Environment Committee on Nov. 24th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I call this meeting to order.

We will continue our study of Bill C-311. This is meeting number 39. The witnesses we have on today's panel are Dennis Tirpak from the World Resources Institute, senior fellow associate with the International Institute for Sustainable Development. Joining us by video conference from Chicago is Environment Northeast, with Derek K. Murrow, director of policy analysis. From Washington we have Janet Peace, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, vice-president markets and business strategy.

Point of order, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

The sound system is not working, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're good now. I apologize for that.

We'll go with our opening comments. Mr. Tirpak, you're on first, and if you can keep your comments under ten minutes I'd really appreciate that.

[Dennis Tirpak, Senior Fellow, Associate with the International Institute for Sustainable Development, World Resources Institute]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify this morning.

I'd like to say from the outset that I strongly support the spirit of the bill. You'll see in my testimony that I have included a paragraph from the statement from the Toronto conference on the changing atmosphere that was held in 1988. Very briefly, that statement says that humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, pervasive global experiment; that the earth's atmosphere is being changed at an unprecedented rate by pollutants from human activity; and that these changes represent a major threat to international security and are already having harmful consequences all over the world. That conference went on to set a target of a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions below 1988 levels by 2005.

Those were heady days in the climate change business, Mr. Chairman. I was a lot younger. We were all a lot younger then. It was an exciting time. Today we appreciate much more how easy it is to call for an ambitious target and how difficult it is to achieve one.

Now, two decades later, we have much less time. Since 1988, global carbon dioxide emissions have risen by approximately 40% and are likely to rise by another 30% by 2030. The prediction we made using global climate models in the late eighties that the Arctic would warm faster than the rest of the globe has been confirmed. One recent study in Science magazine predicted that the Arctic would be free of ice by 2037, a mere 28 years from now. The early forecast we made in those days about the warming effects on forests have been confirmed, and unfortunately, our estimates of deaths from high-temperature events were tragically exceeded in Europe in 2003.

This, then, is the state of the physical world as it moves rapidly through a century that, in the end, may see the most profound changes since man began walking on this planet.

Mr. Chairman, not only are the physical changes occurring, but the political landscape is changing as well. At the last negotiating session of the UNFCC in Barcelona, the Chinese delegate said very clearly to developed country representatives that they are ahead us, and we need to catch up. In the case of China, it is not just rhetoric. Today China has automobile standards that exceed the recently enacted U.S. standards. They raised gasoline taxes four times this year. They have set a goal of 100 gigawatts of wind by 2020. Their target is to reduce energy intensity by 4% per year. To be quite frank, China wants to be the technology leader of the world, and they're now making PV panels and wind turbines that compete with companies from all over the world. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, China gets it. They really do.

In my own country, President Obama has also changed the political landscape. His administration has allocated $80 billion of the stimulus financing to energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Our Department of Energy is accelerating the introduction of new efficiency standards for appliances. The administration has also accelerated the introduction of efficiency standards for cars to 2016 from 2020. The EPA is moving forward to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Twenty-eight states have renewable performance standards that set mandatory targets for the production of electricity from renewable energy.

On the congressional front, our House of Representatives has passed HR2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, and the Senate is moving forward to develop a complementary bill. Both bills are aimed at reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to between 17% and 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 under a cap. It would also allow for the use of offsets, and they have included performance standards for sources that are not covered by the cap. I would also say that the bill has set in motion a planning process for adaptation in the U.S., and it provides financing for adaptation and efforts to reduce deforestation in developing countries. But even in the absence of this bill, I think the President is intent on using the existing regulatory authority to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This, then, is the direction in which two of your major economic competitors are moving and is one of the reasons why I would urge you to consider Bill C-311. While far from comprehensive, I believe it sets in motion a process that would allow Canada to resume its place among countries that are leading the fight against global warming. It would position Canada to become a technology leader and put your economy on a low-carbon pathway.

Let me add just a few comments on the bill itself.

The target of 25% reduction by 2020 from 1990 would be a significant challenge; there is no doubt about that. But if you are to achieve the long-term objective of an 80% reduction by 2050, Canada would need to be ambitious in the first decade, or else it would have to proceed much more quickly in subsequent decades.

If the minister chose to implement the plan through a cap and trade program—and I see that he has flexibility to issue regulations and other means—an important means to control costs would be the use of domestic and international offsets. Adding language to authorize the use of such a measure might be considered.

