Natural Resources Committee on May 24th, 2018

[Patrick DeRochie]

We need to have an overarching framework in which we see how they interplay and how they get down to zero.

I think in the future, when we look 10 or 20 years down the road, we'll see we're going to run into intersectoral, interprovincial disputes. If I'm one province that is doing a good job of reducing emissions and meeting my climate targets, while another province is allowing certain industries to grow and blow through those targets, it becomes this issue of interprovincial and intersectoral equity, where one industry or sector is pulling its weight and doing more, while the other is being let off the hook and not achieving Canada's objectives because of it.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

And good data...?

Ms. Péloffy.

[Karine Péloffy]

I agree with what's been said before. I would also add an emphasis on land use emissions. We can just ask what the Americans are doing, and copy it across.

I'm not sure it's a data indicator, and to an extent it already exists, but it's that concept of the social cost of carbon that is being used in regulatory impact analysis for regulatory action to mitigate climate change. I think this tool should be perfected, but it should be used way more across the board. I feel like the conversation is often one about “Oh, my God. Doing something for the climate is going to be way too expensive.” Maybe it's flipping the conversation and saying, “Doing nothing for the climate is going to be very expensive.”

I think that's very important, that tool. Because climate change is so intangible and no one can see a tonne of greenhouse gases, it's difficult for people to understand the difficulties we're in. We're in a capitalist system. We understand money. Putting a dollar sign on the costs associated with climate change would go a long way to having more informed decision-making. Actually, we could do an economic analysis that doesn't just look at however many jobs we're losing and GDP, but also looks at what we're losing on the other side.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

I've asked this question of others who have appeared before us. It's about our capacity for analysis of the data. Let's assume that in a future state we have this wonderful ability to have coordinated data, with the right data being collected at the national level in collaboration with other jurisdictions.

What is your view of the need for the analysis of the model? Just give me a perspective. Do we have it? Are we short...?

[Patrick DeRochie]

I would just say that I would commend the government for the investments they've made in budget 2018 in firming up scientific data and capacity, not only in greenhouse gas emissions but also across water, fisheries, and the Environmental Assessment Agency. There was a billion-dollar investment made. We would like to see that secured and extended in order to have that scientific economic modelling and data capacity.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Ms. Péloffy.

[Karine Péloffy]

Yes, I think we definitely need to increase our capacity for analysis and to also include analysis of the political economy. I work more in the context of environmental assessments, and when I compare what we produce in Canada to what's being produced in the U.S., I am ashamed. The level and depth of analysis is much greater in the U.S., even if I don't agree with them on a whole lot of other things.

When I look at the upstream analysis of greenhouse gases for the Trans Mountain pipeline, let's say, I see a number that's plucked out of context. We don't know why, or how, or what the analysis is of what's behind it. I think that could be way more robust, but also, to be quite clement, we are dealing with the world's most complex problem. There are best practices, but no one has hit the money pot of having it perfect. We can actually lead the world in this field.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Speaking of best practices, give us one or two. We're not perfect. What do we look to?

[Karine Péloffy]

In the U.S., there was one specific assessment in the context of the Colorado roadless rule. It was about a mine. There were court cases around it. The court rejected the initial assessment. The second assessment that was done included the social cost of carbon in it and was a much more robust and very detailed analysis. When they look at jobs, they don't just say there are 15 jobs for two years. They actually look at the long-term effect of those jobs and whether people in the area would have other jobs.

That assessment was way more detailed than what we can do.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much, both of you, for joining us this morning. It was very helpful for the work we're doing on this study.

We will adjourn for the day and see everybody on Tuesday.