Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on Feb. 12th, 2007

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

I think that we need to encourage scientific development in many sectors. In my opinion, Mr. Wood is the expert in this field, whether you're talking about transportation, heating or the lights in the House of Commons. We need effective solutions.

Currently, there is a problem for the SMEs, the consumers and certain sectors: the solutions may be available, but they are still at the pilot-project phase. They are neither effective nor profitable.

I hope that the Canada-wide plan will encourage rapid investments in new technologies and that this will be done commercially, so that the SMEs and consumers will have access to the cars, trains, heating and electricity systems, etc.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Hughes Anthony. I don't think you're alone on the beer fridge.

Mr. Watson is next, for five minutes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Martin, I'll start with you. You've concluded in your brief to us that intensity-based targets are unacceptable. Do you stand by that statement?

[David Martin]

I believe that intensity-based targets are an unacceptable way to effectively gauge our progress on greenhouse gas reductions.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay.

[David Martin]

I think they have their purpose. They have a use, but this isn't the best use of them.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Are they useful on our way to a hard cap?

[David Martin]

They're interesting as a way of trying to understand what's happening in the economy. I mean, we want less intensity. That's a good thing. We want to accomplish more with less energy. There's no question that that's a good thing, but if we want to reduce greenhouse gases, let's be clear about it. Let's call a spade a spade. Let's have absolute levels, target them, and go for them.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

You mentioned that Canada's greenhouse gas intensity decreased 14%, while absolute levels of GHGs increased 27%. That 14% decrease, was that--

[David Martin]

That's an improvement, right?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Was that an intensity-based target, or is that just a measurement of something that actually happened?

[David Martin]

Well, it's not really clear. It may be, in fact, that the economy is in a downturn. It may indicate, and probably does, that the--

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I'm asking you whether that reflects an intensity-based target that was set.

[David Martin]

Oh, no, I don't believe so. I think that was happening spontaneously. That's what I'm saying.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay. Moving to Alberta's targets, you said 16% in 2010 and 28% in 2020. But they would allow absolute increases of 34% and 38%, respectively.

What would happen if those intensity-based targets were say 5% in 2010 and 15% in 2020? What would happen with GHGs?

[David Martin]

Well, I mean, obviously--

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Would they get worse?

[David Martin]

Yes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

What if they were say 25% in 2010 and 40% in 2020? What would happen to GHGs?

[David Martin]

Well, things would improve.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay. So intensity-based targets are not necessarily failures. It all depends on where you set them.

[David Martin]

No. I think they're a tool; I just don't think they're the best tool for this job.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay. Intensity-based targets are unacceptable is what you said, though.

[David Martin]

That's correct. They are not acceptable as a means of targeting and achieving greenhouse gas reductions.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Really? But you said that if the targets were set higher, we would in fact see measurable improvements in GHG reductions. How you set the number is where I'm going, I guess. So we can't conclude that they're necessarily unacceptable.

Ms. Hughes Anthony, Ontario's economy is soft right now; Alberta's is hot. Are you concerned about short-term targets, about what happens in the short term in that kind of scenario? What are you looking to see over the short term?