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

[Don Wharton]

I think I have two comments on that issue. The first is that I think it's important to recognize that intensity-based targets have an application for certain sectors, but we shouldn't speak generally about them. For the sectors with very strong growth in energy and emissions, intensity-based targets may be the appropriate way to start. For other sectors, that might not be the case. I think one has to be careful about making a sweeping statement that applies to everyone.

Our company could manage with a well-thought-through mechanism to work with either intensity or absolute caps. We're available to work on either one. It's the design of the details that's important.

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

My last question is to Mr. Elston.

You paint, as one would expect, a fairly rosy view of the nuclear sector. But tell me, in terms of private sector investment, where in the world does one actually find private sector dollars in the nuclear business these days?

[Murray Elston]

In a number of places. The latest has been in Ontario, with the Bruce Power development putting in about $4.25 billion to refurbish the existing reactors there. That's private money from a partnership, which includes the Power Workers' Union and three other investors—a pension fund, Camco, and TransCanada.

In the United States, most of the units are done by private investment. A notable exception obviously is the Tennessee Valley Authority, which is a public operation. So we have examples of private money coming in.

I think you will find in the energy world, because it has become such an important one globally, there is money available for investment if there is certainty around the circumstances under which the investment is to be made and a sense of long-term prosperity in the view of the people who are making those investments. It is not necessarily the technology that precludes the investment; it's the opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to make sure I have it correct. First of all, which presenters here today—and by the way, thank you for coming—would be entitled to sell any greenhouse gas credits on any type of market, either domestic or international?

[Don Wharton]

Who would be entitled—was that your question?

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

Who would be entitled, with the expectation of selling them? Everybody here would be? It would depend, of course, on the benchmarks, but it's expected that most people here would be able to.

I don't find myself agreeing very often with a Liberal, but I have to say, Mr. Elston, I agree with some of your comments. I think there is no silver bullet. A mix of energy with a mix of tools is going to get Canadians the best results, with the minimum negative economic impacts, the cleanest air, and the fewest GHGs we can get.

I do want to concentrate most of my questions on TransAlta Corporation. I notice from presentations you've given in the past, as well as from your website, that you actually have quite a movement on the go. In fact, you have been one of the top 16 electrical utilities worldwide for sustainability in the past seven years. Is that correct?

[Don Wharton]

That's correct; it's eight years, actually.

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

It's eight years, okay. The website is behind by a year, I guess.

And you have higher investments in renewable resources than any other company in the field does—is that correct as well—with some $69 million, for instance, in Vision Quest Windelectric?

[Don Wharton]

I can't speak to the comparative, but I certainly would say we are one of the largest, for example, wind energy generators in Canada.

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

Okay.

Mr. Page, I'm glad you're here today, and I wanted you to comment on a quote you made before the Environment and Public Works Committee of the United States Senate on June 12, 2002. If I may, I'll quote:

Since we need time and capital to develop new technologies, near-term requirements, which cap CO2 emissions at levels substantially below current emissions, are counterproductive. Our province – Alberta – currently advocates flexible approaches that the Kyoto timeframe (2008-2012) does not allow. We agree with our Provincial Government that pursuing aggressive reductions in this timeframe will punish industry economically by forcing investments in available technology which will quickly become obsolete – and result in stranded costs – when new clean coal technology is available.

You hinted at new clean coal technology's being on stream in the next seven to ten years. I think you suggested that. In essence, I'd like you to explain what you mean by “which will quickly become obsolete”.

[Dr. Bob Page]

My explanation is quite a simple one, and that is that if we went to the super-critical technology at that time, which was the existing best available technology economically achievable under American definitions, then that would only have a lifetime of eight to ten years before the new clean coal technology would be available. If that then became the regulatory standard, you'd be in a situation such that instead of having a 40-year lifetime for that technology, you would have only a ten-year lifetime.

I say that in the context, especially, of which I was testifying before the U.S. Senate at that time, and of some of the regulatory aspects of certain states that were being proposed at that time.

