Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on March 1st, 2007

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

This is a question directed to Mr. Brown and to Mr. Jackson and Ms. Clarke-Walker.

In your proposal from the CLC you referred to the large final emitters and Pembina and pricing carbon at $30 a tonne for large final emitters. You said this “would force real change without undue disruption” or dislocation.

I am wondering, both from the Canadian Labour Congress and from Mr. Brown, whether you have any further analysis that would confirm that this is the sweet spot between forcing change and causing economic disruption, or whether you've just gone as far as Pembina. Maybe Mr. Brown has some independent information. We're looking at fiscal tools, and one of them clearly is that this needs a price incentive to get people moving. Is that the right kind of zone for a price signal?

[Andrew Jackson]

The short answer is basically that what we're saying is based on the work at Pembina Institute. To our mind, it's not the end of the world if we have a slower pace of tar sands development.

I just want to clarify one point about what we were saying earlier. It is my understanding that under Kyoto we are committed to do a combination of three things, not two things. One is to reduce our emissions. The second is that we can use the clean development mechanism. The third thing is that we can take on an additional obligation in the subsequent period. It's not just an either/or in terms of reductions or purchasing credits.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Brown.

[Michael J. Brown]

I haven't done any specific analysis on what the right price ought to be for carbon. I do believe it's appropriate that in line with things like forward-looking regulations, it would make sense to increase prices over time, to tell people in advance what they're likely to be. I don't think it's appropriate to set a price for carbon until we understand what damage is likely to be done by a tonne of carbon.

That gets me back to the notion that I'm not sure we understand what these long-term damages are going to be. If my presumptions about the release of methane from the permafrost are real, I'm going to suggest to you that the damages are going to be intense. If IPCC estimates up to 4.5 degrees centigrade in changes--and there's an article in the New Scientist from two weeks ago that indicates that IPCC work did not include some of the commonly discussed material among scientists, including this feedback loop--then we could be looking at global temperature increases substantially above 4.5 degrees by the end of the century. This would have a dramatic impact on things like food production, fish production, rising sea levels, and so forth within the lifetime of my grandchildren.

Until we know the answer to that, I don't know how we price the value of getting rid of a tonne of carbon today.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

But I would gather from your presentation that you're urging us to get on with it. You're not asking us to wait around until we know the answer to the question, but to start moving on pricing carbon. Would that be correct? We can't wait for the full analysis.

[Michael J. Brown]

I think that getting on with some legislation that indicates that we're going to start a carbon trading and penalties program based on general caps is a very good idea.

I'm not sure that we should start at prices any higher than are evident in Europe. But I think we should make it clear that analysis will be done that's going to suggest increasingly higher prices over time. I think you will find that capital markets will respond very positively to that sort of program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you very much.

We'll move back to the government side for five minutes, and Mr. Manning.

Also, I'm sorry, but this will be the last questioner, because we have some business to conduct at the end of this meeting.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I welcome our guests here and thank them for their presentations.

My question would go to you, Mr. Jackson or Mrs. Clarke-Walker. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your presentation you made a comment concerning the climate change investment fund, a fund to compensate workers and communities that lose their jobs and economic activity due to meeting some of our targets. Would that be correct? Have you costed that endeavour? Can you give us some estimate on what it would cost for a compensation package to address those concerns?

[Andrew Jackson]

I think you're referring to our proposed just transition fund.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Yes.

[Andrew Jackson]

In any case, the answer is that we haven't costed it, nor could we cost it until we have an actual climate change plan that we could do an analysis of. I don't think it would be a huge cost.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

I would go to Mr. Thompson, please, and your presentation.

As we all know, we adopted the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, and you finished up a report, I would say, in September 2006, looking back over those almost ten years. Just to quote you for a moment, you said:

In a nutshell, we said • that Canada was not on track to meet its international obligations to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, • that Canada was not prepared to adapt to the effects of climate change, and • that the federal government's efforts were not well organized and not well managed.

You follow that by saying, in paragraph 13, “In our report, we made a series of recommendations to address the deficiencies we had identified.”

I'm wondering if you could put forward today, if possible, some of the recommendations that you think should be part of Bill C-30. Should some of those recommendations be part of the bill, or should they be just policy directives off to the side?

[Ron Thompson]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If I could comment just briefly on that, I can try to explain what should be in Bill C-30. Let me take another cut at that.

In a climate change plan, a plan to address the climate change issue, we believe very strongly—and this was in the report last fall—that there's a need to have clear, measurable expectations or targets for the short, medium, and longer terms. Otherwise, there's no way of really knowing whether the plan is unfolding as it should, or whether activities being carried out during the year or over a period of two or three years are actually working. You need expectations and you need targets, and you need them for those three timeframes, I would suggest.

The other thing I would suggest it is important to have in addressing climate change would be to take those targets and capture them in what I'd call a concise periodic report to parliamentarians from time to time, so that they know in plain language whether the program is in fact being worked on and if the long-term program is having any effect. I firmly believe that kind of report is possible to prepare. In fact we're going to do a little bit of work next spring to take a look at that.

