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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is a general one. We have here various stakeholders of the electricity and nuclear energy sectors, from all over. There is a lot of talk about energy production, but there is also the issue of consumption. For example, in Quebec, greenhouse gas emissions are highest in transportation.

I want your opinion. A commitment was made to ensure that 5% of fuel for cars be renewable fuels by 2010. In your opinion, is this a step in the right direction? Do you have any suggestions? What is your opinion?

[Marie-Josée Nadeau]

I represent a producer of electricity. We are not active in land transportation, except through research and development and an electric motor we are trying to put on the market. What I can say in response to your question is that all sectors must participate. The Quebec government's position is that there will be no significant change or improvement if the transportation sector does not make a significant contribution.

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

Ms. Nadeau, you anticipated my second question, and I thank you for it.

Earlier, you talked about new technologies. I would like you to explain your position. I want to be sure that I have understood you correctly with regard to investing in new technologies.

If I understand correctly—and correct me if I'm wrong—there is no point necessarily in expanding the fields of research, rather we need to focus on existing technologies. Have I correctly understood what you're saying? I'd like to have some clarification.

[Marie-Josée Nadeau]

Thank you. What I said was technology funds may be an option. We mustn't confuse the creation of a technology fund with a way to achieve our Kyoto targets. I said that it was important not to lose sight of the Kyoto targets, which is the goal of this Parliament and this committee, in other words to reduce greenhouse gas emissions produced in Canada.

Ultimately, the impact of an investment fund will not be to reduce greenhouse gases. That said, this fund can be created, but we must not confuse it with a response or a solution to the problem.

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

Ms. Nadeau, you talked earlier about targets. If I understand correctly, you are focusing more on absolute targets. That is your vision. Now, I want to ask a general question because, when we talk about targets, this means that actions are taken and that there is also an economic transformation.

How do you see this? What are you suggesting, with respect to this transition, in order that we do not adopt overly restrictive, unreachable targets that would undermine public confidence, but rather that we ensure a transformation by which these targets would be reached?

Also, Mr. Elston, you talked earlier about various types of energy. With regard to technologies and industry, there are lots of ideas on using the biomass, among others, or wood or biomass residue.

Overall, how do you see this? What direction should the government take to ensure that, in the long term, intermediate term or short term, we can best reach this target?

[Marie-Josée Nadeau]

Since Hydro-Quebec is not an emitter as such, for established targets, my answer would be simple: the quicker and the sooner this happens, the happier we will be. The trap you must avoid is benefiting emitters at the expense of non-emitters, through various incentives, or failing to recognize the contribution of non-emitters because not as much money is at stake.

This is what I meant by my comment on ensuring that the various types of energy are treated equitably: recognizing all contributions—you mention the biomass; we can also mentioned wind energy, nuclear energy, thermal power plants—in an equitable process for all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Holland is next.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My first question is to Mr. Hornung.

The first WPPI program set a target of 4,000 megawatts. I'm wondering how effective the WPPI program was in helping you move towards increasing your target. You said right now it's roughly 1,400. A target of 4,000 had been set; it was suspended for a year, and now it's been reintroduced. How important are those programs?

You mentioned 10,000 megawatts. What is needed to get us to 10,000? How important are programs like that? How important would the former WPPI program, whatever it might now be called, be to achieving those goals?

[Dr. Robert Hornung]

The WPPI program and the new program, the eco-energy for renewable power program, are very important for a couple of reasons, but I should say first that the WPPI program had an initial target of securing 1,000 megawatts of installed capacity of wind in Canada by 2007. That was passed. The full program was actually fully subscribed in 2005, and 1,000 megawatts of technology were in place by 2006. In that sense, the program worked very well and achieved its objectives ahead of schedule.

These programs are important for a couple of reasons. First off, they continue to help close the gap that still exists between wind and at least some of the competing technologies in terms of new electricity generation. By doing that, they provide a very good complementary measure for provincial governments; provincial governments are interested in bringing these technologies online, but are also interested in insuring that the impact on the rate base and on consumers is as minimal as possible.

