Environment Committee on Nov. 28th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

That was 2001, Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Was it in 2001 that he was convinced not to ratify? Sorry, Mr. Mills. I got the convention dates mixed up with the ratification dates.

The advice was that, at the time, the Prime Minister of Canada wasn't going to sign the Kyoto Protocol, but then he arrived at the meeting and was subsequently convinced by other world leaders to do it. Basically, it was for political reasons and to give advantage to his government of the day, by making an announcement that, I think a lot of people would agree, was simply unachievable.

A lot of other countries have been caught up in the same situation. They've ratified and agreed to this protocol for political reasons, without having achievable results within their own countries. There are a lot of other countries that are having difficulty meeting these targets. You've clearly outlined some of the ones that are.

Ms. Anthony and Mr. Dillon, could you just provide me with some information on why you feel these countries—and there's a significant number of them—aren't able meet their targets? Have they made the same mistake that we made here in Canada, where we set a target that was based on no information? What's caused this problem for these other countries that are facing the same challenges that we are here in Canada?

[John Dillon]

I can't give you a whole lot of insight into what's happened in these countries. From some of the reading I've done and from looking at some of the numbers, though, my sense is that they are having many of the same challenges we have in the areas of consumer use of energy and in transportation. In many European countries now, those are the largest growth areas. In other cases, some of those countries made commitments to reduce or phase out the use of coal-fired electricity. They haven't been able to do so quite as quickly as they had planned—what's happened in Ontario is the same thing—because it imposes real costs on consumers and on governments when it comes to phasing out existing plants that have been operating for thirty or forty years.

As I said, I think one of the challenges has been that too much of the focus has been on ambitious-sounding targets and not enough has been on what this really means in terms of how we're going to change our use of energy on a day-to-day basis.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Ms. Anthony, do you have anything to add to that?

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

Once again, I'm not aware of the specifics of other countries' initiatives, but I do agree with Mr. Dillon. When it comes to looking at substantial changes to, let's say, power generation, which is one of the largest emitters anywhere around the world, including in Canada, you have to go through a process of debating whether you are moving to a different technology. Could it be clean coal, could it be nuclear, etc.? These decisions take place within an economic framework and take a very long lead-up time.

To go back to some of the comments that were raised, it does behoove us to have more of a strategic focus on not only the greenhouse gas emissions problem, but also on looking at energy sources and involving provincial and territorial governments intimately in this discussion, because they are the ones making those decisions on big issues like power generation in their home provinces.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I'm sure you're familiar with the Genesee power plant. Genesee 3 is in my riding of Wetaskiwin, in Alberta. Genesee 3 just came online in 2005, I believe. It is probably one of the cleanest clean-coal technology, coal-fired electrical generators that we have in the country right now, if not in North America. I believe that project cost upwards of close to $1 billion. The lifespan of this particular plant is going to be over the next forty or fifty years, yet it has managed to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from Genesee 1 and 2 by about 50%.

EPCOR made that decision. It takes a long time to plan these things. You make the decision based on the technology of the day, you secure the financing, and you have to do your cost-benefit. This plant employs a lot of people. There were a lot of people employed in building and constructing it, and so on. Yet the other coal-fired plants in the area are still halfway through their life cycle.

If we take a look today, I believe EPCOR is pursuing even cleaner technology for when they do the coal-fired generation. This is an example of how responsible business can lead us out of the situation. But even now that this plant was drawn up, hypothesized, created, built, and has come online, it was a process that took many years. But the technology is now there, through various other advances and so on.

It's the same thing with NOVA, which is also in my riding, with their ethylene plants. The reductions they have for the Ethylene 3 plant that's there made sense from a business perspective because they just needed to become more efficient in their use of energy.

So I believe industry is going to take us there anyway, and these are people you represent, of course.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Calkins, you're into six minutes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Oh. Well, I'm on a little bit of a rant here.

Just to sum up, then, based on the fact that new technologies have come on so quickly and are still advancing, does it make sense for us, as a government, to start driving this when the technology is not there for organizations like yours, for investors, and for business people? Does it make sense to buy today when, if we waited a few more years, the technology would be there?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to cut you off. You're way over.

Our time is up, obviously, and obviously everybody wants in. Mr. Scarpaleggia is still on my list, so I'm going to recognize him.

Mr. Scarpaleggia, can you ask your one question? We then have to end the meeting. I'm sorry.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I don't have a question. I was looking forward to an insightful and fruitful exchange with the witnesses, but given the time, I would like to ask that the committee proceed to the consideration of Mr. Rodriguez's motions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Scarpaleggia, I'm going to excuse the witnesses.

Thank you very much for appearing. I think this has been very fruitful and everybody has had great questions, and we appreciate that very much.

I have looked at both of these motions. I believe that both of these motions have been dealt with previously. I could quote the sections. Certainly, the second motion is one that we have the rule set at 24 hours. It would require unanimous consent to change that.

The second one we dealt with on November 21. I could quote again what we decided at that point, so I am again ruling that we would need unanimous consent to accept this motion. Basically, I believe this meeting is over.

Mr. Rodriguez.

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

As far as the second motion is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I do not mind if we do away with the 48 hour notice; I have no problem with that.

However, regarding the first motion, there have been no other motions to debate this issue. There were discussions which should not have been held on...

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Rodriguez, let me quote myself from Tuesday, November 21:

I hate to throw anything else out, but of course the minister has been asked to come and we have a committee that's going to be struck very soon to look at Bill C-30. All of these things that we talk about today might well get into trouble because of other decisions; but for the clerk's sake, I just think we need a decision right now. As I say, I would propose December 12, unless someone has a great deal of difficulty with that.

In other words, we moved everything forward by a day because of the Liberal convention. That was agreed to. No one opposed that, so we moved that one day forward.

I'm ruling, then, that without unanimous consent, your motion is a decision that has already been made.

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

I challenge your decision, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

That's fine, and at the next meeting--

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

No, why at the next meeting? There's a challenge to the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We need unanimous consent, though, don't we to--

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

On what? On challenging?

[A voice]

No, not on a challenge. It's majority.

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

He's ruled it out of order and he doesn't get unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I'm going to end the meeting, Mr. Rodriguez.

We can discuss this, but remember the reason. Mr. Rodriguez, the reason for doing this was because we have arranged witnesses, so the clerks and researchers can arrange the witnesses.

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

No, you can't--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I know that Mr. Silva has another meeting, I know that I have another meeting, so this meeting is now over.

The meeting is adjourned.