Evidence of meeting #8 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.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
We estimate that every Canadian produces 20 tons of CO2. Approximately seven of these 20 tons are personally produced by the individual and 13 tons are produced by industry, by industries that employ Canadians. Is that right?
5:25 p.m.
President, Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium
No, I don't mean that. But those numbers are right, which means that to get a 50% reduction, at least 50%--but probably more like two-thirds--of all Canadian industrial plants have to be replaced, whether by pulling out the existing equipment and putting in different equipment or by shutting down plants entirely. It's all the same to an investor.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Bramley, when you did your scientific study of Canada's capacity to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, you noted that it would bring about changes to the industry that would impact practically two-thirds of all industrial equipment and all installations by 2020. Did you estimate the costs and the economic fallout that would come from this?
5:30 p.m.
Director, Climate Change, Pembina Institute
As I've said in my presentation, our advocacy of these science-based targets is based on what we, as Canada, need to do to make our fair share of helping the world avoid two degrees of global warming, which would take us into a realm of economic impacts, impacts on people, and impacts on ecosystems that I think most people would eagerly agree are unacceptable.
As I said in my presentation, on the question of the costs that will be required to meet these targets, that's a serious question, but we have flexibility to design policies that address, for example, sectors that are most exposed to international competitiveness. We have a lot of flexibility in the way we choose to go about this, and I'd remind you all once again that we have other countries that are taking on these targets because they know it's the right thing to do. I would also just remind you that as far as the 2020 target is concerned, the bill does not set in stone that 2020 target. It actually allows the government flexibility to adjust that target, if justified, so there is flexibility there in the 2020 target.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Bramley, I have about 30 seconds left. I want to understand this correctly. You gave us one more example of what is being done in Europe. Germany is planning on reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 40%. However, it would do this by replacing between 12% and 25% of its electric energy production with nuclear energy.
Do we really want to follow that example?
5:30 p.m.
Director, Climate Change, Pembina Institute
I think Canadians are sick and tired of hearing reasons why others should do more than us or why we can't do as much as others. I would go back to the environment commissioner's report of 2006 and the other question I referred to. The environment commissioner called for a massive scale-up of efforts on the part of the federal government to cut greenhouse gases, and I'm disappointed that we haven't yet seen that massive scale-up of efforts from the present government.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I'd like to thank our guests. I know it's sometimes difficult on the phone, but thank you very much, and enjoy the rest of your day, Mr. Bramley and Ms. Donnelly.
Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.