Evidence of meeting #10 for Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was air.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Is that a position shared by other members? Would you caution us to feel the same way, as MPs: don't look at the cost, look at the benefits?
10:55 a.m.
Director, Policy, Environmental Defence Canada
No, I think you should look at both. I think if you look at the costs of urban air pollution, for example—and I'll let my colleagues who have an equally strong case to be made on climate change, on greenhouse gases—it's a no-brainer if you look at the costs of urban air pollution.
What's the cost of a human life? While 16,000 people prematurely die from air pollution in Canada every year, who's bearing the cost of that? Who bears the personal cost of that, and who bears the health care cost of that? Well, we do. What's the cost of an asthma attack? What's the cost of increased respiratory illnesses?
I think costs are extremely relevant to this debate.
11 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
In the short-term transition toward medium- and long-term targets, there's the potential for a lot of dislocation, which is a term for some very painful costs along the way: job loss; anxiety; depression; bankruptcy; domestic violence; costs for employment insurance or retraining; loss of charitable dollars in communities from people who used to have high-paying jobs but don't anymore and the social services that are funded by those; and, in rare instances, suicide.
I'm in a community right now with 9.7% unemployment. That's in the auto industry. There were major layoffs announced recently. Those are costs that MPs are also concerned about. Is it fair enough to say that we should be concerned about those as MPs when we make decisions about what to do with climate change and what to do with pollution reduction?
I'll ask the panel. Does anybody want to answer that?
11 a.m.
Epidemiologist, Urban Environment and Health Department, Direction de santé publique de Montréal
When we say don't look at the costs, we're not saying to just spend billions and billions without thinking about it. We're saying, don't look at the costs alone, because that's misleading. No one is talking about closing down the automotive industry in Canada. No one is talking about creating unemployment. On the contrary, I think during the international conference in Montreal in December 2005 there were many speakers who showed that working on the environment creates jobs and creates economic benefits, while at the same time it creates better air quality and better health.
It's not logical, in my mind, to put one in opposition to the other. If you work on the environment, we create unemployment and—
11 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Mr. King, fair enough, but if I lose an auto job today, I don't have a job to walk into in the future either.
11 a.m.
Epidemiologist, Urban Environment and Health Department, Direction de santé publique de Montréal
But you're creating a public transportation job.
I'll give you the example of the tobacco industry. People have argued that we shouldn't be too harsh on tobacco because we're losing jobs. That is incorrect. We must make sure that the tobacco industry disappears eventually and that those jobs are replaced by others in the agricultural field. We're not talking about just blindly eliminating jobs. We're saying those jobs that....
11 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Here's the question I'd like to ask the panellists, then. It's not the same to lose a $30-an-hour job with benefits to get a $10-an-hour job. There are costs for people and how they will have to live their lives because of that. Should the government, or should members of Parliament, be concerned about mitigating such costs, even if it means we don't get maximum GHG or pollution reduction? That's the question I wanted to ask.
11 a.m.
Policy Analyst, Climate Change Program, David Suzuki Foundation
Sorry, can you ask that question again?
11 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Should MPs and should the government be concerned about mitigating these types of costs, even if it means we don't get the absolute maximum GHG reduction or pollution reduction?
11 a.m.
Policy Analyst, Climate Change Program, David Suzuki Foundation
Listen, for every policy that's put into place, you have to consider costs and benefits, but I reject the premise that dealing with climate change means economic collapse.
11 a.m.
Policy Analyst, Climate Change Program, David Suzuki Foundation
I did a report—
11 a.m.
Policy Analyst, Climate Change Program, David Suzuki Foundation
—that Mr. Jean cited before that looked at the impact of meeting Kyoto on jobs in the energy sector, and it found that there would be a positive impact on jobs in Canada in the energy sector, which is supposedly the sector that's going to be hardest hit.
11 a.m.
Mr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC)
Okay, we're going to have to wrap it up, Mr. Marshall.
11 a.m.
Policy Analyst, Climate Change Program, David Suzuki Foundation
Sir Nicholas Stern said the same thing. The costs of not acting are higher than the costs of acting.
11 a.m.
Mr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC)
Mr. Marshall, you're done.
Mr. Freeman, you can make a short comment, and then we're done.
11 a.m.
Director, Policy, Environmental Defence Canada
I want to speak specifically to the auto sector. I find it very interesting that yesterday the Government of British Columbia said it is going to follow the California standard for auto emissions, along with 10 northern states. What you're now seeing in North America is a very clear trend. For automobiles that are more efficient, that have lower emissions, the market is growing. The other market is shrinking. Canada has to choose which of those markets it wants to join.
Economically, in terms of our economic policy, our auto industry has to make that decision as well. And we have to be investing in the technologies that are going to take us in the right direction environmentally, or we will be left behind and the dislocation costs you're describing will be there in spades.
11:05 a.m.
Mr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC)
We're going to have to cut it off there.
Mr. Paradis, you have a point of order.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Christian Paradis Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. I gathered from Mr. Drouin's presentation that there are extra documents about the benefits and risks approach that could be very useful to the committee.
If possible, I would like to request that the said documents be duly tabled. Thank you.
11:05 a.m.
Mr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC)
Yes, they will be translated and distributed.
Thank you very much for your indulgence.
Ms. Parkinson-Marcoux, thank you very much for joining us from so far away. I'm sure Starbucks is open now, so please go and have a great day.
Thank you to all the witnesses and everybody else.
The meeting is adjourned.