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.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We have about three minutes, so if you could keep your answers brief, please.
4:50 p.m.
Professor and Canada Research Chair, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, As an Individual
I can deal with that.
First of all, number one, Bill C-377 isn't all that much different from what you started off your speech by saying: the Government of Canada is committed to a 20% reduction by 2020 and 60% to 70% by 2050.
Has the Government of Canada costed them? I also don't think they have, because frankly I haven't seen their costing either.
I think what's been put in the spirit of Bill C-377 is something that's consistent with the European Union and the path they're taking, in terms of setting a target based on scientific evidence with respect to the two degrees Celsius threshold. I think that's what's important, and I think that's what's lacking in the Canadian context: picking targets that are working with other areas.
In terms of your comment on India and China, I think that's a very valid point, and—I've said it before—a framework already exists for dealing with that. Such a framework existed when the Montreal Protocol was signed. In fact, Minister Baird pointed out in Bali that he thought we should have a deal much like the Montreal Protocol, which had leadership being shown by the developed nations.
There's a thing call convergence and contraction or contraction and convergence, which is a framework for moving the world toward zero emissions, and that framework is where you converge and contract to eventual zero per capita emissions. It would give recognition to the fact, for example, that in Canada, since pre-industrial times, the cumulative emissions to the atmosphere of Canada of greenhouse gases is the same as India's. So it's very difficult for us to say to India, with 34 times the population of Canada, that in fact they're the source of the problem, when our emissions, with our 2%, are the same cumulative as India. The atmosphere doesn't care about year to year; it cares about cumulative emissions.
4:50 p.m.
Prof. John Stone
Thank you very much, and I shall be very brief.
I've now appeared before this committee in one form or another four times in the last 12 months, I suppose. I certainly have been very encouraged by the words I've heard from the present government, Mr. Warawa, of their intentions to tackle this issue. But I want to see the legislation, I want to see the regulations, I want to see the caps put on industries--I want to see all those things. Words are simply not enough. We've got to move on to the next stage. I, personally, would encourage you and your colleagues to do that.
I believe that Bill C-377 is a useful contribution. The way I read it, it talks about having medium- and long-term goals. As I said in my introductory comments, I think it's absolutely essential in order that industry and we all have a long-term picture, and it challenges us and gives a level of emission.
Of course, we need to cost whatever plans they have from whatever party we have and in whichever country we're talking about. That's only good public policy. I will just have to assume that whatever plans are presented to Parliament and to the Government of Canada and to Canadians are properly costed. Yes, I agree with you.
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Very briefly, there are costs to both action and inaction, and I don't think it's very easy to estimate them.
I would just look around the world and, as someone has already mentioned, look at those countries that have done the best job of de-carbonizing their economy, making it less energy intensive and less carbon intensive, countries like Norway, Denmark, and Germany. They've hardly been impoverished. They're doing very well.
I think we should be trying to take a leaf from their book, instead of always moaning and groaning about the cost of things that are proposed. Many of these things will pay for themselves; certainly energy efficiency pays for itself. This committee has heard from industries that have acted out of their own self-interest to reduce their costs by reducing their energy use. There are always questions of timing, of course.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
On the costing, I will be glad to send Mr. Weaver a copy of our Turning the Corner plan; it is costed.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Thank you very much.
We'll go on to Mr. Godfrey for the second round, for five minutes, please.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
During Mr. Warawa's speech he made the statement, which was interesting for all of us, I think, that Canada set some of the toughest targets in the world for 2020 and 2050. Of course, those targets are based on a point of departure of 2006 as opposed to 1990.
So I guess I've got three questions for the four panellists. First of all, would you agree, given the kinds of countries we've been talking about, that these are amongst the toughest targets in the world?
The second question is this, and this is scientific. You can all come in on this. Well, we might just start with this. Are these the toughest targets in the world, amongst the toughest targets in the world? Just a quick yes or no will do.
