Evidence of meeting #110 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was risk.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Professor Pardy, I have a couple of quotes that are attributed to you here. I quote, “there is no rationale for Canada to have any emissions reductions targets of any kind.” Here is another quote: “Anthropogenic climate change theory is like a zombie. It won't die no matter the evidence.” Are those your quotes?
Professor of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
I don't recall the second one, but the first one is definitely so, yes.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Do you believe that climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions from human activities?
Professor of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
I'm not a scientist, sir. I'm a lawyer.
Professor of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
I am not here to debate science—
Professor of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
—or the scientific—
Hold on. Let me—
Professor of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
Okay, that's fair enough.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
My next question was whether or not you had any academic training in climatology or environmental science. You answered that question.
Gratefully, we have many experts here, so I'll go over to Dr. Ellen Quigley.
Dr. Ellen Quigley, do you believe that climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions from human activities?
Research Professor, University of Cambridge, As an Individual
It's not a belief; it's an established scientific fact.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thank you very much. I agree with that, and I appreciate that.
We have a lot of work to do in Canada, as you very rightly pointed out.
Dr. Quigley, do you believe that greenhouse gas emissions should be measured by flag, per capita or by GDP when we're looking at how a country is performing in terms of their emissions reductions targets?
Research Professor, University of Cambridge, As an Individual
That was exactly my thought when I heard about China. Our per capita emissions are significantly higher than China's, and that is a source of reputational harm to Canada as a country that is otherwise respected.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thank you for that.
Could you point to the reasons that Canada tends to have the highest per capita emissions in the world?
Research Professor, University of Cambridge, As an Individual
It's in expansion mode when all of the other wealthy countries are expanding to nowhere near the same degree as we are. The main source of growing emissions for us comes from expanding oil and gas. Even though many other countries are, of course, still extracting, the growth is nowhere near the levels we're experiencing.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thank you, Dr. Quigley.
I recently read that the most recent year on record with respect to the production of natural gas in Canada was a record year for its production, yet witnesses on this committee and others have pointed to an inability of Canada to extract things like natural gas.
Do you feel that Canada has an inability to extract things like natural gas from our natural resources economy?
Research Professor, University of Cambridge, As an Individual
No. Clearly, Canada is very good at that, but I will just point out that the methane emissions associated with natural gas need to be incorporated into our analyses. They can be worse than coal, depending on the level of leakage of methane, which is an extremely potent greenhouse gas.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Indeed it is. I remember that from grade 9 science.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, with the remaining time I have available here, I would like to table a motion, if I could. Is that all right? Do I have enough time?
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Okay, great. Maybe I'll have a little bit of time towards the end.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer published a short update under “additional analyses” on the PBO's website on the day after the 2024 federal budget. That was April 17, 2024. It relates to their often-cited report, “A distributional analysis of federal carbon pricing under A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy”.
PBO staff discovered that both the fuel charge and the OBPS—the output-based pricing system—had been removed in the counterfactual scenario. Consequently, estimates of household net costs incorporated fiscal and economic impacts. That was published in their March 2022 and 2023 reports. They reflect the broader economic impact of federal-equivalent carbon pricing.
In essence, it seems that the PBO may have inadvertently exaggerated the impact that carbon pricing would have on household budgets. Despite that, their report still indicated that at least eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back with the Canada carbon rebate than the price on pollution costs.
I move:
that the committee invite the Parliamentary Budget Officer for one hour to discuss his recent findings in his report and how he plans to correct the record in his fall report.
Liberal
