Evidence of meeting #33 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-12.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
May 19th, 2021 / 3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to pick up on that a bit. I get concerned with talk that's critical of more ambitious climate goals.
I was wondering if I could turn to Professor McLeman.
You talked about—sorry if I misquote you—a 500% increase in droughts in western Canada. What's the regional economic impact for that, if we're being critical—if certain witnesses are being critical—of a more ambitious policy? Are you able to quantify what that consequence would be in terms of regional economic devastation for the Prairies?
3:05 p.m.
Professor, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Wildfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
I have a couple of thoughts. One is that it is a worst-case scenario. That is the case where we continue to essentially follow the trajectory we're on in terms of taking coal, oil and natural gas out of the ground as quickly as we can and burning it as quickly as we can. Hopefully we don't go down that pathway. It's what scientists refer to as an RCP 8.5 scenario.
Yes, water scarcity is an ongoing challenge in western North America. There will be localized variations in that.
In terms of the economic impacts of a 500% increase in drought severity or frequency in western Canada, I don't think anybody studied the agricultural economics of that, but I think it's fairly easy to calculate, if one wanted to, in terms of just looking at the insured crop losses that will occur, say, over the next five-year period. From that you can make some extrapolations. Plus, then you have the urban impacts. A city like Edmonton, for example, needs to have a certain amount of surface water in the river in order to accept waste water for treatment and to provide drinking water and so on. These are quantifiable. Obviously, you can assume, in very simple math, that a 500% increase in frequency or severity of droughts would have a corresponding economic cost.
Then again, I've also studied historical droughts such as the ones of the 1970s on the Great Plains. There's often a cascading effect. The drought is just the start of an economic crisis. If you look at the 1970s and 1980s, droughts on the Great Plains coincided with a period of rising interest rates. Many farmers found that the drought put them into a position where they were borrowing money to get through the drought, and then interest rates rose. That helped trigger the farm crisis in the United States in the 1980s.
All this is to say, Mr. Bittle, that yes, it's quantifiable, and it's obviously something we would want to avoid.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I appreciate that.
I'll go back to your testimony on clause 16, about there being no consequences. What's your recommendation going forward if there were to be consequences for a government?
3:10 p.m.
Professor, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Wildfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
I would not want to venture too far into recommendations here, because I'm not a policy-maker; I'm not a government official. However, I would look to other pieces of federal legislation for what happens when government agencies fail to follow through on their obligations under the law. In some cases that involves actual legal obligations and penalties, financial or otherwise, for agencies that fail to comply with the law of the land. I won't make any specific recommendations, but maybe other witnesses have some specific ones.
A law that says, “If you fail, that's okay; try again” is really not helping. I would put it in these terms. I give my students assignments in school, and if my first-year students don't turn in an assignment, I don't say, “Oh, that's too bad. Here's another assignment; try doing this one.” If they don't turn it in, there's a consequence. For this law to be meaningful, it has to have a consequence for inactivity.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I appreciate your comments.
I'll go to Équiterre. Clause 23 of the bill creates a new obligation for the Minister of Finance to:
prepare an annual report respecting key measures that the federal public administration has taken to manage its financial risks and opportunities related to climate change.
Would you agree that having this kind of disclosure is important for strengthened climate governance? If so, why?
3:10 p.m.
Director, Government Relations, Équiterre
Would it be possible to repeat the question?
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Yes, no problem. We're 15 months into this crisis and we'll all eventually figure out this Zoom thing. I find myself in the same boat quite a bit, so I appreciate that.
Clause 23 of the bill creates a new obligation for the Minister of Finance to:
prepare an annual report respecting key measures that the federal public administration has taken to manage its financial risks and opportunities related to climate change.
Would you agree that having this kind of disclosure is important for strengthened climate governance?
3:10 p.m.
Director, Government Relations, Équiterre
The short answer to your question is "yes."
Being more transparent in all circumstances is a good approach, but accountability mustn't be limited to transparency. To guarantee as much transparency as possible, we'd like to see the advisory committee's opinions systematically made public.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I'll move along to Climate Action Network Canada.
