Environment Committee on May 16th, 2007

Evidence of meeting #59 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 plan.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Government's Climate Change Plan - entitled "Turning the Corner"

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Cécile Cléroux Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment

Mike Beale Director General, Strategic Priorities, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment

Alex Manson Special Advisor, Climate Change Policy, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of the Environment

Clerk of the Committee Mr. Justin Vaive

Howard Brown Assistant Deputy Minister, Energy Policy Sector, Department of Natural Resources

Carol Buckley Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Kyoto has always been based around 1990 as the baseline. You make your projections based on that year. We're using 2006 now. My question is, does any other country base its national targets on 2006? I'm not aware of one. If you can tell me of one, I'd be interested.

4:10 p.m.

Director General, Strategic Priorities, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment

Mike Beale

I'm not aware of one either.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Okay, so why did we choose 2006?

4:10 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment

Cécile Cléroux

The decision was to be able to demonstrate real action and have a very consolidated base of information. For 1990, we have no consolidated base of information for the sectors to be regulated.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

What year do you have a consolidated base? Is 2006 the first year we have a consolidated base?

4:10 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment

Cécile Cléroux

The farthest one we have is 2004. This government has made a very informed decision in going ahead with 2006 to make sure it can report to Canadians on actions taken to date and in the years to come, and not go back to the past.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Classically, the emissions trading systems have been referred to as cap and trade. You cap in absolute terms and then you allow trading to exist. Is any other trading nation in the emissions sector using intensity-based targets right now?

4:10 p.m.

Director General, Strategic Priorities, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment

Mike Beale

There is a history, in the area of air pollution, of using—

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Climate change, greenhouse gases specifically.

4:10 p.m.

Director General, Strategic Priorities, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment

Mike Beale

We've already discussed it. I'm not aware of any other existing system that uses intensity-based—

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

The reason I raise it is that a number of witnesses from the business side were very keen to have a true cap and trade system.

I want to get to the air pollution side for a moment. I looked through all of your industrial targets, and many of them have NOx, SOx, VOCs, and various others. There are some significant reductions, even the oil and gas sector upstream, except for the oil sands.

While volatile organic compounds are being asked to be 65% below business as usual in the oil and gas sector, the oil sands are being permitted to be 60% above. Why is that?

4:10 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment

Cécile Cléroux

We have taken the same approach for all sectors, for the oil sands as well as all others that you see in the different slides at the end of the deck. The approach has been to benchmark to the best in the world and to use the projection to 2015. So for all sectors we are taking growth into account, projected right now to 2015.

In the oil sands sector, what we know is that if we were to do nothing, there would be a substantial increase of those different pollutants. In applying the benchmarked measure, what we're doing is we're lowering substantially what we will get as a result of the oil sands growth.

Yes, with the technologies that exist right now we don't have any knowledge that we could abate the VOCs below the number we currently have.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Was there an economic analysis done of the impacts of Bill C-30, the clean air and climate change act, as it's been rewritten? Has your department engaged in any economic analysis of this?

4:10 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment

Cécile Cléroux

No.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

The minister has made claims that it would be economic ruin for the country. Is he basing this on his own opinion, or is it an opinion he sought from the ministry?

4:10 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment

Cécile Cléroux

This is for the minister to answer.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Okay. But it hasn't come from you. The reason I asked about economic analysis was just that.

4:10 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment

Cécile Cléroux

We have done the economic analysis for Bill C-288. We have done the economic analysis for the regulatory framework. We have not done the economic analysis for the revised Bill C-30.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Okay.

There has been a lot of to and fro as to what programs on climate change have been cut and what new or different programs have been announced. Do we have a total cost-benefit analysis of how much in total has been cut versus how much in total is being spent, specific to climate change?

4:10 p.m.

Special Advisor, Climate Change Policy, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of the Environment

Alex Manson

I can't give you a total off the top of my head right now. We could get you that number.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Can you submit it?

4:10 p.m.

Special Advisor, Climate Change Policy, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of the Environment

Alex Manson

Yes, I can do the balances up on that stuff and get it to you. I don't have it with me, unfortunately, because I didn't know you would ask for it.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

No, that's appreciated.

Here are my last couple of questions.

What is the government planning to spend in terms of outreach, public relations, and those types of things on this new plan—advertising and those types of things? We've heard the figure of a little under $1 million, about $950,000.

4:10 p.m.

Special Advisor, Climate Change Policy, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of the Environment

Alex Manson

I believe that number is right.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

So we're going to spend about a million taxpayer dollars out in the public convincing people of the validity of this plan.

Concerning the climate change technology fund, if a company is penalized and has to pay into the tech fund—penalized for not meeting their intensity or absolute targets—is it possible that the tech fund will not lead to absolute reductions? If a company is 1,000 tonnes over, they pay an equivalent—$20 or whatever your figure is at the moment. Do we have guarantees that the 1,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide will be removed from the atmosphere? Is that how it's structured?