Evidence of meeting #29 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th 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.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
It's using the 1990 base year and 5%.
Are you aware of what the target is in the U.S.?
NDP
Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Yes, I have a pretty good handle on the U.S. The U.S. one is definitely a changing target. When I look at the Obama-Biden election promises, they are the same as this bill. Clearly it's in a state of flux in the United States right now. I don't think we know where that political process is going to end up.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
It started out with the Waxman-Markey bill at 20%. It's now 17% by 2020, using a 2005 base year. So Canada's target is more stringent—20% reduction by 2020.
NDP
Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Canada's target is actually not clear at all. Maybe I'm not understanding it, but I've reviewed your government's position, and it's not clear what the base years are and what the numbers are actually based on.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
It's very clear. The base year is 2006. It's a 20% reduction by 2020, using 2006 as a base year. So we are in harmony. We're working with our international partners towards one of the toughest targets in the world.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thanks for being here, Mr. Hyer, and thank you for your work on this.
I want to pick up exactly where you left off. I think it's fair to say that most Canadians don't know what our target is right now. It's fair to say that most Canadians don't know what we're doing on climate change. It's fair to say that we've had three ministers in three and a half years and we've had three plans. We've had lots of shock-and-awe communications. We've had all kinds of irresponsible government demands made on the opposition. For instance, we were supposed to cost our bill—as if they were costing their own proposed plan. That's the kind of nonsense that's simply not taking us anywhere.
Right now we have a Minister of Natural Resources who is lobbying California to prevent carbon content regulations from going upwards. We have a minister who has said he has been participating in a dialogue with Obama, while doing everything he can to position himself as a free trader to prevent Capitol Hill, the United States, from taking aggressive action that would contemplate a carbon tariff against this country. So we're nowhere.
I share your frustration. The government doesn't have a climate change plan, and it's making it up as it goes along. That's why we're in the situation we're in now, and that's why the only piece of paper we have to work with is this bill. We don't have a bill from the government.
At the same time, I would agree with you that science-based targets are important. It is always important to put evidence over ideology. But we're stuck now in an uncomfortable situation. We had a government that was in lock-step with the Republican administration in Washington. It fought against a multilateral response to the climate change crisis. Now, all of a sudden, Washington has changed. We have a new administration that is itself struggling to move this climate change crisis through their own governance structures.
So that's where we're at. I don't think your bill is perfect, and I don't think the government has a response right now. I think they're simply saying things. They may be moving on a couple of fronts, but unfortunately they don't have the candour to tell Canadians what it is we're working towards. This rhetoric about having the toughest targets in the world isn't taking us anywhere. First of all, it's not true. Secondly, they're only putting stuff in the window to cover up for the lack of a climate change plan.
If we're going to be responsible and deal with this bill, there are a number of things we have to take into consideration. That's why I think Mr. Warawa was right in asking a number of probative questions. For example, what other G20 states have adopted 80% reductions from 1990 levels by 2050? That's a question for you. What other G20 states have got 80% reductions from 1990 levels?
Can you tell us the status of negotiations of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, the G17 group led by the G2 of China and the United States. Surely, as a nation state, still sovereign, we have to take into account where some of these discussions are going.
You worked in Japan. The last I heard of the Japanese targets, they're somewhere between minus seven and plus four. Right? That's pre-Copenhagen.
According to experts, it appears that the UNFCC process is being rapidly overtaken by the G2 discussions and negotiations. So all of this is in play. We don't know what the U.S. target is. We don't know whether we're going to have a cap-and-trade system out of Capitol Hill or whether the American administration is going to regulate using its EPA powers. We have no idea where this government is going—except that it's taking instructions from Washington on a lurch-by-lurch basis.
Then I hear your colleague from the NDP telling us to jump through everything we've already jumped through and pretend it's all the same. Well, it's not. This is like Sesame Street—one of these things is not like the others. We're in a different context now, so what do we do? What do you suggest we do to try to move the climate change response forward, other than simply coming down in favour of science-based targets? Shouldn't we be looking at all these questions to try to figure out what we can do to salvage the mess created by the government in three years and three months?
NDP
Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
I'll try to be brief.
First of all, Mr. McGuinty, thank you for voting for Bill C-377 last time.
When I was doing my homework, I found one of your comments from last time. You said, “I think it's important for Canadians to understand we're debating a bill that is going to shift targets, a bill that is going to guide Parliament based on science,” which is basically what you said again just now.
My simple answer to you is no, I do think those are important issues, and I think they're very important issues bearing on how we achieve these targets.
So do we need to cooperate with the G20, the G17, the G8, and any other G-combination that we care to come up with? Absolutely. We live in a finite world. Is that going to be tough? Yes. Is it up to the opposition to do that negotiation? No, we don't get to do that.
So just to reiterate, to set science-based targets, which you agree with, I think will set the stage in a strong way for Canada to do what we haven't always done, which is to actually show leadership, rather than just follow the lead of the U.S., Japan, or any other country.
Conservative
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
First, I would like to thank Mr. Bigras for his expression “pre-industrial“. I feel that the term is very appropriate, in English at least, to describe the consequences of this bill.
Secondly, I wish to make very clear my point of view, which is that merely setting targets without providing detailed plans on how to achieve them is a highly partisan, totally useless publicity exercise, and notwithstanding your protestations of non-partisanship, Mr. Hyer, I'm afraid that's all I see in this bill--merely setting targets without providing any detailed plans about how to get there. Anybody can set targets for the sake of putting a plaque on their wall that says “I signed this agreement setting targets”. It gets us nowhere, in my opinion.
Having said that, as you as a parliamentarian know, Mr. Hyer, under Standing Order 79, a private member's bill like Bill C-311 cannot require the appropriation of any part of the public revenue. So I want to ask you, can this bill be implemented without appropriating any public revenue?
NDP
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I'm not asking a legal opinion. I'm asking you for your research on whether you can see the government implementing your bill without appropriating any public revenue.
NDP
Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
I'm not going to comment, because I assume that when you went through 15 days of hearings over the last bill, which was functionally the same—
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I'm sorry, Mr. Hyer. I did not go through 15 days of hearings over the last bill.
Mr. Chair, if I may, on a point of order, we were told earlier today that witnesses are required to answer questions. Now, if Mr. Hyer is trying to say that he doesn't know whether this bill can be implemented without appropriating public revenue, that would be a fine answer, but, Mr. Chair, is he allowed to say that he's not going to answer my question? That's my point of order.
NDP
Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
“That is not my area of expertise” would be a good answer.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
So your answer, then, is that you don't know whether this bill can be implemented without appropriating any public revenue?
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
So you don't know how much public revenue might be required to implement this bill?
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
So you do know that public revenue is required to implement this bill?
NDP
Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
I do know that the experts in this field, the economic experts like Nicholas Stern, have said that the cost of not doing it will be far greater than the cost of doing it.
