Evidence of meeting #33 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was market.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
It hasn't been translated yet, so everyone doesn't have your speaking notes.
President, Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium
When you get my speaking notes, you'll see the World Resources Institute's estimate of 2000 emissions and forecast 2025 emissions by country or trading bloc. Behind this graph is the assumption that everyone in the Kyoto Protocol, including Canada, completely complies with the Kyoto Protocol commitments. On the basis of that assumption, the EU Kyoto-covered countries' emissions in 2025 will be 19% above what they were in 2000, and Japan's emissions in 2025 will be 20% above 2000, assuming Japan complies with Kyoto. This is the World Resources Institute, and it's good research.
I go back to my beginning. I have worked on climate change since 1989. I am old, and I am Canada's oldest, longest-standing advocate of market measures. We'll send another piece, which is the suite of measures we recommend. I'm arguing that this graph tells you the Kyoto Protocol isn't it. It tells you that. I'm not saying don't reduce emissions, don't have binding targets, don't get serious. I am saying the opposite. I am saying this is an emergency, and the Kyoto Protocol isn't it.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I'm going to give Ms. Donnelly a chance to rest, because I have the feeling this is letting Mr. Alvarez just sit around. So I'm going to ask him a question.
I'm looking at the figures and—correct me if I'm wrong—the oil and gas industry, according to estimates, will emit more than 144 megatons of greenhouse gases in 2010, which is an increase of 99% over 1999. The government of Alberta is predicting massive development of the tar sands, which could bring greenhouse gas emissions in that industry to 230 megatons by 2030, which would be a 280% increase over 1990.
You surely have development plans that set targets for your industry. That's perfectly normal, because all industry sectors do that. What reduction target has your industry set in terms of greenhouse gas emissions?
President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
You need to look at this in two or three perspectives.
To start with, are companies reducing their intensity on an annual basis? Yes, they are. We have been able to see significant changes on that. That's number one.
Second, in the short term what do we see? We see continuing annual intensity improvement targets. We agreed with the previous government that we were prepared to live with those, and once the government brings its plans forward, we will continue to do that. So we will meet our obligations on that front.
When you look at the longer term, it comes down to two particular issues. One is, how do we manage carbon? This is a question of carbon capture and storage that affects not only us but manufacturers across the country, and the power industry in particular. Second, in the longer term, what are the energy sources that allow us to reduce those numbers you've talked about from a step change point of view?
In my discussion of my paper today, I talked about different types of technology. We have to have the nuclear discussion. A number of them are out there, so you have to look at this. Very short term, you have to start reducing the rate of growth. Medium term, we have to start managing it. Long term, we have to turn it down. But the technology is not there yet.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Thank you, Mr. Bigras.
Perhaps we could go to Mr. Vellacott, and then I would like to end with Mr. Cullen. Let's keep it as brief and concise as we can, please.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Because I have this limit of five minutes, I want some yes/no answers. My first couple of questions I'm going to direct to Ms. Donnelly and Mr. Alvarez.
The initial question is this. The Commissioner of the Environment recently stated she could find no evidence of analysis supporting Kyoto's minus 6% commitment. I would ask you, as I've asked previous witnesses, can you point to any specific scientific research that would lead Canada to adopt that minus 6% target specifically?
President, Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium
I can't tell you what the Government of Canada was looking at.
I would maybe refer you to Mike Cleland's testimony to this committee on November 21. In 1996, 1997, and 1998, Mike Cleland was an assistant deputy minister in Natural Resources Canada. He had shared executive responsibility for the Kyoto file. I think his testimony is quite unambiguous.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Just for the record here, what did he state?
President, Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium
I thought he said there was no analysis done.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Okay.
Mr. Alvarez, are you aware of anything in the way of scientific analysis or research that would lead to Canada adopting a minus 6% target?
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
My next question, then, I'll direct to Ms. Donnelly.
In your perspective, is there any difference between Bill C-288 and the previous Liberal plan? Could you give me some summary?
President, Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium
There is, absolutely. If you're in industry and you're trying to figure out where government thinks it wants to go--which is quite an exercise--what you would be doing today is comparing the July 2005 Liberal notice to regulate to the Conservative notice to regulate. You're probably not paying any attention whatsoever to either Bill C-288 or Bill C-30.
I'm an exception to the rule. For ten years, every time we've done a project, I have been compiling a recommended package of government regulations and measures.
It happens that the package I would be a proponent of right now needs Bill C-288 to be passed...I'm sorry, I mean that it needs Bill C-30 to be passed. Bill C-288 is irrelevant, except that every time government debates Kyoto, government is not sitting down and saying what our target is going to be. So if you're seeing a continuation of the Kyoto debate, as opposed to moving on to what we are going to do, industry takes that as a delay.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Am I correct in saying you don't see a significant difference, then, between Bill C-288 and the previous Liberal plan? I mean, it's an extension, an emphasis.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Okay.
Would you agree with one of our Liberal committee members--
President, Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium
Oh, and I should say that the previous Liberal plan does not achieve Kyoto compliance.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Right. And with Bill C-288, do you see any significant difference between the previous Liberal plan and Bill C-288?
President, Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium
The reason I just corrected myself is that it depends on how you interpret Bill C-288. If Bill C-288 legally binds government to Kyoto compliance, the Liberal plan doesn't get you there. Again, you're not there. If it's a best efforts deal, it's irrelevant. If it binds government, the Liberal plan doesn't work either.
Conservative
President, Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium
Bill C-30 gives me elements I need to have the kind of policy—But it doesn't give you everything you need. It's incomplete.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
One of our Liberal committee members, Mr. John Godfrey, has spoken about having to recalibrate--I guess that maybe means something different from Bill C-288--the Kyoto targets. Would you say the need for a major recalibration is a fair comment?
President, Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium
I think Canada has to decide whether Kyoto is legally binding. I don't know what the decision on that is. Recalibration is not an option if it's legally binding. The Kyoto Protocol doesn't say hit this target when you can; it says hit this target by this timetable. The penalty in the protocol for not hitting the target is 30%. If you did the straight economics and said it's legally binding and you have to do it, you would not elect to take the penalty. That's a 9% per annum compounded interest charge.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
This is a question for Mr. Alvarez.
How long does it take to develop and implement some of these technologies that are necessary in order to do a reduction in greenhouse gases?
President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
I think it depends on which one you're talking about. Last week Shell announced a major new technology for its upgrading process, which I think has something like a 10% reduction on the heat use. That was a four- or five-year project. Some can happen fairly quickly; some are very long term. A carbon capture storage project can take a while. When you look at the big step changes, we may be talking decades.