Environment Committee on Dec. 5th, 2006

[Aldyen Donnelly]

My analysis actually uses 1.5 billion as the long-term forecast. I get 91 million tonnes a year. Out of a long-term forecast, that's 1.5 billion in comparison to Andrei's.

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

Thank you.

Madame Gélinas, I'll come back to the question of accountability. When this bill is passed, there will be a need to create a plan to meet the targets. I imagine it would not be correct for you yourself to evaluate that plan, but would you agree that it would be more than acceptable, and indeed would be desirable, for you to audit progress towards meeting that plan every couple of years or so?

[Johanne Gélinas]

That's the plan. Whatever plan comes out, as the Commissioner of the Environment, I will audit it. The only thing I would like to caution you about, based on the previous work we did, is to make sure that this time it's based on sound analysis, which was not necessarily the case in previous decisions made in the past. Make sure you have the right information before you take any decisions and build a plan.

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

Thank you.

My other question has to do with the fact that we seemed to be in a phase where we had something going. It might not have been perfect at the time, but we were moving forward. The entire progress has now been interrupted because the government is reinventing things.

But we had some “architecture”, to use Mr. Alvarez's terminology, that was quite effective. We had the EnerGuide program, the one tonne challenge, and some other programs. We've scrapped them, even though I believe the analysis and recommendations of public servants were that they were working fine in some cases.

Do you think it's productive to start all over and scrap what already existed and was working fine, Madam Gélinas?

[Johanne Gélinas]

I have a couple of things to say on that.

I have rightly said there were some good foundations and the government should build on those. I also said we should be careful not to reinvent the wheel.

If I can use the example Matthew used when he was talking about the EU emission trading system that the EU is still piloting, in the case of Canada, we will not even have time to pilot our own emission trading system. I made that point in my report. The clock is ticking. We have to get on with the job and do something about it.

We have not audited the project green initiative. Project green was presented at the time we were doing the audit. Would project green have achieved the Kyoto target? Nobody knows. But I have to make it clear that we didn't audit project green.

As we were looking at some elements, we said there were some good elements to it and that at least those that seemed to work well should be considered in the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Scarpaleggia, your time is up. I'm sorry.

Mr. Harvey.

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

I found one of Mr. Scarpaleggia's comments quite amusing, when he talked about interrupted progress. But that assumes that there has been progress, when in fact the situation has steadily deteriorated until now, by 35%. He talks about interrupted progress. But that is always a matter of opinion.

That said, Ms. Gélinas, the Liberal Party had talked about potential budgeted expenditures of $6.3 billion, but in actual fact, they only amounted to $1.6 billion. Is that correct?

[Johanne Gélinas]

You are comparing apples and oranges. An expenditure of $6.3 billion was announced to address climate change, but over a longer period ending in 2012. The $1.6 billion amount I referred to is money that had in fact been expended by the end of fiscal year 2003-2004.

You cannot compare the two amounts since they do not cover the same period.

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

No, but the reason I asked that question was precisely to— So, of the $6.3 billion, $1.6 billion has been invested thus far.

[Johanne Gélinas]

No, not up until the present. I'm saying that until March 2004, $1.6 billion had been spent.

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

And what are we at now? Do you know?

[Johanne Gélinas]

No, I don't, and neither will you as long as the infamous system with respect to which I am asking for clarification is not in place.

I am disappointed that the Treasury Board and Environment Canada are incapable of giving you some feedback on what has been done in the last six months. That's where the whole question of accountability comes in. We won't know as long as that system is not in place.

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

All right. That's fine.

At the present time, Canada has to reduce its emissions by 270 million tons. Is that Canada's target under the Kyoto Protocol?

[Johanne Gélinas]

Yes, 270 million tons by 2012.

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

All right.

Now, you said in your report that we can reduce emissions here in Canada by no more than 100 megatons, and that we will have to buy the other 170 to 200 megatons. Is that what you said?

