Environment Committee on Nov. 9th, 2006

[Prof. Mark Jaccard]

Briefly, the experience I've had was when I was part of an expert panel that was asked to advise the Chinese government in 1990. During the first seven years, we suggested a reduction in subsidies to coal-fired plants, a renewable electricity policy and a greenhouse gas emissions capture policy. The Chinese weren't interested in that, but, as soon as we signed the Kyoto Protocol, they changed their mind because they realized they had to predict the direction the industrialized countries would take in terms of technologies. They figured that, one day or another, they would necessarily pay financial penalties if they continued to produce dirty energy.

For that reason, I'm in favour of the idea that we industrialized countries can now move forward. That's why I'm saying, when we talk about the dangers of proceeding with technological change, that I don't believe those dangers are that great.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Jaccard, in regard to Mr. Malo's question, he and I were in China a couple of weeks ago, and we couldn't see the buildings across the street. We were told that there was an 800-megawatt coal-fired power plant coming on stream every week, with over 500 on the drawing board. So obviously I know where his question came from. We literally could chew the air by the end of the week. We're choking from what they're producing.

Our time is up. We'll go to Mr. Vellacott.

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

My question follows up on that, because I know what the gentlemen speak of with respect to China. I remember the first time a brother-in-law of mine, who's provincially involved in Saskatchewan, with the department there, was over visiting China, and you could smell something like kerosene off the book when you opened those beautiful pages. When I was there, likewise, it was a pretty grey atmosphere.

On the issue of credibility, especially in regard to other countries--those that have signed on to Kyoto, those that have not--I framed this question the other day. I want to ask it again because I think it's important. It came up with respect to this issue of benchmarking. I don't want to be unfair, but the issue is that we don't have a hope of meeting the Kyoto targets. As long as we benchmark, that's the good thing, and then we can compare to how far we fall short of that.

I'd raise the other issue, in terms of our credibility and trust with other countries. My view is that in terms of human relations and country-to-country relations, we could bring the process into disrepute and then we won't have the goodwill at some point later, when we're serious and assertively moving on some targets and so on.

I liken it to relating to my four children, my five grandchildren. If I'm to make outlandish promises to the effect that I'm going to spend two hours individually with each of them every night, doing what they want to do, and there's not a hope of keeping that, you know, it's just not realistic. I'll be a laughingstock almost. I'll blow my credibility with my own children, and then when I need the goodwill and the trust and credibility in other crucial relationships, which of course one does in continuing to be a dad and grandfather over the years ahead....

I think we should be assertive. I think we need to act on both greenhouse gases and the Clean Air Act, the air pollution itself, and I think as a result of seriousness, we'll get the greater reductions in both air pollution and greenhouse gases. But as we set these goals and targets, what's the downside or the negative fallout? Yes, the benchmarking....

I think there's another possibility here of actually losing credibility, not having the trust of countries like China, India, and so on that might come into it later, if in fact we're just playing little games that are clearly unrealistic. That would be my question, in terms of the international community, when we just throw a figure up there, minus 6%, Kyoto commitment, and so on.

The environment commissioner has said there's no evidence of analysis supporting that. I guess I want to get at the philosophical question of the necessity of doing the hard work and making realistic targets to get the job done.

[Dr. Bob Page]

I think that's a very important question, because I think there is the issue of Canada's credibility internationally as well as Canada's credibility domestically in connection with this.

One of the points I would make is that in terms of being a corporate executive, I'm very concerned with attempting to spend a lot of money right now--as I was trying to say in my presentation--on credits purchase, not on long-term technology investment, and then having to turn around, say in 2010, and change the system completely.

I'd like to see us sit down and set a program with short-, medium-, and long-term goals, so that it's an integrated thing. If that took place I think we would maintain our credibility. But we also have to accept the fact that we've taken some knocks internationally in terms of the perception of what we've been doing thus far, and I think that has to be addressed in any program to try to keep that kind of credibility you're talking about.

[Prof. Mark Jaccard]

This is not something I think about as much, but I was at an international meeting in England just a couple of weeks ago in which a Japanese delegate referred to Canada's shame in terms of all of this.

And I end up coming...first of all, I really don't like the word “targets”, because targets are what we've had before. They have to be obligations, constraints, backed by penalties. Anybody can set targets. In fact, we're all great at doing that. But what you're really talking about is an obligation, a requirement of what you're going to achieve and why and how, and it has to be laid out right through the economy, rather than talking about targets.