The bill deals with domestic GHG emissions, but the world expects much more. It expects assistance with regard to adaptation, encouraging technology cooperation, efforts to reduce deforestation. I would urge you to consider or at least not forget the need to address climate change in a comprehensive manner.

Implementation of the provisions also will require financial support. The U.S. ACES bill solves this problem by directing that a portion of the sale of allowances should be used for various activities such as carbon capture and storage. I trust that there is recognition of the financing that needs to accompany such a bill.

Finally, you may wish to authorize the minister to include black carbon in the target plan developed under clause 6. Black carbon is a pollutant that stays in the atmosphere for a relatively short time, but it changes the energy balance of the earth and may play an important role in warming, particularly in the Arctic.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I don't believe the world can delay another decade in its fight against global warming. Canada can't afford to remain coupled to a carbon economy that is rooted in the past. I often hear people say that Canada will not act until the U.S. and others act. Well, I think the U.S. is acting; I think the rest of the world is acting. It's not going to be easy; it's not going to be a smooth transition; it's going to move in fits and starts. We're going to have conservative governments, we're going to have liberal governments, we're going to have Republicans, Democrats. The atmosphere all over the world will change from time to time in different leadership situations; but in fact I think we're going to move in that direction.

So I believe it is time for Canada to rekindle that spirit that was present in Toronto when I was a lot younger and to join the parade of low-carbon nations—not just join, but lead that parade.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Tirpak.

We'll continue with our opening presentations.

Mr. Murrow, if you would, please bring us your opening comments.

[Derek Murrow, Director, Policy Analysis, Environment Northeast]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the invitation to speak with you today. I'm sorry not to be there in person and I really appreciate the quick work of your team to link me in by videophone.

My name is Derek Murrow. I'm the energy and climate policy director at ENE. ENE is a regional, non-profit environmental research and advocacy group, headquartered in the State of Maine, and we work both at the state, provincial, and federal levels with staff based throughout the northeastern U.S. We also have a cross-border mission and maintain staff in an office in eastern Canada. Leslie Malone from ENE is, I believe, there with you today. I thought I could see her in the audience briefly.

I lead our energy and climate work. I was a representative as an official stakeholder in the development of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which is known as RGGI, the first and only mandatory carbon cap and trade program in the U.S. I was the lead author on our policy report, A Climate Change Road Map for New England and Eastern Canada, and I also oversee our energy policy work at the state level, which now requires utilities to invest in all cost-effective energy efficiency and is leading to historic new levels of efficiency investment in New England. I also have the pleasure of working closely with policy makers in Washington, D.C. on elements of federal climate and energy legislation.

We think it's true that all politics is local, and we have had the good fortune of working closely in Washington, D.C with Representative Markey from Massachusetts on the House climate and energy bill; with many members of the Senate environment committee from the northeast; with Senators Kerry and Lieberman as they craft what will be the final leadership bill in the Senate; and also with critical swing voters such as Senators Snowe and Collins from Maine and Senator Gregg from New Hampshire.

The recently announced delays in the U.S. Senate timeline, until later this winter or early spring, are clearly not ideal; however, we believe there is a significant level of support for action in the U.S. Congress, as many stakeholders, including importantly business and labour interests, prefer a negotiated legislative outcome rather than facing a patchwork of regional and state rules as well as potential federal EPA regulations under the existing Clean Air Act authority.

I want to highlight that the legislation being considered by the U.S. Congress is complicated and massive. Congress is trying to include almost all of the details of cap and trade in legislation, unlike what you're considering today, and thus there is a lot of debate. Designing and passing legislation of this scope and complexity is extremely hard. It is my sense that members of Congress are focusing primarily on addressing the concerns of their constituents, and it is challenging to focus their attention on issues such as linking or how a North American system can be created and integrated. ENE would like to see a strong collaboration to develop such a North American system, at least with linkage, and we are raising issues of cross-border energy trading, offset design, and the carbon content of fuels in our work in D.C.

While the details of how a U.S. system will play out are not yet known, we know what the major U.S. cap and trade design elements will likely be. ENE believes U.S. and Canadian programs could be linked, assuming the following: one, that both have fixed caps with similar emissions reduction trajectories; two, that all gases, major industrial sectors, and fossil fuels are covered; three, that there are rigorous offset standards; four, that if necessary they have similar price control mechanisms; and finally, fifth, that they produce similar carbon price outcomes. However, until both countries have detailed policy proposals on the table, it is hard to fully judge how likely linkage is, which is both technical and importantly political in nature.

l wanted to draw your attention to two issues that have been key lessons learned from RGGI in the northeast and that we have been spending a lot of time on in Washington, D.C. Both are highlighted in our policy brief, of which we hope you have a copy.

