Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 301 - 400 of 413
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, in fact we've already been investing in these media in more than 12 languages in Canada—more than 900 newspapers and 500 radio and TV stations across the country.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, the answer to the first question is “yes”. The answer to the second question is that we're still compiling that list, but we'll be happy to share it with them.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, we know the tourism industry has been hard hit by COVID-19. It was among the first to feel the impact, for that matter. We are in constant contact with industry stakeholders. Since the beginning of the crisis, we've been in contact with the provincial and territorial tourism ministers, as well as industry representatives.
On top of all the measures my fellow members mentioned, our government invested $675 million in our six regional development agencies and $287 million in the network of community futures development corporations to help businesses, especially those in the tourism sector.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
In fact, we have already started deploying money to regional and local newspapers and media across the country. Earlier on, I specified a $30-million aid package that has gone to media, to more than 900 newspapers across the country and 500 radio and TV stations across the country in 12 different languages, including French, English and Inuktitut.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to be splitting my time with two of my colleagues.
I would like to begin by thanking my fellow citizens of Laurier—Sainte-Marie. I am proud to be able to represent them in the House.
I am very pleased to be here with you to continue the important work of Parliament and its committees, while respecting public health and physical distancing guidelines.
I'm going to talk briefly about our creative, cultural and heritage industries, our sports organizations and the media sector.
As you can imagine, like many others, these organizations and companies are facing a major crisis that stems from COVID-19, the biggest crisis in our recent history. All of us, as elected officials in our democracy and on behalf of the Canadian people, have a role to play in helping our creators and the sports community get through this ordeal and come out of it bigger and stronger.
Of course, it will be a challenge to ensure that these organizations and the professionals who run them emerge from the crisis to find their audiences and supporters, but I know we can do it if we all pull together.
On April 26, artists from across Canada did what they do best: create, move and inspire us. They came together virtually and gave us a memorable concert, Stronger Together, Tous ensemble. They put a balm on containment. At the same time, they helped us to feel a little less alone, more connected, more supportive.
Isolation and an economic shutdown are a new reality and like you, all Canadians, we are still learning. We have to do our best and as much as we can during this period of great uncertainty. In fact, that is what our artists and athletes are doing. Their spirit of initiative, their resilience and solidarity are a source of inspiration for our work today. Let's try to act like them and for them.
In Canada, we recognize that the cultural sector in all its diversity of expression, the museum sector and sports are a force for developing our communities and our identity. They ensure a strong, active and healthy Canadian society.
In addition to being a key economic driver, culture is a pillar that holds our communities together and keeps them united. We need that more than ever in these difficult circumstances. Unfortunately, the arts, culture, heritage and sport, an inherent and essential part of our communities and Canadian culture, are harshly affected by the pandemic.
Leaders of these creative businesses and sports organizations are reporting major financial losses as a result of the measures being put in place, which are necessary for ensuring the health of the Canadian public. For example, all public events such as concerts, festivals and various performances have been cancelled. Film and television production is on hold, museums are no longer hosting activities and several businesses are posting a significant decline in their ad revenue among other things.
We can expect Canada's creative industry to suffer growing financial pressure. In one month, losses are estimated at $4.4 billion and roughly 26,000 jobs. In three months, they are estimated at $13.2 billion and roughly 81,000 jobs. Some businesses are able to recover from these losses with help from the government and through loans and support from the private sector. It is precisely to reassure and maintain our thriving cultural and sports sector that we reacted quickly and urgently. We are here for our athletes and artists when they need us the most.
As you may know, as soon as containment measures were announced in Canada, I held a virtual press briefing to reassure our entire cultural and sports sector. I wanted to guarantee to them that government funding would be maintained, regardless of the circumstances.
The work and mandate of Canadian Heritage has not changed. We are here to support the arts, culture and sports sectors. We have ensured that funds from grants and contributions continue to flow and we remain available to work with our partners to determine the best way forward.
The Government of Canada is also working hard to roll out its COVID-19 economic response plan. This plan includes direct support for every affected Canadian, including those in the arts, culture and sports sectors. It includes the Canada emergency response benefit for workers who lose all or part of their income because of the pandemic. The benefit applies to wage earners, contract workers and self-employed individuals who would not otherwise be eligible for employment insurance.
Note that after receiving input from the industry, we announced that royalty payments would not be included in calculating the income eligible for benefits. As someone who has published three books, I understood this very clearly. This means that artists and creators will not be disadvantaged because of work they did months ago.
In addition to these emergency benefits and the credits and exemptions we have provided for all Canadians and Canadian businesses, we have introduced targeted measures for our cultural and sports sectors. On April 17, our Prime Minister announced a $500-million emergency fund for our cultural, heritage and sports organizations in recognition of their importance to our society. This assistance is intended for institutions that suffer or will suffer income losses related to COVID-19. We are doing everything possible to stay in touch with our partners and the organizations we support to address their most pressing concerns.
This measure will provide financial support that ties in with existing measures in response to COVID-19 pertaining to salaries and fixed costs. The fund will be administered by Canadian Heritage, with the support of our partners, notably the Canada Council for the Arts. We will work with the culture, heritage and sports sectors to clarify the terms and conditions of this financial support. Supplementary to this, the Canada Council will also provide $60 million in advance funding to help cultural organizations and artists who receive council grants to meet their immediate commitments.
Our government, through Canadian Heritage, is also investing $3 million in several organizations through the digital citizen initiative to help combat false and misleading COVID-19 information, as well as the racism and stigmatization that we have seen spurred by the crisis. This support will help fund activities such as public awareness tools and online workshops to help Canadians become more resilient and to think critically about COVID-19 disinformation. Funded projects will reach Canadians on a national scale and a local scale, online and offline, and minority communities in both official languages, and indigenous communities.
We are also providing support for broadcasters. The Government of Canada has waived part 1 licence fees for the 2020-21 fiscal year. This amounts to $30 million in assistance to our broadcasters.
An independent panel of experts will also make recommendations to the Canada Revenue Agency on the implementation of the tax measures for print journalism announced in budget 2019. This panel is now in place and we have made several adjustments to the tax measures to better meet the needs of the publishing and journalism community. To give just one example, new publishers and media outlets that receive support from the Canada periodical fund will be eligible for Canadian journalism labour tax credits.
Finally, the vast majority of the $30 million invested by our government in a national COVID-19 awareness campaign will be invested in Canadian media, in television and radio, newspapers, magazines and digital media. The revenue generated by this campaign will provide our media with a breath of fresh air.
Canadians are facing one of the greatest challenges in our history. Our artists, our creators, our athletes and our amateur sports community are showing us many examples of solidarity. Together, alongside them, we will meet this challenge.
I invite you to envisage the sport and culture sector as an ecosystem, rich in its diversity but fragile. Together let's continue to protect it.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, we know that the tourism industry is hard hit by COVID-19, and we are working tirelessly to mitigate the impacts on the Canadian economy. Strong measures have been put in place, as one of my colleagues indicated earlier, for example, the Canada emergency response benefit or the Canada emergency wage subsidy.
We're also investing $675 million in six of our regional agencies as well as $287 million in the CFDC-CAE network to support small businesses in rural communities, particularly in the sector of tourism.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, we are working tirelessly to come up with these details. I'm hoping that they will be made available in the coming days.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I also want to thank my honourable colleague for his question.
I want to acknowledge all the residents of Laurier—Sainte-Marie and all Canadians. We're going through this crisis together.
Since the announcement, our COVID-19 crisis education and awareness campaign has been rolled out in over 900 newspapers and radio stations, in 12 different languages, including Inuktitut. The campaign was published in some newspapers in the member's constituency, including Lac-Etchemin, Lévis and Saint Romuald.
This campaign is ongoing. It will continue as long as we need to raise awareness regarding the important issue of the COVID-19 crisis.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I want to thank the member for his question.
We've done a number of things over the past few weeks to help organizers of social, cultural or artistic events who are feeling the full impact of the COVID-19 crisis.
One of the Department of Canadian Heritage's first initiatives was to announce that we would honour all our financial commitments with our partners, even though their events wouldn't be taking place. They were instructed to use the money to offset some of the losses. We also asked them to compensate the craftspeople and technicians who would have participated in these events.
