ENVI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, March 10, 2004

º

1605

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC))

Mr. Neil MacLeod (Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources)

Mrs. Colleen Paton (Director, Outreach and Information, Department of Natural Resources)

º

1610

Mrs. Pat Dolan (Director, One-Tonne Challenge/Public Education and Outreach, Climate Change Bureau, Department of the Environment)

º

1615

º

1620

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills)

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC)

º

1625

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills)

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Neil MacLeod

º

1630

Mr. Alex Manson (Executive Director, Climate Change Bureau, Department of the Environment)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills)

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

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Mr. Bernard Bigras

º

1635

Mr. Alex Manson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills)

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills)

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

Mrs. Pat Dolan

º

1640

Mr. Alex Manson

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Alex Manson

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Pat Dolan

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Pat Dolan

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Pat Dolan

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Pat Dolan

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Pat Dolan

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Pat Dolan

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Pat Dolan

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Pat Dolan

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Pat Dolan

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Pat Dolan

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills)

Hon. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.)

Mr. Neil MacLeod

º

1645

Hon. John Godfrey

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Hon. John Godfrey

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Hon. John Godfrey

Mr. Neil MacLeod

º

1650

Hon. John Godfrey

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Hon. John Godfrey

Mrs. Pat Dolan

Hon. John Godfrey

Mrs. Pat Dolan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills)

Hon. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.)

Mrs. Colleen Paton

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Hon. Serge Marcil

º

1655

Mr. Neil MacLeod

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills)

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.)

»

1700

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills)

Mr. Neil MacLeod

»

1705

Mr. Alex Manson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills)

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

»

1710

Hon. John Godfrey

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Mr. Alex Manson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills)

Mr. Neil MacLeod

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills)

Mr. Neil MacLeod

»

1715

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills)

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mrs. Pat Dolan

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Neil MacLeod

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills)

Mrs. Colleen Paton

Mr. Neil MacLeod

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills)

»

1720

Mr. Neil MacLeod

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills)

Mr. Neil MacLeod

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills)

Mr. Neil MacLeod

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills)

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Mrs. Colleen Paton

»

1725

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills)

Mr. Alex Manson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills)

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

---

NUMBER 006

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, March 10, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

º  (1605)  

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC)): I call our meeting to order.

    I apologize to our guests for being late. I think you knew where we were and what we were doing.

    I understand you have a presentation you'd like to make. After that, we'll get to questions.

    Mr. Neil MacLeod (Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I'll just lead off with a few introductory comments before we get into a slide deck, which I believe has been passed around. I'm very glad to be here before the committee today to talk about the one-tonne challenge.

    My name is Neil MacLeod. I'm the director general of the office of energy efficiency at Natural Resources Canada. I'm joined by Colleen Paton, who is the director of outreach and information in my office. This is very much an issue that is co-managed by the two lead departments, Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada, so I'm here with my colleagues from Environment Canada as well--the director general of the climate change bureau, Alex Manson, and with him is Pat Dolan, the director of public education.

    Before we begin, I'd just like to say a few words about public education and outreach. It has been an important part of the government's climate change activities since 1998. Some of you may recall the issue table process, which was going on in the late 1990s and up until a few years ago. It brought together Canadians from all walks of life to consider the actions needed to address climate change. Although the participants in the issue table process came from different sectors and were dealing with a comprehensive set of issues, there was a consensus around one point: that public education and outreach was absolutely essential to explain the issue and to get Canadians involved. So for the past five years the Government of Canada has invested in public education and outreach, through funding community projects and providing information, all designed to build a base awareness and understanding of climate change and what it could mean for Canada.

    We've come a long way. We now have a public that's more aware of the issue. Targeted measures announced last August build on that awareness and provide opportunities and specific tools that are going to support action by business and industry as well as individual Canadians.

    Public education and outreach is still going to play an important role. The one-tonne challenge will explain to Canadians the role they can play and provide information on what they can do, and it will lead them to the programs that can help them--Government of Canada programs, provincial programs, and community programs.

    With that, I'll hand things over to Colleen Paton, who will now begin the presentation.

    Colleen.

    Mrs. Colleen Paton (Director, Outreach and Information, Department of Natural Resources): Thank you.

    First of all, I'll just address the issue of what is the one-tonne challenge. Hopefully, you've had an opportunity to see the deck. The one-tonne challenge is a call to action for individual Canadians to reduce the greenhouse emissions they produce every year—by one tonne or 20%. For those of us who work in public education outreach, it's also an opportunity to build on our initial work in that area to create more partnerships, link supporting programs, and provide information and tools that will support action on climate change by Canadians.

    As Neil MacLeod has mentioned, the program is co-managed by Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada. We also work very closely with Transport Canada on this program.

    Why the one-tonne challenge? Well, climate change remains an important issue for the Government of Canada. The Speech from the Throne last month indicated that environmental stewardship is the responsibility of all Canadians. Actions taken by individual Canadians will play a very important role in Canada's ability to respect its climate change commitments.

    Canadians produce about one-quarter of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. On average, that means about 5 tonnes of greenhouse gases for every Canadian, primarily from their energy use at home and on the road. In fact, about 50% of their emissions come from transportation; 30% from space heating and cooling; and the rest from water heating, appliances, and lighting.

    Our research shows us that Canadians are aware of climate change; over 90% of Canadians are aware of the issue. In fact, climate change is one of the two top environmental issues that Canadians identify as a concern. Canadians are increasingly recognizing that they're part of the problem and the solution. When we began our work in 1998, only 54% of Canadians saw a role for themselves in addressing climate change. Today, almost 80% acknowledge that there's something they can do individually to help address the problem. However, many need information on how to get started and the tools to get started.

    Increasingly the co-benefits from action are very important to Canadians, including co-benefits like air quality and certainly cost savings.

    The audience for the program is adult Canadians. The audience in fact is all Canadians who have the opportunity to reduce GHGs. In particular, the challenge will appeal to those who already have some knowledge of climate change and who are prepared to take action for one or more of the co-benefits.

    Many of these Canadians own homes and drive cars. Their opportunity to change behaviour will produce emissions that are greater than perhaps the urban apartment dweller who takes a bus each day. Nonetheless, everyone has a role they can play, and the program will help Canadians see the role they can play individually.

    Young Canadians are also very important in this program. We all know the influence our children have on household decisions, particularly in the area of recycling. Many Canadians in our focus group testing cited the fact that their children were the key element in their recycling activities at home. Many young Canadians also play a role in promoting environmental stewardship in their schools and communities.

    So through the one-tonne challenge we plan to harness that enthusiasm and energy, providing some information and opportunity for young Canadians to play a role in promoting behaviour change.

