Evidence of meeting #4 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 emissions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:55 a.m.
Adjunct Professor, Policy, University of British Columbia
That's absolutely right. Some of these new measures could conceivably be included in Bill C-30 through amendments. It's clear that the existing provisions of Bill C-30 are nowhere near what's required to put a comprehensive national plan in place.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Villeneuve, you touched briefly on intensity targets. We heard from Mr. Boyd on that. You had mentioned a desire to perhaps expand on that, and I wonder if you would like to. Secondly, I didn't hear you speak specifically to carbon tax and your thoughts on its efficacy versus a cap and trade or a mixture. What would your thoughts be on that?
February 6th, 2007 / 10:55 a.m.
Biologist, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi
Thank you.
Carbon intensity is a relative indicator. It indicates nothing with regard to the total quantity of greenhouse gases emitted. As Mr. Boyd said, we in Canada have increased our emissions by reducing our carbon intensity and, if there are no limits, carbon intensity can serve no other purpose than drawing a comparison with oneself.
Furthermore, carbon intensity isn't a guarantee that atmospheric pollution will be reduced because a number of other phenomena will contribute to smog episodes or atmospheric pollutant emissions. In addition, certain measures to reduce atmospheric emissions can increase greenhouse gas emissions. Once we've looked at that, we conclude that carbon intensity therefore isn't an end, but rather a means.
The second element is that the carbon tax isn't a universal tool. It's one tool among others, and it must be combined with others, but it's a tool that has the advantage of demonstrating a clear political will, of being simple to use, of requiring little investment by the government and of needing relatively little control. In addition, as Prof. Boyd said, it can be used intelligently and creatively to redistribute this wealth in the Canadian economy, to help reduce inequalities that are created and, in particular, I would emphasize, to raise funding for research and development because, from a global standpoint, this program must be put in place for a number of decades.
If we immediately stopped increasing our emissions and even if we stabilized them, it would take at least two centuries for the climate to stabilize.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Merci, Monsieur Villeneuve.
I think we'll cut it off there. I will ask Mr. Watson if he will yield his time for future consideration, in the interest of finishing on time.
11 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Thank you, Mr. Watson. I appreciate that.
I thank all the witnesses.
I have just a bit of administration, but thank you very much to all the witnesses.
Professor Boyd, Starbucks should be open now, so go and enjoy your latte.
I have a couple of small points.
Mr. Jean.
11 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'll be less than 30 seconds.
Mr. Boyd, I've asked the clerk to send you a copy of Bill C-30 to show how it actually expands the CEPA provisions, as we talked about at the end of my questions.
11 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
The other point is that we need to cover the witness list on pollution. If the members of the subcommittee will consider staying tonight for about 20 minutes after the end of the meeting at 5:30, that will be terrific.
Are there any other points?
The meeting is adjourned.
