:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee.
I am accompanied by my deputy minister, Mr. Ian Shugart. It's a pleasure to be here, and I very much look forward to working with the committee. It's a very impressive group of parliamentarians on the committee, and I look forward to our continued efforts together as parliamentarians.
This is my first appearance before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and as those who have come before me, I endeavour to be forthcoming about my priorities as the minister and helpful in informing the committee of the department's work.
Since this is my first opportunity to address you in this setting, I'd like to take a few moments to talk briefly about what I feel we need to concentrate on as a department, as a government, and as a country, and to make sure we make true progress in our efforts to protect the environment. These are in fact challenging times.
[Translation]
In the past few years, issues of environmental concern have dominated headlines like never before, and only recently, as the world slowly comes to grips with an increasingly alarming economic crisis, have these stories been bumped from the front pages.
But contrary to what some may think, environmental headlines that sporadically fall out of sight do not push environmental issues out of mind.
The environment remains a priority for our government, and we fully expect to be held to account—as we were last week—no matter what the headlines say in the daily papers.
The tabling of the federal Environment Commissioner's latest report generated what I think is some important discussion about government spending, but also about how we set standards for our programs.
I think Commissioner Vaughan does some valuable work that can be helpful, and I appreciated the opportunity I had to meet with him last week to discuss the contents of his report.
If anything, the focus that was put on the report should remind us that despite losing ground to what some might call more pressing issues, the environment still remains top-of-mind for many of us.
Mr. Chair, I want to assure the committee, and by extension, all Canadians, that even under the backdrop of tumultuous economic times... and even if environmental headlines aren't always above the fold, Canada's government is fully committed to the environment.
We saw as much just over two weeks ago with a budget that contained a large green stimulus package, in the form of over $2 million worth of significant, environment-related investments.
Mr. Chair, this considerable financial commitment to the environment builds on our government's solid environmental record. Certainly, it was not unexpected given the tremendous gains we have made with respect to the environment since coming into office back in early 2006.
At the time, we inherited a flatlining patchwork of underwhelming environmental programs that were delivering well below expectations. Today, the government has a structured plan of action that is delivering real results.
At the time, greenhouse gas emissions were on a dramatic upturn, rising from 17% above Kyoto targets in 1998 to 35% above targets in 2006. Today, we are on our way to meeting our objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020.
Progress, Mr. Chair, has come due to a well-thought-out and well-defined plan that we have adhered to carefully and adjusted when necessary.
Our accomplishments are many, and run the gamut in terms of how they relate to the environment. Among other things, we have invested in enforcement, so additional officers can be on the ground, ensuring that pollution and wildlife protection laws and regulations are respected.
We have also introduced a Vehicle Scrappage Program that will take older, more pollution-prone vehicles off the road.
We have made a significant financial commitment—upwards of $200 million—to clean up contaminated sites across Canada.
We have also established new National Wildlife Areas and have purchased ecologically significant land across the nation, all in the name of protecting our landscapes and the species that inhabit them.
We have taken action to protect our lakes and rivers and oceans, with cleanups either underway or scheduled to take place on Lake Simcoe, Lake Winnipeg and the Great Lakes, among others.
And we have made ourselves active participants on the international scene by playing a significant role in global climate change discussions—for example during last December's Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Poznan, Poland—all in the lead-up to the Copenhagen Climate Summit later this year, where the world is expected to agree on a post-2012 course of action for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fighting climate change.
From a Parks Canada's perspective, our government is providing new funding for projects geared to achieving the common goal of protecting Canada's natural legacy. And as we continue to manage 42 national parks, over 100 national historic sites and 3 national marine conservation areas, we expect to build on Parks Canada's reputation as one of the most competent and knowledgeable heritage conservation organizations in the world.
Mr. Chair, as you can see, we are doing a lot. But we are also primed to do more.
With three good years of solid environmental stewardship to our credit, we now need to expand our focus, and in light of changing global circumstances, adapt ourselves to the new landscapes of an ever-evolving world.
Mr. Chair, as this committee would know, the manifestations of several outside factors over the past several months have influenced how we must now proceed on the environment.
Two of these factors, in particular, will have a direct bearing on the way forward.
[English]
First, ladies and gentlemen, is the economic downturn.
To nobody's surprise, Mr. Chair, attention these days is focused almost exclusively on the economic downturn. As the economy falters and credit grows more difficult to obtain, Canadian firms are struggling to prosper and survive. As a government, we must assess whether this is the right time to add to industrial cost burdens with additional regulations.
