Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on Feb. 15th, 2007

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Parkinson-Marcoux, it's good to hear from you again. I was pleased to hear your comments about consumption taxes. A lot of Canadians hadn't connected the environmental aspects of a consumption tax. It's interesting, because in the debate that surrounded the government's decision to reduce GST by a point, what we heard mostly was not on the question of environmental impact but on the question of cutting a consumption tax, and its negative effect on savings levels, investment, and productivity in the country. It would have been a more productive thing to cut income taxes. It's interesting how you're talking about the shifting here. I just wanted to remark on that.

Perhaps I could turn to our colleague from the Suzuki Foundation, Mr. Marshall.

Mr. Marshall, I was really happy to hear that there is a study from the oil and gas sector. I think all of us would benefit from hearing more about the ability to reduce greenhouse gases. I know the forest products sector of Canada has already reduced its greenhouse gases with strong related air pollution reductions. They have reduced their greenhouse gases by 44%, using 1990 as a baseline in this country. It's interesting to see there's another success story and sector out there that could achieve—with some effort.

Mr. Freeman, I'd like to turn to your specific recommendation. I want to thank you for your notes, your comments, and your recommendations, because they're highly specific. They're good for us to work with. You mentioned the idea of creating new air quality zones. For Canadians who are watching or listening, I guess you're talking about dividing up the country into zones. You mentioned the specific areas where you have high pollution levels and high population levels.

The country is urbanizing much faster than we ever thought it was going to, to the point where we now know—I think it was Mr. Drouin who said this—that roughly 80% of the population lives in 12 or 14 cities.

Then you went on say that the emissions standards for those areas must nonetheless be in the most protective category of emissions standards. I didn't understand what you meant by that. Could you help us understand this? If we divide the country into these air quality zones and set standards, how would this work where there are areas that are more polluted than others, for example?

[Aaron Freeman]

You would have a set of ambient air quality standards, so those would use the same type of measurement as do our current Canada-wide standards, although hopefully they'd be stronger than the CWS's. You would have ambient air quality standards and measuring stations in different parts of the country. We already have these for the most part to measure air pollution with. If a certain zone fell below the ambient air quality standard—so below the standard that is in the air—you would have a set of emission standards that would be associated with the ambient air quality standards. So if you fell below the ambient standard, that zone would have to adhere to a particular emission standard from the facilities that are emitting pollution in that area.

The United States works roughly on this basis. They have a county basis. They're called attainment zones. The federal government puts out ambient standards. Each state has to come up with plans in order to meet those standards. If the plans are inadequate, the EPA steps in and says the plans are inadequate. The enforcement mechanism would be quite different in Canada. In the United States, the enforcement mechanism is, in essence, infrastructure funds. In Canada, I think there are different mechanisms we can use to have the provinces run things from that perspective. Then you have the federal government in more of a backstop role.

Does that answer your question?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Yes, it does.

I think you also said something about having the Minister of the Environment report on a quarterly basis whether and how these zones are actually achieving their targets or not achieving their targets. Is part of the thinking behind that call for the minister to report publicly on a quarterly basis what you said? Is part of your thinking that as a country, as a nation, we have to start communicating with Canadians as a government, in a way that—the way I like to put it—stops a fundamental fiction, which is that we can continue to operate our economy and measure how well our economy is doing while, as Dee Parkinson-Marcoux said, continuing to use our ecosystems as receptacles for waste, without putting a value on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Could we have a very short answer, please?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Is part of your thinking there that we want to sensitive Canadians to the idea that nature is inherently linked to the economy?

[Aaron Freeman]

I think that's a really key part of it. I think another part of it is that there is simply a right-to-know basis. I have a right to know whether the air I'm breathing meets a basic standard for human health and the environment. So I think it's a combination of both of those things.

[The Chair]

We'll move on to Mr. Jean for five minutes, please.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, witnesses, for appearing today.

I have to say that I was very impressed with your presentation, Mr. Drouin. It was very impressive. I've listened to many experts over the years on the environment, and for 18 months when I sat on this committee, and I find your suggestion on how we can tackle this issue very refreshing. But I don't have any questions for you.

Mr. Marshall, you suggested that we should look towards industry's reducing emissions by 127 megatonnes per year. Is that the total suggested reduction that we should make, or what's the target you're suggesting?

[Dale Marshall]

That is the target I'm suggesting for industry. That is the target, based on simple math. You look at their 1990 emissions and subtract 6%, and you compare that to business as usual and you get 127 megatonnes for the industrial sector as a whole.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

And the total number of megatonnes we have to cut, not just in industry but overall—what is that number?

[Dale Marshall]

The latest projections I've seen show that the Kyoto gap is about 270 megatonnes.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

But how are we going to meet the 2020 targets that you're suggesting? How much are we going to have to cut? By my calculations, it looked like about 800 megatonnes per year.

[Dale Marshall]

Sorry, by your calculations—?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

It looked like about 800 megatonnes per year.

[Dale Marshall]

No. The Kyoto gap is approximately 270 megatonnes.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Okay, so we have to cut 270 megatonnes per year to reach our targets in 2020?

[Dale Marshall]

That's during the 2008 to 2012 period.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Okay. And you've said we have to buy international credits in order to meet our projections. What kind of cost would that mean for taxpayers?

[Dale Marshall]

It depends completely on how much we do domestically. If we have a really strong domestic program that reduces emissions—Obviously the industrial sector is a big component, but it also involves vehicles. It also involves working with the provinces for buildings and urban land use, agriculture, waste. If we can do a lot domestically, then the amount we have to buy internationally shrinks quite considerably.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Okay. Have you or your association looked at the cost of implementing the Kyoto strategy and cutting 270 megatonnes per year until 2012?

[Dale Marshall]

The cost to whom?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

To the taxpayers. Ultimately, it's going to cost—I mean, I look at your background. You do have some background in policy solution for jobs in environmental sustainability. You've written a book on running on empty, shifting to a sustainable energy plan for British Columbia.

Have you had it costed professionally, what it would cost our economy?

[Dale Marshall]

In terms of cost to government, again, it depends on how much we do domestically. If we have reasonably aggressive policies to reduce emissions domestically, then we'd probably have to buy somewhere in the order of 100 megatonnes a year internationally, which, depending on where these credits come from, could be somewhere between $1 billion a year to possibly as much as $2 billion a year.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

In fact, some experts have suggested $30 billion over a seven-year period, but the range is all over the place—$2 billion a year to—I've heard different figures and I've read them, but—

[Dale Marshall]

It's a five-year period, and $30 billion is way inflated. I mean, the cost of credits on the international market revolves around $10 a tonne, possibly a little bit more.