The $500 million that the Prime Minister and I announced a week and a half ago builds on other measures that the government implemented, such as the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency response benefit.
We're well aware that not everyone who works in the arts, culture and events sectors can access these measures. We're working out the details. In the interest of transparency, I hope that these details will be released to the public in the next few days.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Absolutely, Mr. Chair.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Committee members and colleagues, I am very pleased to be here with you. I didn't have time to say hello to everyone around the table when I arrived. We are a little pressed for time.
With your agreement, Mr. Chair, and if the committee would like, I could stay longer than the scheduled 60 minutes, if necessary. It's up to you and the committee.
I had started distributing reusable mugs, in the colours of the different parties, as much as possible, but I ran out of time and ended with my colleagues in the Liberal Party. As you know, I'm from the environmental sector, and I think that governments have to make an effort, as do all of us.
We are gathered today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe. I'd like to take a moment to emphasize that this acknowledgement is not merely symbolic but demonstrates our government's commitment to reconciliation with indigenous people. It is in this spirit that we're working with our partners to address key priorities, which, in my mandate, include the implementation of the Indigenous Languages Act, and the establishment of a framework for repatriating indigenous cultural property and ancestral remains.
The Métis nation is celebrating its 150th anniversary this year, a milestone that coincides with Manitoba's entry into Confederation. Our government recognizes the role that the Métis people played in this important moment in our history.
I am accompanied today by the deputy minister of Canadian Heritage, Hélène Laurendeau, and Jean-Stéphen Piché, the senior assistant deputy minister of Cultural Affairs.
I'd like to take a moment to congratulate Ms. Laurendeau and her entire team. We learned recently that the department's annual survey had a historically high response rate. 46% of employees completed the survey, and 93% of them stated that the Department of Canadian Heritage was an excellent workplace. Congratulations, Ms. Laurendeau, Mr. Piché and the entire team.
While I'm offering congratulations, I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Simms, on being elected chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Greetings also to the new and returning members of the committee.
I'd like to acknowledge the valuable support I receive from my parliamentary secretaries. Julie Dabrusin, who is returning to this committee as a member, assists me with my Canadian Heritage files, and Adam van Koeverden, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, supports me in sport files with his lifetime of experience.
Thank you for inviting me to appear before you for the first time.
In November, I had the honour of being entrusted with the responsibilities of Minister of Canadian Heritage. Those who know me know I'm an activist at heart.
I never commit halfway to the causes I believe in. Over the past few months, I have been able to draw many parallels between the field of environmentalism on the one hand and arts, culture and sport on the other. I've met passionate, dedicated people in organizations big and small, who often have to juggle all kinds of factors to successfully get their work done. It is, above all, a very close-knit community. I've already met representatives from more than 375 organizations in five provinces, from the Atlantic to the Prairies, and I'll have the privilege of meeting with other fascinating people in the coming weeks, in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Yukon.
I know this dynamic well, and I'm already working to support that community with all the energy I'm known for.
My responsibilities go far beyond promoting culture and sport. First, I'd like to touch on a number of topics in my speech, and then I'll be happy to answer your questions about the mandate the Prime Minister has given me.
As parliamentarians, we all have a mandate to fight climate change. That is clearly stated in the Speech from the Throne and in every minister's mandate letter, not to mention that, last summer, the House passed a motion on climate emergency.
From my first meetings with the culture and sport community, I've observed a real willingness to take positive action to make our cultural and sport organizations even greener. I personally want to help all Canadians who want to move forward in that direction. We have some inspiring examples.
One of the world's biggest sport events wants to be part of the solution: the Olympic and Paralympic Games have developed sustainable practices for the Tokyo games this summer.
The Canada Games Council has signed a framework agreement on sport for climate action, an initiative of the United Nations and the International Olympic Committee.
Closer to home, the Canadian Museum of Nature is already raising awareness about climate change by reminding us that nature is one of Canada's most precious resources. The Prime Minister has asked me to work with them and other national museums to raise even more public awareness of climate change.
My work with museums doesn't stop there. I'm also going to ensure that our museum policy is aligned with the 21st century. Because our museums are exceptional showcases of Canadian history and culture, their collections must be accessible to everyone.
One of my priority files, which you heard Ms. Yale and Ms. Simard speak about on Monday, is the modernization of the Broadcasting Act. Our government understands that a strong, equitable and flexible broadcasting system is crucial to meeting the expectations of Canadians and the challenges of the digital age. To that end, urgent action is needed.
We have reviewed the report of the Legislative Review Panel. And I am hopeful that we can present a broadcasting bill in the House in the next few months.
I can assure you that we will not be regulating the news media, and that we will preserve a strong and independent information sector, as well as a free and open Internet.
The Broadcasting Act has an impact on several organizations in my portfolio, as they include a large audiovisual component that feeds the digital environment: the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada, CBC/Radio Canada. These are all independent organizations that keep us informed, provide us with high-quality content and contribute to our shared identity. We are proud to support them.
I'd like to emphasize that CBC/Radio Canada is an essential part of Canada's media ecosystem and a key contributor of Canadian content. As part of the modernization of the Broadcasting Act, we're looking at ways to strengthen the regional mandate of our national public broadcaster.
The news media environment is changing, and we are responding to the call of our newspapers with all the rigour necessary to ensure their independence. This is the very foundation of a healthy democracy. We have introduced tax measures, and we are injecting $10 million a year to increase news coverage in underserved communities.
We will also invest up to $172 million over five years to stabilize the Canada media fund and ensure the success of our creative industries in the digital age.
Finally, I am working closely with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry on a number of issues that are closely related to the information sector. This includes actions to ensure a safe and secure environment free of hate and bias on social networks—a subject you seem interested in exploring further.
We could also mention protecting Canadians' personal data, or updating the Copyright Act.
Having written three books, the last of which dealt with the positive and negative impacts of digital technologies, I'm quite interested in the issue of copyright. In this regard, I'd like to thank members of this committee from the 42nd Parliament for taking time to review the Copyright Act and the remuneration of artists and the creative industries. Your recommendations now allow us to consider how those who shape our culture can fully benefit from their work.
Before moving on to another topic, I'd like to touch on the work that has been done so far under the Creative Export Strategy. This is an important initiative that continues with Global Affairs, as well as with all our partners at the Frankfurt Book Fair, and in various past and future international missions.
Canadian cultural content is among the best in the world; we need to promote it internationally and allow our creators to profit from the international market.
Now let's venture into the world of sport. I really enjoy immersing myself in this world. I can count on a parliamentary secretary, Adam van Koeverden, who has a long track record in the world of sport. The member of Parliament for Brome—Missisquoi, who sits on this committee, can also testify to the benefits of sport, as she is an Olympic cyclist. It's kind of rare to have two Olympic athletes on one committee. I think we're very fortunate.
For several years now, our government has been working harder to make sport safe, welcoming and accessible to everyone. A great deal of work has been done, and continues to be done, to raise awareness about concussions, harassment and discrimination. I'm delighted to pick up the torch. Sport is a great school of life. It teaches us team spirit, good citizenship and the joy of healthy competition. We also have extraordinary examples of determination and perseverance in top athletes like Bianca Andreescu and Laurent Duvernay-Tardif.
I will continue to help the Canadian sport community build a healthy society where all young people, especially indigenous youth, can see themselves reflected and feel that they're part of something. In this Olympic year, we can expect great moments that inspire pride. I know that in my house, my family will have their eyes glued to the screen. I'll even have the privilege of being present for the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
We can all be proud of the incredible work of our athletes. They have been training for a long time to get to Tokyo and secure a place on the podium. We'll all be cheering them on this summer, united and proud to see the maple leaf so well represented.
Mr. Chair, esteemed colleagues, thank you for your attention. I'd be pleased to answer your questions.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Blaney.
