Evidence of meeting #10 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was targets.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Ian Rutherford  Executive Director, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
John Stone  Adjunct Professor, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Carleton University, As an Individual
Andrew Weaver  Professor and Canada Research Chair, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, As an Individual
David Sauchyn  Research Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina, As an Individual

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Thank you, Mr. Lussier. Hopefully you can ask that question at another panel.

Mr. Dewar, please.

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our guests.

Before I get into questions, I just wanted to pass my congratulations to one of the panellists, and I'm not sure of the others, who was involved in the IPCC process. Certainly, for the award bestowed upon them, the Nobel Prize, I want to say personally, and on behalf of Canadians, congratulations, because I think that's something we haven't celebrated enough. That work was done with contributions from right around the globe, but many were from here in Canada.

I know, Mr. Stone, you were part of that. I don't know if other panellists were part of that process.

Mr. Rutherford, you're indicating so.

4:30 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Ian Rutherford

No, not me, but Mr. Weaver.

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Oh, Mr. Weaver.

Congratulations to you, Mr. Weaver and to Mr. Stone. I think I speak on behalf of everyone here, and certainly Canadians, when I say how proud we are and were when you received that award.

I just want to start my questioning on the science and the projections of future climate change, because what we're really trying to do in this bill, and what our party is bringing forward, is setting goals. As you mentioned, Mr. Stone, we have to set goals long term, but we also have to be aware of what we need to do in the short term, if you will. You have to plan long term to be able to take action in the short term. Some of us plan our lives that way on our better days.

I want to start on the projections of future changes in the climate. When you look at the difference between the southern and northern atmospheres, a lot of this debate has spilled over into people saying, as was already mentioned, that we in the north are only responsible for 2%, and that while, okay, we're not doing too well per capita, we're in a northern climate. I'd just like to get, in terms of the science, the projection of future changes in climate. What is expected to be the greatest change in terms of latitudes, if you will? Are the changes mostly going to be in the northern latitudes or southern latitudes?

Maybe, Mr. Stone, I'll ask you first, and if others wanted to kick in, they can, because I think this will give us a picture, as we're talking about a global phenomenon here. So who is it going to affect the most, and what changes can we expect in the north vis-à-vis the south?

4:30 p.m.

Prof. John Stone

Thank you very much.

The IPCC, in its fourth assessment, did make some statements about the most vulnerable regions of the globe. You can find those—and I will give the clerk the reference—in the synthesis report, the fourth volume of the fourth assessment report. There are four or five, and I'm not sure if I can remember them all. But among them clearly was the Arctic. The Arctic is vulnerable because climate change is happening at an accelerated rate in the Arctic; the temperature increases there are at least twice as rapid as they are anywhere else in the globe. The capacity of the people in the Arctic to adapt is low because they don't have the resources that we have in the more southern and western parts of the globe.

Other regions include the large cities, particularly those on the mega deltas, such as on the Brahmaputra River in Asia, and the like.

I would probably not be doing a service to try to recall all of them. But certainly as far as Canada is concerned, it is what's happening in the Arctic that is perhaps the region that is most vulnerable.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Thank you.

I don't know if Mr. Weaver or other panellists wanted to contribute to that.

The reason I asked the question is that often this is done in terms of the two degrees Celsius benchmark that we hear about, and about which we then say, okay, we have to by all means try to meet that. But what it means to different peoples in different regions is I think worthy—

4:35 p.m.

Professor and Canada Research Chair, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, As an Individual

Dr. Andrew Weaver

I could answer that.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Yes, go ahead.

4:35 p.m.

Professor and Canada Research Chair, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, As an Individual

Dr. Andrew Weaver

Dr. Stone talked about temperatures, and about how temperatures amplify warming in the high latitudes in the Arctic. Another key issue, of course, is water. There's quite a solid understanding as to what will happen in terms of projected changes in precipitation.

For Canada, it means actually an overall enhanced likelihood of precipitation but also, at the same time, an enhanced likelihood of drought. So when it rains, it rains in increasingly likely bigger events, coming in the winter, and there's an increased likelihood of drought.

At the same time, we know that our friends to the south, in the southern U.S., are going to experience less rain overall and an increased likelihood of drought.

This poses a real predicament in terms of water availability in North America, with Canada getting more throughout the year and the subtropical regions, including the southern U.S., getting less. Currently it's a real problem, of course, because they're draining the Great Plains aquifer at about 40 times the rate it's being replenished.

