Environment committee  I think unity is at risk because expectations are too high. The whole Kyoto-U.S. congressional context penalizes regions that are most efficient and rewards regions that are currently least efficient. So in fact, if we actually went down the Copenhagen track, the region that's go

Environment committee  My opposition to Bill C-311 is due to the shock it would promote. Every time we jump out and set a target that feels out of reach—I'm setting aside the question of whether or not it is in reach—we back whole communities into fear-based tactics. My position is that we know which t

Environment committee  I'll send the list right after the meeting.

Environment committee  I might be remembering this a little wrong, but I'd say that of the 30 communities, less than 15, but close to half, would be Alberta and Saskatchewan; no communities in Manitoba. In the list I'm going to send you, it shows no communities in B.C., but if I step back from the numb

Environment committee  In Denmark, government spending is 55% of GDP, and if you net $51,000 Canadian a year, you pay 63% of your gross income in taxes. That's income taxes and payroll taxes, not including sales taxes. I'm not saying that's bad, but that's a different kind of society from the one we li

Environment committee  When they implemented their policies, their investment capital came to Canada. Their goods producing employment fell 15% roughly. Our goods producing employment increased 26%. Now let's go back to what this means international treaty-wise. It also means that we've got in the dev

Environment committee  I'm a card-carrying Liberal. I don't think they'd give it to me.

Environment committee  First, thank you for having me here. Like the rest of the panel members, I strongly believe that Canada has an important role to play and that we must move quickly to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. I do not, however, recommend the passage of Bill C-311. Bill C-311 is yet

Environment committee  I'm not a constitutional authority, so I'm taking you at your word. Again, I cannot see any path forward towards compliance with any target below 2006 levels ranging between 20% and above by 2020 without substantial government spending. There are two reasons, and they're quite

Environment committee  Those emissions compared with emissions in 2005—which I think were only a little bit lower than today's emissions—would represent a 50.4% reduction. That's the number in the middle column at the bottom of my table.

Environment committee  Yes, I would think so.

Environment committee  No, I don't mean that. But those numbers are right, which means that to get a 50% reduction, at least 50%--but probably more like two-thirds--of all Canadian industrial plants have to be replaced, whether by pulling out the existing equipment and putting in different equipment or

Environment committee  I'm personally of the view that I'm an economist by training and I'm not confident to express an opinion on chemistry and biology. I am saying that in 1996 I personally determined that this was the most important issue of the day and the one issue I wanted to work on. So my conce

Environment committee  I want to be clear. You've never heard me argue for or against any target, and you will never hear me express an opinion for or against any target. The question I keep putting before you is this. What do you need to be liberated so as to move progressively and get going towards a

Environment committee  I'm trying to answer that. I don't think “do nothing” is in the cards in any future. The question is, how will Canada's emissions reduce? Will they reduce because we transform a vibrant carbon-intensive economy to a vibrant not carbon-intensive economy, or does our economy transf