    The strategy for the program is, first and foremost, setting a tangible goal. For individual Canadians, it gives them something to aim for. Our focus group research shows that people like the idea of a challenge and are very interested in the idea of quantifying their emissions reduction.

    The second element in this strategy is really about creating a cohesive and integrated program that will help Canadians take action. For example, common one-tonne challenge messaging delivered through Government of Canada programs, like our EnerGuide for houses program, Energy Star, and through Transport Canada's initiatives on sustainable transportation, will help to unify the government's effort to engage individual Canadians in action.

    As partners across the country also move to integrate the one-tonne challenge within their own activities, Canadians will see a coordinated and comprehensive effort to support the actions that will reduce emissions.

    Working with partners across the country will be one of the most important elements in this program. Partnerships with retailers, utilities, and industry, among others, will be essential to our success in developing the local campaigns and programs that can provide the information, the motivation, and the prompts to support individual action.

º  (1610)  

    Mrs. Pat Dolan (Director, One-Tonne Challenge/Public Education and Outreach, Climate Change Bureau, Department of the Environment): Thanks, Colleen. I'll just pick it up from here and provide a bit more information and detail on what we have planned in the one-tonne challenge.

    As Colleen mentioned, there is certainly a marketing element to this program. That will include things like advertising in television, print, and other vehicles. There are also sustained media relations efforts and marketing partnerships, so we can provide to consumers information they need and are looking for, and also promote the successes of things that are already underway. There's a lot of activity across the country, and we're trying to ensure that Canadians can see that all sectors are doing their part.

    In addition to those kinds of marketing efforts, it also includes tools we've created, such as a personal on-line emissions calculator that people can go through to actually look at what emissions they are currently responsible for. This is something that will also help them identify a plan for reducing those emissions. There are information products, such as a guide to the one-tonne challenge that gives people a bit of a road map for the sorts of things they can do, and an easy way to identify how they're having an impact by undertaking those actions.

    Through the marketing part of it we're hoping to create a billboard to draw attention to the importance of the issue and show people what they can do. This will also help leverage the partnerships we need and are building with the private sector, communities, and other organizations to really create a bit of a national backdrop to the kinds of local programming we hope to encourage and support.

    Partnerships at the local level with communities, provinces, the private sector, and youth groups is a critical second piece of the program we're developing. The national marketing piece, the broad awareness-raising piece, and the local initiatives are being developed so they can support and reinforce each other. The real key here is to create a very coherent program so it all fits together.

    We are continuing to support public education and outreach hubs in cooperation with provinces and territories. These organizations are helping to coordinate, build capacity, and exchange information among local and regional organizations so people can work together. Those public education and outreach hubs are also keen to do specific things, such as anti-idling campaigns, to help to bring the message to Canadians. There are joint efforts we're building with the non-government community and others so they can reach people where they live. A lot of non-government organizations have great credibility with Canadians, and they're an important part of the program as well.

    We really want to build on local programs. There are programs in place now that are doing good work. This is about helping to support and build on those initiatives and tie them to this national goal. As an important part of the community aspect of the work, we want to pilot community challenges with individual communities so we can support them in their efforts to become sustainable communities. We'll be working with them to learn together how to engage individual citizens at the community level. That's the approach--the multifaceted marketing campaign and a range of community-level activities.

    Continuing on the one-tonne challenge approach, I want to talk a little more about some of the partnered activities we are developing now. They will build on some existing and very strong relationships that already exist among Natural Resources, Environment, and Transport, and non-government groups, the private sector, retailers, utilities, labour groups, and so on, so we can leverage those existing relationships to become part of this overall one-tonne challenge goal.

    We're suggesting, when we talk to partners, that they might wish to champion the goal of the one-tonne challenge and say, “Yes, we're part of that and we want to contribute to it”. They can also link their existing programs--because there are programs that retailers and others already have underway on these efforts--to the one-tonne challenge and that goal. We're also talking about specific projects that will help provide information or prompts at the point of sale; workplace programs so employers can engage their own workers in emissions reductions; and working with these same partners to do things like multiply the message through their own communications vehicles that are already in place. So a lot of it is about creating links with those kinds of partners.

º  (1615)  

    We're building on investments that have already been made through the Climate Change Action Fund, particularly in areas of education where there have been projects underway to help create learning resources on these issues. We're now working with those same educators to ensure that those learning resources can get integrated into classrooms in ways that support teachers.

    This will help build literacy around the issue, but it's also very much focused on creating tools that children can actually use to take the message home to their families. As Colleen said, that's an important part of influencing behaviour change at the family level.

    We recognize very much that youth groups are a key part of this. Youth leaders can play a key role as spokespeople, as influencers of change. While in many youth groups they are not in the position where they own homes and drive vehicles, they can certainly play an important role in advocating and influencing change. So those are some of the partnerships we are developing as part of the approach.

    How can Canadians get involved? In many of the ways I've already mentioned, but certainly Canadians can have a look at the guide that's been developed to give them a sense of where to start and what they might be able to do. They can look at the on-line calculator to develop their own personal emissions plan. They can also be part of many local activities that are already developing and that we hope will grow over time as the program really takes off.

    On where we're at now, in the near future we're looking to roll out some of the tools and products we have developed. Materials are in production, and we're in discussion with a number of partners. For instance, we're talking to a number of major retailers, financial institutions, national non-government organizations, and many other groups. There are a number of things that are actually underway now in different communities across the country among different private sector organizations, and we hope to build on those as we grow the program.

    That's it for me.

º  (1620)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): We're ready for questions.

    Mr. Bailey.

    Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I thank you for your presentation. I couldn't help but think, in listening to you and seeing the facts you have, that somehow in our Canadian society over the last 20 years, and even up to now, the reaction has been not too cooperative in terms of what you're attempting to achieve.

    I happen to live in a prairie town that once had a railway line of 80 miles. Of course, a number of gallons of gas were used to get the grain there, but one locomotive--one--would take all of that grain to the terminal. It now requires 90 semi trucks to get the same load there.

    Now, I want you to think about that, about what's happened. I know that's somewhat before this era of what we're attempting to achieve in the Kyoto challenge, but that in itself hurts us a great deal. Not only that, it hurts our highways as well.

    The interesting thing that comes to mind, though, is that if you go to Europe and compare, in North America--that is, Canada, U.S., and Mexico--there hasn't been a new gasoline refinery built in 20 years. Think of that and then look at the number of vehicles on the road today. And Canadians are crazy about driving. When the demand goes up in the summer, you can bet that your gas will be more this summer, a great deal more because of the price of crude, and the amount of emissions, even if gas costs an average of 80¢ a litre, will be more than ever. Why? Because our industry didn't help us much. They started building SUVs, which gobble up two to three times as many gallons as the kind of car I drive.

