Environment Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[Tim Williams]

So as far as I understand, the order of the last four meetings is based on who can show up, the availability of witnesses, but I have an update on the Kyoto process, mechanisms, and target setting, which would bring in the modelling, I think, that Mr. Cullen.... The modelling will come into mechanisms. It will also come into economic costs and impacts. There will be some crossover, as there always is, in the subject matter.

Number five is international, basically looking at how other Kyoto countries with targets are doing and how they're approaching their targets, and six is accountability, basically the commissioner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras.

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

That is fine with me. We can discuss the broad outline of the Kyoto Protocol, the cost, the mechanisms, but I am intent on doing one thing, and that is examining Bill C-288. I feel that it is important. Our mandate here is not Kyoto, we should try to see if we can amend this bill to make it acceptable to everyone. For example, clause 6 gives the provinces a certain amount of flexibility. That is something that concerns me greatly, and I would like to tighten up the definition and see how the provinces could implement the objectives that are set out in the bill's preamble.

We should devote some time to discussing how the provinces will implement this bill and how much flexibility they will be given. I do not know if one meeting will be enough, but this is something that we must certainly do. Personally, I do not think we will need more than one sitting out of six to discuss how these mechanisms to provide flexibility to the provinces would work. I think it is an interesting suggestion. And one meeting out of six is not too much to ask.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thanks for that, Tim. We always give you the best challenges.

I still haven't heard any committee members talk about this wrath of politicians that has been suggested by the government.

The other component was in terms of the provinces and their ability to meet these targets or be the partners, or what role they're likely to play in that brief, unless I missed it in your synopsis, Tim.

This goes back to the calendar, which I know the clerk and Tim will advise us on. I'm still not sure of other components that we're meant to be dealing with in the next number of weeks, these other visits and the other private members' bills. Are we just assuming that none of them are—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I agree with you on the cities and certainly the provinces. I just don't know how we would pull that off in a meeting in terms of involving all of the different provinces. Getting the provinces and other levels of government involved in this becomes a huge challenge.

Mr. Bigras, you've addressed it as well. Do you have an idea?

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

You misunderstood what I said. I want to investigate the scope of this bill and how the provinces would implement it. For example, clause 6 states that the Governor in Council may make regulations limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that may be released into the environment, within a specific time frame, within a province or territory, something to which the government agrees under the provisions of this regulation.

We could call as witnesses lawyers specializing in environmental law who would explain the scope of this bill. I am not asking for the provinces to appear. I want to know how this bill will affect the provinces. Maybe it should be amended. Maybe we should leave it alone. There is an important provision in this bill that allows provinces to set a target. We have to see how that would work.

This is important. If the bill passes, then provinces would be able to use this clause to operate within their own jurisdiction. That is not inconsequential. We have to be aware of the scope of this important provision of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think I understand now. Obviously the department would be the ones who could help us out there. Maybe we could even involve Justice's recommendations on interpreting the bill. I think that's what you're saying, and that would get us there.

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

I want to be clear; I am not only interested in how the Justice Department interprets the bill. I would also like to hear from some independent experts. I think they will be more objective.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, Tim has shared a list: urgency, impact, update on Kyoto, mechanisms and modelling, international, and then accountability, in that order, with some flexibility for the last four. We're in favour of that.

There are two topics, and I just want to clear up a comment from Mr. Bigras. The topics were not a work plan in that order. They were topics. If we can, I think we should incorporate these topics—which I think are important—into Mr. Godfrey's proposed work plan or the plan that Tim just shared with us.

The only two topics that I want to make sure are incorporated into that are the second and the third, which are action to date and previous plans. The other topics are being addressed with Mr. Godfrey's plan. The second and third could be incorporated into the update on Kyoto or into the urgency, which would be the first or third meeting. Either way, I think it's important that we learn from the past. We don't want to repeat mistakes.

That's my suggestion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Rodriguez.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Personally, I have no problem with incorporating those two items, actions to date and previous plans, because we have to learn from the past if we're going to improve in the future.

On the auditor, I don't think you need two hours. I personally discussed this with her, and you did too. A lot of people discussed this with her. By a simple amendment, it's very simple to make it acceptable for her and her team. If we're going to spend two hours and then change a sentence in two seconds for that, we will have wasted a whole session.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Harvey.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I would like to raise something that has not yet been discussed, namely, the solutions. Our aim is to cut CO2 emissions. That is all very well, but I would like to know what is being put forward, what solutions have been suggested.

