Environment Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2018

[The Chair, Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)]

Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to our third panel on international leadership relating to the pan-Canadian framework on climate change.

Welcome to our witnesses, those in person and on video today.

Also, welcome to some visitors, our guests today, including Alexandra and Garnett.

Ed, it's wonderful to see you back, and I look forward to seeing you back at our table on an ongoing basis.

[Ed Fast, Abbotsford, CPC]

Thank you.

[The Chair]

We're going to get right into our testimony. We tend to go with our online guests first so that, if technology acts up, we have a bit of time to get them back.

Each witness will have 10 minutes to present. I'll give a one-minute signal with the yellow card when you're nine minutes into your presentation. When I give you the red card, just kind of wrap it up. You don't have to stop immediately, but wind it up, and then we'll get into questions and answers.

For anybody who is new to the committee, we go through a rotation, with each side getting about six minutes. We rotate around, and we'll go for a full round. I can't remember exactly how long it is, but we'll see where we stand after everybody gets their allotted questions.

With that, let's start with Keith Stewart from Greenpeace Canada.

Mr. Stewart, you have 10 minutes.

[Keith Stewart, Senior Energy Strategist, Greenpeace Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much for having me here today.

My name is Keith Stewart, and I'm a senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada. I've previously worked with World Wildlife Fund, the Toronto Environmental Alliance and some other environmental groups. I am also a part-time instructor at the University of Toronto, where I teach a course on Canadian energy and environmental policy.

I wanted to directly address the questions that the committee put forward, with regard to the three areas, and then add one more area, where I think Canada really could show some interesting international leadership.

First, with respect to climate finance, Greenpeace Canada is part of, and supports the recommendations of, the Green Budget Coalition. If you haven't seen them, they will definitely soon be appearing in all of your inboxes in English and French.

We have very detailed recommendations there, but these are the highlights.

Under the Paris Agreement, the industrialized countries agree to mobilize $100 billion a year in the 2020 to 2025 period for climate finance. A fair share of that has been calculated to be about $4 billion for Canada. Currently, we've committed $800 million for 2020. We see a gap there. We'd like to see Canada doing more.

The Green Budget Coalition proposes innovative sources of financing for this. In particular, a levy on bunker fuels for international shipping or international aviation would be one way to raise this money, as could a financial transaction tax. There's a variety of ways to do it. It could help Canada deliver on that commitment.

We would also add that the details of finance are really important, as always. The funding needs to be new and additional, not just redirecting existing aid funding by sort of renaming it without increasing the overall size of that pie.

We think there needs to be a balance between adaptation and mitigation: money being spent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions versus money helping poor countries adapt to those changes, which can't be avoided at this point. It should be in the form of grants, not loans.

The second is with respect to internationally transferred mitigation outcomes, which is basically buying greenhouse gas reduction credits for other countries. This originally came out within the international system around the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, when some countries had emissions reduction obligations and some did not. You had annex I and annex II countries.

We now have every country in the world undertaking emissions reduction obligations. Much of the intellectual argument in favour of offset systems, where you're funding stuff that wouldn't have happened otherwise, I think a lot of that no longer exists or is not particularly compelling. Every country in the world has basically agreed that they have these commitments to reduce.

There's a moral and reputational risk involved in these types of credits. It's very difficult to ascertain that these ITMOs are real and additional, and that these are reductions that wouldn't have happened in the absence of this money being found. That has been one of the major criticisms. There have been a few cases of some scams that have been run. Even though those are a tiny percentage of the overall system, it can actually throw the entire thing into disrepute. I think we all know that these things sometimes get blown up.

When it comes to meeting our international obligations, meeting the Paris targets, we should aim to achieve all of the reductions we have committed to, in terms of the 30% now and any additional amount that we commit to under the ratcheting up principle. Existing commitments by national governments are not sufficient to achieve the objectives of limiting global warming under the Paris Agreement.

We should try to achieve all of the reductions that we commit to under our nationally determined commitment in Canada. Internationally traded credits should be really viewed as icing on the cake, going further to help things go faster.

With the exception of the WCI system, because that's in existence right now, Quebec is still a part of that market. I'm encouraging the Ontario government to rejoin that system, but I don't think I'll be successful. I think the credits are fairly well monitored and well policed. Given that we've already entered into agreements there, I'm not necessarily saying that we should back out of that, but I don't see ITMOs as a primary plank of climate policy going forward.