As you probably know, the Income Tax Act does not come under the purview of the Department of Canadian Heritage. However, I would be happy to put you in touch with—
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I think that the 375 representatives of arts, culture and media organizations that I have met with over the past four months will be able to say that they don't have the impression that I'm running away from anything. However, the reality is still that I am Minister of Canadian Heritage, not Minister of Finance.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I've said it before, but I'll say it again: as far as media assistance is concerned, we're talking about more than $650 million. You're talking about $50 million, but I'm talking about $650 million.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
That's why I'm wearing a pink shirt today.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
First, for these media, the government's share of advertising revenue is about 1%. I met with media representatives—
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Let me answer your question. If I can't answer, it's a useless exercise.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Excuse me, Mr. Chair. May I answer Mr. Blaney's question?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
As I was saying, the government's purchase of advertising represents about 1% of that advertising envelope. Recently, I met with representatives of the press who had built their business model on the fact that they expected Google and Facebook to take about 60% of the advertising revenue and that they would be left with about 40%.
In fact, Google and Facebook have captured about 90% of advertising revenue. So you're talking about $50 million, but it's $650 million that we're investing in media. You're saying they don't want help. However, the very many media representatives I have met with do not say that at all, Mr. Blaney.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you for the question, Mrs. Bessette.
First, the work we do in this area is in collaboration with the Canadian Olympic Committee and the many sports federations. That means several things. It certainly means setting up a program that allows our high-calibre athletes to excel on the international stage. Over the past few years, we have seen that, compared to not so long ago, Canada's podium results have been very encouraging. However, it means something else as well. There is a move—and I mentioned this earlier in my remarks—to try to make these events more and more environmentally responsible.
I recently met with representatives of the Canadian Olympic Committee in Montreal to talk about their efforts in this regard and to see how we in government can support them. I think the idea is not to do the work for them, but to support them and sustain them in the efforts they are making and will want to make in the coming years.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
As you say, education is a provincial jurisdiction. However, that does not prevent us from having conversations with our counterparts in the provinces and territories on these issues.
I recently met with Quebec's Minister of Education, who is also a former Olympic athlete, to discuss how we can encourage greater youth participation in sports.
In recent years, particularly through the infrastructure program, we have made significant investments in community sports infrastructure, for example, which does not therefore necessarily depend on schools.
I was pleased to go cycling at the velodrome in the beautiful riding of our colleague, Mr. van Koeverden. As a recreational cyclist, it was my first experience in a velodrome. This is the kind of investment we can make in partnership with the provinces and municipalities to ensure that young people have access to facilities where they can participate in sports.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
That is a very good question.
The subject concerns me as a minister, but also as a father. My 16-year-old son, who plays hockey, suffered a fairly severe concussion before the holidays. We followed a protocol for his return to the ice. My wish as minister, and Minister Hajdu's wish as well, is that, as soon as possible, we have in place the best protocols available in all sports federations so that every athlete who suffers a concussion will follow all the protocols before returning to their sport and will be truly ready to return to sport.
I am aware of the excellent work being done by the Institut national du sport du Québec, in Montreal, particularly when it comes to concussions. Our goal is to ensure that what happens there becomes a national standard.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I said they disagreed with Mr. Blaney, who said we didn't need to help them and that we just had to remove the section 19 he was talking about.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you for your question.
I am a big believer in local weeklies. When I was young, I delivered Le Nouvelliste for four years. I delivered the local weekly in La Tuque for many years. I wrote for several local media, including Transcontinental. Our government and I fundamentally believe that they are important.
This program is in its first year. We are quite willing to adjust the focus if we see the need to do so and if the program fails to meet the needs of the sector.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
That's a good question, Mr. Champoux, and I will be very honest with you. The government is facing a challenge when it comes to buying advertising. Obviously, we buy that advertising to reach an audience. The public is on the Internet more and more. As I was saying earlier to Mr. Blaney, we buy $50 million in such ads.
Would the media prefer that we invest $50 million in advertising and drop the $650 million we put into the program we created?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
You must understand that it's a challenge for the government to reach people where they are. That is part of the challenge for government as it navigates through the murky waters of growing digital realities.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
That is going to change, obviously. We have committed to making them pay the GST. You have probably read, as I have, the statements by the Prime Minister, who said that the next budget would be a good time to do that.
As part of reforming the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, we made a very firm commitment to ensure that these giants contribute to Quebec and Canadian cultural content, and to what our friends on the review panel headed by Ms. Yale called discoverability, that is, the showcasing of that cultural content. So things are going to change.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
First of all, if I gave the impression that we were going to help museums because we were not already doing so, let me correct that. In the 2018-19 budget, $396 million was provided to Canada's museums and heritage industries.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Boulerice. That is an excellent question.
We are currently looking at several possibilities or scenarios that will allow us to change the situation as quickly as possible.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
That is a good question. You are right to say it is a fast lane, but it is not an instant lane either.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
You understand there is still a whole set of procedures to follow, but that is one of the options we are looking at.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I have said it before and I will say it again. I intend to introduce legislation on this issue by June, or even sooner if possible. We are not in control of all the mechanics of the decision-making process on this issue. Nevertheless, I hope that by the end of the year we will have new mechanisms in place, but it is not up to me alone. We will need support, and I will be counting on you and your team.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
You saw in Ms. Yale's report that there is a proposal to create one fund rather than several. These different funds are, in a way, representative of a time when things worked somewhat in silos, whereas now that is much less the case. It is one option. Will it be the Canada Media Fund, Telefilm Canada or a new fund, as recommended in the Yale report? We are looking at all of that right now.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Honestly, this is the first time anyone has ever talked to me about that.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
In terms of contributions to Quebec and Canadian cultural content, I am not sure that income tax is necessarily the way to go, because it goes into the consolidated funds. We can always go to see our colleague in finance to shed light on it for us.
In my opinion, it is much more useful for the arts and culture sector to arrange for them to contribute to one or other of the funds specifically designed for creating cultural content.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
As you know, my colleague in finance is responsible for income tax matters. Clearly, he will be able to answer those questions much better than I can.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Perhaps it's because I am not the Minister of Finance.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
The group of experts that Ms. Yale chaired is an independent group and it made recommendations to the government. We are currently examining those recommendations with our colleagues at the department. We are studying various aspects of the new system that we want to build. This is one recommendation among others, and it is one of the aspects we are examining.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I think the real question is whether we're looking at them all and analyzing what each of them would mean in terms of the new system we want to build. That's what we're doing. It's not a question of liking or not liking, really. It's what—
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I would invite you to ask my colleague Minister Bains that question, because this is not under the purview of my ministry.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
We could provide, with the department, a list of media organizations—
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
It was over five years. Yes, I remember that.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
If I may, that is one element of the assistance to media that we're providing.
The other is the $50 million for local journalism. We will be able to provide you, at the end of the year, with a list of organizations that have received money, how much they have received and so on and so forth.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I do. You'll be happy to know I do.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'm not sure I understand specifically what you're....
As I said earlier, this is an independent commission that was—
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
As I said earlier, we are looking at every single recommendation that this independent body has made to us. The way forward for us is not something that will be by the Ministry of Heritage or by myself. We are working in collaboration with the Department of Justice as we move forward, so obviously anything we would be putting forward would have to pass the test of the law.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Again, one of many recommendations....
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Housefather.
The question interests me greatly. I was very pleased to see that it was one of the points in my mandate letter. I was saying earlier, in my speech, that my last book dealt with the impacts of digital, both positive and negative. I have studied this issue a lot, and what other governments around the world have done to regulate digital platforms.
Some have the idea that we are going to create a new area of law and apply it to digital, whereas what we are looking to do is use the law that we already have and find tools to apply it online.
There are things that we do not tolerate in real life, but that we tolerate on the Web. We do not yet have the means and the tools we need to respond on the Web as we would in real life.
I hope sincerely that the committee will accept your proposal. We look very favourably on being able to take sustenance from your thoughts on the matter. I do not see why we should permit digital platforms to continue keeping illegal content online, such as hate speech, radicalization, incitement to violence, child exploitation or the creation of terrorist propaganda. It is unacceptable and, in Canada, we must give ourselves the tools we need to solve those problems.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Let me say two things.
First, it is important to recall what we are trying to do with digital platforms. You talked about the whole matter of freedom of expression. Our courts have very well defined the fact that freedom of expression has reasonable limits in certain cases. What is true for freedom of expression here is just as true on digital platforms. Canada is not going to take over the controls of the Web, not at all, but the reasonable limits that apply in life must also apply on digital platforms. We believe in freedom of expression just as much as we believe in net neutrality.
Second, I can tell you already that the report on the review of the Copyright Act, which the committee submitted in the last parliament, is providing my department and my team with much food for thought.