First, we in the northeast and other policy analysts have reached an essential finding that applies to any cap and trade program: energy efficiency should be the primary cost containment tool. l repeat that, because we think it's really critically important: that energy efficiency can be the primary cost containment tool. When a cap is imposed on carbon emissions and energy consumption rises, the program can lead to higher energy costs; however, when the program invests in measures that make buildings and industry more efficient, it helps level demand for energy, putting money back in consumers' pockets at a net savings and driving down the costs of cap and trade significantly.

You will see on page 6 of our policy brief a graph that illustrates the benefits of increased efficiency investments as modelled for the RGGI program. This figure shows projected increases in electricity prices under the RGGI cap, with and without expanded energy efficiency investments. The doubling of efficiency programs has the effect of offsetting most of the carbon price increase in the RGGI case.

The RGGI states have chosen to auction almost 100% of allowances, and the economic and jobs benefits of energy efficiency have led the states to invest a majority of the revenue from auctioning allowances in expanded energy efficiency programs. It is not a small percentage of allowances, but a huge 65% of revenue.

ENE just completed a report examining the macroeconomic effects of expanded energy efficiency investments for the six states in New England. This report, “Energy Efficiency: Engine of Economic Growth”, looks at the three dollars consumers save for every dollar invested in energy efficiency programs and finds that as these savings are recirculated and invested in the local economy, the result is actually a six-times to nine-times increase in state GDP for every dollar invested. A summary of this report can also be found on page 9 of our policy brief.

Federal climate bills in the U.S. are recognizing the benefits of energy efficiency and making similar commitments to use carbon dioxide allowance value through the states and through natural gas and, potentially, electric distribution companies to expand investments in energy efficiency. Efficiency investments are an essential way to contain costs and to make our economy more competitive in a carbon-constrained world.

A second lesson learned that I wanted to highlight is that modelling and forecasting are almost always wrong, and in the case of cap-and-trade programs often overpredict costs. RGGI again offers a good illustration of this, which is also consistent with previous experience with the U.S. acid rain and ozone cap-and-trade programs.

When RGGI participants, us included, debated how the underlying modelling should be conducted and what level the emissions cap should be set at, all were in agreement that emissions, all else being equal, were likely to stay stable or rise over time, with carbon prices doing the same. In fact, a change in the relative price of natural gas in relation to coal and oil has driven emissions from northeastern power plants down dramatically. There is as much as a 19% decline. This can be seen in the figures on page 5 of our briefing, which show the decline in RGGI emissions versus the cap and also the change in natural gas prices in relation to other fuels.

If these kinds of market changes and expanded access to lower-carbon fossil resources can occur so quickly with corresponding declines in emissions, just think what the combined effect would be if additional breakthroughs occur in building insulation, solar power, or electric batteries for cars. Modelling is based on what we know today, but we can't predict the kinds of breakthroughs that will occur if there is a carbon market that spurs new innovation and discovery.

Thank you for your time. My colleague Leslie Malone, who some of you may know and who is based in P.E.I., is in the room with you. She and l look forward to being a resource to you today and down the road as you tackle this essential issue.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Murrow.

Just so committee members know, Environment Northeast did submit a policy brief and written comments this morning. Unfortunately, we need to have them in both official languages, and they weren't able to be translated in time and circulated. As soon as we have them translated, all committee members will receive the documents.

To continue, we'll have Janet Peace. Could we hear your opening comments, please?

[Dr. Janet Peace, Vice-President, Markets and Business Strategy, Pew Center on Global Climate Change]

Certainly. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.

I'm Janet Peace. I'm vice-president for markets and business strategy at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. For those of you who are not familiar with the Pew Center, we're a non-profit, non-partisan think-tank, if you will, dedicated to climate policy. Our goal is mandatory climate policy in the U.S. and internationally. We work very closely with industry. We work very closely with policy-makers at the federal, state, and international levels. We're funded by the Pew Charitable Trust. We don't take dues from the companies we work with. We are independent in that way.

Let me congratulate you on Bill C-311. It's a very ambitious bill, and I look forward to the day that Canada has a federal climate policy.

I worked in Calgary on climate change for a number of years. I taught at the University of Calgary. And I believe Canada can do this, and that addressing climate change is in Canadians' best interest, as it is globally.