That's the key to it all, I think, sir: clear, measurable expectations or targets. Get them firmly in place so that everyone can see them for the short, medium, and longer term, and then report back on those periodically. It needn't be annually. It may be every three years or something, but then all of us—primarily members of Parliament, but the Canadian people too—could know whether or not the initiatives we're taking on are working.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

So you think that should be part of the legislation?

[Ron Thompson]

It should be part of a plan. Whether it should be part of this legislation or not, I don't know.

I'm being a little evasive on that because there is Bill C-30, but there was also published, not too long ago, a notice of intent to develop and implement regulations and other measures to reduce air emissions. This is a document that I think came out of Environment Canada, so there's a little bit more to what I would call a plan than perhaps Bill C-30. That's why I was suggesting that maybe the plan that will eventually unfold isn't quite here yet.

In terms of the plan, if I can put it that way, whether it's in Bill C-30 or someplace else, these two things should be part of it.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Do you care to comment, Mr. Arseneault?

[Richard Arseneault]

What I could add is the fact that when we look at the way things were being implemented prior to the proposals that are in front of us, we said there were major problems with governance and accountability. Climate change is a horizontal file. It involves a number of departments, and they have to work together. What we found back then was that there were problems. Leadership was switching from one department to the other from time to time. There were structures put in place, like the Climate Change Secretariat, which was doing good work but was dismantled without being replaced. Then the central agencies got involved but said they weren't the owner of this, they were only helping, and there were issues with that.

There was a program review started under the former government and completed under the current government. The information from this I'm sure would inform the government in terms of what exactly it wants to do with these programs. These programs are managed by a series of different departments.

Therefore, the basics of good management is to get your accountabilities in shape and then, as Mr. Thompson said, it's very important that we have clear targets, clear performance expectations, and that we report on our progress. Things are not going to be perfect from day one, but once we know we can make adjustments, the government can make adjustments, and Parliament can help.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you very much. We're going to have to cut it off there. We'll make that the last question because we have a little committee business to do before we adjourn.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for joining us. To Mr. Brown from Vancouver particularly—it's time for your Starbucks latte or whatever—and to the witnesses who joined us personally, thank you very much. I appreciate your time. I'd like us to give them a verbal handshake, if you don't mind, so that we can stay behind and do the business of the committee. With a firm verbal handshake, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Okay, folks, we've a couple of things to deal with. We've a notice of motion, and then I will have some guidance for the committee after we have disposed of the notice of motion, depending on which way it proceeds.

Mr. Cullen, I believe you have a motion to propose.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I appreciate your adaptation and modification of committee business with the virtual handshake. It's very interesting.

The main issue that's brought forward in this motion today--and committee members can read it, but I will read it for the record--is that all instructions for amendments be submitted to the legislative counsel for drafting by 9 a.m. on March 8, 2007; that amendments be given to the clerk of the committee no later than 9 a.m. on March 9, 2007; that the clause-by-clause study begin at 9 a.m. on March 12, 2007; that at 5 p.m. on March 22, 2007, all remaining questions on the bill be put without further debate; that the report on the bill be presented to the House on March 26, 2007.

The intention for this motion, and the reason behind it, is that witness after witness, and again today, have urged us to act with urgency. Time and time again I've put motions forward to this committee to offer paths forward for urgency. I will continue to modify them, but as we've now had a budget date presented and we have the prospect of—who knows when—an election on the horizon, establishing what it is that all the parties around the table want to get done when it comes to climate change is of great imperative prior to any confidence motions and any budget votes. This is a motion that allows us to present our best ideas on the table and have a vigorous and decent debate. We're prepared to do as many meetings as possible for a good debate, then vote on them, and present it back to the House in due course.

That 's the motion. I present it to the committee, and move it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Do we have discussion on the motion? No?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'd like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We'll move directly to the question.

(Motion negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

I'd like to provide a little bit of guidance, then, for the conduct of the business of the committee.

On January 29, 2007, the committee adopted the following work plan: “That the Committee hear witnesses until March 2, 2007; That the two week break in March be used to formulate amendments; That the Committee begin clause by clause consideration the week of March 19, 2007 and; That the Committee report the Bill back to the House no later than March 30, 2007.”

At its organization meeting on December 14, 2006, the committee adopted the following motion with respect to amendments: “That amendments to Bill C-30 be submitted to the Clerk of the Committee 48 hours prior to clause by clause consideration without limiting the ability to present additional amendments at the meeting itself.”

I take this to mean that members will make every effort to have all their amendments prepared and sent to the clerk so that comprehensive amendment packages can be compiled and distributed in advance of the first clause-by-clause meeting. Assuming that the committee wishes to begin clause-by-clause study on Monday, March 19, this would mean that the amendments should be in the clerk's hands by Thursday, March 15, at 5 p.m.

Is that clear to all? Okay.

If there is no further business, then this meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much. Have a good break.