Some selected excerpts from evidence given to the House of Commons Legislative Committee on Bill C-30 (The Clean Air Act). THis is from Meeting No. 4 of this committee held on Feb. 6, 2007:
Mr. David Boyd, Adjunct Professor, Policy, University of British Columbia:
I want to mention the current government's proposal to use intensity-based targets. Intensity-based targets are inherently a fraudulent approach to climate change. They simply endorse and entrench the status quo, as business is consistently improving the efficiency with which they produce goods and services. The problem with an intensity-based approach is simply that it allows total emissions to continue rising, and total emissions are what we need to keep our eye on. …
When I read through Bill C-30, I see precious little in terms of new tools for addressing climate change. I'm left scratching my head about what it actually adds to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and I'm concerned that, for minimal benefits, the Clean Air Act creates substantial risks.
The majority of experts and economists agree that the most effective and efficient means of addressing the market's failure to internalize greenhouse gas emissions is a carbon tax, a tax on the sale of fossil fuels based on their carbon content. …
Carbon taxes offer numerous advantages. … Carbon taxes are comprehensive. They cover the entire economy. They are widely regarded as the most efficient policy approach. They're transparent. They're administratively simple and they're less likely to cause energy price volatility than a cap and trade system. As well, the revenues generated by a carbon tax could be returned to the public in various ways to ensure the tax is not a new tax but is revenue neutral. Finally, carbon taxes have a proven track record of success in Europe. …
I note that the four top nations (Switzerland, Sweden, Finaldn, and Denmark – ed.) in the World Economic Forum's rankings of economic competitiveness this year have carbon taxes, and all of those nations ranked ahead of Canada on the competitiveness scale.
…Concluding on a couple of brief notes, regarding the provisions of Bill C-30 that deal with the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, that law has been on the books for 25 years and should come immediately into force.
You should also know that in 2010, even if Canadian motor vehicle manufacturers comply with the current voluntary agreement, Canadian fuel efficiency will still lag behind Europe, Japan, Australia, California, and China—yes, China.…Mr. Nathan Cullen:When the government has been asked for their plan for climate change, they've held aloft Bill C-30 as their plan and said, this is the plan. In an international context, what type of credibility would Canada have presenting a plan like Bill C-30 as the initiative that Canada is willing to undertake in the global effort to fight global warming?
Mr. David Boyd:I can give you a short answer to that question, Mr. Cullen. The answer would be zero. Bill C-30, as it currently stands, offers no comfort to anyone in Canada or elsewhere that Canada is going to change course and begin taking this challenge seriously….
….Mr. Nathan Cullen:For Canadians watching this debate and listening to this go back and forth in Parliament, we are amongst the greatest laggards in the world with one of the most difficult targets, and we have in front of us a so-called plan, a bill, that would gain us no international credibility whatsoever. Is that true? Have I summed it up?
Mr. David Boyd:
You've summed it up correctly, and I think this committee…. That's why I made my first point. It was recognizing that it's simply not feasible for Canada to meet that 6% target in such a short amount of time. We have to think of global warming as a marathon, not a sprint. Canada is like someone who has talked about running a marathon for years without ever doing any training. For us to try to run one would inevitably cause severe injury.…..Mr. Brian Jean:I'm wondering, Professor, how would you grade the government's action from 1993 to 2005? What kind of grade would you give them on their adherence to their own finish line plan?
Mr. David Boyd:I'd give them an F. But I'd also like to respond to your question to Mr. Erasmus to clarify that everything you pointed out that the government is able to do on indoor air and bio-monitoring, in terms of reporting on pollution to Canadians, already exists under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as it stands. You don't need Bill C-30 to do that….