Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on Feb. 13th, 2007

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

The committee is committed to working together to strengthen Bill C-30 and move it forward. I think that every member would find that helpful as we consider the bill.

Mr. Maybee, you mentioned the combustion caused by the burning of biomass. Actually you raised concerns about the high pollution levels coming from burning biomass as opposed to fossil fuels. Could you elaborate on that, please?

[Dr. Barbara MacKinnon]

If you compare it to burning fossil fuels, we've been burning fossil fuels in large amounts for our power sources, for example, for many years and we're now able to get a large percentage of the air pollutants out of the air when we burn fossil fuels. Certainly the volume that we're producing still produces a lot of air pollution, but there's good technology for getting many of the air pollutants down, at least.

There's very little technology at the moment for reducing CO2, however, from fossil fuels. If you look at the technology that's available for burning biomass, it's at a much more primitive level. If you look at your own wood stove, even if it's an EPA-approved wood stove that greatly reduces emissions, the emissions that come out of those are still quite a bit higher than if you were burning an equivalent amount of coal in a well-stocked, fitted-out power plant.

One of the recommendations that have been considered for addressing climate change is using renewables, for example. Wood is a renewable resource. Its contribution to greenhouse gases is supposed to be equal. It sucks up as much CO2 when it grows as it emits when you burn it, or roughly equivalent. However, the problem with using that as a climate change solution is that it produces a lot of air pollution. So it would be a poor choice as a climate change solution because of its problems with air pollution.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

In the past year, the government has implemented a number of new policies, for example: the transit pass, encouraging people to use public transit; $1.4 billion for infrastructure for improving transit systems; the 5% renewable fuel content by 2010; removing mercury out of the switches for vehicles that have been scrapped; and a number of different policies.

Are we on the right track for cleaning the air?

[Kenneth Maybee]

I think those are good initiatives and we're looking forward to more. The ones that you mention certainly are good initiatives and they should be continued.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

The last question is this. The government, with Bill C-30, is moving from a voluntary to a mandatory regulatory regime and pollution hard caps announced, which will be short, medium, and long term. So you start off on a goal and you will achieve that. Are you okay with moving from the voluntary to the mandatory regulatory?

[Kenneth Maybee]

We've always been supportive of regulations, providing that the regulations fit into the circumstance at the moment. In terms of the way they're laid out, this was the first time we've had mandatory regulations that were proposed in this sense, so we're optimistic that regulations are on the right track.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you very much.

We will now begin our five-minute round.

Mr. McGuinty, please.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for coming, witnesses. It is much appreciated.

I want to go back to comments that I think were made by Dr. MacKinnon about this being a rich, successful, bright country and our ability to meet the Kyoto targets.

I took note of your words, Dr. MacKinnon, because I was struck by them. I think your colleague reminded us that the purpose of this committee is to work together so that we can come up with a better, new, and improved version. It is difficult for us, to be frank with you. For Canadians who are watching, it is difficult for us. We are doing our best.

Two things are overriding that. One is that the Minister of the Environment last week would not confirm that whatever shape this bill took when it got back to the House of Commons on March 30, he would move to implement it rapidly. Secondly, the Prime Minister is running around the country making announcements that are pre-empting the work of this committee--for example, regulations for fuel efficiency in vehicles, which are supposed to be under discussion here, the merits of which we are supposed to be considering with expert witnesses; yesterday, reannouncing our infrastructure program in Quebec City to help Monsieur Charest kick off his political campaign. It is hard for us to achieve the kind of consensus that we would hope to achieve when the Prime Minister is out pre-empting the work of the committee.

I want to nail down a few things with you. You really want to turn to page seven of your brief. I just want to make sure the committee members are all apprised of how you see us going forward specifically with Kyoto.

One, I think you say—just to repeat for the record—you are not in favour of intensity-based targets. You want to see absolute reductions in greenhouse gases in the country. Correct?

[Dr. Barbara MacKinnon]

Correct.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Two, in your short-term goals you are saying that we should make every possible effort to meet the target of reducing our greenhouse gases by 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. Correct?

[Dr. Barbara MacKinnon]

Correct.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

You want to say that if it is not possible with actual emission reductions in Canada, the federal government should complement our domestic efforts through financial expenditures and projects that will achieve reductions elsewhere in the world, meaning we should participate in the Kyoto clean development mechanism, the joint implementation mechanism, and the kind of international carbon market that we heard about earlier today through testimony, for example, in Europe. Correct?

[Dr. Barbara MacKinnon]

We are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol, and those are their techniques, yes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay. You are calling for large final emitters to be regulated to achieve the reductions consistent with the Kyoto targets by 2012?

[Dr. Barbara MacKinnon]

Yes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

You are telling Canadians that your organization and perhaps even your coalition, led by the Canadian Lung Association, want to see Canada continuing to participate and leading in the Kyoto Protocol, in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process, so that we can not only achieve the first set of targets but, I presume, also move aggressively in setting new targets beyond 2012?

[Dr. Barbara MacKinnon]

Generally yes, although one can't predict how the UNFCCC will proceed. But we hope we would be able to dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, together with the rest of the world, yes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay. Is that the position of the other witnesses who are here today? Is that generally a restated position of most of your groups and organizations?

[Stephen Samis]

The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada doesn't have a position on the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, the timelines, and the targets for that. That is why I was pretty careful in my comments to speak particularly about air pollution and air particulate matter as part of the bill. I'm not able to comment and to provide a foundation's position on Kyoto.

[Dr. Oxana Latycheva, Vice-President, Asthma Control Programming, Asthma Society of Canada]

At the Asthma Society of Canada, we have a similar position to that of the Heart and Stroke Foundation. We are here to support, in general, the air pollution provisions under Bill C-30.

In terms of the Kyoto standards, we don't have a position at the moment, but we can discuss it internally at the Asthma Society of Canada and consult with our medical and scientific committee, and we can put our position in our briefing note.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Those were my questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you.

Mr. Jean, for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses for coming today.

I too suffer from allergies, but there is nothing like having your son suffer from asthma and being hospitalized to really know what is important in life. I can assure you that I have seen that many times. That is why I was so impressed with this particular bill, Bill C-30, and the fact that clean air is the topic and household air is the objective.

My understanding, after doing some research, is that 90% of Canadians' time is pretty much spent indoors, and in fact, I would suggest that's where many people get sick and become ill. Indeed, I was impressed with the ability to regulate fireplaces, the ability to regulate fuel combustion inside and organic compounds such as solvents inside.

I want to follow up with something Mr. Warawa said earlier. Do you believe we are on the right track with Bill C-30 as far as indoor quality of air is concerned, which is obviously the first-ever attempt to do so?

Mr. Maybee.

[Kenneth Maybee]

I think you're on the right track.

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

Is that fair to say, Mr. Samis?