Environment Committee on Nov. 27th, 2007

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you.

My other point has to do with the government's approach. The narrative that seems to be developing over the last two years, going on to three years now, after January, is that we have a government that doesn't want to commit to anything. We have no regulatory regime on greenhouse gases. And there's been mention that we're going to have intensity-based targets, which is a slippery slope.

Then the Prime Minister goes to meetings and it makes for a good photo opportunity and good body language to say, “Look, we're not going to be pushed around by Communist China”, but there's no nuance here. There's no indication that there's a willingness to go ahead. He's not telling us what he expects from China and India. He's not saying, “Okay, we understand that we can't use the same approach with these countries, but maybe we could have a middle ground, where their targets would be maybe discounted at the beginning versus our targets”.

There is nothing to discuss. It's all a kind of gunslinger approach to show how tough Canada is in the international community, yet we don't have a regulatory regime here and time is marching on.

I'd just like your comment on that, Mr. Bramley.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Scarpaleggia, I'm afraid we're going to have to take your comment on that, if you don't mind, because your time has expired. Sorry about that. I'm sure we'll hear more from the panellists.

Over to you, Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses for appearing here today.

It should be of note perhaps for my colleague, Mr. Scarpaleggia, that had there been no government change, there still wouldn't be any regulations for large emitters in place for this nation heading into Bali.

Ms. Hayes, I just want to come to you for a second. You'll have to forgive me. I don't know much about your organization. I just have a few basic questions to get to know you just a bit better.

You call yourself a coalition. There are several groups that are involved in what you're doing. How many groups?

[Barbara Hayes]

We have around 12 active members right now.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Twelve groups?

[Barbara Hayes]

Yes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay. Your membership number in this coalition is roughly...?

[Barbara Hayes]

In total, I'm going to go with 12 active members right now. That's all I'm comfortable speaking on behalf of.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

No, I meant membership in terms of individuals, not groups.

[Barbara Hayes]

Because it is a coalition, we don't count individual members.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay.

How do you raise your funds to do what you do? Do you have organizations that fund you, that type of thing? I'm just curious.

[Barbara Hayes]

We are currently funded through private foundations.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Good. Thank you. That just helps me get to know you a bit better.

There has been a lot of work done or a lot of recommendations made by environmental groups as to what kinds of targets Canada should have. Has anyone here scoped out what types of targets, and when, should countries like China and India have? Are there any comments on what you think they should have, going into post-2012?

[John Drexhage]

Certainly the scenario reports--not the reference scenarios themselves--seem to indicate, again, depending on which one, that if you want a two degrees Celsius temperature change, then China is going to have to stabilize its emissions within the next 10 to 15 years. It's an enormous task ahead.

When I mentioned to you also that between now and 2030 the forecast from the IEA--and this is an independent forecast--is that there will be more electricity put on the grid between now and 2030, in the next 25 years, than currently exists in the United States, that gives you an idea of the enormity of the challenge that faces us here.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Bramley, I think you wanted to get in, and Ms. Donnelly.

[Matthew Bramley]

In the IPCC reports from this year, the IPCC makes recommendations on the amount of reductions in global emissions to get to certain temperature ranges, for example. And then there is modelling that disaggregates that into developed countries, different categories of developing countries, so you have to go and look in the details of that modelling to see exactly what the trajectory would be. But even for the Chinas and Indias, we're looking at trajectories where there's a significant departure from business as usual starting now. It's just that that's not going to be implemented, realistically, through the same kinds of absolute targets as a country like Canada would take on.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Ms. Donnelly.

[Aldyen Donnelly]

Just to put that into context, though, in Buenos Aires in November 1998, the U.S. delegation said they would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol unless developing nations accepted caps. At that meeting, it was either Brazil or Argentina--I think it was Brazil--that proposed that key developing nations take on caps that were the equivalent of 40% above 1990 levels by the end of 2012, and China and India refused to buy into those caps. My understanding is their positions are not much changed today.

