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.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
No, that's quite all right.
Ms. Turcotte, would you like to comment on that?
5:10 p.m.
Director, Federal Policy, Pembina Institute
I think that answers the question.
Carbon pricing does things really well, and there's an embedded price on carbon in regulations as well. It's not free, even if you regulate.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
There are a couple of things I want to go to, but I will say you've probably all seen this graph, the one that came out of Australia. They had a price on carbon for two years, and during that two-year period you see that their carbon emissions fell off dramatically. As soon as they eliminated that price on pollution, not only did their emissions reach the levels they were prior to carbon pricing, they actually shot up dramatically above the previous levels attained.
Would you like to comment on that, please?
5:10 p.m.
Director, Federal Policy, Pembina Institute
I might highlight that in addition to the price embedded in a regulation, a regulation doesn't provide industry with the flexibility to make investments on its own terms, to increase its energy efficiency and decrease its emissions and innovate, which is something that is offered through carbon pricing. Unfortunately, in Australia, policy certainty was lost and companies that had been making investments for a carbon-pricing environment lost out.
We have to avoid this in Canada. We need to provide policy certainty to Canadian businesses. I think that's what we're doing with today's announcement.
5:10 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Thank you.
Mr. Lake, you have six minutes.
5:10 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
Thank you very much. That's an interesting point because that's the exact same criticism people make about the Liberal changes to pipeline policy. That lack of certainty investors have in Canada right now is causing us to have some real challenges in our economy, and a $20-billion deficit.
It's interesting how these conversations in this room, or in the House, tend to get very polarizing. We're in a political world, but the reality is that we all want to leave a better place for our kids and grandkids. I have a 19-year-old and a 22-year-old. Many of the members have children and we want to leave a better place from a fiscal standpoint, a social safety-net standpoint and an environmental standpoint.
Mr. Kennedy...is it?
Sorry, it's Keith, at Greenpeace.
5:15 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
I'm getting you confused with Kennedy Stewart, a former colleague here.
5:15 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
You mentioned those seven different environmental plans. In question period every day the Liberals fire back and ask about our plan. Clearly, we're a year out from an election. We will have an environmental plan and I'm sure Canadians are looking forward to it and we'll have a debate around it.
To that end, I'm going to give notice of motion right now, if I could. We won't debate it, but I'll give notice of the following motion:
That, following the Committee’s study of Clean Growth and Climate Change in Canada: forestry, agriculture and waste, the Committee proceed next to a study of Clean Growth and Climate Change in Canada: Carbon Tax, and that the study consist of no less than six meetings with witnesses.
We can debate that in future weeks. I think it's important that, as we take a look at this conversation around carbon tax, the cornerstone of the framework, that as the committee is undertaking a study of this, as the carbon tax seems to be the most hotly debated topic in Canada right now and very timely today, the committee ought to engage in six specific meetings to have a conversation about carbon tax, or carbon pricing as some call it, and move forward on that.
I have one quick question, and then I'm going to give the last question to Mark Warawa.
Isabelle and Keith, right now are we on track to meet our Paris Agreement targets?
5:15 p.m.
Director, Federal Policy, Pembina Institute
As I mentioned, there is a 66-megatonne gap to meeting our current target, even if we implement the full set of the PCF measures. We have to do more.
5:15 p.m.
Senior Energy Strategist, Greenpeace Canada
I would add the gap is now larger, given the policy reversals in Ontario, which haven't been accounted for yet, but we're not currently on track. That target needs to be ratcheted up. That's part of the Paris Agreement. We all agreed to review those targets next year and increase them. We're in a race here to do this fast enough.
I totally agree with you. We all want to leave the best world for our kids. The problem on climate change is that we're trying to fit some change with a deadline. If you look at the 1.5° report, acting too slowly has huge consequences, which we're already feeling now, but our kids are going to feel that even more. I have a nine- and 13-year-old. There are days when I come home I don't want to talk to them about what I did at work because it's too sad.
5:15 p.m.
Senior Energy Strategist, Greenpeace Canada
But I do think every day about what I'm doing to try to make sure they inherit the best world possible. I know you guys are doing that too. The science is telling us we have to move so fast. It seems it's so fast that it can't possibly be true. We can't possibly be expected to do that, but we're being asked to do extraordinary things to transform our energy systems and change our economy to protect our livelihoods and to protect our ecosystems that we all depend on.
5:15 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
Thank you very much.
I'm going to give the floor to Mark.
5:15 p.m.
Langley—Aldergrove, CPC
Keith and Isabelle, Keith touched on the leapfrogging to renewables. Moving water is the most important renewable energy source in Canada, providing approximately 60% of Canada's electricity generation. Canada is the second-largest producer of hydroelectricity in the world. I think both Greenpeace and Pembina are on record as opposing the B.C. Site C hydroelectric dam. Why did you oppose this when it is renewable and takes us from carbon-based to energy from hydroelectric?
5:15 p.m.
Director, Federal Policy, Pembina Institute
I can't comment as I've recently joined Pembina, and I'm not aware of their past conversations on this.
5:15 p.m.
Senior Energy Strategist, Greenpeace Canada
If you look at the World Commission on Dams, their report on hydro power that Greenpeace uses to guide our support or opposition to particular dams, it really depends on how it's done. Run of river is clearly the most environmentally friendly and can produce lots of power. The massive dams that create large reservoirs create greenhouse gas emissions of their own with the rotting of vegetation, etc. They also have all sorts of dislocations. Also, any project we do has to be consistent with Canada's commitment to reconciliation with indigenous people. It's that combination of factors.
Mega-dams have a bunch of other ecological problems. They don't provide the greenhouse gas benefit because of the problem that they produce greenhouse gas emissions as the ground that was there rots and turns into methane. Opposition from affected first nations is.... We say there are a lot of better opportunities in B.C. for doing renewable generation in a way that doesn't run into those problems.
5:20 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Thank you.
Mr. Stetski, you have three minutes.
5:20 p.m.
Kootenay—Columbia, NDP
Thank you.
Going back to my earlier request, if you could send any papers to the committee that you think are particularly good on the practical switch from fossil fuels to green energy, that would be great. The challenge is that it should be 10 pages or under, so no Ph.D. dissertations, please. It has to be translated, so summarize it if you can. That would be very much appreciated.
Back to my question, what is the most important thing you could or would do if you were Minister of Agriculture and/or Environment?
Tyler, perhaps we can start with you.
5:20 p.m.
Interim Executive Director, Grain Growers of Canada
If I were Minister of Environment I think the first thing I would want to do is celebrate the good work that our farmers are doing being environmental stewards. When you look at concrete policies, I think I would take from the pan-Canadian framework and move forward with a clean fuel standard. I think that's a good example of a type of policy that has a positive impact on carbon emission reductions, while supporting our domestic economy and encouraging clean economic growth.
5:20 p.m.
Kootenay—Columbia, NDP
Please do pass on our thanks and appreciation to all the great farmers you represent.
Isabelle.
5:20 p.m.
Director, Federal Policy, Pembina Institute
The question was the one policy that I would use, and it's such a hard one because there are specific tools that do things really well. We have to push all levers. Although, I'm inclined to say getting off coal is paramount. If you do it successfully, it's hugely influential in the rest of the world. The bulk of emissions are happening in developing countries that need to stop using coal to meet their energy needs.