Bill C-288 (Historical)

Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act

An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol

The purpose of this enactment is to ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. It requires the Minister of the Environment to establish an annual Climate Change Plan and to make regulations respecting climate change. It also requires the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to advise the Minister — to the extent that it is within its purpose — on the effectiveness of the plans, and requires the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to submit to the Speaker of the House of Commons a report of the progress in the implementation of the plans.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for coming.

I'm just wondering, in the last moment before we leave.... I think most members would agree that we probably had more questions asked than answers provided in the last couple of meetings, which were good, productive meetings, and I think we've scratched the surface. I think it would be very beneficial for all of us to hear from the outside economists who were, for example, called to deal with the famous Bill C-288 that we've put aside, to have them come and help us understand and put in context the numbers—especially given that we've heard from Finance Canada that they completely warrant all the numbers put forward by the government, and so does Health, and so does Environment, and so does NRCan, apparently. I think it would be very beneficial for Canadians to hear from those five economists, for example, and have them appear before us.

I wonder whether, before the break week, we can ask the clerk to approach those five economists and find some time in the very near future, after we return, for a meeting or two, an opportunity to follow up on the analysis and ask them for their good guidance and their good observations.

We're in the hands of expert economists and expert modellers such as Mr. Blagden and others. It would be very helpful to get a perspective now.... The government used the five outside experts for one plan, and we think it would be very useful to apply it to its own plan. We're wondering why it hasn't happened on Bill C-30, but that's another issue.

So I would put to the committee, Mr. Chair, and to you that it would be very useful, very beneficial for Canadians to see what outside experts are saying. I'm wondering whether we can ask the clerk to do that now.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Now we're even.

The point I wanted to make, Chair, is that unfortunately the members across disregarded all the signs and forged ahead with Bill C-288 regardless of what they heard. But from what we've heard yesterday and today, and actually the day before, on Tuesday, when we had an excellent presentation on carbon sequestration and capture, we see very clearly that we have a plan that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with absolute reductions of 20% by 2020, and that we reduce pollution levels by 50% within the next eight years. Those are targets, and my hope is that we can go even beyond them. Those are targets that are achievable, and the plan is done within a realistic timeframe.

My hope is that we will work together, all parties, to clean up the mess. I'm not going to try to place blame for what's happened in the past, but we need to look forward and work together to provide a cleaner environment for the health of all Canadians and for the health of the globe.

I have a couple of minutes left, and I'd like to provide them to Mr. Harvey, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Everyone's had a turn at Bill C-288, so now we're even.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Of course, I have my heckling section working well over there.

Chair, there were comments made about Bill C-288, so I have to make a comment on it too. During the hearing of witnesses on Bill C-288, every one of those I asked whether we can meet the Kyoto targets domestically within the eight months said no, we cannot meet them; Bill C-288 is not achievable. That was every one, except for one person who represented an environmental group.

So, Chair, obviously the members of the opposition—

[Benoit Robidoux]

It's a fact that in the case of Bill C-288, if I could speak about that—

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Therefore, did you note that between the two, as I heard in your previous testimony, there was a bit of a discrepancy in the methodology behind the two documents? That is to say, in the case of this document, Bill C-288, which is a plan that doesn't exist, versus this document, which is a plan that does exist, there is—

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

During the study of Bill C-288, the projected cost was calculated at 8 billion dollars, not 100 billion dollars, which would amount to a 7.5% drop in GDP. Eight billion dollars amounts to about 0.5% of GDP, while 100 billion is thirteen times that much, or 7.5% of GDP.

What would a 7.5% drop in GDP represent?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Not proposed. As the bill stands right now, a series of changes have been presented back to the House. Has Finance Canada been consulted as to the cost, economic or otherwise, of introducing that bill into law? Have you done a similar analysis on Bill C-30, as was done on Bill C-288?

[Paul Rochon]

I'm sorry; I'm thinking of Bill C-288.