[Johanne Gélinas]

No, that is not what I said. I said that, according to the structure of the plan presented by the previous government, the Green Project, a significant amount of that reduction—some 50%—would have to be made here in Canada, and that for the rest, we would have to buy credits.

I never said how the credits would have to be bought, because the government itself had not ascertained the difference between the reductions to be made in Canada and those that would not be made in Canada. And the fact is that we still don't know that.

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

But we could say it's about 50% of 270 megatons. If I do the arithmetic, that means 135 megatons.

[Johanne Gélinas]

That is close to the figure laid out in the plan that was presented.

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

Ms. Donnelly, what do you think of the idea of buying 135 megatons of credits abroad? Is that realistic? Is it feasible? Right now, the figures do not add up.

[Aldyen Donnelly]

The two questions are these: first, can it; and second, should we do it?

We just went through the numbers, and as Matthew Bramley said, the amount of credits available when I drop hot air out is 1.2 billion to 1.5 billion in total over the five-year budget period. So if I take 1.5 and divide it by 5, that means 300 million a year. So when you're positing that we might go out and buy 135 million tonnes, you're positing that Canada can secure the lion's share of the total supply out there, and I can't see a way to do that. So 135 million tonnes is higher than I think is conceivably possible, if we wanted to do it. That's the first thing.

The second thing is that in that supply that's out there, which I just gave you the numbers on, the real difficult part is that, in my view, last year the CDM/JI board made a very critical mistake in decision-making in that they agreed to issue credits to developing nation manufacturers who make HCFC-22. It's a refrigerant that, after CFCs, is the most potent ozone-depleting substance and it is a highly potent greenhouse gas. So when you make HCFC-22 and sell it, you are discharging an ozone-depleting substance and greenhouse gas into the environment.

It is illegal to make HCFC-22 in Canada. As of January 1, 2010, under existing law it will be illegal for us to import it, because we consider it a most damaging substance. To date, 51% of all of the credits that the CDM/JI board has approved are credits that are being issued to those plants. The U.S. EPA estimates that the effect of that one decision to issue credits to those plants completely wipes out all of the benefits of the Montreal Protocol by 2020 and adds 3 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases to the upper atmosphere that would not have been emitted in the absence of that decision.

Before that decision, the average HCFC-22 manufacturer made a before-tax profit of $500 U.S. a tonne. After that decision, his before-tax profit jumped to $2,600. There's nothing you can manufacture in the world more profitably because of that one decision.

So when I'm saying we're going to go out there and pick up 91 million tonnes, I'm saying we're going to go pick up 91 million tonnes and 50% of them are going to be us giving money to plants that are making a product we have already deemed so dangerous it's illegal to make or import into Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

Mr. Lussier.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Last week, I believe, we heard from a climatologist who told us that atmospheric emissions produced 20 years ago could be the cause of climate change today.

Mr. Guilbeault, I noticed that you reacted quite strongly to some of Ms. Donnelly's assertions. What do you think of that theory? I'd like to hear from Ms. Donnelly as well, once Mr. Guilbeault has responded.

Could emissions produced 20 years ago be having an effect today? And if we delay reducing emissions, could that result in sudden climate changes in the next few years?

[Steven Guilbeault]

CO₂ is a greenhouse gas that can remain in the atmosphere for several decades. So, the climate change we are witnessing today is the result of the greenhouse gas emissions produced several decades ago.

I want to repeat that I am not a scientist. On the other hand, I can tell you what the scientific studies say about that. And here I'm not talking about opinions published in the newspapers, but of scientific papers—in other words, scientific articles published in periodicals that have a reading committee, like Science & Nature, and many others. The consensus is that the longer we delay lowering greenhouse gas emissions, the worse the environmental legacy we will leave to our children and grandchildren. And ultimately, we are dumping the problem in their backyard. We are basically washing our hands of the whole issue.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Ms. Donnelly, would you like to add something?

[Aldyen Donnelly]

I'm looking in my speaking notes. I'd like to direct you to page 11.