Evidence of meeting #129 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was change.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses. I really like the conversation we're having today.
One of the things I've always found in moving agendas forward for the betterment of Canadians is that we have to try to focus on finding that common ground. All too often, we get lost in our political debates and can't find our way to even have a conversation about something.
Chris, I really found your comments about carbon pricing refreshing. The fact that you're obviously a huge advocate for carbon pricing...and I'm using your language there. Back in my riding, my constituents would probably almost universally use “carbon tax”. You're a big advocate, but you say that it needs to be better explained and should be vigorously debated. I think that's what is critical here.
We've had a conversation as a committee about the possibility of having a six-meeting study on carbon pricing specifically, because it's obviously the pillar of the framework. I do think that Canadians need to have a better understanding—from both sides—about where both sides are coming from. What do you think about that idea?
5:20 p.m.
Prof. Christopher Ragan
To have six meetings all on carbon pricing...? It sounds like a blast.
5:20 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5:20 p.m.
Prof. Christopher Ragan
I'm all in favour.
Whether or not you invite me, I'm all in favour.
I think it is a really important issue, but it's not just in this room that we need to be talking about carbon pricing and other policies. It's out there.
5:20 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
We are the environment committee and representative of Canadians, and—
5:20 p.m.
Prof. Christopher Ragan
Fair enough. We do what we can.
5:20 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
—it seems like this would be a place to do that.
Catherine, you talked about expecting leaders to have something to say about climate action. Of course, prior to the last election campaign, I think parties came out with different.... Obviously government has a position, but for the opposition parties, I believe the Liberals came out with their plan in terms of their position a few weeks or maybe a month or so before the election. I think that's a very good point, though. We're going to be coming out with our plan in a short while, and we'll be able to have a conversation about that and compare notes.
One of the things you said that really struck me was that we need to do what we say we're going to do. To me, that is absolutely critical. Too often, not just on climate but on international development and other things, we're not able to accomplish what we say we're going to do.
One point that I would maybe take issue with is that you said we need to do things that are not subject to the vagaries of the election cycle. The challenge we have is that we live in a democracy, and if we take action that the public doesn't support, that action isn't going to be sustainable. What my constituents would say right now is that we're running $20 billion in deficit. Every year, we're spending $20 billion, and we're not in a global economic meltdown like we were in 2010. There's no reason for us to be going down that road. What that's going to do is handcuff our ability to spend money on the things that are really important to Canadians moving forward.
Coming back to the need to do what we say we're going to do, we heard from the Pembina Institute that we're 66 megatonnes—I think that's what they said—behind our Paris Agreement target in terms of the track that we're on right now. We heard from Greenpeace that we're even further behind than that.
I imagine that Chris, Catherine and maybe Dominique can weigh in on this, and you, Michael, if you want to. Right now, given the track we're on, how far behind are we?
Maybe we can start with Catherine.
5:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Climate Action Network Canada
On the latest numbers we have, I can say with confidence that it's 66 million tonnes behind our 2030 targets. The fact that the Ontario premier has decided to end all climate action in that province puts us further behind. I don't know what those numbers are yet.
When I say that it is necessary that climate action not be subject to the vagaries of election cycles, I don't mean that climate action should not be an issue that is debated in a democratic system. I think that debate is really necessary. What I mean is that we currently find ourselves in a situation where we are one of the few countries in the world, actually, where climate action remains a partisan issue.
My family are card-carrying Conservative voters. They care about climate change, but they don't often get to hear from the folks they elect who represent them what plans are being laid to take action on climate change. We can disagree on tactics, but we cannot disagree on the necessity of action.
5:20 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
Yet the interesting thing, as you've mentioned, about the Ontario election—we've seen it in other parts of the country as well—is that Canadian voters are obviously taking some issue with jurisdictions that have a carbon tax right now. This is why I think there's an important conversation that needs to happen as we head towards a federal election.
I do want hear in terms of the targets what other witnesses might have to say about what track we're on right now.
5:25 p.m.
Director, Agriculture and Environment, Programs and Partnerships, International Development Research Centre
Thanks.
I can speak to what IDRC does, which is really focused on the developing world. On the resilience space, I'd have to defer to Environment Canada for progress in terms of the targets domestically.
5:25 p.m.
Prof. Christopher Ragan
I think that to actually pose the question as “how far behind we are” in achieving the targets.... With due respect, I think it's the wrong question.
5:25 p.m.
Prof. Christopher Ragan
Thank you.
The reason why I think it's the wrong question is that while I understand the need for any government to set a target and then try to achieve it, we can have a lot of debate about what the targets should be. What we really can't have a debate about is the need to reduce emissions.
To me, it doesn't matter much whether we're 5% off the target or 15% or five years behind. Where we are is that we need to start. We need to start in a very serious way and move forward by reducing emissions. You can debate—
5:25 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
Where are we, though? I do want to know where we are relative to the targets.
5:25 p.m.
Prof. Christopher Ragan
I will defer....
5:25 p.m.
Prof. Christopher Ragan
I am not an expert on the number of tonnes we have to go, basically because that's not our focus. Our focus is that every government in this country—every government, provincial and federal—has indicated a desire to reduce emissions. Our starting point is that if you would like to reduce emissions, we can now bring our expertise to bear about the best way, the best economic way, to reduce those emissions.
You need to start. You put a policy in place and you move forward, and then you can continue debating about where we actually have to be. Frankly, there's not much debate about the need to reduce emissions. The debate is whether we need to reduce by 50% or 60% by 2040 or 2050? When you're in 2018, I'm worrying less about that precise debate and more the need to get going with good policy.
5:25 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
I'm going to jump in there and move to our final questioner for the afternoon.
Julie.
November 1st, 2018 / 5:25 p.m.
Julie Dzerowicz Davenport, Lib.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for being here, all four of you. I also have a lot of questions. I'll try to ask them very quickly.
I want to say that I very much appreciate the honesty in terms of the things we're doing well, the things we need to improve on and the things we need to do better and focus on. I really appreciate the very clear message you're sending, which is to move forward on the plan.
I think a couple of you have made the comment about how the price on pollution is just one part of it. We have a pan-Canadian framework. A lot of other elements are part of our getting to where we want to get to, which is achieving our Paris target and actually reducing our pollution.
With that, Mr. Ragan, you mentioned that we have to do a much better job of communicating. We all agree on that. I was on Portuguese TV the other week trying to explain this. It was not an easy thing for me to do. Who does it well?
5:25 p.m.
Prof. Christopher Ragan
I would be the wrong person, for sure.
5:25 p.m.
Davenport, Lib.
Okay. I'm not saying you would.... We know that other countries—
5:25 p.m.
Prof. Christopher Ragan
Rona Ambrose speaks Portuguese.