I solemnly commit before you to give the recommendations that you provide to me all the consideration they deserve, on the regulation of platforms, or on any other subject that may appear important to you.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you for the question.
Our government fundamentally believes that all humans are equal. We fundamentally believe in the need to fight racism, for lack of a better word. We have done that from very early on, and we will continue to do it.
On the specific case you're referring to, I don't have the details. As you pointed out, I wasn't there. I would ask Madam Laurendeau to comment, if she wants to.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
May I pick up on the first part of your intervention?
You used the words “focus on unity”. I think the heritage ministry, the portfolio in general and the people who take part in it are uniquely positioned to help us work on unity all across the country—arts, culture, sports, the Olympics coming up—and I think maybe our country could use a bit of a unity boost these days.
I'm very honoured to be here—I said it earlier—but I want to be an advocate for the people who are doing all those amazing things and maybe contribute, in a way, to better national unity.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
It's obvious to everybody who's looked at me that I'm very white, but I have a sister who is originally from Haiti. I was made aware of racism and the impact of racism very early on as a child, as a brother of that sister. It's not just a political issue for me as the representative of the government or as a member of a political party. It's something that hits very close to home.
I give you my assurance that as a minister I will do everything that I can to ensure that we have a safe working environment in the heritage ministry. Again, I can't comment specifically on that. I don't know if—
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you for that question, Mr. Louis.
The government has undertaken a number of things in the last mandate that we intend to pursue.
The first thing I should talk about is the historic investment in the arts and culture sector. If they're not the most important, proportionally, of all the G7 countries, then those investments in the last mandate were amongst the highest in the sector on a per capita basis. The Canada Council for the Arts and a historic investment in the CBC....
We've launched a number of initiatives or provided increased funding to organizations in the arts and culture sector, and more specifically for music. I think about the additional $20 million over two years that was provided to the Canada music fund.
Some of the elements that we have started doing around our cultural export strategy include the Frankfurt book show that will happen next fall. It's interesting to note that every year Frankfurt invites a country to be the host of the book show in Frankfurt. I was talking to someone, I believe from New Zealand—I think it was the last country to host that book show in Frankfurt—who told me that tourism went up 15% to 17% in New Zealand after they did that. The person I was talking to was clearly making a link between those.
Culture is obviously about more than money, but it's also about that. There's an intrinsic value to our arts and culture, but there is also a very important economic element for our country for getting our shows, music and books exported. We want people to discover them here, obviously. As you were pointing out in your question, in a world that is getting more and more global, it's also important to get our stories seen abroad, should they be in music, theatre or TV.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes, absolutely.
One of the reasons we have committed to doing this review of the CRTC and to changing some of our laws is so we can continue telling our stories to ourselves and also be able to tell them to others. I, like many of you probably, have a subscription to Netflix, as I have to Ici Tou.tv, which is the Radio-Canada equivalent to Gem for CBC. I'm always amazed that we can have access to Norwegian or South Korean TV series, but I think some of our series are very popular. Kim's Kitchen is one of the most popular TV series in South Korea now. It's a CBC production. To give a French Canadian example, a Quebec artist, a comedian, just sold a series to Netflix, which aired on Radio-Canada, Les pêcheurs, which my kids love. I think it's the first TV series from Canada that has been bought by Netflix. There's a huge potential to get.... We've had 50 co-production agreements in the last little while. It's about getting our stories out there, but also it's about making people here work and benefit from all this work.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
You are actually bringing up a number of issues. For example, in the last five years, there has been a significant increase in revenue from the sale of online music, particularly in Quebec. The issue, of course, is that the artists, those who make that music, should be entitled to their fair share of that cake and that there should not be a whole lot of intermediaries between the artists and the Spotifys of the world, for example, who are nicely lining their pockets.
Online music sales are really increasing. So a part of the system is working, but another part is not working. That is one of the things that we want to review as we make this change.
As I said to Mr. Boulerice just now, it is my firm intention to introduce a bill by June and, ideally, well before that so that it can be passed before the end of the year.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
You could invite me back.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
The Government of Quebec is responsible for Télé-Québec, if I am not mistaken.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
It is still a very good question. You have been able to see that, in my mandate letter, I have been asked to see how Radio-Canada could contribute more significantly to regional media coverage. You probably heard, as I did, the president of CBC/Radio-Canada, Ms. Tait, say that, in her opinion, the future of journalism is local journalism. Radio-Canada has already begun that process. The idea is not to impose our views on Radio-Canada, but to work in collaboration with the broadcaster to see how that objective can be achieved.
Let me tell you about the pilot project that Radio-Canada and the Winnipeg Free Press newspaper are doing in collaboration. In that pilot project, which is a first for Radio-Canada, stories coming from the Winnipeg Free Press are published on Radio-Canada’s website, but only in part. If people want to see the story in full, they have to go to the Winnipeg Free Press site.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
You are right. In our election platform, we made a commitment to Téléfilm. The NFB’s budget was increased, but that happened several years ago. Part of the increase was taken up by the move.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I have met with people from the NFB, and with officials from its union. We are very aware of the situation and, at the moment, I am working very hard for the NFB. Let’s see what that produces in the near future.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Ms. Laurendeau would like to add something.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
As I am an author myself, the copyright issue affects me specifically and it is a subject that I know a lot about. If I recall correctly, the problem was identified in one of your committee’s recommendations in the 42nd Parliament. You understand that I only have one hand on the steering wheel; the other hand belongs to my colleague Mr. Bains. It is a matter on which we have to work together, and we will do so.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2011-02-10 15:35
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear today to discuss such important issues as energy security and the oil sands.
In French, we are not engaged in the same discussion that you seem to be having with respect to the name of the oil sands. In French, the term is “sables bitumineux” and it's the same for everyone and everyone seems quite willing to accept it.
For us at Équiterre, issues such as energy security and the oil sands are both crucial for the energy, economic, environmental and social future of the country. We have prepared a report which suggests how Quebec could eliminate its dependency on oil by 2030. We sent you copies of that report, but only in French. We will be forwarding an English version which can then be distributed.
In light of the scientific data that we have received over the last decade with respect to climate change, and various reports, be they from NASA, Environment Canada or the Department of Natural Resources, or places around the planet, it is clear that in the coming decades, we will pretty well have to stop using fossil fuels.
It is clear that the starting point is fossil fuels, which have the highest rate of greenhouse gas emissions, in terms of either units of energy or units of GDP—whichever. As we were reminded again the day before yesterday, by a report tabled in the European Parliament by the European Commission, the oil sands have a GHE content which is 25 times higher than traditional oil fuels.
As we see it, that means one of two things: either we have to quickly reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the oil sands—which, I remind you, emit two to four times more greenhouse gases than traditional fuels—or, if we are unable to do that, reduce our use, and therefore our production of oil from the oil sands.
In the report that we will be tabling with the committee, we show that we are well aware that humans will continue to use oil for quite some time to come. However, we believe that it is necessary, on the one hand, to reduce our dependency on oil, and also to move away from fossil fuels, conventional or otherwise, as quickly as possible, since they emit high levels of greenhouse gases. In that regard, the oil sands are clearly in a category by themselves.
In the report we will be forwarding to you, we have information from a study we conducted of the economic cost of this for a province like Quebec. And, what we did for Quebec can be done for other provinces. Indeed, it would be a good idea for the committee to look at that.
The economic cost of our dependency on oil is $74 a barrel of oil. The exodus of capital from a province like Quebec amounts to approximately $10 billion a year. If a barrel of oil costs $105, the loss of capital amounts to almost $15 billion. If a barrel costs $150—as was the case in 2007—the loss of capital outside Quebec is almost $20 billion. In budgetary terms, that corresponds to the second largest budget item for the Government of Quebec, which is the Ministry of Education.
Yet we believe there are many other things we can do with our money—public money—than use it to boost other world economies. We think we should be boosting our own economy instead.
You may say that it is impossible to reduce our dependency on oil—that it's unthinkable. And yet some countries have made a commitment not to import any more oil between now and 2025. Those countries, such as Sweden, are comparable to ours in terms of their climate, their economy, their social programs and education systems. But 2025 is coming quickly. If Sweden is able to do it, I don't see why a country like Canada could not do the same if, of course, it has the political will to do so.
