Evidence of meeting #4 for Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was emissions.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Chad Mariage
Mathieu Castonguay  Association Québécoise de la lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique
Bill Erasmus  Chief, Regional Office, NWT, Assembly of First Nations
Claude Villeneuve  Biologist, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi
David Boyd  Adjunct Professor, Policy, University of British Columbia

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn

Good morning, everybody. We'll call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number four of the legislative committee on Bill C-30.

We're having a bit of a challenge with some of the video conferencing at the moment, so we'll go ahead with a couple of other items of business, and we'll get to that in about 10 minutes. We may need to have a small suspension when we're finished our first bit of business. There are a couple of housekeeping items.

For the first speaker, Chief Erasmus, we have a submission from the first nations, but it's not translated yet, so we'll get it to you when it's translated. We haven't received other submissions. When we get them, we'll translate them and get them to you as well.

What I'd like to do for the first bit of business is to go back to the first report, which we believe is now the real version of the first report. You have it in front of you. The clerk will note a couple of things for you.

9:10 a.m.

The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Chad Mariage

I just note that there had been some concern that the witnesses who were added last night aren't on the list. That's only because the subcommittee's recommendation didn't originally include those people, so that becomes then a motion and a resolution of the main committee. They have been invited. They will be coming tonight. They're not on the report per se.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

We should also scratch the people whom we may have voted for but who were clearly not coming.

9:10 a.m.

The Clerk

The difficulty with that is the subcommittee is reporting back that they've adopted these people, so they may change their minds and decide to come. Those are the recommendations from the subcommittee, and if they don't come, then that's....

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn

At the risk of inviting something else, we'll entertain a motion for the adoption of the first report.

9:10 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

I so move.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn

That report is adopted.

That was the only item of housekeeping business we really had, so I guess chat amongst yourselves.

Do we have an idea yet, or are we still looking at 10 minutes for the video?

Mr. Godfrey.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

On a point of business, I don't know whether the parliamentary secretary has any update on the appearance of the minister.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn

I will turn the floor over to the parliamentary secretary.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

As the member knows, we were working until nine o'clock last night. I got out of my office at eleven, so I haven't had a chance to meet with anybody yet. Hopefully I can provide an update at this afternoon's meeting.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn

Mr. Bigras.

9:10 a.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

I understand the parliamentary secretary: we are all tired. However, can he commit this morning to telling us, by this afternoon's meeting, when the minister will appear before the committee?

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

As I said, I will report to the committee this afternoon. Specifics of what I'll be able to report, I can't give you yet, but I will report back.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn

If nobody has any further business just for the moment, we'll call a short adjournment. As soon as the technical folks are ready, we'll carry on.

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn

Folks, we're apparently good to go. We'll call the meeting back to order. Perhaps members could take their chairs and close their BlackBerrys.

Again, welcome to meeting number four of the legislative committee on Bill C-30. Today's topic is climate change.

We have an assembly of witnesses, starting with Chief Bill Erasmus from the Assembly of First Nations. From a distance, we have Claude Villeneuve, from the University of Quebec at Chicoutimi, and David Boyd, adjunct professor, policy, from the University of British Columbia.

We also have André Bélisle from the Association Québécoise de la lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique.

Are you here, Mr. Bélisle?

9:15 a.m.

Mathieu Castonguay Association Québécoise de la lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique

Good morning, my name is Mathieu Castonguay. I am the Executive Director of the AQLPA. I'm replacing André Bélisle.

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn

Pardon me.

As is our custom, we will give each speaker 10 minutes to make a statement, starting with Chief Erasmus. Then the committee members will have the usual time allotment to ask questions of whomever they wish.

Chief Erasmus, the floor is yours for about 10 minutes.

9:15 a.m.

Chief Bill Erasmus Chief, Regional Office, NWT, Assembly of First Nations

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Bill Erasmus. I'm the regional chief for the Northwest Territories for the Assembly of First Nations, and I have the environment portfolio for the AFN.

I also have with me Stuart Wuttke, who is the head of our lands division at the Assembly of First Nations.

As you mentioned earlier, we have provided a copy of our full submission. Unfortunately, it hasn't been translated into French yet.

On behalf of the Assembly of First Nations, I'd like to give our presentation--I hope it's under 10 minutes--and then we'll be quite open to questions.

