Evidence of meeting #18 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 ethanol.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So speaking on the side of employment potential and economic vibrancy, the effort to honour our Kyoto obligations, from your perspective representing three million workers, is a positive one?
10:05 a.m.
National Director, Social and Economic Policy, Canadian Labour Congress
Yes. One thing that's very unfortunate, I think, looking back, is that before we ratified Kyoto there was quite a bit of modelling done around how to achieve our targets, and implications for employment were studied fairly closely in that period. A several-year gap has gone by since we did a serious matching up of what needs to be done to meet our climate change targets with the employment goals.
I think the point is, on balance, that those are positive, but there are pluses and minuses in that equation.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you.
I have a quick question for the interim commissioner. We well know the reluctance of the Ministry of Finance to change any of its policies at all. We've read the reports where the government has declared an intention, you've audited the performance of that intention, and you've said they're doing wrong, and then the Ministry of Finance has rejected your audit recommendations. I've not seen a more stark example.
One thing to point out, though, is that you talked about Bill C-30 and your preparation to analyze, after it's all said and done, as part of a larger government plan. I think it's important for your office to know that government members have been before this committee and held up Bill C-30 as the plan and said, this is it; if you want the Conservatives' plan, if you want the current government's plan for climate change, you're looking at it. One would throw a line of caution to you as to what you might be studying in the very end, they claim.
In terms of efficacy, because this is important in terms of how government spends its money, there was a program rolled out earlier last year that cost $2,000 a tonne for government to reduce GHGs, per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions. From your past analysis, from the Commissioner of the Environment's past analysis on what a per-tonne acceptability and government policy has been, is $2,000 a safe or credible market for Canada to initiate our efforts to reducing our own GHGs?
10:05 a.m.
Interim Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
The quick answer is that I don't know.
Do you have any comments on that, Richard?
10:05 a.m.
Principal, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
We have not tried to do that exercise, because in some cases programs may not generate a lot of reductions in the short term, but they are aimed at having an impact on society to generate further reductions in the longer term. So how do you calculate a per tonne value? It's a very difficult exercise.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Okay, I think the answer is that we don't know.
We'll have to move on. I'll just remind folks that we have a witness in Vancouver as well.
Mr. Watson for seven minutes, please.
March 1st, 2007 / 10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you to our witnesses for appearing here before the committee. I certainly appreciate your lending your insights to us as we examine Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air Act.
As you well know, we have heard from many witnesses over the last few weeks. And I can assure you our government is committed, not just for today but for the long term, to tackling the issues of greenhouse gas and pollution reduction for all Canadians. Your efforts will help us in that regard. I know many of my colleagues will be asking questions of all of you.
I'd like to begin by focusing my questions for the moment on Ms. Clarke-Walker and Mr. Jackson with the Canadian Labour Congress.
To lay some groundwork concerning your pro-Kyoto position, when did your organization adopt that, in what year?
10:05 a.m.
National Director, Social and Economic Policy, Canadian Labour Congress
I don't know exactly when we first took that position, but certainly we appeared before this committee in support of the accord before Parliament ratified the accord.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Has that position been reviewed or updated since then, and when did you do that review or updating of your position?
10:05 a.m.
National Director, Social and Economic Policy, Canadian Labour Congress
When we were writing this brief at the last meeting of our committee. I think we're well aware that time has passed since we ratified, and that our emissions have been rising since. I think our brief is clear that for us, staying with our Kyoto commitment could possibly involve the purchase of international credits, so clearly time has moved on since the time of ratification.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
This committee will be hearing a number of amendments when we reconvene at the end of March. One of them could be literally putting in writing in Bill C-30 that the short-term target and timeline for the government to meet its Kyoto objectives could be put in there.
Should the short-term target and timeline for Kyoto be enshrined in Bill C-30, in your opinion?
10:05 a.m.
National Director, Social and Economic Policy, Canadian Labour Congress
Yes, but I'm not totally sure of the question. Just to repeat myself, I think we need to make a determined effort to meet that actual emissions target as rapidly as possible. To my mind, staying true to the Kyoto commitment could—
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
I'm asking specifically, should the target and the timeline be put in, as opposed to making a determined effort in that direction? Those could be two very different things.
10:05 a.m.
National Director, Social and Economic Policy, Canadian Labour Congress
I'm unclear whether, when you say the timeline includes the purchase of international credits to make up for any possible shortfall, you are legislating the actual emissions level.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
I'm asking whether 6% below our 1990 commitment should be articulated as the specific short-term target and timeline in Bill C-30.
10:10 a.m.
National Director, Social and Economic Policy, Canadian Labour Congress
Yes.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Okay.
I appreciate, Mr. Jackson, that you've said you want to ensure that the voice of workers is heard in this discussion. Are the Canadian Auto Workers a member of the CLC? Very good.
Mr. Hargrove, in fact, appeared before this committee. I'm going to quote Mr. Hargrove. “It would be devastating for the whole community, anybody that signed on” to Kyoto, he said. “It's not even a remote possibility. No prime minister in any one of the parties in the House of Commons is going to bring in any kind of regulation that says we have to do that. It would be suicidal for our economy.” He goes on to say, “If somebody were to come out tomorrow and say you have to reach the objective that was laid out initially immediately, you'd almost have to shut down every major industry in the country from oil and gas to the airlines to the auto industry and that just doesn't make sense.”
Do you agree with Mr. Hargrove's comments?
10:10 a.m.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress
Again, I don't have the context for those comments. I don't have anything in front of me that says what else he said, other than what you're indicating.
What I can say to you is that CAW sits on all our committees and have been very clear in their commitment to Kyoto and have been very clear in their support for all the Canadian Labour Congress briefs. They have a position on fuel efficiency and reduction of emissions around the auto industry, and that's been very clear. It's included in our brief as well.
Without the full context of his comments, I can't comment on what he said.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
I encourage you to go back and read the transcripts. He was referring specifically to the current Kyoto deadline, both in target and in timeline.
Did the CLC do its own analysis of Kyoto's impact on the economy? If so, when did you do that analysis? Or did you rely on someone else's analysis for impacts?
10:10 a.m.
National Director, Social and Economic Policy, Canadian Labour Congress
When the CLC supported ratification of Kyoto...I believe if you went back to the brief, you would see that we relied a lot on the analysis that was done at the time by Informetrica concerning the economic and employment impacts.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Have you reviewed or updated the analysis on the impact to the economy? If so, when did you do that?
10:10 a.m.
National Director, Social and Economic Policy, Canadian Labour Congress
Not in any similarly—
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
10:10 a.m.
National Director, Social and Economic Policy, Canadian Labour Congress
I said not in a similarly systematic way.