I am one of those who believes that there is no lack of solutions, either technical or technological. We have enough creativity and intelligence to be able to deal with the issues.
In Sweden, they are now building houses that don't need a heating system. They still put heating systems in these houses, simply for psychological reasons, because the people who live there do not believe it is possible to live in Sweden in a house without heating. However, these houses are so energy efficient that the only heat that is produced is the heat loss from the people who live in them.
There are a great many things that we should be doing in Canada—for example, in terms of electrifying our transportation system, particularly transportation over long distances, both passenger transportation and shipping. That would allow us to greatly reduce our consumption of oil in this country.
You may ask whether we will gain something if the electricity used to power these transportation systems is produced using fossil fuels. But there will clearly be very significant gains if one considers the fact that the rate of efficiency of an electrical device in converting energy—in this case, moving electricity—is between 75% and 95%. In comparison, an internal combustion engine has an efficiency rate of between 20% and 25%. For every vehicle that is electrified, the energy efficiency would triple, which would represent a very significant gain.
There are many different things that should be done with respect to energy efficiency. Alas, Stephen Harper's government has abolished pretty well all the energy efficiency programs that were in place, particularly those aimed at low-income Canadians. Équiterre is an organization which, like many others across the country, has for years now provided energy efficiency services to low-income households, to help them reduce their energy bill.
However, the Harper government cut $500 million from energy efficiency programs for low-income households. Hundreds of jobs were lost across the country. In that sector, jobs were being created all across Canada, in small and large municipalities alike, from north to south, and from east to west. It was not only one part of the country which was benefiting from that.
We must focus on renewable energy. Wind energy is an obvious example. On behalf of the Quebec Minister of Natural Resources, I was in charge of a special team on renewable energy. The mandate of our team was to look at the development of emerging renewable energy sources, such as photovoltaic solar, thermal solar, biogas and second-generation biofuels.
In closing, there is huge potential for Quebec, Ontario and the country as a whole. Unfortunately, we are one of the only OECD countries to no longer have an incentive program for renewable energy development.
Thank you very much.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2011-02-10 16:05
Are you wondering whether this is something that can be done more efficiently?
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2011-02-10 16:05
We are increasingly moving in the direction of reduced greenhouse gas emissions. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Expert Panel on Climate Change—which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, as you may recall—all the large emitters of greenhouse gas emissions around the world, including China, India, Canada, the United States and Europe, will have to cap their greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and then reduce them.
Earlier, I was saying that, as regards the oil sands—which are responsible for a much larger number of greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels—there are two choices: either we quickly establish emission caps and impose significant reductions to at least bring them down to the level of conventional fuels, or we stop increasing production because we have no idea what to do at this point in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. They are one of the most significant sources of increased greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and have been since 1990. The sky is the limit. This cannot continue.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2011-02-10 16:07
Certainly at the federal level. We are one of the only countries—and certainly one of the rare OECD countries—not to have a national public transit policy, unlike France, Great Britain and the Scandinavian countries. As for the transportation sector which, I should point out, produces approximately 25% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, we have no national vision there. In some provinces and municipalities—like Vancouver, which is doing fantastic work, and Montreal, which is doing fairly well—some interesting initiatives are underway. In Alberta, municipalities like Calgary and Edmonton have launched very innovative projects. However, there is no national strategy or vision in that area. We need to reform the federal tax system. Why? Because at the present time, the tax system provides a much greater incentive for investments in fossil fuels—traditional, conventional or non-conventional fuels, such as the oil sands—than in renewable energy.
As I said earlier at the end of my opening statement, we are one of the rare countries, if not the only OECD country, not to have a renewable energy incentive program. Canada was offering a wind energy credit that was only one third of what was available in the United States under George Bush. We're not talking about Barack Obama; we're talking about George W. Bush, that leading light of the socialist left wing.
Voices: Oh, oh!
Mr. Steven Guilbeault: At the time, it was one third of what was offered under George Bush, and now, we have nothing at all in Canada. If we took action in the public transit sector, by developing a strategy and providing the means to implement it, if we reviewed our tax system and incentives for the production of renewable energy, those would be three major components of a very attractive national policy.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2011-02-10 16:13
You're right; it's a political question.
Équiterre is a non-partisan organization. We work at both the provincial and federal levels, and even at the international level. I am co-chair of the Climate Action Network International, which is a group of NGOs--
Mr. Roger Pomerleau: We have to get somewhere with this at some point.
Mr. Steven Guilbeault: -- that work together on climate change issues.
I'm one of those who believes that we could have an international strategy on energy and public transit which would mean that not just one industry or economic sector would benefit. Unfortunately, that is not the case now, but I happen to believe that things could be different.
Thank you.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2011-02-10 16:17
As I said in my testimony, we understand that oil has been around for a while and will continue to be. That being said, we know that internationally things are changing, and rapidly. We've seen very rapid increases in the price of oil over the last decade, something no one predicted, or very few predicted, only 10 years ago.
What is good for part of the country may not be good for the entire country. One of the things we have been looking at, as have others in Quebec and around Canada, is the Dutch syndrome. It's not well documented yet in Canada. It is in certain countries. We think this committee should be paying close attention to that. It doesn't mean we have to close down parts of the country to the benefit of the others.
Basically, right now, in terms of greenhouse gas legislation or incentives, the only game in town is the tar sands carbon capture and storage, which no one believes will be able to help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the foreseeable future. We have existing technologies, proven technologies, that could help us meet the emissions reduction requirements that we have internationally, which various provinces have taken with current and existing technologies.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2011-02-10 16:20
Thank you for the question. It should probably be pointed out--I guess everybody knows that around this table--that the committee that produced that report was hand-picked by the government to do the study.
I find it unbelievable that in a country like Canada we would have a report like that being produced. This is something you would expect from a poor, developing nation, and yet we're in Canada, one of the richest nations in the world. We have all the technologies, all the know-how to do these things, and yet we don't even know what's happening. We're destroying the information or the capability to have the information that would help us understand what is happening while expanding new production.
I don't know what to say. It baffles my mind that in a country like Canada we would allow things like that to happen.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2011-02-10 16:22
Well, we should definitely look at the last few reports of the Auditor General. They showed us how ignorant we are about water and how the federal government has not been doing its homework. While we don't know what's happening, we're allowing all kinds of projects that stand to have dramatic impact on our water resources. We talked about tar sands. We could be talking about shale gas development. I don't understand how we can do this. Obviously, oil and gas are important for the economic development of this country, but without water there's no life. It's as simple as that.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2011-02-10 16:31
That is basically part of the document we will be tabling. It's a study we carried out in cooperation with the Quebec Ministry of Natural Resources and the Department of Finance.
Because Quebec does not have an oil industry, with the exception of two and a half refineries—one of which will soon be shutting down—very little money spent on oil-related issues in Quebec actually remains in Quebec. So, that money is crossing provincial borders. It's used to buy oil from the North Sea, Angola, Venezuela--
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2011-02-10 16:31
Yes, that's right.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2011-02-10 16:31
No, not at all.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2011-02-10 16:32
Or to buy electricity from Hydro-Quebec, rather than buying oil, which is increasingly sourced from countries like Algeria or Angola. That is the strategy we're pursuing.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2011-02-10 16:32
I was referring to the fact that we have no incentives in place for the production of renewable energy and that this has been noted in several studies, particularly the OECD study. We are one of the rare industrialized countries, if not the only one, not to have a strategy and funding in place to encourage the production of renewable energy. We used to have a fund—the ecoENERGY Fund—which gave about 1¢ per kilowatt-hour to producers of renewable energy. However, the Harper government decided not to renew the funding for that program. Technically, the fund still exists, but there is no more money available. The infrastructure of the fund is still there. There are still a few public servants attached to it, but there is no longer any money to invest in renewable energy and other forms of energy.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2011-02-10 16:33
If we are not the only one, we are certainly one of the only countries not to have one. From memory, I would say we are the only one. I could forward to you the documentation on that. Several OECD studies have been done on this, but I can tell you that the United States has one, the European Union obviously has one, as do Japan and Australia. To my knowledge, all the industrialized countries have policies and incentives in place. We have none. There are some for first-generation biofuels—basically corn ethanol—but not for renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and geothermal energy.
