Environment Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2006

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

Actually, I would appreciate copies of that.

That's my only question.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Thank you.

Do you wish to share your time with somebody else?

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

Yes, I'll share it with Mr. Vellacott, please.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Mr. Vellacott.

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

I want to go back, Madam Commissioner, with respect to what I said before.

In your report on page 32, chapter 1, it indicated the government of the day was prepared to buy offset credits. That would have represented only about 21% of the estimated Kyoto gap.

As I mentioned before, if I do my math, and I'm not a math whiz, I guess the 80% is still a shortfall and there's a big gap. Do you know of any other way aside from international credits to meet that 80%? If all they were prepared to do was buy 20% domestically, is there another planet or something else that isn't in consideration here today?

[Johanne Gélinas]

You will have to keep your question for the minister; she can answer that question. I don't know. I've looked at what's there.

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

Have you come across any other options domestically and internationally?

[Johanne Gélinas]

As I said, even with respect to those systems, we haven't been able to put our hands on what it is. It's still not finalized, and it's a concept more than anything else. We cannot tell you the details of what the regulations will be, what the trading system will be, or who will trade.

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

I understand that. But according to your own report, you say that all they were prepared to buy was 20% in terms of domestic credits. You have an 80% shortfall. It can't be domestic. It obviously has to be international, which then gets into other countries. Your own report says you're not at all impressed with the eastern Europe scenario because it's not sustainable. That's what I understand from chapter 1 of your report.

To rephrase the question, if that's the only other option and it's not sustainable over there, why did the previous government demonstrate that they had seriously considered other models? If we're not using the eastern Europe one, were any other models looked at, as in the U.S. and the sulphur trading there? Was anything else looked at?

[Johanne Gélinas]

The emission trading system that the government was planning or is still planning to develop—it's a little tricky here—which is the emission trading system, is not very different from the one in the U.S. for sulphur dioxide. It's not that different. It's the same principle, with some differences. In our case, we were looking at an intensity target. In their case, it's an absolute number.

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

I understand what you're saying. But did it appear as if the government had looked at that model?

[Johanne Gélinas]

Of course, the government would have looked at that model, as I said earlier, and other models to build our own domestic emission trading system.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Your time is up.

Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to go back to the federal approach presented to date. I am at paragraph 1.49 which is on page 22 of Chapter 1 in the English version.

I must say that this is somewhat of a shock to me. It has always been said that if we want to meet our targets, the large industrial emitters must be in a position to deliver the goods. That is a prerequisite. What you are saying in paragraph 1.49 is that projections show that the large final emitter system, which aims to reduce emissions intensity, would not lower absolute emissions below 1990 levels.

You are telling us that the strategy... I have listened to what the government has said in recent days. The possibility of regulating the oil industry has not been ruled out. Again last week, Ms. Ambrose said that we had to face facts: the oil industry must be regulated.

You are telling us, on page 22, that this regulated market-based approach is only reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That does not allow us to reach 1990 levels.

I must point that out, because it leads me to another question. What are we going to do now to ensure that large industrial emitters can deliver the goods? If the approach that aims to regulate large industrial emitters does not enable us to meet our target, what are we going to do? Would you favour another approach?

[Johanne Gélinas]

You must make a distinction between the approach and the targets. The large final emitter approach is a regulatory one that would set targets. What we say in the two previous paragraphs, in paragraphs 1.47 and 1.48, and what I also stated in my opening remarks, is that targets for the industrial sector have been reduced continuously since 2002.

So it is the target that will enable us to meet the Kyoto objectives, and not necessarily the approach. One approach is as good as another, if we consider the pros and cons of each of them. The government will make a decision as to its preferred approach, but what is important are the targets.

In 2002, the industry target was 55 megatons. It then went to 45 megatons, and now, it is probably about 30 megatons. Knowing that industry represents 53 per cent of emissions, it is clear, if we compare these figures with the overall reduction target, that we are a long way from meeting it.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

But for me, the approach is also important, because it dictates the means that we will be implementing to meet our targets. What we understand to this point, is that if the target for large emitters has gone from 55 to 45 megatons, and if we analyze the Green Plan, we see that it could even go down to 33 megatons. I would even go as far as to say that large emitters, in the last plan, have a 33 megaton requirement. These means are not adapted to this reality. I think that we might even miss the 33 megaton target. I think that is also important.

Since we are talking about targets, your comments have caused many people to react. I do not have the text in front of me, so please correct me if I am wrong, but you said more or less that if the government feels that it is not in a position to meet the Kyoto targets, it will present new targets and tell us how it intends to meet them. At the same time, you say that we have gone too slowly, that we must pick up the pace and show more determination. We must act more quickly and with more determination. We have been too slow to take action.

I want you to clearly understand that what you want is not a lower target, but a higher one. I am afraid that the government will present a green plan which will reduce green house gas emissions by seven or eight per cent, but by 2025.

Can you tell us today that what you would like to see is a higher target, in other words, a more stringent target? I would not want people to understand that you are suggesting we postpone meeting the target, because, as Mr. Dion said during our meeting last week, that would be a very bad spin.

[Johanne Gélinas]

The main message in this report is that we must work more ardently. That means doing more that what we have done to date. Having said that, I am giving you the information that has been gathered over the past 18 months.

The other message that I am delivering is that if we stick to the Kyoto target, what we have now is not enough. Among other things, we will have to deal with the automobile and transportation sectors. If the government chooses — and that is its prerogative — to reduce targets, it is clear that it is no longer striving to meet the Kyoto objective.

My third message is this, regardless of the decision, we will need a clear plan containing new targets and measures to meet them.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

The government's decision...

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Mr. Bigras, your time is up. You had almost six minutes.

Mr. Vellacott.

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

I would just put this question here. Back in the fall of 2005, there was a major conference, a Kyoto conference in Montreal. Did you audit how much money the government has spent on conferences related to climate change, especially the Kyoto conference in Montreal?

[Johanne Gélinas]

No.

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

You didn't even look at it?

[Johanne Gélinas]

No.

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

Why not? Is that not part of the ambit or the purview?

[Johanne Gélinas]

We developed this audit plan two years ago, and at that time, the decision had not even been made to have the COP meeting in Montreal.