Evidence of meeting #131 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 ipcc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Director General, Carbon Pricing Bureau, Department of the Environment
I'm sorry, but just to clarify, you're talking just about the total amount. That's the amount that...all direct proceeds are returned, as we were referencing in the last session.
4:45 p.m.
Director General, Carbon Pricing Bureau, Department of the Environment
I want to clarify that the amounts we have online give estimates of how much is generated, estimated to be generated and returned, because all direct proceeds will be returned.
4:45 p.m.
Director General, Carbon Pricing Bureau, Department of the Environment
I can't speak to that component. That's a Finance or CRA question, but the direct proceeds from it will be returned.
4:45 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Thank you.
I just have a comment on the first part of Mr. Lake's questioning related to forests. The next study we're getting into is on forests, agriculture and waste. That will be starting two weeks from today, so we may see some of you again. Also, you've given us some suggestions for other potential witnesses to come and talk to us on some of the topics that raises.
Mr. Bossio, over to you.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you, Chair, and thank you all so much for being here again. It's always great to have your testimony. It's very informative and precise.
I want to pick up from where Mr. Lake was on forests. Is it not the case that climate change is exacerbating the problem around forest fires themselves? Correct?
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Pan-Canadian Framework Implementation Office, Department of the Environment
Certainly. Picking up on past questions about past models and what they are showing, one test for the accuracy and usefulness of models is to look at what they predicted a long time ago and see what has come to pass.
If you look at the national impact assessment from 10 years ago—I think that was the study that was done by NRCan—if you run through the list of things they predicted, you can see the very clear examples, one of which is an increased incidence of forest fires, as one would expect, coupled with an increased incidence of prolonged periods of heat and drought, and inconsistent precipitation.
November 8th, 2018 / 4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
And insects and bugs that will kill the trees as well, as we see with the mountain pine beetle. It's not killed off in the winters because the winters are no longer as cold as they once were.
There is an NRCan document I was able to find that talks about human activities around managed forests and the removal of 20 tonnes of CO2, but then the natural disturbance accounted for emissions of 98 tonnes and therefore an increase of 78 tonnes. Canada has 347 million hectares of forests, almost 900 million acres. Each hectare will absorb six tonnes of CO2, but every year millions of trees die. They admit that.
I think forests have never really been accounted for in the numbers because they both absorb it and then release it at the same time, so it's kind of a wash at the end of the day.
Would you agree with that statement?
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Pan-Canadian Framework Implementation Office, Department of the Environment
Do you want to fill in?
4:50 p.m.
Senior Scientist, Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment
It is the case that an undisturbed natural forest does achieve a balance in which the carbon that is taken up by photosynthesis is returned through the mortality of the trees. It's the difference that is relevant to the net budget in the atmosphere.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
On the climate modelling side, Mr. Flato, when is the last time in history we saw temperatures increase this rapidly, accelerating in this manner?
4:50 p.m.
Senior Scientist, Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment
At least over what we call the Holocene, the warm period since the last ice age, the warming we see now is unprecedented. You would have to go back to previous warm intervals and ask whether this rate of warming was as large then as it is now. Unfortunately, the information we have about the detailed timing of temperature increases in these previous epochs, 100,000 or 200,000 years ago, is inferred from paleo records that don't allow for that kind of timing, but it is the case that the rate of warming we see now and over the last several decades is unprecedented over the Holocene period.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
In a sense, that's why you are able to say that it's human caused. Are there other reasons why you're able to say unequivocally, as you say, that it is caused by humans?
4:50 p.m.
Senior Scientist, Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment
The unequivocal statement is actually that the temperature is increasing. The planet has warmed. That's unequivocal because that's an observational fact.
The attribution to human cause is a slightly more complex thing, and that involves the combination of observations we have and the models we have that allow us to dive into the reason for the change and to ask, “For the emissions we have observed in the past and the changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases we have also observed, do the models produce a temperature response that is like the temperature response that we observe?” If the answer to that question is yes, then we can attribute the change in temperature to human activities; and that is the case. The statement there is that, with very high confidence, the warming we've seen over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
You're now in a leadership role in this fight, on the modelling side, being a vice-chair in the IPCC. Many times you hear the statement, “Oh, Canada is so small. We have such a small footprint, and we're such a small player in the world. It really doesn't matter what we do because we're not in a leadership position anyway.” I've never felt that. I have always felt that Canada has punched above its weight.
Are there indications that Canada, through its leadership and what we're doing now, the work we're doing in the IPCC.... I know we're talking a lot about a price on pollution, but in terms of the overall measures we're taking in a multitude of different areas, is that playing a leadership role? Are you seeing indications of that?
4:55 p.m.
Senior Scientist, Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment
I guess I would just have to reiterate what I said before. In terms of climate science, I think it would be demonstrably true that we play a leadership role and that the climate science that is done in Canada is very highly regarded. That's probably as far as I could go, from a scientific perspective.
4:55 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Pan-Canadian Framework Implementation Office, Department of the Environment
Yes, I think there are many spheres of the complex issue of climate change, and Canada is attempting to play a leadership role in each of those. Step one is to pull your weight in terms of reducing emissions, which I feel we are doing, and that's being recognized. The others are to contribute to international processes, which we're doing, and contribute to the efforts of other countries; and you've heard presentations at this committee on climate finance and other things. So we've certainly been engaged internationally, and we're doing our homework at home.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Mr. Jones, earlier you mentioned coal phase-outs and things like that. The previous government had a coal phase-out plan. It had a little bit longer time horizon than the 2030 that has been set by the government.
Many of these coal facilities were actually naturally just going to shut down. The end of their lifespan, for the majority of them, I believe was in the 2020s.
How significant is the difference between the current government's coal phase-out policy and the previous government's policy in terms of megatonnes, a ballpark figure? Is there a significant difference between the two policies? Can you comment on that?
4:55 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Pan-Canadian Framework Implementation Office, Department of the Environment
I would have to come back to you on that. My colleagues John Moffet and Helen Ryan, who have testified before this committee many times, are responsible for the coal reg, and there is a regulatory impact assessment statement attached to our regulations that spells out a rather complete and rigorous analysis of the impacts of those regulations.
The two exist online. The RIAS, as it's known—regulatory impact assessment statement—for the previous regulation and the new one are both available online. I haven't gone through those for the sake of cross-comparison, but certainly we are seeing more emission reductions and sooner.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative