Environment Committee on June 18th, 2009

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

I'd like to go back to the hope that this will be as non-partisan a process as possible. Although I belong to a party, I'm not terribly tribal myself, and I really believe that all of us have a piece of the answers here. I think we need to meld and match and combine and negotiate in a number of areas to come up with a number of ways that we can move forward.

Do I agree that intensity targets will get us there? No, I don't. Do I think it may help in the short term to at least head in the right direction? Perhaps, but I certainly hope that we have firm caps in mind as we go into the future--the right goals--and then debate over time exactly how we're going to get there.

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

We had firm targets. We had firm targets under the Kyoto Protocol, and as we all know, the previous Liberal government—and I don't mean to be partisan here, but it is I think a fact of political history—had said it would use the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to regulate greenhouse gases. It was preparing and was about to release hard caps, or regulations to meet hard caps, before the 2005 fall of the government.

This was before your time, Mr. Hyer, I know, but if this is the most pressing issue facing mankind, and if the NDP believes in hard caps and using CEPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, I'm still mystified to this day as to why they would pull the plug on the government in 2005. But that's history.

You spoke about the impact of climate change on Canada, and then you seemed to mention something about how adaptation would be a focus of some of your bill, to some extent. Did I hear that you believe we should have adaptation measures?

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

I don't remember using that nomenclature. I'm not quite sure what you mean.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired, Mr. Scarpaleggia. We're going to continue on.

Monsieur Bigras, s'il vous plaît.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Hyer, my congratulations for introducing your bill.

When I arrived in Parliament 12 years ago, we were a long way from discussing the importance of having a climate change plan. I remember debates in the House where people were wondering whether climate change was real and whether human activity was primarily responsible for it. In 1997, some members believed that it was a natural phenomenon that was in no way related to human activity.

Today, fortunately, the House is almost unanimous. All parties believe that climate change exists. The problem is deciding how to deal with it. I have taken part in a number of international conferences and a number of debates in the House. Often, I feel, the problem comes from reduction targets. That is the problem. There is no agreement on greenhouse gas reduction targets. I know that it is a problem for the Liberal party and for the Conservative party too.

Could you remind us why you indicated in the bill that you want a 25% reduction below 1990 levels of greenhouse gases by 2020? That is no arbitrary target, after all. You do not put percentages in a hat and pull one out.

Why must we clearly indicate to the international community that Canada is committed to a 25% reduction below 1990 greenhouse gas levels by 2020. What are the scientific reasons, to start with?

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

First of all, Mr. Bigras, and also Mr. Scarpaleggia, thank you for supporting this bill the last time around. That's appreciated, and I'm glad you did that at the time. You must have at that time believed that the targets were appropriate, because they're the same targets as before.

There are several reasons why here. One of them is that the United Kingdom, the European Union, California, the New England states, and some of our western provinces have all agreed that these are appropriate targets, so we're not pulling them out of thin air. They're also the ones put forward by scientists. I am a scientist myself. I'm not climate change scientist, but I'm a forest scientist, and I believe I recognize good science when I see it.

We will never have a perfect answer. Science cannot give us a perfect number. There will never be a perfect number on this. There will be people who think it's too low, and there will be people who think it's too high. There will be people who think it's too fast and people who think it's too slow. But 2,500 scientists from around the world working for the United Nations have repeatedly affirmed and reaffirmed these targets as the minimum, not the optimum, of what needs to be done.

Does it make me a little nervous that we're going for the minimum, and not the optimum or the maximum, in taking the principle of due diligence here? It does make me a little nervous. As was pointed out by Mr. Scarpaleggia, I'm new here. I leave the expertise, and the politics, and the committees, and the procedures of the House to those of you who have far more experience. But it certainly is very clear to 99% of the scientists in the world that these numbers are on the low side of what's required.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I would add that, if we want to keep the increase in temperature to within 2 °C of the pre-industrial level, that is a target that we must set. It is the only way to avoid the worst. That is one of the things that I have gathered from the recommendations from scientists.

To make it possible, you are proposing, in clause 6 of your bill, that the minister present interim plans. If I understand correctly, the minister has to present reports every five years. What should those reports contain? Why have reports every five years? Clause 6 says that interim plans for 2015 and thereafter shall be laid before Parliament “within six months after this act receives royal assent”. Why the need for interim plans?

