ENSU Committee Report

When Quebec’s National Assembly ratified the objectives of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Quebec was making it very clear that it was responsible for implementation of the Rio Declaration on its territory. In the view of the Bloc Québécois, the same applies to the Framework Convention on Climate Change to be signed in Kyoto.

Quebec’s willingness to take this responsibility is easily explained in light not only of the proper exercise of its constitutional powers but also of the fact that Quebec, like the other provinces, is in the best position to act effectively in regard to the unique energy-related, geographic and economic features within its own jurisdiction.

Quebec therefore intends to define its own policies, strategies and programs, reflecting its own situation as regards greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Quebec intends to proceed on the basis of its own priorities and according to its own timetable.

The fact remains, of course, that toxic emissions know no borders. Quebec already receives a large part of its pollution from Ontario and New England. This interdependence is even more obvious in the context of planet-wide climate change. For these reasons, we are very concerned about the structural problems within the federal government. We must recognize, as the majority report does, that the federal government will be hard put to it to improve its record in this area.

The Bloc Québécois considers it deplorable that the federal government should have waited until the eleventh hour to come up with a position for the Kyoto Conference. This last minute objective reflects the government’s amateurism and improvisation on GHG emissions.

On December 1, the federal government finally announced its negotiating position for the Kyoto Conference. The federal target for the world’s industrialized nations is to reduce GHG emissions to 3 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010, and to reduce them a further 5 per cent by 2015, as part of a binding international agreement.

We recognize that the Liberal government has made progress since the Regina meeting in November. At that meeting, it was silent on a reduction target and proposed nothing more than a stabilization target. So this is a step forward for Ottawa, which is now getting close to the position that only Quebec initially defended, including the targets for 2010 and 2015.

Nonetheless, the targets are in our opinion inadequate. They fly in the face of Environment Canada’s studies defining the far-reaching impact that climate change could have on us if the government does not act. Our hope is that Quebec, the federal government and the provinces can agree on an ambitious and responsible target for the reduction of GHG emissions. This target should be twice as high as the current paltry federal target of a 3 per cent reduction by 2010.

The Committee analyzed briefs from many federal departments. The majority report sums up very clearly the ineffectiveness of the current federal measures for reducing Canadian emissions. But in our view the majority report does not go far enough. The figures speak for themselves. Instead of achieving stabilization at 1990 levels by the year 2000, as the Rio Declaration stipulated, Canada — with the deadline only three years away — has seen its emissions increase by 13 per cent. The present government refuses to admit that it has failed lamentably with its voluntary measures. In our opinion, only an acknowledgement of its failure would enable the government to redirect its action toward certain promising avenues proposed in the majority report.

This being so, it is unacceptable that the Liberal government did not present a concrete GHG reduction plan to Canadians and Quebeckers before the Kyoto Conference. The United States, despite the timid position it has announced for the Conference, has at least made a commitment to invest $5 billion in stimulate energy efficiency and the development of new technologies.

The imbalance among the budgets allocated to different forms of energy is striking. We will cite only two examples, that of development subsidies for nuclear energy and for traditional high-carbon energies (oil, coal). According to the 1997-98 estimates for Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), the federal government expects to spend $64 million on controlling climate change. Of this amount, $44 million is ear-marked for energy efficiency programs ("leadership", information, voluntary action, regulations, and research and development). The Department will spend $14 million on renewable energies and $6 million on fuels and replacement technologies. As the majority report notes, recalling the testimony of Ms Maria Barrados, Assistant Auditor General at NRCan, it is hard to know whether the NRCan’s expenditures are working or not, because they are so small.

Indeed, the amounts are derisory when compared to the $12 billion (in constant 1992 dollars) allocated to research and development in nuclear energy, a sum spent largely in Ontario. While nuclear energy production does not generate GHGs, we are highly critical of this financial imbalance, favouring the nuclear industry over renewable energies and development of new environmental technologies.

We reach the same conclusion when we compare these amounts to the fossil fuel sector. This sector has received a majority of the $11 billion spent on the National Energy Program, solely for purposes of exploration and development of oil resources. We must also note the financing assistance, totaling $1.8 billion, allocated to Newfoundland’s Hibernia project, and $550 million in federal spending for the Lloydminster Heavy Oil Upgrader in Saskatchewan. And then there is the approximately $200 million for the New Grade plant, also in Saskatchewan, and the development of the Vancouver Island pipeline.

The Bloc Québécois is not passing judgement on any of these projects, all of which have created jobs. Rather, we are questioning the seriousness of a government that claims to be concerned about climate change, and then allocates $64 million to renewable energies — a drop in the ocean of federal funding for the energy sector as a whole. As long as the Liberal government refuses to recognize this situation, as it has done ever since coming to power, it will never convince anyone that it is serious about wanting to reduce GHG emissions.

It is Quebec and the other provinces that will be responsible, on their respective territories, for implementation of the Kyoto Convention. That is why the Bloc Québécois is proposing the creation of a body independent of the federal government and made up of both experts and ordinary citizens, which would monitor reductions in GHG emissions and prepare a regular public report on how reduction was progressing. We support the creation of such a body because we believe that the provinces’ role will be vital in achieving the Kyoto reduction objectives. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development cannot assume this role: he does not have a mandate to audit environmental action undertaken by the provinces. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and the Energy Council of Canada are not suitable either: these agencies report strictly to the federal government, and their members are appointed by the Prime Minister.

Some of the recommendations in the majority report, such as Recommendation 10, propose that the federal government intervene in municipal affairs, through national consultation and cooperation mechanisms. We strongly disapprove of these recommendations, because they flout the principle of sole provincial jurisdiction over municipal affairs.

The Bloc Québécois supports the proposal to create a Canadian Atmospheric Fund, but we consider that this fund should be based on the tripartite (federal, provincial and territorial governments) model of the infrastructures program. The fund should also include an opting-out clause for provinces that wish to set up their own program, as is the case with the federal government’s Voluntary Climate Change Challenge and its Quebec counterpart, ÉcoGESte.

The Bloc Québécois regards the climate change that the planet is experiencing as a matter of grave importance. To cope with it, we must adopt responsible GHG reduction objectives, formulate effective government measures and ensure independent follow-up. It must never be forgotten that by trying to accelerate economic growth without allowing for the way the earth’s atmosphere functions, the present generation may provoke changes in conditions that will affect the capacity of future generations to meet their needs.