In my riding, there is a company called CO₂ Solution. It takes CO2 and changes it into HCO3. Is there anything similar elsewhere? It is all very well to say that we want to reduce emissions and set certain limits, but we must also determine what that represents in dollars and cents and if it is doable.

I would like us to discuss solutions. We say that the situation warrants immediate attention, and that there are consequences relating to acting or not acting. I do not think that buying a carbon credit from Cameroon will solve the problem here at home. There are also objectives, costs, international issues and accounting. Motherhood and apple pie are one thing, but we have to be realistic.

Two weeks ago, my cousin died of cancer. The doctors did everything they could to save him, but he died because technology is not yet advanced enough. There may be progress in five or 10 years, but it will be too late for him, because he is dead.

I would like to know what is happening in this area. Is it doable? Ms. Gélinas said that out of the 300 million tonnes of CO2 that must be eliminated, only 100 tonnes can be accounted for here in Canada. The rest will have to be acquired elsewhere. That is her opinion. I would like to know if we are capable of reducing CO2 emissions by 300 million tonnes here in Canada, with the help of some facilities or some researchers. Thanks to its scientific research chairs program, Canada funds almost 70 chairs that are researching climate change.

Have there been any results achieved from all of the money we are investing? Is anything on the way?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Harvey, for your information, the G-8 plus five dialogue group is of course dealing with solutions, and their report is due in June 2008.

Just in the paper on the weekend, in an article on the carbon dioxide solution in Saskatchewan, entitled “Saskatchewan leads in CO₂ recovery”, their company, EnCana, is capturing carbon dioxide and sequestering it very successfully, and now that's being broad-based in Saskatchewan, which will be a huge difference.

Obviously now you're getting into the whole area again that personally I find most interesting. Here are the technological solutions to the real big problem, not only in Canada but globally. But now you're broadening the base again to include a lot of information.

I believe Mr. Cullen is next.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for pointing out the work of another good NDP government out there in Saskatchewan.

The question I have, and a lot of the large final emitters have posed this, and the previous government never answered the question, is one of any credit for early action. A number of companies have come forward and said, “We have done these things in some belief that Canada was going to actually be achieving targets.” Is there a percentage fix, or are companies just left to be with what they're left to be? And does this bill make any consideration for that? It's actually pretty critical for some of the companies we've talked to.

The other question, and I know it's in some of the plans, but not the one described by Tim, concerns the readiness of the market. I'm imagining under Mr. Rodriguez' bill that one of the key mechanisms will be the ability to trade emissions within the country or between companies or provinces. I'm not sure we've ever had testimony from the markets or the trading commodities in this country right now. I have no idea where they're at. Are they ready, or is Montreal ready to go? If that's going to be a key mechanism and they're five years from readiness, or they're ready to go tomorrow, I think that's worthwhile testimony.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I do remind everyone again to please read this. This was the six-month report of this committee, and we again addressed things such as sequestering of carbon dioxide. Many of these issues have already been dealt with, so rather than reinvent the wheel and invite the same witnesses, to hear the same testimony that we already have in writing...I just urge every member to read this. This is not all that old. This is from last year.

Many of the witnesses, of course, we're having back, so I just urge everyone to read that.

I believe Mr. Godfrey is next.

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

Just in the spirit of hope.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay. Mr. Watson, a comment on--

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I just have a comment on the report, Mr. Chair.

I will point out for the benefit of committee members who weren't here last time that major swaths of witness testimony were cut out of that report too. So there are some things that still need to be heard by this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay. Mr. Godfrey.

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

I'm trying to incorporate this into the work we're doing. It seems to me that the place to deal with actions taken, previous plans and all that, is both under an update to the Kyoto process and on the mechanisms discussion, because it will remind us of mechanisms that have been tried and maybe worked or not worked and what we think about those.

So there are two places for that in our work plan.

That would also get to where Mr. Cullen was talking, because in the bill itself, under 5(1), there is a description of the various mechanisms that might be deployed by government that we would want to measure. So that is a place again for a discussion of mechanisms, and trading, and all the sort of things that Mr. Cullen raised.

Understanding Mr. Rodriguez' point that it is probably, on our sixth session, unnecessary to devote the whole two hours to sorting out a problem that seems to have been pre-sorted, that might be a good place to bring in the provinces, because that will mean we're not crowding one of the other sessions.

So I'm just trying to keep incorporating these ideas into the plan in a way that doesn't.... I don't know if that works for you--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think Mr. Bigras, though, had agreed that it wasn't so much the provinces, it was more the implications for the provinces, which again would be dependent--

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

But I think we could do it in that session, is all I'm saying.