The second factor to consider, Mr. Chairman, is the election of new leadership in the United States, in the form of a president who wishes to re-engage in a multilateral climate change negotiation and to turn some focus back to the environment. In itself, this bodes well for the creation of a North American regulatory approach and a level playing field that will alleviate concerns about Canadian competitiveness.
The United States is facing multiple and daunting challenges, both at home and abroad. Amongst them is the one that most preoccupies me, as Minister of the Environment, and that is the intertwined challenge of maintaining environmental integrity while enhancing our North American energy security.
Mr. Chair, our government has set ambitious goals for 2009. The first is to make our national environmental policies positive instruments of economic renewal and of national development during this period of economic uncertainty. Another is to develop an effective multilateral agreement for the years to come. And the third is to engage the United States in pursuing a coordinated approach to the energy and environmental challenges that both of our nations face and to make the case that our two countries should work together to bring new energy and economic renewal to North America by taking actions that not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also produce a larger and cleaner supply of both fuel and power.
For brevity's sake, let me focus on that third objective, Canada-U.S. collaboration, which I think you will find ties in directly to the other two objectives.
Canada, the U.S., and indeed the rest of the world now stand at a precarious crossroads in the fight against climate change, idling quite literally between a need for balanced environmental protection and a strong desire for economic stability.
So far, our respective countries have taken largely separate paths to address these needs and to tackle the main cause of our warming climate issues, namely, greenhouse gas emissions. But a shift in philosophy now needs to take place, one that calls on us to address, as partners, the environmental issues that straddle the borders of our two countries. Quite simply, Mr. Chair, Canadian and American governments need to work to ensure that our respective policy and regulatory frameworks are coherent and mutually supportive and that the road to reduced emissions travels straight through the heart of two nations towards common targets.
This, in my view, is good for two reasons: nature and human nature. I say “nature” in the sense that greenhouse gases accumulate in one common atmosphere, which is surely the ultimate form of transboundary pollution and interdependence in the world today. And I say “human nature”, since keeping score on the basis of artificial national boundaries and multiple territories is sure to lead to some gaming of the system for short-term and illusory purposes.
But what if we had in place a common North American approach, with common North American targets? What if we had a North American-wide greenhouse cap and trade system, as an illustration? Would that not yield greater success in bringing under control the shared emissions of our two countries? And would it not adequately level the playing field between state, provincial, and national jurisdictions? I think you will agree, committee members, that it would, and that the time is indeed right to explore the possibilities that might exist under an open-minded U.S. administration, with the hope of coming to some kind of an agreement on a North American approach to deal with greenhouse gases.
Based on where we stand today, we know that continuing on a unilateral pathway, while the U.S. pursues its own direction, could impede our economy, including in the energy sector, such as the oil sands and natural gas, and ultimately limit our ability to contribute meaningfully to global environmental protection efforts. We cannot let this happen, particularly when the alternative would help to secure our energy market, reduce our carbon footprint in a far more efficient manner, and, finally, help to move us beyond the empty rhetoric and unrealistic promises of previous international treaties and into a reality of attainable targets and real emissions reductions.
But we also need to go beyond targets, Mr. Chair, and talk about concrete actions, actions that will reduce not just North America's greenhouse gas emissions but its dependence on foreign oil as well.
While America once produced some 90% of the oil it consumed, the number has now dropped to 40% and is expected to dip to 20% by 2020, which would leave the United States as dependent on imported oil as are the nations of the European Union today.
I bring this up because Canada plays a major role in the American energy equation and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. We are America's largest supplier of oil, natural gas, and electricity. I would even add hydroelectricity, uranium, and coal as well.
With expectations of a 2020 world in which 80% of America's oil would come from foreign sources, Canada needs to be playing an even bigger role in the North American energy solution and needs to be playing that role now.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, Canada not only can, but should, play a larger role in the North American energy security solution. Considering the implications of oil scarcity and situations in Russia, Venezuela or the troubled Middle East, Canada's status as the world's most reliable supplier of energy represents not just an economic opportunity for us, but also an obligation to others—perhaps even the single best way that we can contribute stability in an uncertain world. As the government, we know what we need—a secure energy future, and an understanding with our American counterparts that progress will come much faster if both our nations are travelling down the same road.