    I guess what I'm saying is that I'm listening, but I don't think industry is listening. Bombardier isn't listening. No matter where I go, it's “Vroom, vroom” from these four-wheel things, and from Ski-Doos. We have motorboats selling at record prices. We finally moved in to cut down the emissions from lawn mowers. We're just going crazy with this.

    But I'm just dealing with road transportation here, and I don't want to go any further than that.

    What do you have to do, or what do we have to do, to persuade the general public to properly use transportation so that it doesn't contribute 50%? Surely there has to be something that can be done.

    For instance, in many cases, where I come from, the railway tracks are there, and they're all in good shape, but you know, we've pounded the highways to pieces and polluted the air like you wouldn't believe. We really haven't cooperated. And by “we” I mean all of the various industries.

    Now is the serious time. This is the real gut time now, not just for Kyoto but in the future as well. I think we're going to have to make some pretty drastic changes.

    I want to just close with this. Last year, when I was in France, the other group had gone--probably to the bar, I don't know--and I took a sheet of paper, walked down the street, and looked at the first hundred vehicles. I put down the name of the vehicle, whether it was automatic transmission or standard, and whether it was gas or diesel. Perhaps because of necessity, or perhaps because of price, the emissions they put forth per mile are much less than ours.

    So how are we going to train Canadians at this stage, in 2004, that they're big polluters? That's my question.

º  (1625)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): I might ask our guests not to make their answer quite as long as the question was, in order that everyone gets a turn here.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Yes, I'm sorry.

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: In fact, there are a lot of aspects to that question, and a very interesting question it was. You've touched on a lot of very real issues.

    What I'd like to do is talk briefly about the whole rail and trucking issue, add something about Canadians and their cars, and maybe go a little more into industry before I ask if my colleagues from Environment Canada could address what we were thinking of doing about some of the off-road vehicles as well.

    It's certainly true that over the last couple of decades there has been a move from rail toward trucking, largely motivated by just-in-time delivery, for example, but probably there are other things as well. In recognition of this, one of the initiatives we've announced in order to deal with emissions from the freight part of the transportation sector is what we call an “intermodal” initiative, where we're working with the rail companies and with the trucking companies to get them to work together in order to at least minimize the emissions we're going to get in total.

    We have cases now, for example, where Zellers locally needs to have trucks to get stuff from A to B, but over long distances they don't. They've taken hundreds and hundreds of big trucks off the 401 and actually put them on rail cars that take them from Toronto to Montreal. Then, when they're in Montreal, they're taken off the rail car to make local deliveries. So that's one example. There's a lot more to do, but that's one area where we have been active.

    As for cars, you're quite right, there has been a lot of improvement in fuel efficiency over the last 10 to 15 years, but some of that, not all, has been outweighed by the increase in the number of SUVs. A good sign now is that actually the SUVs themselves are making improvements.

    What the Government of Canada chooses to do with the automobile area is to award, every year, the most fuel-efficient vehicles in their class. We don't just give out one, because it wouldn't make sense to give one award to the smallest subcompact. Some large families need a minivan, so we give out an award for the most fuel-efficient minivan. Some people need a pickup truck to do their job, so we give an award for that as well. So what we try to do is let Canadians decide their needs and let us let them know what is the best car they can buy.

    We've just embarked on this. There will be a major marketing campaign to get Canadians into the most fuel-efficient vehicle in their class rolling out over the next year.

    In terms of industry as a whole, there are some industries where emissions have grown, but again, a large number of industries do work under the umbrella of the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation. These are most of the mining and manufacturing industries in Canada. We have a very in-depth program covering 42 industry associations. We've worked with them intensively since 1990, and those industries collectively have actually reduced their emissions from 1990 to 2002. And that's not emissions as a percentage of their dollar output; that's actual aggregate emissions. We set targets every year and we meet or exceed those targets.

    Of course, there is a lot more to do, and there's no question, this isn't something that can be turned around overnight. Both Colleen and Pat in their presentations referred to both the recycling program and the work we're doing with youth. The analyses we've done show that....

    For example, when the blue box program was introduced--I won't go on much longer, Mr. Chair--there was a slow take-up. And this was decades ago, not days ago. We found that once we were able to penetrate at the high school level and get teenagers turned around and onside, there was a really sharp increase in the take-up of the blue box. The teenagers went home and frankly intimidated their parents into being better environmental citizens.

    Another example is drinking and driving. It was introduced by the former justice minister in the late 1960s, but still, for years and years after that, it was kind of a macho thing until we convinced the high school students that this was dumb. Now only losers drink and drive.

    But that took time. We're going to work at this. It's not going to change overnight, but we think with time we can make that kind of change as well.

    Alex.

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Alex Manson (Executive Director, Climate Change Bureau, Department of the Environment): I have just a couple of quick points.

    I think some industry is actually starting to listen to us. When the president of GM Canada gave a speech at the Economic Club in Toronto just before the International Auto Show opened, he emphasized the number of models of trucks GM will be bringing out, I think for model year 2006, that will be hybrids. I've also read in the newspaper that DaimlerChrysler is bringing the smart car--one of those ones you were probably noting on your pad when you were in Europe--to Canada.

    So I think people are starting to listen to some of this. Some of the demand is rising for much more energy-efficient vehicles. Neil mentioned the off-road stuff at Environment Canada. We have a program we're putting in place to provide labelling on what we call off-road stuff, whether it be lawn mowers, four-wheel ATVs, etc., to emphasize their fuel efficiency characteristics.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I am going to be frank with you. The more witnesses we invite to appear before the Committee on the Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, the less I understand the government's strategy. I hope you do not take my comments personally.

    Between 1990 and 2000, the level of emissions in Canada increased by 20%, we agree on that. The proportion of hydrocarbon production of all emissions produced within the hydrocarbon production sector industry accounts for 73% of the total of all emissions produced in Canada. The energy sector accounts for 81% of emissions produced by the sector out of all the emissions.

    I was looking over the most recent Canadian data on greenhouse gas emissions and the by-sector increase of emissions between 1990 and 2000: the residential sector—the very reason you are here today—posted an increase of less than 5% in greenhouse gases; the fuel-burning automobile sector had an increase of less than 9%; hydrocarbon production 50%; oil and gas burning, 49%.

    My question, therefore, is the following: How can one set a personal goal—and I understand that all citizens must participate—of a 20% reduction in greenhouse gases for individuals who have done their part and reduced their emissions, when in the meantime letters of intention to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 15% have been signed with the oil and gas sector?

