Natural Resources Committee on April 26th, 2018

[Dr. David Layzell]

One thing I can say in terms of the cost is that there are already considerable resources being spent now within the government to collect data. Some of that could actually be aligned better, I would argue, because you have different departments, and obviously we need to be looking at how we work with groups outside of the government.

In some of the discussions in meetings we've been in within the last two years, I think there have been numbers in the range of probably $10 million a year in overall costs, with a long-term commitment. That's a number that I've heard bounced around, but again, I think we might be able to reallocate some of that from existing departments that are already contributing in this area, just to make sure we get more bang for the buck on that.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Right, and as you mentioned, almost all of the provinces already do this.

[Dr. David Layzell]

Well, not the provinces so much. This is mostly federal. The provinces do collect some information and they're feeding it in, but Statistics Canada has significant investments that they're doing already in collecting energy data. You have Transport Canada, Agriculture Canada, and Natural Resources Canada all involved. It's about trying to get these groups to coordinate together to avoid duplication, to rationalize when they're collecting similar information that relates to one another, and then trying to get more data and trying to find a way of actually making that data clearer and more transparent.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Yes, I think that what we heard in previous testimony is what you two are talking about: clearer data. You see, my preference now would be to see an existing organization, like Stats Canada perhaps, taking the lead, rather than creating a whole new department with new offices and all this other stuff. I think that's a way better use of taxpayer dollars.

[Dr. David Layzell]

I'm open to different models. Ultimately, I'm interested in the product. I think there's a role for inside and outside organizations, but ultimately the question is, how do you bring it together to make sure you have a coordinated overall response?

It was about 45 years ago or so, in the 1973 oil crisis, that the United States set up its Energy Information Administration. That was the driver. Canada didn't do it at that time. It was an energy security driver at that time. That organization does have a mandate and the authority to go out and collect energy data and make it available publicly. They create a pretty high.... It's something that we could emulate here. That is certainly a government organization.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Right.

[Dr. David Layzell]

Working out the details with other organizations that are playing a very valuable role is critical, so I could easily see the main house being within government, while supporting other organizations to help in delivering the most efficient and effective product.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

David, in your testimony, you talked about how we failed in our Kyoto targets and then in Copenhagen, but we still have time, apparently, to meet Paris targets. There are many reports that show that we are not on track to meet Paris—that is becoming abundantly clear—unless you shut down major portions of our economy, including agriculture, transportation, and energy.

An article from the National Post, on April 21, 2017, states, “Government data show overall emissions have gone down slightly, overall—from 727 megatonnes in 2014 to 722 megatonnes in 2015.” That was done without a carbon tax.

Having said that—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

It was before the last election.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

It was before the last election—exactly—when we were told that we didn't have an environment plan, which we did: technology innovation and strategic investment.

However, what other data are you looking for that will, knowing the fact that we know we can't make our Paris targets without shutting down major sectors of our economy—

[Dr. David Layzell]

We would actually disagree with that and say that we could meet our Paris targets and actually stimulate parts of our economy. I think there are opportunities, but it's really about defining and looking at systems change with a broader perspective.

If all you have is tunnel vision on greenhouse gas emissions and if the only thing you're trying to change about our energy systems is our greenhouse gas emissions, then I would agree. I would say that it's like putting lipstick on a pig. You're not going to.... We have a real serious problem with some of our energy systems, so when we actually look at systems change, we should maybe step back—

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Do you mean energy systems provincially?

[Dr. David Layzell]

Energy systems in Canada—

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

You're saying the whole resource system is where we have a problem—

[Dr. David Layzell]

I'm talking about our energy systems as our transportation system—our mobility system, for example.

What we're saying is that what this is about is directing disruption. We live in a world of major disruptive change. Look at the last 20 years and the huge impacts on our retail sector, our telecommunications sector, on the movies, the books, etc. Those kinds of disruptive forces are now starting to impact our energy supply-and-demand systems.

For example, in transportation, we have autonomous vehicles and vehicle sharing. We have electric vehicles coming in. We have electric trucks: an autonomous trucking sector. We have huge innovations around the possibility of a physical Internet.

Those kinds of disruptive changes would actually reduce the cost of delivering energy services in a major way. They would stimulate the economy and would put a lot of money into our economy, but most of those disruptive changes are not focused on greenhouse gas emission reductions. They're focused on systems changes.

I would argue that the challenge for our governments, provincially and federally, is to look at how they can direct those disruptions to meet societal goals, which include greenhouse gas emission reductions.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

[Dr. David Layzell]

It also might include reducing accidents, reducing the health care costs of our transportation system, helping in urban redesign, and reducing the cost of personal mobility to the average Canadian family, but that is about—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Layzell, I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

What about Ted?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Yes, what about Ted?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

The reason we're stopping, Mr. Schmale, is that he wants to have a discussion with you about sharing.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Gentlemen, thanks to both of you for joining us today. We apologize for starting late. Thank you for being patient.

The meeting is adjourned.