're asking for it on water.

Mr. Tim Williams (Committee Researcher): My understanding of the commissioner's letter, and I've talked to some of her people who work over in the office, is that it wasn't so much to act as a rigid thing, that the committee follow the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development and its process, its two-year cycles, but it was simply an example of a hook that could be used--because there will be people working on water in Canada--to try to find out what the federal government is doing with respect to water and federal water policy. I don't think the letter was meant to act as a strict framework to follow on a rigid basis but an example of what could be done.

The Chair: Does that satisfy your question?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Perhaps I might respond, Mr. Chair.

The concern I have is that because it has been set out in that format in her letter, it seems to me if we don't request a reporting function be put into place around air quality, we won't see it until 2006 or 2007. I think it behooves this committee to initiate the request for the information for that reporting function to start at an earlier stage.

Á (1145)

The Chair: Are you by any chance suggesting that the letter ought to indicate a time limit within which we would like to receive reports?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Again, the commissioner in her letter indicated that from various discussions she's had, I believe, with you, Mr. Chair, and other members of this committee, that on water at least we're looking for the initial brief to come in early in 2004.

I would like to see a similar reporting function put into place with regard to air quality, so that in the new year we would have an initial response as to what the condition is in the country and what we're doing.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin, the CSD would be looking into air quality, if I remember correctly, in the 2006-2008 phase. So maybe one step at a time would be wiser.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, over the past few years it has often crossed my mind that environment goes on and covers areas in other departments, Agriculture, Transport, and so on. I'm recommending that somehow we take a look at all of the areas that are concerned with the environment. There should be cooperation between the various turfs of the ministers whereby a question or a concern could be addressed without going, say, to the Minister of Transport and see it get lost over there. That way you very seldom get an accurate answer.

To me, this is so important. Mr. Comartin has mentioned air quality. The moment you bring in the fact that the pollution, or what you believe to be pollution, is being caused under the responsibility of the Department of Transport and you confer with the Department of Transport, it can mean over a year of inquiry and you end up with nothing.

As Canadians, we should have a small group that can get answers to these questions, that can be sent from one department to the other. They would then be able to tap into these departments and bring an answer to the public. It's not a critical point. I'm simply talking about the machinery or having the staff available, so if it comes from Agriculture, if it comes from Industry, if it comes from anywhere else and deals with an environment issue, the person gets an answer.

You people experience the same thing. It's very, very difficult to get an answer as to what steps can be taken or how something is going to be addressed. I think we should take a look at that some day.

I'll give you an example. Three times, four times now, we've had a case where an engine is left idling--I'm talking about a locomotive engine--and it runs all night. They're not the old steam stokers any more where you didn't shut them down. The reason for that was something to do with the labour regulation and so on. But you take it to the Department of Transport, even though it is an environmental issue. Then you go back to the Department of Labour and so on, and then the company. The question is the pollution, but I never really get an answer. That's just one example.

I think we should have a little group--it doesn't have to be that many--to deal with everything from the pollution of groundwater to the pollution of the aquifer, people who have the knowledge of these things, and they then can get back to that individual or the individual MP.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey, what you are saying brings to memory what was done in the late 1980s in some premiers' offices; namely, they established a sustainable development unit that would be able to reach several departments on one issue at the same time under the heading of “sustainable development”. It was seen as a form of elevated environmental concern. It was done in Ontario, B.C., New Brunswick, and, I believe, Manitoba.

Unfortunately, these units have been disbanded. They don't exist any longer. I don't know what role they did perform, but certainly you're putting the finger on an organizational feature that does not presently exist in the verticality of the government system as it exists now. You want something that cuts across horizontally.

Maybe the Alliance will make this part of its plank in the next election, who knows.

Á (1150)

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chair, if I could add something, this not only crosses over within provincial departments, but it also crosses over between the provincial department and another federal department.

The example I have here is in the large livestock operations, cattle and so on. Each province has their own guidelines as to where the aquifers are, where the waste can be disposed of, and so on, but you also cross over even into the Department of Fisheries on the prairies. Eventually, that land is being drained into a smaller body, which goes into a river, and so on, and then that becomes federal.

When you ask a question in this area, all you get back as an answer is to contact DFO. It's a never-ending problem. I think that in this day, when everybody is so environmentally conscious, we should be spending a little more time getting answers out to our constituents. They don't want to go through this long rigmarole. but they do want an answer to the problem.

A lady phoned again the other day about this proverbial problem, about this dumb train idling away. I want an answer to that.

Mr. Chairman, I've never had an answer to that. I'm going to have to start at the top and come down, if I can. I'm not getting it this way.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Savoy and Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have a question in terms of jurisdiction, Mr. Chair, that with your knowledge you could hopefully shed some light on.

We're talking about water specifically. Does this committee have any jurisdiction in terms of water, whether it be the contamination of our aquifers, the safety of our water, the security of our water, or export regulations around water? Would this committee have any jurisdiction or any teeth in terms of developing legislation around this issue?

It's something that I've wrestled with and that we've discussed before. I realize health takes ownership of water. In terms of contamination, in other words, in terms of being an environmental issue, we should have some jurisdiction around water.

Is that off base? What's your impression of that? I'm only drawing upon your knowledge.

The Chair: I'm glad you didn't address the question to Mr. Bigras.

There is plenty of federal jurisdiction because of a number of acts that have been passed by previous parliaments, and therefore the federal presence is very justified. When it comes to underground, it may be disputed except when it is interprovincial. When it comes to sustainable development and environmental objectives in general, this committee has a tremendously broad jurisdiction under that general heading.

You could have a tremendous scope, there's no doubt about that.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Could we have an impact in terms of regulations or legislation on the contamination of aquifers, on the exportation of water...? To what extent would our jurisdiction extend?

The Chair: These are all important, separate items. On the export of water, definitely, yes. The bill was before that committee two years ago.

On the contamination of groundwater, I would imagine that most likely the province has a responsibility because groundwaters are mostly within the province. If it happens to be an aquifer that spans provincial boundaries, then of course you could have a good reason for intervening.

As you know, we have lived in the last ten years under a regime that has preferred to proceed in harmony with the provinces and to leave the jurisdiction to the provinces wherever possible. The federal presence is not as strong as it ought to be. That is a political decision.

We must break very soon.

Mr. Herron.

Á (1155)

Mr. John Herron: Very briefly, there would be nothing that would preclude us from having a review of such a nature that it might have a health context to it. We didn't have “cartage” of the pesticide legislation, but it was this committee that actually did the comprehensive review on that. There's nothing wrong with us having reviewed it, given that, at the very least, there's a shared element of this committee.

We could do the homework on behalf of our cousins in the health committee. We did it with pesticides.

The Chair: Thank you for this lively and most interesting discussion. Jim and I have taken note.

Mr. Szabo, do you have one final word? I apologize.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, the letter is basically asking the departments to comment on their implementation of the Johannesburg commitments. As much as we put in the letter, it's really not going to change what they understand and what their area of participation is going to be.

With the premise that if everything is important and everything is a priority, then nothing is important and nothing is a priority. We've probably gone through the laundry list of virtually every tangent you can go on with regard to water, which leads certainly to the survival of the species, I would think.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that it does raise a very important observation. There seems to be a consensus on the concern about the security of our fresh water. I'm not sure if there's anything that is a more important priority, to the extent that there has been this concern about the national security of our water, which in fact affects the national security of our country. In fact, without that security, you have no sovereignty.

There is an important area that we should plan to discuss. I know that the committee has had an opportunity to deal with a broad range of suggestions for future business. Some focus on what the real priorities are is probably a good idea, I think, given the evolving subject matter and the priorities.

