Evidence of meeting #126 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was things.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Director, Federal Policy, Pembina Institute
A lot of the pieces of the climate plan that I touched on during my opening remarks give examples of where you can impact both the demand and the supply for fossil fuels. There are very practical things that we can do with increasing active transportation, increasing access to public transportation as well. There are lots of things that we can do.
In terms of energy efficiency in buildings, something that we didn't mention earlier is that none of the provincial codes currently look at the existing stock of buildings. This is a huge opportunity that should be exploited for emissions reductions and for increasing the comfort of Canadians and decreasing their energy bill. In all sectors, in transportation and buildings, there's something more that can be done for sure.
5:05 p.m.
Kootenay—Columbia, NDP
Tyler, I'll ask you the same question. What does that look like from an agricultural perspective, when you hear “moving away from fossil fuels”?
5:05 p.m.
Interim Executive Director, Grain Growers of Canada
I see another opportunity for grain farmers to be part of the solution.
There's an existing renewable fuel mandate across the country. The government had started down the road toward a clean fuel standard. I think farmers across the country see a great opportunity to use some of this new production we're bringing online every year to introduce really energy-efficient crops, including as a renewable fuel source, and to expand the role they can play. Canadian farmers could benefit from this. The Canadian government could take a real leadership role in moving forward with the clean fuel standard. It should be part of a comprehensive plan, moving forward.
5:05 p.m.
Kootenay—Columbia, NDP
This is my last question, then. Maybe I won't need my extra three if we can make it really quick, but if we run out of time, we'll go over to the three minutes.
If I were to wave a magic wand and each of you were the Minister of Environment tomorrow and were told you could implement only one aspect of this need for a multi-level plan, what would your priority be? I'll start with Greenpeace perhaps.
Keith, go ahead, if you don't mind.
5:05 p.m.
Senior Energy Strategist, Greenpeace Canada
The thing in the pan-Canadian framework right now is the supply-side measures, how we are going to take action on the supply side so that we are, as economists say, “cutting with both sides of the scissors”. By reducing supply, we also increase the price. We make alternatives more attractive. Building into things like the planning processes, a true climate test for new infrastructure projects would be one of the big things for me. That would be high on my list.
5:05 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
You may have to carry the rest of the answers over to your last slot.
Mr. Bossio, go ahead for six minutes, unless you have any other motions that you want to bring forward, in which case you'll definitely lose that.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
I get to ask questions this time. That's awesome.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you once again, guests, for being here and for the great testimony. I'm glad I have an opportunity to pose some questions, and I'll get right to it.
Mr. Lake stated earlier that Greenpeace and Pembina were both saying that we don't need a price on pollution, and that we can use other means to get there, to reach our targets.
I don't think that's what either one of you were saying. Am I correct on that?
5:05 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
On a point of order, I would just clarify that I did not say that they said there was no need for carbon pricing. Clearly, they did. I just want to correct the record on that, if you're quoting me.
5:05 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
I was just suggesting that they had suggested there were alternatives to carbon pricing.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
And, therefore, we don't need a price on pollution. Sorry, I should have corrected that. You're right.
I am happy to correct that, Mr. Chair.
They had said that, because there are other options, we therefore don't need a price on pollution. I just want to give them an opportunity to respond to that.
5:05 p.m.
Director, Federal Policy, Pembina Institute
I would say that we'd welcome the opportunity to evaluate a climate plan that would not put forward carbon pricing, and see how, through modelling, it gets us to the same mitigation outcomes as a plan with carbon pricing would.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Have you not already indicated that the most economically viable plan, an efficient plan, is a price on pollution?
5:05 p.m.
Director, Federal Policy, Pembina Institute
I would evaluate the cost of the policy measures, as well. To my understanding, it's unlikely that this plan without carbon pricing would be less costly for Canadians than would one with carbon pricing.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Would you like to comment on that, Mr. Stewart?
5:05 p.m.
Senior Energy Strategist, Greenpeace Canada
Sure.
If you go through those delightfully written federal-provincial working group reports on mitigation and carbon pricing that were prepared in advance of the pan-Canadian framework, they actually do a good job of laying out things that carbon pricing does really well and things it doesn't, as well as things that regulations do well and the things carbon pricing doesn't. They each have things they do well.
I would also point out, not just in the PCF but also in Canada's long-term, low-emission strategy, which we submitted, that basically to reach our 2050 target, which is to get very low emissions, some of the things that don't seem to be the most cost-effective to get the first 10% of reductions are really important for getting the last 20% or 30%. These are things like requiring net-zero new buildings and having aggressive retrofit schemes. These complement each other, but when we're doing our policy, we have to think about not only what's going to get us to reductions in the next five years or even 12 years but also what's going to get us to zero carbon in the long term.
As you know, as Environment Canada's report states, things that help us get to a 30% reduction target, things like switching from coal to natural gas, can actually impede us from getting to that longer-term net zero. If you're looking at that net zero, you might say, “Let's leapfrog straight to renewables and not build a bunch of natural gas plants.” These are the kinds of policy options that are before us.
We have thoughtful treaties on how to do this. It's now a question of implementation. I think we're definitely going to need both. Carbon pricing does some things really well. It can raise revenues. It can help to do other things, but not everything.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
When I look at the plan we've put forward as a government—investing $1.3 billion in protected spaces, investing billions in transit, emissions reductions, methane, the elimination of coal, driving emission reductions, net zero for building codes, a price on pollution, investing in innovation and in clean-growth technologies—would you say that is a comprehensive plan, a great start towards meeting those targets?
October 23rd, 2018 / 5:10 p.m.
Senior Energy Strategist, Greenpeace Canada
I think it's a great base that can be built on. There's a bunch of things that I would add, as I was saying, on integrating climate tests into infrastructure decisions, to get that longer-term perspective on avoiding carbon lock-in, but yes. It clearly needs to be ratcheted up, but it's not a case of having to sweep it all away and start again. You have the basis. Implement that and then take those next steps.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Would you agree that it's the first time as a country we've actually had a comprehensive plan to work towards climate change?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Energy Strategist, Greenpeace Canada
We've had seven different national plans on climate. This one is the most serious, I would say.
5:10 p.m.
Senior Energy Strategist, Greenpeace Canada
I can even name all seven if you really want me to, but probably not.