Environment Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2018

[The Chair]

We have a motion on having witnesses related to the IPCC report, and we've now moved into a discussion on witnesses related to the framework. I'd like to move us back to the motion.

We do have the ability and the request before the committee to have the enforcement witnesses come. I'd say we can deal with that separately. We'll reach out to them and see if they can come either Tuesday or Thursday. That will be part of our existing schedule and it goes with the previous discussions and workings of the committee.

I'd like to return us now to the motion we have.

[Mike Lake]

Can I ask a quick question? What was the specific date of the IPCC report?

[The Chair]

It was October 8.

[Mike Lake]

The point I would make, respectfully, to Liberal colleagues is that we've had at least one subcommittee meeting since then. This could have been brought up at the subcommittee meeting so that we don't waste the time of our witnesses by bringing it to the floor in the middle of a meeting. It's something that definitely could have been discussed before.

[The Chair]

Are we willing to vote on the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you.

With that, Mr. Bossio, you're out of time, and we'll move back to our questions with our witnesses.

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

I had so many good questions.

[The Chair]

Next up is Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake]

I'm going to start with the Pembina Institute.

Isabelle, talking about carbon taxes you brought up the target of reductions—50 million to 60 million tonnes by 2022. You talked about the price increasing beyond 2022. What does Pembina recommend the price ought to be increased to beyond 2022?

[Isabelle Turcotte]

We feel that it's important to maintain the signal for emissions reductions so that we continue to make progress toward full decarbonization. There are no tools that we can leave on the table. We don't have a clear proposal at this point, although what I would say is that there have been claims that the price would increase to amounts that look like $300. This is far from what we are suggesting or thinking about when we're talking about a price increase beyond 2022.

This number that has been raised is the price of carbon should we not have any other measures in place to reduce emissions. This is not what the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change proposes. I think that for the certainty of investors, a schedule of increase that just stays the same, a $10 per tonne increase annually, is a reasonable proposal.

[Mike Lake]

I have the same question for Greenpeace. What number should we be targeting for our price eventually?

[Keith Stewart]

I have a very similar answer. A lot depends on what else you are doing. If you're doing big investments in public transit, which is going to help people get out of cars, if you're bringing in a zero emissions vehicle mandate so that there is a required percentage of vehicles that are electric, you can do it with a lower carbon price.

At a minimum, I would agree with continuing the $10 per year increase, but I think it could go much higher. If you're just doing carbon pricing, the price would have to be much higher, particularly if you're looking at trying to keep within the 1.5°C target, as put out by the IPCC. They argue that there are benefits to communities and to nature from lower emissions and faster action on reductions.

We should be sending a signal that it is going to be at least $10 per year so that industry can make investments appropriately. They know that's coming. My preference would be that all money from carbon pricing get reinvested into other measures that are going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In Ontario, we're actually getting a bigger bang from the reinvestment of cap-and-trade dollars than we were from the pricing law itself. It depends on how you spend the money, but it has to keep going higher. It has to keep going up. I understand the decision today to rebate individuals to help ease that transition, but we also have to increase investments in green infrastructure.

[Mike Lake]

I have to weigh in for a second, on both fronts. It was interesting to hear both of you mention that there are alternatives we could implement that would result in less need for a carbon tax, which is what I think I heard both of you say.

Certainly, as a country, we ought to be exploring every alternative we can to avoid having to tax our already overtaxed population more. I'm going to go to Tyler for a second.

Tyler, you talk about the export dependence of our agricultural communities. My riding is the largest in Canada by population, in Edmonton—Wetaskiwin. I'm hearing significant concerns about the carbon tax right now as it relates to our competitiveness relative to our largest trading partner and neighbour, which has no carbon tax at this point in time. The concern is that if you rob our economy of the revenues that we receive from sales and the taxes that companies pay because of their higher revenues, you actually rob us of our ability to fund the innovations that both of our other witnesses were talking about today. Could you speak to that a little bit?

[Tyler McCann]

I think what we're always encouraged by is the broad recognition that grain farmers are export-dependent. I think the government offered some of that recognition today when it exempted diesel and gas used on farms.

As I said earlier, if we were truly playing on a level playing field, Canadian grain farmers could compete with anyone and would be quite happy to support policies that keep us on that level playing field with others, but today we're not at that point. Today we are forced to compete with farmers from around the world. As long as we're in that situation, we're going to continue to ask for policies that recognize that and are cognizant of that important reality that we have to face. We don't have any other alternative available to us.

I think the good news is that, in the meantime, while lots of people have been talking about action, grain farmers have actually been acting and taking the steps necessary to reduce their environmental footprint. I think that's the good news story that we want to tell.

[The Chair]

You're right on time. Thank you.

Mr. Stetski, go ahead.

[Wayne Stetski]

Thank you.

Thank you all for being here today.

My first question will be for Keith and Greenpeace.

On April 3 of this year, Clean Energy Canada released a report called “The Economic Impact of Improved Energy Efficiency in Canada”, and it was very encouraging. According to some of the information they presented:

[I]mplementing the energy efficiency actions in the PCF [the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change] will add 118,000 jobs (average annual full-time equivalent) to the Canadian economy, and increase GDP by 1% over the baseline forecast, over the study period (2017-2030).... Canadian consumers would save $1.4 billion on energy bills per year [and] Canadian business, industry and institutions would save, on average, $3.2 billion each year.

