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

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

It's gone up and down, all over the place, actually. In fact, if the Kyoto Protocol is implemented by a lot of countries, the cost is going to go up on the trading scheme because there's going to be more of a demand, right?

[Dale Marshall]

No, not necessarily, actually. If you look at the clean development mechanism and the joint implementation, there are all kinds of opportunities there that are not being seized right now, partly because the market is not getting the right signals from our government and others that there's actually going to be investment, that there's going to be a demand for those credits.

When that signal gets sent that we are in fact going to be participating in the international credit market, there will be a lot of other projects that will come on stream. And we're not talking about buying EU emissions trading. We're looking at the average cost for, for example, CDM projects or JI projects, and that cost, as I said, is somewhere in the order of $1 billion to $2 billion a year. And I have to put that into perspective a little bit.

Just last year alone, in one budget, the amount of money that was spent on the military was much more than that. On a per year basis, this is a small fraction of what the government paid in tax expenditures with respect to the GST cut, which is $5 billion a year. And in my mind, it obviously comes down to priorities. If it were up to me, though, my priority would be conforming with international law and dealing with the most important challenge that is in front of us, rather than getting a penny back on the daily newspaper I buy every day.

[The Chair]

Okay. Thank you very much. We're going to have to move on.

Mr. Lussier for five, please.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Drouin, I am quite impressed by your report, which is very complete, and I approve it, as the government members do.

As regards your integrated transit approach, I think you were praised, earlier, by the government's members, and you replied that the government was on the right track. However, I have studied your integrated approach list, and I think that there are many aspects in which the government has not yet shown an interest.

Earlier on, you mentioned the city of Perth, Australia, that has chosen an approach based on free public transit. Is favouring free public transit a potential solution for the Canadian government? Has the tax credit on the monthly pass that the government gives users of public transit had an effect to date?

[Dr. Louis Drouin]

The ultimate objective is to get people to leave their cars behind and use public transit in order to reduce the number of vehicles and the number of kilometres driven in a densely populated urban area.

I will as an aside, say this: For three months, in Atlanta, during the 1996 Olympic Games, people were all redirected to public transit. The incidence of smog and hospitalization for asthma were reduced by 40%, because there were fewer vehicles on the road. It had a major impact.

Having said that, the federal, provincial and local governments must work together to produce the greatest impact possible. The current government has recommended a tax deduction for the cost of public transit. That measure is insufficient for the simple reason that the cost of the pass in Montreal has increased. It increases faster than inflation, because the city no longer has the means to maintain its own subway system. Funding is a major issue. Again, municipal taxes, be it in Montreal or Toronto, are no longer enough to maintain, fund and increase the transportation network. We need to know where the money is that could help us.

Let's look what is happening in Copenhagen and in France. I met our French colleagues. Paris is currently building a tramway system. The French government is funding 85% of the system. We are on the right track, but funding must be increased a lot more than what was mentioned earlier.

The annual report we presented talks about an effort, in terms of public transit infrastructure, of 8 billion dollars over 10 years, for the Montreal metropolitan region alone. Those figures come from the Agence métropolitaine de transport. That means the engineers, the light train transit system, or the LRT, the extension of the metro on the Anjou side, the rail link between Dorval and downtown Montreal. It makes no sense, in 2007, that we do not have a rail link between the city and—

The AMT studies showed that we could move 500,000 vehicles on a yearly basis if a rail link between the main train station and the Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau International Airport were built. There again, more funding is needed, and the federal government has a major role to play in that regard.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair]

Sorry, Mr. Lussier, we're at five minutes.

Monsieur Paradis, pour cinq minutes.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Good morning, Mr. Drouin. I greatly appreciated your statement and the notion of an integrated approach. You identify different departments, be it Agriculture and Agri food Canada, Natural Resources, or others.

You raised an interesting point. During the international conference that you attended, experts from California said that a dollar spent equals three dollars in health benefits. You are sending us a message, we must invest in sustainable or other technology.