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

Starting with the most basic, we have government. We have a Minister of the Environment who will have to show leadership here. But they can't do this in a vacuum. They have to have accountability. They need to report to the House. They need to report to their fellow parliamentarians. They need to report to the scientists. They need to report to the general public. So accountability, I would think, is the primary answer here.

The other one is that we need a plan, and we need an ongoing plan. I believe this plan will have to evolve, so it will keep us focused and keep us on track. At regular intervals we will be forced to plan and replan and adjust and make course corrections through adaptive management and adaptive leadership, and that's the way the world works.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

In order to meet the targets set in the bill, that is 25% below 1990 levels in 2020 and then the objective for 2050, are you proposing specific tools or vehicles with which to meet the targets? We have a number of tools that we can use to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets. Do you have any favourite options?

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

I'm going to disappoint you, Mr. Bigras. I do have favourites, but I'm not going to answer that question here today, because that's not what this bill is about. As I said, this is going to evolve over years and decades in terms of how we do this. We don't know all the answers today. Technologies will evolve. New regulatory mechanisms will evolve. Politics will change. Ministers will come and go. For us to be prescriptive at this stage, I think would be inappropriate.

I would like to restate what I said before, that it seems to me that they come under five categories, and I wouldn't want to take any of the tools out of our tool kit. So we have five took kits, if you will.

The first is that we need to somehow put some kind of significant price on greenhouse gas emissions. The polluter-pays principle is not only a fair principle, but it also drives innovation and technology and investment decisions.

The second one is that we are going to actually have to have a government that regulates and governs, so regulations will play a variety of roles.

Third, we're going to need public investments. I and my party believe in public investments.

Fourth, we're going to need private investment. The investor confidence and the predictability of regular plans will help people to be able to make plans for those significant sectoral investments.

The last one is personal lifestyle changes. I think most of us are starting to do that. We talk about it. It's a topic at cocktail parties. It's a topic over coffee. I'm proud to announce that I bought a new bicycle and parked my car. That's hard to do at my age, but I'm doing it because we all need to make changes.

Those are the five general areas in which I think we'll have to make changes. I have a longer list that I can share with you later. There are dozens of ideas, and many of them have yet to come forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Madam Duncan, the floor is yours.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Hyer, for tabling your bill and trying to expedite this process.

Can you tell the committee whether you have had any feedback from Canadians on Bill C-311?

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

I'll give you two answers.

I've been surprised to date at the relatively low level of media attention on this, which some people think is the most important issue facing the world and humanity. In terms of grassroots feedback, I get lots. I get dozens and dozens, I think it's hundreds, of e-mails. I've been watching the polls. The polls clearly indicate--I have some of them with me here--that the majority of Canadians, on the order of magnitude of at least two-thirds or more on key questions, support not only controlling greenhouse gases but acknowledging that we're all going to have to pay for it one way or another. They're willing to make those investments in changing not only to a less polluting world but to a new, green economy, which will create jobs and economic benefit as well as controlling our greenhouse gases.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Scarpaleggia raised a question about there being a proposal--unfortunately, nothing happened with it--under previous governments where we might use regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Your bill, Bill C-311, is called the Climate Change Accountability Act. Am I correct in understanding that the very reason for setting the targets for 2020 and 2050 but not necessarily prescribing how we would meet those targets is because that would be determined by the elected parliamentarians? Therefore, it would prescribe the goals that the Department of the Environment and other ministries would have to meet.

Is that why the act is called that? Is that why that is being done in legislation?

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

Yes is the simple answer.

As Mr. Scarpaleggia has pointed out, a number of previous governments...and I'm not here to point the finger backwards today, but we've promised more than we've delivered to date. What we need is not only targets but a clear process for planning at regular intervals. If we try to do it on a weekly or monthly basis, we'll be bogged down in red tape. If we try to do it on a 15, 20, 30, or 40-year basis, and say it would be nice to get to 2050, that would be unrealistic. It has seemed to many, and I would agree, that five-year planning intervals seem like a reasonable compromise in terms of staying focused and providing for flexibility in the interim periods.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

You're the water critic for the New Democrats, so I'm presuming that you've been following what has been going on with water and environmental assessment regulation. Would it be fair to say that there's a level of discomfort in the public about the lack of openness and transparency in making regulations in the environmental field, and therefore there's all the more reason for the public support to actually have these targets prescribed in legislation and in an open debate?