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

And you went on, in fact, to say that...and I'm going to continue quoting, if I may:

The concept of an integrated multi-pollutant framework—under which targets, incentives, and emissions trading for greenhouse gases are coordinated with government policies for pollutants such as NOx and sulfur dioxide—is one we support. We have seen some piecemeal approaches in Canada which have hindered long term technology development.

I'm interested in the technology and the return on investment for shareholders, and ultimately Canadians.

[Dr. Bob Page]

Yes, this is a very important point, I think, for the committee, given the nature of this bill, because what we are trying to suggest with the clean coal technology is a technology that deals not only with carbon dioxide, but with sulphur dioxide, with NOx, and with mercury. We're very concerned about mercury these days as well.

When you have a technology you're bringing forward—for instance, clean coal technology—the capture of all these pollutants, and then the permanent sequestration underground of those pollutants is something we see as a solution from an air emissions point of view, as opposed to merely a sulphur dioxide scrubber, which is just an add-on and is complicating your technology and adding to your costs.

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

So in essence, you would support the Clean Air Act and the initiatives that this government has taken on NOx and SOx and mercury and cleaning the air up, as well as the GHG emissions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

A very short reply.

[Dr. Bob Page]

Yes. We haven't seen all the details of this yet, but the concept of pan-emissions legislation is very much, from our point of view, to be desired.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bigras, you have five minutes.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome the witnesses.

I want to come back to page 8 of the Canadian Hydroelectricity Association brief and page 7 of the Hydro-Québec brief. Concerning credits, Mr. Fortin talks about previous measures to reduce greenhouse gases and Ms. Nadeau talks about early actions. You are both saying that credits need to take into account past efforts, and especially those made since 2000.

My question is as follows. What do you mean by previous measures and early actions? There may be quite a lag between when a project is announced and when it is up and running. You said yourselves that distortions can occur in the federal environmental assessment process. In your opinion, what are those early actions? Is it when the project is announced or when it is operational?

[Marie-Josée Nadeau]

It is very clearly when the project is operational.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

When it is operational. Very well.

Before coming to the committee, I reread the presentation made by Mr. Caillé, the former president of Hydro-Québec, to the National Assembly Committee regarding the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. I was struck by one of the statements he made.

The European Commission explained to us by video-conference the three-pronged model of using a sectoral approach and a territorial approach to meet the Kyoto objectives. That caught my attention.

Mr. Caillé stated:

Regarding the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, Hydro-Québec recommends that the Quebec government ask Canada for similar treatment to that of Sweden in Europe, that is, a target of 4% above 1990 levels rather than 6% below, on the basis of the same factors that led to the decision in Europe to apply that target to Sweden.

Claude Villeneuve, who is a climate change expert, has said that regional aspects are fundamental to the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.

What do you think of the idea of a territorial approach to achieving the Kyoto objectives?

[Marie-Josée Nadeau]

To come back to Mr. Caillé and that parliamentary committee, the aim was to make the government aware of the fact that imposing a target of 6% below on a non-emitter created a much greater burden than imposing the same target on an emitter. We wanted to point out that Quebec's special situation as a non-emitter needed to be taken into consideration, as it has been in Europe, where the difference between countries and their sources of clean energy are taken into account.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

In your opinion, has that been the federal government's approach since 1997, with its sectoral implementation?

The efforts made by Quebec, either through its hydroelectricity or other sectors of economic activity, should be taken into account when greenhouse gas reduction targets are set.

The government's notice of intent, as you know, sets out only one objective for the reduction of greenhouse gases, which is for 2050 and is based on 2003 as the reference year and not on 1990. In order for those past efforts to be taken into account in the Canadian plan, do you feel that it is important to use 1990 rather than 2003 as the reference year?

[Marie-Josée Nadeau]

Since the time of that parliamentary committee or that appearance before the National Assembly, the debate has evolved. We are prepared to live with the recognition of early action for reductions beginning in 2000.

I'm here to stress to the members of this committee the importance of recognizing the contribution of hydroelectricity and of including this energy source in the various standards and the various regulations that will be established when credit and allowance markets are set up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you, that's all the time we have for that one.

Mr. Paradis, you have five minutes.