    Would you not agree that your system is unfair for citizens? It is such that for those who have made efforts—the industrial sector; the residential sector, with less than 5%; the automobile sector, with less than 9%—have a goal of reducing emissions by 20%; whereas, the largest producers and those who have the highest growth rates in terms of emissions are the ones who are the least penalized. Do you not think that your system is unfair?

[English]

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: Mr. Chair, I have to not answer that question simply because of all the implications. The Large Final Emitters Group is a completely different group within Natural Resources Canada. We thought we were going to be focusing on this; we do not have anyone from there today, but they are certainly available to appear before this committee.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: But Mr. Chair, can we not at least ask Mr. Manson, who is from the Climate Change Bureau, to answer that question, since he is supposed to have a broader view of the situation. I can understand very well that Mr. MacLeod is not in a position to answer the question, but Mr. Manson certainly can. Does he not admit that it is an unfair system? Is it not an unfair system when it penalizes those who have made efforts in the past? It is the case everywhere, including the provinces, as a side note. The efforts that provinces have deployed in the past will not be recognized. That is what you call an unfair system. What is your vision, your impression of all this?

º  (1635)  

[English]

    Mr. Alex Manson: Thank you.

    I'll try to talk generally about the plan. I certainly won't talk about the large final emitter system because the specifics of it, as my colleague Neil MacLeod mentioned, are run by a separate group over at Natural Resources Canada.

    The whole basis of the climate change plan, one of the key criteria in our climate change plan, is equity, in particular that no region of the country is asked to bear an unreasonable burden. Again, I don't mean to be argumentative, but I think I would take issue with the position that we have set up something that is unfair. I think that in the plan everybody is basically being asked to do things we think are reasonably fair and equitable.

    As to the 15% the large final emitters are being asked to reduce, you must remember there are some sectors in there that are very rapidly growing sectors. There are others where we're asking them to do different things because of the nature of what's going on in those sectors.

    With the 20% for individuals, we felt that was a reasonable thing to ask Canadians to do in the context of what on average Canadians might be able to do. The 20% is, again, something on average. We recognize that some Canadians will be able to do much more and some much less. A family of two parents and five children certainly isn't going to be able to reduce emissions by seven tonnes, but other people may have options to do more, so I think the way the plan is laid out is reasonably equitable.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Possibly we could look at the heavy emitters and have a forum just on that. Probably we should stick with the one-tonne challenge.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: I would like you to take note that I would like to have the committee hear from Deputy Minister Brown, who is responsible for heavy emitters, because in my opinion, it is important that we understand the burden that citizens will have to bear with the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. I would like to compare their burden to that of heavy emitters, and we all agree on “heavy emitters”. I think it is important to draw a comparison between what citizens will have to bear as opposed to the burden those who are considered heavy emitters will have to bear.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Mr. Bigras, these people represent 20 of that 240, so obviously it's meaningful that we bring in the heavy emitters and talk to them as well.

    Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'd like to support Mr. Bigras' suggestion to have Mr. Brown come here on the question of the large emitters.

    I'm not sure, Mr. Manson or Ms. Dolan, which one I should address this to, but there was an announcement in August here in Ottawa with the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of the Environment...anyway, there were several ministers. In the material we were given at that time there was a figure of $45 million set aside over a five-year period for advertising, education, and promotion, that whole public education field, if I understood the figures right. Then I was picking up some rumours through the early part of this year that $22 million of that had been specifically designated. What happened to the other $23 million? Over the next three years the $22 million was designated again for some of these educational advertising programs. Then in the estimates that just came out there was $12 million set aside for information; that was the category for 2004-05. Can you tell me what's happened with this, starting back with that $45 million, and how it is being proposed that it be spent?

    Mrs. Pat Dolan: As you've mentioned, the budget for the one-tonne challenge is $45 million; that figure has not changed. The budget is over three years, and I believe that's what was in the original materials. I'm not sure where the $22 million came from.

    Alex, do you want to address the other piece?

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Alex Manson: I think the $22 million was roughly in the one-tonne challenge. It's sort of half and half in terms of the partnerships, the advertising and stuff Pat was talking about earlier. In terms of the $12 million you're referring to, I think that's out of Environment Canada's estimates.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: That's right.

    Mr. Alex Manson: I'll have to check with my finance people, and I'll be glad to get back to you. I believe that is for information activities within Environment Canada in terms of some of the work our communications people do, and it includes the production of communication material that does not have to do with the one-tonne challenge.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Let's just stay with the one-tonne challenge. How is it proposed that the $45 million be spent over the three years?

    Mrs. Pat Dolan: That is--

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but maybe this will help. Is there an actual budget breakdown for that $45 million over the next three years?

    Mrs. Pat Dolan: We have a breakdown where we would say roughly half of that will go to the partnerships part of the program and the other part to the marketing. That's why we talk about the program being in two pieces. The program is co-managed by and the budget is shared between the two departments, Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: That's interesting. When I asked Mr. MacLeod the last time he was here, he didn't know anything about any of this money.

    A voice: We are honest people.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I know you are.

    When I asked you last time, you indicated that as far as you knew, there was no outlay for marketing, but I assume that was because it was Environment that was doing it.

    Mrs. Pat Dolan: No, it may be that we used slightly different terms. If we talk about marketing initiatives or national outreach or national promotion, that's all the same thing.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: So who is doing the partnership? Who's administering the half of the money that's going to the partnership sector?

    Mrs. Pat Dolan: The two departments work as a team, and we have identified roles and responsibilities. For example, on planning the advertising, we work very much together as a team. We are a team across the two departments, so the budget is actually split between the two departments. But in terms of planning and going forward with expenditures, we do that in a cooperative way as a team.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Is the same true for the marketing part of it?

    Mrs. Pat Dolan: Yes, it is.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Is there a written protocol as to who's doing what?

    Mrs. Pat Dolan: We have been developing that between ourselves in terms of.... There are some areas where, for instance, it's obvious that Natural Resources Canada might lead in terms of developing and building on their existing relationships with some of the retailers and so on. We're taking more of a lead in creating some of the new partnerships. We have been discussing that just of late.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: So the answer is “It's in the works”.

    Mrs. Pat Dolan: Yes.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Getting back to the budget itself, is there someplace where this $45 million is broken down line by line?

    Mrs. Pat Dolan: Between all of the pieces?

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes. Between the partnership and the marketing, between the two departments, is there a budget, either in one department or the other, or in both departments, as to how that money is being spent?

    Mrs. Pat Dolan: Yes.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: All right. Could you provide that to the committee, please? When you complete the understanding in writing as to who is going to be doing what between the two departments, could you provide that to the committee as well?

    Mrs. Pat Dolan: Yes.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Those are all my questions, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): You can send that through the clerk, please, and then all of us will have access to it, please.

    Next up is Mr. Godfrey.

    Hon. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): It's good to see you, and thank you for coming.