Third, on trade and climate policy, Greenpeace, along with many other environmental groups, has put forward eight full planks in terms of what would make for a good trade agreement from the perspective of the environment. I can share that with the committee. The basic test for any trade agreement should be, does it support, and not undermine, a more stable climate? Does it contribute to clean air and water and to healthy communities? Does it respect the rights obligations to indigenous peoples and to reconciliation, etc.? Does it create good jobs?

When you look at the USMCA—or whatever we're calling it, NAFTA 2.0—there is a positive element there, which is the elimination of the chapter 11 investor-state dispute system. It has been used to attack or challenge environmental regulations in Canada on numerous bases, arguing that companies should get compensation for lost profits, which has had a chilling effect on broader environmental policy. If you're worried that it's not going to pass this test, you won't do it. The fact that it is no longer in the agreement is actually a good thing.

On the counter side, I think the environmental chapter is in the category of “It would be nice if these things happened” and not “These things must happen.” For trade agreements, I think that we need to actually have climate change put front and centre and actually have enforcement teeth that are as strong on the environment side as they are on the trade and corporate protection side.

Overall, those are the kinds of things that we aim for.

One of the questions from the committee was, how do we minimize carbon leakage? I would say that the path forward there should be to simply apply carbon tariffs at the border that are equivalent to a carbon price charged in the domestic market, so that no one can gain an advantage by relocating manufacturing to an area or a jurisdiction without strong climate protection and then exporting into the Canadian market where we do have that. A carbon tariff would be a way to solve that problem.

In terms of the way the government can encourage pension funds and other institutional investors to play a greater role in supporting green finance initiatives, here I point to the work of Mark Carney and Michael Bloomberg. I don't think it's particularly common for Greenpeace to side with the titans of finance, but when you look at the work of the task force on climate-related financial disclosures.... The recommendations the task force put forward were proposed as voluntary measures, because that's the mandate they were given. If Canada were to make those mandatory—and we've had extensive discussions in Ontario with security regulators here—it would actually go a long way toward achieving your objective there.

Having greater disclosure of climate risk and opportunities, and making that mandatory, would also include requiring companies to disclose whether their business strategy is aligned with achieving the Paris Agreement climate targets. If not, what would they have to do to bring it into alignment? Is what you're doing consistent with a safe climate future? If not, what would you have to do differently? You have to tell your investors that, so they have that information and they know whether or not you're at a risk of stranded assets. It's these types of measures.

Now I'll turn to something that wasn't on your agenda, but I think it could be. There's an opportunity for leadership for Canada in terms of acting to restrict the supply of fossil fuels. Canada is one of the largest exporters of fossil fuels in the world. You can look to countries like New Zealand, which has said that it is going to prohibit new exploration for oil and gas and new expansion. We need to stop expanding fossil fuel infrastructure and start investing all of that money in those alternatives. We know that we won't phase out fossil fuels tomorrow, but we need to stop building new stuff today and develop a plan for a just transition off fossil fuels.

Thank you so much for your time. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair]

Thank you for those opening comments.

Let's move now to Isabelle Turcotte from the Pembina Institute.

You have 10 minutes.

[Isabelle Turcotte, Director, Federal Policy, Pembina Institute]

I thank the committee for this invitation to appear as a witness.

My name is Isabelle Turcotte, and I am the director of the federal policy program at Pembina Institute.

We really thank you for the opportunity to share our views on the important role Canada can play to provide leadership internationally on climate action. I'll first comment on how we're progressing on implementing our pan-Canadian plan on climate change. Then I'll make a few comments on how we can sustain progress and where we can increase ambition.

Canada's credibility on climate on the international stage really rests on its ability to successfully implement the PCF, the climate action plan, or the measures to achieve our 2030 target under Paris, and further, to extend this ambition in line with international expectations. Canada successfully completed the first vital step in implementing the PCF in April, and became a global leader with the world's first comprehensive national methane regulations. That's wonderful news. This work, however, is not finished. The government must now work with provinces that will likely seek equivalency agreements—that's B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan—to make sure that the federal regulations are not undermined by weak equivalency agreements.

A second critical piece of the PCF is the commitment to phasing out coal by 2030. Final regulations are expected before the end of the year. Similar to what I mentioned for the methane regulations, it will be really important that we get ambitious mitigation outcomes, as intended by the federal regulations, if we are to get equivalency agreements with New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, which are very likely to request those agreements. Not succeeding in meeting that target of completely phasing out coal by 2030 would really impact Canada's credibility in the Powering Past Coal Alliance, of which we are a founding member. I'll touch on this a little later on.