I would somewhat encourage you, Mr. Chairman, to set aside a moment for this committee to either emulate a steering committee or something like that. We can decide on the priority that we would like to deal with and do a good job, rather than have a laundry list of all things great and have some difficulty in bringing constructive and meaningful suggestions for study, or amendment to legislation, or creating new legislation. This committee in fact has the authority to propose legislation.

I'm encouraged by the consensus matters that seem to have been raised around the table. I would simply like to raise that point for your consideration.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo. That has been duly noted, and we will take your suggestion into account.

It is now 12 o'clock.

The minister has arrived. I invite him and Mr. Fransen to the table.

Mr. Minister, we welcome you. We're particularly happy that you were able to come so early in the week.

It was also good to see you present at the August 12 statement on climate change and to see the presence of your department, through you, in the pursuit of the Kyoto objectives.

The whole issue of Kyoto, as you know, is one of energy--energy production and energy consumption. As a committee we are engaged in pursuing with several federal ministers the commitment and implementation made with regard to Kyoto.

In the case of the industry department, it seems to me that your department could, if it wished to do so, play a particular role in turning energy systems into sustainable systems. That is where the crunch is, which the global community is facing, particularly in relation to Kyoto and other issues, to make an energy system that allows sustainability on this planet, particularly in consideration of certain economies that are expanding by leaps and bounds, such as the one in China, and of the expansion of population across the globe. By the year 2050 or 2060 we can confidently imagine a population of consumers that will be twice the one presently producing and consuming energy on this globe. One can see from that the immense task that is left to those in the field of innovation and technical solutions, which everybody seems to hope are the sources for the answers to this bedevilling question as to how we are going to produce energy without cutting the grass out from under our feet, so to speak.

I'm sure you have devoted a considerable amount of time and thought to these questions, and it is for that reason we are very excited and very happy about the fact that you are before us. We welcome you, and we are looking forward to your presentation.

Â (1200)

The Honourable Allan Rock (Minister of Industry): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, colleagues. I welcome this opportunity to speak to this committee on this subject.

I know you've had the benefit of the appearances of my colleagues, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources, but you're quite right, Mr. Chairman, in saying that Industry Canada has a particular role to play. You've described the need for transformational technology that will change, in a very fundamental way, energy sources for a growing world. I see the climate change challenge as not only an environmental imperative that imposes an obligation on Canada to do its part in common cause, but also as a unique economic opportunity.

As long ago as 1993, when I first ran for office, at that time, it was in the first red book. We devoted a lot of attention to the possibility of Canada creating economic opportunities for ourselves by developing new environmental technologies, a means by which we would do well by doing good--attract investment, create employment, and foster economic activity and growth by inventing and developing technologies that would enable us to clean the air, clean the water, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

In the climate change plan, and more particularly in the budgeted amounts that have been set aside for its implementation, we now really have that opportunity in very concrete terms. To be sure, it's only a start. Much more remains to be done.

You mentioned 2050. There are countries around the world that are looking that far ahead. As you know, England has now committed itself to a 60% reduction in current greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, following on the recommendation of a royal commission. That's the long view that I think we have to take.

What I thought I'd do briefly in opening is just summarize what I see as the confluence between our economic goals through innovation and our environmental responsibilities in relation to climate change, and then touch upon some particular elements of the climate change plan and draw attention to how Industry Canada is trying to accelerate its achievement.

Â (1205)

[Translation]

I can begin with the Innovation Strategy, which is the cornerstone of the current government's economic policy. I became the Minister of Industry in January 2002. In February 2002, we published a document on our Innovation Strategy, the purpose of which was to make Canada one of the most innovative economies in the world. We suggested various priorities and means of achieving them, and I spent months holding consultations throughout Canada. We held some 35 public meetings involving all sectors of the economy: representatives from the private sector, universities and colleges, unions, as well as the provincial and municipal governments.

In November 2002, we held a Canada-wide meeting with all these representatives and developed an action plan for the period ending in 2010. That was the Canada strategy. All these stakeholders adopted the priorities and approaches that had been forward and discussed. The key issue was funding for research and development, not only in universities and colleges, but also in private sector companies. The idea was to promote the development of new products and processes that would enable Canada to be a leader in the new technologies, new knowledge and new equipment.

We also determined that access to venture capital was a fundamental challenge. We clarified the government's role and responsibility for making our regulatory framework more efficient so as to remove the obstacles currently facing investors and entrepreneurs. Roughly speaking, it was a game plan for this decade. Its intent was to promote research and development and innovation in all sectors of our economy.

Mr. Chairman, we have a golden opportunity as regards the environment and environmental technologies; namely to implement the Innovation Strategy. That is why I say there is a convergence between our environmental responsibility and our economic policy.

I am referring here to economic benefits for the entire country, thus for all the regions.

[English]

The Prime Minister created an ad hoc committee of cabinet to design what was published as the plan and then the way in which we would invest the money made available in the budget to achieve the plan. It was my privilege to serve on that committee.

While the leadership on much of this rests with my colleagues, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of NRCan, I had a particular interest in looking at innovation and technology as a part of this plan. As you know, we've invested money there--some $250 million. You're familiar with the elements. We've also invested in the sustainable technology development fund.

We've identified certain priorities and we're trying to build on Canada's strengths, such as the development of ethanol--biofuels. One of the strengths Canada has at the moment is in the area of hydrogen. One thing at the top of my mind is the Ballard fuel cell, but while that's a spectacular example of success, it's only the most obvious.

We have research centres, manufacturing businesses, and marketing concerns throughout this country that are involved in what could generally be described as the hydrogen economy--not just in relation to automobiles, buses, and trucks, but in relation to stationary fuel cells to provide cogeneration of heat and power for houses and office buildings. We have remarkable developments going on in the challenging areas of the production of hydrogen, its safe storage and its effective delivery.

In the plan that was announced on August 12 by the Prime Minister, some $80 million was set aside specifically for hydrogen. Much of that will be used for demonstration projects to show Canada and the world what we've achieved so far. But we're also asking the sustainable technology development fund to devote $50 million, of the $250 million it received for climate change, to hydrogen technologies. So $130 million will be used to accelerate the development of these technologies, to build on the strength that Canada has achieved, and to show how hydrogen can be one of the important strategies by which we can achieve our climate change goals.

Industry Canada, as a portfolio, is active in climate change in a number of ways. Statistics Canada keeps statistics that help us measure progress. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council funds a diverse range of research on matters such as the impact of environmental regulation. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council funded more than 580 university-based projects in this last year alone related to climate change--projects, for example, involving low-cost silicon materials to reduce the expense of photovoltaic alternatives, and new ways to store hydrogen.

Technology Partnerships Canada has a suite of investments in fuel-efficient technologies, alternative fuel sources, and renewable sources of energy. The National Research Council is active on many fronts, and through IRAP encourages small businesses to adopt new technologies that are more fuel-efficient. The NRC also funds research institutes, such as the Institute for Fuel Cell Innovation in Vancouver.

Apart from that, I also have responsibility for infrastructure.

[Translation]

There are major investments in infrastructure in Canada. As you know, Mr. Chairman, since 1993, we have invested or announced $12 billion for renewing the country's infrastructure. If we take into account the lever effect, we can say that the total investment is over $32 billion for the last 10 years. A large percentage of this amount is a green investment, for example, for the development of systems to produce drinking water or the modernization of production systems to reduce emissions.

Â (1210)

I consider infrastructure to be one of the main tools we can use to achieve our climate change objectives.

