>> Steve: CARBON PRICING AND EMISSIONS TARGETS AREN'T EXACTLY THE STUFF OF ELOQUENT STUMP SPEECHES. STILL, THIS PAST YEAR'S MANY CLIMATE EVENTS MADE CRYSTAL CLEAR, A PLAN TO DEAL WITH CLIMATE CHANGE IS NO LONGER OPTIONAL. WITH US TO COMPARE WHAT THE PARTIES HAVE ON OFFER, WE WELCOME: IN VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA: MARK JACCARD, PROFESSOR OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, AND DIRECTOR OF THE SCHOOL OF RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AT SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY; IN CALGARY, ALBERTA: CHARLES DeLAND, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, AT THE C.D. HOWE INSTITUTE; IN BROOKLIN, ONTARIO, NEAR OSHAWA: SARAH PETREVAN, POLICY DIRECTOR, CLEAN ENERGY CANADA; AND IN THE PROVINCIAL CAPITAL: ADAM RADWANSKI, COLUMNIST AND FEATURE WRITER WITH THE GLOBE AND MAIL. WHO LOOKS LIKE HE NEEDS A SHAVE. ANYWAY, ADAM, IT'S GREAT TO HAVE YOU BACK ON THE PROGRAM. SARAH, YOU TOO. MARK AS WELL. CHARLES AT THE SAME TIME. WELCOME, EVERYBODY. SARAH, LET'S START WITH THIS. AS RELATED TO CLIMATE CHANGE, WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS YEAR'S CAMPAIGN COMPARED TO 2019? >> Sarah Petrevan: 2019 WAS THE CLIMATE ELECTION. WE LEARNED IN 2019 THAT THERE IS NO PATH TO POWER IN THIS COUNTRY WITHOUT HAVING A CREDIBLE CLIMATE PLAN. SO 2021 IS ALL ABOUT RAISING THE STAKES. YOU NEED TO HAVE NOT ONLY A CREDIBLE PLAN BUT A REASONABLE PATH TO GET THERE, REASONABLE PATH TO ACHIEVE IT. I REALLY LIKE WHAT CLIMATE SCIENTIST CATHERINE HEYHOE SAID. THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT AN ELECTION THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE AN IMPACT ON CLIMATE. >> Steve: DO YOU THINK THAT'S TRUE? THAT IN FACT THE CANDIDATES ALL KNOW THAT THERE CAN BE NO SUCH THING AS A CLIMATE-FREE ELECTION? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> Steve: THEY DO. WE COULD DROWN IN NUMBERS SO I'M GOING TO TRY NOT TO DO THAT BUT ALL FOUR MAJOR PARTIES ARE PROMISING TO CUT EMISSIONS BY CERTAIN PERCENT BELIEVING'S. I'LL ASK OUR DIRECT SHELDON OSMOND TO PUT THE NUMBERS UP. THE LIBERALS SAY THEY CAN DO 40%, THE CONSERVATIVES 30%, THE GREENS 60%, THE NDP 50%. SO LET'S GO AROUND ON THIS ONE. ADAM, TO YOU FIRST. HOW REALISTICALLY ACHIEVABLE DO YOU THINK THESE FOUR NUMBERS ARE? >> Adam Petrevan: I THINK THEY'RE ALL A STRETCH FOR DIFFERENT REASONS. I MEAN, I THINK CANADA MAY BE REASONABLY ON PACE TO GET TO THE 30% THAT WAS GOVERNMENT POLICY UNTIL QUITE RECENTLY. THE 40% THE LIBERALS ARE PLEDGING TO UP IT TO MAY BE A BIT OF A STRETCH WITH CURRENT POLICIES. I THINK THE CONSERVATIVES WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME REACHING THE 30% WHICH THEY HAVE COMMITTED TO DESPITE GOVERNMENT POLICY MAYBE GETTING US THERE, LARGELY BECAUSE, AND WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THIS, BUT LARGELY BECAUSE THEY'RE PLANNING TO DRAMATICALLY SCALE DOWN THE CARBON PRICE. THOSE ARE CHALLENGING. THE OTHER PARTIES, IT WOULD TAKE AN AWFUL LOT TO GET TO 50 OR 60%. I THINK IT'S GOOD THAT PARTIES ON THE LEFT AND IN THE GREENS' CASE THAT FRANKLY ISN'T CLOSER TO GOVERNMENT IS PUSHING HARDER TO RAISE THE LEVEL OF AMBITION. >> Steve: MARK, BASED ON WHAT YOU SEE ON THE PARTY PLATFORMS, HOW MUCH OF THAT IS ACHIEVABLE? -- CHARLES. >> Charles DeLand: I LOOK AT IT FROM SOMEONE WHO MODELS THE ALL OF THEM ARE ACHIEVABLE, EVEN 100% BY NEXT YEAR IS ACHIEVABLE. WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN, THOUGH, BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS LONG HISTORY OF I CALL IT CLIMATE INSINCERITY WHERE GOVERNMENT OR POLITICIANS PUT OUT TARGETS AND THEN WHEN THEY GET IN POWER SOMETIMES THEY'RE EVEN PARALYSED BY THE TARGET BECAUSE THEY REALIZE, OH, WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO HAVE DISRUPT PEOPLE'S LIVES, MAKE SOMETHING MORE EXPENSIVE AND IT'S NOT EASY. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE REGULATIONS AND CARBON PRICING. SO, YES, OBVIOUSLY A SMALLER TARGET IS MORE ACHIEVABLE THAN A BIGGER TARGET. BUT I DO AGREE WITH ADAM THAT THE 30 AND 40 PERCENT WILL INVOLVE MAJOR CHALLENGES IN A 9 OR 10-YEAR PERIOD. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CARS YOU'RE LOOKING AT DRIVING AROUND ON THE ROAD CHANGING DRAMATICALLY OVER THE NEXT THREE OR FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. HOW HOUSES ARE HEATED. INDUSTRY. SO IT'S A HUGE CHALLENGE. >> Steve: YOU DO HAVE WHAT YOU CALL A SINCERITY INDEX AND WE WILL GET TO THAT LATER IN OUR CONVERSATION BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT SOME FASCINATING NUMBERS ON THAT. CHARLES, HOW ABOUT TO YOU ON THIS ISSUE? WHO HAS A PLATFORM THAT YOU BELIEVE CAN ACTUALLY ACHIEVE THE NUMBERS ENUNCIATED HERE? >> Charles DeLand: WELL, I GUESS, AS MARK MENTIONED, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. IT'S GOING TO BE CHALLENGING TO ACHIEVE THOSE NUMBERS, AS HE SAID. IT'S REALLY ABOUT THE COST. WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES? WHAT ACTUALLY HAS TO HAPPEN IN THE REAL WORLD HERE? I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE EASY WINS IN TERMS OF THE U.S. IN THE ELECTRICAL TO DECARBONIZE. THERE ARE NO OBVIOUS WINNERS. >> Steve: SARAH, HOW ABOUT TO YOU ON THIS? >> Sarah Petrevan: I THINK WHOSE PLAN IS THE MOST REALISTICALLY IS WHAT YOU CARE