    My first question relates to how we're going to account in our overall climate change plan--which I have here--for the results of this particular effort, the one-tonne challenge. When I look at the summary table on page 11, there is table 1, “Overview of the Three Steps”, and it kind of conflates actions by Canadians and governments, transportation and building. I've heard the figure of 24 megatonnes as being some kind of.... What is the target? What are we trying to use this policy to reduce, to meet? What percentage of the 240 megatonnes are we counting on the one-tonne challenge to deliver?

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: It's best to think of the one-tonne challenge as a catalyst. The programs we have aimed at individual Canadians, whether they be to buy better cars or to do better things to their houses, themselves add up to 24 megatonnes. So we're not counting an incremental 24 megatonnes for the one-tonne challenge. We are simply saying that the one-tonne challenge could work as a catalyst to help those programs deliver their 24 megatonnes. We're not adding two 24s to get 48.

    Now, if in fact we are fully successful in this country, so that on average every Canadian does get one megatonne, then we will have made those programs more successful by seven megatonnes, because there are 31 million people.

º  (1645)  

    Hon. John Godfrey: So that's the current or potential...that's getting to the remaining 60 megatonnes, right?

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: Yes.

    Hon. John Godfrey: Therefore, when we try to calculate the success of this program, we have to go and look in other domains. In other words, we'd have to look under large final emitters for the thermal electricity part, because if we reduce the consumption by individual Canadians of electricity, that would show up under.... You'd be reducing electrical demand; therefore, you'd have to reduce electrical production. Is that where that shows up? If you're trying to get Canadians through the one-tonne challenge to use their cars less and public transit more, that would show up under the transportation sector. Is that how that works, in both cases?

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: It would, yes. To evaluate the success we would have to look at the programs we have that are aimed at individual Canadians and see how well in fact they have fared.

    But there's kind of an awareness and education component to this as well, which Colleen Paton pointed out. We have kind of our own benchmark information now about how aware Canadians are, what actions they are taking, and then we would do subsequent analyses as well to measure the differences that way.

    Hon. John Godfrey: So the challenge in figuring out the program is how much of a reduction in any of these other sectors could be attributed to the kinds of changes you're working on in mentality. You have to deal with this pie of personal GHG emissions in Canada and then work backwards from that.

    As Pat Dolan knows, I've wondered whether it would be possible to actually try this experiment at the constituency level. About a year ago I wrote to both of your departments and ministers suggesting we give it a bash.

    One of the interesting challenges will be that the things that would allow you to reduce your own personal emissions, so to speak--that sounds rather saucy, but you know what I mean--your own personal consumption.... If you start thinking of it as a group of citizens living in a community, such as a constituency, you find that you bump up against bigger systems. For example, Toronto Hydro has a lot of apartment dwellers as customers. Each of those apartment dwellers pays exactly the same amount for electrical use no matter what the personal consumption is. So there's actually no incentive to save. There's the 24-year-old kid with air conditioning and a grow house and the nice little old lady who has one candle and is trying to do her best. There's no reward for virtue here. So the system you bump into is the electrical distribution system and the unwillingness to put in meters, which would be the answer. You'd be rewarded for your own efforts.

    How do you get to the systemic changes? You encourage people to take public transit, but there isn't any, or there aren't enough buses because the TTC is underfunded. How does this all connect up in your mind, because you're going to be bumping into systems that will prevent people from doing what they should like to do?

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: There's no question that there are systemic challenges in terms of apartments where everyone pays the same rate. There are systemic challenges with our buildings program, for example, where it's part of the culture of leasing buildings that tenants simply pay all the cost to the owner, so the owners don't have any incentive.

    In many of these cases we have to work with our provincial colleagues in order to look at ways we can break down those obstacles. We have initiatives going on now with British Columbia, Ontario, and Alberta, particularly in the area of electricity. It's not something you can change overnight. But I can say that in the last six months there has been more enthusiasm to work together to do that than I've seen before. One of the examples we will be piloting very shortly in both Alberta and Ontario is in fact metering, to get at that very issue.

º  (1650)  

    Hon. John Godfrey: I'm obviously just trying to help you out here. If any of my colleagues wish to try to do the one-tonne challenge as a competition for Don Valley West in Toronto, just try.

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: I might also add, Mr. Godfrey, that different communities are expressing an interest in engaging in the one-tonne challenge. So I think there's a momentum building up, and we will likely see some community-level activity taking place as well.

    Hon. John Godfrey: What's the role for MPs?

    Mrs. Pat Dolan: I think it's a very important role. We definitely would like to see MPs as ambassadors for the program, to lead a challenge in their communities, to encourage individuals to get involved, and to perhaps throw down the gauntlet for others to get involved.

    Hon. John Godfrey: You're challenging everyone in the room.

    Mrs. Pat Dolan: I hear that.

    I'd add one thing on the systemic changes. As a believer in public education, I think one of the things a program like this can do, which is difficult to measure and can be a bit intangible, is to build a better understanding among the population and a constituency for change that understands the need and asks for these kinds of changes to be made in their own communities.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Mr. Marcil.

[Translation]

    Hon. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): In fact, your work consists more of educating, leading the public and raising its awareness. You do not have a legislative responsibility. If we passed a law forever banning the sale of four-cylinder trucks in Canada, and other such measures, we would meet the One-Tonne Challenge quicker, if I understand correctly. But since the One-Tonne Challenge is an energy policy, it cannot be developed exclusively by the federal government.

    Did you hold negotiations with the provinces in order to take national action, from east to west, with each one of the jurisdictions? If you did hold negotiations or discussions, what are the results? To what extent are the provincial governments involved?

[English]

    Mrs. Colleen Paton: Yes. To respond to that question, we actually meet regularly with provinces and territories through the Council of Energy Ministers. In fact, the Council of Energy Ministers will meet next in July. Among the issues that the Council of Energy Ministers is dealing with are topics such as demand-side management, which aligns very nicely with a program like the one-tonne challenge.

    There is work underway, work that is being done in tandem with the Canadian Electricity Association and the Canadian Gas Association. It's really too early at this point to know exactly what shape and form that may take, but certainly by the meeting in July the direction should be more clear.

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: I could perhaps add that the province of Alberta, through Climate Change Central, a kind of arm's-length agency that is dealing with these matters, has definitely indicated an interest in partnering with us on the one-tonne challenge after it's launched. We already have work going on with them to provide subsidies for high-efficiency furnaces in the province of Alberta in the last few months. This is one of the areas where they want to expand.