So there will be, in North America, water crises this century.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Thank you for that.

Yes, sir, go ahead.

4:35 p.m.

Research Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina, As an Individual

Dr. David Sauchyn

Vulnerability to climate change depends on how much a region is exposed to climate change, and much of Canada is warming faster than the rest of the world. But vulnerability also depends on your capacity to do something about it. The capacity to mitigate and adapt requires human resources, technology, stable institutions, fiscal resources. There are few places on earth that have more of that than Canada, so we certainly have less vulnerability just in terms of our capacity to do something about it--but then, we need leaders to mobilize that capacity.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

On that note, when you look at our ability to mobilize capacity, based on what our benchmarks are...and you've talked about how much carbon we're trying to eliminate, I guess, and certainly curtail, and how much we're putting into the atmosphere.

A couple of examples have been cited in terms of what European countries are doing. I was actually with Mr. Mills at a conference on energy last year in February in Washington. It seems to me that when you look at what all the countries around the world are doing, Canada has some comparative advantages in terms of technology.

From your experience and from what you've seen in terms of proven technology on the shelf that we could be not only using here but also, it seems to me, exporting abroad, which technologies can you point to that have been proven successful in curtailing the amount of carbon we're putting into the atmosphere? And which ones are most promising in terms of potential, that are maybe not refined but that look like they could have a lot of potential if we put more resources into them?

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Professor Stone.

4:35 p.m.

Prof. John Stone

I'll answer that question, but if I may, I'd like to give an answer to the previous question as well. I just want to emphasize a point.

It matters to us how climate change affects other parts of the world. Climate change will exacerbate the differences between the rich and the poor, between the developing countries and the developed countries. I believe Canada has a vested interest in ensuring that the weakest, the most vulnerable, are protected as much as possible.

I have the privilege of working some of the time with the International Development Research Centre on a project to enhance the adaptive capacity in Africa. I think it is in Canada's interest to do that.

Turning now to your question on technologies, I don't have full command of all the technologies, and I presume you were talking primarily about Canadian technologies. Let me just mention, too, that one is on the use of our biosphere, what you'd call biofuels.

I'm not necessarily thinking of liquid biofuels, which have received a lot of media attention, but simply the use of solid waste from agriculture and from forestry that we can use for heat and electricity generation. We have a lot of potential there. Some of that was spearheaded by an organization called BIOCAP Canada, which unfortunately hasn't received new funding.

I suppose the other one I might mention is actually construction. We have tremendous ability to construct energy efficient offices and houses and the like. I think that's another one of those areas that we can export.

I'm sure I've forgotten lots of others. You'll have to excuse me; this is not really my area of expertise.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. Rutherford.

4:40 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Ian Rutherford

It's not my area of expertise either, but there's one area that I can think of in which Canada has demonstrated some leadership, and that is in the sequestration of carbon underground in Saskatchewan to aid in oil extraction. I am aware that there are experiments in other areas as well, such as coal beds and so on. That's an area where we might be able to take advantage of some local expertise and get a march on the world.

There are two other areas that always strike me. One is that we're terribly inefficient. We have technologies available to build better-insulated houses and buildings, and it's beginning to happen, but it should happen much faster, and we should be world leaders in doing that. We live in a northern country where we really need that kind of thing. Why aren't we world leaders? We should be.

Secondly, long distance power transmission is an area in which Canada has considerable expertise. It strikes me that wind power is something that suffers from the “not in my backyard” syndrome. People don't like these towers around. I don't know what the indigenous people in the north would think of that, but it strikes one that one could put wind generation towers in distant places and arrange to transmit the electricity to where it's needed. We have a lot of open space, a lot of undevelopable land in this country, so maybe that's another area in which we might have an advantage.

4:40 p.m.

Professor and Canada Research Chair, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, As an Individual

Dr. Andrew Weaver

May I add something?

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Go ahead quickly, if you could, please, sir. Time is up.

4:40 p.m.

Professor and Canada Research Chair, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, As an Individual

Dr. Andrew Weaver

I think it's important to add that Canada is a leader in CANDU reactor technology, and I think it's something that really needs to be put on the portfolio of things being discussed. Canada has a strategic advantage in nuclear technology, which is zero-emission. There's also geothermal, which is not being tapped into properly.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. Sauchyn.

4:40 p.m.