Addressing climate change is essential. The science demands it, industry expects it, the general public is becoming engaged, and policy-makers in the U.S. and globally are considering their options. As has been mentioned before, the U.S. policy agenda has definitely changed. It's changed at the state level. It's changed at the municipal level. Within the last year, as you know, it's changed at the federal level.

You've also heard that we have a bill that's been passed out of the House of Representatives, but I have to say at this stage it would be an understatement to say the U.S. climate policy's in flux. Policy deliberations are ongoing and they seem to change daily at the federal level in Congress, within the administration and its agencies, at the state level, and even at the municipal level. How all these multiple policies will develop and work together is very much still an unknown. Rumours abound, and policy experts everywhere seem to have different takes on possible outcomes.

With that in mind, I'd like to spend the next few minutes giving you my take and that of the organization I represent, our take on U.S. climate policy and where we think this issue stands in light of the upcoming meeting in Copenhagen.

You've heard that clean energy is a signature issue for President Obama, in speech after speech, in appointment after appointment. And as Mr. Tirpak noted, he even committed $80 billion in clean energy programs in the recent stimulus package. But President Obama can't enact climate legislation in isolation; he has to work with Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, to develop policy that all can support and that he can sign into law.

I'm not going to spend much time on HR2454, because Mr. Tirpak and also Mr. Murrow have spent some time on those things. You know the bill covers 85% of the emissions in the economy and it seeks to reduce emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050.

It's important to note that this bill passed June 26 by a very narrow margin, 219 to 212. Passing of the bill marked the first time that a body of the Congress has passed legislation to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but it was close: 44 Democrats voted against the bill and only eight Republicans voted in favour.

Now that the House has passed the bill, the Senate needs to act before the bill can be sent to the President. We at the Pew Center do believe it is possible to get an energy and climate bill that includes cap-and-trade enacted in this Congress, but we have to be realistic about the timing. The Senate debate on energy and climate is absolutely, without question, waiting for a health care debate to be finished here in the U.S., and it looks as if the health care debate could extend into the new year. Even if the Senate passes the health care bill, the bill from the House and the Senate has to be reconciled in a conference committee, and that's not likely to happen until early 2010. We've also heard recently that the Senate intends to take up a financial services modernization bill before it takes up the energy and climate bill, and that would delay a climate bill even more.

That doesn't mean that no one is working on climate legislation in the Senate. The energy and public works committee, chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer, recently passed Bill S. 1733 out of its committee. It's commonly called the Kerry-Boxer bill, but notably, it only had Democratic support.

A number of other Senate committees are also actively considering climate legislation. The agriculture committee and the finance committee will have key components to add. Earlier this year the energy and natural resources committee already produced energy legislation that may be complementary to a climate bill. The commerce committee and the foreign affairs committee also have jurisdiction over relevant topics that could be incorporated in the bill.

In addition to this committee work, I think it's very encouraging that Senator Graham from South Carolina, Senator Kerry, and Senator Lieberman have also begun talking about crafting a bill outside of the environment and public works committee process. They believe this will enable a wider bipartisan group of individuals to participate. In this way they're hoping they can ensure there will be the 60 votes necessary to get this bill passed.

Some of you may have seen the op-ed that Kerry and Graham wrote in The New York Times in which they basically outlined what they thought this bill would look like. Again, it's a market-based carbon regime. They believe it needs nuclear provisions; financial incentives for carbon capture and storage; a compromise on offshore oil and gas leasing; a border tax consistent with WTO obligations for countries without environmental standards; and a carbon-price floor and ceiling.

What happens with this framework? We hope that it will incorporate the work of the other committees and that it becomes a bill in the new year. We think that it will get debated early in the new year. But given the constraints of other congressional priorities and budget timing, action is most likely going to be March or April. If it happens much later than this we'll run into the 2010 mid-term election cycle, which will make congressional action on climate change even more challenging. It's important to note that there are some out there who say that a bill can't happen in 2010 because it's an election year, but every major piece of environmental legislation that's passed in the U.S. Congress, except for the Clean Water Act, passed during an election year. It's important to realize that this is possible. It will be challenging, and it has to happen probably within the first quarter if this is going to get through this Congress.

There are two things that are critical for an energy climate bill to emerge from the Congress. First, because we can't expect every Democratic senator to vote for an energy climate bill, the bill can pass only with a solid number of Republican votes. Right now even Republican senators with years of leadership on climate change have been reluctant to return to the leadership role. That's because the mood in our Congress right now is deeply partisan. That has to change. We'd have to see a number of Republican senators work constructively with the Democrats and the administration to develop and pass a bill. That's why having Senators Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman work together is so important.

