Environment committee  What we do show, if you compare the study with, for example, the preliminary version we published a year before, is that the costs are going up as Canada delays emission reductions to meet a given target. As we were just saying, this study does not factor in the cost of climate change itself, which is going to be devastating worldwide if we don't take very serious action.

Environment committee  There are several parts to the answer. First, there are technologies available to significantly reduce emissions. We are familiar with renewable energy. For example, according to our scenarios, wind energy is projected to account 18% of the electricity produced in Canada in 2020.

Environment committee  Basically, when we talk about the impact on Alberta, the fate of the tar sands is key. When we impose the price on emissions—which ranges from $100 to $200 a tonne—according to the forecasts in the economic model, the industry says yes by limiting its growth. We would therefore always have strong growth in the tar sands industry, but slower than if the status quo were maintained.

Environment committee  In our models, in our scenarios, 20% of the gap between business as usual, which is 47% above the 1990 level in 2020, and going down to minus 25% below would be closed with international reductions.

Environment committee  I would never say it's impossible, but our analysis suggests that a feasible scenario does require using international reductions.

Environment committee  I'm saying that in the scenarios that we regard as feasible, we close one-fifth of the gap with international reductions.

Environment committee  No. I don't think I would ever call that impossible, but in a feasible scenario, one that we would put forward, we would use international reductions.

Environment committee  A number of studies have been done on the potential impacts on competitiveness of different carbon prices in different countries. Generally what the studies show is that because of the kinds of economies we're talking about.... Canada's economy is overwhelmingly a service economy, and much of the manufacturing sector is not particularly carbon intensive.

Environment committee  Well, actually I do. It's the plan that the government was required to file under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, which contains very similar accountability mechanisms to those that Bill C-311 would extend. So I think it's an illustration of the usefulness of having those kinds of accountability mechanisms to ensure that the government is required to table something that says what the contribution would be of each of its measures.

Environment committee  I can't comment on the--

Environment committee  Good afternoon. Thank you for your invitation. I'd like to begin by referring members of the committee to my December 2007 testimony to this committee on the same bill, when it was known as Bill C-377. I've provided copies through the clerk. As time is short, I won't repeat the reasoning I presented then in support of this bill.

Environment committee  As I've said in my presentation, our advocacy of these science-based targets is based on what we, as Canada, need to do to make our fair share of helping the world avoid two degrees of global warming, which would take us into a realm of economic impacts, impacts on people, and impacts on ecosystems that I think most people would eagerly agree are unacceptable.

Environment committee  I think Canadians are sick and tired of hearing reasons why others should do more than us or why we can't do as much as others. I would go back to the environment commissioner's report of 2006 and the other question I referred to. The environment commissioner called for a massive scale-up of efforts on the part of the federal government to cut greenhouse gases, and I'm disappointed that we haven't yet seen that massive scale-up of efforts from the present government.

Environment committee  On this point, as others have noted, the bill has a similar structure to that found in the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, in that the onus is placed on the government to come up with regular climate plans. The government of the day has full freedom to choose the mix of spending measures, regulations, market-based instruments, provincial agreements, and so on that it sees fit as the most appropriate way for it to meet the targets in the plan, which the bill requires the government to set forth.

Environment committee  We cite a number of economic modelling studies but none that relate specifically to meeting the target we advocate for Canada in 2050. To my knowledge, that hasn't been done, and it needs to be done.