Importantly, the coal regulations alone are not enough to ensure that we meet our target of reaching 90% non-emitting generation by 2030. We need additional measures to ensure that a significant portion of the coal we're taking out is actually replaced by renewables, storage, efficiency and demand-side management instead of natural gas. A clean grid is really an essential enabler to then move on to deep decarbonization in other sectors.

As part of the comprehensive plan to tackle climate change, the federal government is also making sure that polluters are held accountable across the country by applying a price on carbon. Today is a great day for Canada, as we've heard, with the earlier announcement on the application of the backstop and the use of revenues. I think this is cause for celebration.

This measure will cut carbon pollution by 50 million to 60 million tonnes by 2022. To put this into perspective, to meet our target under Paris, we need to cut emissions by 215 million tonnes. We really can't do it without carbon pricing. We applaud today's announcement on the backstop application. From there, we really look forward to seeing the level of ambition increase, with the standards under the output-based pricing system becoming more stringent and the price increasing beyond 2022.

Among other measures to reduce emissions from transportation, the PCF is also committing to updating vehicle emissions standards and putting more zero-emissions vehicles on the road. We now have a really important moment before us on vehicle regulations. Our regulations have historically been in lockstep with the U.S. Following the recent U.S. decision to block the increase of the fuel economy standard at the 2021 level, we have to move really quickly to make sure that we are on course and that we hold strong on existing regulations.

Across the world, as jurisdictions successfully clean up their electricity sources, they're also rapidly moving to electrify downstream sectors like transportation. Canada signed on to the EV30@30 campaign at the Global Climate Action Summit, which means we now have a target for at least 30% of new vehicle sales to be electric by 2030. This is great news. Moving forward, we really look forward to seeing the Canadian government back this up with meaningful action to accelerate EV uptake.

Canada could consider joining the transport decarbonisation alliance, which unites leading cities, countries and companies to transform the global transport sector to a net-zero-emission mobility system before 2050.

International leadership on transportation should not be limited to passenger vehicles. Canada took another step in implementing the PCF by announcing updated standards for heavy-duty vehicles. Now is really the time to help the trucking industry implement the technologies that will help it meet these standards. Canada can learn by joining initiatives like the global Drive to Zero pledge. Its members are working together to coordinate activities and share strategies and best practices to build and support actions to drive the uptake of these technologies and build the associated markets.

To summarize this quick PCF implementation review, we can say that Canada has made progress, but the work is not over. Significantly, efforts have to be made to continue to translate the PCF commitments into policies and regulatory mechanisms, and to then implement these policies to get reductions on the ground.

Let's now consider the need for increasing ambition to align with international expectations. The full suite of the policies under the PCF still leaves us with a 66-megatonne gap towards meeting our target under Paris. Consequently, Canada has to seize every opportunity to really extend and strengthen the PCF policies. I gave a few examples of how to do this. We also have to find additional ways to reduce emissions. The Climate Institute will play a crucial role in providing forward-looking and credible advice on how we can do this, in addition to tracking our progress, and the Canadian government should definitely ensure that the institute is fully equipped to play this role.

To fulfill or exceed domestic efforts to curb emissions, as Keith mentioned, article 6 of the Paris Agreement provides for the acquisition of ITMOs. While we recognize the important role that ITMOs can play to stimulate a new round of innovation and co-operative approaches, we also have some concerns with the use of ITMOs. We encourage the federal government to continue to engage in the development of the rules on ITMOs to ensure that the following principles are respected: ITMOs should safeguard the environmental integrity of reductions; double counting should not occur; ITMOs should be voluntary and authorized by parties; ITMOs should support NDC implementation in both countries; and, most importantly, as Keith mentioned, ITMOs should support ambition, and so they should support going beyond each country's target.

Importantly, the federal government should develop its own national ITMO regime, with a mechanism to ensure that the principles l listed are respected, by establishing clear rules on domestic ITMO use, including what types of credits are acceptable, standards on MRV, and limitations on use.

In addition to strengthening and fully implementing the PCF and developing an ITMO strategy, as I've just mentioned, Canada must commit to setting a more ambitious target for 2030 by 2020. Indeed, at COP24 in December, Canada, along with all other parties, will be expected to signal that it will strengthen its commitment. This new target must be consistent with the IPCC 1.5°C report, meaning that to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C, global emissions must be reduced by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net zero around 2050.