Second, and we think this may be the most important, the Obama administration has to advance a fairly detailed vision for what must be in the bill. They need to generally become more involved in the legislative process, much as President Bush Senior did during his administration in the process of enacting the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. The President's vision would have to include solid answers to questions like how will key manufacturing industries not be disadvantaged, and how will low-carbon energy technologies such as CCS, nuclear power, and renewables be advanced in this bill? We can see this happening. There is a window of opportunity, and we are hoping for the first quarter of 2010.

Clearly, what the U.S. Congress does on climate legislation has implications for what happens in the December meeting in Copenhagen. In a perfect world, Congress would pass legislation prior to Copenhagen so that the administration could go into the international conference with a clear and concrete negotiating position. Without a law on the books, the administration will be hard-pressed to commit to binding international targets. But as I mentioned, we don't think there's virtually any chance that legislation will be passed in 2009.

We think it is unlikely that the governments will be able to agree to a fully ratifiable treaty in Copenhagen. Instead, we think that a realistic and positive outcome for Copenhagen is a strong interim agreement setting the stage for a ratifiable treaty in 2010. This interim agreement may well include specific political commitments to action by all major emitting countries, mid-term emission targets or ranges for developed countries, and other types of quantifiable action for the major developing countries. It will also likely include pledges for prompt-start finance for developing countries. We believe that the agreement also must outline the fundamental architecture of a new treaty that once concluded will turn these interim political commitments into legally binding commitments.

Core elements that we think are essential in this interim agreement would be ambitious goals--agreeing to the two degrees Celsius, and a framework for mitigation commitments, clearly defining the nature of the mitigation commitments but recognizing the common but differential responsibilities as a core principle through the UNFCCC. We believe it should have support for developing countries. The interim agreement must broadly establish the mechanisms, the sources, and the levels of support to be provided in a final agreement for adaptation, capacity building, and technology deployment, and we think a sound system of verification is critical. The interim agreement must establish basic terms of measurement, reporting, and verification of countries' mitigation actions, and of support for developing country efforts, as called for in the Bali action plan.

To be clear, the ultimate goal is a ratifiable treaty, but at this stage, a two-step approach seems the most promising way to get there. An interim agreement in December that settles certain legal and design issues would be a huge step forward. Governments could then use 2010 to fill in the details and negotiate specific amendments as part of a ratifiable agreement.

I'm pleased to answer questions, and I'll turn it back over to you. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Dr. Peace.

We'll start off with our opening round of questions.

Mr. Tirpak, you used a term in your presentation: black carbon. Could you just enlighten us a little bit on black carbon? What do you see that as being, and what are the main sources of that pollution?

[Dennis Tirpak]

Black carbon is a soot that is emitted from power plants that are uncontrolled or diesel engines. It has a relatively short lifetime, in that it doesn't stay in the atmosphere for a long period of time. It is generally not considered a gas, so it doesn't fall under the rubric of greenhouse gases.

It is included in the ACES bill. There is a requirement that the administrator of EPA undertake a study of black carbon and the technologies available to control it, and then it authorizes him to issue regulations to control it.

It's important in the Arctic, in that even in small, small quantities, it changes the albedo of the Arctic, so the Arctic is absorbing a little bit more heat. The ice and snow cover is absorbing a little bit more heat due to that soot, if you will. Eliminating that is something that could be done relatively easily in the short term and could delay the influence of warming on the Arctic.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. I really appreciate that clarification.

Mr. McGuinty, you have the first question, and that's seven minutes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to all three witnesses for being here this morning.

I'd like to ask the first question to all three of you quickly, one that I've been asking of every single witness to appear in the context of Bill C-311 and to a certain extent in the pre-Copenhagen phase we're in.

Do any of you have in your possession a plan, a climate change plan, from the Government of Canada that is coherent in its reach, addressing the elements you've all three raised independently? Is there a plan in your possession, and can you share it with the committee?

Mr. Tirpak.

[Dennis Tirpak]

I do not.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Other witnesses?

[Derek Murrow]

No, I do not.

[Dr. Janet Peace]

No, I do not.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you for that.

Can I turn very quickly, Mr. Tirpak, to comments you made about China?

Canadians were astonished to hear their Minister of the Environment in New York about three weeks ago chiding, if not publicly lambasting, the Chinese authorities for, in his view—I forget the exact wording—not going far enough, fast enough, not taking on hard commitments.

