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

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Okay. Well, you know, we need brave people in this country to change the way we deal with energy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you, Mr. Bevington. Your time is up.

Mr. Warawa, for seven minutes, please.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

This is our 13th meeting on Bill C-30. I appreciate your being here. I think all the testimony we've heard thus far has invoked a lot of good, healthy debate. We're looking forward to your recommendations. Most of you have provided verbal recommendations, so thank you for those.

I'd like to focus a bit on moving from a voluntary system to a regulatory one and the importance you see in that, which is what Bill C-30 does, along with the notice of intent to regulate. I think each of you have made comments on the importance of carbon trading.

Is the importance of having a stable, predictable structure with Bill C-30 what takes us in a direction to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Bill C-30 also deals with reducing pollution, cleaning the air that we breathe, but today I just want to focus on the greenhouse gas emissions, which I think is relevant to your testimony.

Is it important to have a regulatory structure—as opposed to a voluntary—to have a domestic or international carbon market actually function? Right now it is voluntary. People can participate in a voluntary way within the carbon markets. But we've seen greenhouse gas emissions skyrocket under the previous government. This government wants to take seriously the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

So how important is it that we move from voluntary to regulatory?

[Don Wharton]

TransAlta would strongly support the establishment of a regulatory framework. We believe that it is important to make progress, that certainty is critical for our decision-making. Since it is a long-term business, we need long-term certainty, so we are strong supporters of a regulatory framework.

As it relates to emissions trading, you're quite right that it is not required to have a viable emissions trading market. However, I believe that again it would cement certainty in the marketplace, which is important, especially in the early days of any emissions trading market.

So for that reason and for the benefits to the emissions trading, we would support a regulatory approach.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

How important is it, then, as a priority of this government, to provide those incentives to build technology within Canada? I think each of you represents unique and growing technologies to provide clean energy. How important is it to provide and keep those dollars here in Canada, as opposed to having them go outside the country to buy credits?

Maybe each of you could make a quick comment on how important it is to keep those dollars here.

[Marie-Josée Nadeau]

I will start with a first comment. I was going to say that I agree with TransAlta, but on this specific point, the technology fund, we do not have the same perspective.

Of course a technology fund could be interesting, but let's not lose sight of what the goals are. We are looking at reducing GHG emissions. So a technology fund would maybe do some good, but not help us in attaining this goal.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Fortin.

[Pierre Fortin]

As I mentioned in my presentation, I don't disagree with the issue of developing new technologies, of course, and I think it's very important. But we also have to remember, as I mentioned previously, that there are already existing technologies that can be used in the other power sectors. I think Mr. Elston also made that point in his presentation.

While we are trying to develop new technologies, we should not just put aside or put away the existing technology, which has brought us to a pretty good standard of living so far.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Elston.

[Murray Elston]

Yes. I think it's important for us to bring back everybody's attention to the fact that we have an energy system in Canada within which a number of technologies play a very important role.

We are a very important element in the competitiveness of our economies. We are contributors in our own way to making sure the Canadian economy can continue to run very well. We shouldn't focus exclusively on a technology fund. We shouldn't focus exclusively on a trading system. We shouldn't focus solely on one technology or another. We're very complex. We have to make sure that we put a system in place that permits us to take advantage of our existing benefits.

Quebec, B.C., Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador are great water resources. There is large nuclear generation in Ontario. Coal is well used in Alberta. And we cannot for a moment lose sight of the fact that all of us together make a contribution to the economy, so we have to have reasonable costs associated with all of our generation activities.

That includes, by the way, not just having a regulatory system that says you shall meet X. It will require that your regulatory system also permits us to take steps to upgrade our technologies, that it permits us to put in place wind projects. Bob spoke a little bit about some problems getting those done.

You have to do the whole piece. We in the nuclear world play a very important role in keeping down emissions because we don't emit from our reactors. We keep a very important role in the economies of several of our provinces.

So keep the eye on the whole case, not just one very small piece of it, as important as it might be, because the disruption that you could cause in one area could really be difficult for us to overcome, and we are long-term projects.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you very much.

We'll move to the five-minute round.

Mr. Godfrey, for five, please.

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

I noticed in the presentation of the Canadian Hydropower Association, on page 7, there was this phrase that says:

Investment in hydropower development involves long lead times—it is necessary to have knowledge of the target caps and the phase-in schedule of the targets as they become more rigorous over time, to facilitate timely investment decisions to achieve the targets. An important aspect of the schedule is the transition from intensity-based greenhouse gas targets to caps.

If we were ambitious, what date should we choose to make that transition from intensity targets to absolute caps?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Lundahl, you can join us at the table if you wish.

[Pierre Fortin]

Ideally, we should go for a cap right at this time, but I understand there has been some commitment by the government to go through that phase-in period. I wouldn't want to say 2010 or 2011 or 2012 or whatever. I think the point that's important to appreciate is that it needs to be done in a very timely fashion and as quickly as possible.

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

You mentioned 2010, 2011, 2012.

[Pierre Fortin]

I was saying that as a possible—

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

Is that unreasonable? Are those dates that—

[Pierre Fortin]

Sorry to interrupt. I did say now, earlier.

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

Now. So somewhere between now and 2012?

Madame Nadeau.

[Marie-Josée Nadeau]

Moving into the intensity question is a compromise.

Let me say it in French.

The objective will not be met.

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

Do you have a date to propose?

[Marie-Josée Nadeau]

We believe that absolute targets should be set immediately rather than taking an intensity approach.

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

Mr. Elston, do you have a view of this?

[Murray Elston]

We have a role to play in helping us get there. From our perspective, as a technology that is well used now and can be expanded in other places in this country to help reduce emissions, we can go with either. But we can tell you that you won't have emissions from using the reactors. As a result, we're quite happy to be involved to assist in reducing those emissions from other sources.

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

I suppose it's really only fair to ask the people at the table who actually have coal-fired plants.

TransAlta, would you comment on how quickly we could move from intensity-based targets to absolute caps?