We'd like to thank the committee for accepting our request to make an intervention on the important subject of Bill C-30. First nations governments collectively are seeing tremendous impacts on the environment and natural resources as a result of air pollution and climate change.

At the outset we'd like to state that first nations people have much to offer Canada. First nations people continue to have a close relationship with the land. We repeatedly offer to share what we know of the environment, with the hope that our knowledge will assist others to improve the quality of life for all.

Canada requires better tools to monitor and prepare for changes to the environment. We believe that first nations can assist in this. In moving forward, it is necessary for governments to recognize first nations ownership of natural resources and wildlife as an integral component of aboriginal title. An important component of this is first nations obligations to protect the environment and fragile ecosystems on which all creatures depend.

On the Clean Air Act, our purpose in being here today, we are pleased to offer this committee our perspectives on it and required amendments. In our view, the government's plan to combat air pollution and global warming do not go far enough in the Clean Air Act.

Air pollution is a major issue for first nations people. There is no denying that the air we breathe is contaminated with harmful substances. The AFN disagrees with the removal of air pollutants and greenhouse gases from schedule 1 of CEPA and the placement of these substances into two new categories. It is our preference that greenhouse gases, pollutants, and other substances harmful to human health be listed on schedule 1 of CEPA.

Bill C-30 should establish the authority to deal with sources of air pollution in one province or territory affecting others, and the act should consolidate under CEPA the regulatory authority over emissions and fuel economy for all types of vehicles and engines, including on-road and off-road cars and trucks, ships, aircraft, and railway locomotives.

On the issue of greenhouse gases and global warming, the Clean Air Act has to be greatly improved. Reducing smog to combat global warming is contrary to scientific research. In its present form, the Clean Air Act abandons Canada's international commitment under the Kyoto Protocol, as it contains no short-term targets and defers any meaningful action until 2050. In its present form, the Clean Air Act will result in increased emissions by the Canadian industrial sector for the next 43 years.

In our view, Bill C-30 should be amended to implement targets set by the Kyoto Protocol. Bill C-30 should include a long-term target for reducing overall domestic greenhouse gas emissions to at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, as well as interim targets. Bill C-30 should require the federal government to introduce limits to greenhouse gases and pollution from industry by 2008. Last of all, Bill C-30 should permit the creation of a first nations carbon trading system.

On consultation, we'd now like to move away from universal commentary on Bill C-30 to discuss first nations interest in the legislation.

Canada's “made in Canada” plan was developed without first nations involvement and does not include first nations governments in its commitment to working with all orders of government in Canada to meet clean air commitments.

We recommend that the legislative committee on Bill C-30 establish an adequate consultative process on the Clean Air Act with first nations governments to ensure meaningful first nations involvement in the development of the legislation. In addition, the Clean Air Act should be amended to recognize first nations governments in decision-making fora related to the implementation of the legislation.

The principle of the participation of aboriginal governments in the implementation of CEPA is an important one. Fundamentally, first nations must be included in environmental decision-making. While the Clean Air Act contains provisions for consultation with aboriginal governments and/or peoples, it has been the experience of first nations that such consultation has been poorly executed. Before the Clean Air Act moves any further, the federal government should immediately, thoroughly, and properly consult with first nations governments, as the legislation may affect or have an impact on first nations interests and rights and/or their participation in the future implementation of CEPA.

Impacts to first nations communities. Air pollution and global warming will create a number of challenges for first nations governments and communities. There are transportation issues related to climate change that are unique to first nations, especially to isolated first nations. Changes in the winter season will have an adverse effect on the construction of winter roads that some first nations rely on for the transportation of goods and services. If winter roads are increasingly not an option, alternative methods of transportation, such as transportation by air, will be required.

The AFN recommends that the Clean Air Act legislate the federal government to work with the provinces and territories and each first nation government to establish clean transportation alternatives to first nations communities.

With respect to water, Mr. Chairman, first nations rely on bodies of water for many purposes, such as transportation, drinking water, recreation, harvesting, and agricultural activities. Air pollution, acid rain, and extreme weather events resulting from climate change threaten water quality for many first nations. The AFN recommends that Bill C-30 lead to the establishment of an arm's-length first nations water quality agency. This body would be responsible for independently facilitating and implementing actions to ensure water quality standards are met.

