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.
10 a.m.
Conservative
10 a.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I don't intend to discuss Canada's greenhouse gas emissions reduction record for very long in my remarks. I believe we all know it. Instead I'd like to talk about ways or measures enabling us to improve our greenhouse gas emissions reduction performance.
I really liked Mr. Boyd's statement when he told us that we need an effective, efficient and equitable policy to fight climate change.
Mr. Villeneuve provided us with some food for thought earlier in proposing, for example, a carbon exchange, a carbon tax, research funding and indicating greenhouse gas emissions reductions in vehicles sales contracts. He also told us about by-province objectives, and I think that's important.
I'd like to know the speakers' opinions, particularly that of Mr. Villeneuve. Canada's problem, I believe, isn't necessarily attributable to the programs put in place or measures that, of course, could have gone further. Isn't it a problem of approach, to the extent that we have adopted a sectoral approach, from sea to sea, whereas the Canadian economic structure differs from province to province, and Quebec's energy situation is not the same as that of the West?
Couldn't this approach, by provincial targets, enable us to maximize greenhouse gas emissions reductions for every dollar invested? Ultimately, don't the territorial approach and the provincial targets approach make it possible to put in place an effective, efficient and equitable policy for combating climate change in Canada?
I'm asking Mr. Villeneuve the question.
February 6th, 2007 / 10:05 a.m.
Biologist, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi
All right, Mr. Chairman.
That's an extremely important question. Indeed, one of the reasons for Canada's failure is its desire to adopt an approach that's equal for everyone, on the ground that it's more equitable to be equal with players who are unequal.
We clearly have to ensure that a measure is effective. I'll simply cite the example of the former home insulation program. Cutting a tonne of greenhouse gases by reducing the number of kilowatt-hours used could cost the Ontario government about $5, the Alberta government about $3 and the Quebec government $700 to $800. Greenhouse gas emissions per kilowatt-hour in the energy generating system of those three provinces vary by a factor of 10, and even by a factor of 50, in the case of Alberta and Quebec.
Having made that observation, the regional approaches are clearly much more promising, since energy policies are set by the provinces, natural resources are managed by the provinces, and each of the provinces has a different system. That doesn't mean that there can't be exchanges or mutual assistance among the provinces.
I'll give you a very simple example of a purely hypothetical situation, but one that would be very effective. In Gaspé, in Quebec, they produce a lot of wind energy. That changes absolutely nothing in the amount of energy used in Quebec because, in its life cycle, wind energy produces a little more greenhouse gas than hydroelectric power. In principle, therefore, there are no gains to be achieved, in terms of greenhouse gas, by generating wind energy in Quebec.
However, if we built a transmission line to New Brunswick, a transmission line barely 50 kilometres long, and we closed the Belledune coal-fired station, we'd achieve gains in the order of two to three million tonnes of CO2 a year from the production of wind energy generated on the Gaspé site and used in the New Brunswick power grid.
These are facts that the present Canadian policy does not make it possible to use since, by focusing solely on reducing carbon intensity, it keeps in place all the old generation infrastructures and merely adds clean generation on top of them, which ultimately masks the actual situation.
We need an approach that includes aspects penalized by the tax, the benefits and effectiveness of which Mr. Boyd clearly explained, but also a project-centred approach that, in an exchange market, makes it possible to have the value of these projects recognized.
What we want is a real reduction in total emissions. Carbon intensity is simply an indicator. That indicator may make it possible to compare performance within a sector. For example, in the aluminum sector, we can compare two aluminum plants, with regard to greenhouse gas emissions, one relative to the other or relative to their emissions gains.
In this way, then, we establish reference scenarios. Overall carbon intensity for a country is moreover one measure that was included in Mr. Bush's policy in 2003, which Canada jumped on like a lowly imitator.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
That's a good answer, and it's very thorough, but it used all the time. I'm sorry.
Mr. Cullen, for seven minutes.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
To our witnesses, you'll notice the time passes incredibly quickly.
I'll start with Mr. Erasmus.