Équiterre is currently building an environmental construction project in Montreal—a platinum LEED project—that will be one of the most efficient in North America in terms of energy consumption per square foot. We received no federal money for this project, even though the federal government funded a similar project in Toronto. I personally worked on a green housing cooperative project—social housing, in other words—aimed particularly at low-income households. We did receive money from Quebec, the Quebec Housing Corporation and the City of Montreal, but we received no federal government grant.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2010-04-27 10:16
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank the committee for inviting me here this morning. I apologize for being late; there was a traffic jam at security.
My name is Steven Guilbeault. I am the Deputy Executive Coordinator of Équiterre. I am also co-chair of the international Climate Action Network, an organization of over 500 non-governmental organizations that works with the United Nations on climate change. In addition, on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources and Wildlife of Quebec, Nathalie Normandeau, I chair a special team on emerging renewable energy sources—but I am not here today in that capacity. The issue you are interested in has interested me, personally and professionally, for several years, but particularly in recent months, in relation to that office.
I would like to echo what Mr. Weis said earlier. First, I would like to start a little farther back to get a little closer to where we are. When we examine the global situation, we have seen, since the early 1990s, that the forms of energy production with the highest growth rates, whether in terms of jobs or investment, are renewable energy sources—wind energy, solar energy.
In February 2009, the HSBC Bank produced a report that you have certainly heard about. The report studied the G20 countries' economic recovery plans. The report noted that on average, in the industrialized countries, investments in green energy accounted for about 15% within the economic recovery plans. However, what we find behind that fact is that the countries that are investing the most, in absolute or relative amounts, are not the industrialized countries at present, but the emerging nations like China and South Korea.
South Korea is going to invest 82% of its economic recovery plan in the green economy—renewable energy, energy efficiency, sustainable transportation and clean technology. China is investing 36%. In absolute terms, China is making the largest investment in clean technology ever seen in history. This is even more than what is being done in the United States or even Europe—it will be 55% in Europe.
Where does Canada stand? We are at half the average for the industrialized countries. According to the HSBC report, Canada is not the worst country: it ranks fourth among the least bad countries in terms of investment in renewable energy. That was before the last federal budget, in which the money for the ecoENERGY program was not renewed. As a result, I imagine that if HSBC did its study over, Canada would lose more ground in the technological innovation race taking place before our eyes. Deutsche Bank has released a very similar report about three weeks ago.
What is the conclusion reached by these major research groups, these investment banks, and the International Energy Agency? Essentially, it is that the economy of the 21st century will be a clean and sustainable economy or it will not be. Massive investments are being made everywhere—I referred to South Korea earlier. Between 2009 and 2011, 150,000 jobs will be created in the clean technology sector. That is somewhat as if South Korea had taken virtually all program spending in Mr. Flaherty's last budget and invested it all in renewable energy, clean technology and energy efficiency.
What is happening is that Canada is rapidly losing ground... In fact, it is an ecological disaster, of course, because sources of energy production in Canada as a whole are still largely based on fossil fuels. As Tim said, if we want to meet our objective of having 90% of our electricity production sources in non-greenhouse gas emitting forms by 2020, it is possible to do it, but we have to adopt the measures for doing it fast. Tim gave the example of Denmark, but there are several examples of countries that have done it that are worth looking at.
That is exactly what we have done in the work done by the committee I chair for the government of Quebec. We observed what was going on at the global level, what examples were the most worth considering, and we asked how it could be adapted to the situation in Quebec. I don't see why we would not do the same thing at the national level. We have to look at what business opportunities there are in terms of technological development, job creation and adopting these technologies, in particular in industry, [inaudible]. When we talk about clean energy, obviously there are water and geothermal technologies. There are a lot that tackle reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, that is where a majority of investments are seen. What is astonishing is to see how completely absent Canada is from this at present. We are missing the boat.
We could always say that this is not the role of the federal government, but when we look at examples—Tim talked about Denmark—like Germany, we see that it worked with its regions to create a major, massive, gigantic program to develop renewable energy, and did it in the space of 10 years. In the worst cases, over the last 10 years in Germany, regardless of the type of technology—whether biofuel, wind or photovoltaics—the Germans have doubled their production capacity from 10 years ago. In the best cases, they have increased production of these forms of energy by 300 or 400 or sometimes even 500%.
I was talking about China a moment ago. Two years ago, at a United Nations meeting, I had an opportunity to meet with the richest industrialist in China. He told us that when he finished university, he and his friends decided to start up a company manufacturing solar panels. Since the company was created, it has had an annual growth rate of 100%. Today, Suntech is the largest manufacturer of solar panels in the world. I built a small ecofriendly house that operates partly on solar energy. Part of the solar panels was in fact manufactured in China. You see them now in some of our hardware stores. You go to Canadian Tire or Rona and you will see solar panels often made in China. So we could be in this race. There is even a solar panel on the room of my house made by a little company you may have heard of, called Shell.
The energy industry is changing very rapidly. In the world as we know it, the economy and energy are becoming increasingly closely related. Unfortunately, Canada is not at the table. The federal government can play a very important role in supporting provincial initiatives, as other governments are doing. The British, for example, with interest-free loans to install solar systems on the roofs of houses. The system will stay with the house because obviously people are not going to leave with it.
Wallonia, which has about 25% less solar potential than all of Canada, has new regulations made in 2006 where all new residential construction has to be equipped with solar systems, whether for heating water or air or for producing electricity.
So there is a very important role that the federal government can play and is not playing at present. Obviously, this has disastrous consequences for our greenhouse gas emissions, for Canadians' quality of life, for the quality of our environment. But on top of all that, it will have disastrous consequences for Canada's competitive advantage over the next few years.
Thank you.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2010-04-27 10:33
I think we have already fallen very far behind. Some countries have already been investing in this field for several decades.
I would like to come back to what Mr. Whiting was saying earlier. All forms of energy are subsidized: oil, nuclear, etc. So we must not think that we are creating a category of exceptions with renewable energy. Look at the money that has been invested in the oil sands in Canada over the last 35 or 40 years. We are talking here about a massive investment, continued year after year, whether through direct subsidies, tax shelters, accelerated tax write-offs, or other methods.
We are not asking for an exception for renewable energy; we are asking that there at least be some balance among the various forms of energy, in terms of financial and economic benefits and incentives. That is obviously not the case. But these technologies are going to play an increasingly important role in the world portfolio. In fact that is already the case. They have quadrupled since the early 1970s. Because we are not investing in these technologies, we are going to have to import them, to buy them from other countries. That is where jobs will be created and investments will be made. It won't be in Canada because we have not created a regulatory, financial or economic climate that favours this kind of investment. The investments are going to be made elsewhere, and we are going to become importers of these technologies. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are going to be created elsewhere rather than here.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2010-04-27 10:37
I agree entirely with Mr. Whiting. Your question relates to development of the technology and investing public funds in those technologies. On the other hand, we are putting all our eggs in one basket, when this technology has not been tested. It is still at the research and development stage. I have no objection to oil companies investing in it, they have every right to do so. But I object to investing the little money allocated for what is called renewable energy, in Canada, in that kind of technology. We really are not certain that it will enable us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and if it does, we don't know the amount of time for it to be possible. It may be in 15 or 20 years. But we have Canadian technologies today that we could bring forward and that would enable us to reduce those emissions immediately. It's total nonsense.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2010-04-27 10:42
Thank you, Mr. Cullen.
In fact, I often ask myself that question, and the only answer I come up with is that it's ideology. For one thing, they don't believe that climate change is really a problem. So why worry? They don't believe in these technologies, and I'm talking about a belief in the virtually religious sense of the word, when the whole world around us is doing it. They believe in one form of technology or industrial energy development only: the 19th century one based on fossil fuel. That is the only thing they seem to understand and to all appearances the only thing, budget after budget, that the government is prepared to support.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2006-12-05 9:35
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I would like to thank you for inviting me. I want to apologize to the interpreters. My decision to appear today was made quite late, and thus I was unable to prepare written notes for the interpreters. I will try not to speak too quickly.
I have four points. First, on the international scene—I know you discussed this last week—I have had the privilege over the last ten years of following international negotiations on climate change. I attended the first Conference of the Parties in Berlin in 1995. I was also in Kyoto. I have taken part in more than a dozen such conferences in the last decade.