[Translation]

    Hon. Serge Marcil: Do you believe that the goal of getting people to become individually aware of climate change and to voluntarily involve themselves in the race to cut their own consumption, can have a positive impact on businesses? If each Canadian were to get involved in the movement, in initiatives to reduce individual consumption, that can lead to, for example, involving a worker employed in a business, etc., do you think that can have a positive impact and reach out to the other large segment of heavy polluters?

º  (1655)  

[English]

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: There's no question. In fact, we already have signs. We have companies that have come to us--and we've done some funding through our public education outreach money--because of employer demand coming from the grassroots, that have asked that the companies put on programs to help the employees reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    A number of companies have asked, again, once we launch, if they could get some materials that they could use to promote the one-tonne challenge within.

    Not only do I think it will happen, but it has already started to happen.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Mr. Dion.

[Translation]

    Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    First and foremost, I would like to tell my colleagues how pleased I am to join them. This is the first time in my life of being a member of a parliamentary committee. I would ask for your indulgence if I do not hit the right key from the start.

[English]

    I want to thank you so much for your encompassing presentation. I'm very pleased that my first participation in this parliamentary committee is about the involvement of citizens. It's not the most important aspect of what we have to do regarding the number of megatonnes that we need to save, but from a philosophical point of view, it is the most important one.

[Translation]

    It is true that it is not the most important aspect. The most important aspect is that of heavy emitters.

[English]

    I too would like, Mr. Chairman, to say how much I want us to look at that very carefully, and I support what my colleague has said.

[Translation]

    Before asking questions, I would like to go over again where the citizens' 30 megatons is going to come from in the plan. We are looking at a reduction of 240 megatons. When we say that we are going to ask for 55 megatons from the heavy emitters, we ask for no megatons from citizens out of the 240 megatons. The 30 megatons that we hope to get from citizens are therefore not included in the 240 megatons.

    What the plan sets out as a philosophy is that the contribution of polluters within the industry, the public utilities, the energy sector, etc., will be achieved if citizens also participate. For example, they will get 55 megatons from the heavy emitters much easier if the citizens do contribute, this is why we are asking for one tonne per citizen. Do you understand what I mean?

    When we say for example that the automobile industry must save 25%, we know that it will achieve this much better if consumers choose less polluting vehicles, just as we will convince them to do. In this sense, these are strengthening measures. This is what we will get. We must be careful when comparing the 55 megatons to what we are asking from citizens. In fact, it is a collective effort undertaken by citizens and businesses alike.

    Once you reach these 30 megatons, 24 megatons are included in specific initiatives, and six megatons, to reiterate what John was saying, will go towards the 66 megatons which have not yet been identified. This is what the plan provides for, and in my opinion, we are being careful, and it is logical. We cannot get there if we do not work with citizens.

    In your presentation, you mentioned a public awareness aspect, but there is also as a government regulatory aspect to help the public once it is educated. It is on that that I would like to ask you a few questions.

[English]

    I'm sorry if I'm inviting you to repeat some aspect of your presentation. I think it's important.

[Translation]

    On the public information aspect, I think it would be effective, once again, if strengthening measures are introduced. I will give you an example.

    You could place a television ad that is just as dramatic as those on drinking and driving. Personally, while I am certainly not an expert in the field, I would suggest to you that in this case, to involve those who develop the EnerGuide program, allowing energy evaluators to go into people's homes to make suggestions. If we can convince people to imitate exactly what is shown on TV in their own homes, one measure ends up reinforcing the other. I think that you cannot work behind closed doors. Some of your answers gave me the impression that you were restricting yourselves to your own sector. In my opinion this plan will succeed if the one hand knows what the other is doing. That is my first comment.

    Do you develop your ad campaigns in a vacuum, or do you take into consideration what is done elsewhere, in other words, like strengthening measures?

    With respect to regulatory initiatives which can help consumers, there are standards for appliances, for example refrigerators. My impression—and you will correct me if I am wrong—is that we, Canadians, are satisfied to settle for standards that correspond to those of the Americans. For business or other reasons, we hesitate to do more. Indeed would it be possible to demonstrate a little more leadership and to establish from time to time more daring regulations than those of our neighbours to the South? On the economic front, is this unthinkable?

    Let us move on now to the choice of vehicles. Since October 2000, if my memory serves me correctly, we set a goal of 25% for automobile manufacturers. Indeed, I would like to know where the negotiations now stand with the automobile manufacturers. I think we have to move quickly because the deadline is 2008. We know that once the standard is set, we will have to change the fleet, and so on and so forth, and that takes time. If we want to help consumers, we must start somewhere, in this case with automobile manufacturers.

    With respect to public transportation—I know I have been talking for a while, so this will be my last point—a drop in emissions of about seven megatons has been established. Yet, we are, in a highly decentralized federation, the only OECD country whose central government has nothing to do with public transportation. Thus, as my colleague was saying earlier, all that we can do as a federal government is essentially to negotiate with the provinces.

    Lastly, I would like to know if in our bilateral negotiations with the provinces, we can seek out the standards in question with municipalities. If not, we would not be able to. Here is a straightforward example. Building Codes fall under provincial jurisdiction. However, when we establish relations with the provinces, do we focus emphasis on R-2000 standard? If this standard were accepted everywhere throughout Canada, do you agree with me that for the consumer, before buying a heating appliance, this would be very useful. That is all.

»  (1700)  

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Perhaps our panel could attempt to answer some of those questions.

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: I'll attempt to answer all of them, actually, and then ask my colleagues. I'm sure they can improve upon what I've said.

    To start off with, do these things all work together? You spoke of home inspections. There are in fact a number of other areas where we work now to help individual Canadians: the Energy Star program, for example, where we encourage people—and I'll get back to this as we get to your later comment—to buy the most energy-efficient appliances when they're buying them. They can see right away what's the best in class.

    Concerning our home inspection program, which has taken off greatly since its launch in October, and which I had the pleasure of talking to you about here two weeks ago, once the one-tonne challenge program is officially launched and the materials are releasable, it will definitely be part of the inspection process that the materials we have will be given out at the time the actual inspectors come in to do the audit. We currently give out other material such as the Energy Star literature to show, so we have something underway. Once launched, we'll be including the one-tonne challenge material with it as well.

    As for regulation, yes, we have regulation for appliances, but not only appliances. In a sense, you're right that many times we simply go along with Americans. The good news is that's not bad news, and I'll tell you why.

    First of all, there are cases where we simply do not. We have placed more of an emphasis on heating equipment; they place slightly more emphasis on air conditioning. We currently in Canada regulate more products for energy consumption than any other country in the world. No one else comes close, including any European countries.

    The other country who's a close second in the world is in fact the United States of America. The reason we often go step and step with them is that a lot of the markets for products such as refrigerators, for example, are harmonized in Canada and the United States. As long as we're moving ahead as the best in the world, it makes sense, if possible, to harmonize the timing—because we keep improving these every year or two. It makes sense economically to keep it step and step so that we don't create any competitiveness problems for Canadian companies.