Going forward, we can't predict how the talks with the U.S. will play out, but we can say with certainty that the time is right for these discussions to take place... and that the stakes are too high to let partisan politics get in the way of doing what is right for the planet.
[English]
We must work together within our own borders and with our continental partners to find common ground that is good for Canada, good for the United States, good for the planet, and good for a shared consensus on energy security and climate change. This will be for the best of our citizens, our industries, and our environments on both sides of the border.
This, Mr. Chair, and ladies and gentlemen of the committee, will stand among our priorities in my time as the Minister of the Environment. I thank you for your attention, and I am pleased to address your questions.
:
I'm pleased to respond to that question. It's fairly far-reaching, so let me do the best I can.
First, in terms of the regulatory agenda, I disagree that there is any slippage. If you look, for example, at the chemical management plan, we are proceeding apace with our commitment to deal with chemicals that have been backlogged in our system for decades in terms of the review of the health and environmental impacts. That is well on track in the objective we outlined in 2007.
In terms of your comment about the government seeing nuclear and coal-fired electricity as the way to achieve our targets, I wouldn't agree. The targets that we have espoused are to ensure that, by 2020, 90% of Canada's electricity is derived from non-emitting sources. At the present time, we derive 73% of our electricity from non-emitting sources.
Frankly, we don't give ourselves enough credit for what we have achieved. Canada has one of the cleanest electricity systems in the world. I think we're sixth or seventh on that scale. Assuming we're able to do what we have aspired to as a target—90%—we would have in effect the cleanest electricity system in the world, with the arguable exception of France, which is nuclear, and Norway.
We will get there not with coal-fired plants but with nuclear, with hydro, and with renewables, and I'm very optimistic that on all those fronts that's achievable. Canada, in the North American context, has some of the most significant hydro possibilities that remain to be developed, and once a price is put on carbon, many of those hydro projects will become quite competitive.
I welcome your interest in mercury. This is something that you and I have spoken about extensively, and you've drawn my attention to the possibility of good work that can be done to carry on the work we've done as a country.
Over the last several decades, Canada has actually done a very significant job of reducing mercury emissions. You are quite right that it is a neurotoxin. It is of real concern to me. And there is evidence that airborne mercury that is not originating in Canada but basically comes to rest in Canada is one of the more significant pollutant concerns in terms of the health of Canadians, particularly people who eat country food that is exposed to airborne mercury.
In the time since you and I spoke, we are of course proceeding to the UNEP conference in the next two weeks. At that conference there will be discussion about the work that the international community will be doing on mercury. Canada intends to be a strong, outspoken voice on this, again because although we have brought our house largely in order, major mercury emissions continue internationally.
As well, one of the issues you have raised with me is the concern that we need to look federally at a regulatory standard that is modelled on one of our Canadian provinces, specifically Alberta, which has the toughest standards for mercury being emitted by coal-burning thermal plants. This is something the department is examining. I have asked my deputy to schedule a meeting with all the CEOs of coal-burning thermal electricity companies in Canada. We have a number of issues to discuss, but one of them will certainly be that regulatory aspect and what's involved in terms of Canada moving to that standard. So this is something that we are pursuing very seriously.
:
Well I might just respond in a couple of ways, and I won't get into the 13 years of inaction. In terms of our approach in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions with our American neighbours, we need to focus on the source of emissions. That includes, first, the transportation sector. I think it's fair to say that President Obama has taken some steps there, and we should speak to what we are doing that's commensurate with those steps. Secondly, we need to deal with the emissions from industrial sources, and I will speak to that. Thirdly, there are other aspects of emissions that relate to all of us as consumers.
However, I think it's important to begin with the targets. You're quite right that the targets we have put forward as a Canadian government of minus 20% by 2020 are in fact more aggressive than the targets that have been put forward by President Obama. This is from a 2006 base. The objective, the level of ambition that the new President has spoken of, is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States to 1990 levels by 2020. If you do the math and convert it, it equates to something like minus 14, from a 2006 base. The Canadian and the American targets are similar. They're not identical. The Canadian targets are slightly more aggressive in the shorter term. In the longer term they're commensurate with one another, although at 2050 the American targets are expressed slightly more ambitiously.
Broadly speaking, we have similar targets. I think what is also important is that the principles that our government has espoused in dealing with this are virtually identical to the principles that President Obama has espoused.
First is the importance of balancing economic progress with our responsibility to be stewards of the environment.
