Environment Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

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

Let me clarify. I don't mean climate change models; I mean more of a business case model. Where would the components likely come from? What would the implications be? The committee hasn't really looked at that yet.

We understand and we're supportive of the 2012 targets. My party has set out a plan, but we spent months on it. We brought economists and all kinds of people in. We didn't spend five meetings on it.

This is serious stuff, if you're asking the government to meet this by 2012. I am not suggesting climate change modelling at all. That is not a path for us. I mean, where would you get the reductions from and how would you achieve them? What amount of emissions buying would you need to do in order to achieve the targets?

[An hon. member]

It's up to them to decide.

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

But I think it is worthwhile for the committee to hear what the considerations would be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Do you have an idea for a witness who could cover that sort of...?

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

It is a challenge, but let me consider it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Sure.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I have just a simple request, Mr. Chair. I think we have had some discussion on six potential topics and meetings here. We have a fairly good idea of where this may be going. But once we leave the meeting, it's going to be up to the rest.

To make sure, could we have Tim read back the six potential meeting topics, so that we know he has the same understanding we probably have around the table? Is that all right?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We can ask him to do that.

[Tim Williams, Committee Researcher]

Sure, I wouldn't mind having some clarification that I've got it right as well.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

That's what I want to make sure of, because if we're going to come to some agreement over these six topics, I want to make sure that if he leaves here he's going to have the same understanding we had around the table of what's being discussed here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We'll ask him to go through those, and of course, Mr. Godfrey, if you could pay particular attention.... There have been suggestions that, of course, Nairobi will be rearranged, but let's just look at the six topics, the general areas.

[Tim Williams]

As I understand it, we have the first meeting on the urgency of the situation--why this bill has been tabled in the first place. The second meeting is on the impacts of doing something and the impacts of not doing anything. Those are the two extremes, I guess.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You're talking economic, I believe, largely.

[Tim Williams]

Economic and social impacts.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Would that also include the cost of non-compliance with Kyoto?

[Tim Williams]

I would imagine so, yes.

The third meeting and I think the next two meetings--those first two meetings seem to be--

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Just to clarify, when I say the cost of non-compliance, I mean specifically with the terms of Kyoto, what Kyoto itself as a mechanism imposes as the cost of non-compliance. I just want that clarified.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Just repeat, Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I don't just mean what the environmental costs of not complying are if we don't do this. I mean specifically what the costs are. If we don't meet the target and the timeline, what will the costs then be for non-compliance of Kyoto and its mechanisms? What additional costs will have to be incurred for missing the target and timeline?

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

There's one distinction, which is that there are economic costs in the sense of putting aside the Kyoto process, the cost of doing something versus the cost of not doing something. Then there are the penalty costs that are associated with Kyoto, which is what you're talking about.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

That's a third cost, if you will.

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

Yes. What I would suggest is that we put that in under what I've called an update on the Kyoto process. It needn't be the third session, but that would give us the latest on penalty costs, if you like, the Kyoto costs, as opposed to just general economic costs one way or the other.

Does that help?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

One of the problems with that, of course, is that is under discussion for the after 2012 discussion. While Kyoto said one thing, most of the countries involved at the COP meetings are saying, we're all going to have a problem; that's going to be part of the 2012 plus discussion. So that may be clarified as a result of Nairobi.

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

Right. So that's why I'm saying to put that discussion off until you come to Kyoto.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I just wanted to make sure that was part of the discussion.