I think from Canada's point of view, though, our only choice now is simply to say to the international community that we screwed up, that this has not worked, and now here are the policies we're putting in place as part of goodwill. We won't be a leader by putting those policies in place, but we want to be among the countries that are driving forward with this now, and we'll carry that with us into future negotiations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Go ahead, Mr. Bruce.

[James Bruce]

If we're going to avoid even more disastrous impacts on the Canadian economy and environment than what I outlined earlier, we do have to get the developing countries of the world on board post-Kyoto, and there are negotiations going on even now as we speak about what to do post-Kyoto. Canada will have absolutely no credibility in those negotiations if we don't have in place by 2012 some policies, some programs, that show that we are at least trying to meet the target or the obligations that we earlier accepted.

[Ken Ogilvie]

Just by way of illustration, I'm quite active on the ISO 14000 standards internationally and domestically, and Canada played a key role in moving the greenhouse gas standard to ISO 14064 and ISO 14065 internationally. And when I go to international plenaries, Canada plays a very important bridging role between developing and developed countries. There is a lot of trust in Canada, and it enables us to do things that we would otherwise not be able to do. It is really important that if we feel we can't meet an obligation internationally, we still acknowledge that we have it, we benchmark against it, and we try to show when we're going to meet it. That becomes a very important psychological point when we actually do meet the target.

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

Do we acknowledge that we--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Vellacott, you're well over your time.

Could I go to Mr. Cullen, please?

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

I apologize for missing the first hour. I'll be looking at the blues.

There's a question I have. I suspect that we've had a broad conversation about the policy and implications. I'm trying to focus this back to this bill. This committee will be trusted with the effort of revising or changing and ultimately trying to pass this back into legislation.

As this bill stands right now, I wouldn't mind some comments on its capacity to do what the preamble claims to want to do within the legislation. I don't want to assume that the witnesses have all read through the legislation. I'm seeing various.... But I would like comments from those who have. I'll start with Mr. Page, because you acknowledged first that you had.

What do you see in this that's most worrisome, and what do you see in this as a most positive aspect of the bill?

[Dr. Bob Page]

I don't disagree with the motives behind the bill, so I'm not trying to come at it, but for me, in terms of running our business operations, I see no way in which you are trying to help me meet those obligations. I see the obligations with regard to the Kyoto period as being very onerous for our company. Five years ago, we put forward to the government a 25-year plan that was going to take us to carbon neutrality by 2024, and the point I tried to make in my presentation was that if we have to buy all the credits to meet the needs of the bill, because the technology won't be in place until at least 2012, then that money for the credits will then destroy our capability to make the technology--

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

Let me stop you there for a moment. There is an assumption you've made in terms of how those targets will be achieved, in terms of the need to buy credits. Are you bringing the perspective, specifically, of your company when you say that you don't believe that the targets and emissions cuts described in this bill are possible otherwise? Or are you suggesting that this is a broader comment on the Canadian economy's ability to meet these targets without buying credits?

[Dr. Bob Page]

I was trying to be specific here, Mr. Cullen. I was trying to say what it meant in terms of the thermal electricity sector, and I was not trying to make a comment in terms of the overall Canadian economy.

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

From your perspective, from your company's and perhaps your sector's perspective...in this bill—I want to hear other witnesses or I'm going to run out of time here—there's a mechanism for a trading system, one that a lot of people have put a lot of value towards on the international scene. Is that not something that would offer, outside of your--

[Dr. Bob Page]

It would, and you're very right to point to that. The point I made earlier was that it would take two years to put in place the rules for a trading system. It would take at least three years after that for the offset projects and others to be in place in terms of generating the credits for a trading system to then work.

My issue is not with the targets; it's with the timing.

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

Okay, understood.

Mr. Bruce or Mr. Ogilvie, do you have a comment?

[Ken Ogilvie]

Yes, it's very important that we hold on and recognize the commitment we've made to Kyoto. It is also, from a pragmatic point of view, understood that we're not going to meet exactly the Kyoto target. We're going to fall very short of it. You have the elements in here that are driving us towards the policy framework idea that I suggested. If I had any modifications I'd look at them carefully so that at least the elements of the policy framework were wired into the bill. The idea of having plans, reporting against them, making projections, and having an independent assessment of them are all very good elements of public policy, in my opinion. There are a lot of good things in here.