Consultation has been well described in our courts, as well as the obligation of the Crown to consult with first nations, through numerous cases, such as Sparrow, Delgamuukw, and on down the line. What consultation did the government do with respect to Bill C-30, the bill in front of us today, with the first nations people?
10:10 a.m.
Chief, Regional Office, NWT, Assembly of First Nations
Thank you.
As I said in the presentation, we really weren't consulted at all. We have self-government agreements, for example, that stipulate, as you say, that there is an obligation. Some of them have taken down legislative authorities or powers to have jurisdictions recognized by them. But even those bodies weren't consulted through this process.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I raise the point in particular over the question of adaptation, which we haven't approached today. It has not been discussed at all by the government to this point, and as increasingly we delay on action, the question of adapting to the changes becomes hugely problematic, particularly, I would suggest, in more remote rural communities, first nations reserves.
Because of the limited time, I'm going to turn to Mr. Boyd for a second.
Mr. Boyd, let me assume the logic that global effort is needed on the fight against climate change. Is that correct?
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
When the government has been asked for their plan for climate change, they've held aloft Bill C-30 as their plan and said, this is the plan. In an international context, what type of credibility would Canada have presenting a plan like Bill C-30 as the initiative that Canada is willing to undertake in the global effort to fight global warming?
10:10 a.m.
Adjunct Professor, Policy, University of British Columbia
I can give you a short answer to that question, Mr. Cullen. The answer would be zero. Bill C-30, as it currently stands, offers no comfort to anyone in Canada or elsewhere that Canada is going to change course and begin taking this challenge seriously.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
There seems to be...I don't know about a crossroads, but a conundrum that we face. You mentioned the three Ds, which I'll be referring to now, as denied, debated, and dithered for too long when it came to climate change. This placed Canada in the position that we are now. I believe you said that the 2004 number is 27% above.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So one assumes the business as usual that's gone on in the last two and a half years would place that number well above 27%.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Of the signatories that have binding targets, is there anyone at such a bad place right now with respect to their Kyoto targets?
10:10 a.m.
Adjunct Professor, Policy, University of British Columbia
I haven't looked at this for a few months, but the last time I checked, among the countries that have actually signed and ratified Kyoto, Canada is the farthest from achieving the target we set.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
For Canadians watching this debate and listening to this go back and forth in Parliament, we are amongst the greatest laggards in the world with one of the most difficult targets, and we have in front of us a so-called plan, a bill, that would gain us no international credibility whatsoever. Is that true? Have I summed it up?
10:15 a.m.
Adjunct Professor, Policy, University of British Columbia
You've summed it up correctly, and I think this committee.... That's why I made my first point. It was recognizing that it's simply not feasible for Canada to meet that 6% target in such a short amount of time. We have to think of global warming as a marathon, not a sprint. Canada is like someone who has talked about running a marathon for years without ever doing any training. For us to try to run one would inevitably cause severe injury.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
If we were to begin this marathon effort in earnestness, are absolute targets required in terms of emissions from, let's say, the large final emitters, the big polluters?
10:15 a.m.
Adjunct Professor, Policy, University of British Columbia
Yes, absolute targets are absolutely vital. The key absolute target is really emissions reductions of 80% by 2050, and then we can backcast from there to the present time and set interim targets based on absolute emissions reductions that will get us from where we are now to where we need to be.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
In your opinion, do those need to be legislated targets or can they be a voluntary system?
10:15 a.m.
Adjunct Professor, Policy, University of British Columbia
Certainly the experience would be that legislated targets would be a preferable approach because they create greater transparency and greater accountability.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You've had some experience in this. Why are governments reticent to legislate targets?
10:15 a.m.
Adjunct Professor, Policy, University of British Columbia
The only reason for being reluctant to legislate a target is if you're not really inclined to meet that target. I can give you an example. If you look at the environmental issues regarding which Canada has been successful, we have set ambitious targets and we have taken the necessary regulatory steps to meet those targets. The example of ozone depletion is a great one. Canada signed on to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer with very aggressive targets for eliminating CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals. Then we set regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that forced us to phase those chemicals out.