DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) - November 26, 2007 
Bill 44 Committee Stage - J. Horgan     (system requirements)

J. Horgan: I'm curious. Perhaps the minister, if he's not prepared to wait for Canadian data, can tell me how this registry in the United States is going to be providing data on B.C.'s figures. Are they collecting data now on B.C. emissions?

Hon. B. Penner: The climate registry is an initiative that is working to support the western climate initiative. The western climate initiative, if you've read those agreements, relies on the climate registry to provide a common framework or baseline of greenhouse gas emissions so that we're comparing apples to apples.

Different jurisdictions have used different methodologies for collecting greenhouse gas emission information. So the U.S. has had a different approach than Canada, or at least some jurisdictions within the U.S. have had different numbers.

The drive behind the climate registry is to make sure we're getting consistency. That's important for the western climate initiative so that the member jurisdictions know they're comparing apples to apples amongst each other.

Also, British Columbia is very interested in making sure that information is available as soon as possible. One of the differences between the StatsCan approach versus the climate registry is that StatsCan typically looks to gather information that is site specific - to particular industrial facilities, for example - whereas the climate registry looks at an entity, an organization, and the whole range of different industrial plants or facilities that particular entity or company would be operating.

They do come at it in a different way. I think, ultimately, that will serve British Columbians well, because we'll have different cuts at the information - the StatsCan approach as well as the climate registry approach. Under the agreement that was signed, I believe the work on that starts in January 2008.

J. Horgan: So the minister is saying that the climate registry, which is part and parcel of the western climate initiative.... I understand that its primary focus - based on the briefing that I had - was establishing a marketplace for trading - cap-and-trade emissions and so on. If I heard the minister correctly, the climate registry is going to begin collecting data in 2008, and they're going to be collecting on the entire entity. Can the minister explain what that entity is? Is it all industrial activity? Does it include industrial activity and transportation? Is the electricity sector involved in that?

How is an American organization going to collect that data? Is it voluntary for sectors to participate, or is the government going to force industrial activity to participate in this registry?

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. B. Penner: Just to go back to elaborate a bit further, there are five working groups with the western climate initiative. One of them is working on the scope that will be applied by the climate registry in terms of just exactly what the thresholds are for the reporting that flows into the climate registry for emissions by entity. That work is ongoing. B.C. has some people at the table there, and that's part of five working groups with the western climate initiative.

I should also state a clarification. I referred a couple times to Environment Canada providing information to StatsCan. It's actually NRCan, Natural Resources Canada, that gathers the data across the country. Then somehow it gets verified - I guess by Statistics Canada. They have the expert mathematicians or statisticians for crunching the numbers. So it's Natural Resources Canada that provides the data into StatsCan.

I am advised that, compared to some jurisdictions, the data that we collect in Canada through that particular process is actually pretty good. But as I've said earlier, we think that it would be nice to have it a bit quicker, if that could happen without undermining the integrity or accuracy of that data.

I understand, as I've pushed officials to see if we can't get the information quicker, that they don't want to see a trade-off happen at the federal level where the data is less reliable because it's done more quickly. Still, I would hope that there's some opportunity to turn that around quicker. In the meantime we will be using the best available information that we have for our reporting and will continue to work with our partners on the climate registry.

I thank the minister for that answer, but it's still not helping me. If our objective is to find solid numbers, a firm baseline, as is outlined here in section 3, then how do we get that unless we in British Columbia are canvassing those emitters that we're aware of so that we can get hard data? If we're just modelling, if we're just forecasting using the StatsCan numbers or the Natural Resources Canada numbers, then we can do modelling right now and project what that might be and put a cap in that's hard and firm and knowable at year's end.

If we're looking for hard data on total tonnage, then wouldn't we have to require emitters to give us that information? And if that's the case, are they giving it to us, or are they giving it to the climate registry, or are we just the conduit? The ministry will collect the data from emitters, Transportation will extrapolate cars, volumes of traffic, and then we'll pass that information on to both levels - to our senior level of government as well as this North American registry. Is that the plan?

