Environment Committee on April 1st, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Go ahead, Mr. Watson.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Which members are refusing?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

If the member is asking for unanimous consent, he can't make a motion on a point of order. He's out of order, Mr. Chair.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'm not making a motion.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Are we going to ask a question on a point of order, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I made the request to know, Mr. Watson, whether there was any interest in changing the speaking order. I got a no. Obviously we must proceed now--

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

For the record, Mr. Chair, who was opposed?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Certainly the parliamentary secretary took the lead and--

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

The Conservative members. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

That's fairly normal, I think.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I just want to get that on the record for Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any other points of order, or can we let Mr. Warawa continue?

Yes, Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

In the same spirit as Mr. McGuinty asked his naive questions, can the clerk and the chair instruct Mr. McGuinty to get his hand up in the future instead of dozing off? Is that something within your purview as the chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Vellacott, let's not go there. Let's leave that and let's get on--

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Ms. Bennett, if you could please address things through the chair, I'd appreciate it a lot, to try to keep some semblance of order here.

Perhaps we could carry on. Mr. Warawa, you have the floor. Try not to repeat yourself. Try not to go off topic. Refer to clause 10. That's what we're talking about, and let's just carry on with clause 10.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Absolutely, Chair. I appreciate that, and it's unfortunate that there was a lot of time wasted by interruptions over the last, I think, about 15 minutes.

What clause 10 is missing is what we see in Canada's Turning the Corner plan, which will see absolute reductions of 20% by 2020 and 60% to 70% by 2050. Chair, what should be in Bill C-377, which unfortunately the members opposite did not want to see in there, was that all coal-fired electricity plants that come into operation in 2012 or after will be required to meet a stringent target based on the use of carbon capture and storage by 2018.

Carbon capture and storage is a wonderful technology. We are world leaders here in Canada. In Weyburn, Saskatchewan, we have a carbon encapture technology that is used for enhanced oil recovery. It works wonderfully. It is piped right now approximately 320 kilometres from South Dakota into Weyburn, Saskatchewan. Then the carbon dioxide is mixed with water, and carbon dioxide is then injected into the geological formations in which the thick oil is suspended. As you inject the carbon dioxide and water mixture, the viscosity of the oil increases, enabling an oil field that was not producing oil anymore to be producing oil again. That's why it's called enhanced oil recovery.

The water and carbon dioxide are recovered and then reused, reinjected back into the ground. Not all of the carbon dioxide is recovered because much of it ends up staying in the earth. But it's a wonderful technology that is used for enhanced oil recovery.

The other reason that carbon capture and storage, also known as carbon sequestration, is so important is that the international community is counting on the carbon capture and storage technology to be used to capture and store approximately 25% of greenhouse gas emissions. So it's a huge part of the equation to address climate change and growing greenhouse gas emissions. If you can capture 25% of greenhouse gases and see them injected back into the ground, either stored or to be used for enhanced oil recovery, it's effective. There is no silver bullet, so to speak, but it is one of the major technologies the world is counting on.

As you go to these different international conferences, you find that carbon capture and storage is being counted on. That's why, when the minister was in Indonesia, in Bali, just a few months ago, one of the groups that came with the Canadian delegation was with EnCana.

The Bloc has made reference to that in its questioning in QP, and this is a technology that is missing in Bill C-377, but it needs to be in Bill C-377. It needs to be in any piece of legislation. It needs to be in any plan. In any regulatory framework, you've got to have carbon capture and storage. It's missing in Bill C-377. It's missing in clause 10. If it's missing, you're going to have an ineffective bill. That's why I'm looking forward to being able to introduce that amendment to clause 10.

The federal government will establish also, in addition to carbon capture and storage, by 2018.... That means all the coal-fired plants that are dirty coal-burning plants, all the new ones coming on line, will have to use carbon capture and storage. That means you don't have the greenhouse gas emissions and you also have a complementary technology that will reduce that amount of SOx and NOx, which are pollutants, causing Canadians to be ill. So you have the dual benefit.

People wonder how we can take the oil sands, that natural resource, and use that natural resource in a way that's not going to be harmful to the environment. Carbon capture and storage is one of the key technologies. It is part of Canada's Turning the Corner plan for greenhouse gas reductions. It's missing in Bill C-377, and it's missing in clause 10.

The federal government will establish a clean electricity task force to work with provinces and industry to meet an additional 25-megatonne reduction goal from the electricity sector by 2020. Do we see that in Bill C-377? We do not. Bill C-377 is a very general bill. Clause 10 is extremely general and does not give the impacts that we need.

We heard from every single witness group that it needed to be costed, that there would be jurisdictional problems. One of the witnesses was Peter Hogg, who said that the constitutional problem with Bill C-377 is that it leaves the reduction of greenhouse gases solely to the regulatory power vested in the executive. The only direction given to the Governor in Council on the nature of the regulations is that they must be written to carry out “the purposes and provisions of this Act” and to “ensure that Canada fully meets its commitment under section 5”. This is the clause that contains the targets for 2020, and there is a later target as well. Clause 10 refers to clause 5, so they're intertwined.

We need a plan that is effective. Bill C-377 is not turning the corner; the plan is. One wonders why the Bloc would support a plan that won't be effective. I think that's an important question. Why would the Bloc support a plan that could give the federal government unlimited, unfettered powers over provincial jurisdiction? Why would the Bloc want that? It baffles me to this day why the Bloc would want to give the federal government all that power, unlimited power, over the province of Quebec. It's definitely what this government wants. We believe you have to respect provincial jurisdiction. It's up to the Bloc to tell people why they would want to give the federal government unlimited power over Quebec. I don't agree with that. This is another one of the flaws within Bill C-377.

Also missing in Bill C-377 are the targets, which we find in the Turning the Corner plan. All covered industrial sectors will be affected in the Turning the Corner plan, but not in Bill C-377. All industrial sectors will be required to reduce their emissions intensity from 2006 levels by 18% by 2010, with 2% improvement every year afterwards. The target will be applied at the facility, sector, or corporate level, as determined after consultations with each sector.

Where is there mention in Bill C-377, under clause 10, of consultations with each of the sectors? It's not there. Some would ask, should it be there? Mr. Cullen asked whether the government would like to make recommendations. I would like to recommend that there be consultations with each of the sectors. It would be an improvement to Bill C-377 and clause 10.

The government's Turning the Corner plan also includes minimum thresholds that will be set in five sectors to avoid imposing unreasonable administrative costs on the small facilities. The cost of operations is different in small businesses, small corporations, small facilities. It's different for small compared to big, and you have to accommodate that. You see that in the government's Turning the Corner plan, an accommodation for the smaller facilities; you do not see that detail in Bill C-377.

I think it's a very important point, that you have these details in clause 10 of Bill C-377, considering what small facilities have to deal with and avoiding imposing unreasonable administration costs. If you don't have that, you're putting small facilities out of business, and we don't want that. We don't want Canadians losing their jobs. We also want them to be successful at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

So clause 10 of Bill C-377 is another example of missing the mark dramatically. On the other hand, the government's Turning the Corner plan has fixed-process emissions that will receive a 0% target. The definition of fixed-process emissions will be based on technology feasibility.

To improve incentives to adapt the best available technologies for new facilities, those whose first year of operation is 2004 or later, a target based on a cleaner fuel standard will be applied. There'll be an incentive until 2018 for facilities to be built carbon capture ready.

A very important point that is also missing in Bill C-377, clause 10, is that as new facilities are built, they have to have that design built into them. If you do not design a new facility with carbon-capture-ready capabilities, it is not practical to do it afterwards. It becomes too expensive. That's why it's very important that we're giving that clear direction.

Does Bill C-377 provide clear direction that carbon capture storage has to be designed into that facility? No, it doesn't. Canadians would ask, is it important? If the world is counting on the technology to capture 25% of greenhouse gas emissions, is it important that we give that message to industry? I believe it is. Then why would it be missing in Bill C-377?

Is it possible Bill C-377 is just a poorly written bill? Why is Mr. Cullen now getting directions from Mr. Layton not to cost the bill? He began his testimony saying it should be costed; now he's saying it shouldn't be costed. Why would there be this flip-flop? Canadians want to know. When every witness, including Mr. Layton, is recommending that it be costed, that an impact analysis be done, why would they now say no? The Bloc is saying they support moving this forward, and please disregard what the witnesses have said, let's move Bill C-377. Have they made a deal with the NDP?

How about the Liberals? The Liberals did absolutely nothing to clean up the environment—13 long years of growing emissions. We heard from Mr. Godfrey that they just didn't have the political will, I think those were the words he used. I hope I'm not misquoting him. The previous Liberal government just didn't get it done--13 years of not getting it done. In 1993 they ran on a platform of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and it didn't happen. We saw emissions go up and up, to the point where they ended up 33% above the Kyoto targets, not even close.

So it's very important that Bill C-377, including clause 10, include components that will see reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, but that's missing. Canadians are wondering why the Liberal Party members, getting their directions from their leader, Mr. Dion.... Why would Mr. Dion say to support a bill that hasn't been costed? Why would Mr. Dion do that--support a bill that will have constitutional challenges, will not stand up to a constitutional challenge. Why would Mr. Dion instruct--

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen, on a point of order.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I would remind the parliamentary secretary again that we're dealing with clause 10, which establishes baselines and transparency. He continues to refer to some constitutional matters that are not at all apparent and have already been rectified in this bill.

Secondly, he continues to talk about the cost of a plan, when in this bill there is no plan, and the testimony showed that. I wish he would stop perpetuating this myth and actually stay on the topic of this clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Again, Mr. Warawa, I would advise you to stay on clause 10. You will have an opportunity to get to clauses 11, 12, 13, the title, and so on. Could you stay as close as possible, please, to clause 10.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, Mr. Vellacott, on that point of order.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I remind Mr. Cullen, through you, Mr. Chair, that this clause deals with regulating emission limits; performance standards; market-based mechanisms; emissions trading; offsets; spending; fiscal incentives; a just transition fund; cooperation agreements with provinces, territories, and other governments; and the Canadian greenhouse gas emission reductions that are reasonably expected to result from each of those measures. The area of the baseline that he talks about is only one aspect of the clause, but it's a pretty broad clause, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Vellacott.

As I pointed out to the committee on a number of occasions, obviously it is a very broad topic and that's why it is very difficult. Mr. Warawa is having difficulty focusing on just the terms there, but I would ask him to try as hard as he can to stay right on that clause, to deal with that clause.

Mr. McGuinty, on that same point of order.