Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on Feb. 6th, 2007

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

I'm wondering, Professor, how would you grade the government's action from 1993 to 2005? What kind of grade would you give them on their adherence to their own finish line plan?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

In one minute, please.

[David Boyd]

I'd give them an F.

But I'd also like to respond to your question to Mr. Erasmus to clarify that everything you pointed out that the government is able to do on indoor air and bio-monitoring, in terms of reporting on pollution to Canadians, already exists under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as it stands. You don't need Bill C-30 to do that.

I think you're confusing Kyoto and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Those things are not part of Kyoto. Kyoto deals exclusively with greenhouse gas emissions. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is capable of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, outdoor air pollution, and indoor air pollution.

I just wanted to make that clarification.

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

I understand, Mr. Boyd, but to be fair, it does actually go further. If you want, I can send you a copy of this plan to show you how much further it goes.

My question to you is--

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Sorry, Mr. Jean. We're at five minutes.

I'll only accept a comment. We mustn't disregard Mr. Castonguay.

I turn the floor over to Mr. Lussier.

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

Mr. Castonguay, I didn't hear you talk much about air pollution in your presentation. I'd like to know whether you are examining Bill C-30, which concerns the issue of greenhouse gas emissions, climate change and air pollution; we're also talking a lot about smog and ambient air quality.

In your view, does Bill C-30 target the right objectives, with regard to climate change, or does air pollution currently pose a problem?

[Mathieu Castonguay]

For the Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique, by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we're clearly reducing the polluting emissions that cause smog.

Most smog-causing pollutants are produced through the combustion of fossil fuels. If we address fossil fuels, we thereby address the main contaminants that form smog. It's important to target greenhouse gas emissions on a priority basis because we achieve a range of gains for both health and environmental quality.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Villeneuve, are you familiar with the Quebec government's Green Plan?

[Claude Villeneuve]

Yes.

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

In view of the targets the Government of Quebec has set for itself, does it need Bill C-30 to achieve its objectives?

[Claude Villeneuve]

No, not necessarily. The Quebec government has developed a plan, which is its third since 1998. That plan provides for measures designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at various levels. However, the government doesn't have the necessary tools to do that. For example, the plan contains measures that merely transfer greenhouse gas emissions, and others depend to a large degree on the choices of individuals.

The Quebec government has established a carbon tax measure that is very much incomplete because it targets only a single sector, the oil industry. This measure is incomplete, and Bill C-30 isn't of any particular assistance to it in this regard.

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

What do you mean by transfers? What do they transfer?

[Claude Villeneuve]

I'll give you a very simple example. The Quebec plan, like the Canadian measures retained from the old Canadian plan, recommends raising ethanol levels in gasoline to 10%. When you don't take into account the life cycle of ethanol, ethanol production doesn't directly reduce greenhouse gases. The Canadian plan, like the Quebec plan, states that this measure will make it possible to achieve a reduction equivalent to 10% of greenhouse gas emissions produced by automobiles. In actual fact, the reduction would perhaps be more in the order of 2% to 3%, with remaining emissions being transferred to the agricultural, transportation and industrial sectors. This is simply an emissions transfer. So this a measure that's not very effective.

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

Earlier you talked about linking the Gaspé wind farms to New Brunswick. Is the possibility of linking Churchill Falls to Ontario another solution?

[Claude Villeneuve]

The solutions are effective only if they result in the closing of plants that are already producing greenhouse gases and atmospheric pollution. The example that I gave earlier was purely hypothetical. If we link Churchill Falls or any new hydroelectric dam and that results in the closing of six or seven coal-fired power stations in Ontario, there will indeed be a reduction. But if Churchill Falls or any other hydroelectric power station is linked to Ontario and no plants are closed and we merely add, we'll reduce carbon intensity, but we won't eliminate emissions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I'll just remind members that there are two meetings on air pollution scheduled as well, so we may not want to dwell too much on that.

Go ahead, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us in person and by video conference.

As the chair mentioned, there are eight topics: international aspects, climate change, transportation, target setting, large industry, tools, air pollution, and the IPCC report. Today the topic is climate change. I understand there is overlap and that we will drift off the topics a little bit, but I'd like to try to get us back to the issue of climate change.

I do appreciate the comments and recommendations. We're here to hear from each of the witnesses on how Bill C-30 can be strengthened and improved. I want to thank each of the witnesses for their suggestions already.

On climate change, many have said that it's Kyoto or nothing. Professor Boyd has said that we're not going to be able to meet those targets, short of sending billions of dollars outside of Canada to buy hot air credits. What are the options? Again, we need to do much more than what Canada has done in the past to deal with the issue of climate change.

What are the options for Canada internationally? Who would like to speak to that? Maybe I'll start with Mr. Boyd.

[David Boyd]

Thank you.

I think it's really important to distinguish between our participation in Kyoto and Canada's inability to meet one specific aspect of our participation, and that is the 6% target. That does not, in any way, mean that we are no longer participants in the Kyoto Protocol. As I mentioned earlier, the Kyoto Protocol does have provisions for nations that don't meet their targets. Penalties will be applied in subsequent periods, and obviously the emissions reduction targets for everybody, for future Kyoto periods--that is, beyond 2008 to 2012--remain to be negotiated.

A huge international challenge also involves broadening Kyoto so that countries that currently do not have emissions targets are brought on board. And I'm speaking specifically of some of the major developing countries, like China and India.

Canada has a vital international role to play in strengthening and broadening the Kyoto Protocol and in extending it further into the future to provide certainty, not only for Canadians but for all citizens of the world as we move forward. This is a global challenge, and it will require a global effort to address the problem.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Dr. Boyd.

I do appreciate your comment. I do agree. We are still committed to the Kyoto Protocol.

I'd like to ask Professor Villeneuve if he could comment on AP6, G-8 plus five, and the importance of dealing with Kyoto, but also on the other options that Canada can use.

[Claude Villeneuve]

The Kyoto Protocol is like a practice for the actual game. In actual fact, it isn't a final agreement. As Prof. Boyd said, to combat climate change, we have to achieve global objectives in the order of 25 billion tonnes, and Canada in all that only constitutes a very small part. Are there any other options besides the Kyoto Protocol? I'll use a simple analogy. If, in 2005, I promised that I'd weigh 30 kilos less by Easter 2007 and I weigh 60 more today, it's not very likely that people would believe me, especially if I haven't yet started an exercise program. Canada absolutely has to prove its will by putting in place the tools that will enable it to catch up, if it ever can catch up. For Canada, the issue of achieving a specific target isn't so much related to the target as to the process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you very much. That concludes that time.

We'll go to Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll try to be efficient in my questioning.

Mr. Boyd, what is the penalty if we miss the targets?

[David Boyd]

The penalty that's currently established under the Kyoto Protocol is that 30% of the amount that you missed your previous target by is added to your emissions reduction target for the next period.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Of annual reduction target for the next period. So the penalty is a function of how much you missed your targets. Is that correct?

[David Boyd]

Correct.