Environment Committee on May 16th, 2007

[Alex Manson]

We do have estimates of sectoral and national emissions based on some fuel-use statistics and that type of thing. What Cécile is referring to is that for 2004 we have very good data across all of the sectors, at a level, you can understand, at a facility basis as opposed to aggregated at a national basis.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I understand what you're saying. But it's also correct to say that if we go to our international obligations, we've been required, and we've followed through with that requirement, to make what's called the NRI submission. I'm just curious, because I want to know where we're at right now. I know it goes back two years. So for this year we would have the 2005 data. Where is that, and when can we expect it?

[Alex Manson]

One of your colleagues asked that question earlier.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I apologize.

[Alex Manson]

That's okay.

I would anticipate that the 2005 data should be available in the next little while. Whether it's two weeks, three weeks, or four weeks, I don't know.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

My understanding is our obligation is to submit that by April 15.

[Alex Manson]

That is a target date for submissions. That's not the obligatory date.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Have most countries submitted their data?

[Alex Manson]

I believe most of them have. The last time I was on the UNFCCC website, most of the countries had. There were still a few that had not, and they come in daily.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Is the report ready?

[Alex Manson]

I do not believe the report is ready. It's not something that's my domain. I think there's a bit more work to do on it.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

My understanding is the report is ready but the government isn't releasing it. But that's not for you to answer.

I'm asking this question for two reasons. One is that if we're trying to establish benchmarks that everyone agrees on so that we can make some headway in cutting greenhouse gas emissions, we need the data for that. I guess it's a little frustrating if we know that other countries have submitted their data. We're into an international agreement and people around this table might have different opinions on the validity of that agreement, but the bottom line is we have obligations, and our obligations are to submit that data. You said it's more of a suggestion than a rule for April 15.

My understanding, from the reports I've read, is that when I read the first paragraphs, the foreword of the NRI report--and the most recent one was last year for the 2004 data--it says April 15. But that's again a target date.

[Alex Manson]

Yes.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

But if that's the idea, that our data is ready to go--and my understanding is it's ready to go--and the government for some reason isn't releasing it, I'll leave that for the government to answer.

If we're going to benchmark and we have the 2005 data ready to go, why are we using 2006 data as our baseline when our commitment internationally is 1990, a 6% reduction? And what I've heard today from my colleague is that we're going to be able to get below 6% by 2025. What's the rationale that's been given—not that you would have made it—to start with 2006 as a baseline? Why not 1990?

[Cécile Cléroux]

The government has decided to use the 2006 reference base to be able to really show Canadians the results from actions that are going to be taken following the implementation of the regulatory framework, so really to be able to have a benchmark to a year where afterwards we're going to be able to report on a regular basis on the actions and the results that have been obtained.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

So it's not a rationale around having sufficient data or accurate enough data. What I'm hearing you say is that we've had that from 2004. So we could if we want; we have the data. It's a matter of a government decision to use another baseline. Is that fair to say?

[Cécile Cléroux]

The detailed data that we have goes to 2004. The government has decided that 2006 would be the baseline, as I have just mentioned, to be able to report on and account for the results of the different measures that are going to be taken.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

That's very helpful, and I appreciate that. I also would hope that the government releases the NRI report soon so we can have a sense of where we're at.

Am I okay for time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You're at four minutes.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'd like to switch now to Bill C-30 and ask whether there has been any economic analysis done on the effects of Bill C-30. We know that the government commissioned a report on a private member's bill, Bill C-288.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Dewar, excuse me for a minute. That has been answered. Basically, our answer was that Bill C-288 has been analyzed, but Bill C-30 has not.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

My next question was to ask about the retrofit program that had been contemplated in Bill C-30. I'm assuming there had been no economic benefit analysis on a home retrofit plan done by anyone.

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

I'll speak to that.

The ecoENERGY retrofit program for homes, which was announced on January 21, 2007, is not associated with Bill C-30. It is not a regulatory measure; it's an incentive program. It received approval through a separate process. We have done analysis around its benefits and the costs, but it's not associated with Bill C-30.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

So in other words, we haven't linked a retrofit program with, if you will, our commitments or forecasting of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at this point.

[Carol Buckley]

I think Environment Canada has information, where they have collected expected reductions across all measures of the plan, across all departments. They have been speaking to that, and earlier they said this contributed to the 20% reduction in emissions in 2020.

So they would have taken the expected impacts of the energy efficiency retrofit program, and other energy efficiency programs and non-energy efficiency programs, into that estimate, that's correct.