So the question is, how do we change their behaviour by saying what we will buy and what we won't buy, given that a 40% growth allocation is not acceptable?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Ms. Donnelly, I have another question for you.

You talked about building a solution around capital stock turnovers. Capital stock turnovers take many years. In the auto industry, I know, in terms of developing a product, for example, or things like that, it takes a long time. We've heard others here talk about how we don't have years; the critical window might be two to three years.

How do we square the circle between getting the right kind of solution that still takes into account a more urgent timeline? Is that possible? How do you square the conundrum there?

[Aldyen Donnelly]

I can't square the two- to fifteen-year circle. The point I'm trying to make is that any progress demands that Canada, almost more than any other nation, write off a bunch of capital that we haven't already paid for.

Just to give you a point of comparison, 23% of all the electricity consumed in the United States originates at plants that are over 50 years old. None of Canada's fossil-burning plants is over 40 years old. So when we're comparing our situation, Canada's to that of the U.S. and Europe, they have big stockpiles of old plants they can shut down that have been paid for. When we go to reduce emissions in Canada, we're going to be shutting down plants that we're still paying for.

So when we step back and say, what's real life for Canada, given this environmental reality, which I agree is the environmental reality, it means we're going to be writing off a lot of physical plants. So when we step back and say, what does a Canadian strategy look like, it's got to take that reality into account.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Watson and Ms. Donnelly.

The clerk informs me it's now my turn to ask a question. In attempting to maintain some degree of neutrality, I think what I'll do is I'll offer you the opportunity to respond. You may have had questions you haven't had a chance to fully respond to that you would like to add to.

Mr. Bramley.

[Matthew Bramley]

Thank you for that opportunity.

I did want to respond to something Mr. Warawa said. He took issue with my comments about the government's approach to the clean development mechanism.

What I said was that the government was unwilling to put any public money into the green clean development mechanism in terms of buying credits and funding projects in developing countries. What the government has said is that it will allow companies to put funding into projects like that in their response to the regulatory framework, but the government has been unwilling to put any public money into funding projects in developing countries that would count towards meeting our Kyoto objectives.

[Barbara Hayes]

I don't actually have anything to add to what I said.

[John Drexhage]

I'd like to actually get back to a point, forgive me.

Mr. Cullen, you had a very interesting question, I thought, as far as what is it that Canada has in terms of leverage, what does it have in its quiver in the negotiations.

I read the speech that the Prime Minister made at the Council on Foreign Relations and at the UN, and he made an extremely interesting point, and this is that the real challenge that Kyoto hasn't altogether successfully faced is what do you do with growing economies?

It's one thing to have relatively stable economies that aren't as reliant on natural resources for their exports, but what do you do in the case of the growing economies? If you look at it in that context, and if Canada really does show some honest leadership and really try to tackle this problem, it can be a tremendous learning experience for the Chinas and Indias. If Alberta, with the kinds of resources and the kind of infrastructure it has in place, can't pull this off, how, in God's name, can we expect China and India to?

I understand that the Alberta minister, for example, is planning to come to Bali. They really want to try to be proactive. I want to support them in that because I desperately do think that it's the Albertas and it's those critical places in the developed world that are so reliant still on fossil fuels and natural resources for their economy, and how they can try to “square that circle”, which, by the way, is the name of our side event at Bali.... We're having Canada, China, India, and South Africa all talk about this challenge that faces us, and Canada has a real opportunity to be a leader there.

[Aldyen Donnelly]

I guess I'm just waiting for the day we shift from rhetoric to reality. The reality is that in Canada, fewer than 350 plants account for 95% of industrial emissions, and fewer than 40 plants owned by fewer than 10 companies account for 50% of the industrial emissions. I'm kind of wondering how many more complex multi-stakeholder consultations need to take place before our finance, environment, and industry departments sit down with fewer than 10 CEOs to figure out what they're going to do together next.