I am therefore very optimistic, Mr. Chairman, not just about the Kyoto objectives between now and 2012, but also about the future. I think Canada has the necessary capacity and resources to create new technologies that will encourage the whole world to adopt renewable sources of energy,

Â (1215)

[English]

the very sustainable energy that you referred to in your opening comments, and I believe Canada has that potential. We've made a good start with what has been announced to date, and we must build on it, focus our efforts, working in partnership with business, universities, and other governments to realize that potential.

[Translation]

With that, I would like to thank you for your attention. I will be very pleased to answer any questions my colleagues may have.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. My list is already very long. We will begin with Mr. Mills, and then go to Mr. Bigras, Mr. Herron, Mr. Comartin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Savoy, Ms. Scherrer, Mr. Tonks and Mr. Bailey.

[English]

Mr. Mills, would you like to start?

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you very much.

The Chair: We'll probably have two rounds.

Mr. Bob Mills: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Minister, thank you very much for appearing, and I'm sure you'll enlighten us on several more issues.

I don't want to tell you what my position is on Kyoto. I think you know what that is. I'll just get right to the questions. I have four questions I would like to ask you.

First, we haven't heard a lot about negotiations with industry, except some of the exemptions and exceptions that have been made. We've heard a lot about the 20 megatonnes we're asking Canadians to give up, basically at $64 million per megatonne. We also need to recognize that with the forest fires, 100 megatonnes are being released right now into the air. So I'd like to know the status, very briefly, of negotiations with industry and how many of them, what percentage, are on side for the 55 megatonne reduction.

Hon. Allan Rock: Those negotiations are being conducted by my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, who I think was here--

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes.

Hon. Allan Rock: --and I would defer to him in relation to a status report.

Mr. Bob Mills: Okay.

What concerns do you have in industry for the competitiveness of Canadian companies that are going to have to live up to the Kyoto commitments when in fact their U.S. competitors--and 90% of our trade is with the U.S.--are not going to have such restrictions?

Hon. Allan Rock: First of all, one of my major concerns in general is the competitiveness of Canadian business, productivity of the Canadian economy. The innovation agenda is all about making our economy more productive, making our businesses more competitive by moving away from replicating existing products and selling at a cheap dollar into an easy market, toward developing new products and processes through research, bringing those products and processes to market, and making Canada a base for globally competitive companies operating in emerging areas of the economy. That's the grand ambition.

But coming back to your question about Kyoto, obviously any such change raises issues of competitiveness. A year ago, or whenever it was, when I became Minister of Industry and Kyoto was under discussion, I very frankly stated my concerns. Are we going to be able to achieve these objectives without jeopardizing Canadian competitiveness?

I spent a lot of time with a lot of corporations, a lot of businesses, and worked very hard on the plan, providing some reassurances, particularly in the energy sector. I believe we can do both. I believe we can respect the obligations of Kyoto, meet our environmental responsibilities and grow the economy and make Canada more competitive, and as I said at the outset, without belabouring the point, I think the very process of finding ways to enable us to achieve Kyoto will create economic opportunities by producing new technologies.

Mr. Bob Mills: We would agree in terms of innovation and technology. I think the problem is that places like Denmark have a 10-year head start on us in wind energy. The U.S. has just committed $4.6 billion into hydrogen research. Japan is leading in a number of areas. Germany is leading in terms of biogas and use of those alternate energies. We've been sitting since 1997, when we knew Kyoto was coming, and really not doing much innovation or encouragement for industry through the tax system, and so on. So I'd question. Yes, it's good that we're doing it, but we're a little bit late, and our whole target is 170 megatonnes when in fact we're committed to 240 megatonnes. It's going to be tough to pick up that other 60 or 70 megatonnes.

Â (1220)

Hon. Allan Rock: I'd like to respond briefly to that, because I wouldn't want to leave it without a response.

I don't want you to think, and no one should, that we've been doing nothing since 1997. Technology Partnerships Canada has been making investments year after year in new technologies that involve environmental improvement. The granting councils, the research institutes, the universities, and in many ways the private sector have all been very active, so we're not starting from ground zero.

I was in Japan last April, and I met with many there--automobile manufacturers, gas companies, government representatives--who regard Canada as one of the leaders in hydrogen technology. Now, it's a lead we'll have to foster if we're going to keep it. As you mentioned, other countries are making very major investments, so it's under threat. But I think it's unfair to paint Canada as a place where nothing has been going on. There has been a great deal of investment and a lot of activity in this innovation over the last--

Mr. Bob Mills: The problem, of course, is in a program like REDI, for instance, where for every $1 that went out to industry, $4.35 was used for bureaucracy. That sort of thing has to end if we're going to actually succeed and compete.

Thirdly--

The Chair: That's another department, and we're not going to burden Mr. Rock with another department. And your time is up, so would you make it very short, please.

Mr. Bob Mills: Right.

My third question concerns the CO₂ commitment and the cap of $15 per tonne, which industry is very happy about. I guess my concern is what contingency plan do you have in place for handling what Russia is asking for, $35 a tonne, or whatever that tonnage cost might be? What contingency plan do you have within government to pick up the difference?

Hon. Allan Rock: Again, this may be a subject to develop with the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources, who I think are in a better position to respond. I know that the $15--

The Chair: It's a highly hypothetical question, Mr. Mills, as you well know.

Mr. Bob Mills: It's a reality.

The Chair: No, the reality is around $15, not $35.

Hon. Allan Rock: It's an important question. Let me just say that I know my colleagues are focusing on that issue, and it's one they have to deal with. If there's a divergence between the Canadian floor and the international price, we are going to have to have a strategy there, and I know one is being developed, Mr. Mills.

The Chair: Second round, if you like.

Monsieur Bigras, followed by Mr. Herron.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for appearing before the committee, Minister.

First of all, I would like to support your first statement to the effect that the Kyoto Protocol is a golden economic opportunity for companies and for industry that will enable them to better position themselves on the world and domestic markets. In fact, when the Bloc Québécois supported the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, one of its arguments was precisely that this would provide economic opportunities for companies.

However, when I look at the plan you announced with the Prime Minister on August 12 of this year, I am confused about the strategic choices you made. Even though you announced an amount of $1 billion, which will only allow us to reduce our emissions by 20 megatons, this sets the tone for the strategy you adopted.

I will refer to three points in your plan. First, you talk about changing the market for natural gas-fueled vehicles and supporting the increased production and use of natural gas vehicles overall. I would mention in passing that natural gas is a fossil fuel. You then talk about expanding the use of ethanol. We know about the possible environmental impact of the ethanol manufacturing process. You also talk about the possibility of developing new technologies in five key sectors, including technologies for the production, processing and combustion of less polluting fossil fuels. Sixty-five million dollars is no small sum.

Are you really not in the process of missing the boat altogether? While the Kyoto Protocol offered a significant economic opportunity to develop a green plan for Canada as regards economic innovation, you are, rather, funding the producers of fossil fuels at a time when Canada has a golden opportunity to develop the environment industry. I am thinking for example of the wind energy sector, Mr. Chairman. Why was Canada not in the forefront in its initiative by funding the environment industry rather than the fossil fuel industry?

Â (1225)

Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bigras has identified several priorities, but we are aware of the fact that we will need an array of new technologies and energy sources. We are now capable of producing ethanol, which may help reduce emissions, and we have proposed to take this approach to reach our objectives, while simultaneously investing more in renewable sources of energy, hydrogen-based technology and bio-energy. There is more than one way to meet our challenges. We need several options. Our plan includes many types of investments to help us gain more knowledge in each of these sectors.