Those are very encouraging opportunities going forward. Have you seen anything coming forward to help achieve those targets yet under this plan?

[Keith Stewart]

There is some work being done on energy efficiency standards, but I would say it doesn't go fast enough.

To answer your question, and also to come back to one of the previous comments, if we were having this discussion when I first went to one of these meetings in 1994, I would have asked, “Do we do this or that?” To echo Isabelle, at the moment we have to do energy efficiency and carbon pricing and investments in public transit. We have to do all of these things. It's not whether we do this or that. We need them all, and energy efficiency is one of the cheapest and easiest reductions.

Some of the proposals include aiming for a net-zero building code by 2025. A building built after 2025 has to produce as much energy as it uses. You can only do that with significant improvements in energy efficiency, but also by having wind and solar installations, etc.

We need that whole package, and efficiency is a big part of it. If I replace my incandescent bulb with an LED that does the same job and uses 5% of the electricity, I can still read my book. I'm happy and I'm using so much less energy that it's a lot easier to get it from clean sources.

Those are the kinds of investments we need to make. We need to help turn over that capital stock, and we really need tough codes and standards to ensure that anything new that's coming out into the marketplace is the very top of efficiency.

[Wayne Stetski]

What can the federal government do to encourage that, in your mind?

[Keith Stewart]

The federal government has a model building code that provinces can opt into or out of. The government can provide incentives for provinces to opt into that. It could greatly improve that. It can drive efficient appliance standards and make them much higher. In particular, the big decision coming up is on autos. It is important to improve the efficiency of our vehicle fleet and transfer it or shift it away from the internal combustion engine to primarily electric, probably, but there could also be some fuel cells, etc.

For the lower, close to zero-carbon transportation alternatives, we really need cogent standards, because if you try to do that with just a carbon tax, the carbon tax has to be super high to get big uptake, whereas, as we've seen, if you raise the building code, no one really notices that there's more insulation in their walls. It's not the kind of thing that anyone sees, but the fact that their heating bills are lower is good for their pocketbook. It's good for the environment, and it's good for our future.

[Wayne Stetski]

I'll turn to the Pembina Institute for just a minute. One of the things you mentioned was the transition to zero-emission vehicles, and again, I have the same question. What would support from the federal government look like, in your mind, to help get to zero-emission vehicles?

[Isabelle Turcotte]

One of the issues with zero-emission vehicles is that we need to get on board the people who sell the cars. We need them to feature these electric vehicles or lower-emission vehicles so that Canadian consumers can begin to experiment with them and get more familiar with them. Right now there is an issue that these vehicles are not available when Canadians want to visit their car dealerships to see what they look like.

There's work to be done working with dealerships, and there's also work to be done through providing financial incentives, but we also need a target set for the number of sales. A target for electric vehicle sales would be a good start. Offering incentives to purchase is another important step, and making sure that we have those vehicles in stock.

[Wayne Stetski]

I'm seeing the ads for the new electric Jaguar. If I had the money, that would be a sweet vehicle to have for sure.

On agriculture, Tyler, I thought a lot of your recommendations were very practical. You have a bit of a concern. You said that Canada's biotechnology should be part of trade agreements but there's push-back from other countries. Can you explain that? Why is there push-back?

[Tyler McCann]

It's hard for me to explain it. In my mind we're looking at a piece of technology that is widely recognized as safe. Competent authorities all around the world have undertaken significant reviews of biotechnology products and have said these products are safe for human consumption, the environment, and the animals they might feed, so it's hard for me to understand why countries put up these barriers. But they choose to, and it has a negative impact on the environment and the farmers and the consumers who don't have access to the products as a result.

[The Chair]

Thank you.

Mr. Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you to all three of our witnesses. It's greatly appreciated. We always appreciate having a Pontiac farmer before this committee. It's a rare occurrence, but a very positive one.

Mr. McCann, you mentioned the export dependence of the grain growers across Canada. You've highlighted the importance of trade. I want to start with the big picture, before zoning in on this climate leadership aspect.

What do the new trade deals, including the U.S.-Canada-Mexico deal, but also the Pacific, also with Europe, signed into law by our government mean for Canadian grain growers, and maybe more specifically for Pontiac grain growers?

[Tyler McCann]

What these trade deals mean, and the benefits they bring for farmers in the Pontiac or across Canada, is certainty, opportunity and a bright future. Canadian farmers are doing an excellent job producing more food. The Canadian population is growing, but it's not growing fast enough to consume all the food we're making, so we need these opportunities, these deals, to make sure the doors are open.

We were talking a moment ago about the impact of barriers related to biotechnology. One of the things the USMCA did was further advance text in a trade agreement that helps prevent barriers from being put in place. I think the USMCA—and we certainly applaud the government for taking the necessary steps to conclude those negotiations—will bring a really meaningful benefit and will have a real impact on the lives of farmers across the country.

Someone farming in Pontiac may not understand what that means. The reason they don't understand what it means is that they can sell grain off their farm and there's a market for it around the world. They don't have to worry about who's going to buy their grain at the end of the day. The global demand is there and these trade agreements mean those global customers can have access to the high-quality grains we produce.