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

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

Very well, that answers my question.

Ms. Clarke-Walker, did I understand the translation correctly? Workers must have access to carbon credits. How?

[Marie Clarke-Walker]

I don't think I said workers should have access to carbon credits. I was saying that's one of the things we could use to offset if we exceeded our emissions. That's one of the things we could use, and that had to do with the carbon trading mechanisms.

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

You did however mention that workers should have access to the boards of directors of the green funds.

[Andrew Jackson]

The point we were making is that if we bring in a cap and trade system for large industrial emitters, I have no real idea, sitting here right now, how that would be played out in terms of specific industrial sectors. There were prior discussions. We think it's important that workers in those industries have some voice in the design of that system as it's rolled out.

The example we use in the brief is for the pulp and paper sector. To our knowledge, there have been large reductions in emissions by shifting to biomass. So it would probably be appropriate in setting caps in that sector to recognize that large emissions reductions have already been achieved, rather than just having a cookie-cutter solution across all sectors.

So what we're saying is, if there's a sector-by-sector approach, there should be some provision for labour input into that as, in fairness, was the case under the previous government. There were some consultations with labour around the design of the system.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Baker, you mentioned two fiscal incentives, and there is one I did not quite catch. You talked of the 20 cents per litre. What was the second one? Should the fiscal incentives go to the ethanol producers or to the farmers?

[Bliss Baker]

There's one for ethanol and one for biodiesel--10¢ for ethanol and 20¢ for biodiesel. What we had proposed was a refundable tax credit program.

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

And should the subsidy be granted to the farmer or to the ethanol or biodiesel producer?

[Bliss Baker]

We've suggested that it go directly to the ethanol and biodiesel producers, but clearly there's going to be a spin-off benefit to the agriculture sector. In our project, we have hundreds of farmers who have invested in those projects who will benefit from those.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you very much.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses who came today. It's very much appreciated.

I have a couple of comments first.

Ms. Clarke-Walker, I'm from Fort McMurray. I found it interesting that you had such a vast amount of support from that area for Kyoto. Have you received a lot of letters from people in northern Alberta being in support of Kyoto?

[Marie Clarke-Walker]

We haven't received the letters of people in support. We represent, as I said, the CEP workers, the Steelworkers who are out there, the IBEW workers who are out in the tar sands. They all took part in helping us prepare this brief. They're all in support of our policies.

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

I understand. I just was curious, because I've lived there for 40 years and I know the workers. I have brothers who are in the unions. I myself worked in a union for a period of time up in that area. I just found it very surprising, because I had seven letters in support of Kyoto. I actively campaigned that Kyoto was impossible, to meet the targets, and I got 65% of the vote, which was eighteenth highest in the country.

I found it very surprising that you had such support from that area, because quite frankly, I could sum up—and I'm going to just read into the record—what our opinion is in relation to the Kyoto targets and meeting them. This is from Lorrie Goldstein, in this morning's Ottawa Sun, on Dion's top-10 Kyoto excuses. He says: “Since, in the real world, as opposed to Liberal la-la land, many believe Dion's position is, how should I put this delicately—oh, yeah—INSANE...” I just want to make sure that's in the record, because most people out there, quite frankly, find it laughable. Kyoto is impossible to meet without buying international credits for certain. And that's my first line of questioning.

We've heard from a lot of experts who suggest that the cost to meet Kyoto, not just on domestic action but for buying international credits, would be somewhat up to the range of $38 billion, and $38 billion over a four- or five-year period would cost each taxpayer in this country probably somewhere in the range of $3,300 to $3,600 over that five-year period.

We heard from Mr. Brown that, indeed, Canadians won't tolerate more than a $100 cost in implementing Kyoto. Is that correct, Mr. Brown?

[Michael J. Brown]

That was the result of a survey that was published about three weeks ago. I believe it was an Ipsos Reid survey.

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

If there are two taxpayers per household in Canada, each household would be responsible for $6,600 over a five-year period. What do you think Canadians would think about that?

[Michael J. Brown]

I don't think they'd like it one little bit, but I'm not sure Canadians understand what the long-term impact is on their children and their grandchildren if we let this thing carry on without making some concerted effort.

One of the suggestions is to try to figure out what that looks like, and then work it backwards. It's a little, as I said, like the national debt. Let's see if we can figure out what not doing anything is going to cost our heirs.

I've got nine grandchildren, and some of them are going to have kids within 10 years—I'm an old guy—and I want to know what sort of cost we are imposing on them. If we can understand that, and if we could publicize the results of some surveys and work that is done by third parties, such as the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, then maybe we could come up with better ways to decide how much to spend now.

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

Mr. Brown, I think that's very wise. Indeed, I think most Canadians would agree that we need to do something; it's just how we implement it and how we spend our money and how effective we are. That's what this act is all about, trying to find a way to clean up our own backyard before we worry about everybody else's. But—

[Michael J. Brown]

Could I say something about that?

The fact is that the bang for the buck is way greater if we help China or India reduce their emissions than if we do anything about ours, but nothing I see in this bill suggests that would be a good idea.

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

But wouldn't you agree that, indeed, we have to remain competitive at the same time as we help them, and the best way to help them is by providing them with technology that is made at home here and actually has proven results?

[Michael J. Brown]

I think that's a great way to go, because the Chinese—and I'm not sure about the Indians, but I do know about the Chinese, because I spent quite a bit of time trying to understand China and I've been there many times on this subject—have made it very clear that they don't believe they have any obligation to reduce their greenhouse gases. So one of the things we have to do is encourage them to do that some way. If we can disseminate our technology there in an effective manner, that helps a lot.

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

Thank you, Mr. Brown.

I have one more question. I'd like to put this to our green fuel people.

What is going to be the net effect to our farm communities across Canada? We have a supply management system that causes us to subsidize, quite frankly, farmers because we want to make sure we have a secure, safe source for food in Canada. It's very important to all of us. What is going to be the net effect on the long-term basis if we go toward the 5% renewable and then continue on that vein with your technology?

[Bliss Baker]

To be brief, it's hard to put an opinion on exactly what the dollar value is, but there's going to be an impact on grain prices locally. Particularly in the local region, there will be a boost to the local grain prices, which means new revenue for farmers. There will also be an impact on the stability of commodity pricing, which gives stability to the farm. New revenue to the farm means fewer payouts from the government to support programs.

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

So it would be better for taxpayers in the long term if we go toward this initiative that the government is doing right now.

[Bliss Baker]

There's no question about it.

[Jeff Passmore]

Very quickly, the plant we're proposing to build in Saskatchewan will have $20 million a year in straw purchases alone. That's not the jobs in the plant or the trucking jobs or anything like that. That's just for the straw.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We're going to have to move on to Mr. Godfrey for five, please.