We have included energy sources, such as fossil fuels, but we have also announced that $80 million will be spent to study the potential uses of hydrogen. We cannot limit ourselves to a single sector. Several sectors must be developed and this approach is laid out in the plan.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, I understand what the minister is trying to tell us, but, to use his words, the base on which he has built his approach is not solid, because if a funding plan whose goal is to reduce greenhouse gases in Canada also finances the fossil fuel industry, as is the case, it means that the government has decided not to address the basic problem. The point is to reduce emissions at their source, and not to simply bring down numbers. An efficient and strategic approach to management would have meant investing this billion dollars in renewable energy sectors, which would help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible. Is that not the better approach? This billion dollar investment will only reduce emissions by 20 megatons. Had the money been instead invested in the renewable energy sector, do you not think that emission reductions would have been higher?

Let us take a look at what Canada has achieved in the area of technology and sustainable development. In November, the government announced that $6 million would be spent to finance, for instance, businesses in the fossil fuel sector and it continues to fund carbon sink projects, whereas it should be directing its efforts and investments at the root cause. The minister must admit that investing a billion dollars in renewable energy would bring down greenhouse gas emissions to a much greater degree than the plan which was unveiled on August 12 last.

Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Chairman, we will eventually reach the objective described by Mr. Bigras. However, you must recognize that we are in a transition period. You cannot ignore the fact that cars, buses and buildings still exist in Canada and throughout the world. Eventually, this system will have to change, but there will have to be a transition period, which is reflected in the documents we have presented. We will begin by taking the first step. We will make energy sources more acceptable. We will develop others through research into new technologies, but we cannot do everything immediately, all at once and overnight. We are off to a good start and within the next 15 years, I hope that we will reach the point where all new investments will go towards renewable sources of energy and new technologies. But you have to be realistic, and that is what we are.

Â (1230)

Mr. Bernard Bigras: But, Mr. Chairman, the minister has just talked about a 15-year deadline. I would like to remind him that Canada made an international commitment in Kyoto; this commitment does not have a 15-year deadline, but one which is much closer, that is, between 2008 and 2010.

Given the $1 billion announcement which was made today and everything that entails, can the minister tell us that the strategy he has developed will enable Canada to respect its international commitment with regard to reducing greenhouse gases?

Hon. Allan Rock: I am talking about two different things. First of all, I am talking about Kyoto. Of course, we intend, between now and 2012, that is, over the next nine years, to meet the commitment that we have made under the Kyoto Agreement. But we need to talk about more than just Kyoto, Mr. Bigras; we also need to discuss the future in general, as far ahead as 2050.

As the chair mentioned, our responsibilities will go beyond 2012, beyond the Kyoto Agreement. That is why I am saying that by 15 or 20 years from now, we will be dealing only with new sources of energy and technologies. For the time being, however, we need to deal with the existing reality, and that is what our documents are based on.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

We will now go to the second round. Mr. Herron.

[English]

Mr. John Herron: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Throughout the last two years of the Kyoto debate we were very apprehensive as a party about having the blind ratification of the accord itself. I thought we needed to have a comprehensive analysis done sector by sector, province by province. Our position even evolved to the point where we were a little concerned about what we called the disingenuous ratification of the accord itself, or about whether we would be able to live up to that commitment if we ratified the accord.

I know, sir, that you would agree that we're a country that has an immense amount of respect internationally because we have a record of keeping our word. In order to do that, I'd like to talk a little about the plan and about the federal-provincial aspects as well.

We learned from the acid rain experience that you cannot implement an accord of that nature without the active participation of the provinces.

What steps are being taken now with respect to concluding bilateral agreements with each and every province so that we can respect the unique circumstances of each province? Clearly the objectives of Manitoba and P.E.I. would be different from those of Newfoundland and Alberta. That's my first question.

Then I'd like to talk about cars, if we have some time.

Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, the Ministers of Energy and Natural Resources and the Environment, are in discussions with provincial governments to reach the kinds of agreements my friend has referred to. The Prime Minister has made it clear throughout that we're going to achieve these objectives without imposing an undue burden on any region of the country. This country is enormously diverse; the preoccupations vary significantly from one region to another, from one province to another. Our objective in speaking with provincial governments is to reach agreements that respect that diversity and at the same time commit us in common cause to reaching the national goals expressed in Kyoto.

Mr. John Herron: What I was concerned about with respect to the plan and the objectives themselves is that there was some controversial debate with respect to lifting some of the pressures on the automobile manufacturers, so that you could encourage and foster the innovations that we actually need to ensure that we have more fuel efficiency in the very, very important transportation sector. I think it's a noble objective to go down that track.

But there has to be a quid pro quo in that kind of regard. For instance, we've even allocated $50 million for providing fuel cell technology through Kyoto; we even had a photo op to send the right message with the hydrogen car we had here on the Hill. But we know we're not going to be able to operationalize that new fleet until 2012, after the Kyoto process itself. I know you spoke about the future. This is still the right thing to do.

But what pressure are we putting on the automobile sector itself, saying we need some product on the ground to actually make a contribution to the Kyoto process, because fuel efficiency is part of the plan by 2008 and 2012? The fact is we're not going to be able to obtain that reduction because the fleets won't be on the ground itself. So what pressure are we putting on the automobile manufacturers themselves?

Â (1235)

Hon. Allan Rock: I'm more optimistic about the sector. As you know, we have focused on tailpipe emissions. We've said we want a 25% improvement over the period. I'm more optimistic in a couple of ways.

First of all, we are in regular contact with the auto sector, the manufacturers, the parts manufacturers, the dealers, the CAW, provincial ministers. We have established a partnership council where we meet twice a year to talk about issues, including Kyoto and climate change. I have the strong belief, based on my continuous discussions with all the representatives of the sector, that they take very seriously their responsibilities. They've recognized market opportunities there, and they're working hard to develop the technologies we need.

The second reason I'm more optimistic is I think we will get representatives of hybrid technology in the fleets of cars marketed in North America, which is now more and more common, whether it's electric and natural gas, electric and gas, electric and hydrogen. Those hybrids are becoming more and more attractive, available, and affordable.

When I was in Japan I drove a Toyota hybrid that had superb technology and is now ready to be marketed. Japan has established some pretty ambitious targets for the number of hybrid hydrogen automobiles it wants to have on the road by 2015.

I know that GM and other OEMs here in North America are working on hydrogen hybrids. I believe the turnaround can be faster than you suggest. I think there's a market incentive there as well as the encouragement of government. We've been very clear with the auto sector on our expectations.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

Mr. Comartin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Savoy, Madame Scherrer, Mr. Tonks, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Szabo, the chair.

Mr. Comartin, please.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, thank you for being here.

I want to challenge you on your optimism, given the history we've had since the 1973 red book.

I talk to the wind association and the people in the solar sector. They're probably the two major groups that are going to get us those renewable energy sources in the quickest possible time. They tell me that whereas the government in effect set aside $250 million to assist that industry in the budget in 2002, they've taken up about $50 million of it to this point, and that's probably all they're going to take up. They believe they can't do anything else with this policy, that primarily the problem they have is with the competition. They're running at this point with the fossil fuel industry, and because of the subsidies we grant to them, whether it's the tar sands or whatever, they simply can't compete in this country.

I suppose, Mr. Minister, the point I would make is that if we look internationally, whether it's at wind in Denmark, or in Germany, they have obviously built an infrastructure over that same 10- to 15-year period that we're now talking about that allowed them to move ahead, allowed them to develop an industry, and forced us to buy that technology from them now--that's what's happening in Canada. Or we can look to Japan and the work they're doing in solar, which has put them way ahead of where we are.