Canada does have a mid-century strategy. We also joined the carbon neutrality coalition. As a member, Canada must now commit to publishing a detailed plan on how it will get to carbon neutrality by 2050.

There's a really important opportunity for Canada to continue to play a leading role internationally, and it's through the Powering Past Coal Alliance. I'll just quickly wrap up by saying that we look forward to seeing the PPCA take more substantive steps with our members towards enabling each other to implement the decarbonization of the electricity sector, and we also look forward to seeing how it equips itself to deliver these services to maintain momentum.

The last point I'll make is that Canada also has a huge role to play in being a champion for carbon pricing internationally, especially by engaging with the private sector.

Thank you.

[The Chair]

You have perfect timing. Thank you.

Now we'll jump to Tyler McCann, with the Grain Growers of Canada.

Mr. McCann, you have 10 minutes.

[Tyler McCann, Interim Executive Director, Grain Growers of Canada]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee today.

My name is Tyler McCann, and I'm the interim executive director of Grain Growers of Canada. I'm here today on behalf of our 16 member organizations and the 65,000 grain farmers we represent from coast to coast. I personally operate a 100-acre beef cow-calf farm with my wife and kids an hour west of Ottawa in Bristol, in the great riding of Pontiac.

I will focus today on trade and climate policy, but first I would like to take a minute to talk about the Grain Growers good news story that exists on climate change.

Across Canada, you will find hard-working middle-class farm families growing the world's safest, highest-quality and most sustainable grains and oilseeds. In 2017, these farmers harvested 75 million acres of crops, producing almost 70 million tonnes of grains. Of those 70 million tonnes, wheat and canola both represent more than 20 million tonnes each, followed by corn, barley and soybeans as the major crops grown in Canada. All of that production means that grain farming plays an important financial role in rural communities across Canada. In 2017, grain sales alone put $25 billion into the rural economy, not including the impact that value-added processing of these commodities can bring.

It's important to underscore the fact that grain farmers play an important role in rural communities. Farmers invest their income from grain sales in inputs such as seed, fertilizer, fuel, machinery, and other expenses, and they support many of the small businesses and dealerships that help keep rural Canada strong and vibrant.

Farmers are not only the economic engine of rural Canada but, first and foremost, stewards of the land. Canada's rich natural capital—its healthy soil, clean water and clear skies—forms the backbone of Canadian grain farms. Farms can reach their full potential only when farmers care for that natural capital and nurture it. That is why today's grain farmers invest in new technologies and production practices so they can produce more food with fewer inputs, leaving a smaller environmental footprint and needing no new land.

An example of these investments includes minimum or no-till farming so that farmers work the soil less, conserving moisture, reducing soil erosion and keeping carbon in the ground. More than half of Canada's farmland is cultivated using minimum or no-till practices. This alone has reduced fuel use by over 170 million litres each year.

Precision agriculture and adherence to the 4R nutrient stewardship program are examples of how grain farmers are targeting application of crop inputs when and where they are needed most. Biotechnology, new crop protection products, and plant breeding innovations are encouraging efficient pesticide use and improved soil health. Across Canada, farmers are developing and implementing environmental farm plans.

All of this work has brought real results for the environment. At a time when grain production is reaching record highs, its carbon emissions are reaching new lows. The Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops, of which Grain Growers of Canada is a member, has developed a data-based metrics platform that provides concrete measurements on the sustainability of Canadian grain production. This allows us to go beyond anecdotes and talk about the evidence we have that Canadian grain farmers are environmental leaders.

For example, not only has it confirmed that 80% of grain farmers have adopted no-till practices and that most grain farmers always or usually look for equipment and technologies that reduce fossil fuel use, but it has given us concrete details on the impact those efforts are having.

The data shows that Canada's agricultural soils went from being a small carbon source of 1.2 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in 1981 to being a sink, with almost 12 metric tonnes of carbon absorbed by the soil in 2011. As farmers are getting better at increasing yields, they are driving down the amount of energy required to produce those yields. In 2011, corn growers in Ontario and winter wheat growers on the Prairies were using approximately 60% of the energy per tonne of production that they used in 1981. To put this in context, an analysis of data from the World Bank, the European Commission and Agriculture Canada done by The Western Producer shows that Canada's 113 million arable acres produce effectively the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture as the United Kingdom's 16 million acres do.

Several factors contribute to this, but the bottom line is that Canadian agriculture is part of the climate change solution, not the problem. That is why agriculture should be part of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change commitment to international leadership.

I would like to offer some examples of what this leadership can or should look like with regard to trade and climate policy.

