Environment Committee on Nov. 24th, 2009

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

So are you saying, Mr. Murrow, that the American process has it wrong?

[Derek Murrow]

I think they've chosen to have a level of detail that makes it very hard to pass a bill. But the political judgment of policy-makers in D.C. is that they need that level of detail to get buy-in from stakeholders.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Does anybody else want to comment on my question?

[Dr. Janet Peace]

I have to agree. I think the level of detail in the bill was essential to get buy-in. At the very last moment 300 pages were added, simply to deal with the issues around agriculture. Having the detail in the U.S. bill, I think the policy-makers who are putting this together feel that is critical to get the votes.

I have to tell you I can't comment on whether or not Canada should go down this route, because, as Mr. Murrow said, there are pros and cons to doing it in this detailed manner.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

That was the précis of my question, but I would like an answer to the question I actually asked.

Given that Canada and the United States have similar economies, the integration of our economies, the integration of the energy sectors, the fact that we share similar climates--although I would argue that Canada is much colder--and taking a look at international competitiveness, would it make any sense for Canada and the U.S. to try having a North American cap-and-trade system? We would get that right, resolved, and make sure our economies and environmental obligations were taken care of before we entered into international agreements or international cap-and-trade systems.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'm going to ask only one of you to respond, since Mr. Calkins' time has expired. Who wants to tackle it?

Mr. Murrow.

[Derek Murrow]

I'd be happy to.

I think it does make sense to move forward with specific programs and targets in both countries. It's a little confusing to compare the U.S. and Canada right now. We have a U.S. bill that has specific targets around the cap-and-trade component, which is a portion of the economy, and then really important additional regulations that get you additional emissions reductions. There's also a significant chunk of money set aside for international avoided deforestation funding, which will achieve as much as an additional 10% reduction.

So I think the U.S. proposal is quite aggressive, and it would be good if the U.S. and Canadian proposals, in terms of their total emissions reductions, were similar and aggressive.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Trudeau, it's your turn.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to follow up on Mr. Calkins' point first of all, and remind everyone here and everyone watching on TV that the only reason we are talking at length about Bill C-311, why we've had as many hearings as we have had, is because the government hasn't provided us with anything to talk about on climate change other than this. We're having to address the entire position of Canada's role in climate change negotiations and our plan for the future around a private member's bill because the government has no plan.

So in our dealing with this, we'd love to be debating the specifics of a detailed plan put forward by the government on climate change, but as we've seen time and time again, there is no plan from the government side. So we make do with what we can, unfortunately.

Now, the one thing that we have heard very often from this government is that we're looking at a continental approach--to try to harmonize, that Canada shouldn't be going at it alone. First of all, that does not recognize the fact that Canada is not similar to the United States in an awful lot of ways. Our economies are very different. Our energy uses are very different. Our production of energy is greatly different. There is very much room for a Canadian approach and not just taking a made-in-U.S. plan.

What concerns me, from our testimony here and our excellent witnesses who are giving us a very appealing look at what is happening in the United States, is that the focus in the United States, in both houses, is very much on their own constituencies. The focus in the U.S. is very much on what the U.S. needs to have happen. So for me, the idea that the U.S. will come up with something that is somehow a good fit for Canada is just completely irresponsible as a position. I very much appreciate your positions, where you've recommended that it would be much easier for Canada to create a plan and the U.S. to create a plan, and then look around the elements of rigorousness, coverage, price controls, as a way of bringing those plans together. I thank you for reminding us of that. And I hope the government here has been paying attention to what you've said about the fact that we cannot simply wait for the U.S., and then make sure that whatever happens could then be imported exactly into Canada. That is irresponsible.

I would like to ask a question, however. In the discussion of what we're doing, on actual movement, targets have come back an awful lot--in international discussions, in our local discussions. How important are targets now, in 2009, and how do they weigh against the need to act immediately, irrespective of targets that we set?

I'd like to hear from each of you on that.

[Dennis Tirpak]

I think targets have an important value as you approach a meeting like this, and in fact to some extent Copenhagen can be deemed a success already, in that it has stimulated a great deal of discussion among other countries as to what their targets should be. I have a document that talks about the pledges. I can make it available to the clerk. It was done about two months ago and lays out the different targets. But you know, in the last week we've heard a target come up by Korea, by Brazil. Russia has changed its target. So it has stimulated a lot of discussion within many governments.

That being said, a target without domestic legislation to go along with it is relatively meaningless, as we've seen from experience. So I think to have credibility it has ultimately to be backed up by some legal form in individual countries.

[Dr. Janet Peace]

I think targets are very important for a number of reasons. Clearly, they focus the discussion, but in even a broader sense, I think long-term targets give folks the certainty that the policy will continue. If you're investing in electricity generation, you want to have that long-term certainty that if you put in your money today, it's going to be worthwhile in the longer term. So long-term targets are critical and they do matter.

That said, short-term targets are what deliver your actual program. You need to know that in 2012 you're taking action, in 2015 you're taking action, and in 2020. I think it's the targets--the interim and the long-term--and verification that you're actually meeting the targets that are really critical.

As Mr. Tirpak noted, if you have targets and no policy, it's not much good. I would add, if you don't have targets, policy, and verification, again, it's not much good. You need to have all three.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

I would ask that this document that Mr. Tirpak mentioned be given to the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay, Mr. Trudeau, we'll make sure that it gets circulated.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Watson, the floor is yours.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, of course, to our witnesses, as we continue our discussion of Bill C-311, an NDP private member's bill.

Mr. Tirpak, thank you for your comment that a target without domestic legislation means nothing. Of course, Bill C-311 proposes a target but no specific pathway. It doesn't propose legislation. So I think we can conclude safely that Bill C-311 ultimately means nothing. I'll leave that as my comment on the record. But I do want to get to the question.

Ms. Peace, I think you and Mr. Murrow were talking about the need to have comparable rigour between Canadian and U.S. systems. I presume there are a number of factors that play into driving the rigour of a system. Would the rigour of a target be one of those determining factors in the relative rigour as well? Could you comment on that?

[Derek Murrow]

Yes, it would be.

[Dr. Janet Peace]

And I completely agree.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Tirpak, I don't know if you want to respond.

[Dennis Tirpak]

Certainly that is one element. I think there are many other elements that go into that consideration.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Regarding the ACES target of 17% below 2005 and the Senate proposal of 20% below 2005, can anybody translate what that would mean in a 1990 baseline for us to compare? The government's 20% below 2006 translates roughly, I think, into a minus 3% in terms of 1990, and Bill C-311 being a minus 25% over 1990.

Does anybody know what the minus 17% and minus 20% over 2005 translate into in a 1990 baseline year?

[Derek Murrow]

I would actually refer to World Resources Institute's analysis, which includes both emissions reductions from within the cap and the additional sectors covered in the international emissions reductions, but I believe their estimates are that in 2020 the emissions reduction would be 16% to 22% below 1990 levels under ACES.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Sorry. Let me clarify that again so I understand. Both the capped minus 17% plus additional measures that are non-capped translate into 16% to 22% below. Is that correct? Is that what I am to understand from your answer?

[Derek Murrow]

Yes, that is my understanding.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay. What does the cap portion translate into?