Evidence of meeting #12 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was targets.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Cullen, your time is up. Could we just let Mr. Dillon answer? He's been trying to get in for quite some time here.
NDP
Vice-President of Regulatory Affairs, General Counsel, Canadian Council of Chief Executives
And I'm very excited to answer you, Mr. Cullen.
I have two points.
First of all, the suggestion that I took in your premise is that right now pollution happens at no cost whatsoever. Clearly that is not true. We have scads of regulation at municipal, provincial, and federal levels that impose requirements on pollution. In fact, we have permitting processes in several provinces that require companies to deal with greenhouse gases, so the suggestion that it's not priced at all is not accurate. Whether we've got the right price or not, of course, is what we're all here to discuss.
The other point is on your suggestion that setting national targets in Bill C-377 gives clarity to industry. No, I'm sorry, it doesn't. At the end of the day, we need to understand what industry's obligations are. A national target--this is the debate we've been having for 15 years, and I'm sorry to see we haven't gotten any further, because at the end of the day you need to know what the requirements are for industry. We're never going to get to a national target unless every part of the economy and every part of society knows what its obligations are. That's what we don't have. That's what we'd like to get onto, and not a continual debate on more targets.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I want to thank the witnesses for being here. I've really looked forward to your testimony. The costing has been very important to me, finding out what this means to the average Canadian driving their car. I have a number of specific questions on that.
I'd also like to address a comment made by Mr. McGuinty, and I'd like to do that by quoting his brother. Premier Dalton McGuinty made a comment, using a little bit of political rhetoric, attacking the minister when in fact he had provided one environmental promise—to close down the coal-fired plants—for which the federal government provided almost $600 million to make happen. So far that promise hasn't been kept.
Conservative
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I sure will. I was just addressing the topic that Mr. McGuinty had brought up.
In terms of this policy crisis that was spoken of by Mr. d'Aquino, maybe it's a lot of political rhetoric—which I am guilty of, at times, maybe by the comments I've just made—but I would think that if we all pulled in that same direction, as you're suggesting, maybe we could start moving forward on this. I think there is a willingness when you deal one on one, but when you get in this political environment, sometimes there are different agendas at work here.
The government has provided a very clear, focused agenda to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020.
Mr. Sawyer, I have some questions on those numbers. What will that mean in 2020? What will it mean for gasoline prices and whatnot?
So the agenda is ambitious. The notices of intent to regulate were issued. The negotiation and consultation time is almost at the end now. The meat on the bones of that regulatory framework will be seen very soon. I look forward to your analysis on that as we see that policy and those regulations developing.
On Bill C-377, I have asked every one of the group of witnesses so far this question: should it be costed? I asked Mr. Layton when he was here, and he said it hadn't been costed. He was hoping the government would cost it. But he suggested that I ask Mr. Matthew Bramley from Pembina, who was also a witness that day. Mr. Bramley also said that they were consulted. Actually, their report—from the David Suzuki Foundation and Pembina—is what Bill C-377 was based on.
So Matthew Bramley said no, and he also was hoping that the government would cost Bill C-377. I also asked Dr. Stone, and he said yes, it should be costed. Every time we've heard from the witnesses—I forget who else there was—we've heard yes, it should be costed.
Mr. Sawyer, you're the first person I've actually heard cost it somewhat. Does there need to be an additional evaluation on the cost of Bill C-377—to put some meat on the bones, so to speak?
Economist, EnviroEconomics
You're contemplating a range of targets. You're contemplating a range of actions. Whether we need more analysis or not, I don't know. I mean, I can scurry off and bring you piles and piles of data and information, and we can pore over those.
I think what I'm hearing are some fundamentals about how to drive forward with policy. Policy needs to be effective. We need to hit some targets. If we set them, let's get on the road to hit those targets.
We need to care about efficiency. Let's minimize our costs while we get there. That involves, as we've heard, a number of options for carbon pricing. We need to care about the science—that helps with setting targets—and we need to care about disproportionate impacts on folks.
So there are some common policy criteria that we hear about. And although I'm an economist and I make a living focusing on cost, this focus on cost gets rather tiresome after a while. I think the focus should be more on a comprehensive picture and on design elements. How do we design this thing? How do we allocate permits? How do we recycle revenue?
These are the questions that I think we need to move forward on.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
While I have your attention, I'm going to ask some specific questions. Of course, you're not going to be able to give specifics, but maybe you can give a general comment regarding the cost.
You were suggesting that by 2020 with Bill C-377, your analysis was about $300--
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Was it $200 for the Turning the Corner plan and $300 for Bill C-377?
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
And for the person filling up their car at a gas station, what would that look like?
Economist, EnviroEconomics
You're not looking at doubling the price of electricity—let's start there—or doubling the price of gas. You're not looking at anything outside the fluctuations in the gasoline market, actually. Gasoline, in 2005, fluctuated 50% plus or minus. It fluctuates on a daily basis 15%. So you're talking about resetting a new price, a new energy price, within the normal bounds of market fluctuations. You will then have fluctuations on top of that, but we're not really talking about doubling, tripling, or quadrupling anything here.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Are we talking about a 50% increase, a 25% increase, or what do you think?
Economist, EnviroEconomics
It depends on the target. It depends on the policy.
Economist, EnviroEconomics
For the package that I outlined to you, which would be a fairly efficient package where everyone would be required to make reductions and contributions and you'd recycle revenue and incent renewables, I think the number was 25% on electricity, around 15% for petroleum products, and about 10% for gas. That reflects the relative emission intensities.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
The ultimate goal—and I appreciate your comments—with Bill C-377 is to provide leadership. I believe Canada is providing leadership internationally to get all the major emitters participating. There has been a focus on the other 50% in Canada, and I believe our Turning the Corner plan does that. But I appreciate your challenge to do more on that.
How can we get Canadians involved in picking the low-hanging fruit? But also, over the next twelve years, which goes very quickly, by 2020, you see an absolute reduction of 20%, as it is in our Turning the Corner plan.
Ms. Rahbar, how do you see Canadians actually lowering the amount of energy they're using, those who use natural gas, which you represent? How can we reduce that, both at the large final emitters but also for the average homeowner?
Vice-President, Strategy and Operations, Canadian Gas Association
Thank you for the question.
I would like to differentiate the large final emitters conversation. Let's park that once and for all, the regulatory framework for that reduction.
On the natural gas side, as I said, we are 26% of end use. Looking at what the economy uses natural gas for, is there a way that we can meet the energy service requirements of Canadian communities and businesses at a lower intensity? I would say absolutely.
Can we achieve it through our historical lens of looking at discrete components of the system? I have serious doubts. I'm more familiar with natural gas.
Efficiency of space heat is 95%. Do you want to push it to 98%? What are you going to get with that?
What we are seeing, as I said, and there's evidence, are interesting projects happening across Canada at the municipal level, looking at where you can get the step reduction, and it comes as a systems approach to a community. Energy, land use, transportation, waste and water—when you start seeing all those together, you start seeing phenomenal opportunities.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Could you elaborate on what you mean by that? Are you talking about a common source providing the heat?
Vice-President, Strategy and Operations, Canadian Gas Association
I'll give you an example. We are looking at a project—well, we are looking at several projects—with the potential for harnessing gas from waste. Alberta has a waste disposal problem that we'll be regulating. Our estimation suggests that up to 10% of the volumes used, in residential and commercial, can come from renewable—
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I'm sorry for cutting you off. I have only a minute left.
How does Bill C-377, as you see it today, need to be improved?