Research Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina, As an Individual

Dr. David Sauchyn

Recently I was speaking to a senior vice-president of a large western Canadian energy company, and he told me that by far the most effective program they have is conservation. But engineers like to design and build things, so it's hard to convince the corporation that they should invest to a large extent in conservation measures.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. Dewar, I'll also mention my own experience in my riding. Our petro-chemical industry has been sequestering all of their CO2 for at least 10 years. So it is technology in Canada.

Mr. Warawa.

January 30th, 2008 / 4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here. We've heard from each other on numerous occasions, so it's good to see each of you again.

To be able to move forward you need to look at where you are and at a bit of your past, but keep your focus on moving forward and on the goal. We're well past the debate on the science of climate change. Globally there is an agreement that we have a problem, and a big problem.

This government became government two years ago, and I'm not going to dwell on the past, but we found ourselves in a situation where we were going in a direction we didn't want to go in. So we've set some targets in Canada that are some of the toughest targets in the world. Each country is unique in its own situation, where it is beginning. When you have a government that's actually serious about doing something.... In Canada this government is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions: absolute reductions of 20% by 2020 and 60% to 70% absolute reductions by 2050.

What we are dealing with today is providing the science on Bill C-377. Bill C-377, I'm sure you're aware, is a post-2012, post-Kyoto Protocol bill. Over the next two years there will be negotiations ongoing as to what that post-2012 agreement is going to look like.

The presenter of Bill C-377 is the leader of the NDP, Mr. Jack Layton, and he was here a week ago and shared his vision for the bill with us. I'd like to share that in a minute, but with your focus as scientists, I'd like your critique on Bill C-377.

I'd also like your critique on adaptation. Many of you said in your presentations that we are already experiencing impacts from climate change, and will continue to, and they will increase; that's going to happen. What we need to do as citizens of this world is together reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have to do that. We agree with that, but in Canada what do we need to do in preparation for adaptation?

We have all just come back from a break, and I've had numerous discussions with numerous constituents. One of the comments stuck out in my mind. It sounded like a comment that I read before Christmas break from Rex Murphy. This constituent said how important it was and agreed with the message that Canada was taking to all these international conferences and meetings of the mind that everybody has to participate in. You can't have 30% of the people trying to solve the problem; everybody needs to participate and do their part. Canada has a unique situation, as does every country, and everybody needs to do their part.

Mr. Rutherford, I heard your same comments, and I asked those same questions of myself. Should somebody in India be able to have electricity? Absolutely. Your comment was “I've had my cake and you can't have yours”. I agree, that is a moral question, and people in India, China, or Africa need to be able to improve themselves and have a quality of life, yet protect the environment. This constituent said, “Mark, the way I see it, it is like a big pail of water with hundreds of holes in it and water is squirting out in every direction, and you as a government are plugging one of those holes. And it's lofty, it's good, it needs to happen, but we need everybody plugging their hole so that we can save that pail of water or save this globe.”

I thought it was a somewhat interesting analogy. That did remind me of what Rex Murphy said. He said:

...there can be no serious argument for Canada to make mandatory commitments, while exempting the giant emitters of the world such as China and India. This is like plugging a leak while ignoring the flood.

That's a very similar analogy.

When Mr. Layton came and spoke on Bill C-377—I want to get specifically to the bill now—he made his presentation. The targets, the objectives, he set out in Bill C-377 would be an 80% reduction by 2050. We've identified some benchmarks along the way: a 25% reduction in 2020 and interim targets at five-year intervals.

He then went on to say those targets are based on The Case for Deep Reductions, a report by the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation. He also said, “I know that Matthew Bramley will be your next witness...and he will be describing his research and this report”.

When I had an opportunity to—

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Time for questions, Mark.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

Chair, I'm just going to ask people not to interrupt, because I'm trying to make a point here.

My question of Mr. Layton was, “Have you costed your plan?” And he said, “This is a set of targets. It will be up to the governments of the day to advance plans and figure out how we achieve these targets.”

So my question is, how important is it to have this costed so we know it's realistic, keeping in mind each country has unique situations? I believe we have very, very aggressive targets. Bill C-377, which we're talking about, and that's what you're here for, has not been costed.

I asked Mr. Bramley the same thing, or I think one of us asked him. He also said, no, it hadn't been costed. Both of these witnesses have said they were hoping the government would do that.

How important is it that we cost this so that Canadians, so that this government, so that each of us involved, are going into this with our eyes open? How important is it that it's costed?