Evidence of meeting #11 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.
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
No. You say that industry and the provinces have shown some resistance. I think the federal bureaucracy is the party that is resisting.
Executive Director, Pollution Probe
I see. I think it comes from all three quarters, depending on who's being targeted for what measure.
I'm certainly working very actively now on the vehicle fuel efficiency file. There's tremendous opposition within industry to being subject to a standard at all, to some extent, and certainly to anything that's stronger than the inadequate standard that the Bush administration is proposing. So there's resistance there.
Traditionally, there's been bureaucratic infighting. Of course, federally that's between departments over measures and so on, and we're all aware of that. Different provinces have different aspirations.
There is a lot of discord out there, which I think is one of the reasons this bill, or something like it, is needed. It would settle things down, and we could say, “Look, we are going to go forward”. We have to look toward solutions as opposed to segmenting ourselves into little camps and fighting over things.
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
You also say that we need to focus our efforts on three areas: infrastructures, technology and prices. Are we spending too much money on roads and bridges compared to what we could be spending on public transit? Should we not be spending large sums of money on public transit, the real solution to lowering greenhouse gas emission levels?
Executive Director, Pollution Probe
Yes, I totally agree with you. I think we have to look at compact, mixed-use communities, transit-oriented development to get these big reductions. The experience is that if you build a road and you build a transit system next to it, you have trouble filling the transit system. You have to subsidize it, and people get in their cars and drive in single-occupant vehicles on the roads.
You have to design your urban centres, where 80% of the population live, to be much less energy-intensive and, frankly, much safer and cleaner along with it. So we can save money, save on the environment, and I think make more liveable communities through these types of designs. Yes, I agree that transit deserves much more investment than we've given it.
Conservative
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses.
Thankfully, I've read many of these documents already, so missing your presentations, although I'm sure they were excellent.... I apologize for a late flight in.
The place I'd like to start is with the impacts on the economic side of not doing things that are prescribed in Bill C-377. There was much news made in the past year or so with the Stern report and others, seeking to understand what the implications of inaction mean, because oftentimes governments, like our own currently, that are resistant to bringing in some of the measures that are contained here will talk about the cost to the economy and focus on that and do the doom-and-gloom scenario.
What understanding have you seen that the Conservative federal government has in terms of the implications of not acting? Have any of you seen a study, a panel, an understanding within the federal government as to the impacts of climate change on our economy?
Executive Director, Pollution Probe
There is an unreleased study at the moment on climate change impacts and adaptation, and we're waiting anxiously to see that. My senior scientist, Dr. Quentin Chiotti, was the co-lead for the Ontario chapter of the assessment, so I have some notion of what might be in it. But until it's actually publicly released....
I think that will help frame, in part, the cost of inaction. It's not a hard economic analysis, but it will give us a physical picture of what could happen on the landscape.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We've been hearing about this report and the study since before the Bali meetings in Indonesia. I'm a bit confused. If climate change has been cited by many of the world's leading authorities and thinkers on the economy as one of the greatest threats.... Is this report just not finished? Is it a problem with what's happening? I imagine this is a question for the government.
What I'm trying to understand is, if there's resistance from the government in agreeing to legislation like Mr. Layton's bill, why is it that they haven't made a counter-argument to say that there is no threat to the economy and we can go on with business as usual under this scenario? I'm a bit confused, from an economic point of view, and I've heard Tom d'Aquino and others express similar confusion. So why not release this report if it's ready?
Analyst, Climate Change Policy, David Suzuki Foundation
The Climate Action Network of Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation have been asking for this report to be released. Our understanding is that it was completed before the Bali conference, and we were hoping it was going to come out then, because I think it would very likely have been useful in hopefully shaping government policy in our international positions. We're still waiting for it to come out.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
As I know the questions are now going to my government colleagues, perhaps they can enlighten us and the Canadian public as to this use of taxpayer dollars to do a report like this of such a critical nature and why we don't have it in our hands today, on which to base our judgments going ahead.
I'm wondering about the critical nature of putting something like this piece of work into legislation as opposed to just prescribing various uses of permits and whatnot. There's been some criticism in the past that without the legislative authority of something existing in law, it becomes relatively easy to remove programs, to remove goals and ambitions for our country. Does it matter whether we put something into law or just keep it in regulations, as it has been in the past?
Mr. Ogilvie.
Executive Director, Pollution Probe
I would like to answer that.
I've worked for three governments: Ontario, Manitoba, and the federal government. It's terrifically hard to fight new policy into existence and new programs. They get dropped just like that when it suits somebody. We need to have a way of putting into place these programs, and it has to be difficult to drop them. There has to be a rationale to drop them, just like there has to be a rationale to put them in place.
I think the act would give a measure of support to maintaining programs that work. There should always be evaluation and a way to eliminate or change programs that aren't working. I totally agree with that too. I think this would give a stronger measure of holding in place programs that work, and that's another reason why I support the bill.
Director, Global Threats, Conservation, World Wildlife Fund Canada
From my perspective, getting the targets entrenched sets the level of ambition. You then have the opportunity to design programs from year to year, on a three-year rolling average, or for 10 years, as long as they are working.
Regarding the whole issue of impacts, part of the reason that a Stern report for Canada is not necessarily the best investment is that Stern did a global analysis. Now, obviously, it is not the micro-analysis of Canada's exact situation, but it does give a perspective for any country on the kinds of risks and the kinds of opportunities we have: the risks of inaction and the opportunity for action. It relates our programs in Canada very clearly to the cost of fossil fuels, which is going nowhere but up. We have opportunities for efficiency. We have the opportunity to save ourselves some pain and actually give ourselves some gain here. Not doing that is actually pushing us further behind, creating a cost of inaction. By not acting you will create costs for the public, for business, for government. These are very simple calculations to do, and they're based on that basic currency of fossil fuel costs. We're paying it, you're paying it, and it would be a real disservice to the Canadian public and to business throughout the economy to not actually get a grip on carbon.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Let's take this for a moment. On my flight here today I was responding to cards from my constituents who were asking about climate change. There is frustration that's been there for a number of years as to why we do not just simply get on with it. That was on one card I'm thinking of--from a Conservative voter, no less.
