Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on Feb. 20th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Bramley, you have fifteen seconds.

[Matthew Bramley]

Very quickly, then, the motivation for emissions trading is clearly cost reduction, first and foremost. I'm troubled that when the government rules out the use of the international carbon market, it makes achieving our international obligations much harder than it really needs to be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Your time is now up.

Mr. Warawa, on a point of order.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I didn't interrupt when Mr. McGuinty made a statement, but I believe it was misleading. In response, Mr. Bramley is now repeating a statement that I believe is incorrect. The minister did not say we will not permit an international carbon trading market. He made it very clear that Canada will not send billions of dollars overseas. He would not use taxpayers' dollars. So if the question is whether it would help industry to be involved with an international market, that would be fine, but to make a statement that the government will not, Mr. Chair, is to make an incorrect statement. I just wanted to clarify that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I think it's a matter of debate, and I don't want to get bogged down in matters of debate like that.

We are going to move on to Mr. Paradis for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This question has already been raised. So far, in Canada, because of our affordable energy prices, we have not always used energy intelligently or effectively. Some examples that come to mind are using diesel fuel to heat houses or using huge quantities of natural gas for tar sands production.

My first question is to Mr. Cleland.

What steps could the government take to ensure that the right fuel is being used in the right place? Do you think the proposals contained in Bill C-30 could encourage efficient energy use? Could you explain the CGA's clean energy in Canadian communities proposal? What type of plan would this proposal include?

[Michael Cleland]

I'll answer the question in two parts. First of all, the regulations that might arise under Bill C-30, or Canada's Clean Air Act when it's passed, if they create a signal to investors to invest in greenhouse gas reductions...as long as it's even-handed in its application, it will tend to make people make the right choices. That's one step.

My point earlier on, and thank you for the question on that, was that the other half of the equation, the other 50%, is something that doesn't lend itself to treatment under direct regulation of that sort. We put forward some ideas that essentially involve having the federal government, in cooperation with the provinces and industry, contributing to investment in local energy technology, such as combined heat and power systems, hybrid systems involving on-site renewables, and energy efficiency, to get at the other 50% of the equation. What's important is a level playing field among fuels to make sure we use the right fuel in the right place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Paradis.

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

I have another question for Mr. Lambert. It was raised a little earlier.

How do you think we could ensure that the exercise the government is currently involved in can help change our economy in the right way, and not simply force people to meet targets in the short term? Earlier you said that setting targets that cannot be met could undermine public confidence. But given that the situation is urgent, we must take steps to transform our economy.

I would like to hear the industry's point of view on this issue.

[Gordon Lambert]

This is where I think the national round table work on the wedge model, as it's come to be known, could be very valuable. I think what we could do is engage subject matter experts in each of those individual wedge areas and explore in detail what the barriers are to implement and make progress in each one of them. Let's use wind power as the good model we could then use in other areas. That was a dialogue among governments, the private sector, and NGOs about what was necessary to accelerate wind power development in Canada. We did get the policy signals right, it did start to move, and we started to go forward. Let's take that and apply it to each of the other areas we've been talking about today.

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

Would any other witnesses care to comment on this question?

[Matthew Bramley]

I would come back to something that Gordon Lambert said earlier, which is that what we need to do here to move toward deep reductions in emissions is to mobilize private capital to achieve a transformation in the economy. To do that, we need to set regulated requirements to reduce emissions to a sufficiently stringent level that the price on emissions drives a major change in investment decisions. That must be the test for whatever it is that is included in the Clean Air Act or in the government's broader climate change plan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cleland.

[Michael Cleland]

Could I come back to a point that I think is the fundamental question? What do we do to create that transformation in the economy?

I would emphasize that 50% or more of the energy we use is used in Canadian cities and communities, our houses, our buildings, and the underlying infrastructure. The kinds of changes we're talking about by 2050, call it a 50%, 60%, or 80% reduction of greenhouse gases in absolute terms, won't work if we only do it in industry. We have to restructure our Canadian communities over the next 50 years, and that's got to be part of the puzzle.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

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

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

Thank you.

What I hear from a lot of business witnesses is that we have to keep talking with the government and other stakeholders. I never hear, “This is what we can live with”, “This is our bottom line”, or even “This is our opening bid and we're open to negotiation”. It seems to me the previous government held consultations with industry, with both your industries. I get the sense that we're into avoidance.

My question is to you, Mr. Lambert. The original projections for oil sands development have been exceeded, have they not, by a great figure? For example, what would the prediction have been for annual oil sands production back in 1998 or thereabouts, or 2000? What would it have been in barrels per day?

[Gordon Lambert]

Whose prediction?

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

It doesn't matter. Take an average or the one you accept. It doesn't really matter.

[Gordon Lambert]

We could use the National Task Force on Oil Sands Strategies that in the mid-1990s estimated one million barrels a day by 2020.

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

What are we headed for now by 2020?

[Gordon Lambert]

We were at one million barrels a day in 2005.

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

What are we headed for in 2020?

[Gordon Lambert]

Whose crystal ball is the right one?

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

Is it double?

[Gordon Lambert]

Certainly there have been announced plans that would put us in that range.