ABOUT MOST. LET'S ASSUME WE CARE ABOUT THE ECONOMY AND JOBS. I LARGELY AGREE WITH WHAT CHARLES AND MARK HAVE SAID. I THINK MAINTAINING SOME LEVEL OF ECONOMIC HEALTH AND JOBS THROUGHOUT THE CLEAN ENERGY TRANSITION IS AN IMPORTANT ONE AND SHOULD BE CANADA'S NUMBER ONE GOAL. YOU HAVE CHALLENGES WITH WHAT THE NDP AND THE GREENS HAVE PUT FORWARD IN TERMS OF HOW FAST YOU HAVE TO RATCHET UP POLICY AND WHAT THAT DOES TO THE ECONOMY TO ACHIEVE THE TARGETS. WE KNOW FROM MARK'S WORK AND FROM OTHERS' WORK THAT THE LIBERAL PLAN IS PROBABLY GOING TO GET US TO 40%. WE'RE NOT 100% SURE. BUT WE KNOW THAT AT LEAST THE 36% THAT THEY PREVIOUSLY COMMITTED TO WHEN THEY RELEASED THEIR LAST CLIMATE PLAN IN THE SPRING, YOU KNOW, SAID THAT IT WAS, YOU KNOW, REASONABLE, THEY HAD MODELLING. AND NOW, YOU KNOW, 40% SEEMS RELATIVELY DOABLE. WITH THE CONSERVATIVE TARGET, YOU KNOW, I DO TAKE ISSUE WITH IT. I WONDER IF THE CONSERVATIVES, IF THEY WERE TO ACHIEVE POWER, COULD SHOW UP IN GLASGOW FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL OF ALL PARTIES MEETING WITH A REDUCED TARGET, GIVEN THAT EVERYBODY, THE REST OF CANADA'S BUSINESS PARTNERS, HAVE SAID, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE WANT IS INCREASED AMBITION, INCREASED TARGETS. COULD CANADA CREDIBLY SHOW UP AND SAY, HEY, WE'RE BACKING OUT OF THE BUSINESS DEAL? I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT. >> Steve: WHEN YOU SAY SHOW UP IN GLASGOW, YOU MEAN THE MEETING IN SEPTEMBER THAT THE WORLD HAS TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE. YOU THINK THEY'D HAVE A TOUGH TIME SHOWING UP WITH THAT NUMBER FOUR MAJOR PARTIES REPRESENTED IN THE LAST PARLIAMENT SUPPORT CARBON PRICING IN SOME FORM. SO LET'S BRIEFLY GO THROUGH THAT AND THEN I'LL GET YOUR VIEWS ON THIS. FOR EXAMPLE ON THE ISSUE OF CARBON PRICING, WE KNOW THE LIBERALS BROUGHT IN A CARBON TAX RISING TO $170 A TONNE BY 2030. THE CONSERVATIVES WOULD HAVE LOWER NUMBERS, $20 A TONNE RISING TO $50 A TONNE BY 2030. THAT IS FOR PERSONAL CARBON TAXES WHICH WOULD GO INTO WHAT THEY CALL A PERSONAL CARBON SAVINGS ACCOUNT THAT PEOPLE CAN THEN USE TO BUY ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY PRODUCTS SUCH AS BICYCLES, ET CETERA. $170 A TONNE BY 2030 WOULD BE FOR INDUSTRY BUT ONLY IF THE AMERICANS AND THE EUROPEANS MATCH THAT PRICE. THE GREENS ARE AT $50 A TONNE, RISING TO $275 A TONNE BY 2030. AND THE NDP IS AT $40 A TONNE, RISING TO $170 A TONNE BY 2030. CHARLES, STARTING TO YOU FIRST THIS TIME -- AGAIN, NOT LOOKING FOR AN ENDORSEMENT HERE OF ANY PARTICULAR PLAN, BUT WHAT STANDS OUT AS BEING ACHIEVABLE HERE? >> Charles DeLand: I GUESS THE THING THAT STANDS OUT FOR ME IS THAT THE LIBERAL PLAN AND THE NDP PLAN AND THE GREENS ARE VERY SIMILAR IN STRUCTURE. OBVIOUSLY THE PRICES ARE HIGHER FOR THE GREENS. WHILE THE CONSERVATIVES' IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT BOTH ON THE INDUSTRIAL AND THE CONSUMER SIDE WITH THEIR SAVINGS PLAN. >> Steve: MARK, HOW ABOUT TO YOU ON THAT? >> Mark Jaccard: SO I WAS OVERSEEING A GROUP THAT MODELLED FOR THE CONSERVATIVES AND THEN PEOPLE IN MY TEAM MODELLED THE OTHER PARTIES', AND OF COURSE THE LIBERALS -- A LOT OF US HAVE BEEN MODELLING THEIRS AND THAT'S WHY THERE IS A DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE IN THE LIBERALS AND THEIR CARBON PRICING. IT'S GOOD THAT YOU QUALIFIED THE CONSERVATIVE ONE BECAUSE LINKING THE PRICE FOR INDUSTRY TO THE UNITED STATES, WHEN WE MODELLED IT, WE SAID TO THEM, WE THINK WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU A BREAK ON THAT ONE. THE CONSERVATIVES GET A LOT OF REDUCTIONS FROM A REGULATION ON NATURAL GAS THAT HAS GOTTEN HIDDEN. FOR THE OTHERS, WITH THE CARBON PRICE, WHEN WE TRIED TO SIMULATE THE TARGETS, FOR THE NDP WE NEEDED A PRICE THAT GOT CLOSER TO $500 A TONNE TO GET TO THAT 2030 AND FOR THE GREENS, IT GOT CLOSER TO $600 A TON. SO THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT [inaudible] IT'S GREAT TO HAVE HIGH TARGETS, BUT IF YOU BELIEVE IN HONESTY, YOU SHOULD TELL PEOPLE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT AND NDP AND GREENS DID NOT PUT OUT WHAT THE CARBON PRICE SHOULD BE TO GET TO THEIR TARGET. >> Steve: EVEN THOUGH THE GREEN AND NDP NUMBERS ARE HIGHER THAN THE OTHER ONES, THEY'RE STILL NOT HIGH ENOUGH TO MEET THE TARGETS THAT THEY THEMSELVES HAVE SET; IS THAT RIGHT? >> Mark Jaccard: THAT'S RIGHT. AND ALSO I NOTICED YOUR TABLE SAID THAT THE NDP AT 170 -- AND I CAME OUT AND MADE THAT ASSUMPTION ABOUT THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE REALLY VAGUE AND SOME PEOPLE FROM THE NDP HAVE PUSHED BACK AND SAID, NO, NO, NO, IT'S GOING TO GO HIGHER THAN 170, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHERE. I'M TELLING YOU WHERE OUR MODELLING HAD TO GET IT TO, WHICH WAS WAY HIGHER. >> Steve: I KNOW JAGMEET SINGH HAS BEEN ASKED THAT NUMEROUS TIMES ON THE HUSTINGS AND HE ALWAYS STARTS HIS ANSWER WITH LET ME BE ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY CLEAR ABOUT THIS AND THEN HE NEVER GIVES A NUMBER. ANYWAY ... BE THAT AS IT MAY, COME ON HERE, ADAM, AND TELL US WHAT STANDS OUT FOR YOU IN ALL OF THOSE PROGNOSTICATIONS. >> Adam Petrevan: MY CONCERN IS THERE'S A FALSE PERCEPTION IN THE PRICING OF CARBON IN THIS ELECTION. BECAUSE THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE EMBRACED IT IN SOME