Evidence of meeting #27 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was change.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Emeritus Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
We don't really know very much about the cost of adaptation. It hasn't been studied or assessed very much. Economists have been singularly uninterested in adaptation, compared with mitigation. That's been the flavour of the whole debate for 15 years now.
One thing is clear. If we begin to adapt now and take precautionary measures in the adaptation file, the cost will be less than if we delay adapting until we are absolutely forced.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So along that line, do we know what actions would be the most intelligent to take right now? I'm wondering if it's building retaining walls in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. Where would the money best be spent?
Emeritus Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
It's difficult to say. Part of the problem is that the list of potential adaptation measures is, frankly, enormous. Perhaps it's best not to do that in a very top-down sort of way: to facilitate, to encourage, and to enable, and where the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of the economy or the society are at risk, to provide some help--but generally speaking, to facilitate rather than to financially support adaptation.
The corollary, of course, is that failure to mitigate is going to increase the cost of adaptation in the long run enormously.
NDP
Emeritus Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
It speaks for itself.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I have a question for Mr. Cleland with respect to full cost accounting, and this is outside of just the narrow interests of your particular sector, but as an economy, because we've been speaking about the economy quite a bit.
We've watched the pine beetle devastation and we've watched the mines in the far north not being able to operate, certainly, like they used to. Does it not come to a certain point--and this is the role of government again--to take in that full cost accounting of the expense of meeting something like Bill C-288, with the various tools and mechanisms available, versus the expenses that get accrued by all members of that society? Does it not come to some point where, as committee members have mentioned, this constant debate and discussion needs to end and you simply have to act? And it may be expensive.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Gas Association
I would agree with you at a level, in principle. I would distinguish my answer from anything to do with Bill C-288, for reasons that are obvious in my testimony.
I agree with you. Governments deal with that. Governments look at environmental externalities. It's one of their jobs to make estimates of what the costs of those externalities are and to ensure that they're effectively priced into economic decisions, usually by regulation.
Are we going to have to push harder on that? Absolutely. Will we ever be able to measure what that externality is? No. It's a political judgment as to whether it is as big as a house or as big as a bread box. We know this one's at least as big as a house and we'd better get going.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
To abandon even the hope or prospect of meeting the 2012 targets...because China, India, the U.S., and all the other countries are thrown into this conversation.... From what we're seen at the international level, Canada's reputation is what enforces our ability to negotiate and include those other countries. If we simply abandon it, walk away and say, look, we can't meet 2012, and we're not necessarily even really going to try, what authority do we have at the table?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Gas Association
That's a tough one, there's no question about that. Canada is placed in a very difficult situation by virtue of, frankly, the mistakes we've made over the past several years. I guess the question is this. Do you compound the mistake by trying to stay in something that you clearly cannot achieve, or do you say, well, that didn't work, let's get on with something, but let's get on with something realistic?
I think in the end our credibility will be considerably enhanced if we do the latter.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Does your industry not look to other examples of nation states that are energy exporters, that have been able to achieve substantial emission reductions under Kyoto?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Gas Association
Well, I don't know what examples you'd have in mind. If you look at Russia, for example, we—
NDP
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Gas Association
No. Well, if we look at the Middle East, their emissions have gone up—
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Gas Association
Australia's emissions have gone up. Norway would be one that I think has made a lot of progress. They have a very heavily hydro-based electricity system and a political culture, frankly, that helps to drive some of this.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So for examples like the Norways and the Swedens, the places that have been able to achieve significant results, do they not hold a light out to Canada to say that perhaps following this direction might be something worthwhile?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Gas Association
In some measure, but you have to look at the particular circumstances. An example that's of interest to my industry is that Sweden leads the world in district heating systems. District heating systems have a lot of merit, but it also has a lot to do with the way the Swedes go about building, designing, and managing their cities. It's very different from the way we do it in Canada. If we can move in that direction, then, yes, good. There are some examples we can take.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Cullen, your time is up.
On behalf of all the members, I'd like to thank the witnesses. I think it's been a great discussion with a lot of good information, so thank you very much for joining us.
The meeting is adjourned.