It seems to me that no matter how optimistic you are in terms of the plans you have around research and innovation, we've fallen so far behind because of the structure we have of subsidizing the fossil fuel industry that unless we reverse that, they're in fact not going to move into the implementation stage. I think that's really the problem with the vision you're giving us today. You're telling us, here's what we're doing around research and innovation; here's where I think it will take us. Mr. Minister, I'll say to you that I think you're probably right only if we change the subsidy we're giving to the fossil fuel industry.

The question after that long intro is, is there any possibility this government is going to shift the subsidies they give both to fossil fuel and, I have to add, to nuclear as well?

Â (1240)

Hon. Allan Rock: If you have recommendations to make, we'd look at them very carefully. I can't speak for the fiscal policy of the government. The Minister of Finance can do that. But I'm sensitive to the point you raise that we have to establish a competitive market environment if we want the investment to come. If you have recommendations to make, please make them, and they'll be looked at very carefully.

Mr. Joe Comartin: In terms of the ad hoc committee of ministers that's driving this now and directing it, is this a topic that's being discussed? Are their recommendations going to come from those four ministers to the Minister of Finance to review the tax subsidies we provide to the fossil fuel industry?

Hon. Allan Rock: We're concerned with the entire context of both innovation and climate change, and I know that any recommendation you'd make about that would be very carefully considered.

I have been encouraged by the extent of investment in wind energy. I've visited some of the installations in la Gaspésie and I've talked to some of the people who are investing in Prince Edward Island. It's very encouraging. I'm sure that additional tax credits, additional changes in the tax system, would make Canada an even more attractive place to invest, but there are some reasons for optimism there.

Again, if you have specific changes to suggest, please let us know and we'll look at them very carefully.

Mr. Joe Comartin: You'll get those from us. I just want to say that I've visited those sites as well, and I've even talked to local community people. I was in P.E.I. this summer. There's this whole proposal to develop wind energy in Malpeque. I don't see the federal government playing any role in that; the proposals are coming from the private sector.

I want to switch to cars and question the role the federal government has set out for themselves, which is, I would suggest to you, too much voluntary on the part of the manufacturers. I've talked to them as well. The message I'm getting very clearly from them is, no, we cannot meet the 25% reduction in greenhouse gases, which is, at this point, still going to be voluntary. Is there any discussion, again, among the four ministers, to switch from purely voluntary to a process that would have at least some stick in it as opposed to all carrot?

Hon. Allan Rock: Everybody knows we have the power; there's no doubt that we can mandate that or other requirements. We do believe that starting with a policy of encouraging compliance, of getting buy-in, both literally and figuratively, from the sector is the most effective way of starting. There's no doubt we could do this by legislation if we had to and if we wanted to.

I accept the good faith of the presidents and chief executives of the auto manufacturers, who I work with on a regular basis, when they say they're working very hard to try to achieve those objectives. I have no reason to doubt their good faith. I also believe there's going to be a market pull as well as a government push, that increasing consumer awareness is going to create a demand that is going to make it economically attractive for the OEMs to produce more efficient vehicles.

I met recently with the Secretary of Commerce of the United States who expressed to me his view that the single most important challenge facing the American economy is access to energy. They know they're dealing with a finite resource and an economy that's built on a fuel source that's diminishing, and if the economy is going to grow, they have to have alternatives and they have to be more efficient. I think we're all going to end up in the same place; whether by reason of economic ambition or sound government policy or environmental concern, we're going to converge at the point of more efficient sustainable fuel sources, and I think the automobile manufacturers are going to be part of that.

This is not to say that if we're not making progress, if we see that not a sufficient amount is being done within a reasonable period of time, that we can't resort to the power to legislate--we can. I thought it was important that the New York Times, two weeks ago, had a front page story announcing that the auto manufacturers had dropped their challenge to the stringent California requirements for fuel efficiencies. They dropped the challenge. That's in full awareness of the fact that California has led the western world in recent years in terms of establishing rigorous standards. That signalled to me an acceptance that one of the biggest markets in the United States had laid down requirements that the auto manufacturers were going to adopt. It's a 35-million-person market in California. I thought that was very encouraging.

Â (1245)

The Chair: Next is Mr. Reed, followed by Mr. Savoy.

Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, I'm very happy to see that Kyoto is out of the starting gate and we're on the road. Some of the issues that arise are how the innovation money is going to be spent and where the emphasis is going to be.

I'd just like to mention a couple of things before I enter into agreement with my friend Mr. Comartin on the other side with regard to subsidy to the oil industry.

I should point out that hydrogen, which I know the minister is quite enthusiastic about in terms of its future, is not a primary source of energy. It's a secondary source. In order for it to be sustainable, it has to come from a primary source. I am concerned when I hear reports about fuel cell development that uses gasoline to extract hydrogen or some non-renewable energy.

At the same time, I express frustration that certain renewable energies in this country that are mature are being ignored. I would refer you to the 11,000 megawatts of undeveloped small hydro across this country. We talk about wind, and it's the flavour of the year at the moment. But there are 11,000 megawatts of undeveloped small hydro. Small hydro can produce hydrogen and oxygen. A study was done by Ontario Hydro some years ago, when I was on the select committee, that showed that even remote sites could transport electricity--I think the breaking point at that time was 600 miles--economically as hydrogen and oxygen in pipes, rather than sending it down wires and having to put up with the line losses. I ask you to consider that in the context of the development of the future economy.

You talk about the hydrogen economy, but the hydrogen economy has to come from an energy source, and that energy source has to be primary and green.

To this point there has been very little activity in terms of promotion. For instance, small hydro in Ontario has had to compete with the myth of the cost of nuclear power. It's a myth, believe me. We've proven that. When we're looking into the future and at the advisability of having fuel cells driving electric cars and so on, I ask that the primary source at the back of it be considered, or reconsidered, if you like. There's still a lot of technological development that can go into those so-called mature things, and perhaps there's room in the innovation system for that kind of improvement.

The other comment I would like to make is based on Mr. Comartin's comments about the subsidy to the oil industry. When those subsidies were granted, oil was $10 a barrel. It's true that they did their job because they allowed, particularly on the tar sands, the cost to extract a barrel to begin here, and it has gone down ever since. It's the same with ethanol. In 1979 ethanol was $1.50 a litre, and now it's 45¢ because of various technological improvements. So in all those cases we're on a journey. We're not at a fixed point. The prospect of oil going much below $30 a barrel is really not there if you consider world consumption increases, especially in Asia. Maybe it's time to start to reconsider where we do put our support for the future. It seems to me that the oil industry from here on in is quite capable of looking after itself, thank you very much. Even the major players in the oil industry will tell you that they don't know how many more years of ability to meet demand they're going to have, because the new finds are not coming up to expectation.

Â (1250)

As a matter of fact, I heard a report this morning about the Atlantic, about discouragement because they're finding so many dry holes. There will come a time in maybe 10 years, 20 years, or whenever, when the demand is going to exceed the ability to supply, and then watch the price of the product go.

I would ask the minister if he will consider some of these options, so that when we do move into the hydrogen economy and so on, we will have this sustainable backup.

Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to leave the impression that I regard hydrogen as the panacea that is going to solve all of our problems. It's not. It's only one instrument among many, some of which maybe haven't yet been discovered, that are going to help us out of this fix. But I do think hydrogen holds a great deal of promise.

That having been said, it has a lot of challenges, one of which Mr. Reed has identified. There's the challenge of producing hydrogen, the need to find the proper technology for storing it, and then a way for distributing it, or transporting and supplying it, in a way that's safe and efficient.

In terms of producing hydrogen, it makes little sense to produce greenhouse gases to generate hydrogen. That defeats your purpose.