[Benoit Robidoux]

I think this would be a mistake on your side to understand, or on his side to conduct the right number. These numbers are way too high, because in Bill C-288 the price was in fact nearly $200. If I remember well, it was $190, or something like that, and this was reasonable given the effort requested in the timeframe requested. For the plan, the price would be quite a bit lower than that.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

He wasn't talking about Bill C-288; he was talking about his own plan.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Were you involved in any of the modelling or number crunching that went on with respect to Bill C-288?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

That was a very short opening statement. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks for joining us. I'm hoping that Finance Canada officials, Mr. Chair, can stay with us throughout the two-hour session this morning as their Environment counterparts were kind enough to do yesterday. Health Canada officials are to come and join us here quite shortly.

So we're hoping you can stay on over the two-hour period. Maybe you can give us some reflection before I get into some questions, if that's possible.

Mr. Gauthier, yesterday I put several questions to Environment Canada officials with respect to whether or not an economic analysis had been undertaken before the plan was officially made public and was announced by the Minister of the Environment.

Maybe you can help us understand, again. At the end of April, the Minister of the Environment said the cost of implementing his emission reductions plan for industry will cost the Canadian public, he said, about $8 billion annually. We have had some information fed to us that in fact, before this plan was even announced, Finance Canada officials did not want to be involved in the Bill C-288 economic analysis that was presented by the minister at the Senate committee. The Finance Canada officials declined to be involved in the calculations and they did not agree to warrant the numbers, to substantiate the numbers put forward by the minister at that particular meeting.

That was the meeting when he announced that the cost of Kyoto compliance would be $4,000 per family, you will recall. If you don't recall, that was the number. Curiously, it was exactly the same as the number used by Preston Manning almost 10 years to the day, when Mr. Manning stood up in the House of Commons and said it would cost $4,000 per family to achieve Kyoto compliance, which led us to wonder whether or not the minister had even adjusted for inflation.

Can you tell us how Finance Canada was involved in the economic analysis that was conducted? We were told that a robust model was performed. We couldn't get any details. We don't know what the capacity of Environment Canada is to even conduct such models. Can you help us understand what role Finance Canada played with these numbers, particularly the $8 billion annual cost? Were you involved in crafting these numbers? Did you provide the econometric modelling or any kind of other modelling capacity within the department?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thought it interesting, Mr. Chair, that here the committee is hearing a critique on advertising that encourages Canadians to protect the environment and use energy more efficiently, and it's coming from a previous government that was involved in the sponsorship scandal. It's quite shocking, Mr. Chair.

I found yesterday's meeting.... I believe it was yesterday when we had a presentation on carbon sequestration and we were looking at solutions. The purpose of today's meeting, from what we've heard from the opposition, was to find out about the plan. But what we've seen instead are attacks on a genuine attempt to find out details of the plan and to find out how we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. How can we, as Canadians, as a Canadian government, and as parliamentarians, work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide a clean environment for Canadians?

Unfortunately, we've heard some rhetoric here and very few questions for Natural Resources Canada. We heard that they wanted to have Natural Resources here, but they've had very few questions for them.

We've heard comments about meeting the targets, and I appreciate the questions on that. When we were dealing with Bill C-288 there was a comment made by Professor Claude Villeneuve, from the Université du Québec. He said he wanted to comment on the bill, and he was referring to Bill C-288, the Liberal Kyoto bill. He said, “This bill would have been excellent if it had been introduced in 1998. Today the bill can't be valid if the tools to achieve the desired ends aren't available”.

What we've heard on Bill C-288, what we've heard on Bill C-30.... I asked every witness at Bill C-288 whether we can meet the Kyoto targets, and every one of them, except for one, said no, it's too late. And we know that, Mr. Chair. But the goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and clean up the environment.

This is what we heard yesterday from Grant Thomson. He's the senior vice-president of NOVA Chemicals. He said that he thought what the government has done is set very tough-to-achieve targets. He said if we were to sit back and look at this, and where we would like to have seen it, “They're probably tougher than what we were hoping to see three or four months ago.” He was referring to our targets. He goes on:

I think they've also set an aggressive timeline in terms of this policy. At the same time, they're trying to walk a tightrope, perhaps, balancing between improving the environment and at the same time trying to make sure the economic growth in this country continues.

My question for the department would be this. I have a minute or two left.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Dewar, excuse me for a minute. That has been answered. Basically, our answer was that Bill C-288 has been analyzed, but Bill C-30 has not.