    So we are regulating, and again, we are the strongest in the world in regulating. We're going to continue to do that; it's a big part of our work on this.

    Concerning the choice of cars and the 25%, there was an announcement that we would make an improvement in October, but the fact that we were going to aim for a 25% improvement only came out last August with all the many other measures. Since that time, we've been meeting monthly with the automobile industry, both the domestic manufacturers and the international manufacturers, and these discussions are ongoing. This isn't going to happen overnight either, but we are working with them, and on a regular and systematic basis.

    In terms of building codes, you're quite right, these are the purview of the provinces. The Government of Canada has no authority to say that building codes will include such and such a provision on energy efficiency. There are, however, a couple of provinces—and I won't mention them, because I haven't asked them whether I can mention their names, so I'm not at liberty to speak. But there are at least three provinces now who've told me they intend to put in this accelerated energy efficiency building code, which we use as a criterion for getting an incentive, because we give out incentives from the federal government for energy efficient buildings.... They are going to in fact embed that in their building code for all buildings.

    These changes are just in the last six months. There are some really very encouraging signs out there that a number of provinces are willing to take action.

    Maybe I'll stop there. Alex, did you want to say anything?

»  (1705)  

    Mr. Alex Manson: I'd just like to add a couple of things.

    In terms of everything flowing together and using all our vehicles to get information out, that's one of the objectives of partnering with the private sector and with utilities, using their distribution systems, their networks, to get out information on what Canadians can do to reduce their emissions.

    So perhaps some day in the not too distant future when you get your gas or electricity bill you will get information from your utility on the one-tonne challenge and what you can do to reduce your emissions--or perhaps when you're purchasing gasoline at a service station.

    The other thing on transit that I thought appropriate to mention is that in the federal government's infrastructure programs right now, where they can be and where they are appropriate, climate change criteria are being used in assessing projects and in the agreements in terms of making the investments. So the government is starting to put--if I can use the words--a climate change lens on its infrastructure investments, and hopefully there will be more of that in the future.

     A witness: Perhaps there's one thing I forgot to mention. I forgot to mention transit, because I have it written here. You may know that the Government of Canada has funded the Federation of Canadian Municipalities through two special funds, one called the Green Municipal Enabling Fund and the other, the Green Municipal Investment Fund. Those are to fund innovative and reproducible new initiatives in the area of efficiency, waste water, and transit, transportation.

    They have done a few of these enabling projects already in that area, but they're definitely going to be stepping up the percentage in 2004-05. Their council made that decision at a meeting in January, and I sit on that council.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Mr. Hubbard.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): I came in late. I had another meeting.

    In listening to the two or three previous interventions, I heard talk about consumption, and when you think about consumption, today in our country so much consumption is based upon “the more you use, the cheaper you get it”. I know we don't want to get into too many provincial-federal relationship situations in terms of energy, but in particular with most electrical consumption, as you use more, the price goes down.

    So I would hope that in terms of looking at situations like that, whether it be electricity, natural gas, or whatever.... For the average person in this country the cost of living is very high, and there are people who don't care what it costs to provide what they think they should have.

    I know we can encourage people to have better insulation and better this and that, but I think somehow when we approach this we have to make sure the basic necessities in terms of consumption should be cheaper. I suppose you've discussed this before. It's the same with water consumption, in terms of all this.

    You don't want some great registry that's going to do all this--I know some people like registries. But there should be some way as a nation we can assess and make sure the people who are the greatest wasters and the greatest contributors to the problem we're trying to address carry most of the load, right?

    John, do you agree?

»  (1710)  

    Hon. John Godfrey: Absolutely.

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: As you know, some of these things are not in the purview of the federal government, but I can tell you--and I don't want to sound too optimistic here--the interests in the provinces in electricity consumption are very strong now.

    I think in response to a question from Mr. Godfrey I alluded to metering, and while we can't get into determining when the relative prices should actually be in reverse of the way they are now, there are some interesting things that we can put in place.

    We have agreement from ATCO Gas in Alberta, for example. We have great interest from Minister Duncan in Ontario in getting into metering in the house. As someone said, that device that is outside to read your hydro meter is probably the most user-unfriendly device ever developed. With the new meters that come in, you put a part of the meter outside but the other part is actually a monitor inside. It looks like a clock radio you put on your kitchen counter. Consumers can then monitor and see exactly how much they're paying in real time, not later.

    This is one thing that a lot of provinces are interested in collaborating on a pilot basis with us, and they then want to roll this out further. Again, this is not the pricing issue, but there is a much greater interest in curbing electricity consumption than I've ever seen.

    Mr. Alex Manson: If I could just carry on that point a little more, I think it's quite interesting, while it's not yet in the electricity market, in the gas market in Ontario I believe it is Enbridge that has permission from the Ontario Energy Board now to invest on the user side of the meter to improve conservation measures. They can get a return on that investment as the user saves energy costs. So putting this all together, some of this stuff is now headed in the right direction.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Could you clarify the meter aspect? Where I come from I can't remember ever not having meters for electricity and gas.

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: No, the meters are there, but the problem is most consumers don't know how to read them, or they're outside and they don't want to go out in the middle of January to have a look at what's going on. You can forget about the different meter itself--it doesn't matter what it looks like. But this has another device that's attached to it through the electrical circuits in the wall, and you can actually look and see exactly what's going on. It has a dial on it and it looks just like a clock radio. You can see that for the last 10 minutes you've spent on average $3.

    What we've found is that even before--there has been a lot of research done in Woodstock, Ontario, and in the southwestern U.S.--without consumers even changing their appliances, just the fact that they know what this is costing is reducing consumption by 15%. So these things have enormous potential, and we're really excited that there are a number of provinces that want to work with us to roll this stuff out.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): What percentage would be, as John described, where they just mass consume in an apartment building? Are there a lot of buildings like that?

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: There are about 7.5 million to 8 million single homes in Canada and about 3.5 million people dwell in highrises--and how many of those are rentals? It's further complicated because I think there are some cases where even with rental units, they are individually metered. At one point I lived in such a place.

    So I don't have the answer to that question, and I'm not even sure if it's answerable. I don't know if we would have that. But we can perhaps get the best data we have and give some indication of what the ballpark figure might be.

»  (1715)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): That would be helpful.

    Mr. Bigras, for a second round.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: In the Main Estimates for 2004-2005, the Department of Environment will allocate close to $12 million for information. I would like to know, within the framework of the One Ton Challenge, what portion of the budget is set aside for advertising as opposed to the portion allocated to integrating tax incentives for the citizen-consumer, either through tax credits, or credits towards the purchase of a more environmentally friendly vehicle? What is the portion allocated to advertising compared with all the tax incentives you intend to put in place to reach your goal?

