Environment Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2009

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here today.

I'd like to raise one issue, one example of why, just as you said, we should have a more level playing field of efforts, particularly on this emissions inventory of products and efforts within countries. I'll mention one type, an example. In Japan they have a very high bar of acceptance for used vehicles and test them for emission tailpipe levels on a periodic basis. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but that high bar has the effect of removing an awful lot of two-year-old vehicles from the roads.

While that appears to be admirable on the surface--and I'm sure it would be counted in that emissions inventory structuring system--I'm wondering if it's counted when they take those same vehicles, load them onto a huge automobile carrier ship, take them into the Caribbean, and resell them. In other words, they're selling their failed emission vehicles they have counted in their inventory into the developing countries. I would think that needs some exploratory work done too. What's the point in removing vehicles if you're just going to pass that pollution into another part of the world?

My concern today is mainly with this bill. I certainly recognize that the plan we as a government have in place is a vast improvement from not having a plan at all. It seems to be balanced, achievable--and it's good to hear it is absolute too, because that's a firm direction to be going in. With this bill, I would like to know if we have some idea on costing to achieve the higher standards of Bill C-311? This is not just in raw dollars and cents.

I noticed here in some commentary that the Parliamentary Budget Office could not do a cost analysis, but has any other department done a cost analysis on it? In addition to a cost analysis of the raw dollars and cents to achieve that level, what industries have to be shut down, or do any industries have to be shut down, to achieve those levels?

Having the leader of the NDP fly over Fort McMurray and want to shut down the oil sands...in Alberta, where we're from, one of the industries would have to be shut down to meet these types of targets. Do we have the impact on major industries that may have to be curtailed or shut down? If we do have a much higher cost for doing this, what else would have to be cut back from our system to be able to meet these targets--health care, post-secondary education, or other initiatives? Does it have that much of a financial and industrial impact?

[Michael Martin]

Some of those issues you've raised, sir, are ones that, clearly, the committee will continue to debate. I am unaware that any government department has done a costing of Bill C-311. I think the costing of any climate change plan or approach will depend on the various measures that are implemented and other factors that would inform it.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

I'm not sure how we could then be proceeding to examine a bill when we have no idea what the economic impact would be. How would we be able to debate a bill here that obviously will have some implications? The express purpose of the Parliamentary Budget Office was to cost private members' bills, to give us some idea if there are cost implications here, yet that hasn't been done.

[Michael Martin]

As I said, sir, I'm not sure I have much more to add. I'm not aware that any government department has done a costing of this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Goldring, your time has expired. Time goes quickly when you're having fun.

We've finished our second round. We're going to do a third round, so everybody will get another five minutes.

Mr. Tonks, you can start the third round.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

In this document, the government has indicated that it is reducing GHG emissions by 20%, relative to 2006, by 2020. That is not assuming any provision under the Kyoto mechanisms.

Here in this document, the same statement, same target period, the proposed 2020 target would represent a 38% reduction. So that is 20% that the government has committed to, and 38% in the bill, is it not?

My question is, though, if there was an agreement for a cap and trade regime, which is under discussion with the United States, would that change the statement with respect to the ambitious nature of the targets, the 20% in the 2007 commitment and the aspirational amendments to CEPA? Would a continental agreement for cap and trade change the nature of those commitments, in your opinion, with respect to the ambitious or unambitious nature of it?

[Michael Martin]

I want to be clear on the numbers. The policy commitment is for a 20% reduction. The 38% you're referring to relates to what the 2020 target proposed in Bill C-311 would represent.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

That's right.

[Michael Martin]

Okay.

No, in terms of the design of the cap and trade system, of course you need to have goals, and those goals have to be established by governments. I don't think the implementation of the linking of our respective cap and trade systems in Canada and the United States will change the goals that have been set out by the governments; however, we don't know yet what will emerge from U.S. Congress. That legislative process is still ongoing. In the debate, there's a slight difference in terms of the level of ambition for 2020 between the House bill and the Senate bill, but we'll have to wait and see what the legislative process produces before we know, as well as the details of how they want to implement that regime.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

All right, thank you for that.

I would like to pass my time over to Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Martin, you handed us a one-page sheet called a commitment. This is entitled, “Canada's Mid-term Quantified Emissions Reduction Commitment”. Is this what you're telling the Canadian people is Canada's climate change plan?

[Michael Martin]

It's a submission that we made to the United Nations that summarizes the government's policy direction and the actions that are being implemented in order to achieve our 2020 target. It was provided to other parties.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So this is our plan?

[Michael Martin]

As you know, there is a great deal of additional detail that supports each of those specific policy initiatives.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

The European Union produced, I think, 700 pages of analysis. It was publicly available to every citizen of the European Union. Do you have any documentation to share with the Canadian people? We have a one-page sheet of paper that's called a commitment.

And by the way, following up Mr. Goldring's, I think, unfortunate line of questioning, have you costed the plan?

[Michael Martin]

As you know, in October 2006 the government put out a regulatory notice of intent. That was then expressed in 2007 with the announcement of what was then called Turning the Corner. In March 2008, the government published the final regulatory framework, which included a great deal of additional analysis--

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Forgive me, Mr. Martin, I know the government has tabled promise after promise after promise. We've had no regulation of greenhouse gases in this country. Correct? No regulations were promised in January 2010. The minister has told us to expect an indefinite delay. You're telling us now, as parliamentarians who report to Canadians, that other than what has been produced, changed, and amended over and over again by this regime, there is no documentation or plan to backstop this one-page commitment that you present as a plan today, which you have not costed. Is that correct?

[Michael Martin]

No, sir, that's not correct.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Where is the documentation?

[Michael Martin]

In each of those areas, there is documentation that supports it—examples being the fuel efficiency regulations and the tailpipe standard. There was a notice of regulatory intent, and draft regulations will be forthcoming. Draft regulations will be forthcoming under the cap and trade system—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

How can you negotiate in a national setting when you have nothing but draft regulations, notices of intent?

We promised to do something aspirational. Your own minister said that the two-degrees Celsius commitment that he signed on to at the G8 was, four hours after signing it, merely aspirational. How are we supposed to believe, in Canadian society, that you have a clear mandate to negotiate from a page-and-a-half commitment statement that you say constitutes a plan?

[Michael Martin]

In the context of the negotiations, I think different countries, in terms of specific policies and measures, may be at different stages of implementation. I have not received a great deal of negative feedback on that document, sir.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

This document?

[Michael Martin]

In these negotiations, I have not.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Have you shared it with Canadians?