Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  You know, a lot of what we're trying to address here are expectations. The average Canadian electric utility that's investor-owned and that has a triple-A credit rating wouldn't be buying credits from those hog producers, even if you made it legal, because we don't derive benefit in the long term by taking our own hog producer electricity customers out of business.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  The European Union has created an allowance market that is separate from the Kyoto market, but slightly linked. Between 2008 and 2012, overall, it's fair to suggest that when they come into compliance with their domestic EU cap-and-trade rule, most European countries will cut emissions a further 5% to 7% from what they were in about 2004.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Again, let's do them separately. In Europe the only companies that have to reduce to comply are electricity companies. Nobody else has to reduce. If we laid off the whole national target on electricity companies in Canada and did not oblige oil and gas producers to reduce, we'd essentially be taxing Canadians for their right to consume made-in-Canada energy.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I'm glad you raised that. First of all, I want to say that what I'm about to say isn't a criticism of Europe. If you look at the national action plans that have been proposed for 2008 through 2012 in Europe--and I excerpted key information from the U.K. plan as an example in my submission to you--for the most part, they are, and I'm distinguishing between the EU allowance market and the Kyoto quota market when I say this—

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Again, obviously in terms of emissions trading, I support market measures, and we should get started right away. The one thing I would throw out there is that if we're running a refinery or an electricity generation unit, and we have to comply with NOx and SOx and fine particulate standards, 80% of our immediate least-cost solutions to those challenges are solutions that drive up our greenhouse gases.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Under the Montreal Protocol, the developed nations agreed to phase out production of freon for refrigerant use by 2010. We put in declining allocations: nobody can make more this year than last year. Canada's imports and manufacture of freon actually stopped in 2002, though they didn't need to stop until 2010.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I agree with that, but, again, in spite of suggestions otherwise, all I'm recommending is that we do exactly what California has signed into law. So if you want my draft or Bill C-30, go pick up Bill AB 32 and change some words. I'm recommending something that could functionally be a Canada-California-New Mexico-Massachusetts market starting on January 1, 2009.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I checked again this morning, and 51% of the forecasted CER supply in the CDM market is made up of CERs that are issued to plants that make freon, a substance that we have decided is so damaging to the environment that it's illegal to make it here. It will be illegal to import it into Canada in 2010.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  The first statement is still true, and the second one is probably no longer true.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Yes.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  We have huge leverage, because you're looking at a global market with 160 countries and only three buyers. Everybody out there is crying for us to get into the market, because they have nobody to sell to but us. There's no market if we're not in it, which means we can reshape the market to make it a valid greenhouse gas market.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Thanks for having me. First, I should say that all of the opinions I express today are my own and may or may not reflect the views of the members of the Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium. When you look down, you'll see a handout. When I read through the blues for some of the previous meetings of this committee, it seemed to me that witnesses kept showing up and tossing numbers out at committee members.

Environment committee  Bill C-288 doesn't add or subtract anything.

Environment committee  Oh, and I should say that the previous Liberal plan does not achieve Kyoto compliance.

Environment committee  The reason I just corrected myself is that it depends on how you interpret Bill C-288. If Bill C-288 legally binds government to Kyoto compliance, the Liberal plan doesn't get you there. Again, you're not there. If it's a best efforts deal, it's irrelevant. If it binds government, the Liberal plan doesn't work either.