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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Martin, I really appreciated the Greenpeace brief. In your conclusion, you indicated that the objective of 50 megatonnes per year was necessary.

Does your analysis include a breakdown of this yearly 50-megatonne objective on a territorial basis, or have you broken it down according to corporate or big polluter objectives? Have you provided a breakdown for this 50 megatonnes?

[David Martin]

No, we haven't, but that figure was simply meant to put some perspective on what meeting our Kyoto target might mean. The reality is, if we have a business-as-usual scenario projection of what demand will be, it will be even higher. But it's meant to indicate that this is doable. It's not an absolutely inconceivable undertaking to try to meet our Kyoto target. We can do it, and we should do it.

Now, as to how that breaks down by region or province, that's a difficult question to answer. I think we have to pursue this project on provincial and regional bases, as well as on a national basis. I think the announcement today is a good indication of what can be accomplished when we approach the problem from different levels.

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

Have you had an opportunity to review Quebec Green Plan, which defines targets according to broad categories?

Is it possible to reach them? Is this achievable?

[David Martin]

Yes, I do think it's achievable. Quebec is obviously in a lucky position with hydraulic capacity. But still, this is a plan that has been put forward, it's a rational plan, and I think we'll see the results. It will come down to 80 megatonnes for Quebec, which is Quebec's share of the Kyoto target. It can be done. Quebec is a good model for the rest of the country.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Hugues Anthony, is the Chamber of Commerce report unanimous?

As regards your presentation, did the Fédération des Chambers de commerce du Québec submit a dissenting minority report?

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

You are referring to a report. Our position was set out in a resolution adopted during our annual convention. Several chambers of commerce from the province of Quebec participated in our convention, including the Fédération des Chambers de commerce du Québec.

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

Quebec appears to be headed towards a reduction of oil dependency and the Canadian west seems to instead be promoting economic growth through the oil sands.

Don't you think that there's a contradiction between these two schools of thought?

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

In my opinion, this is not about two schools of thought, but rather two realities. You can't change how natural resources are distributed amongst the provinces and territories with a wave of the wand.

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

And yet I heard you say earlier that Canadian policy should be applied equitably or equally, without making any distinction between the provinces.

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

As my colleague, Mr. Murphy, indicated, I too think that every province has a role to play. There is no doubt about that. Every province has different energy resources and industries.

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

I am talking about national policy.

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

Let us consider the Canadian economy, as one of the members suggested. Obviously, the development of natural resources has an entirely positive impact on the Canadian economy as a whole, and that includes Quebeckers, I believe.

This is why I believe it is difficult to establish targets on a territorial basis without recognizing the way that energy is distributed across the country.

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

You told me, earlier, that we must not hurt the economy by putting too many restrictions on the development of the oil sector. Should we be considering this approach, which is tied to the oil sands, from a long- or short-term perspective?

You talked about hurting the economy. I see short-term damage, but we must tie this to the global issue of climate change. You have seen from the Stern report what is waiting for us in 20 to 25 years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

A very short answer, please.

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

I completely agree, however, in my opinion, we must not identify one project in particular and say that it is the guilty party. The oil sands have made a tremendous contribution to Canadian growth. Last year, this was about 3%.

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

They also contributed to greenhouse gas emissions.

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

That's true. In my opinion, we need to do more research and develop technologies so that we can benefit from this development and minimize greenhouse gas emissions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you very much.

Sorry, Mr. Lussier, your time is up.

Mr. Manning, for five minutes, please.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Thank you very much for your attendance here today.

Mr. Wood, as Canada's greenhouse gas emissions skyrocketed over the past ten years, did the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy ever relay those concerns about these trends, either formally or informally, to the federal government?

[Alexander Wood]

As I said at the outset, there were a number of reports. The round table is an advisory committee, so the advice is offered up to the government to do with it what it chooses to do. There were a number of initiatives through the nineties focused on practical solutions to greenhouse gas emissions, on the transportation sector, on emissions trading, on the use of fiscal policy. There was also a national forum that was convened by the national round table to bring together members of the Order of Canada to look at what was known about climate change at that point, to try to arrive at some consensus statement over the issues that should be first and foremost in Canadians' minds. So there was that ongoing work in that period.

It's scaled up, obviously, because of references that have been made to the national round table by the previous government and by this government. So most of the more detailed analyses of the options that Canada is facing in the long term have really come over the last couple of years. It would be inaccurate to say that it was not a major preoccupation of the round table before that as well.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Martin, just to follow up on my colleague Mr. Jean, Buzz Hargrove testified here last week that Canada has less than 2% of the world's greenhouse gases. I want to quote Mr. Hargrove. He said:

No country that's signed on to Kyoto has been able to meet the targets....

Even if Canada had done everything possible, it couldn't do it all itself. If the United States doesn't do it, if other major powers around the world don't move in lock-step, then you still have a problem. Why would we jeopardize everything that Canadians hold dear while others are going merrily along their way?

I'd like to ask you to comment on it. Do you agree with Mr. Hargrove's comments?

[David Martin]

Well, in fact a number of countries are well on their way to meeting their targets. So we've already seen Germany has reduced its emissions since 1990 by over 17%. The United Kingdom has reduced its emissions by over 14%. I think the European Union countries generally are leading the way. So that's incorrect.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Which countries are not on target to meet their international commitments under Kyoto?

[David Martin]

Well, Canada is certainly among the worst of the culprits, but there are a number of them.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Can you name any?