Environment committee  Thank you very much, Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to members of the committee on the upcoming international negotiations on climate change at Bali. First of all, while I'm aware that you heard from some eminent experts on the results of the IPCC's fourth assessment report last week, I would like to highlight some of the conclusions that are particularly relevant to the UN negotiations.

Environment committee  I think considerable. I think we've always underestimated the contribution of Canadian society to greenhouse gas emissions. I think there is a lot of political sensitivity that has made it difficult, but I don't think there's any doubt. Just look at oil sands development. On one hand, people put that as an isolated issue, but what is it being produced for?

Environment committee  It depends on who you talk to. The G77 and China, as well as the EU, would suggest that a 50% global emissions reduction means 80% to 90% on the part of developed countries. I'm not sure that's the position of what is commonly referred to as the “umbrella group alliance of countries”, the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and others, but for the most part, out of some 170 countries, about 150 would assume that 50% global emissions would eventually mean something in the area of 80% to 90% for OECD countries.

Environment committee  I would suggest that the first signal that needs to be there is that we'll be talking about an escalating regime. So you could start at a relatively moderate rate, let's say even $20 or $25. I think $15, frankly, by 2012, will already be too low. But it could be at around $20 and ratcheted up, with fairly clear signals as to the extent to which you're going to be ratcheting it up over the next decade or two.

Environment committee  First of all, as far as the national energy dialogue is concerned, there's a group out there called the Energy Dialogue Group that I'm aware of. It includes all the associations for energy groups, from the Canadian Wind Energy Association to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, and they're all calling for a similar kind of initiative on the part of the Government of Canada.

Environment committee  There is no doubt that the discussion will continue to centre around a long-term target of the kind you were just describing, Monsieur Bigras. I do very much welcome the initiative, certainly in the sense of having a longer-term perspective on what it is we're setting out to achieve.

Environment committee  My personal view is that it's absolutely critical, because in many respects, even though they're in the form of embodied energy, the growth of China's economy is very, very materially based. It comes from the massive use of natural resources. Again, they are more concerned about the production curve than anything else and they are becoming more and more cognizant of the significant savings, both to the economy and to the environment, on issues such as energy efficiency.

Environment committee  We have the beginnings of one, but as Dr. Jaccard pointed out before, it's only for a certain sector, the large final emitters. You have a small surcharge being put on by the Quebec government that may be having some implications at the consumer level, but for the most part, we're not getting out that signal throughout Canadian society yet.

Environment committee  Well, I think the overall objective of all the major parties in the G8 was to keep the U.S. in the tent. That was the overriding objective. Although it came at a bit of a price, particularly for those who wanted to have some specific targets set by the mid-century, at least that ultimate objective of keeping the U.S. in the tent and also the U.S. talking about the consideration of reduction targets needs to be appreciated for the accomplishment it is.

Environment committee  What the Montreal meetings managed to do was to keep alive a fully engaged discussion around post-2012 that engaged all parties, and I think that was its very important accomplishment. Now, the parties, particularly the United States, didn't agree that those kinds of discussions would actually represent a set of negotiations that would explicitly address what parties should do after 2012, but at least it kept the issue on the table.

Environment committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will focus my comments on how Canada's current climate change efforts and commitments fit into the evolving international global climate change regime. I think one of the first things that struck me in looking at the summit declaration...and I would urge all members to not just look at the climate change section part.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  More than anything else, I have a concern that the toothpaste may be a bit out of the tube. Intensity targets have been discussed not only by this government but previous to that, particularly with Alberta and the large final emitters in the west. If we were to have a very strong political discussion now and insist on absolute caps, it would once again detract from taking action.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Well, they already are, to a large degree.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Again, it's the decision of the government, in terms of how much it wants to scope out. If it wants to bring in a definite limit on how much should be purchased internationally, it could do so, saying that such and such a percentage of our reductions could be done through this means or through that means.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Yes. As we found out this morning, there's an awful lot of valuable learning that we can take in from the EU system. For example, as I've repeated on more than a couple of occasions, in developing a regulatory framework begin simply and gently. That's very much a lesson that's being taken on board in the United States.