Evidence of meeting #11 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.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Marshall, how many members do you have in the group you represent?
4:05 p.m.
Analyst, Climate Change Policy, David Suzuki Foundation
I'm not 100% positive, but I think we have 60,000 members.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Increasingly, the foundation does.... What's your budget for the year?
4:05 p.m.
Analyst, Climate Change Policy, David Suzuki Foundation
I have no idea, sir.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
You do a lot of analysis, including economic analysis and other forms of analysis. Increasingly, the foundation has really invested heavily in capacity to do detailed analysis. Is that right?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Okay. Does the foundation support the government's climate change plan?
4:05 p.m.
Analyst, Climate Change Policy, David Suzuki Foundation
No, we think it's much too weak. The targets are not the right ones. As I've laid out today, we need much stronger targets. I think it's reasonably clear by all the analyses that have been done out there, including our own, that the policies that are in place aren't going to reach the weak targets that have been set.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Can you name a single third-party group in Canada--industrial, NGO, governmental, non-governmental, international, domestic--that's reviewed the government's plan and said it's going to live up to the numbers it claims it'll live up to?
4:05 p.m.
Analyst, Climate Change Policy, David Suzuki Foundation
I can't. The four independent analyses I've read have all said those targets aren't going to be reached with the policies.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
You're all familiar with Bill C-30. It was in the House before the House was prorogued by the government. It received all-party support, including the support of the Green Party, as a go-forward strategy to deal with the climate change crisis we're facing as a country. When you look at the bill put forward by Mr. Layton and you compare and contrast with Bill C-30, was Bill C-30 the more comprehensive, perhaps all-inclusive, package we were looking for as a nation state?
4:05 p.m.
Analyst, Climate Change Policy, David Suzuki Foundation
Bill C-30 was more comprehensive in terms of the policies.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Analyst, Climate Change Policy, David Suzuki Foundation
Yes, of course, the amended Bill C-30. I would say Bill C-288 and Bill C-377 and Bill C-30 are all complementary to one another. You need the targets, but you also need the more comprehensive policies to reach those targets. That's what I would argue for this bill as well. It's great to set targets, but you also have to put in place the policies that obviously allow us to reach those targets.
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Pollution Probe
I would agree with what Dale said. I don't have anything further to add.
February 4th, 2008 / 4:05 p.m.
Director, Global Threats, Conservation, World Wildlife Fund Canada
I haven't done an exact comparison, but Bill C-30 did have some small improvements on the energy efficiency side. We have been pursuing that very aggressively and would give more ambit to setting energy efficiency targets. It's not that many of those things could not be done now, but it was interesting to see the ambit improved.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
All three of you were involved in detailed analyses of climate change in Canada; you have been for quite a while, depending on the individual and the organization. Have you received any analysis of any kind from the federal government to substantiate the numbers it put forward in the Turning the Corner plan? Have you seen any research or analysis commissioned internally or externally from the government and put forward to substantiate the government's plan?
4:10 p.m.
Analyst, Climate Change Policy, David Suzuki Foundation
The Turning the Corner plan itself has some analysis in there, but it's not detailed enough to really get a sense of how the measures translate into the targets. As I said, the analyses that have been done, which are much more detailed than what's in Turning the Corner, actually refute what Turning the Corner says about the targets it expects to achieve.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I would remind you that we are dealing with Bill C-377. I'm trying to give everybody as much leeway as possible, but please try to stick to Bill C-377, in fairness to our witnesses who appeared here to talk about Bill C-377.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I'm trying to elucidate, as one witness has said, that it's fine to set targets, but what we've not seen in this bill, and in the whole plan that has cost millions and millions of dollars to communicate to Canadians, is a single shred of evidence that the analysis that needs to backstop this bill and the government's own plan is simply not there.
I want to ask the witnesses another question about analysis, which relates again to this bill on the table. Mr. Stern conducted a global analysis, an econometric analysis with distributive effects, and as you say in your brief, Mr. Ogilvie, he talks about a 1% GDP cost.
I think we all remember the shock and awe communications strategy that was put out by the government on Bill C-288, that the sky was going to fall if we actually implemented Bill C-288. Have any of you seen any analysis on the numbers put forward by the government on Bill C-288?