CAPACITY, WHICH IS CERTAINLY A BIG STEP FORWARD FROM WHERE THEY WERE BEFORE. BUT THEIR PLAN WHICH, AS YOU NOTED, PUTS THE CARBON PRICE THAT MOST OF US PAY MUCH LOWER AND THE INDUSTRIAL ONE IS A BIT UP IN THE AIR, SETTING ASIDE THE STRANGE PLAN TO TURN IT INTO A PERSONAL SAVINGS ACCOUNT, I'M NOT CONVINCED IT EVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED, BUT CERTAINLY I BELIEVED THEY WOULD CAP CANADA IT AT $50 FOR MOST OF US INSTEAD OF GOING UP TO $170. THAT'S A HUGE CHANGE. IT MEANS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO A LOT, AS MARK WAS ALLUDING TO, A LOT OF STUFF TO MAKE UP FOR THAT GAP. IF THEY WERE TO TWEAK THE INDUSTRIAL SIDE, EVEN MORE SO. NOW WE GOT THE IDEA THAT THIS DEBATE IS OVER BECAUSE FINALLY THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE EMBRACED IT COMPARED TO THE LAST ELECTION. BUT, I MEAN, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PROBABLY MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE CARBON PRICE OF $170 A TONNE AND ONE THAT'S $50 A TONNE SHOULD NOT BE OVERLOOKED AND I THINK HAS BEEN A LITTLE TOO MUCH IN THIS CAMPAIGN. >> Steve: SARAH, DO YOU WANT TO SEPARATE THE FACTION FROM FICTION FOR US? >> Sarah Petrevan: I'M ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO WANTS TO TAKE A MINUTE TO BE GRATEFUL FOR THE FACT WE'RE NOT DEBATING CARBON PRICING IN THIS ELECTION. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THE DEBATE IS FAR FROM OVER BECAUSE THE DEVIL IS ALWAYS IN THE DETAIL. I SHARE CONCERNS WITH MY CO-PANELISTS ABOUT SOME OF THE CONSERVATIVES' PLAN ON PERSONAL SAVINGS ACCOUNT AND FRANKLY SOME OF THEIR REGULAR TORY APPROACHES, WHETHER OR NOT THEY'LL EVER ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT THEM OR, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE -- FEASIBILITY OF CERTAIN COMMITMENTS PARTICULARLY AROUND RENEWABLE NATURAL GAS. I DON'T THINK WHAT THEY'VE ACTUALLY COMMITTED TO IS POSSIBLE. ANOTHER THING, AND MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE I'M A POLICY WONK AND STUDY THIS FOR A LIVING, THE OTHER THING THAT IRKS ME ABOUT THE CONSERVATIVES' CLIMATE PLAN IS HOW THEY'RE APPROACHING INDUSTRY. THEY'RE SAYING 170 BUCKS A TONNE IF THE U.S. AND THE E.U. GETS THERE. THE E.U. IS NEVER GOING TO GET THERE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF CARBON PRICING. THEY USE A CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM WHERE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ARE DEPENDENT ON THE CAP, NOT ON THE PRICE. THEREFORE I GUESS THE CONSERVATIVES ARE SAYING THEY WILL NEVER PLAN TO PUT A PRICE ON INDUSTRY AND I WOULD RATHER POLITICIANS JUST BE HONEST AND SAY THOSE THINGS. YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO LIE. I RELY ON THE WORK MARK DOES QUITE EXTENSIVELY FOR SOME OF THE RESEARCH AND SOME OF THE STUFF I DO. I AGREE, YOU KNOW, THAT LOOKING AT THE GREENS AND THE NDP, OR AT LEAST THE GREENS, YOU KNOW, IT'S PROBABLY THEIR CARBON PRICE, WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS PROBABLY TOO HIGH AND TOO FAST TO SAVE CANADA FROM SOME OF THE HARSHEST ECONOMIC IMPACTS THROUGH THE TRANSITION. AND MY CHALLENGE WITH THE NDP PLATFORM IS THAT IT IS UNNECESSARILY VAGUE IN MANY RESPECTS, AND CARBON PRICING IS JUST ONE OF THOSE AREAS. THEY TALK ABOUT LOTS OF LOOPHOLES IN THE LIBERALS' APPROACH TO CARBON PRICING AND SPECIFICALLY WITH INDUSTRY BUT THEY DON'T NAME THOSE LOOPHOLES AND THEY ALSO DON'T TELL CANADIANS WHAT THEY PLAN ON DOING DIFFERENTLY AND I HAVE A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THAT. >> Steve: YOU WOULDN'T EXPECT THE NDP TO BE THE PLAN THAT HAS THE LEAST AMOUNT OF DETAIL. THEY'RE ALWAYS THE ONES, IN THE PAST ANYWAY, WITH THE MOST AMOUNT OF DETAILS AND I SEE MARK NODDING ON THAT. ERIN O'TOOLE, THE CONSERVATIVE LEADER, HAS JUST COME OUT AND SAID: I WON'T NECESSARILY SCRAP THE LIBERALS' CARBON TAX IF I BECOME THE PRIME MINISTER. CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW ALL THAT IS GOING TO WORK? >> Adam Petrevan: I THINK WHAT HE'S GETTING AT THERE, ALTHOUGH IT'S CONFUSING, IS THAT DIFFERENT PROVINCES HAVE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS HERE AND SOME OF THEM HAVE NOW ADOPTED SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT THE FEDERAL HAS CURRENTLY. HE WOULDN'T FORCE THE OTHER PROVINCES TO DO IT IF THEY'RE HAPPY WITH THIS ONE. WHAT I WAS ALLUDING TO IS I'M NOT CONVINCED AT ALL ABOUT THIS WHOLE IDEA OF THE PERSONAL SAVINGS ACCOUNT. IT SOUNDS SO LOGISTICALLY CHALLENGING. IF YOU'VE EVER SEEN GOVERNMENT TRY TO HANDLE AN I.T. PROJECT, THE IDEA IT'S GOING TO IMPLEMENT THIS KIND OF COMPLEX SYSTEM WHERE EVERY PERSON HAS A INDIVIDUALIZED ACCOUNT THAT THEY CAN USE TO BUY THINGS AND ACTIVATE IT EVERY TIME THEY MAKE A PURCHASE, I CANNOT SEE HOW THAT HAPPENS. SO MY INSTINCT, ALTHOUGH I DON'T WANT TO MAKE TOO MANY ASSUMPTIONS, IT WOULD BE EASY TO SET THAT PART ASIDE. WHAT I WOULD COME BACK TO IS I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD FORCE THE PROVINCES TO CONTINUE RAISING THE PRICE AS THE OTHER PARTIES WOULD. IN SOME PROVINCES YOU MIGHT CONTINUE TO GET AN ESCALATING CARBON PRICE, B.C. OR QUEBEC, PLACES WHERE THEY'VE EMBRACED THAT EVEN BEFORE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MADE THEM DO SO. BUT IN THE REST OF THE COUNTRY, I THINK WHAT YOU MIGHT SEE IS