Mr. Rutherford.
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Well, we have been hearing figures thrown out about targets based on different baselines. The 2006 baseline is, what, 32% above the 1990 baseline? So it's a pretty good place to start from if you want to make yourself look good, but it doesn't help the atmosphere all that much.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
That leads me to the second question, which I would ask of any panellist. Would these targets, therefore, get us to where we need to be, from a scientific point of view? If Canada did its bit, would it help hold us to a 2% rise?
4:55 p.m.
Professor and Canada Research Chair, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, As an Individual
If Canada were to actually put such targets into law and have policies to meet such targets, 20% and 60% to 70% by 2050 are consistent with the type of level of cuts you need. But the problem is that they cannot be aspirational targets; they must be real targets, where you have real policies set in law. I don't see those, frankly.
You have the Premier of Alberta saying that Alberta is going to have a 14% cut by 2050. How does the Government of Canada jibe with the province with the largest growth of emissions, which is clearly incompatible with the Government of Canada's plan? I don't see how it can work.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I guess my next question would then be, if we don't find that the current government's targets, based on a 2006 baseline, are amongst the toughest in the world and may not get us to where we need to go, do you feel a greater level of comfort with Bill C-377, at least in terms of the kinds of mechanisms it sets out to help us get to a more stringent target? Do you think this is a helpful addition to the policy arsenal or the legal framework for moving ahead?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I see Mr. Weaver nodding. Does anyone else have a comment on that?
Mr. Weaver.
4:55 p.m.
Professor and Canada Research Chair, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, As an Individual
I think Bill C-377 is consistent with the moves that are being made internationally. I think what is interesting is that it sets, specifically, the two-degree target in the policy; it sets a framework to get there. I'm not going to argue for the 80% versus 70% versus 90% because, frankly, we need to move to zero emissions. It's the right framework, and it is consistent with international efforts in this area.
4:55 p.m.
Research Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina, As an Individual
We can debate levels, but.... Go ahead, John.
4:55 p.m.
Prof. John Stone
Just very briefly, I don't see that Bill C-377 is necessarily inconsistent with where our present government is going, nor indeed with the aspirational statements I've heard from other parties.
My sense is that slowly--and I emphasize slowly--we seem to be coming to a consensus amongst parties in Canada that in fact this is an issue we cannot afford not to tackle.
5 p.m.
Research Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina, As an Individual
We can debate hypothetical levels till suppertime or beyond, but I think the important point is that the Government of Canada needs some policy, needs some credibility, because the federal government needs to engage in agreements with the provinces and with other nations. You can start by having some reasonable policy.
We already heard about the targets released by the Alberta government, which I found particularly disappointing because I provided two days of testimony to the minister, at his expense, and I don't see it reflected in their plan; I don't see science reflected in the Alberta plan. On the other hand, the Government of Saskatchewan has much more aggressive targets: 32% by 2020. The new government has agreed to impose those targets.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am interested, actually, in some information in relation to carbon tax, because we've had different opinions here. For instance, Mr. McGuinty has had different positions on it, as a Liberal member, and so has Mr. Godfrey. I'm wondering what kind of carbon tax would be required to meet the targets in the bill.
I've looked at your resumés, gentlemen—Mr. Weaver included—and I'm wondering who would be best to answer that. I don't know if any of you are qualified to do so, but Mr. Weaver, do you have any expertise in relation to any kind of tax or carbon tax that it would be necessary to implement in relation to this bill?
5 p.m.
Professor and Canada Research Chair, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, As an Individual
I'm not an economist. I have read a lot, but I'm loath to give testimony on a carbon tax level required to meet the bill because that would be out of my area of expertise, although I'm quite familiar with the method and tools available to the government.
5 p.m.
Professor and Canada Research Chair, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, As an Individual
And I support the carbon tax wholeheartedly.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Yes, I understand that. Thank you, Mr. Weaver.
Mr. Stone has a comment.