Environment Committee on Jan. 30th, 2008

[Prof. John Stone]

As you notice, I'm not an economist, but I've certainly listened and read about this issue quite a lot.

I don't think anybody can get away from the conclusion that whatever you do you have to put a price on carbon. That's the way the market works. That's what the market recognizes.

Personally, I take a leaf out of the EU book. The EU thought about a carbon tax. They decided not to go that route. They decided to use a cap and trade instead. The difference between the two is that with a carbon tax you essentially set the price of carbon and let that determine the level of emission reductions. The cap and trade sets the level of emission reductions and lets that determine the price of carbon. To my mind, that has some advantages included.

That's the way the EU went. I think one should really think about that. I think that has some advantages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Jean, I want to welcome you, but this is a science panel. We do have an economist panel coming. I know you're new to the committee, but if you could just stick to the science, that would be great.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I will indeed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question was more from an actual science position, because I have heard from these gentlemen before, as you know, and I was wondering if they, in their expertise, looking at international examples, could advise on what has worked and what has not. So from a science perspective, it was definitely appropriate, notwithstanding the muddles from the other side.

I've heard much testimony on Bill C-30 in the environment committee before, and actually I think from three of the four gentlemen here today. It's fair to say that many people want the result, the result of cutting emissions no matter what, and are prepared to do so at any price—and we heard Mr. Weaver earlier. I think it's fair to say that a lot of people have that position, and other people have the position that they want to look at the price, and whatever is reasonable we'll cut that much.

Would it be fair to say that this government has actually taken a position that is fairly moderate and is more right down the middle, with, quite frankly, the most aggressive targets in the world that I'm aware of, mandatory targets, including the ecoAUTO strategy, and so on? Would it be fair to say that this government has taken a more middle-of-the-road approach than the two extremes that I've put out as hypotheses?

Mr. Stone.

[Prof. John Stone]

I don't know if I can answer that.

I've said it already, and Professor Weaver mentioned it: I've been encouraged by what the present government is saying on its levels of targets and the like, but what we need now is action, to translate that into legislation, to translate it into regulations, to translate it into caps, to translate it into programs that you're going to need to help those who are going to have the most difficulty. We've been waiting now. We need to see that.

Everybody says yes. We've heard the starting gun; we're off. We know what the long-term goals are. We have the tools to get us there. So we begin. That's what we're all waiting for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Jean, very briefly.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Isn't it fair to say, and we've heard this cliché a couple of thousand times before in the House and here...but in essence, in 10 years the Liberals didn't do a lot, didn't come up with a plan. In less than two years we've come up with a plan, we're working on regulations, and we're moving forward as a government to what I would consider to be an aggressively moderate approach to what is expected. Wouldn't it be fair to cut us a little slack and give us a little bit of time, another couple of months, to come up with these regulations?

You say yourself you're impressed with our position and our ideology. Wouldn't you say it's—

[Prof. John Stone]

Sorry, I didn't say that. I said I've been encouraged by what I've heard the present government say; I didn't say I agreed with your ideology. I don't think I said that anyway.

I've been involved with this issue for 15 or more years. I remember talking to senior officials in the Department of Finance at least 10 years ago, if not more, about an emissions trading system in Canada. We still don't have it. We've been talking about it with experts for 10 years at least. This has brought some of us a feeling of frustration. Can we please get on and do it now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Jean.

Mr. Bigras, please.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask a brief question, but before I do that, I just want to say that I am a little bit fed up with the government's argument that Canada should not commit itself until such time as emerging countries like China and India are ready to commit on the international stage. It's a little like telling my 10-year daughter to put out our blue box only when the neighbours bother to put theirs out. I find it somewhat irresponsible, both from an environmental and from a social standpoint, of the Conservatives to subject us to this type of political discourse today, just as they did in Bali.

That being said, you have read the bill and its preamble. You have also seen the reference to the two-degree Celsius threshold and to emission stabilization. Does the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, contain any elements that should be incorporated into Bill C-377, particularly into the preamble?

My questions is directed to all of the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Weaver, do you have an answer?

[Dr. Andrew Weaver]

If you will allow me, I could add one thing.

I think if you appeal to the Bali declaration of scientists, which was presented in Bali and had 250 signatories from around the world, I think it captured well the kind of consensus feeling in it. Many of the things you see here in terms of 10 to 15 years, two degrees, a deep cut globally of 50%, are reflected in this document now. So I'm reasonably happy with the way it was written.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Stone.

[Prof. John Stone]

That's a very good question and a very open question. I can imagine myself taking many hours to answer it, but let me say just a few things.