In that sense, the introduction of these programs at the federal level has encouraged the provincial governments to look more seriously at technologies like wind. It's encouraged them to set some aggressive objectives. When the first federal program was put in place and set a target of 1,000 megawatts, the provincial governments had very little on the go. Three years later, the provincial governments had targets of 4,000 or 5,000 megawatts in place. Now we have federal initiatives that are going to support somewhere in the range of 3,500 or 4,000 megawatts again going forward, and now provincial governments are looking at 10,000 megawatts.

We've seen that the federal initiatives have been very important in stimulating provincial interest and in stimulating investment in the wind energy sector, but there's no doubt that the wind energy industry and provincial governments will be looking for the federal government to continue to play a role as a partner going forward, in terms of creating the market conditions that will allow these technologies to continue to meet their potential.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I want to ask a question about what I see as a short-term challenge and a medium-term opportunity: the fact that Canada's infrastructure for generating power is aging, and there's going to be a very great degree of turnover in the next number of years, particularly from about 2010 to 2012. It provides a short-term challenge because it's hard to drive down emissions when we still have those facilities operating, but it creates a medium-term opportunity in that if we replace those facilities with clean facilities or methods of generating power that substantially reduce emissions in that timeframe, it can have a very large impact.

How important is it for the government to establish firm emissions caps, if you will, to drive that change? What action does the government need to make sure a clear signal is sent to industry that when that turnover is taking place, the replacements will be the types of energy creation that are going to substantially reduce emissions?

It's a general question to those on the panel who would want to answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Whoever answers has one minute.

[Don Wharton]

We see that in fact there will actually be a large capital stock turnover in the fossil-fired electricity sector in the 2015-2020 period in Canada. That's based on our internal analysis of the situation. However, we think that establishing firm targets provides the right signal for companies that do have the opportunity to make those investments then to make them in the right way. We think it's a fundamental piece of the puzzle.

The other one, of course, is advancing the technology so that when the opportunity does present itself, you can move on it and make those clean coal or clean combustion investments at the time that you have the opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you, Mr. Holland.

We'll move to Mr. Manning for five minutes, and then we'll have to run for the votes.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for your presentations here today.

My first question is for Ms. Nadeau.

In your presentation you mentioned recent new developments or ongoing developments in Quebec right now. You hope to have a long-term contract with Ontario to provide 1,250 megawatts. We all realize that hydro power is a clean renewable energy source. Any developments are certainly welcome news.

In the new developments that are happening under Hydro Québec at the present time, is there a hope to have more energy to be able to export to Ontario, or wherever the case may be, in regard to creating more clean energy around the country?

[Marie-Josée Nadeau]

The answer is yes.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Can you give us any idea how many megawatts that would be in the near future?

[Marie-Josée Nadeau]

We are actually considering 4,000 megawatts. We have about 3,000 that are either under construction or about to go into the evaluation or assessment process.

The question then lies ahead as to the transmission lines. If there is a market and the will for both parties to get along together, the transmission lines or the grid will be built. It's a question of markets.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

My second question is for Mr. Wharton.

I picked up from your presentation the need for some long-term action certainly for industry as we go forward in relation to development plans to reduce our GHGs. Could you elaborate on what kinds of early actions on the part of energy we should be trying to establish incentives for in the period between now and 2015?

[Don Wharton]

I would say the key thing again is to focus on accelerating the development of technology that will replace emitting generation. It looks to me like investment in clean coal technology, R and D, and beyond that in terms of actually supporting projects that are prepared to take the first step to move along that path. It's clean coal technology in all its forms. It could be gasification or it could be oxygen combustion.

There's a whole range of new technologies, plus retrofit opportunities, recognizing that 90% of the emissions we'll have in ten years will come from the existing stock we have today. The ability to actually make changes to existing stock will also be important. It needs a lot of work in technology.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

On reducing greenhouse gas emissions and trying to clean up our environment but at the same time trying to keep a strong economy, could you elaborate on that? Do you believe that trying to balance the goals of reducing GHGs and economic consideration at the same time is where we need to be?

[Don Wharton]

Absolutely. It is the definition of sustainable development to be able to maintain the economic power to make the change to preserve the environment. It underpins our view of the long-term nature of the business and the changes that need to be made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, Mr. Manning, it tolls for thee, with apologies to Hemingway.

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing and providing some valuable information. Our apologies, but we do have to run, because somebody's calling us.

This meeting stands adjourned.