Mr. Marshall talked about certain costs of enforcing the Kyoto Protocol. He said that to meet the 2008 to 2012 targets, we will have to earmark one or two billion dollars a year to buying carbon credits. But it all depends on how we invest in the country. Moreover, some say that if we were to invest over a certain period in Montreal, that would reduce—

How can we strike a balance? I think our investments are urgently required to update things on greenhouse gas emissions. How do you see things?

[Dr. Louis Drouin]

I am not an economist, nor an engineer, but I am lucky enough to have a twin brother who is an engineer and who does a great deal of work in the field of environmental technology. I know that we can currently do a lot using existing technology to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

I will give you a concrete example. A program was set up in Montreal with the Agence de la santé et des services sociaux to replace furnaces in the city's hospitals using much more efficient heating technology. By doing that, they achieved a 20% reduction in the use of natural gas or fuel oil. Focusing on those approaches would be extremely beneficial.

Earlier on, we talked about the mechanism for carbon credits designed to compensate those who take steps to reduce emissions. If there were a carbon credit market, the Montreal greenhouse gas reduction program with the heating system in the hospitals should be credited. We should be compensated for that program. It would become a very attractive economic incentive. The engineer in charge of the program told me that they did it at their own expense, but that after eight years, the initial cost would be recovered through lower heating bills.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I am following you clearly, but earlier I was talking about investments in transportation infrastructure. Perhaps I misunderstood your message.

Major investments are being sought just for the Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal, and those investments are necessary. You talk about a Marshall plan for transportation—

[Dr. Louis Drouin]

I spoke to the person in charge of the California Air Resources Board at the international conference had took place in Vancouver. I do not have all of the cost-benefit studies that they did, but according to what he told me, a dollar spent on clean technology, be it at the industrial level or by putting in place public transit systems in large cities in California, would systematically provide a return of three dollars in health benefits. So it is no longer a question of costs, but a question of benefits.

There is currently a lot of talk about improving the health of Canadians by reducing smog in the cities. In Montreal, 80% of greenhouse gas emissions are caused by transportation. Those emissions must therefore be controlled. Toronto has the same problem. What is $10 billion over 10 years, when there is a 30-billion-dollar-return in health and a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions at the same time?

In my opinion, the equation is crystal clear.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much, Mr. Drouin.

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

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Drouin, you are asking much of the federal government, and this is normal, because air pollution is a cross-border problem.

Bill C-30 removes the six greenhouse gases that the Liberal government had included in the list of toxic substances, and places them on another list that may not be clearly defined at this time.

Do you think that this transfer has taken away the federal government's legal and constitutional authority to regulate greenhouse gases? Have you had time to think about this?

[Dr. Louis Drouin]

The meaning of your question is not clear to me. According to proposed section 103.09, greenhouse gases are included among the items that can be regulated.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Other witnesses told us that they saw a potential problem with the federal government's legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases. However, let us go on to another subject.

Yes, go ahead.

[Dr. Norman King]

In fact, I did read that. I think that our colleagues from the Canadian Lung Association voiced this concern. We are not legal experts.

Clearly, removing certain products from a list of toxic substances that the government has the power to regulate can create problems. The problems could be avoided by substituting another regulatory mechanism. This is why we have not specified any particular mechanism.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I understand.

[Dr. Norman King]

For the same reason, our brief states that the government “must” regulate these items, and not that the government may regulate them. It does not matter whether the government chooses to regulate them by using an appended list or by providing a section in the legislation. Above all, we must have regulations with clear objectives that are to be attained within a specific and brief timeline.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

If I understand correctly, the text of Bill C-30 says that the government “may” regulate—

[Dr. Norman King]

There you are.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

—instead of “must” regulate.

[Dr Norman King]

This is the point that we raised in our brief.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Why do you think that the government was not more strict in drafting its bill?

[Dr. Norman King]

You are asking for our opinion on a matter that is outside of our field of expertise.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Let me put this question to Mr. Marshall. I was about to speak to him in any case.

Why do you think the government says in its bill that the government may regulate as opposed to must regulate?