Air pollution and acid rain are major causes of property damage in first nations communities. As the climate changes, first nations homes that are move effective in energy conservation and that provide greater protection against extreme weather events are needed. The Clean Air Act should establish a five-year legislative program aimed at the recognition of first nations governments to advance and develop regulations and standards, along with providing the capacity and other resources to create and generate incentives.

Global warming is having an impact on first nations cultures, traditions, practices, and way of life. We are only beginning to think out possible impacts that threaten our societies. To assist first nations governments in preparing for climate change impacts, AFN recommends that the Clean Air Act establish the creation of a first nations traditional knowledge institution. The purpose and role of the institution would be to provide first nations governments and industry alternative solutions to address cumulative environmental damage as a result of air pollution and climate change.

Finally, first nations will need specific first nations adaptation programs in the future. Unlike other people in Canada, first nations are tied to their communities through treaties, land claims, and prior occupation. The complete relocation of our societies may not be possible.

The Clean Air Act should establish five-year legislative first nations adaptation programs specific to first nations communities. The AFN recommends that government consult with first nations communities and accommodate their needs within the programs.

Conclusion. Mr. Chairman, it is essential that the federal government recognize first nations jurisdictions and authorities. Government cannot continue to work in isolation, as first nations have a lot to offer. Together, we can develop sound environmental practices that are backed up with real accountability measures for the decisions we make.

We strongly encourage the legislative committee to adopt our recommendation to continue working with first nations people to ensure the sustainable development of our natural resources while protecting the environment for future generations to enjoy.

Thank you for this opportunity to present to you.

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn

Thank you very much, Chief.

I'll now ask Claude Castonguay, from the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, to make his presentation.

You have 10 minutes.

February 6th, 2007 / 9:25 a.m.

Claude Villeneuve Biologist, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I've been asked to talk about climate change. I think we should note last week's publication of the IPCC's fourth report on climate change. It's clear that the scientists' message, in the form of this fourth IPCC report, is a stronger message than that of the 2001 report, the findings of which were already very significant with regard to human responsibility.

We now have a higher degree of certainty, a consensus that has never previously been seen and greater certainty. We're starting to be able to make regional predictions, across Canada in particular. We must note the work of the Ouranos Consortium and Prof. René Laprise of the Université du Québec à Montréal, who is a member of the IPCC and has provided an excellent forecast of what's awaiting us using the Canadian regional forecasts model.

The climate inertia factors have been much more clearly characterized. The measurements are more accurate, in particular for past climates. We have a better understanding of the mechanisms behind the climate changes we're witnessing. We have new research questions, and scientists are expressing a greater sense of urgency and requesting that concrete measures be taken.

In its fourth report, the IPCC is telling us, increasingly clearly, that human beings are responsible and that the developed countries, such as Canada, which has various sectors that produce greenhouse gases, are primarily responsible for this increase. The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has never been this high in 650,000 years, and the temperatures we're now experiencing are higher than in the past 1,300 years at least.

In addition, the rate of warming is partly masked by the effect of aerosols, and the warming observed from 1990 to 2005 was faster than the models predicted. We therefore have a high degree of scientific confidence in our forecasts. According to those forecasts, over the next two decades, there will be an increase equivalent to half of that observed during the 20th century, which makes the concerns of the previous speaker all the more critical. Temperatures are not rising evenly everywhere. They are rising twice as quickly in northern Canada, which is a major cause for concern. Similarly, the sea levels are rising. We are measuring the rise much more accurately and we realize that levels have risen in recent decades.

Let's talk about the issue of melting ice. The North is particularly important for Canada. The fact that the icefloes are melting could mean that the Arctic Ocean might be ice-free in summer as early as 2035. A rise in extreme temperatures is also forecast.

It must be understood that climate science can only provide warnings. Solutions must come from players at various levels. Governments must adopt more restrictive ground rules so that people can play by those rules. Moreover, industry is requesting that ground rules be established on a fairly long time horizon so it can justify the investment and decisions that have to be made today.

Industrial interests must introduce new technologies and new processes. They must be able to reduce their emissions by including the cost of carbon in their products so that cost is internalized.

Citizens, who ultimately make consumption decisions, must be informed, change their behaviour as consumers and electors and take preventive action. Climate change will affect citizens' health and safety in a very uneven and unpredictable way.

