Environment Committee on June 18th, 2009

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

My point here today is to ask if you're going to persist in calling these scientific targets in your bill.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

No, I'm going to persist in calling them science-based targets.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay.

I think you mentioned in your opening comments the idea of losing ground to our competitors. If I'm to presume correctly, when you're speaking about competitors, you're probably talking about Europe as opposed to, say, China or South Korea. Looking into the post-Kyoto period, this is where some of the discussion becomes important about whether or not these countries like China and South Korea take on a target. The concern is that there would be some competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis Europe, but would we not be increasing the competitive disadvantage if China and South Korea, or countries like that, don't take on a target as well in the post-Kyoto period?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

If your question is whether it's important for China, India, and all countries to come together for a global target and global strategies that meet a fair and balanced need, the answer is absolutely yes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has just run out.

Mr. Trudeau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Hyer, for being here today.

On the targets that the government has put forward--the reduction based on the 2006 baseline--have you heard them claim that it's a science-based target, or is it simply a value-based target?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

If it's a science-based target, I have not seen the evidence to support that.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

On the many plans the government has brought forward through their successive environment ministers--the proposals they've had--do you know if they fully costed their plans?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

I don't know.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

The answer is that they haven't. So the proposal they made that you need to cost yours, particularly when we hear that the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is slowly being squeezed out of resources, simply doesn't have the ability to cost your plan, is particularly ironic coming from this government.

One of the things that are amazingly frustrating to me, and I'm sure to you as well, is the continual doubting—

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

On a point of order, on the Parliamentary Budget Officer, I was the one who made the original request. I have not received anything in writing to suggest that he is unable to do the costing. That's based on a report, but it's not based on a response to the actual inquiry.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's not a real point of order, but I recognize that the material that was circulated and referenced earlier by Mr. McGuinty is based on a report in the Hill Times; it's not an actual response from the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Let's move along, please.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

On that point of order, Mr. Chair, because Mr. Watson has opened the door—

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

He ruled that it's not a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I ruled that it's not a point of order, but I just clarified the information.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Just for clarification, will this committee be copied on the correspondence from Mr. Watson?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

When we do get a response from him, of course

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Absolutely.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Trudeau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you.

The idea and the number that was tossed forward by the Conservative side of the questions here, about the 4% decrease in GDP over the past years if Kyoto had been implemented, relies on the assumption that there will be no innovation, that there will be no jobs created through new development, through creating solutions that targets will apply. Do you believe that reducing emissions by 80% by 2050 will cost us significant amounts of our economic profitability and economic activity in this country?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

It will require significant public and private investments, which I believe—I don't know—will result in significant return on investment that's very positive.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

There's no question that any time we are challenged to innovate and find solutions, humanity has been very good at rising to the occasion and creating new ways of profiting from fresh technology. So I think the fear-mongering we've heard from the government around economic damage and devastation is of concern.

But I have a more specific question on your bill. Let's say this bill were to pass into law and bind the government when sitting down at the Copenhagen negotiations. If the Copenhagen results required Canada to sign on to a 24% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020, and a 79% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050, would we not be able to sign on or agree to Copenhagen because we were bound by your targets?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Would you like a scientific answer or a political answer?