First, I would like to highlight the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases. Canada was a founding member of the GRA in 2009. Since then, the alliance has been leading international efforts to coordinate and collaborate on greenhouse gas research.

The GRA is an example of an international effort focused on making tangible progress on reducing greenhouse gases. Its research projects focus on best management practices, monitoring emissions and increasing our understanding of how and why agriculture releases carbon emissions, so that new practices and technologies can be put in place to further reduce emissions from the sector. While it is not a headline-grabbing initiative, supporting and contributing to the GRA is an example of how Canada can and should show international climate leadership in a way that supports farmers in Canada and around the world.

Canada can go further in our international leadership on how agriculture can positively contribute to reducing GHG emissions. Many farmers around the world lack access to the tools, science and innovation that have helped Canadian farmers get to this position. It is crucial that international efforts to mitigate climate change include finding trade-enabling solutions for biotechnology, crop protection products and plant-breeding innovations.

For example, modern plant science, agronomics and biotechnology have helped to reduce the climate impact of Ontario corn by 37% over the last 34 years. In the Prairies, canola growers have been able to use biotechnology to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by one billion kilograms, the equivalent of taking 500,000 cars off the road.

Despite these significant environmental benefits of biotechnology, countries around the world continue to put up barriers to the use and trade of our safe biotech products. The unfortunate reality today is that around the world, some of the voices that are the loudest in support of climate change science are the loudest in opposing the plant and agronomic science that is helping farmers produce more with less.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, supported by Global Affairs Canada, has done important work trying to find trade-enabling solutions to these barriers, but there is more to be done. International leadership to facilitate the trade in biotech crops is not just an agriculture issue, but a climate change issue, too. At a minimum, Environment and Climate Change Canada and other government departments should embrace modern agriculture technologies, and their benefits for the environment, during their international climate advocacy.

The real reason growers see international leadership as an essential component of the pan-Canadian framework is that farmers need to be on a level playing field around the world.

Earlier, I referenced the impressive 70 million tonnes of grains, oilseeds and pulses grown by Canada's hard-working grain farmers. For most commodities, the domestic market cannot consume most of that production. The good news is that there is significant demand around the world for the sustainably produced, high-quality grains than cannot be consumed domestically. In fact, many nations choose Canadian grains because they are sustainable.

This means that Canadian farmers are export-dependent. Canada exports more than half of our canola, wheat, pulses, flax and oats, with almost 90% of some production destined for export markets. For Canadian grain farmers to be able to compete in these export markets, they need to be on a level playing field with their international competitors. Canadian farmers are up against farmers from the U.S., South America, Australia and the Black Sea region when they are selling into markets in Asia, Europe and elsewhere around the world.

When farmers in competing growing regions are able to grow their grains without facing aggressive carbon policies, they are given a competitive advantage over Canadian growers. When done right, climate policies can recognize farmers as stewards of the land and support their efforts to grow more with less. When done wrong, they can saddle farmers with increased costs, making them less competitive and shifting production out of Canada to markets with little or no cost associated with a climate policy.

I'd like to repeat that grain farmers are not against reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, it's the opposite, as they have been putting in place the agronomic practices and investing in new technologies that have actually helped to reduce emissions for decades. Grain farmers would welcome meaningful international agreements that put farmers on a level playing field and ensure that everyone is living up to the standards we set to reduce our environmental impact. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen anytime soon.

That is why we welcomed the confirmation this morning that gas and diesel used on farms will be exempted from the federal carbon price backstop.

However, grain farmers will still face additional costs due to a framework that will put them at a competitive disadvantage. For example, the propane and natural gas used in grain dryers will be subject to the fuel charge. While the fuel charge will be reduced for propane and natural gas used in greenhouses, grain farmers will not be given the same relief. Our hope is that the government will reconsider that decision.

The challenging conditions that growers are coping with during this fall's harvest, caused by increasingly erratic weather patterns, have underscored the important role that grain dryers play. Just as propane and natural gas are essential for keeping a greenhouse warm, they are essential for a grain farmer during a wet fall.

Providing additional relief will not impact growers' commitments to reducing GHG emissions. Growers are already doing that, and they will continue to work hard to grow more with less.

In the meantime, Canada can and should continue to show international leadership on this important issue. Canadian grain farmers are already part of the climate change solution, and Canada should be proud to use them as an example of what it means to have the economy and the environment go hand in hand.

Thank you again for the invitation. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair]

Thank you for those introductory comments from each of the three organizations.