I was also in Nairobi. The international repercussions of the Canadian government's policy shift as regards our Kyoto commitments are extremely significant. For example, since the month of May, the Canadian position has been publicly criticized by a number of officials on the international scene: by the European Union's Environment Commissioner, Mr. Dimas; by the German Environment Minister, Mr. Sigmar Gabriel; by the President of France, Jacques Chirac and by the French Minister of the Environment, Ms. Olin, during the Nairobi conference.
The headline in the editorial of Le Devoir newspaper, following Ms. Ambrose's speech during the United Nations Plenary Session, read as follows: “Ambrose is a disgrace”. Le Devoir also published a column, that same day, by Michel David, a political columnist in Quebec, who said that it was clear that Ms. Ambrose lies as easily as she breathes.
What is emerging ever more clearly is that foreign delegates who come to see us really don't understand what is going on. In fact, Mr. Dimas, the European Commissioner for the Environment, summed it up rather eloquently in one of his statements, when he said that he doesn't understand the Canadian position on the Kyoto Protocol and that someone will have to explain it to him. People come to see us, saying what happened to Canada — Canada led the battle with respect to the ozone layer and signed the Montreal Protocol which Ms. Donnelly referred to earlier. They are wondering what happened to the Canada that led the charge on landmines, and where is the Canada which, for all intents and purposes, created the concept of peacekeeping forces.
Our international reputation is suffering tremendously as a result of this about-face. I totally disagree with Mr. Alvarez, who says that recent events demonstrate that the Kyoto Protocol has no future. Unless I am mistaken, there are some 168 countries who, once again, agreed in Nairobi to continue to move forward with international negotiations on climate change. Those 168 countries ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Is it complex to negotiate an international agreement with almost 170 countries around the table? Of course it is, and we have been doing that for more than a decade now.
Indeed, of all the countries that have made Kyoto commitments, commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions—in other words, all the Appendix I countries—the only one to have turned its back on Kyoto is Canada. And yet, whether it was in Bonn or Nairobi, I heard the Japanese Ambassador, Mr. Nishimura, saying that it would be very difficult for Japan to meet its Kyoto targets, but in spite of that, it remained committed. I heard Norvegian representatives—like Canada, Norway is a major energy exporter—say that it would be very difficult for them to meet their Kyoto targets, but that they, too, were committed to meeting them.
And, for us, Bill C-288 is very important, because it brings Canada back on track to meeting its Kyoto targets and, of course, moving into the future, given that Kyoto is only the beginning of the solution. I believe that the report issued by the Briton Nicholas Stern made it quite clear what the cost debate revolves around. Mr. Stern basically told us that we can show leadership and invest now to combat climate change, or that we can bury our heads in the sand and pay dearly for our inaction later on. I believe that Mr. Stern's study pretty aptly summarizes, in economic terms, what decision we have to make now.
On the more specific question of the provincial commitment, I was absolutely astounded to hear the Minister of the Environment say that the federal government would not support the Quebec plan to implement the Kyoto Protocol, because it focused on voluntary actions. I guess she must not have read the same action plan on climate change that I did. In fact, under Bill 52, tabled in the National Assembly three weeks ago, the Quebec plan that I read about provides for the creation of hydrocarbon charge of $200 million a year that will be used to finance public transit projects and projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Strangely enough, that is quite a contrast with what we heard this morning, particularly from our colleagues from the oil companies, since the CEO of Ultramar has publicly expressed his support for the Quebec plan to implement the Kyoto Protocol—a plan that imposes a partial levy of $200 million on its own industry. It is clear that this levy is anything but voluntary. Some statutes will have to be amended in order to implement that regulation.
Between now and 2008, the Quebec Building Code will be amended to improve the energy efficiency of all new construction in Quebec. There is nothing voluntary about that. As well, between now and 2010, we will be imposing new emission standards for light vehicles, taking our inspiration from the standards in place in California. Once again, there is nothing voluntary about any of this.
The only part of the Quebec Plan that relies on voluntary actions is, of course, the part relating to the large emitters. However, in Quebec—and this is not the case for all Canadian provinces—the problem with increased greenhouse gas emissions is not attributable to large emitters but, rather, to the transportation sector—something the Quebec plan directly tackles through funding projects for new infrastructure or improvements to existing service.
Indeed, an inventory review in Quebec shows that large emitters there have brought their greenhouse gas emissions down 7 per cent below 1990 levels. These are 2003 data, because we don't yet have 2004 data for Quebec. So, that is really not the sector the Quebec plan should be focussing on.
Quebec is the only province to have developed an action plan which, although it does not quite meet Kyoto targets, comes very close. Thanks to that plan, Quebec will move from about +8% to -1%, and the Quebec government is asking Ottawa for help to bridge the gap between the -1% and -6% called for in the Kyoto Protocol.
What kind of message are we sending that province by saying that its action plan doesn't meet the criteria and that we won't help it financially to meet its targets under the Kyoto Protocol? In fact, we don't even know what the government's criteria are.
In terms of federal-provincial relations, if the goal is to develop partnerships—we talked earlier about the importance of working with the provinces—it seems to me this is an odd way to encourage the provinces and territories, and even the municipalities, to take steps to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
I would also like to talk about emissions trading, the carbon market, and flexibility mechanisms. I fully agree with those who say that the Kyoto Protocol is not an environmental agreement.
It is rather ironic to hear several organizations now denouncing the market-based mechanisms contained in the Kyoto Protocol, when they were the ones promoting them when the debate was taking place on developing the Protocol. People who have been following the debate for some time will remember that the discussion focussed on two possible avenues: the adoption of joint measures by all Schedule I countries to implement the Kyoto Protocol, or the establishment of market-based mechanisms.
European countries, in particular, were promoting what were called joint measures. They were proposing the introduction of a carbon tax which would be the same for all countries. Many organizations who appeared before this Committee at the time said that such a tax should not be introduced and that we should instead be moving towards market mechanisms. But now, these same organizations are saying that market-based mechanisms don't work and should be abandoned. There is a certain historical irony in all of that.
I am not a scientist; my background is in the social sciences. However, the scientists I have talked to say that is wrong to claim that the actual time when greenhouse gas emissions are lowered in the coming years—or in the coming decades—doesn't matter. In fact, the fourth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that will be released next year, will probably contain a lot of information on that. That is also what the Stern report says and what several other reports will say that are to be released in the coming months and years.
The longer we wait, the more we prejudice our ability to act on the global climate system, simply because at this point, we really don't know much about how sensitive our climate is to increased temperatures.
Let me explain. If our climate only reacts to significant temperature increases, then the temperature can rise without causing problems in terms of the global climate system. The system can withstand them.
On other hand, if the climate system is very sensitive to small variations in temperature, the longer we wait to lower greenhouse gas emissions, the more significant the impacts for our global climate system.
It is completely wrong to claim—there is no scientific basis for such a claim—that the moment in time when we reduce greenhouse gas emissions is unimportant. I haven't seen a single study that supports such a claim.
In cooperation with the Quebec Minister of the Environment, Mr. Claude Béchard, representatives of the financial sector, such as Desjardins, the Sustainable Development Investment Fund, Quebec unions, environmental groups, and industry stakeholders, I recently had the opportunity to launch a coalition in support of the Kyoto Protocol to try and force the federal government's hand.
When the coalition was launched, the Vice-President of Cascades, a well-know pulp and paper company in Canada, was in attendance to say how important it is to that company that it reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. He said that this year, his company will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 3 or 4% inside its own operations, and that this represents a $12-million saving on its energy bill. He added that the pulp and paper industry really needs that money right now.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2006-12-05 9:47
I will close with that example, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2006-12-05 9:48
I was referring to the most ambitious plan. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
They have the most ambitious greenhouse gas reduction plan.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2006-12-05 9:52
Yes, I would. I think one important thing in life is to recognize one's own limitations. So on more specific questions regarding, for example, emissions trading, I would gladly pass the microphone--and I think it's been agreed upon--to my colleague Matthew Bramley from the Pembina Institute.