I think there are some statements, conclusions, and findings in the fourth assessment of the IPPC that perhaps could be brought to the fore. One is that “climate change is now unequivocal”, and that's a quote. Secondly, it is very likely that the cause of it is due to human actions--that's almost a quote. Thirdly, there is evidence already of impacts as a result of anthropogenic warming. Unless we control and reduce emissions we are going to experience more and more impacts of greater and greater threat. We are already committed to some impacts as a result of past emissions, and therefore adaptation is no longer simply a policy option; it becomes a policy imperative,

Many of the economic calculations that have been done have suggested that the targets can be reached without breaking the bank. Several were mentioned at the beginning of this hearing, and in fact it amounts to perhaps a 0.12% annual change in GDP. So that's another point. Technologies exist today that can allow us to at least stabilize today's emissions for the next 50 years.

Those are some of the conclusions from the IPPC that I think could help this debate, this dialogue.

I hope I haven't been too long.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Sauchyn.

[Dr. David Sauchyn]

I'd like to add that if it did not result in a delay in the processing of this bill, I would encourage you to do that, because the purpose of scientific assessment, the purpose of the IPCC, is to support decision-making.

Also, within weeks you will have available to you the 350-page Canadian assessment of climate change, and I would encourage you to use that information as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Go ahead, please, very briefly, Mr. Lussier. You have about 20 seconds.

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

I would like Mr. Sauchyn to speak to us about Alberta's position. The province has completely failed to take his advice into account.

You maintain that your research centre informs decision-makers. Who are these decision-makers and what strategy do you employ to communicate with them?

[Dr. David Sauchyn]

We meet periodically with deputy ministers, ministers, and premiers at their request. I referred to the testimony we provided to the Minister of the Environment in Alberta. In fact, I was part of an international panel that spent two days at a five-star hotel with the minister, providing testimony.

At the beginning of the process, one of the experts from the U.S. described it as a “ticking off the box” exercise; that is, the minister could claim he had consulted with experts. So that's the type of consultation we provide.

As recently as last week I spent an hour with a deputy minister in Saskatchewan, preparing her for the meetings in Vancouver this week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My question takes us back a little in history, but also as we head to the future. For our guests here, for quite a number of years industry complained. In fact, it was 13 long years they complained that they weren't getting direction in this whole area. They wanted direction, but they weren't getting it, so there was no action really taken over that period of time.

Then at Bali, just of late, under section 71, there was a notice to industry that they were going to be regulated, that they would have to report their GHGs. Those targets for final emissions will be coming out within the year ahead here, so that is substantial, at least when we make a comparison with what's been done in the past.

In particular, going back to the benchmarks from Kyoto, in four years from now, under Kyoto, we were supposed to be about 6% below 1990 levels. I'd like you to respond to this for a moment. We would probably be having a rather different discussion at this point if we had gotten with it a number of years ago, if we'd been moving on this, but this wasn't occurring.

Can you give me a different sense of what might have been as compared to where we're at now--actually changing the economy, signals to the industry and the effect on the economy? How different might it have been compared to where we're at now and the very difficult kind of task we have?

There are concrete measures being taken in terms of establishing hard targets. Industry is on notice for the first time. They have some policy direction they never had before.

Who wants to respond first?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Weaver, would you like to...?

[Dr. Andrew Weaver]

Sure, I'm happy to respond.

First of all, I don't disagree that there was a lack of leadership on the kind of portfolio for years. There's no doubt about that. I still think we're in the realm of talking. I'm really hoping we're going to see something.

You mentioned that the business leaders were looking for guidance. In fact, on October 1, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives issued a statement calling for aggressive action to tackle climate change. In fact, one of the things they talked about was an environmental tax, which is a euphemism, of course, for a carbon tax. At Bali, too, 100 of the world's biggest companies called on governments to take action. I think business is looking for the rules of the game to be made.

I'm hoping we'll let bygones be bygones and move on. There's no question that nothing happened in the past. I don't think you're going to get anybody to stand up and say we're meeting Kyoto targets. We're not.

On the other hand, I also wouldn't laud the fact that you're getting companies to report, because being a party to the UNFCCC, Canada has to report its emissions anyway. To some extent, industry is already reporting its emissions--for Canada to meet its requirements under the UNFCCC's reporting of its emissions.

Again, I wish we would get beyond the rhetoric of what has happened--because clearly nothing has happened--and move towards the future of doing something. The opportunity is there for whatever government wants to take it to show real leadership to Canada and the world. I don't care if it's Conservative, NDP, Liberal, Bloc Québécois, or Green, so long as someone does it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Rutherford.

[Ian Rutherford]

If I were in charge of an industry or a plant or a company that in spite of Canada's poor overall performance had made good reductions in CO₂ emissions between 1990 and 2006, I would want to know how that was going to be treated. Am I going to get credit for that, or am I going to be held to the same standard as those companies in my industry who didn't do what I did? I think that's a major problem for making this a fair regime. One has to really look at the regulations that are going to come out of this to understand how it's going to work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Vellacott, do you have a 20-second question? I would like to get on to the motion, if we could.