Since it ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, Canada has not taken the necessary measures to discharge its responsibilities. The challenge for this planet between now and 2050 is to reduce annual CO2 emissions by 25 billion tonnes. Canada's effort will probably be in the order of 500 million tonnes a year. We have already exceeded our objective set at the time Kyoto was signed by 270 million tonnes. We are therefore lagging very far behind, and those are the figures for 2004 emissions. I can guarantee you with more than 90% certainty, that, in 2008, we will be at least 300 million tonnes above the objective set. And we still don't have clear ground rules! So we'll have to pick up the pace.

Consequently, Bill C-30 will have to address the causes of air pollution rather than merely its effects. In principle, in order to pick up the pace, we'll have to establish firm provincial targets, not just a pan-Canadian objective. It must be recognized that sources are different and the efficiency of measures is different as well. A wind farm in Quebec won't reduce greenhouse gases; a wind farm in New Brunswick might do it; a wind farm in Alberta will have a much greater impact on carbon intensity reduction than if it's installed in Ontario. We also have to be able to put a national carbon market in place as soon as possible, with a Canadian ceiling, not a reduction in carbon intensity. I'll be able to answer questions on carbon intensity later on.

We will have to levy a carbon tax that will be applicable to exports as well, as Norway has done, so that we can have revenue to purchase reductions in the international market and not to put our industries and population at a disadvantage. Currently, Canada should reduce its emissions by 10 tonnes per person in order to achieve its Kyoto objectives, which is a burden that we can't impose on Canadians in the current state of affairs.

A major research and technological development effort must also be funded, and funding must be guaranteed for at least 10 years and must be renewable. The horizon of the challenges facing us is 2050. The initial reductions are easy to achieve, but the ones that will come after that will demand a very great scientific and technological effort.

To send a very clear signal to consumers and citizens, automobile consumption should also be taxed progressively, because automobiles are over-equipment with an economic life of at least 10 years. Consequently, voluntary measures put in place by the previous government, and extended by the present government, together with the automotive industry, will not have any effect on emissions.

Disclosure of emissions in automotive advertising must also be made mandatory so that citizens are informed. I would even go as far as to say that the production of greenhouse gas emissions should appear in automobile sales contracts. We should also consider that we must stimulate field-based initiatives, but field-based initiatives that are not just festive. They must be documented and accounted for.

Thank you.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn

Thank you very much, sir.

We'll turn now to David Boyd, adjunct professor of policy, University of British Columbia, by teleconference.

Mr. Boyd, the floor is yours for 10 minutes or less.

Thank you.

9:35 a.m.

David Boyd Adjunct Professor, Policy, University of British Columbia

Good morning.

Thank you to the committee for the invitation.

I apologize for only being on the phone, but I'm often told I have a voice and a face that are made for radio.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn

You look marvellous.

9:35 a.m.

Adjunct Professor, Policy, University of British Columbia

David Boyd

I hope all of you have read the “Summary for Policymakers”, published last week by the IPCC, which Mr. Villeneuve has spoken about. It certainly provides a profoundly disturbing overview of our current trajectory.

Mr. Villeneuve has also gone through the basic facts about Canada's performance in attempting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so I won't repeat what Mr. Villeneuve has said.

In essence, however, the task before us is one of substantial magnitude. Canada's emissions in 1990 were 599 million tonnes. Canada's Kyoto commitment to reduce to 6% below that level by 2012, as Mr. Villeneuve has said, is roughly a 300-million tonne reduction from projected levels. Our greenhouse gas emissions have instead risen by upwards of 27% between 1990 and 2004.

The first major point I want to make to the committee this morning is that we need to recognize that Canada cannot realistically meet our initial Kyoto target of 6% below 1990 levels by 2012.

Under Kyoto, there are basically two ways of meeting our target. Domestic reductions is one; purchasing international credits is the other.

To meet our Kyoto target through domestic reduction in emissions, Canada would need to reduce our emissions by about 7% per year for each of the next five years, reversing a trend of growth of about 2% per year.

To achieve that kind of a target through domestic reductions would require a rate of emissions decline unmatched by any modern nation in the history of the world, except those that have suffered economic collapse, such as Russia and the Ukraine.