I can assure Mr. Reed, Mr. Chairman, that when the time comes to identify priorities in research or demonstration in the money that's been allocated to hydrogen, we will look to encourage and enable technologies that will develop hydrogen in a green way, whether it's solar or wind energy or, as you say, some of the small hydro capacity, enabling electrolysis to produce hydrogen in a way that provides no net greenhouse emissions. I think that's what we have to focus on. Hydrogen, if it's produced inefficiently, can become part of the problem, not the solution.

As to the broader comment, Mr. Chairman, about the future, Mr. Reed has done a lot of research and writing in this area and I think knows that we have to look at a whole range of solutions. As I was saying to Monsieur Bigras, some of those involve fossil fuel for the moment, but hopefully we can move away from those as technologies permit.

On the fiscal side, as I've already said, we'd be delighted to receive any recommendations you have and we'll look at them very carefully.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

Mr. Savoy, followed by Madam Scherrer.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Minister.

As the recent crisis and some tragedies related to the energy shortage in Ontario and the eastern seaboard showed, we are in line for a situation where more crises will occur, I believe, since energy consumption is going up. Although we'd like to assume that conservation and education will help in this situation, I think it's a reality that energy consumption will continue to rise. To that effect, although under Kyoto we're looking at various initiatives, I'd like to talk specifically about the production side of energy and the clean production course of energy.

We have I think in rural Canada an opportunity that's been bred by this crisis to focus on means of clean energy production. I think some of the initiatives we've taken--for example, ethanol--have been on track and are the correct direction to go in. But I think in terms of looking at other methods of clean energy production, we can do more in terms of innovation but also in terms of directing research. I'm not aware, and maybe you can enlighten the committee, of programs directed at universities—infrastructure for universities, research chairs for universities—that would be directed specifically toward alternative energy sources.

My concerns are rural, of course. My community is rural and I'm chair of the rural caucus, so I'm concerned about issues such as solar, wind, small hydro, for example. Methane entrapment might be another option, and ethanol, of course, which we've spoken of to some extent.

In terms of both our human and physical R and D infrastructure, what can we do to help those alternative energy sources and, as I say, in my case alleviate some concern about rural areas? What can we do to make those prosper and make sure our innovation in those areas continues?

Â (1255)

Hon. Allan Rock: In some ways we've already taken steps. The very creation of the sustainable technology development fund, with the hundreds of millions that have been set aside for it, was intended to finance that very kind of research.

Technology Partnerships Canada has made climate change technology one of its priorities, and it has set aside a fund for that purpose.

I mentioned the National Research Council and the funding through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. They're funding hundreds of research projects in universities and in research institutes around the country that are dedicated specifically to renewable energy, to environmental technologies.

NRC has a fuel cell innovation institute in Vancouver that we funded to the tune of $20 million two years ago, and that we continue to fund, and of course $80 million has been set aside in this very $1.7 billion for the hydrogen technologies. I think there is a great deal of research going on through a variety of agencies and institutes to accelerate the development of these new technologies.

If you'd like to have me put some of this on paper and pull it together, I would be happy to have the department do that to give you an overview of the kinds of investments we're talking about, but they are very significant.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Is there an opportunity for us to direct resources or research towards alternative energy sources that may be rural based, such as, as I said, small hydro, small wind, for example, residential wind, where the consumer can be a net contributor to the energy grid? In rural Canada I feel we have more of an opportunity to be a net energy producer or a net energy contributor because of the land we have, because of the resources we have, the wind, the space, the access to water. Is there an opportunity to direct our innovation dollars along those lines?

Hon. Allan Rock: I'm sure there is.

One thing we try to do in whatever area we're talking about is to adopt a rural lens on how we can achieve objectives, at the same time as providing opportunities and taking advantage of the resources of rural Canada.

And I'll be happy to work with you, Mr. Savoy, and other colleagues from rural Canada in making sure we exploit those opportunities to the full.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Savoy.

Madame Scherrer, Mr. Tonks, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Szabo, the chair, and then we'll have a brief second round until 1:30 p.m.

Madame Scherrer.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Mr. Rock. I would like to ask you a very technical and down-to-earth question. It deals, among other things, with the ad hoc committee that was struck to come up with initiatives and spend the monies earmarked for meeting our objectives under Kyoto. If I understood correctly, that committee is composed of certain ministers, including you, and it is chaired by the Minister of Agriculture.

· (1300)

Hon. Allan Rock: Yes, it is chaired by the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Vanclief.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: You said earlier that Canada had launched a number of initiatives to meet our obligations under the Kyoto Agreement. Before that agreement was signed, there were already initiatives and investments in new technologies, and infrastructures had been created.

I would like to know how your committee is pinpointing which funding is going to Kyoto and which funding is already earmarked for infrastructure and technologies, since the industry department has a budget to promote these initiatives. How are you going to be able to explain to me, my colleagues and Canadians in general that this money is being used for a special initiative in keeping with our obligations under Kyoto?

Second, I would like to know whether you make your own decisions about investments or whether there has to be a consensus within the committee. Do you personally decide what will be done by the industry department or do the others have to agree with you? How does the committee work to reassure people that the funding set aside for meeting our commitments under the Kyoto Agreement does not end up being absorbed into the current investments for infrastructure, research and development? There were already research chairs. Will you not be saying that you have achieved your objectives, when you have actually not spent much more than the budget that you already had for those objectives?

Hon. Allan Rock: As far as the process goes, the ad hoc committee identified general priorities and objectives. The Prime Minister announced on August 12 what funding would be targeted to certain issues, files and objectives, and the ministers are now responsible for carrying out those programs.

As Minister of Industry, I now have the responsibility of taking the funding and the objectives and coming up with specific programs and investments. Treasury Board also has an important role to play. Before spending the money, even spending that meets the objectives announced by Mr. Chrétien, I have to make a submission to Treasury Board outlining the details, the program, the means and the mechanisms for each dollar spent.

You asked how we could distinguish between money spent in the past and now and money earmarked for implementing the recent process. I can only say that I have to be accountable to the House of Commons Industry Committee for every dollar spent on this process. I will be able to show how I spent the $80 million on hydrogen, for example. I may decide to broaden certain programs that already exist, such as the Technology Partnerships Canada program. Some of that money can be channelled through Technology Partnerships Canada, which would serve as an investment instrument. However, I have to be able to show my colleagues in the House and in the committee how I spent that money.

I hope that it will be clear.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: A number of our colleagues have made suggestions today and proposed initiatives that your department might find interesting. In the end, will you choose those that you want or will you have to submit each new interesting initiative to the committee, to the Ministers of Agriculture, Environment and other departments in order to reach a consensus? As Industry Minister, do you have the latitude to say that a given initiative is a good one and that you recommend that a certain thing be done? Do you have to have a consensus, or is it the Minister of Agriculture who will decide in the end which way things will go? Who will ensure that people will end up knowing that a certain amount of money has been spent on this? I do not really understand how the committee works.

Hon. Allan Rock: Each minister has some latitude. The major objectives are identified by the group, by Cabinet and the Prime Minister, and each minister within his own department has some flexibility for using the resources to meet the department's objectives, but the minister always has to submit the plans to Treasury Board, which always asks for the details. Treasury Board wants the minister to demonstrate that this program reflects the objectives adopted by Cabinet and that the funding will go to achieving those objectives. Treasury Board wants to know all the details: how much, when, where, etc.

So we have to adhere to that Treasury Board discipline, but within each department we have the power and the responsibility and the means to act. Sometimes there are independent agencies such as the Sustainable Development Technology Fund, which is run by a board of directors. I cannot tell them what to do. There again, it depends on the general objectives. We have left these agencies free to determine how they are going to achieve the objectives and what projects they want to fund.