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

But there seems to be a “but” in your tone. What is the “but”? Is it the timeline or is it the—

[Ken Ogilvie]

We're not going to meet the commitment period target fully. I would still put something in there, though, that still held it as an important element of Canada's commitments we've made internationally. Reporting against it and striving to achieve it is still an important goal for Canada.

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

Perhaps it's the language we're using here—and there was a comment from Mr. Jaccard on this. I think Canadians get confused by this. I've heard from various parliamentarians that we wish to stay within the framework of Kyoto, as the minister has said, but not to meet Kyoto. Canadians want to understand if emissions are going to hit a certain point—and I take your point, Mr. Jaccard, about obligations and the need to have a penalty, or something, ascribed so there's a serious tone to this.

Can you clarify the language a bit, because the idea of staying within the framework and the intentions of...? Kyoto is unique in its perspective in holding out real numbers. It wasn't an intention to do something about climate change; here are the numbers Canada signed on to and agreed to.

With this bill as is and the comments we've heard so far, what is your opinion on its efficacy in achieving the numbers—not the framework, the spirit, those grey words?

[Prof. Mark Jaccard]

I guess I can't comment on that because I haven't read the bill.

My only point will be—and these are the comments I made earlier—is that when people talk about moving towards achieving Kyoto or part of Kyoto, and so on, in the four- to six-year timeframe we're talking about, I would say we can do almost nothing. I think people don't understand the inertia of capital stock investment and human behaviour.

As a system modeller, the timeframe of four to six years is a flash to me. In fact, I'm now doing scenarios for the national round table on Canada getting to 2050 with a 50% reduction. It looks like it might be extremely difficult to make that. The technologies are in place or are there, but the capital stock turnover and the inertia in the system is incredible. If I can bring anything to this table for people who are not doing these kinds of models of the economy, it's to get them to understand how much inertia is in our system. Sure, a new computer can come into the system very quickly, but it's different when we're talking about major infrastructure, major industrial facilities, energy conversion plants, and so on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen, your time is up.

Dr. Jaccard, my daughter does this modelling in Europe, where she's been doing a model for 2055 for the German government. Those are the kinds of timelines we look at in this modelling.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for each of you. Have you had a chance to look at Bill C-30, the Clean Air Act, and the notice of intent? Have you had a chance to read those?

Good. I'm seeing some nodding.

There were quite a few comments about policy. We believe that what we are hearing today is the direction in which the Clean Air Act will take us, and it provides good policy to address a plan that's well thought out.

The government is still committed to Kyoto; we are still involved with Kyoto. We've indicated that it's not likely we'll meet our targets. We said we will not meet our targets.

When I asked you in the first round, you each agreed that we will not meet our targets.

Mr. Jaccard mentioned that we were voluntary, and I think he recommended that we should be mandatory. This is exactly the direction that the government is hoping to take on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants.

We will be setting targets for both pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in a few months from now. We've gone through years of consultation. We are now in the negotiating stage, setting those targets. We are now also in the 60-day period, since we've gazetted the notice of intent to invoke public input, and hopefully you will provide input on those notices of intent, so that we have good policy. The better the input, the better the policy, so I encourage you to do that.

Very soon, at the beginning of 2007, we will have those targets set—targets, not obligations, but I hear you very clearly—for greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants.

The environment commissioner, when she was here, challenged us to work together on this very important issue. Today we're talking about the impacts; on Tuesday it was the urgency. I can sense the urgency in each of your presentations. You're telling us to take those steps in the direction of acting, and I believe we are.

The commissioner did challenge us to work together on our Clean Air Act and lay aside what's happened in the past. I'm assuming that you are doing the same because of the urgency—that we lay aside the politics and work together on this very important issue. Is that a fair assumption?

The final question I have, and I have a couple of minutes, is for Mr. Jaccard, if you could just share the realistic situation that we're in.... I was at a town hall meeting in Crescent Beach—you know where that is—on Saturday. People were saying, “Do something now”, which is what we're hearing. We listed the renewable fuel content, and I introduced my plan.

If you've read the Clean Air Act and know its intent, you know where we are going, the actions we've already taken—to take mercury out of scrap vehicles and encourage use of public transit. Do you have any other specifics?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Warawa.

Mr. Cullen.