The best example we have to emulate is Japan, which in the wake of the OPEC oil crisis became the world's most energy efficient nation. They did not come close to reducing their dependence on fossil fuels by 7% a year.

The second route available to us under Kyoto to fulfil our 1990 commitment of 6% is to purchase large volumes of international credits. While I support the concept of international credits where those Canadian investments would contribute to the development of renewable or zero-emission energy in developing nations, those kinds of credits are simply not available in the short term in anywhere near the volume that Canada would require.

The only credits available at this point in time in large volumes are hot air from countries like Russia and the Ukraine, which have endured economic collapse. Those hot air credits would be a bad investment for Canada, sending billions of dollars abroad for zero environmental benefit.

We need to come to terms with the fact that we will not meet our initial Kyoto target. We have denied, debated, and dithered for too long. But that does not mean turning our back on the Kyoto Protocol. The agreement has provisions for nations that missed their initial targets. Penalties will be applied to reduction targets in subsequent periods.

The Kyoto Protocol needs to be broadened, deepened, and strengthened, and Canada needs to play a constructive role in those international negotiations. But that is a subject for another day.

I want to mention the current government's proposal to use intensity-based targets. Intensity-based targets are inherently a fraudulent approach to climate change. They simply endorse and entrench the status quo, as business is consistently improving the efficiency with which they produce goods and services. The problem with an intensity-based approach is simply that it allows total emissions to continue rising, and total emissions are what we need to keep our eye on.

If you actually consider Canada's record over the past 17 years since 1990, which we all agree is not a good one on climate change, if you look at that through the lens of intensity, then it actually looks pretty good. GDP, which I'll use as a proxy for total economic output, went up 47% in Canada between 1990 and 2004. Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, as you know, rose 27% between 1990 and 2004.

It represents a 43% improvement in emissions intensity, which makes it sound like Canada is doing great and makes it look like the Liberal record on climate change is great. It's obviously not the case, and it underscores the importance of moving to absolute emissions targets immediately and not falling into the trap of intensity-based targets.

The real goal in terms of absolute emissions reductions is to achieve reductions of at least in the order of 80% by the middle of this century, by 2050. That goal should be explicitly placed in Bill C-30, and the majority of my comments from now on will address the question of how Bill C-30 can assist Canada in meeting that goal.

The year 2050 may seem like a long way away, but the only way we can achieve a goal of 80% reduction is if we start laying the foundation now with good policies. When I say good policies, I mean policies that meet three basic tests: effectiveness, efficiency, and equity.

There is abundant evidence that the policies employed by the Canadian government to this point, relying largely on voluntary measures and subsidies, fail the effectiveness test. They have not produced significant reductions in emissions, so we must use stronger approaches, including economic disincentives and regulations, which leads me directly to Bill C-30.

Environmental laws like the Canadian Environmental Protection Act are like the toolbox, and then regulations, programs, fiscal instruments, etc., are the tools that actually do the work. When I read through Bill C-30, I see precious little in terms of new tools for addressing climate change. I'm left scratching my head about what it actually adds to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and I'm concerned that, for minimal benefits, the Clean Air Act creates substantial risks. As you know, greenhouse gases are already on the list of toxic substances, also known as schedule 1 of CEPA. This gives the Government of Canada fairly broad powers already to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under part 5 of the act.

The proposed clean air provisions, creating a new part 5.1 of CEPA dealing with air pollutants and greenhouse gases, by and large, simply duplicate the existing provisions of part 5. This not only wastes reams of paper, but in my opinion could pose a threat to the constitutional underpinnings of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Most of the changes, therefore, are not only unnecessary but undesirable.

I ask you, as you conduct your review of Bill C-30, to ask yourselves this question: What does this add to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as it already exists? If the answer is nothing, then strike out the offending clauses.

There is one specific amendment that does need to be made to CEPA to add another critical tool to the toolkit, and that is specifically adding to the list of economic instruments authorized under part 11 of CEPA. The amendment I'm recommending is to authorize the federal government to use environmental taxes, specifically a carbon tax. The majority of experts and economists agree that the most effective and efficient means of addressing the market's failure to internalize greenhouse gas emissions is a carbon tax, a tax on the sale of fossil fuels based on their carbon content.

