Environment Committee on Nov. 28th, 2006

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Dillon, in your document you mention that public transportation had stabilized at 12%. It has not changed much between 1992 and 2005. In your opinion, did the tax measures which were introduced to encourage public transportation represent a good investment which will significantly reduce CO2 emissions?

[John Dillon]

Yes, in fact we made that suggestion in 1997, and contrary to Mr. Godfrey's assertion, we made the suggestion in 2002, when we tried to offer some alternative policies. In fact we have said all along that a much greater investment is needed to engage the consumer in reducing emissions.

Obviously there are some funds available now through the sharing of the gas tax and so on. Critically we need to make those investments in public transit.

I also mentioned in my slide that on average the commute time is obviously getting longer, not shorter, for Canadians. We need to have those kinds of investments that engage consumers in reducing their emissions.

We made a number of those suggestions over the years. Contrary to Mr. Godfrey's suggestion, this hasn't been a question of denial or despair; this is talking about policies that will actually work. We made those suggestions over the years, and we're still making them today.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Is that your only suggestion, namely to reduce the price of public transportation? If not, have you proposed other types of investment in public transportation?

[John Dillon]

We haven't put forward a detailed set of policies on transport, but we have suggested that a number of areas need to be looked at.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Bramley, I would like to come back to the fact that Canada does not have a lot of leeway on the international scene. It is rather isolated due to its international policy on the Kyoto Protocol. In your opinion, what are the threats or penalties which may come as a result of Canada's international policy?

[Matthew Bramley]

In terms of formal penalties under the Kyoto Protocol, the most significant one would be the fact that Canada would have to make up for not bringing down its emissions sufficiently before 2012, and that number would be multiplied by a penalty factor of 1.3 in the second round. If Canada adopts, as we wish, a more ambitious objective for the second round to ensure that our emissions continue to decrease, we will face an even greater challenge, and the penalty factor will apply in the second round.

More importantly, however, is that we must take a step back and consider Canada's reputation or, as Louise said, Canada's influence in the negotiations. For instance, I heard the Environment minister say that China and India must commit for the period following 2012. I don't understand how Canada can even imagine it can convince developing countries to do better when we are not even respecting our own commitments.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Do you think that...

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Lussier, we're at five minutes; I'm sorry.

Mr. Harvey.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

First, I would like to thank you for being here today. I truly appreciate the fact that I am hearing two very different points of view.

Mr. Bramley, as you know, Canada's objective was 6% under 1990 levels, and Mr. Dillon's document shows that some countries had set an objective of 27%. Do you believe that Canada's objective was analysed and assessed adequately when the -6% objective were set?

[Matthew Bramley]

To begin, I would like to say that I have been working in the field of climate change since 1999. I was not there when Canada's targets were set, but we heard Louise Comeau's testimony regarding the analysis which was carried out in the 1990s. So not only do we have the analysis Louise referred to, but there also was a national consultation process on climate change which took place in 1993 and 1994. The Kyoto Protocol called for conducting an economic analysis of the magnitude of reductions.

Does this answer your question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think Mr. Dillon wanted to discuss that.

[John Dillon]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was in Kyoto in 1997. I've been to most of the COPs before and after that. I can tell you that there was never any analysis shared with the business community on what that target would actually mean and how it would be accomplished. I think the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development has confirmed that in a report.

There were a number of analyses done over the years that we had questions about. As you saw and as you mentioned, in my presentation I note the range of targets that apply within the burden-sharing arrangement in the EU. Clearly, we were out-negotiated in Kyoto. We allowed that wide variation in European circumstances without clearly recognizing what our own circumstances were and what that would mean for the future. Many other countries that have an energy-intensive economy got a better target than we did.

I've had a number of European officials say to me over the years—privately, of course—that they were surprised and never quite understood how Canada arrived at that target. They understood that our economy is different, our population is growing, our circumstances are different from theirs. We have an energy-intensive economy. They were quite happy that we chose to take on such an ambitious target and potentially put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage, but that's the reality. I'm not aware of any comprehensive analysis that was undertaken before that target was agreed to in 1997.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Bramley, you said that Canada had to play a leadership role. Given that fact, you also talked about short-, medium- and long- term objectives. What do you think the short, medium and long term reduction objectives should be compared to 1990?

[Matthew Bramley]

The answer is quite simple. As I indicated, in the short term, we believe that the Kyoto objective is the one we should keep; after all, it a legal obligation. And as for the medium and long term, about a year ago we published, along with the David Suzuki Foundation, a fairly detailed analysis on climate change science and what it tells us as far as the reductions which should be achieved by 2020 and 2050 are concerned. We recommend, for 2020, a 25% reduction compare to 1990 levels, and 2050, a 80% reduction, still compare to 1990 levels. Other governments have already adopted targets in this range.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Chairman, how many seconds do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You have forty seconds.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Okay.

I read Mr. Suzuki's book. Indeed, he discusses climate change at length, but no solutions were ever really offered. I had hoped to find the miracle solution in M. Suzuki's book, since you mentioned it, but I still have not found it.

[Matthew Bramley]

If you read the report Entitled “Réduire radicalement les gaz à effet de serre”, which was published by the David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute in November 2005, you will find an entire section dealing with the technological and economic opportunities to help us reduce emissions by 80% by 2050..

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Can this be found on the Internet?

[Matthew Bramley]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Excuse me, Mr. Harvey.

Mr. Cullen.

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

There was a proposition earlier, in Mr. Bramley's testimony, comparing the choices government has—between, say, a 1% reduction in GST and investments to combat climate change.

Here is a question for Mr. Dillon. The government has promised to pay out approximately $1 billion for the pine beetle epidemic in British Columbia, in community restructuring. That's one sector of the economy, and it doesn't actually do much for climate change in terms of mitigating.... We haven't talked enough about mitigation. That's the word that needs to be applied here; “adaptation” is a slippery slope.

The question is this. The government has this almost duplicitous notion right now that it is respecting Kyoto: we're staying within the protocol, but we're not going to do the targets. We're meeting our Kyoto obligations, I've heard the government say, but we're not going to meet the targets. Does your association understand that statement?

[John Dillon]

Yes, I believe so. I haven't had detailed discussions with government officials about it, but as Louise Comeau was pointing out, there are a number of other obligations under the protocol and the convention that Canada is obliged to undertake, and as far as I'm aware, we are doing so.

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

Are not the targets the thing, though?

[John Dillon]

The targets clearly are the most important thing; there's no question about that. The issue is that Canada is being more honest than most other countries about the difficulty it is going to have in meeting that target. It relates, as I said earlier, to the fact that we've taken on an extremely ambitious target relative to what measures we've taken, and frankly, to the level of engagement and debate we've had with the Canadian public.