The same thing is true for the National Research Council. We provided the funding and established the objectives, and it is up to the council to choose the projects that it wants to fund.

· (1305)

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Madame Scherrer.

We'll have Mr. Tonks, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Szabo, then the chair.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the minister for being here. I attended one or two of the meetings he referred to on Industry Canada's action plan on innovation and I was really quite taken by the remarkable grasp of the subject and the philosophy that the minister demonstrated. I think he's demonstrated it again here this afternoon.

My question is exploratory in nature, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. When one talks about transformational change, one usually thinks in a very concrete and functional way, talking about innovation through better technology, new technology, new products, a best-practices approach to the existing energy sources we have—all those things that are functionally targeted at reducing greenhouse gases—increasing the value added that comes to the economy.

One of the ingredients we often leave out is how people become part of the transformational strategy. How do we get the trickle-down impact of not only a sense of the goals, but of what people's roles are?

My question, Mr. Chairman, is, when one looks at the ad hoc committee as, let's say, a clearing house with respect to prioritizing the biggest-impact innovations where we'll get the most value added from a particular strategy, how do we factor in behavioural change—for example, corporate behavioural change with respect to how work is carried out, or how we can reduce the number of trips on the road of people travelling far beyond what would be an optimum distance while burning fossil-based fuels—how do we enhance the ability of people in a corporate sense or a labour sense to reorganize themselves, using the best available communications technology to do it? How do we wire or rewire our community together, and how do we get corporate support and logistical support?

Just to conclude that question, Mr. Chairman, is the ad hoc committee charged with identifying that type of behavioural change as a very high priority, and is it your role, or is it a particular role of one of the other functional ministries, to take ownership of that particular part of this transformation strategy that's going to embrace all regions of our country? We talk about how our broadband strategies enable people to engage in the economy, and so on. Does the ad hoc committee see itself as charged with that kind of accountability?

· (1310)

Hon. Allan Rock: I think we are, Mr. Chairman, and it's a responsibility we all share as members of Parliament.

The support for the Kyoto ratification remained very high in public opinion, notwithstanding all of the debate and some of the things said against it last year. It was remarkable how resilient it was in the polls—strong public support, because I think it caught the public's imagination. They knew there was an issue there. They knew we were talking about what we're going to leave our children and grandchildren. They know we share a collective responsibility, and they want to see something done about it. Here was an international accord Canada was going to sign on to, formally saying we're going to do our share. I think the public is prepared to do its share.

Yes, I think we have a shared responsibility as parliamentarians, as public figures, to encourage that.

Let me just mention four things I think we can do, and I'm going as quickly as I can: first of all, lead by example—I think the government should do things, whether it's in the way we deliver programs or organize ourselves, to show that we take it seriously; second, inform the public what ways they can help, how they can change their own corporate or individual behaviour to make a contribution; third, enable the public to change, whether by infrastructure investments in rapid transit or by putting other infrastructure in place to enable them to do business differently—broadband is a good example; and the last thing is, where necessary provide money incentives. Part of this plan, of course, is to have an incentive for people to change the way they insulate or heat their homes.

I think all of those things are important as tools by which we have the public become part of this solution. The one-tonne challenge we hope will capture their imagination.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Bailey, please.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for appearing. I've enjoyed this. While I was listening to the questions I was reminded of the change in my province for a department with which I was somewhat involved. They changed the Department of Education as such to the Department of Learning. Of course, my immediate reaction was, what's going on? But as I have accepted it in the last year, it's all-inclusive. I mention that because in the vernacular in Canada we talk about the transportation industry, the fishing industry, the tourist industry, the agriculture industry, and it goes on and on. And yet your ministry...? Although with these others the name flies out, how would you define the portfolio that is traditionally the department of “industry”, as the word is used within the department and not as you would find the word used in the language on the street?

Hon. Allan Rock: The portfolio is very broad. It includes the industry department itself, which is really a department that's responsible for the economy. It deals with every sector of the economy. It deals with services; it deals with manufacturing; it deals with technology. It tries to respond to their needs; it tries to be an advocate for their interests; and it tries to attract investment from abroad into Canada to help us grow those businesses. That's part of it.

But the portfolio is more than just dealing with business. It also includes the space agency, the tourism commission, the competition tribunal, the copyright board. It includes 18 boards and agencies of government. It includes regional economic development in the west, in northern Ontario, in Quebec, and in Atlantic Canada, and now it includes infrastructure.

It's a wide variety of programs, agencies, mechanisms, and responsibilities, all of which are supposed to act in a coordinated way to achieve shared goals: using infrastructure to make the economy more efficient to enable manufacturers to get goods to the market; encouraging the development of technology to allow companies to become more productive and efficient; responding to concerns of a certain sector of the economy about tax burdens or regulatory requirements to try to clear away obstacles to permit investment that encourages entrepreneurs. All of that is part of industry too.

So it's a pretty broad portfolio, a varied responsibility, and of course it includes the kind of thing we're talking about here today, which is to encourage the achievement of climate change goals through innovation.

· (1315)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Szabo, please.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Minister, during your presentation you referred to what we've done since 1997, saying there are a number of things that have happened. I had a communication, a fairly lengthy communication, from a constituent, asking precisely that question, what has the Government of Canada done with regard to the greenhouse gas situation, and how are we progressing? You may recall that during the height of the SARS situation there was a flurry of activity across the full spectrum of government on addressing this national threat. One of the communications that came around had attached to it an appendix of about 28 different government websites you could go to to get information about that subject as it related to that department or that area. It was really problematic, because it looked as if everybody was doing something separate. I see a bit of a parallel here, in that a number of departments have important responsibilities on the Kyoto commitments.

I quite frankly think we need to have a focal point for the Kyoto commitment, which is not in this department or that department, but rather is part of the Canadian commitment to Kyoto: this is the one stop where people can get the answers to questions, where they can see the progress, and where they can get the links if they want the details. I do think we need that one portal through which Canadians can keep themselves informed about our developments, our progress, our commitments. Indeed, one of the specific problems that had come up with regard to this constituent involved the financial incentives for home insulation. The bureaucracy associated with trying to get that financial assistance was frustrating, to the point that they decided to abandon any efforts to follow through on it. I honestly believe, as we do things, our focus on Kyoto should be a reflection of the importance we place on that commitment.

I'd appreciate your comments.

Hon. Allan Rock: I agree, and if the committee has recommendations in that regard, let us know. Perhaps the best thing to do is to have Environment Canada provide that portal, with an overview of where we stand, how much is left to go, what we're doing, and then have links to the various departments who separately are contributing to the effort. I think it's a good idea. I spoke, in response to the question put by Mr. Tonks, about the need to capture the public imagination and take advantage of this general willingness to get involved and do something. I think, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Szabo has put his finger on an important part of that, which is to have a coherent, accessible, and comprehensive report on what is going on in this area, what progress, if any, we are making, what remains to be done, what your part in this can be. Then, if you want more details, you would be able to access hotlinks that would provide the specific facts.

So if you have recommendations, we would listen to them with great interest.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

Before we start the second round, I would like to make a couple of observations. On recommendations, this committee in late 1997 produced a report entitled “Beyond Kyoto”. The recommendations in that report are still visible, available, and might still be helpful.

