Environment Committee on Oct. 16th, 2018

[Leona Alleslev]

Okay, but part of the Paris rule book is around measuring and reporting transparently on that progress. How are we measuring and ensuring that our current environmental regulations are being enforced, and, therefore, that the claims we're making around our environmental capability are actually what we're delivering because we know that our industries are achieving what they say they're achieving?

[Isabelle Bérard]

I will let Catherine speak to the issue of the rule book, because we're right in the middle of negotiating this.

Catherine, I don't know to what extent you want to reinforce that.

[Catherine Stewart]

Sure. I'm very happy to speak to the rule book.

There was a debate in the House around the time that Canada ratified the Paris Agreement. A lot of parties spoke out in favour of the Paris Agreement. It's important to be reminded of the objectives that we have all agreed to in the Paris Agreement—

[Leona Alleslev]

But we're talking about measuring—

[Catherine Stewart]

—and that is mitigation to meet mitigation targets. That is also to help in adaptation and build resilience, and also to provide finance to help developing countries that need it in order to drive climate action.

[Leona Alleslev]

That doesn't speak to actually holding our polluters, both government and industrial, to account on the regulations and laws that we currently have in place.

We had $2.47 million in fines levied over a 22-year period in Canada; that's in comparison with the $3.65 million that was levied by the Toronto Public Library in 2012. If we look at the Americans, of course, they have levied over $248 million in one year, in 2012.

There are financial implications, but it also I think speaks to the fact that we're not addressing whether or not our own country is meeting our own commitments at home. How are we measuring and reporting that to our international partners as well as our partners here at home?

[Catherine Stewart]

Yes, and I would like to be able to respond to that, because a lot of the negotiations that we are undergoing right now are all about accountability, transparency and reporting on our plans and actions and intentions on how we're going to address GHG emissions—

[Leona Alleslev]

Shouldn't we already have these metrics in place?

[Catherine Stewart]

We already do produce what's called the “National Communication” in a biennial report. The last one was submitted to the UNFCCC in January 2018. That outlines very clearly how Canada is working to meet its targets.

[Leona Alleslev]

It doesn't say how we're measuring Paris.

[Catherine Stewart]

What we're trying to do under Paris—

[Leona Alleslev]

Thank you.

[Catherine Stewart]

—is to ensure that all other parties are doing the same thing. Canada has a reputation for being very open and transparent in our reporting, and very detailed. I think that under the Paris Agreement what we want to ensure is that other parties are doing the same thing so we can trust each other.

[The Chair]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Stetski.

[Wayne Stetski, Kootenay—Columbia, NDP]

Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

As a former public servant, I'm always interested in the interplay between science and politics, but I'm just going to stick with science today.

We heard the report about a week ago concerning the need for Canada to do twice as much, twice as fast to actually have a true impact on climate change and temperature. I'm just curious about what twice as much, twice as fast might look like, if any of you would like to jump in on that, without getting into the politics of it. What would Canada have to do to do twice as much, twice as fast?

[Matt Jones, Assistant Deputy Minister, Pan-Canadian Framework Implementation Office, Department of the Environment]

It's a good question, and there are a lot of different scenarios. In terms of our approach to emission reductions, we've really been looking at this as a sort of stepwise, sequential process. We're very much aware that achieving our Paris targets is only a step in the process, and it's not like we can declare victory after that step, because as the IPCC reminded us recently, and as we have known for a very long time, the total global reductions needed are far beyond those that are being contemplated at the moment.

The Paris Agreement requires a ratcheting down of targets in a regular cycle, and we have begun the process of looking beyond our current implementation of the pan-Canadian framework and our current target. We had, a little over a year ago, a sort of visioning document that looked at various scenarios that would get us to deep reductions, but there are a lot of different options for getting there.

Right now we're quite focused on implementing the suite of policies that will get us to the first target, and we'll be thinking in a much more concrete way about what comes next once we have our policies implemented. It would require a lot of electrification, certainly, as an energy source. GHG-free electricity and electrified motors and pumps would certainly have to be key components of it, but there are an infinite number of combinations of policy tools and emission sources and emission-reduction opportunities that would need to be carefully analyzed and thought through to develop further policies beyond those we have now.

[Wayne Stetski]

One of the things I'm certainly interested in, and I know that the committee is too, is best management practices around climate change when you look around the world. I'm interested in your perspective, again putting Canada aside, because we're not here to comment politically on where we should be or not.

When you look around the world, what countries do you think are potentially doing the best job to combat climate change, and what are they doing to reach those objectives? It would be good to hear from any of you.

[Matt Jones]

I'll go first, and others can certainly add.

I think there's a lot to be learned from a number of other countries. We have gone through the experiences. Part of the benefit of the UN reporting mechanism Catherine mentioned, the regular reports, is not just having GHG information but also understanding how other countries are grappling with the same sources and what policy tools they're using. Certainly countries that have applied a pricing mechanism have seen greater reductions—

[Wayne Stetski]

Sorry, but can you name some of those as we go along?

[Matt Jones]

Certainly in the European Union, they've had a trading system for quite some time, and that's been one key piece of their overall approach to pursuing emission reductions. We have seen quite significant reductions within the European Union, but in other countries as well, a growing number, as I think this committee heard from my colleague John Moffet, and others, on this topic.

Pursuing fuel switching—countries have moved from coal to gas or from coal to hydro or other large-scale shifts in electricity generation—is generally considered an area of potentially low-hanging fruit. I know a Swiss colleague of mine used to complain that there are no emissions in chocolate or watches, and all their electricity is hydro, so it's very difficult to squeeze out emission reductions.

[Wayne Stetski]

Fair enough.

[Matt Jones]

Generally, transportation tends to be a little harder, because there are a large number of diffuse sources.

There are lots of good European examples. There are a lot of energy efficiency initiatives in a number of countries, particularly in Asia. Japan is a good example of a very resource-efficient economy that has pursued emission reductions through efficiency gains.

[Lucie Desforges, Director General, Bilateral Affairs and Trade Directorate, Department of the Environment]

I just wanted to mention that to capitalize on the strengths of other countries, as Isabelle was mentioning in her introduction, we have struck co-operation agreements with France and the U.K. The U.K., for example, has a lot more experience in adaptation and green finance, so we are pooling our resources and putting our heads together. It is the same on emission innovation. In research and development, we are co-operating with the U.K. in launching joint initiatives. Similarly, with China, because they are moving very fast, we are joining forces to share expertise and do projects together. We're making sure that this is also on a very solid framework as we go forward.

[Catherine Stewart]

I want to flag something very briefly.

[Wayne Stetski]

Yes.