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.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Am I also correct that there is a three-year grace period for new start-ups?
Director General, Strategic Priorities, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
For new start-ups, yes.
Liberal
Director General, Strategic Priorities, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
It's not a claim, it's a target. The regulation will say that existing facilities will be required to reduce their emissions intensity by 18% from 2006 levels. It's the decision of the government to write that into—
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
But as I recall, the graph shows an approximate 18% absolute reduction, not intensity based, in greenhouse gases before any enforceable emission regulation even comes into play. Am I wrong?
Director General, Strategic Priorities, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
If I understand you right, you are wrong.
The 18% is a reduction in emissions intensity from 2006 levels, starting in 2010. And as you said, that is expected to result in an absolute reduction in emissions in 2010 of about 49 megatonnes off a base of 352.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Does your analysis actually substantiate this assertion? It proves that 49 megatonnes will be gone by that date?
Director General, Strategic Priorities, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
Given the projections we were using, our analysis indicates that 49 megatonnes will be reduced. That is the target amount. Now, as you know, a variety of compliance mechanisms are available to meet that target. But 49 megatonnes is the target amount.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
And it's a ten-minute round? Okay.
When my leader was the environment minister less than two years ago, in 2005, Environment Canada prepared briefing papers recommending air pollution reductions. These stated that Canada could reduce pollution-forming emissions by 80% to 90% by 2015.
In your view, is that still an achievable target?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
I'm sorry, we don't have the reference to those documents.
What we can tell you is that the government has made a decision about the targets it will set in regulation. That's the target we have described and for which you have detailed information in the background to the presentation we have provided to all of the committee members.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Did you conduct modelling on air pollution issues? Did you do as rigorous a job on air pollution as you did--you had mentioned earlier--on greenhouse gases?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
The approach has been quite different on air pollutants. What we did is we benchmarked to the best regulated system in the world, including all provinces of Canada, the U.S., and all of the countries that have like systems. There's been a systematic approach to each of the sectors, for each pollutant of concern.
So it's a benchmarking exercise, not formula-based, as for the GHG. This is a different mechanism.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
It's not the same kind of modelling.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Once again, that modelling is not available to parliamentarians?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
Let's clarify, because my colleague understood....
The economic modelling that's been done has been done for the two sets of reductions because it's an integrated approach. The results we have for the economic side are for both air pollutants and GHG reduction. But when we're talking about the approach taken to be able to set different targets, it's two different approaches. For the GHG, it's formula-based, and you have what we've described--the 18%, the 2%, and the three-year grace period. For the air pollutants, what we have is a benchmarking approach.
At the end of the presentation, you have the detailed targets that are right now being validated with everybody. You have that on the slides at the end of your deck. Let me just give you the right page numbers—
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I've seen the slides.
Perhaps I might just interrupt for a second, just to go back to the two questions I put to you earlier. Is the modelling and analysis that was done for GHGs, which you say is done now in tandem with air pollutants, also not available to parliamentarians?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
The economic modelling was done for both. The—
Liberal
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
No, this is information for—
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Okay.
And once again you don't know whether Finance Canada, for example, analysed the numbers and warranted the numbers that were there, put out by the Minister of the Environment?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
Finance Canada is coming to testify tomorrow. They will answer how they consider the information and the discussion they had with us. It's not for us to comment on behalf of Finance Canada.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Okay.
I will switch topics, if I can, Mr. Chair, to Kyoto.
I think most Canadians now understand that the Conservative government has really no intention of meeting its legal obligations under Kyoto. Do you think Canada will still have reasonable access to carbon credits under the CDM?
