Environment Committee on June 19th, 2007

[Prof. Mark Jaccard]

Unfortunately, the answer is no. So far the Europeans, on a policy design basis, have done better than we have in Canada in implementing policies that have a better chance of reducing emissions, but the models they use are still, in my view, overstating their ability to achieve their actual targets. I think the evidence of the last five years has borne that out. I'm actually working closely with my European colleagues to improve those models so that they have more of the attributes of the model that I'm using, for example.

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

Does your model include provincial programs designed to reduce their dependence on petroleum? Does your report include the provincial initiatives aimed at reducing dependence on petroleum, especially in transportation?

[Prof. Mark Jaccard]

Yes, we have those.

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

Thank you very much.

[Prof. Mark Jaccard]

For example, the rate of use of transit for commuting increases, and that's a little bit because of the effect of the Conservative transit pass tax credit, but it's especially because of investment in improved transit, some of it funded by both provincial and federal governments.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Jaccard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras, there's a minute left if you.... You're okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Cullen, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Dr. Jaccard, for being here.

I have a couple of questions. Have you been able to see anywhere within the government's assessment or analysis an idea of the most cost-effective measures to be used in the reduction of greenhouse gases? What I'm getting at is that I remember that many Conservative members, when they were in opposition, were highly critical of the previous regime for not doing a cost assessment of where the best dollar was spent to get the most benefit. Have you seen any such assessment in the current government's plans to this point?

[Prof. Mark Jaccard]

No, and I did ask the government for that. I was given some information about their estimates of what each program would achieve in terms of emissions reduction, but I was interested in the parameters inside their model that had to do with behaviour and how people respond, and also to do with cost estimation. They were very helpful, actually, but weren't able to provide that yet. They also were given a copy of the C.D. Howe report to review in advance of its release by a week or two.

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

Just to be clear for committee members, do these assessment models exist right now? Is there something the government can run its plans through to get at least some estimation of the most effective taxpayer dollar spent?

[Prof. Mark Jaccard]

Yes.

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

The second question I have is with respect to any assessment of adaptation costs for the Canadian economy. Much of the conversation has spent time on mitigation only. The government has spent a great deal of effort talking more about doomsday scenarios of doing greenhouse gas reductions too severely. Has there been any assessment that you've seen as to the impacts on the Canadian economy for unmitigated climate change?

[Prof. Mark Jaccard]

I don't have specific numbers. I've tended to review studies on different kinds of environmental effects, but I'm not familiar with some specific cost estimates, no.

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

Has there been any assessment at all as to the economic benefits by transitioning the economy from a high greenhouse gas emitting economy to one that is of a greater efficiency? Do we know what the upside of this transition is?

[Prof. Mark Jaccard]

Yes. There've been lots of studies on that, but unfortunately, as an economist, I would say that the net effect is a cost in terms of economic output, as we traditionally measure it, from reducing greenhouse gases. The analysis that I have been working on recently, and I think there is some independent work going on for the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, suggests that the costs of reducing greenhouse gases over, let's say, a 40-year timeframe might cost you about a year or so of economic growth if you put the right policies in place immediately. So they're allowing you to transition gradually. Those are studies that do look at the benefits side as well and net all of that out.

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

In this analysis, I'm curious about this equation of this 40:1 ratio. Is there any factor put into that assessment that says this is the cost associated with adaptation that we won't have to pay for if we, in effect, put in good policy?

I'm looking at northern British Columbia as an example right now--pine beetle and others--imagined in forecasting costs. Is that factored in as well?

[Prof. Mark Jaccard]

No, we don't factor that in. This is what we call.... If I do any costing, it's a cost-effectiveness analysis, and that is: What will it cost you to achieve your environmental objective? What are the benefits of that environmental objective? We don't try to estimate that.

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

I think Canadians are sometimes confused that governments time and again almost speak out of both sides of their mouths on a policy level. On one side there are great proclamations of wanting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but yet they invoke policies--tax incentives and others--that ensure there will be an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. When you're dealing with this assessment that you've done for C.D. Howe or others, how does the government rectify or justify that?

[Prof. Mark Jaccard]

This is what I said in my opening comments. We need to get to a dialogue where our political leaders are saying to Canadians, we're sorry, but if you really care about the risk of climate change and mitigating that risk and being part of an international effort to do so, we're going to have to adopt policies that affect everyone. This would be similar to saying, I'm sorry, if you really don't want us speeding through school zones anymore, we actually have to have some laws that fine people, or if they are repeat offenders, that take away their licence for a period of time. In other words, we need our political leaders to be telling Canadians that there are policies that have to be put in place and then starting to get moving with those policies.

I don't know if I've completely answered your question, but that's sort of where I think we need to be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Dr. Jaccard, for being here with us today.

The motion that precipitated your being invited was that the committee proceed to a study of a post G8 debrief on climate change developments and Canada's position within the broader international context. Did you attend the G8 summit?

[Prof. Mark Jaccard]

No.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Were you privy to any of the discussions or negotiations that went on for G8?

[Prof. Mark Jaccard]

No.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Who invited you to be a witness?