[English]

    Mrs. Pat Dolan: The $12 million you're referring to I think, as Alex said a few minutes ago, comes from the main estimates. I'm not an expert on the main estimates, but I believe it includes things across the department such as printing, other kinds of publications, communications, research, those sorts of things. So to try to determine what portion of that goes to the one-tonne challenge would be difficult.

    As we said earlier, the budget for the one-tonne challenge is shared between Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada. We have agreed to give a breakdown, which we will provide. But the $12 million deals with all kinds of activities across Environment Canada, as I said, relating to printing of documents, publishing, and those sorts of things.

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: I might add, if I could, that I think we answered the question from the other side of the room that the one-tonne challenge is really a catalyst program. It's not a program that targets consumers. But when we have new programs in place that do target consumers, with the one-tonne challenge, from the awareness we will have built and from working with our retail partners like Home Depot, Home Hardware, and others, where they will be more and more in tune to doing it, we will accelerate the take-up.

    In terms of the one-tonne challenge budget itself, it may be hard to pinpoint what goes to incentives, but we can point to incentive programs like the home retrofit program I spoke about two weeks ago, where we are definitely giving out incentives to homeowners. The one-tonne challenge will simply broaden the awareness and appeal, and likely the take-up as well.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Let us suppose that in the next budget, the Minister of Finance unveils a $2,000 credit towards the purchase of a hybrid vehicle. Will that be considered as part of the One Ton Challenge effort? How many incentives of this variety are planned? Are there other similar tax incentives you can include in your challenge, on top of the $12 million, of course? Is that included?

[English]

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: I naturally wouldn't want to speculate on what the Minister of Finance will put in the budget, but if we can kind of generalize that question to, if at some point there were a credit.... Again, the one-tonne challenge wouldn't say we own 31% of the reduction we got. What we would do is assess the likely impact of that kind of program, based on what we know about consumer patterns, and so on, and then, with the one-tonne challenge overlay on that and the fact that we will have influenced Canadians through their buying decisions at home and in the car lots, we would expect the one-tonne challenge to actually accelerate the uptake of that program. But we would not try to get into something about x percent from the aspect of this part and y percent from that part.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): If I might just ask a question on behalf of Mr. Comartin--I think that's politically okay--his second question is simply, when would we expect the budgets and the program descriptions from you, which you're going to get us?

    Mrs. Colleen Paton: Very shortly.

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: Yes. We're talking about a matter of weeks. We should get the final approvals, and there will be a rollout, but we don't have a firm date at this point in time.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): So “weeks”, I can tell Mr. Comartin.

»  (1720)  

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: Yes.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): I'd like to ask a brief question.

    First of all, we have increased our CO₂ emissions by 20%-plus now over 1990 levels, and we're talking about encouraging Canadians. We have a cold climate, we have a big country, we have a very difficult lack of infrastructure, and so on. It seems to me that if we're investing our money, there might be other places where we could invest and get a much better return.

    I know this is getting a little over where you're at, but you have to justify that $45 million, and it would seem to me that if we were to develop technology that we could put into the centre of China--and instead of having 1950s coal-generated power plants being built, we could build something much more modern--we would have a huge impact on the environment. And it is a global environment.

    So as regards the difficulty of justifying, there is so much bureaucracy...two departments handling it. There's just so much waste potential in the programs we're talking about here. We're talking pretty small potatoes and very expensive programs.

    How do you answer that question?

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: In relation to your question about technology, in the money that was announced from the $2 billion that was approved in the last budget, look at the amounts that were announced. In fact, the money didn't all go to one area. There was a lot of significant money put into technology. In fact, we know you can't put all your eggs in one basket. You have to have some actual measures, like the home retrofit program, but you absolutely have to keep awareness and education growing; otherwise everything else you do, along the lines of what Mr. Dion said, will just fall on ground that's not fertile and it will have absolutely no reaction.

    So we have to have some programs. We have to have technology developments. Some of this went to third parties, such as Sustainable Development Technology Canada, and we have to have a certain percentage--I think it works out to less than 5%--on the one-tonne challenge, of all the announcements that were made.

    If I could also make a comment on the issue of bureaucracy, there are a number of other things that we around this table do. As you know, I was here two weeks ago. We have a number of other programs in the area of energy efficiency and other parts of transportation. Basically, for the one-tonne challenge, with the exception of an assistant, this is it. There is not a big bureaucracy holed up. I think rather than it being bureaucratic, when you have two departments involved, in fact you get the synergies of two departments involved, because Environment Canada has some aspects they can contribute to, as do we, and by putting the two departments together you actually get a less bureaucratic approach.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): We have a city council that passed a motion that 5% of their energy has to come from wind. Geothermal energy has been used in two major buildings, plus I think 20 or 30 homes. There are a lot of things. A lot of people are lined up to get their inspections, as we talked about two weeks ago. There's a lot of public interest and enthusiasm about it, and I think that's positive.

    I'm just not sure that a program run out of Ottawa necessarily will be the way to do it, especially $45 million.

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: Maybe my other colleagues are itching to jump in here.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Do you need more money in the next budget?

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: We can look at the aspect that Pat and Colleen talked about; namely, the partnership aspect. I mentioned Home Depot. This would be a promotional thing that would be not just in the Home Depots in Ottawa but in the Home Depots in Halifax, Calgary, Quebec City, and everywhere in fact. We don't want to run all of this from here. We want to get this stuff out there and run it with our partners in the regions. That's one of the biggest advantages of working with our partners.

    Mrs. Colleen Paton: We're very aware that it's difficult to run a national program out of Ottawa that's intended to spark action at the local level. The experience we've had so far in public education has shown us very clearly that while we can set a national backdrop and act as a catalyst to engage Canadians, which is really what the one-tonne challenge is about, the success of this will be our ability to lever those partnerships in communities where people live, work, and drive their cars. It's those relationships that will actually make the difference. They'll receive the message at home. They'll receive that message over and over from their kids, who have been in the classroom learning about climate change, the link to energy use, and their environmental footprint, and who are taking that message home to stimulate some discussion about what they can do in their family life. So a large part of our funding will be directed towards those partnerships so that we can make sure we have a greater effect across the country.

»  (1725)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): Mr. Manson, you have the last word.

    Mr. Alex Manson: Environment Canada's regional offices will also be involved in the one-tonne challenge programming. We realize that because we have a good regional network, we can get people close to some of the things you were talking about and help this to not be an Ottawa-centric program.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bob Mills): On behalf of the committee, I thank you for being here. We look forward to getting back the information from you.

    The meeting is adjourned.