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

I hope I'm not going to stray too far here, but I used to do a lot of consulting work in Japan. Japan puts the common good ahead of the individual good quite often. They're good at pulling in the same direction. It takes a while to get there, but then they set common goals. They also have national standards. It has always disappointed me that in our federal system here we have very few national standards on almost anything, especially for water and certain key environmental issues. For me, one of the things that appeal to me about this is that instead of delegating once again to the provinces or the municipalities or us individual Canadians, it would set national standards for timetables and achievable targets at a national level and we'd show national leadership.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

As you have testified, Mr. Hyer, Bill C-311 is identical to Bill C-377, which was reviewed by this committee, amended, and passed on the House, and in fact passed by the House of Commons in June 2008. In this committee's review of the precursor bill to your bill, during the clause-by-clause review amendments were made, and that amended bill was referred to Parliament. That bill in fact was passed by the House of Commons and then referred to the Senate. The bill unfortunately died because Mr. Harper called an election.

Would you agree that the next logical step would have been, and would be, to expedite the processing of Bill C-311 back to the House of Commons so that it can get to the Senate, get passed, and become law?

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

I'm nervous for two reasons.

One is that I'm in my sixties and feel more mortal every day. I'd like to see this bill passed in my lifetime, to be a little facetious. More importantly, it's very clear to scientists and to most of the public that the clock is ticking, and has been for quite a while, and that we're already at risk. Everyone will have to decide for themselves, but I personally believe that every day that goes by when we don't take action on this is a day that puts us at further risk.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I think it's well known to you that since you tabled this bill in April, I have been seeking to have it expedited and reviewed and to be given the due attention it deserves. I am going to be seeking that testimony presented on Bill C-377 be tabled so that we don't have to repeat the exercise and can in fact comply with what the public are demanding.

I'd like to share some of that testimony with you and get your opinion on whether or not you think it is still appropriate to your bill one year later. For example, Matthew Bramley of the Pembina Institute testified regarding Bill C-377:

To wrap up, this is not a political bill, in my view. It's a bill that's about basing policy on science and ensuring that Canada does not transfer our responsibilities to other countries. I see no reason why it should not be supported by all parties.

Mr. Ian Rutherford, executive director of the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, said:

This bill would seem to be a step in the right direction.

....it's not just our current performance that is bad. In terms of accumulated per capita contribution to the present burden...Canada ranks just behind the U.S.A., the U.K., and Germany....

He then said:

Very briefly, there are costs to both action and inaction, and I don't think it's very easy to estimate them.

I would just look around the world and, as someone has already mentioned, look at those countries that have done the best job of de-carbonizing their economy, making it less energy intensive and less carbon intensive, countries like Norway, Denmark, and Germany. They've hardly been impoverished. They're doing very well.

I think we should be trying to take a leaf from their book, instead of always moaning and groaning about the cost of things that are proposed. Many of these things will pay for themselves; certainly energy efficiency pays for itself.

Professor John Stone, adjunct professor in the department of geography and environmental studies at Carleton University, spoke of the IPPC's targets, which reflect what you've put in your bill. Professor Stone said that he had appeared before the committee in one form or another four times in the last 12 months and was encouraged by the words he'd heard from the government of their intentions to tackle the issue. But he wanted to see the legislation and regulations, and the caps put on industries. He also said he believed that Bill C-377, the precursor to the current bill, was a useful contribution.

Dr. Andrew Weaver of the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, and Dr. David Sauchyn of the Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative.... Dr. Weaver, by the way, supported the bill and spoke in favour—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired.

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

Could I make a brief comment?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Yes, just a very brief comment, Mr. Hyer.

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

I just came back from Finland, where I was studying forestry and climate change and their parliamentary system. I was impressed in all three areas. I won't go into lots of detail, but I was particularly impressed that Finland is a whole lot better than we are at cooperating issue to issue across party lines. They're much more collaborative and cooperative and are less confrontational. Their form of coalition government seems to be working reasonably well. I was impressed with that. So I hope we can emulate that model more.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Warawa, finish us off with a seven-minute round, please.