Environment Committee on Nov. 21st, 2006

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

So if this were the piece of legislation that brought us to 2012, what kind of confidence would you have in Canada's readiness or ability to be a leader on this issue globally? How good would it be if this were the bill that carried us forward to 2012?

[Dr. David Sauchyn]

In terms of addressing a very critical but small component of climate change, I'm very much supportive of this bill, but as I said, it addresses only a very small part of the issue.

As I mentioned earlier, and as I responded when I was asked to be a witness, my expertise is not in terms of greenhouse gas reduction. Even so, I was invited to be here.

I was at a meeting recently with the vice-president of a large energy company in Alberta, the fifth largest energy company in Canada. When I met with him he gave me an education. He told me that it would take about 15 years to retrofit one of their coal-fired generating plants in Alberta. As Mr. Cleland put it, you can't turn the economy around on a dime.

I appreciate that it applies to these large-scale projects, but it seems that there are other smaller projects in this country that could be retrofitted quite a bit more quickly. One project that we're all engaged in is getting to work every day. I've read that about 90% of all vehicle use is to move a single person less than five kilometres, to work and back each day.

Come on, we're all capable of walking or riding a bicycle five kilometres.

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

Maybe we'll make an amendment to Bill C-288 to encourage walking.

[Dr. David Sauchyn]

Let's just make it sexy to ride a bike.

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

Mine is locked up outside; Mr. Godfrey's might be as well.

[Dr. David Sauchyn]

So why don't we start right there?

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

Yes, maybe we'll start with the committee members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I don't want to mention the climate problems in Regina, riding that bicycle at minus whatever—

[Dr. David Sauchyn]

Yes, three months of the year, that's right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa and Mr. Harvey.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be sharing my time with Mr. Harvey, as you mentioned.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here this morning.

As has been pointed out, the focus is to be on targeting and modelling. I appreciate the comments on adaptation, because it's an important topic, but that's not the topic this morning.

We've heard some comments from the Liberal Party regarding Bill C-288. It sounds as though they're already considering amendments to this bill in relation to targeting. But Bill C-288, as it is before us, is quite clear, even in its title: An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

In terms of targets, the Kyoto Protocol requires that Canada reduce its average annual greenhouse gas emissions, during the period of 2008 to 2012, to 6% below their level in 1990. We've heard from the Commissioner of the Environment that we will not meet those targets. We've heard from the Minister of the Environment that we will not meet those targets. We've heard from the witnesses at this committee already that we will not meet those targets. One of them said that Bill C-288 would have been a good bill in 1998, but it's not relevant anymore. We had an opportunity to meet those targets, possibly, but it's too late.

My first question to you is this, and I think some of you addressed this already during your comments. Without spending billions of dollars internationally to meet those targets, can we domestically meet those targets?

Mr. Sauchyn, I think you said you don't know.

Perhaps I can ask each of you for a yes , no, or I don't know to this question: do you believe we can meet those Kyoto targets, which is what Bill C-288 is asking us to do?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We'll start with Mr. Cleland and go across.

[Michael Cleland]

I hope my testimony is reasonably clear on that. I think the answer is clearly no.

But I would like to add that I disagree with the witness who suggested that it might have been a good idea in 1998. I disagree with that. In 1998 it was a bad idea too; we couldn't meet those targets then. We reached too high, and as a consequence, we ended up stifling a lot of the things we needed to do. We needed to understand the economy better.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I hate to cut you off, but I have very limited time. So could I get the next comment?

[Kory Teneycke]

No.

[Dr. David Sauchyn]

To say we can't meet those targets is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Dr. Ian Burton]

No, we can't meet them.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Sauchyn, I find your comments quite interesting, actually. You said that Bill C-288 only covers a very small portion of the Kyoto Protocol. Yet you said you didn't know if we could meet it, and you also said you're very supportive of it. So I find that a little bit puzzling, but that's fine.

[Dr. David Sauchyn]

Can I address that? I'm sorry, I just meant that I'm supportive of the Government of Canada participating in the Kyoto process, because there are lots of reasons to be engaged in this process besides specific emissions targets.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I agree with that, but at this point you're not sure whether or not we can meet those targets?

[Dr. David Sauchyn]

I'm just saying I don't have the professional expertise to answer that question.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Teneycke, this tags on to Mr. Cullen's question regarding Bill C-288 and whether this would be a good bill to guide us in moving forward. Do you see anything in Bill C-288 that would advance the use of renewable fuels? You said there was this limbo right now, with Bill C-30, the Clean Air Act, having been introduced, and now we're in this time of political limbo where the opposition, the Liberals and the Bloc, have said they're not going to support that bill. It's created this instability in the investment market.

Does Bill C-288 provide that security or stability?

[Kory Teneycke]

I think it's addressing a different issue. Insofar as the government has targets that are long term, stable, and viable both environmentally and economically, I think that's a positive piece of the puzzle. I would agree with those who are saying this is one component of what needs to be a broader strategy.

But I think where we're in limbo as an industry is from the lack of clarity on direction on specific issues that pertain to us—and I think that's something you'll probably hear from many other industries too. And no, they're not in Bill C-288. And some of those issues aren't in the Clean Air Act either. We're having the government saying, we're going to change all the rules, but we're just not going to tell you what the new rules are going to be. Understandably, people don't want to invest in that climate.

So I think there's plenty of blame for everyone to share in, but moving past the recriminations to clarity is what's necessary.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I appreciate the critique, and my time is up. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Harvey.