Environment committee  I can't say off the top of my head, but I think if there were concerns, the Cement Association would have raised this over several years of discussion. Keep in mind that the efforts to phase out coal started many years ago. The initial regulation dates back several years. This has not come up from the Cement Association to date, to my knowledge.

Environment committee  We could probably get back to you with additional details, but in our consultations with the Cement Association, this is not something that has come up. I have a university friend who works for the Cement Association. We have lots of discussions about the industry and environmental impacts and their efforts to improve their environmental performance.

Environment committee  I think one of the most useful aspects of the new IPCC report is that it paints a clearer image of the impacts associated with 1.5°C versus 2°C. For many years, we have been trying to avoid 2°C, and while we were very aware that there were plenty of climate change impacts at 2°C, I think it was chosen as a rough benchmark for a point beyond which the risks of much more significant, even catastrophic, impacts were much more probable.

Environment committee  Hi. I'm Matt Jones. I'm an assistant deputy minister at Environment and Climate Change Canada and responsible for climate policy.

Natural Resources committee  Maybe just very quickly, to wrap up on this point, the idea is to create the incentives or the requirements to move towards more efficient and lower emissions options and in so doing, there are cost savings associated with that. There's also the opportunity to create the solutions that can be exported around the world because the need to reduce emissions doesn't just exist in Canada; it exists elsewhere.

Natural Resources committee  Maybe I can go very quickly and then turn to Judy. Thus far, that trend is only pointed in one direction and with some momentum. Certainly putting a price on carbon pollution is an efficient tool. People see the advantages of applying that tool and given the scope of emission reductions that are needed globally, it's hard to envision achieving deep reductions without using all the tools available to us, including putting a price on pollution.

Natural Resources committee  This kind of comes back to the big picture of the impacts of climate change, the challenge in front of us. I think that, from the federal perspective, we have our target, but we're very much aware that it is a step and that it's not the only step in terms of reducing emissions.

Natural Resources committee  I'll say a few quick words and then turn to the real experts to my right.

Natural Resources committee  I mentioned it, yes. I did want to emphasize its importance, and I think it's also worth noting that there are international comparisons that are helpful in this regard. For example, I know that a number of Scandinavian countries with similar climates consume less energy per square foot.

Natural Resources committee  I'll just add, very quickly, that I agree that the building stock is particularly important. Certainly, the code is related to new buildings. Given the long-lived potential of all the buildings once constructed, applying the logic of “when you're in a hole, step one is to stop digging,” we can start building buildings that are much more energy efficient.

Natural Resources committee  Yes. Thank you, and good morning. I'm happy to be here to talk about the role of energy efficient measures in the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. As you know, the framework is our national plan and is intended to make Canada more resilient to the impacts of climate change while allowing us to reach our emissions reduction target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.

Environment committee  Yes, absolutely. The European countries I think have universally met their Kyoto targets and other targets in the past, and have had trading as a key tool to get them there. That's one example, but there are others.

Environment committee  I would have to look back at the policies of other countries, but no, I can't think of one off the top of my head.

Environment committee  I mean, every country is unique, so different countries have different distributions of emissions in terms of where their emissions come from—some very focused on electricity, others more on transportation, others more on industrial, and so on. As a broad principle, however, because pricing of pollution is a very efficient tool that allows you to achieve emission reductions across the country, across the economy, generally speaking it's difficult to envision a comprehensive approach to reducing emissions that doesn't include it.

Environment committee  I have maybe just a couple of quick ones. I see that the yellow flag is up. In terms of the various dollar figures bandied about, I would emphasize that those are the kinds of things that people have flagged as illustrative if you wanted to achieve the entirety of the targets.