Environment Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2006

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

So quite aside from whether the government changed, the new targets are needed. I mean, regardless, that stands uniform.

[Johanne Gélinas]

That's absolutely right.

[Richard Arseneault]

But we did say there are transitions between governments and that this causes delays in implementing plans. We've seen this with the Chrétien/Martin government, and we obviously have another situation like this now.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Right. So even the transition from the Chrétien to the Martin government would have given you cause for thought.

[Richard Arseneault]

You know, there are always changes in the public service and changes in key people who are involved in the files. Transitions cause delays. It's well known.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

The very fact that these types of domestic credits may account for some 20% of that Kyoto gap, which leaves approximately 80% of the previous government's projected Kyoto compliance to be met--I assume that means met by some system of international credits or by some trading across the seas--do you see anything that would have allowed us to meet those Kyoto protocols without that massive reliance on purchasing overseas credits? Is there any way we could have come close to meeting that major 80% gap?

[Johanne Gélinas]

We have looked at the plans and measures that were put in place by the government. Based on that, it's clear that a big chunk of the reductions will come from buying credits in the international or domestic market.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

The previous government considered buying Kyoto credits from some countries, eastern Europe in particular.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

No, no, no.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

You referred to the U.S. just moments ago. Did the previous government demonstrate that they had looked at, for example, the U.S. model, the sulfur dioxide trading? That was successful, at least as I understand it. Did they look at that or did they focus solely on credits elsewhere--some would suggest in eastern Europe?

[Johanne Gélinas]

We haven't seen the design of the emission credit system because it's still under construction, as I've said. I will assume that the bureaucrats have looked at what was available. They have certainly looked at that success story. They may have looked at what is going on elsewhere, such as in California, the U.K., Japan, and in the European Union, where they all have something.

One thing I have to clarify, though, and Richard will just specify, is that there was no commitment that we have seen anywhere where the government was planning to buy hot air.

[Richard Arseneault]

Actually, ministers of the previous and the current government have made public statements many times that hot air is not in.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Well, in chapter 1, on page 32, the point being made is that the previous government was considering buying Kyoto credits from eastern Europe. In fact, in the same chapter in your report, you criticized the eastern European...because, as you say, they don't represent sustainable emission reductions. Their country is in a surplus position only because of industrial decline after 1990. It would appear from those comments that you're not so inclined to think that those are the most favourable places to be buying.

[Richard Arseneault]

The government had created a climate fund and offset system and all that. The plan was to buy green and to have a system in place to assure ourselves under the Kyoto Protocol, or by other means, that what we were buying as credits was actually going to profit the environment, not to invest in places where it would not. That was the position of the previous government, and I think it's the position of the current government.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

No more questions.

Mr. Scarpaleggia, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Speaking of provisions based on lack of analysis, when the new government came into power it proceeded rather quickly to cut funding to some programs, such as the EnerGuide program, despite the analysis and recommendations of the public servants. Would you have a sense that some of the cuts or some of the decisions the government has made have been made mostly for symbolic reasons, to perhaps erase the legacy of the previous government?

[Johanne Gélinas]

The only thing I can say with respect to the EnerGuide program-- because that's the one we're talking about--is that it was performing maybe not as expected. There was still room for improvement, but based on our own analysis as auditors, this program was going in the right direction in the sense that it was achieving greenhouse gas reduction.

With respect to why the decision was made to cut this program in particular, I'm sure the bureaucrats and the minister will be more than happy to give you those answers.

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

To follow up on that, there was another program called C-CIARN, Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network, and it was slashed very quickly. In fact, it was benefiting some very good research at Macdonald College of Agriculture in my riding. Then subsequently I heard that it was reinstated. Again, I'm wondering whether this government is making decisions based on analysis or ideology or is responding to the latest pressure.

My second question has to do with the confusion that exists, not just in the public mind but even I think in political circles, between measures that have an impact on air quality--things like smog--and those that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is a great deal of confusion around that issue. Without being overly partisan, I think the current government has tried to confound those two issues. Do you think we should have specific programs aimed at clean air improvement and separate programs focusing on greenhouse gas emissions, in order not to confound the objectives? Would doing so allow us to lay down the groundwork or the conditions for greater accountability so we could measure which program is achieving what?

[Johanne Gélinas]

As an auditor, I would say that what matters to me are the results. The government will get us there by having clear targets. You need targets to be able to report progress, so we need targets. If we can have clear targets, we can have a good system to report on progress. As far as I'm concerned, they can call it what they want; what we are looking for is greenhouse gas reduction, and that is really what matters.

A couple of years ago the government made a commitment to manage for results, so we should have in place within the federal government such systems that allow the government to report on results on performance and progress. Should we go with a clean air act? Should we go with CEPA? Should we go with something else? It's up to you to ask the questions about the rationale to go with this or that and figure out if it makes sense, but as an auditor, what I will always look for are clear targets and results.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Thank you.

Mr. Jean, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question deals primarily with the oil sands. I keep hearing about what's happening in northern Alberta. I am curious as to whether there has been any study or whether you have any knowledge as to what reduction in CO₂ there would be if a source of energy other than natural gas were found in order to produce the oil sands.

[Johanne Gélinas]

The short answer is that we don't do research and we don't do studies. We rely on what the government provides us with.

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

I'm going to go further on that.

There have been a lot of stories in the news about alternate forms of energy. Are you aware of any studies that indicate what the reduction in CO₂ would be if an alternate source was utilized or indeed if you could eliminate CO₂ emissions entirely? For instance, what if nuclear wind or hydro were to be put in place instead of natural gas? I think it's 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas for every barrel produced, or something in that neighbourhood.

[Johanne Gélinas]

I haven't seen anything myself, but I did not do that specific audit.

Do we have that type of information, David?

[David McBain]

We are aware of some studies. I don't have them with me. We could certainly dig up the ones that were outside the audit but that we became aware of in doing the audit work itself.