Evidence of meeting #32 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 ipcc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Prof. Louis Fortier
I wouldn't be able to answer that question.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Okay.
The thrust of the question, of course, is that I find what gets a bit distorted--blurred, at the very least, if not obliterated--in the discussion around the science of this is having climate scientists commenting on things that are not scientific, or certainly not within the realm of climate science.
For example, Mr. Fortier, I was reading your submission to the committee. You made a lot of judgments about what the economy will look like.
First of all, what is your relevant economic expertise in making those kinds of forecasts about what will happen? You've stated that countries like Sweden, for example, are going to be world economy leaders. You've accepted forecasts about how many vehicles will be hybrid. You've made a lot of assertions about the economy of the future.
I want to know what your relevant expertise is to do so, or to assess the claims of others that those are accurate.
12:50 p.m.
Prof. Louis Fortier
I'm not an economist, that's for sure, but I have followed the debate very closely. I've read the Stern report and other reports and everything, and we are projecting one billion cars by 2030 and two billion cars by 2050.
You can also see the example of European countries. Take Germany; the German environment minister is trying to push this idea that we will be able to power Europe as a whole, in 20 years, from solar power, which will come from somewhere in the Sahara desert or whatever--
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Is that what scientists are saying or what you think economists are saying?
12:50 p.m.
Prof. Louis Fortier
That is how economists are seeing the future.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Okay. And what's your relevant expertise to assess whether that's true or not?
12:50 p.m.
Prof. Louis Fortier
I'm not an economist. If you--
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
You know what, Mr. Chair? I hear Ms. Duncan over there, interrupting continually on this.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
But I have a very relevant question here....
I hear her heckling across the way. She doesn't like the thrust of the questions. But this is the reality: it's my assertion that scientists should stick to synthesizing the science and let the economists synthesize the economic data. Let those who are relevant in their jurisdictions synthesize it, because they have the expertise to do so. At the end of the day, it is the realm of policy-makers to try to synthesize all the relevant facts in making policy decisions.
I think Mr. Zwiers has been respectful of that line today. I'm not sure some of our other witnesses have done so.
Mr. Sauchyn, I should say that you have as well; I think there was a particular question about this.
Mr. Chair, that question is entirely relevant to the discussion.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Okay. I appreciate those comments. At the same time, your time has expired, so we're going to continue on.
I do ask that the sidebar conversations and the comments across the table be minimized. It is distracting to our witnesses and it's not very respectful.
Mr. Warkentin, the floor is yours.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Mr. Warkentin.
I want to pick up on the point that was made earlier about incentives to industry to adopt the technologies that are out there. I think that's a valid point as far as it goes, but I think it's misplaced.
If anyone says that just because we pass Bill C-311, which has targets, it will give any incentive to industry.... I think what we're really talking about is in some fashion putting a price on carbon and in some fashion adopting a cap and trade system.
I would like to ask the witnesses whether they think a heavy-duty cap and price on carbon in Canada, without the participation of the United States, will incent Canadian industries to adopt new technologies or instead encourage them to move to the United States. Have the witnesses taken into account the scientific features of market reaction in the proposals they're putting before us?
12:50 p.m.
Research Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina, As an Individual
We were just criticized for responding to questions like this. We were just told not to respond to questions--
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Well, I'm not criticizing you for it. If anything, Dr. Sauchyn, I'm criticizing you for not taking into account the consequences of the policies that are being proposed.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I certainly don't mind you telling me whether you think that a cap and trade system in Canada alone, without participation of the United States, or one that's seriously more onerous in Canada than in the United States, will encourage any industry to adopt new technologies or will just encourage them to move south of the border.
12:50 p.m.
Research Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina, As an Individual
I appreciate the question. It's a very good one. But it requires an expertise in economics, and I'm a physical scientist. We were just criticized--
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Do any of the other witnesses wish to comment on that?
Dr. Stone.
12:50 p.m.
Prof. John Stone
Let me just try to be helpful. I am not an economist, but I know how important it is, as are many of the other social sciences. So I have read a lot about it. I have read what the IPCC said in its fourth assessment on the costs. I have read what Nicholas Stern said in his report for the U.K. government. I have read what the World Bank said.
All of them seem to suggest that in the tackling of this issue, first of all, it will be more expensive if we don't tackle it; and secondly, the costs are manageable.
One estimate--it comes from the IPCC, which I'm simply reporting--is that if we adopted a target that was roughly maintaining the temperature below 2°C, then that would mean globally the GDP in 2050 would be what it would otherwise have been in 2049. In other words, we would have missed one year of global economic growth.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Could I interject for a moment, Dr. Stone? Do you understand that my question is about whether you feel there is a benefit to harmonizing the North American approach to greenhouse gas emissions?