Hon. B. Penner: I take the member's point that we don't want to duplicate the efforts of industry in terms of the information that they already provide. I think that was the point that he was making. We've said all along that our intention is to have a single point of reporting for industry. Currently the information that they provide is mandatory and goes to the federal government.

There are three agencies involved. At times I may only refer to one, but for the record - almost as if I was writing a definition section - if I say NRCan, I also mean to include StatsCan and Environment Canada. And vice versa - if I say Environment Canada, that could also mean NRCan and StatsCan, because all three of those federal agencies have a role to play currently.

As we work forward with the western climate initiative, my objective will be to make sure that the information that's provided by industry is suitable to meet the federal requirements as well as the climate registry requirements so that industry doesn't have to report twice.

[1645]Jump to this time in the webcast

Our goal is to have a single point of reporting, a single contact, so that we avoid the problem that the member has correctly identified of unnecessary duplication of effort. But currently the reporting takes place at the federal level, and it is mandatory for those entities.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that because my concern was that we seem to be having a multiplicity of opportunities for people to give data, and we want to reduce that as much as possible. I know that if the "minister for red tape" was here, he would certainly want to see just one window to intake this information and then get it to the sources that are required.

Again, I go back to.... If we are waiting to fulfil "as soon as reasonably practicable," as outlined in section 3, in essence, we're going to be waiting until after the next provincial election before the people of British Columbia can have some sense of what the baseline is for 2007 and, therefore, the magnitude of the reductions that will be required to meet the targets for 2020 and 2050. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Penner: At this point we don't know for sure because the federal agencies - the three that I've referred to - are the ones that are gathering the data. So we're in their hands as to when they turn that around and release it.

As I've indicated already, the most current data is for the 2005 calendar year. That was released, I believe, in late April or early May of 2007.

Just for the record, it indicated that between 2004 and 2005, B.C.'s total greenhouse gas emissions actually declined by 2.4 percent compared to the previous year, which was encouraging considering that that was also a period of significant economic growth in British Columbia, where we saw significant employment gains - more people working and, in fact, more people living here in British Columbia.

It's too soon to say if that's a trend. That was the year-over-year result. Obviously, we all share a common interest, I think, in making sure that that one-year report becomes a trend, but I think it's too soon to say that it will be. That's why we are embarked on a whole range of initiatives, which I have discussed previously in this debate, to further curb greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia.

J. Horgan: Well, then my last question to the minister on this section would be this. If adaptation is the single most important consideration for government and for the people of British Columbia if we're going to meet the targets set out in this bill, why not use 2006 as a baseline so we can get at it, so we can get started?

I appreciate the minister is going to say that we're already working on it. That's fine, but in terms of the fudge factor for those in industry who are resistant to meeting the objectives of this bill and the objectives that are shared by both sides of the House, why not take a year that we can get a hard baseline sooner so that we can move more quickly, in the spring and in the fall of next year, rather than waiting for an election period where all of us - those who are running and those who are not - will be preoccupied with other activities?

Why not accelerate by moving back 2007 to 2006, so that we can get the data in the spring of 2008 rather than the spring of 2009?

Hon. B. Penner: The short answer to the member's question is that the 2006 data will be made public. That will be made public whenever Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Statistics Canada release their synthesized report on the emissions inventory data from across the country.

J. Horgan: So why not use that as the baseline, the 2006 data, so that we can get going?

Hon. B. Penner: This is, kind of, the debate we had around section 2. Maybe the member missed that, but we spent the first hour or so of the debate on the details of the bill on just that particular question about the setting of the base year in 2007. I articulated a number of reasons why the government has adopted 2007 for the base year. The member will be interested to know that it's also the same base year that his party has started from in terms of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia - 2007.