Second is the importance of technological innovation. We are talking about essentially step changes in the technological basis of our society. Whether you're speaking of bringing on hydro projects or advancing carbon capture and storage or new generation nuclear, these are significant step changes in technology, so we need to make investments to have that happen.
Third is the long-term nature of this. This will not be accomplished overnight. There is real importance to proceeding very quickly, but to make the kinds of changes that we're talking about, we need a longer-term horizon. Everyone has agreed on that, increasingly.
Fourth is the importance of engaging all major emitters. There's an old saying that if you're going duck hunting, you go where the ducks are. If you're trying to deal with emissions, you're going to have to deal with all of the major economies that emit greenhouse gases. That includes the United States, China, India, Russia, and the so-called BRIC economies. The new President has spoken with clarity and determination about that and so have we.
Finally, the new President has indicated a change of American policy in that he will engage in a very constructive way in the international climate change process. We have similarly said that that's what we are committed to. In terms of our targets and principles, we are on a common footing. In terms of dealing with the transportation sector, one of the first executive orders that President Obama signed.... There were two orders, in fact. One was to direct the American EPA to proceed with the “35 mile per gallon by 2020” vehicle fuel consumption standard. The other was to allow California, essentially, to pursue the California standard.
In Canada we have been in front of this for some time. In January of last year we actually indicated that we would move to the stringent, dominant North American standard for vehicle fuel efficiency. We have been working with and frankly waiting for the U.S. administration to make choices in terms of when they would bring that into place. Now that we know where the new President is going, harmonization of our vehicle fuel consumption standards is not only doable but well under way.
In terms of our industrial emissions, we continue with the Turning the Corner plan. However, I think it is important, as I said earlier, to emphasize the complexity of this and the effects it has on competitiveness. When you talk about regulating the industrial sector, you're speaking of 350 Canadian facilities that emit significant volumes of carbon dioxide. As I recall, that is more than 100,000 tonnes. These are distributed across the country. They involve everything from steel manufacturing facilities to coal-burning electricity plants and certainly oil and gas facilities. It's everything we essentially do as part of our industrial structure.
The way in which these regulations are brought into law and the competitive effect they have, as between Canada and the United States, all require careful consideration. That's why we are seeking additional dollars in the supplementary estimates, to carry on with that work.
I would emphasize that what we are doing, as Canadians, is second to none. No one else has brought in a regulatory industrial framework of this nature.
Having resolved that point of order, Mr. Chairman, I will carry on.
The budget contains very extensive dollars dealing with environmental priorities. Several of these have been mentioned over the course of the morning. There is a $1 billion fund set aside for green infrastructure projects. Those can include projects relating to public transit, waste water management, as we've spoken about, or the generation of sustainable energy, as well as other projects.
Parenthetically, before I leave that, in response to the previous question on waste water, this is an extremely important question, and the essence of what we are saying as a government is that we will regulate. So we'll work with the provinces, but we are speaking of a regulatory framework for the first time in Canada.
In terms of the budget or the action plan, as I said earlier in my comments, a lot of this turns on technology, so a $1 billion fund has been set aside for clean energy research and demonstration projects. This could include carbon capture and storage, but it is not limited to carbon capture and storage. This involves the significant greening of our energy systems. Extensive money--$300 million--has been set aside for the ecoENERGY home retrofit program. This will allow for up to 200,000 Canadian homes to be energy retrofitted.
I think it's important to point out that a lot of this will be driven by green citizens making green consumer choices. All of us, as parliamentarians, have been quite taken, I think, by the response we've seen from individual Canadians who wish to pursue this, to retrofit their homes or to engage in energy-efficient upgrades.
We're advancing the dollars that are being invested in federally contaminated sites. An additional $80 million is being invested, but certain other dollars are being accelerated. We have a far too lengthy list of contaminated sites in our country that have accumulated over the last 100 years, and we'll be accelerating the remediation of those.
Something that's received very little notice, which is included in the action plan, is support for continued work by the department to monitor and obtain information on environmental indicators. That is part of it.
In addition, $1.3 billion has been set aside for retrofits, including energy efficiency retrofits of Canada's social housing stock.
In addition, dollars have been invested in VIA Rail to increase the carriage capacity on the Windsor-Quebec corridor. I think we would all agree that more train transport by Canadians, taking cars off the road, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, a significant amount--$300 million or thereabouts--is being invested in nuclear with AECL.
There is a lengthy list of efforts that the government is taking on to ensure that our environmental objectives are achieved.