Obviously, Canada went into Kyoto not as well prepared as a number of other countries were. For example, when they walked into the meeting halls of Kyoto in 1997, the European Union already knew pretty much how the allocation system was going to happen amongst the member states. Everything was not finalized. For example, at the time, the attitude of the European Union was that they would probably not use emissions trading. They ended up changing their minds on this.
The fact that we were not as prepared as we should have been doesn't mean we should abandon—I think it's really easy for some in Canada to say that the Kyoto Protocol targets are unachievable, when we haven't even tried. In 2005 we had a plan that was put on the table. In her report, Madame Gélinas said there were some strengths and some weaknesses. I've heard a number of ministers and representatives from the government say that Madame Gélinas said in her report that the Kyoto Protocol was unachievable. I fail to read that in her report, but maybe she would like to clarify that.
Then, for the government to come in and abolish a number of the programs that would have enabled us, if not to achieve our Kyoto targets, certainly to come closer to them, I don't think it is the right attitude. We need to try. We have an international commitment, a legally binding commitment, I should point out, to achieve our Kyoto targets. Bill C-288 is what we need to get on with the program.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2006-12-05 10:02
I think it might have been in 1997, or shortly after the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, but it would be difficult in 2006.
That said, I think the federal government could certainly implement a hybrid system, so that the provinces that want to could address this on a territorial basis. Certainly, a province like Quebec would be interested—there may also be others—in this kind of system.
If a cap on territorial emissions were put in place, I'm not sure that would go over very well in Alberta, politically. During the ten years that we wasted, we didn't even consider this. It might have been difficult, even in 1997 or 1998, but we didn't even go through the exercise. I guess we will never know. For some provinces, it is certainly a possibility. Some have made it abundantly clear that this is how they intend to proceed.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2006-12-05 10:33
Actually, Mr. Chairman, I don't understand the question. We are being asked whether the Kyoto targets are based on science. Starting from that premise and looking at the scientific work that's been done by the European Union, for example, on Kyoto targets and the scientific implications of reduced greenhouse gas emissions, one really cannot help but conclude that this just is not enough for the first commitment. However, the Europeans are talking about -15 to -30 by 2020. So, I'm not sure I understand your question.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2006-12-05 10:34
That has nothing to do with science. I will just repeat what Ms. Gélinas said earlier in explaining her report, when she made the point that with the right leadership, it may be possible to meet Canada's Kyoto targets.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2006-12-05 10:47
CO2 is a greenhouse gas that can remain in the atmosphere for several decades. So, the climate change we are witnessing today is the result of the greenhouse gas emissions produced several decades ago.
I want to repeat that I am not a scientist. On the other hand, I can tell you what the scientific studies say about that. And here I'm not talking about opinions published in the newspapers, but of scientific papers—in other words, scientific articles published in periodicals that have a reading committee, like Science & Nature, and many others. The consensus is that the longer we delay lowering greenhouse gas emissions, the worse the environmental legacy we will leave to our children and grandchildren. And ultimately, we are dumping the problem in their backyard. We are basically washing our hands of the whole issue.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2006-12-05 10:58
It was Prime Minister Raffarin who made a public statement at the time of the Nairobi conference, saying that one of the things the French government was looking at was imposing a tax on annex 1 countries who either didn't take on Kyoto commitments, which would be Australia and the U.S., or countries like Canada who have Kyoto commitments but have turned their backs on it. It was the first time I heard about it. Some colleagues in France had been hearing about it for a little while. Where this will go in terms of the European Union and member states we don't know yet, to be quite honest with you.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 11:05
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, members of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development; my name is Steven Guilbeault and I am a campaigner for climate and energy with Greenpeace Canada. I have been with Greenpeace since 1997, but have been involved in climate change since 1994. In 1995, I attended the First Conference of the Parties in Berlin, I was in Kyoto in 1997, and I have organized more than a dozen international negotiation meetings on climate change over the past 10 years.
This morning I would like to discuss three aspects of the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol in Canada. First, there is the carrot and stick approach as represented in the measures that have been implemented to date. In our opinion, it is essential that we have measures on which to build the future. Of course, there is the Kyoto Protocol, but, internationally, there is already talk of what happens after Kyoto, in other words, future agreements that will follow the Kyoto Protocol. Finally, we feel that a long term plan is important. I will explain that further in a few minutes.
On the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol to date, it is apparent that the Government of Canada has adopted the carrot approach. Incentives have been offered, and there are programs, often voluntary, for various sectors of the Canadian community, particularly industry. More recently, with the One-Tonne Challenge, the people of Canada have been asked to do their share. We now have a host of measures and incentive programs, but they are often unrelated when it comes to insuring any long term effectiveness. Many Canadian newspaper articles have recently stated that even the officials in Ottawa are now acknowledging that the voluntary approach will not help us to meet our targets, something that we, as environmentalists, have been saying for quite some time.
In the Rio Framework Convention on Climate Change, an international commitment was made to bring our greenhouse gas emissions back down to the 1990 levels by the year 2000. At the time, the only measures that were put forward to meet this target were voluntary, and we all know what happened. In 2000, our greenhouse gas emissions were about 20 % higher than in 1990.
Of course, there can be voluntary measures, and we agree that incentives are necessary, but the carrot cannot work without the stick. Regulatory measures must be implemented. There must be laws to force various sectors to meet the Canadian emission standards. That is unavoidable.
This applies to many of the sectors with heavy greenhouse gas emissions. Take, for example, the large final emitters that are responsible for 50% of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. There is also the transportation sector, which accounts for about 30% of emissions. So far, very few measures, if any, have applied to the transportation sector. This aberration must be corrected without delay.
There is also the construction industry. I believe that Mr. Ribaux, from Équiterre, will touch upon that briefly. The National Building Code is a number of years old. The provincial codes, none of which is very recent either—for example, Quebec's code was published in 1981—have not really been updated, despite the introduction of new construction techniques, new materials, new technologies such as geothermics, which is becoming more popular in Canada, even though it is not yet widely used, to reduce emissions. To date, these measures have, for all intents and purposes, been ignored or used very sparingly.
Speaking of geothermics, there is a very interesting project underway in Winnipeg, where 10,000 entirely geothermic housing units will be built.
This leads me to my second point, namely, the necessity to have measures on which we can build to not only meet the Kyoto objectives, but to go beyond them.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCG, as it is called in English,
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
clearly states that for a country like ours, and for all industrialized countries, emissions will have to be reduced by 60 to 80% over the next decades, by about 2050, if we want to avoid a global climate catastrophe. Even last week, these conclusions were confirmed at a meeting sponsored by British Prime Minister Blair, held at Exeter University.
The introduction of tax measures in various sectors of Canada's economy will be one way to institute structural measures. This would require a complete overhaul of Canada's tax system which, even today, tends to encourage the type of activity that greatly encourages greenhouse gas emissions while acting as a disincentive to activities, technologies and investments that would reduce or create few greenhouse gas emissions. That goes against our Kyoto Protocol objectives.
In closing, I would say that part of our problem resides in the fact that Canada has yet to have a global view of the environment issue. Whether in Rio in 1992 or Kyoto in 1997--I was there--we held to our negotiating position, without really knowing what to expect. We should look to what is being done elsewhere to prepare these action plans for decades to come. We might think of Great Britain and its white paper on emission reduction. The British government has committed to a 50% reduction of their greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. I mention Great Britain, but I could also cite a nearby state, Maine, which has undertaken, in a similar exercise, to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 70% by the year 2050. An American state, under George Bush, which is moving forward with very proactive measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Who would have believed it?
We must not lose sight of the environmental limits, even if, so far, they have been completely ignored. How close are we coming to witnessing a global climate catastrophe? With that in mind, the European Union acknowledges that we must, by whatever means possible, avoid raising the climate's worldwide temperature by more than 2 degrees Celsius. Some countries, among them Great Britain, have already done that. Atmosphere concentration levels have been set in order to avoid going beyond that level. It is already part of Britain's climate change policy. And the European Union is about to do the same. I sincerely hope that Canada will undertake this type of exercise, and define this type of long-term objective. This will provide for a much more organized approach as we move forward in the coming decades. Everyone will know what to expect, which has unfortunately not always been the case. I will leave it at that, and would like to thank you for your attention.
Results: 301 - 400 of 413 | Page: 4 of 5

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data