A tax that starts at a modest rate and increases gradually and predictably over time can establish incentives throughout the entire Canadian economy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions with minimal disruption to the economy. A carbon tax offers an opportunity to shift taxes away from activities that are good for society, like labour and investment, and shift those taxes onto activities that pose risks to society, like carbon dioxide emissions and the use of toxic chemicals.

Supporters of a carbon tax to address global warming are plentiful and span the political spectrum. Here are a handful of quick examples: Al Gore; Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board; Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winner and former chief economist at the World Bank; James Rogers, chairman and CEO of Duke Energy; Nicholas Stern, author of the most comprehensive look at the economics of climate change on behalf of the U.K. government. There are some even more surprising proponents of a carbon tax: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, a right-wing think tank; and last but not least, the Canadian public. A recent survey from Ipsos Reid shows that a majority of Canadians are favourable to a carbon tax, and, somewhat remarkably, Albertans are more favourable than most Canadians.

Carbon taxes offer numerous advantages. I'll list them quickly here, and I'm happy to answer questions about the details. Carbon taxes are comprehensive. They cover the entire economy. They are widely regarded as the most efficient policy approach. They're transparent. They're administratively simple and they're less likely to cause energy price volatility than a cap and trade system. As well, the revenues generated by a carbon tax could be returned to the public in various ways to ensure the tax is not a new tax but is revenue neutral. Finally, carbon taxes have a proven track record of success in Europe. In the brief that I will submit to you later this week, I'll include some specific recommendations for amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to authorize the use of environmental taxes such as a carbon tax.

The two main objections that are often raised to carbon taxes are their regressive nature, regarding the fact that lower-income households spend a larger proportion of their income on energy. That can be addressed in the way the tax is designed.

The other objection is on grounds of competitiveness. I note that the four top nations in the World Economic Forum's rankings of economic competitiveness this year have carbon taxes, and all of those nations ranked ahead of Canada on the competitiveness scale.

Norway is perhaps the most instructive case from a Canadian perspective, because Norway is a major oil and gas producer. Norway implemented a carbon tax in the early 1990s and has seen its economy grow by roughly the same amount as Canada's, but Norway's greenhouse gas emissions are up only 4%.

Interestingly, the imposition of a carbon tax in Norway contributed to the development of new carbon capture and storage technology, also known as carbon sequestration. Norwegian natural gas producers are capturing carbon dioxide from Wales and the North Sea and re-injecting it into deep saline aquifers at a rate of millions of tonnes annually, saving themselves roughly $150,000 a day in Norwegian carbon taxes.

I'm running out of time, so I want to make several other brief comments. I know that a cap and trade system for large final emitters is under consideration. Although those have been successful in the United States in dealing with acid rain, you need to recognize that the European cap and trade system is a mess, because governments allocated more permits than emissions. So those permits are fast becoming worthless.

One of the world's leading economists in the field of climate policy, Professor William Nordhaus of Yale University, wrote that “cheating will probably be pandemic in an emissions-trading system that involves large sums of money.” That's basically because there are information asymmetries, meaning that industry has knowledge about the availability of technology and the cost of implementing it that government simply does not have access to.

Another vitally important thing that is not really dealt with in Bill C-30 is that Canada needs to invest aggressively in developing low carbon and zero carbon energy technologies.

Concluding on a couple of brief notes, regarding the provisions of Bill C-30 that deal with the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, that law has been on the books for 25 years and should come immediately into force.

You should also know that in 2010, even if Canadian motor vehicle manufacturers comply with the current voluntary agreement, Canadian fuel efficiency will still lag behind Europe, Japan, Australia, California, and China—yes, China.

There's also much room for improvement in the last section of Bill C-30, dealing with the Energy Efficiency Act. I would recommend ensuring that Canadian standards meet or beat the highest levels in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD; that the act be amended to provide for a mandatory review of standards every five years or so; and that there be mandatory elimination of the worst 10% of products in each product class, a precedent that was set with the prohibition of low-efficiency furnaces.

Thank you for your time and attention.

I look forward to your questions, and I would like to speak to you again about air pollution, if that opportunity arises.

9:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn

Thank you very much, Professor Boyd, and especially thank you for getting up so early in British Columbia. We really appreciate that.

The last presentation will be made by Mr. Castonguay from the Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique.

Sir, you have roughly 10 minutes.