For all of the members of Parliament at the table, I want to provide a brief explanation. This morning we were going to have a one-hour session with the World Trade Organization. We had been able to test the video technology. It was all set. Then late yesterday we received cancellation with no explanation. That's why that meeting disappeared. We are trying to get some sort of response from the WTO on the reason for their not participating. It was at their request that they pulled their name as a witness, and that's why we didn't have the session this morning, with regrets, because I think they would have been a good organization to speak to.

With that, our first round of questions, for six minutes, goes to Mr. Bossio.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all so much for being here today. We very much appreciate it. That was great testimony.

I apologize for this. I hate to take away any time for questions, but at this time, Mr. Chair, I would like to move a motion. I did have French and English versions, but unfortunately a couple of words got jumbled up so I'm going to read the motion as a result of that:

That, in light of the recent IPCC report on climate change, the Committee add up to two additional meetings to the study on Clean Growth and Climate Change in Canada: International Leadership, and that department officials be invited to appear in order to provide comments in relation to the said report.

Given the nature of the study we're doing, I think it's important. This is a seminal report that has just been released, a very important report on climate change internationally, and given that this is what our report is all about, I think it would be advisable for us to have these meetings.

[The Chair]

Does anybody want to speak to the motion?

[Mike Lake, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC]

I have a point of order first.

Is this a motion that's in order, or is this a notice of motion right now?

[The Chair]

Because this is within the current study, we're able to consider motions on the study before the committee and entertain them at this time. The 48-hour notice of motion is not required. It is a motion that's being put forward for discussion at this time.

[Mike Lake]

Could we get Mike to read the motion one more time?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Yes, by all means.

[The Chair]

Please read slowly for our translators as well.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Sorry about that. The motion is as follows:

That, in light of the recent IPCC report on climate change, the Committee add up to two additional meetings to the study on Clean Growth and Climate Change in Canada: International Leadership, and that department officials be invited to appear in order to provide comments in relation to the said report.

[The Chair]

Are there any questions?

Mr. Warawa, go ahead.

[Mark Warawa, Langley—Aldergrove, CPC]

The report we're talking about is “Clean Growth and Climate Change in Canada: International Leadership”.

The motion is talking about two additional meetings responding to the IPCC report. Last week we talked about pollution and that polluters will have to pay for pollution. We asked for two meetings on that, and it was sad that the committee decided we're not going to study the issue of polluters paying for pollution.

I find this a little confusing, that we're not going to deal with pollution but we're going to deal with the IPCC report. I will support the motion, but I find it concerning that when we actually deal with pollution and the lack of enforcement, the component of enforcement, the committee did not want to deal with that. Regarding Volkswagen, the pollution fines they experienced in Europe and in the United States were at $14.7 billion, but in Canada we don't want to talk about enforcement relating to pollution.

I will support the motion, but I find it concerning that we are being selective and not consistent.

Thank you.

[The Chair]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Stetski, go ahead.

[Wayne Stetski, Kootenay—Columbia, NDP]

Just to be clear on what happened at the last meeting, I certainly put forward the suggestion that we should get enforcement people here before the committee as part of the existing study. What was problematic was getting Volkswagen to come to the table. That's what was not supported. But I certainly put forward the notion that we should be inviting our regulatory people to come. Maybe they can be part of those two extra meetings for a discussion.

[The Chair]

If I could make a comment, we did reach out to ECCC, Environment and Climate Change Canada, about having departmental officials come. They indicated that they would be willing to come, although they didn't feel they would be able to speak to details of the ongoing investigation related to the VW case specifically.

We can invite them. We do have two sessions next week with four organizations per panel, so they're pretty full. We could invite enforcement, but they felt they would have limited input. That was the information that was conveyed to the clerk. If the will of the committee is to request that, I'm happy to do so. Just know they may not have a lot to offer.

We can put them before us and see what they are willing to respond to.

[Wayne Stetski]

I think we need a sense of confidence that our enforcement people are enforcing laws, which is why I would very much support having them come before the committee.

[The Chair]

Is there anybody else who would like to speak to the motion?

[Mark Warawa]

Could we have a friendly amendment, then, that they be invited? The issue regarding Volkswagen is that they've pleaded guilty both in Europe and in the United States. What is Canada doing? Right now it appears we're doing nothing, and that's very concerning.

Maybe they could come and report on enforcement in general, on what is happening. We have legislation, yet we're not enforcing it. That's very concerning.