Evidence of meeting #31 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.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to you, Mr. Page, even if you are not right here with us.
Before I ask my first question, I would like you to tell the members and the committee about your roadmap. What has your institutional experience been in the private sector?
Chair, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
I see that as two different questions. One is the road map, which is actually outlined in our report in quite some detail. In that road map, we are looking at a variety of measures that have to be taken.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
No, you did not understand. I would like to know about your professional experience before you became the chair of the national roundtable. Where did you work in the past?
Chair, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
My apologies, Monsieur Bigras.
I have spent about two-thirds of my working career in the academic world. I've spent ten years in the electricity sector here in Alberta and also internationally with a company called TransAlta. I've also served in a variety of capacities for the federal government over the years. I've served on one corporate board. I've served on one NGO board of directors.
Is that sufficient for you?
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Yes, thank you very much.
To go back to your presentation this afternoon, a few statements in there are surprising. Let me mention a few. You think that the Canadian climate policy is most effectively approached as a long-term problem requiring long-term solutions, not short-term fixes or top-down target-setting. I am a bit surprised to read that.
You also mentioned in your report that greenhouse gas emission reduction targets need to be underpinned by relevant and rigorous economic analysis and assessment to show whether the proposed targets can be achieved within the regulatory timeframes, and so on.
Mr. Page, about your reports, how much do you take scientific evidence into consideration when you are making recommendations to the government? I find it a bit strange that the roundtable is putting proposals before the government without taking into account the scientific evidence to the effect that industrialized countries should set their targets so that the increase in temperature will be limited to 2 degrees Celsius compared to the preindustrial era. I am trying to find in you presentation this afternoon a statement that Canada should base its target setting on scientific evidence. I can understand economic analyses are needed, but should we not also take scientific evidence into account?
Chair, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
First of all, in terms of the long versus the short term, we are very much in favour of both. But what we are trying to argue is that what you're talking about is a fundamental transformation of Canadian energy technology, and we're trying to emphasize that that technology change, which must begin immediately—and we've made that very clear both in my statement this morning and also in our reports—is not something you just suddenly turn around. This kind of fundamental technology change that we're talking about is something that will get started—we hope a series of projects will be in place by 2015—the results begin by 2020, the pick-up is in the 2030s. And this relates to renewables, things like carbon capture and storage, and a variety of things like that. They're short-term action but leading to a long-term strategy here.
Second, on the scientific recommendations, I really appreciate your raising that, because we've spent, as a round table, a great deal of time on the science and I've been at most of the COPs since Kyoto. I have contributed to the intergovernmental panel work in connection with it, and in my day-to-day work at the university I'm dealing mainly with science and engineering students who are trying to deal with things like your 2% Celsius.
So these are very much part of our background, but sustainable development is trying to find that balance. It's trying to find a way forward that we can actually achieve our goals here in Canada, having had a very long delay of over a decade now since Kyoto, where as a country we've had great difficulty in moving forward with a viable plan.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Let us go back to the fact that Canada is lagging behind other countries. Since you are talking about the importance of having a continental approach, let us compare both recovery plans that have been presented in Canada and in the United States. We realize that Canada's investments per capita in energy efficiency and renewable energy are six times lower than in the US, if we compare the Obama and Harper plans.
Is Canada not lagging behind not only the international community, but also behind our main partners to the south, something that is all the more important because Canada wishes to establish a continental policy?
Chair, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
Once again, I'm very glad you raised the Obama program here, because the Obama program is over 10 or 15 years, depending on the different parts of it. Most of the announcements in Canada then in terms of the dollar figures are dollars being invested by provinces or being invested by the Government of Canada in a shorter period of time, and certainly a number of the projects that I'm familiar with are looking at seeing at least initial investment in the next year or year and a half in connection with it. So I think it's very important for us to go back and look at the timeframe before we jump to conclusions with regard to the per capita.
I think you do have a very important point, though, that per capita in Canada, in terms of innovative new industrial research, the level of investment has consistently been lower than in the United States, and that is something I hope we can address with climate change. But the current situation is still one where on a per capita basis or on a per unit of production basis the amount of R and D investment going back in Canada is lower than in the United States.
Conservative
NDP
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
One of these times when I have a week off, it would be nice to stop by Calgary and see you.
Are you still in the TransAlta chair at the U of C?
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Okay, great, so I'll know where to find you.
Mr. McGuinty asked you some questions earlier about the intended role for the national round table under Bill C-311. Regardless of whether or not that role is assigned to the national round table—you had suggested perhaps it might be more appropriate for the Auditor General—do you think the intent of that provision to provide for an independent body to review the targets the government brings forward on a regular basis would be a worthwhile exercise?
Chair, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
I think the exercise is very much a worthwhile one. I have just gone through two months of work in connection with the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. We had to draw up tools and address that, as we rightly should, for Parliament.
While the round table will fully accept whatever new obligations Parliament and your committee wish to see us fulfill, I wanted to stress this morning that our resources for doing the quality of job you people want in connection with all this are limited. The Auditor General, or the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, has far larger resources than we do in connection with this. I was in no way trying to say that we're not prepared to take on these new tasks. I just wanted to show how we would have to share the burden within the department with our existing.... It means that we could bring forward fewer policy reports.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Dr. Page, if I can just intervene here, I'm actually not asking you to reiterate that, because I think we heard pretty clearly that you have stretched resources.
Regardless of whether you were assigned that role, do you think the process of having an independent, regular review, in intermittent periods, of the proposed targets by the government, would be a useful exercise? And do you think it would be worthwhile to hold that in an open and transparent manner?
Chair, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
I certainly do.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Okay, thank you very much.
Monsieur Bigras raised this issue with you, and I wanted to raise this as well. In your brief, which we unfortunately just received, and I was trying to go through it while you were presenting it, you mention that you thought it was very important to underpin any targets we come up with with rigorous economic analysis. The Clean Air Strategic Alliance, and you and I are on the board, always agreed to that. My question is whether you also think it's equally important that there be clear scientific analysis of any of those targets.
Chair, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
I certainly do. There is no question about that.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Okay, great. I appreciate your answer.
Do you believe that the IPCC is a credible scientific body that could undertake some of that scientific review on behalf of Canada and other countries?
Chair, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
The IPCC is very important in terms of trying to develop, explain, and document the global trends that are under way. Whether they're capable of answering specific questions about Canadian circumstances I think is less clear.
NDP
Chair, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
Oh, very definitely.