SOMETHING QUITE SIMILAR TO THE CURRENT SYSTEM, AT LEAST IN A LOT OF PLACES. >> Steve: CHARLES, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUALMS ABOUT WHAT THE CONSERVATIVE HAS ON OFFER AS TO WHAT PEOPLE HAVE SAID IS AN AIR MILES ACCOUNT PEOPLE WILL HAVE RELATED TO POLLUTION? >> Charles DeLand: I MEAN, MY CONCERNS ARE MOSTLY THAT IT LIMITS THE ABILITY TO SUBSTITUTE ONE THING FOR ANOTHER. IT'S VERY NARROW IN WHAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY USE IT FOR. AND THE ADMIN -- THE ADMINISTRATION PART OF THAT DOES SEEM VERY BURDENSOME. >> Steve: LET ME GO TO MARK NOW ON SOMETHING THAT HE TOUCHED ON EARLIER AND THAT I PROMISED WE'D COME BACK TO AND LET'S DO IT NOW. YOU HAVE DONE SOME MODELLING, MARK, AROUND THE DIFFERENT PARTY PLANS AND YOU HAVE RATED EACH OF THESE FOUR MAIN PARTIES ON A CLIMATE SINCERITY INDEX AND WE'RE GOING TO SHARE THAT INDEX WITH OUR VIEWERS AND LISTENERS NOW AND GET YOU TO EXPLAIN HOW YOU GOT TO THESE NUMBERS. NOW, THIS IS A SINCERITY INDEX. THE LIBERALS ARE AN 8 OUT OF 10. YOU'VE GOT THE CONSERVATIVES NEXT AT 5 OUT OF 10. THE GREENS AT 4 OUT OF 10. AND THE NDP TRAILING WITH ONLY 2 OUT OF 10. OKAY. LET'S DOUBLE BACK AND FIGURE OUT WHAT CRITERIA YOU USE TO GET TO THOSE NUMBERS. >> Mark Jaccard: THANK YOU. AND JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. I MODELLED -- I SELECTED TO MODEL FOR THE CHRETIEN GOVERNMENT IN THE NATIONAL PROCESS, THE KYOTO TARGET AND WAS ABLE TO WRITE A BOOK NINE YEARS BEFORE, SO IN 2001, EXPLAINING WHY WE WOULD MISS THAT TARGET. YOU CAN'T GET THAT TARGET WITH RICK MERCER COMMERCIALS. YOU ACTUALLY HAD TO KEEP THE PRICE THAT WE HAD AGREED TO AND THE REGULATION. SO WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS THAT I AND MY IPCC COLLEAGUES WHO ARE IN THE POLICY SECTION ARE CONTINUALLY NOTICING THAT WE FAIL ON CLIMATE AND WE FAIL BECAUSE GOVERNMENTS DON'T IMPLEMENT THE POLICIES TO ACHIEVE THEIR TARGET AND THAT VOTERS GET TRICKED BY FOCUSING ON TARGETS, THAT THE MORE AMBITIOUS TARGET MUST MEAN YOU'RE MORE SINCERE ABOUT CLIMATE. THE ORIGIN OF THIS IS TO SAY: NO, SINCERITY, IT'S GOT TO BE SOMETHING ELSE. IT'S GOT TO BE HONESTY. IN FACT THE TARGET MEANS LESS. LIKE, I'D BE HAPPY IF SOMEBODY MET A 30% TARGET. I REALLY WOULD. AND SO WE'RE FOCUSED ON, WHEN YOU PUT A TARGET IN, HAVE YOU ACTUALLY PUT IN POLICIES THAT'S GOING TO BE PRICING AND REGULATION AND SOME GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES, MAYBE SOME RICK MERCER COMMERCIALS, BUT MOSTLY PRICING AND REGULATION, AND HAVE YOU SPECIFIED THEM? BECAUSE IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. WE'VE KNOWN THIS FOR 20 OR 30 YEARS HOW TO DO THIS AND SINCERE GOVERNMENTS HAVE DONE IT. YOU PUT THOSE PRICES IN AND TELL US, LIKE THE LIBERALS SAID, THIS IS THE PRICE NEXT YEAR, THE YEAR AFTER, THE YEAR AFTER, AS ONE EXAMPLE. YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT. IF YOU'RE NOT DOING THAT, THEN YOU'RE SCORING VERY LOW. AND SO SOME PEOPLE CRITIQUE THESE, LIKE GREEN AND NDP, YOU MEAN YOU'RE NOT REWARDING PEOPLE FOR HAVING HIGHER TARGETS? IS BASICALLY I'M NOT. BUT IF YOU COMPARE THE LIBERALS AND THE CONSERVATIVES, THE LIBERALS GET ALMOST TWICE THE SCORE OF THE CONSERVATIVES. THERE'S ANOTHER ELEMENT, THERE'S SMALLER CRITERIA WE HAVE IN THERE WHICH RELATE TO YOUR TRACK RECORD, THE LIBERALS HAVE DONE WELL SINCE REGAINING POWER IN 2015, AND IF YOU ARE ABLE TO ACTUALLY ACHIEVE YOUR TARGET, AND WE WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT. I HOPE THAT HELPS EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT. SINCERITY IS REALLY TO DO WITH: DID YOU HONESTLY PUT OUT THE POLICIES CLEARLY THAT WOULD ACHIEVE YOUR TARGETS SO THAT INDEPENDENT PEOPLE LIKE ME COULD SIMULATE IT AND CONFIRM IT, AND IT'S EASY TO DO. THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE NOW DONE IT. SO THAT'S THE CRITERIA. >> Steve: ONE IF I CAN FOLLOW-UP, HAVE YOU HAD PUSHBACK FROM THE GREENS AND NDP SAYING YOU'RE UNFAIRLY VALUING THEIR PLANS WITH THIS? >> Mark Jaccard: SOME OF IT IS WE HAD TO -- SO SARAH MENTIONED VAGUENESS. THAT'S THE OTHER GOAL HERE. OBVIOUSLY THE FLIP SIDE OF WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. IF YOU'RE NOT PRECISE, YOU'RE VAGUE. AND SO WHEN YOU'RE VAGUE, IT'S EASY TO SAY, I'LL GET THERE SOMEHOW. IT'S A HIGH TARGET BUT I'LL GET THERE SOMEHOW. AT LEAST IN MODELLING WE CAN LOOK AT WHAT WE THINK THEY HAD IN THEIR PLATFORM. WE TRIED TO DO THAT. AND WITH THE NDP WE GOT ABOUT A 25 OR 30% REDUCTION WITH THESE BIG SUBSIDY PROGRAMS AND HAMMERING INDUSTRY. BUT WE WEREN'T SURE ABOUT THEIR PRICE. SO THEN WE JUST SAID, WELL, LET'S DO THE MOST EFFICIENT POLICY WE CAN SO WE'LL HELP OUT THE NDP TO GET TO THEIR 50% TARGET AND THEN WE ENDED UP SAYING THE NDP SHOULD COME CLEAN AND SAY ITS CARBON PRICE, UNLIKE THE LIBERALS, NEEDS TO KEEP MARCHING UP TOWARDS ALMOST $500 BY 2030. AND THEY'RE NOT HAPPY WITH THAT, BUT THEY'RE NOT HAPPY BECAUSE THEY'RE SAYING I'M IGNORING THE TARGET. AND I'M PUTTING WAY MORE EMPHASIS ON TRANSPARENCY AND HONESTY AND IT'S GOOD TO SEE THE CONSERVATIVES ARE FINALLY DOING THAT. WE CHALLENGED STEPHEN HARPER ON THIS AND ANDREW SCHEER AND YOU'RE FINALLY GETTING THAT FROM BOTH OF THE LARGEST PARTIES IN THE COUNTRY WHICH IS REALLY GOOD NEWS. >> Steve: LET'S GET FEEDBACK FROM EVERYBODY ELSE ON THIS. CHARLES, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE ADVISABILITY OF DOING THIS KIND OF CLIMATE SINCERITY INDEX? >> Charles DeLand: LOOK IT, I'M AN ECONOMIST. DATA IS ALWAYS GOOD. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN TRY TO QUANTIFY SOME OF THE PLANS, IT'S USEFUL AND I THINK THE VAGUENESS HAS BEEN VERY HURTFUL TO THE NDP AND THE GREEN PLATFORMS AND THE INABILITY TO ANALYZE SOME OF THESE THINGS. THEY DO USE VERY VAGUE LANGUAGE AROUND SUBSIDIES OR PIPELINES, YOU KNOW, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, THAT DON'T REALLY -- THEY AREN'T EASY TO QUANTIFY THE RESULT, THE ACTUAL EMISSIONS RESULT, AND WHAT IS IT THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? IT'S JUST NOT VERY CLEAR. >> Steve: SARAH, DO YOU THINK THESE NUMBERS ACCURATELY REFLECT THE CLIMATE SINCERITY OF EACH OF THE FOUR PARTIES? >> Sarah Petrevan: I'M GOING TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF SINCERITY IS THE RIGHT WORD. FOR ME IT'S REALLY ABOUT, LIKE, ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY. YOU KNOW, THE THING -- I THINK MOST NDP VOTERS ARE CANADIANS WHO ARE CONSIDERING VOTING FOR THE NDP ARE GOING TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THE NDP ARE A LEFT-LEANING PARTY, I INHERENTLY TRUST THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A REASONABLE PLAN ON CLIMATE OR I BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING EVEN THOUGH THEIR PLATFORM IS PERHAPS UNNECESSARILY VAGUE. BUT I DO THINK, TO DRIVE HOME MARK'S POINT, WHAT MATTERS MORE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT CLIMATE POLICY AND WHAT CANADIANS SHOULD REALLY PAY ATTENTION TO IS NOT JUST THE TARGET BUT THE OUTLINED PLAN TO GET THERE. BECAUSE TARGETS MEAN NOTHING IF YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY ACHIEVE THEM. >> Steve: ADAM, DO YOU WANT A WORD ON THIS? >> THERE MAY BE VALUE IN WHAT THEY CALL SINCERITY OR PRACTICALITY. WE'VE GOTTEN BOGGED DOWN. IT'S EASY FOR THE NDP OR THE GREENS IN PARTICULAR TO POINT TO THE GOVERNMENT'S RECORD TO DATE AND SAID YOU HAVEN'T REDUCED EMISSIONS YET AND THAT MEANS YOU'RE NOT SINCERE ABOUT IT. THAT'S NOT A GOOD BAROMETER. THEY PROBABLY COULD HAVE DONE MORE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS BUT MOST OF THE POLICIES THEY'VE IMPLEMENTED PROBABLY WON'T FEEL AN IMPACT UNTIL SOMETIME THIS DECADE. PRICING CARBON IS ONE. WHETHER SUPPORT FOR TRANSITION TO EVs OR OTHERS, THERE ARE THINGS THAT WILL ONLY HAVE IMPACT NOW. WE HAVE TO LOOK FORWARD. WE HAVE TO GET PASSED THIS IDEA THAT WHICHEVER GOVERNMENT HAS NOT YET ACHIEVED THE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS THEY PROMISED OR TARGETED OR ARE NOT ON PATH TO DO IT, THAT MEANS WE HAVE TO BE DEFEATIST OR CYNICAL WITHOUT LOOKING AT WHAT THE PARTIES ARE ACTUALLY PROMISING. >> Steve: LET'S LOOK AT THE FUTURE OF OIL AND GAS. SARAH, I'LL START WITH YOU ON THIS ONE. WHICH OF THE PARTIES IN YOUR VIEW HAS HAD SOMETHING INTERESTING AND USEFUL TO SAY ABOUT THE FUTURE OF OIL AND GAS AS IT RELATES TO GETTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE TARGETS? >> Sarah Petrevan: LET ME JUST TAKE ONE SECOND AND KIND OF PUT THIS INTO CONTEXT. 70% OF THE WORLD'S ECONOMY HAS COMMITTED TO NET ZERO BY 2050. THAT MEANS THAT TO GET THERE, ACCORDING TO THE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY, WE CAN HAVE NO NEW OIL AND GAS PROJECTS STARTING IN 2021, AND GOING FORWARD, NO EXISTING OIL AND GAS PROJECTS CAN CONTINUE TO EXIST WITHOUT SOME SORT OF CARBON EMISSIONS ABATEMENT, SO SOMETHING LIKE CARBON CAPTURE UTILIZATION AND STORAGE, ET CETERA. AS WE'VE SAID ON OTHER MATTERS, THIS IS THE BIGGEST HOLE YOU CAN DRIVE A MACK TRUCK THROUGH IN THE NDP PLATFORM, THEY SIDESTEPPED THE ISSUE COMPLETELY, OTHER THAN CRITICIZING THE TRUDEAU GOVERNMENT FOR SOME FUNDING AROUND FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES. THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT WHETHER A THEY WOULD DO DIFFERENT, AND THAT'S A PROBLEM FOR ME. THE LIBERALS AT LEAST HAVE OUTLINED SOME PLAN IN TERMS OF HELPING THE OIL AND GAS SECTOR ACHIEVE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS, WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT AND WHICH IS IN LINE WITH WHAT THE INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE COMMUNITY IS SAYING NEEDS TO HAPPEN TO ACHIEVE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS. MY PROBLEM WITH THE CONSERVATIVES' PLAN IS THAT THEY'RE TALKING OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF THEIR MOUTH. ON ONE HAND THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT REDUCING EMISSIONS AND PUTTING A PRICE ON CARBON. ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT REDUCING RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT BAN OIL TANKERS IN NORTHERN B.C. THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT PIPELINE EXPANSION. AND PARTICULARLY THE CHERRY ON TOP IS BANNING ANY PROTESTS ON PIPELINE DEVELOPMENT WHICH I THINK IS A CHALLENGE. THE GREENS, UNSURPRISINGLY, ARE NOT FOR INCREASED OIL DEVELOPMENT BUT, YOU KNOW, THEIR PLATFORM DOESN'T PARTICULARLY SAY WHAT THEY WOULD DO INSTEAD. >> Steve: CHARLES, WHICH PARTY'S GOT SOMETHING INTERESTING TO SAY ON OIL AND GAS? >> Charles DeLand: I AGREE WITH SARAH PARTIALLY IN THAT THE LIBERALS HAVE AT LEAST A PLAN TO ADDRESS REDUCING EMISSIONS AND POTENTIAL FUTURE ONES. AS TO WHAT THE CONSERVATIVES DO, IT'S MORE TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED OR, SORRY, MORE TECHNOLOGICALLY AIMED, CARBON CAPTURE AND HYDROGEN AND VARIOUS INCENTIVES AND INNOVATION. I THINK WHERE I DON'T KNOW THAT I AGREE NECESSARILY IS ON THE SIMPLE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE THE SOCIAL PIECE, HARD ON PROTESTS AND TANKERS, I MEAN, THOSE ARE OUTSIDE THE EMISSIONS REALM, SO I'M NOT SURE THAT'S ACTUALLY PART OF THE EMISSIONS DISCUSSION. I DON'T LIKE IT WHEN IT GETS CONFUSED, MIXING THOSE ISSUES WITH THE EMISSIONS FOR ME. >> Steve: GOOD SHOT. DO YOU WANT TO COME BACK ON THAT, SARAH? >> Sarah Petrevan: I MEAN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT DOESN'T INVOLVE EMISSIONS WHEN YOU, YOU KNOW -- I GUESS WE COULD SAY THAT LIMITING OR REDUCING CITIZENS' RIGHT TO PROTEST, I SUPPOSE THAT'S NOT ABOUT EMISSIONS, BUT ALLOWING OIL TANKERS TO SHIP IN PLACES THEY ARE BAND IS ABOUT PROTESTS BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT SHIPPING PRODUCTS THAT CREATE A HECK OF A LOT OF EMISSIONS WHEN WE'RE TOLD WE NEED TO REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM FOSSIL FUELS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SHIPPING MORE OF THEM OUT AND THAT IS ABOUT EMISSIONS. >> Steve: CHARLES, DO YOU WANT TO COME BACK? >> Charles DeLand: AGAIN, I WOULD MORE LOOK AT THE DEMAND SIDE AS OPPOSED TO THE SUPPLY SIDE. IF THERE WAS NO DEMAND, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A SUPPLY. IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT SHIPS DON'T HAVE EMISSIONS. THEY DO. BUT WHERE ARE THEY ON THE EARTH ISN'T REALLY THAT RELEVANT. OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO PROTECT OUR WATERS. IT DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULDN'T HAVE REGULATION. BUT I JUST THINK THAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE ACTUAL CONSUMPTION SIDE OF THAT, AND THE EMISSIONS ALSO INVOLVED IN PRODUCING THEM. >> Steve: WE LIKE CIVILIZED AGREEMENT ON THIS PROGRAM. IN FACT, WE ENCOURAGE IT. LET'S MOVE ON TO MARK. MARK, WHO HAS SOMETHING INTERESTING TO SAY ON OIL AND GAS? >> Mark Jaccard: SO I'M A LITTLE CLOSER TO CHARLES, I GUESS, IN THAT GLOBALLY WE NEED ACTION GLOBALLY. SO I LOOK AT PARTIES THAT ARE REALLY TRYING TO GET GLOBAL ACTION ON FLIPPING THE AUTOMOBILE MARKET, ON PHASING OUT COAL PLANTS. IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S TO DO WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES FOR THE DEMAND THAT WILL -- THAT WILL AFFECT THE DEMAND FOR COAL, THAT WILL AFFECT THE DEMAND FOR OIL AND HOPEFULLY THE DEMAND FOR NATURAL GAS. AND SO I'M MORE INTERESTED, AS CHARLES SAID, IN THE DOMESTIC GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION POLICIES AND HOW WE CAN PARLAY THOSE INTERNATIONALLY, WHICH IS REALLY IMPORTANT. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO INDIVIDUAL INFRASTRUCTURE, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND SARAH'S POINT AND I SUPPORT IT TO SOME EXTENT. I'VE TESTIFIED BEFORE THE U.S. CONGRESS AGAINST THE KEYSTONE XL EXPANSION BUT AT THE SAME TIME I DON'T PUT THE IMPORTANCE IN THAT SOME PEOPLE DO. SO JUST A QUICK, EASY, UNTHINKING WAY TO SAY, OH, HOW CAN YOU EVER SUPPORT TRUDEAU? HE BOUGHT AN OIL PIPELINE? PERSONALLY I THINK THE TRANSMOUNTAIN PIPELINE, THE PURPOSE OF THAT -- I MEAN, THIS IS ME GUESSING, I WASN'T IN THE ROOM, IS REALLY ABOUT NATIONAL UNITY AND SAYING TO ALBERTANS, TELL YOU WHAT? YOU'RE ONLY GETTING ACCESS TO MARKETS THROUGH THE U.S. WE WILL GIVE YOU ACCESS OVERSEAS AND THEREFORE WE'LL COMPLETE THIS PIPELINE. I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT WAS ABOUT. AND THEREFORE IT'S NOT SOMETHING I WAS ABLE TO OPPOSE IN ANY BIG WAY OR PROTEST AGAINST. IT DOESN'T INCREASE THE GLOBAL DEMAND FOR OIL. AND IF CANADA PRODUCES A BIT LESS OIL, IT IS TRUE IT WILL COME FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. THERE'S JUST A HUGE AMOUNT OF OIL OUT THERE GLOBALLY. THE EARTH'S CRUST IS FULL OF IT. THAT'S WHY I AM SO FOCUSED ON DOMESTIC EMISSIONS. >> Steve: UNDERSTOOD. ADAM YOUR WORD ON THIS. >> I KIND OF LEAVE THE SUPPLY DEMAND DEBATE TO THE ECONOMISTS ON THE PANEL. BUT I THINK ONE THING WE HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT HERE THAT I THINK IS RELEVANT TO THE CONSERVATIVE PLAN THERE IS MUCH MORE PROMOTION MUCH MORE EMPHASIS ON PROMOTION OF NATURAL GAS EXPORTS AND THAT'S ONE WHERE I THINK IF THEY ARE PROMOTING THAT INTERNATIONALLY WHICH THEY CLEARLY WOULD AS A TRANSITIONAL FUEL THAT IS A CONCERN TO CLIMATE SOME KIND OF FOLKS BUT NOT ALL SOME WOULD AGREE THAT IT SHOULD BE A TRANSITIONAL FUEL AWAY FROM COAL OTHERS WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO LOCK IN ANOTHER FOSSIL FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE ELSE WHERE SO I THINK BEYOND THIS I DO THINK AN OIL AND GAS THERE'S A BIG DELINEATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE PROMISING THE CONSERVATIVES ARE CLEARLY ARGUING FOR FOSSIL FUELS AS A CONTINUING PART OF OUR ECONOMY WHERE IT WILL HELP THEM MANAGE THERE EMISSIONS TO THAT SECTOR TO REDUCE AND COMPETE INTERNATIONALLY. THE LIBERALS ARE ESSENTIALLY PROMISING WHAT I WOULD SAY IS KIND OF GRADUALLY PHASED MANAGED PHASE OUT OF THE INDUSTRY VERY SLOWLY WHERE THEY'LL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT IT IN SOME CARBONIZATION EFFORTS TO KEEP IT COMPETITIVE WHILE THE SAME TIME PLANNING FOR WHAT HAPPEN AFTERS THAT THROUGH STRATEGIES FOR THOSE PROVINCES AND SO ON. THE NDP AND EVEN MORE SO THE GREENS ARE ESSENTIALLY PROMISING A QUICKER WIND DOWN OF THAT INDUSTRY IN AN ATTEMPT PHASE IT OUT MORE QUICKLY. WITH FEWER SUPPORTS EVEN FOR ONGOING DECARBONIZATION EFFORT. SO I THINK THERE IS A CLEAR CHOICE THERE. THERE ALL VALID PERSPECTIVES BUT THERE'S A CLEAR CHOICE THERE THAT I THINK SOMETIMES DOESN'T GET EMPHASIZED IN THE CAMPAIGN BECAUSE WE ARE KIND OF DANCING CAREFULLY AROUND THIS ISSUE OFTEN BECAUSE WEARY OF IT AND WE ALL AWARE OF THE NATIONAL IMPLICATIONS BUT THERE ARE VERY DIFFERENT PATH THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED. >> Steve: OKAY. LET'S MOVE ON TO ANOTHER SECTOR, NAMELY ELECTRIFICATION. THE PARTIES HAVE THINGS TO SAY ABOUT ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND FURTHER CLEANING UP THE GRID AND SO ON. ADAM, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. WHY DON'T WE START WITH YOU. WHO HAS INTERESTING THINGS TO SAY ON THIS SOME POINT? >> ADAM: ALL THE PARTIES HAVE INTERESTING THINGS TO SAY ON ELECTRIFICATION OF TRANSPORTATION, BUILDINGS INDUSTRY, ITS INTERESTING THAT BOTH THE LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES ARE PROPOSING A ZERO EMISSIONS VEHICLE A MANDATE REQUIRING A CERTAIN SHARE OF NEW VEHICLES SOLD ARE EVs, ESSENTIALLY. THE LIBERALS PROPOSING A 50%. THAT'S A BIG STEP FROM YEARS AGO. THE FACT THE CONSERVATIVES ARE DOING IT AS WELL IS INTERESTING. THEY ALL ARE COMMITTED TO BUILDING CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE. ON BUILDINGS ACTUALLY THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE A PRETTY GOOD BUILDING RETROFIT PACKAGE THEY'RE PROPOSING. ALL THE PARTIES HAVE SOME OF THAT. THAT'S GOOD. GET BUILDINGS OFF THE FOSSIL FUELS. WHERE THERE'S A LOT MORE ROOM HERE IS ADDRESSING THE QUESTION OF HOW ARE WE GOING TO DEAL WITH ALL THE ELECTRICITY DEMAND THAT'S CAUSED BY ELECTRIFYING SO MANY THINGS? IF YOU TALK TO PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPERTS IN THIS AREA, YOU'LL HEAR WE'RE LOOKING AT AT LEAST A DOUBLING, POTENTIALLY A TRIPLING OF DEMAND LEADING TO 2050 IF WE'RE GOING TO HIT NET ZERO. HOW DO YOU GO ABOUT THAT? THE PARTIES ALL HAVE, PARTICULARLY THE LIBERALS AND THE NDP AND GREENS, HAVE REFERENCES TO GETTING US TO AN ENTIRELY CLEAN GRID NATIONALLY, WHICH MEANS GETTING THE REMAINING FOSSIL FUELS OFF OF THERE BY 2030 OR 2035. WE DON'T HAVE THAT MANY FOSSIL FUELS WE RELY ON FOR THE GRID ANYWAY. BUT THERE'S NOT A LOT OF TALK ABOUT HOW DO YOU MEET THAT DRAMATICALLY RISING DEMAND? I THINK THE LIBERALS HAVE THE MOST ON THIS PROBABLY. THEY'RE PROPOSING FOR INSTANCE A TAX CREDIT FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY. I THINK IMPORTANTLY, ALTHOUGH IT SOUNDS VAGUE, THEY'RE PROPOSING TO CREATE A PAN-CANADIAN COUNCIL THAT WILL HELP BRING THE DIFFERENT PROVINCES TOGETHER TO DISCUSS THIS BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY AN ABSENCE IN THIS DISCUSSION. YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S BUILDING BETTER TRANSMISSION BETWEEN PROVINCES THAT HAVE A SURPLUS OF CLEAN ELECTRICITY AND THOSE THAT HAVE A DEFICIT OF IT OR WHETHER IT'S JUST COLLABORATING ON HOW WE MODERNIZE THE GRID THROUGH ALL KINDS OF -- DEALING WITH HOW YOU CAN TAKE THE BEST ADVANTAGE OF SOLAR PANELS ON PEOPLE'S ROOFS AND THE ABILITY TO SELL THAT BACK INTO THE GRID. ALL OF THESE THINGS WILL REQUIRE COLLABORATION. THERE'S SOME TALK OF THAT. I JUST WISH IT WAS MORE OF AN ISSUE, I WISH THERE WAS MORE TALK ABOUT IT AND ATTEMPT TO GET CANADIANS IN ON IT. WE TAKE THE GRID FOR GRANTED. OUR ELECTRICITY IS NOT POLLUTING COMPARED TO OTHER COUNTRIES? BUT WE HAVE A BIG CHALLENGE TO MAINTAIN THAT IF WE ELECTRIFY EVERYTHING AND THAT COULD BE IMPORTANT APPEALING NATIONAL CHALLENGE IF YOU FRAME IT THAT WAY BUT NOBODY IS REALLY DOING THAT. >> Steve: SARAH? ELECTRIFICATION >> Sarah Petrevan: I THINK ADAM DID A GREAT JOB OF SUMMARIZING THE CHALLENGE HE DID A GREAT JOB SUMMARIZING WHERE ALL THE POLITICAL PARTIES ARE AT SO I WOULD STRUGGLE TO ADD BUT MAYBE SAY TWO THINGS SO THE GOVERNMENT DID ATTEMPT, I THINK THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT FIRST MANDATE TO DO A NATIONAL CONSULTATION AROUND ENERGY AND ELECTRIFICATION AND THEY CALLED IT GENERATION ENERGY. THERE WAS A WHOLE BUNCH OF CROSS-COUNTRY COLLEAGUES WITH PEOPLE, OBVIOUSLY THIS WAS BEFORE THE PANDEMIC, THEY HAD APPOINTED AN ADVISORY COUNCIL WHICH MY ORGANIZATION WAS A PART OF AND THEY CREATED A REPORT WHICH THEN PROMPTLY GOT SHELVED AS SOON AS MINISTER CAR LEFT THE NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA PORTFOLIO. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A BIG BUREAUCRATIC EXERCISE. IT DIDN'T GO ANYWHERE. PROBABLY NOT. WOULD ANOTHER HAVE A SIMILAR FATE? PROBABLY. ON ELECTRIFICATION, I THINK ADAM HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD, WHICH IS THE PROBLEM AROUND SOLVING THE ROLE OF THE PROVINCES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. I MEAN, ELECTRICITY IS A PROVINCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. IT IS A PROVINCIAL RESPONSIBILITY THAT THEY PROTECT VEHEMENTLY. ANY INCREASE IN FOSSIL FUELS ON CANADA'S GRID -- LIKE, WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT THE LAST 20%. WE HAVE AN 83% NON-EMITTING GRID RIGHT NOW. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GOING TO 100. THAT'S GOING TO MEAN TRANSITIONING OUT NOT ONLY COAL BUT ALSO THINGS LIKE NATURAL GAS IN ONTARIO. STEVE, YOU AND I HAVE TALKED A LOT ABOUT ONTARIO'S ELECTRICITY SYSTEM OVER THE YEARS. AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S AN INTERESTING CHALLENGE FOR A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REALLY TRY AND STEP IN TO THE PROVINCES AND ENCOURAGE THEM TO SWITCH THEIR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY. AND I THINK THAT'S WHY YOU SEE A LOT OF VAGUENESS IN A LOT OF THE PLATFORMS. THE LIBERALS PROBABLY BEING THE MOST DETAILED, YOU KNOW, WITH SOME TAX CREDITS AND UNDERSTAND RENEWABLES AND BUILDING OUT ENERGY STORAGE, ET CETERA. BUT THE BIG CHALLENGE IS HOW DO YOU DO THIS? HOW DO YOU DO THIS IN CONSULTATION WITH THE PROVINCES AND IN A WAY THAT THEY WILL ACCEPT? >> Steve: IN WHICH CASE, CHARLES, WHAT IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO CLEAN UP THE GRID AND INCREASE ITS CAPACITY TO BE ABLE TO ELECTRIFY ALL OF THE MILLIONS OF NEW CARS THAT ARE GOING TO REQUIRE PLUGGING IN OVERNIGHT IN ORDER TO RUN? >> Charles DeLand: RIGHT. WELL, SARAH MENTIONED A LOT OF GOOD POINTS, AS DID ADAM. I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE DID TRANSITION, IS ONE THING, PERHAPS FROM LOWER EMITTING SOURCES TO OTHERS, WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS EASY TO COME BY. ON THE DEMAND SIDE, WE NEED SOME IDEAS OR ABILITY TO PERHAPS SHAPE OUR DEMAND TO DEAL WITH THE GROWING DEMAND IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN WE HAVE TO BUILD EVERYTHING NEW. BUT THEN ALSO WE NEED A SYSTEM THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY BUILD STUFF. WE'VE HAD ISSUES IN IMPACT ASSESSMENTS OR REGULATORY PROCEDURES JUST TAKING FOREVER AND NOT ACTUALLY BEING ABLE TO BUILD LARGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS. SO SOME WAY TO SPEED UP THAT INVESTMENT TO ACTUALLY GET THINGS DONE IT HELPFUL. I WOULD SAY IT'S BROADLY -- IT WAS REFERENCED TO IN PASSING IN THE CONSERVATIVES' PLATFORM BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A BIGGER DISCUSSION. >> Steve: MARK, BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING TIGHT ON TIME I'M GOING TO MOVE YOU ON TO ADAPTATION. BECAUSE YOU'RE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, FOR GOODNESS' SAKES, LYTTON, BRITISH COLUMBIA, WAS BURNED TO THE GROUND THIS PAST SUMMER. I WONDER IF YOU THINK THE PARTIES HAVE ANYTHING INTERESTING ON OFFER AS IT RELATES TO ADAPTING TO THE NEW CLIMATE CHANGE REALITIES WE ARE IN? >> Mark Jaccard: IN FACT THE OTHER SPEAKERS COVERED BASICALLY EVERYTHING I WOULD HAVE COVERED IN ELECTRIFY ANYWAY. I AGREE WITH MUCH THEY HAVE PRESENTED I WOULD JUST SAY IT MAY NOT BE AS DIRE AS WE THINK IT IS THE PROVINCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND IM JUST LOOKING AT THE COUNTRY LIKE NORWAY AND THERE ADAPTING TO A DRAMATIC INCREASE IN ELECTRIC CARS AND SO ON AND THEY'RE SORT OF THE SIZE OF A PROVINCE LIKE BRITISH COLUMBIA WHEN IT COMES TO WHAT YOU JUST ASKED WHICH IS ABOUT CLIMATE PLAN OR ADAPTATION I HAVE MORE TROUBLE IN THIS CASE SEPARATING THE PARTIES BECAUSE EVERY INJURY WHEN I HEAR POLITICIANS OF ANY POLITICAL STRIPE, THEY WILL ALWAYS BE SAYING, "OH, WE'RE GOING TO DO A LOT TO HELP PEOPLE ADAPT." AND SO AGAIN YOU SHOULD LOOK FOR MORE CONCRETENESS IN THEIR PLANS. BUT I THINK I WILL PASS IT ON TO THE OTHER SPEAKERS BECAUSE SOME OF THEM MAY BE ABLE TO SEE SOME WINDOW BETWEEN THEM AND I HAVE NOT STUDIED THEM CLOSE ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO DETECT THAT. >> Steve: ADAM, DO YOU WANT THE LAST WORD? >> SURE. IT BRINGS IT BACK TO THE START WHEN YOU ASKED WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE THE LAST ELECTION. ONE THING THAT HAS CHANGED BECAUSE WE'VE GONE THROUGH A SUMMER OF HORRIBLE WILDFIRES AND DEADLY HEAT WAVE AND DIRE WARNINGS ABOUT WHAT'S COMING IS THERE IS MORE ADAPTATION TALK. PARTIES HAVE AVOIDED THIS BECAUSE IT SEEMS RISKY TO TALK ABOUT MITIGATION. BUT YOU ARE SEEING A LITTLE BIT OF SPECIFIC STUFF. THE LIBERALS AND THE CONSERVATIVES BOTH HAVE COMMITMENTS, FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS, TO FUND WILDFIRE PROTECTION SOMEWHAT, I THINK IT'S 500 MILLION I THINK IN THE LIBERALS' CASE. THEY BOTH HAVE A PROPOSAL TO INTRODUCE INSURANCE FOR HIGH-RISK -- PUBLIC INSURANCE FOR HIGH-RISK HOME OWNERS AND BUSINESSES WHERE THEY CAN'T BE INSURED. I SHOULD SPECIFY, FOR FLOOD INSURANCE, WHICH IS GOING TO BE A GROWING PROBLEM OTHERWISE. THERE'S SOMETHING THERE. AT THE RISK OF BEATING UP ON THE NDP AGAIN WHICH WE'VE DONE ON THIS PANEL, THEIR ADAPTATION, THERE'S NOTHING THERE GIVEN WHAT WE'VE SEEN RECENTLY. IN GENERAL WE'RE STARTING TO SEE THIS CREEP INTO THE DEBATE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HEAR A LOT MORE. I WOULD BET BY THE NEXT CAMPAIGN THERE WOULD BE A LOT MORE ADAPTATION TALK BECAUSE THE IMPACTS ARE INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO ESCAPE. >> Steve: I WANT TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HELPING US OUT, MARK JACCARD, CHARLES DeLAND, SARAH PETREVAN, ADAM RADWANSKI. GREAT TO HAVE YOU ALL ON TVO TONIGHT. TAKE CARE EVERYBODY >> THANK YOU. >> THANKS.
