Environment Committee on Dec. 11th, 2007

[Matthew Bramley]

I don't believe that any government of Canada to date has yet proposed or committed to greenhouse gas targets based on science.

Speaking to the targets that the present government has laid out for Canada's emissions by 2020 and 2050, there are no public documents, to my knowledge, that the government has put out that explain where those targets came from. I'm referring to the 20% below 2006 by 2020 and the 60% to 70% below 2006 by 2050.

The government has not, to my knowledge, attempted to claim that those are science-based targets, and I'm not aware of any science on which they could be based.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Ms. Donnelly.

[Aldyen Donnelly]

As you know, I've worked full-time on this file since 1996 and would not have done so unless I personally thought climate change was the most important issue mankind faces. Beyond saying that, the point I'm trying to raise is that I'm not sure any of that matters right now. The fact is that the proposed regulated industrial caps the Government of Canada has on the table right now are tougher than those anybody has proposed before in Canada, and we're still going through the process of having difficulty getting those regulations to be fact.

I'm not arguing that they're good or bad, sufficient or insufficient. I'm saying there are very good reasons why things are not progressing on a regulatory front in Canada that have nothing to do with the debate over the science. The very good reasons, I think, jump off my page 2 in what I handed out today.

The very good reasons are that when you go to translate the theory of a target in Canada to the allocation of legally binding obligations to reduce—on the part of Canadian provinces, corporations, and individuals—you run into the same difficulty we see in Bali right now: the need to facilitate a very difficult interprovincial negotiation that has never been started by any government up to now.

I don't think that's a science denial story. We haven't put the information in place for both politicians and the people to constructively engage in the discussion that needs to take place. We need to ask whether we are asking the people of Saskatchewan to reduce more than any other people in the country, and if not, which province is going to take some of the burden off the back of Saskatchewan.

If we're not having that dialogue openly, it won't matter what target we put in any law from now on; we're still not getting anywhere.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

The thrust of your argument, Ms. Donnelly, if I can translate it into English for me, is that you're basically saying we had better be cognizant of the fact that we're going to have interprovincial differences. We had better actually convene, for example, a first ministers meeting for the first time in two years and start having a dialogue about these differences. You're certainly not saying, as I understood you, that the Canadian climate change plan domestically and our negotiating position in Bali ought not to be informed by science.

[Aldyen Donnelly]

I'm not agreeing with your position that they are not informed by the science.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Do you have any evidence to show that the plan is informed by it?

[Aldyen Donnelly]

I don't have any evidence to show that it isn't.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Have you seen any analysis conducted by the government, based on the science, to achieve the 20% by 2020 using 2006 as a baseline?

[Aldyen Donnelly]

No, I haven't. I have seen the analysis that I summarize on page 1 of my submission to you. If all of those reports used different baselines from those they used, they would come out with different outcomes. If I did analysis, it would have a different outcome from that of any of the four that most people cite.

The first bit of science we need to worry about right now is what the science is that's informing our own forecasts of our own emissions.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Bramley, have you seen any analysis or econometric modelling—anything done by the Department of Finance, anything contracted out to consulting firms—that would backstop the government's domestic plan, and of course the plan underlying our negotiating position in Bali? It is linked to Bill C-377, of course, because Bill C-377 speaks directly to the question of science. Have you seen a shred of analysis anywhere by the government, in any line department, that helps us understand how the government arrives at its purported cuts by 2020?

[Matthew Bramley]

In the documents that the government has published, there is reference surrounding the government's 2020 target for Canada's emissions. There is reference to preliminary economic analysis, but there are very few details given. I think it's a very interesting question to see whether the government would like to table, publicly, an economic analysis that explains to us why 20% below 2006 by 2020 is the correct target, why that particular target was chosen, and why we couldn't do more, because I haven't seen any such analysis.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I appreciate that, Mr. Bramley.

Maybe this is a good opportunity to suggest that the parliamentary secretary could ask his minister to table the analysis, including the preliminary analysis you say was referred to, which I've never seen and journalists have never seen. In fact, five or six different groups have been asking for it, and we're still waiting for it in this committee. So if either of you comes across it, could you please perhaps forward it to the committee members?

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. McGuinty.

Mr. Lussier.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Donnelly and Mr. Bramley, welcome.

My first question is for Ms. Donnelly. Your table on page 2 shows a breakdown of greenhouse gas emissions by province for the year 2005.

What did you have in mind when you proposed the year 2005, given the fact that Bill C-377 consistently refers to 1990?

[Aldyen Donnelly]

I got your question until your last two sentences. I'm not sure I understood it. Would you mind repeating it in English?

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

I will repeat my question to Ms. Donnelly.

Your table provides a breakdown by province of greenhouse gas and CO2 production, with 2005 as the reference year.

Why did you choose 2005, and not 1990, which is the base year for Bill C-377?

[Aldyen Donnelly]

Thank you for asking that question.

The numbers in this table are based on the reference point for calculating the reductions as 1990. What I was trying to show you in this table is what that reduction goal represents relative to what the actual emissions were in 2005. So I didn't adjust the proposed target at all. This represents what is proposed in Bill C-377.

The point I'm trying to make is that 2005 is the last year for which we actually have full data estimates. So for the company or the person on the street, what matters is what the target represents in terms of their obligation to reduce from what their life is today.

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

Ms. Donnelly, do you have the figures for 1990?

[Aldyen Donnelly]

I do, and I'd be happy to send any revision to this table you'd like, with any different baseline. I'd be happy to do that.

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

Can you do the same exercise and provide a breakdown of reduction targets by province up to 2050?

[Aldyen Donnelly]

I could if I were using another set of business-as-usual forecasts. The forecast I elected to use here was the National Energy Board's forecast, which goes out to only 2030. But what I could do, if you can wait until next week, is not only send you this table, but send you a whole Excel workbook that has all of the data in the table. It's not very much work for me to build a couple of business-as-usual forecasts in it so you can decide which one you want to work with. And certainly I can take at least one out to 2050 for you, so you can then move the numbers around however you want.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

If you could please send that to the clerk, then all members could have a copy.

[Aldyen Donnelly]

I'd be happy to do that.

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

Ms. Donnelly, the last column on the right shows carbon reductions from 2000 to 2005. Are these real reduction figures? For instance, the figure for Quebec is -15.7%.

[Aldyen Donnelly]

They're real figures to the extent that you believe Statistics Canada's estimates are real figures. They're good enough for me.

I'm glad you've pointed to that column, because I put that column there for a reason. I think when all Canadians are looking at a table like this, the last two columns raise a very important question, and I think this points to one of the disconnects that's happening in our national debate. When some people look at those last two columns they quite reasonably say, “Look at how well we've done over the last five years. We shouldn't have to do any more for a while.” Other people would look at the same numbers and say, “Look, the kind of reduction we're talking about asking you to do from now on is just business as usual for you.” We could do the last 10 and 15 years too, and I'll put that in the spreadsheet I send you.

And I think those columns are very important, not for what they tell you to think, but in fact for what you learn about how people look differently at the same numbers.