On your comments in reply to Mr. Herron, I believe, when he asked a fiscal question, I can only sympathize with you for referring it to the Minister of Finance, because there are a number of questions only he can answer. You are now the third in this committee's hearings. We have heard from Mr. Anderson and Mr. Dhaliwal, and after you we have been able to secure the Ministers of Transport and Agriculture. However, despite several attempts, orally and in writing, the Minister of Finance does not appear before this committee, and this is a matter of grave concern, because there are some major structural changes--you used the term “structural” on a couple of occasions--that need attention and only he can answer. Perhaps you have a special channel with the Minister of Finance, and if you do, we would appreciate it very much if you could use it to convince him to follow your example.

Mr. Minister, in the statement made on August 12 by the Government of Canada there is a paragraph, towards the end of the press release, that really struck me, that the Government of Canada has committed more than $3.7 billion to climate change programs. One would hope that this amount will achieve the reduction of 214 megatonnes that is Canada's overall commitment. I'm not sure it will, though, mainly because of an observation you also made this afternoon, that our policy should not hurt anyone, that everybody should come out of this unscathed. It seems to me that the policy, in order to reach Kyoto, will require discipline. It will have to hurt somebody. It will require a tremendous change in attitude on our part towards the consumption and the production of energy. We cannot successfully reach Kyoto by hoping we will keep everybody happy and giving money out without achieving the desired result. I'm sure this thought has crossed your mind.

In the next election we will probably be surprised by the receptivity on the part of the electorate below the age of 32 to green policies. You referred to green policies a couple of times, and I'm very glad you did. I think the future electorate will only have confidence in the democratic system if we come around and put forward policies that are very green to solve these very complex and long-term goals.

Finally, I'm very encouraged--it flows from this green observation--by the fact that you made a reference in your opening remarks to convergence of economic and environmental goals. That is a very important observation, because the convergence, even if it is in the distant future, is an indication that we might arrive at the day when we will conclude that the environment and the economy are the same thing, that the one is dependent on the other, that there is no healthy economy without a healthy environment, and that this convergence might bring about the conceptual somersault we have to make in order to rearrange our business. I hope you will use this term “convergence” ad nauseam, because the bringing together of the economy and the environment is conceptually absolutely essential if we are going to find the political will necessary to do the things that need to be done and that are so difficult.

Second round. Mr. Mills.

· (1320)

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you.

Again, several things come to mind from what you've said and from a couple areas we haven't touched on. Maybe I can just put these out to you. We're short of time, so perhaps you wouldn't mind getting back to me or to the committee on these.

I'm concerned, as every Canadian is, about the effect of SARS and BSE on our economy and the implications they may have. It seems to me that it'll be more difficult for industry to respond to environmental concerns because of the strains those put on productivity, and so on. They'll have less money to invest in some of these things. I wonder how big that concern might be in Industry Canada.

Secondly, I would be very interested to know what you have done as a minister to tell your bureaucracy, “Hey, this is what we're doing as a commitment”.

I was going to ask you, “Do you drive a Prius?” But that wouldn't be very fair to ask, because I know the environment minister sent out a letter to all of you suggesting that you do that, and that you turn your cars off in the winter when they're sitting out there, and so on. I won't ask you that.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bob Mills: Also, I'm really concerned about the lack of investment in wind. Having visited wind farms in Germany, Denmark, and Ireland, and knowing the potential in the U.S. and in my province of Alberta.... I drive out of Lethbridge now and see this big wind farm, which is growing by windmills everyday. In this green program that has been put forward, there's really very little commitment or investment in fostering wind energy.

So those are three things I feel we should ask as a committee.

· (1325)

The Chair: Be brief in your reply.

Hon. Allan Rock: Very briefly, first, in relation to SARS and the other difficulties that have beset our economy this year, as the Minister of Finance has said, independent economists and the finance department have adjusted their expectations for growth in the Canadian economy this year. It's going to be more modest than we thought—but there will be growth. Next year, the year after, and the year after that, we anticipate that growth will be more robust.

Don't forget the obligations we're talking about in Kyoto are in the longer term; they're over the nine years and they needn't all be realized this year. So while those events have made this year more complicated, I don't think they make a material difference in the longer term.

The second point you raise is in relation to what Industry Canada is doing by way of example. I can tell you that our fleet of cars is entirely in compliance with the policy adopted following Bill S-3, which the senator proposed. In my own personal case, my ministerial car is a Chrysler minivan, which I've had for a couple of years. We've started negotiations to purchase a hybrid. We're trying to get one in the price range permissible for ministers. It's a little bigger than a Prius, and maybe one of those Honda Civics. But we're looking at that, and I'll keep you advised on how it's going along.

The last question you raised was in relation to...?

Mr. Bob Mills: It was about the lack of commitment to wind.

Hon. Allan Rock: Wind, yes. It was raised by other colleagues as well.

I accept that point, and I think we have to do better. Wind is an enormous opportunity for Canada. So I take that point and agree with you. Let's work away at that and see how we can improve it.

The Chair: So long as you'll keep in mind and watch very carefully the damage of wind farms to migratory birds, because the reports from people in the field are very disturbing.

Mr. Bob Mills: We want to move slowly.

The Chair: Mr. Bigras, brièvement, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I will try to be as brief as possible.

In addition to the plan, another aspect of your comments that disturbs me today is the lack of any sense of urgency about achieving our Kyoto objectives. You've spoken about projects for the next 15 years, while the Protocol refers rather to a 5 to 9-year period, between 2008 and 2012. Moreover, you said that the amounts invested would be left up to the discretion of the agencies and foundations as regards setting deadlines.

Is the timeframe for the Innovation Strategy and meeting objectives that was discussed by the committee chaired by the Minister of Agriculture the same as the one for Kyoto, namely, from 2008 to 2012? Or are you, rather, considering using a clause in the Protocol to postpone meeting the targets to a later period? In setting a 15-year timeframe, as you did earlier, are you not actually announcing your intention to use the second commitment period, rather than the one from 2008 to 2012?

Hon. Allan Rock: Let me try to clarify things, Mr. Chairman. We have every intention of complying with the Kyoto objectives within the specified period of time, that is by the year 2012. That is clear and firm; that is the commitment we made. That said, we can also talk about the post-Kyoto period and what we will do at that time. We've already talked about the government of England, which has decided that the country will reduce its emissions by 60 per cent by the year 2050. So we can do both: discuss what we will do in 15, 20 or 25 years and comply with the commitments we made in Kyoto for 2012.

We accepted these commitments and we intend to make the deadline. However, we must also talk about what we will do in the post-Kyoto.

· (1330)

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Bigras.

Last question, Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I'll make a comment this way. Prior to the lead-up to the ratification vote itself the Government of Canada was very proactive in trying to encourage involvement in discussions from environmental stakeholders as well. There has been a fair amount of dialogue, I recognize, with industry directly, but before it was done in conjunction with environmental NGOs as well. I'll send a message that the majority of the larger environmental NGOs he worked with prior to the vote haven't exactly experienced a lot of love since the vote itself and that they would like to re-engage in helping Industry Canada. They feel they've been left out of the loop over the last little while, and they'd like you to open your door in the same fashion you did before.

Hon. Allan Rock: We'll take that message. There are just so many people to love, it becomes a bit of an overwhelming responsibility, but I take the message. I thank you for it and we'll do our very best.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for having received me today, and thank you for your comments. I'll take them very much to heart.

The Chair: Mr. Minister, it was a terrific meeting and I'm sure everybody thinks that way. We thank you very much for coming.

Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Chairman, there's one other thing I must do and I was impolite not to have done it earlier. I've been accompanied today by David Fransen, who is the assistant deputy minister with responsibility for these matters, and David has been very helpful in preparing for today's appearance. I'm sorry I didn't introduce him earlier. He's a great asset to the department and I'm glad he was here.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: We are very grateful for his presence as well, and we thank you again, Mr. Minister.

This meeting is adjourned.