You presented here this morning evidence that the Chinese are simply saying “We're not waiting. We're in a race and you're behind us.” Can you help Canadians understand just how fast this race is being run? And where are the Chinese authorities going? If you could keep your comments brief, I'd appreciate it.

[Dennis Tirpak]

I think the Chinese have been reluctant, up until this point, and this may change in Copenhagen, to commit to—the term of art is “commitments”—legally binding commitments. They are, on the other hand, more than willing to commit to actions. So what I was trying to illuminate in my testimony was that China is acting, and it is acting in a number of ways.

Their gasoline prices, for example now, range from about 95¢ to $1.10 per litre, well above the U.S. gasoline prices. The tax on the gas guzzler, the large cars, is something like 40%, well above anything we have in the U.S.

So they are prepared to undertake actions. They would like very much to have technology cooperation with countries in the OECD, but they are moving forward.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you.

All three of the witnesses, Mr. Chair, have given testimony that is actually really disturbing, in the sense that Canada seems to be now so far behind.

Mr. Tirpak, you talked about this bill, and Ms. Peace as well, about this congressional process under way, which is absolutely extensive. It's a bill, as Mr. Murrow put, that is trying to embrace everything, including the design of a cap and trade system, ultimately pricing carbon, and lots of debates.

Ms. Peace, you told us that the agricultural committees, natural resources committee, foreign affairs committee, and other committees in the American Congress are fully engaged in this race.

Can I go back to something you said, though, Mr. Murrow, that is really concerning? You said that if Canada and the United States were going to have a serious integration on an approach to a continental response to climate change, you would put down a couple of conditions. You said, for example, that the caps have to be fixed in absolute terms, similar between countries. You said all gases sectors, fossil fuels, have to be included. There would have to be offset standards for international offsets and credits, something this Conservative government rejects. There has to be a price control mechanism and a similar carbon price.

How is it possible that Canada is going to find its way through the Copenhagen round of negotiations when the United States is so far ahead in terms of the design of a comprehensive response to climate change and we have gone to Copenhagen now with a blank sheet of paper?

We have nothing going on in Canada. None of these elements of this debate are being put forward in the House of Commons. No committees are being engaged, not even this committee, except through Bill C-311 because we extended the debate.

Can I get your reactions, Mr. Tirpak, Mr. Murrow, and Ms. Peace, to the state of the situation in Canada? Mr. Tirpak?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I do ask witnesses to be very brief in their response. Mr. McGuinty has only two minutes left to his time.

[Dennis Tirpak]

I'm an outsider in Canada, and I'm reluctant to pass judgment.

I will say that I have observed that the situation in Canada has been very difficult through multiple governments. I'm not sure I really understand enough to be able to comment on why that has occurred, but there was a period of time when Canada really was a leader. It penetrated in many different ways in terms of the leadership positions that it held in international organizations, the scope of its delegates, and it had members from all the key departments in Canada.

I note now that the delegation in Canada is often limited just to the members from the environment department, that people from the aid ministry are not often involved, and other ministries are not involved. This is just as an outsider, but I have a sense that there is a lack of integration.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Can I just interrupt one second, Mr. Tirpak?

I'll ask Mr. Murrow, if I could, while there's some time left to respond.

[Derek Murrow]

Thank you.

I think it is important to move beyond charters and start talking about the specific policies that could be put in place to achieve the emissions reductions. It would encourage policy-makers to get to that point of thinking through the exact design elements, and you might consider modelling those policies and understanding their impacts on the economy. I think it is important to move to that point quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Your time has expired.

Monsieur Bigras.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses. First of all, I want to reassure them: not all is doom and gloom north of their border, since this afternoon, the House of Commons will vote on a motion asking the government to defend, in light of the Copenhagen Conference, the principles of 2 degrees Celsius and reducing GHG by 25% of the 1990 level, and to provide assistance to developing countries.

I want to thank you for having given us a legislative portrait of the United States. You reminded us that three bills are currently being studied by the House of Representatives or the Senate. I would, however, like to draw your attention to two bills. One includes an import tariff for countries that would fail to meet their commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I think that the Waxman-Markey bill, which passed last June, sets out a tax that could come into force as of 2020. Furthermore, the second bill that was being studied in the Senate establishes a CO₂ import tax in 2012. Is this approach being considered in the United States? Is it serious? Is this a tool that the Americans could use to convince their partners to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?