Environment Committee on Oct. 29th, 2009

[John Drexhage]

It is a curious dynamic. When the Obama administration came on board in March when the Bonn negotiations began, a very close colleague of mine, Jonathan Pershing, who is now a negotiator on the ground, was actually given a standing ovation by the NGO community. I said that would be the first and last time that would happen. Now we have a situation where there is an awful lot of disgruntlement with where the U.S. is going, but I think they are simply torn between what they want to deliver globally and what needs to be reflected domestically.

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

I guess you're saying the United States is falling down in terms of setting the tone for Copenhagen.

There are two bills before the Senate at the moment, and the President has said that if these bills don't pass he's prepared to use regulatory powers under the EPA. Even though there is a strong sentiment from the President of arguably the most powerful nation in the world that he wants to do something about climate change, you say he's still not sending the right signal in advance of Copenhagen.

[John Drexhage]

It's an entirely different signal from Bush--what we had in the previous administration. We have to be clear about that. Sometimes I think people aren't happy with what the Obama administration is offering, both in the form of the treaty as well as the target, but it is entirely different from what was going on under the Bush administration.

They are in the tent. They just have to find ways to bring in some of the major developing economies so that everyone can start down the same road. That is the real challenge facing them right now.

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

We've heard a lot about having to get the bill before the House before the Copenhagen conference. In other words, we shouldn't have informative hearings like we're having today; we shouldn't give Mr. Bramley the opportunity to discuss his very interesting report.

We're being told that it will change the tone of the negotiations in Copenhagen if we pass a private member's bill--no offence to Ms. Duncan--sponsored by the fourth party in the House of Commons. This bill contradicts the messages the government is sending in advance of Copenhagen, which are that it doesn't want to sign an agreement and that it's not going to change its negotiating position even if this bill passes in the House of Commons. Even if it is passed in the House, it would still have to go to what could be a Conservative-dominated Senate.

But going back to your initial comment, I don't understand how passing this before Copenhagen will make a difference to the tone of the negotiations at Copenhagen. I just don't understand that.

[John Drexhage]

First of all, I think it would show there is one participant from North America that is willing to be constructively engaged on the issue and that is coming out with specific proposals. More to the point, I was getting at the target that the Prime Minister has in essence signed on to, which is the 80% reductions by 2050. If we have that on board and everyone on side with that, then let's use that as a confidence-building measure in attempting to try to move ahead. That is what I was trying to say.

With respect to Canada itself, I was saying that because of the issue of being a party to the Kyoto Protocol without actually meeting its terms, we can at least try to show a new leaf, that in fact we're going ahead to address this.

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

We're not showing a new leaf, because we have a stubborn government that is being taken to court because it won't implement the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, a Liberal bill. It says that it doesn't want to achieve an agreement and has basically said--maybe not in so many words--that it will ignore Bill C-311. And we're saying that if it isn't passed by the House of Commons before December 8 or December 7, this will be a disaster for our position in Copenhagen.

The government has already spoken on this. It's better to take the time to hear from you and Mr. Bramley.

That's the only point I'd like to make.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Warawa, you have the floor.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to each witness for being here.

Mr. Bramley, were you involved in the development of the Liberal Party's green shift program plan?

[Matthew Bramley]

I was involved in discussions. We were consulted on ideas. That was about the extent of it.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay, thank you.

Were you involved in the development of Bill C-377?

[Matthew Bramley]

We were asked for our input, yes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Drexhage, in 2006, when there was a study of Bill C-288, you said that it was just too late for Kyoto targets to be achieved. That was November 23, 2006. Is that still your position?

[John Drexhage]

As long as we have the policy parameter that there are not to be any international purchases, yes. That's the only way Canada can meet its Kyoto Protocol provisions.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

In the study of Bill C-30 on February 13, 2007, you said that you believed that the key to reducing emissions in Canada was to add significant support to large infrastructure investments, such as carbon capture and storage. Is that still your position?

[John Drexhage]

Yes, I think that's an important part of the solution, absolutely.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

You've said that our lifestyle is not sustainable. My question is going to focus on what lifestyles would look like if Canada were to adopt Bill C-311. What would the cost be?

Mr. Bramley, I'm not going to be asking you questions, because I feel that if I asked the cook to critique his own creation, the cook would have a bias. So with respect, I'm going to direct my questions to Ms. Donnelly and Mr. Drexhage.

The government is responsible for sustainable development. Each of us is. We passed, in the House, Bill S-216. Actually, it was in the last Parliament. It was sustainable development legislation to make sure we have good jobs in Canada but also a clean environment, and that's the government's responsibility, each of us. So how would lifestyles change if we adopted targets?

On the targets being proposed in Bill C-311, Pembina's position has been consistent that China and India, the big emitters in the developing world, would not have to have hard targets. They would not have to accept these targets in a new international agreement. You have the developing world buying international offsets. Bill C-311 also requires billions of dollars in mitigation and adaptation funds internationally, and the government's position is that there has to be substantial assistance in that. What would the world look like if we were accepting these very extreme targets?