I have a question about certainty in the business environment. In my office I've had a number of directors and CEOs from the major polluters in this country. They have been decrying the fact that when they've heard the signal from government, they've begun to act and have made those investments that are necessary. Then it washes away, and there's another plan and another call to action. The business community gets a little less excited this time, having learned from their previous experience.
The business community right now—and I know you folks, to varying degrees, consult with that element of the Canadian economy—is so frustrated that they are not willing to act any more unless certainty is placed before them in black and white, with no questions about it, and those goals that you talked about are entrenched into law.
Recently there was a report showing that many of the major polluters in Canada have reduced their investments in some of these infrastructure costs due to that. Staying with the business community, are you getting any sense of that frustration level and an unwillingness to have that alarm button pushed again? The response is just not the same.
Director, Global Threats, Conservation, World Wildlife Fund Canada
The World Wildlife Fund works with what we consider to be change-ready, leading-edge companies. Actually, we see a lot of willingness to act within the business community that we're dealing with. But there is also a recognition that it would be (a) a lot easier, (b) a lot more motivating for their competitors, and it would even the playing the field if it were entrenched in policy.
You always have that leading edge, which is great because you actually want to profile best in class. But that wears thin after a while, and it gets very hard on the leaders when they have to really be out front for way too long. Even taking this market transformation kind of approach basically involves taking the signal from some of the leaders. The climate saver companies that World Wildlife Fund has worked with range from Sony to IBM to Johnson & Johnson to the Catalyst paper company. These are companies that are making very significant reductions to their greenhouse gas emissions in their own operations. Catalyst has made a 70% reduction. You might know of them. Take their lead and entrench it in law.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Recently, Alberta came forward with the notion of a carbon capture and sequestration program for their oil and gas sector, with the caveat that the public would be picking up some of the cost, if not perhaps all of the costs, for some billions of dollars. Under a plan like Bill C-377, what would the alternative suggestion be to capitalizing that type of project and reducing the amount of carbon? Is that a go, or is there something else available under our cap and trade program that exists right now to create the same mechanism perhaps of the cap and trade environment for the oil sands and for the oil sector in general?
Analyst, Climate Change Policy, David Suzuki Foundation
You can put in place any system that prices carbon and that gives oil and gas companies an incentive to themselves invest in carbon capture and sequestration, if they feel like it. That's the approach that we would advocate, that you set the targets, you put in place a carbon price, whether it's a carbon tax or a cap and trade system--actually, there are hybrids that probably would work best--but at the end of the day, I don't see any reason why it should be the public that picks up the tab for oil and gas companies taking responsibility for the pollution they produce.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses today. I'm going to be focusing my questions on Bill C-377 and solutions. Your perspective is an environmental perspective, and I'm going to be looking for your wisdom in providing good direction on where you see Canada if we do accept these targets.
Now, you've suggested that we set these targets, that we entrench them into law, and then we achieve those targets. What would you see Canada looking like in 2050 and in 2020? How would this transition affect each and every Canadian? So there's how we achieve that but also what it will look like.
I'd like to begin by asking you, as I have with the other witnesses, about the importance of having this bill costed. I asked Mr. Layton if it was costed, because in sustainable development, part of that equation is that it has to protect the environment but you cannot destroy the economy. Each witness has addressed that briefly. On Wednesday we are going to have economists who will be presenting.
So Mr. Layton said yes, it had not been costed, and he'd like the government to cost it. I asked Mr. Bramley if it had been costed. He said no, and he also expected it to be costed. I asked Dr. Stone a week ago if it should be costed, and he said yes, he thought so.
Ms. Langer, you said you did your calculations, as provided in the deck you handed out. Has any costing been done by any of you three on Bill C-377?
Director, Global Threats, Conservation, World Wildlife Fund Canada
I'm not quite clear on what you mean by costing. Is your main focus here what it would cost to actually achieve the targets that would be set out in the bill?
Director, Global Threats, Conservation, World Wildlife Fund Canada
Is your point with regard to what it would actually cost to implement the targets set out in the bill?
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Bill C-377 sets some very aggressive targets. These targets are coming from the IPCC report. Pembina and the David Suzuki Foundation have then provided a case for deep reductions.
There was mention of the government's bill, Turning the Corner, and that was costed. There was some debate on whether or not that will be achievable and what the costs of that plan will be to the GDP, to Canadians, and maybe some questions on whether or not those targets will be reached.
I think there was comment that the targets aren't tough enough from an environmental perspective, and from industry they're too tough, which we're also hearing from some provinces. So we're sort of in the middle.
In terms of costing, what will it cost the Canadian economy? That seems to be a bit of a benchmark to compare perspectives and plans. The government has a clear plan, an absolute reduction by 2020, and deep reductions of 60% to 70% by 2050. That was costed.
Has Bill C-377 been costed? As I said, Mr. Layton said no, Mr. Bramley said no, and Dr. Stone said no, but each has said it should be costed so that we're not just setting arbitrary numbers but getting a full picture of what this means in Canada.
So that was my preface: what will Canada look like? What is urban development going to look like? What kinds of cars will we be driving? Where's the energy coming from? What are the costs? There is that balance, but what are the costs for Bill C-377?
February 4th, 2008 / 4:45 p.m.
Conservative