I just came back from Copenhagen, where I saw gasoline at $2.50 a litre.

[John Drexhage]

Were they starving in the streets?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I saw them riding bicycles on the streets, in a different climate from what we have here in Canada. And there's a 180% tax when you buy a car. So it was a different lifestyle.

Mr. Drexhage, you said that the way we live in Canada is not sustainable. So what would life look like?

I'll start with Ms. Donnelly.

[Aldyen Donnelly]

In Denmark, government spending is 55% of GDP, and if you net $51,000 Canadian a year, you pay 63% of your gross income in taxes. That's income taxes and payroll taxes, not including sales taxes. I'm not saying that's bad, but that's a different kind of society from the one we live in. Maybe that's the society we need to go to. I'd like to be part of that debate.

But again, I'm arguing that there's a dialogue that needs to be had, and when we talk about communities on that list of 30 vulnerable communities, three are in Newfoundland, two are in Nova Scotia, two are in New Brunswick, and four are in Quebec. We've got it in our heads that this is an Alberta story. This is not an Alberta story.

I also want to touch a little bit on the whole complication of international trading. You know what I'm saying. I'm saying we can do what we want to do, but the devil's in the details. This report says there's an unlimited supply of capital, so all we have to do is hike the price of energy and all of the capital we need will flow into the country to reduce our energy demand.

As I said, in Europe when they hiked the price of capital, two things happened: manufacturing employment in Canada increased 26% and manufacturing capacity in Germany, Denmark, and Sweden fell 11% to 17%. If you look at the foreign direct investment flows, those European nations invested more capital in Canada between 1996 and 2007 than they invested in all of Asia, including China.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So you're saying--

[Aldyen Donnelly]

When they implemented their policies, their investment capital came to Canada. Their goods producing employment fell 15% roughly. Our goods producing employment increased 26%.

Now let's go back to what this means international treaty-wise. It also means that we've got in the developed world the most efficient manufacturing sector in the world, because we just built it in the last 15 years. And I'll just do the one comparison. Europe is saying to us, cut emissions by 20%. I'll give you a specific. The U.S. is saying to us, cut emissions by 20%. I'm not saying don't cut emissions, but the U.S. is saying have comparable percentage reduction targets by sector. The average U.S. and European aluminum plant discharges 12 tonnes of CO₂ per tonne of aluminum it produces. The average Canadian aluminum plant discharges six tonnes of CO₂ per tonne of aluminum it produces.

The Copenhagen Protocol, the Kyoto Protocol, and the U.S. Congress's proposal is that we agree to the same per cent reduction. What the U.S. and Europe is proposing is that when they cut their greenhouse gases per tonne of aluminum from 12 to 10, we have to cut ours from 6 to 5. They are proposing those as equivalent measures. But it costs three times as much for us to cut from 6 to 5 as it will cost them to cut from 12 to 10.

Canada has to be a leader. We have to step up and say, that's not equivalent. That's not about greenhouse gases; that's about trade protectionism.

What should the developed world's greenhouse gas standard for aluminum be by 2015? Should it be 10--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Ms. Donnelly, I'm going to have to cut you off. We have to make sure we have succinct responses so that we are fair to all members and all witnesses, so they all get a chance.

Continue on, Monsieur Ouellet.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll broach the same topic as Mr. Warawa, but in a different way.

I honestly and truly believe that we have to change our lifestyle and that looking at the past in other European countries—asking ourselves what they have done to this point or what they are doing now—won't provide the answer for the future. This is what disappoints me about the current government: it's always looking at the future in a rear-view mirror.

Mr. Drexhage, you said earlier, and rightly so, that Canada lives in a "non-sustainable" world. Do you think that Bill C-311 might help raise awareness that change is needed? And could Bill C-311 make a contribution? If so, how?

[John Drexhage]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ouellet.

Yes, I do think it can be a contribution, but I would also like very strongly to agree with Ms. Donnelly that this has to be followed up with a real plan.

I think one of the failures we've had over the last 15 years is that we've never come up with a real, credible plan. It has a lot to do with the fact we're very, very sensitive about touching the whole consumption side. Politically it's charged, and we have a very difficult time with that in North America.

To the previous question—and I apologize for speaking out of turn—about whether we have to become another Denmark or Sweden, I think that to a large degree, yes, we do. And keep in mind that it is the conservative government that's in power in Denmark; it's not some left-wing socialist party. It's an arch-conservative government, aligned with the liberal party—albeit liberal in the neoclassical sense of Adam Smith. So they've managed to progress this debate beyond a left-right issue. They've managed to progress it towards an issue of sustainability, and that's what we need to do in Canada. I don't want to make this a left or right issue. We can't afford it.

Merci.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I'm going to come back to the question I asked you regarding Bill C-311. You said that it would be a start but that we would need a plan.

Do you think this could be an important step if the bill were able to help support the idea that we would need a plan? Do you think it could encourage the government to come up with a plan?