Clause 20 provides for the creation of an expert independent advisory body. In my view, it's an important measure to ensure that Canada can count on the best advice possible on the path to net zero.
Do you agree that having an expert independent advisory body is important, and if so, could you explain why?
3:10 p.m.
Policy Analyst, Climate Action Network Canada
Thank you.
Yes, it's very important to have an independent advisory committee that would be responsible for providing the government with advice on selected plans for achieving fixed targets and on the targets themselves. There also has to be project accountability.
For that purpose, however, I would say that the component linked to the committee's scientific expertise can definitely be reinforced by demanding, for example, that members appointed by the committee have expertise in certain fields.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
I now turn the floor over to Ms. Pauzé or Ms. Michaud.
3:15 p.m.
Bloc
3:15 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
First, I would like to thank the witnesses for being with us and sharing their expertise. We are very grateful to them for that.
I'll go first to Ms. Brouillette.
Ms. Brouillette, we were discussing greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. The present version of the bill contains none. Clause 7 provides that the minister will set the target within six months after the act comes into force.
When he appeared before the committee yesterday, the minister assured me that his new target range, a 40% to 45% reduction in GHG emissions, would be added to the act. However, some of the projections of the Department of the Environment show a shortfall. Even the measures announced in the 2021 budget indicate that we'll achieve a reduction of approximately 36%.
Do you think this new target range would be adequate, even if it were added to the act?
How could this bill be amended to firm up the targets set for 2030?
3:15 p.m.
Policy Analyst, Climate Action Network Canada
Thank you for your question.
It's important to note that it's a good thing the target is periodically revised. That's part of the process for increasing contributions under the Paris Agreement whereby the parties normally review their targets every five years. We take a positive view of the government's new target. However, it's still not enough to represent Canada's fair share of the global effort to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
We at Climate Action Network Canada have determined that a target that would represent a fair share would be an approximately 60% reduction from 2005-level emissions by 2030, which means an 80% reduction in funding to support the fight against climate change in southern countries.
However, Bill C-12 should reflect the Paris Agreement by enabling us to revise our targets only upward in order to increase contributions.
As you mentioned, clause 7 should ideally be amended to permit that.
Earlier I heard someone mention market certainty. One of our recommendations is that targets and plans be established 10 years in advance precisely in order to provide markets and investors with that element of certainty. When targets must be revised along the way, as required under the Paris Agreement's process for increasing contributions, it is possible to reduce the gap because action will be taken much more in advance.
3:15 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you.
Earlier you said that this bill often refers to "trying" to reach targets rather than "compelling" the government to meet them. In that connection, even though the bill expresses some lofty ambitions, I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to add a minimum greenhouse gas emissions reduction target such as the one stated in the Paris Agreement.
That might afford an additional legal guarantee in the event we fall short of our targets. This could happen if the measures announced by the government aren't all introduced, or if a new government comes to power in a few years, for example, and they aren't yet in place.
Should we establish that guarantee by adding a minimum target to the bill?
3:15 p.m.
Policy Analyst, Climate Action Network Canada
I think it's a good idea to add the target to the bill. However, my colleagues and I really view Bill C-12 as a governance framework. Consequently, we feel it's somewhat less important that the bill include the exact figure.
However, we want to have assurances that the government is accountable within the framework of all the mechanisms and processes. To ensure that's the case, it must be clearly stated who is responsible for meeting the target and how it will be met. The language must also be clear, as you mentioned.
I'm not a lawyer. I did a minor in law and that was enough for me. However, what my lawyer colleagues and experts in the field tell us is that language is very important. So we should prefer words like "shall" and "meet" over others such as "try" and "permit."
3:15 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you.
Yes, in our discussions with the minister and an assistant deputy minister yesterday, the nationally determined contributions mechanism, the NDC, came up several times in the context of meeting targets. Canada will soon be required to submit its contributions under the Paris Agreement.
How should Bill C-12 and the NDC mechanism work together? They seem to be two mechanisms that should normally be interrelated.
What's your opinion on that?
3:20 p.m.
Policy Analyst, Climate Action Network Canada
Yes, those mechanisms should be interrelated.
The Paris Agreement doesn't impose targets on the signatory parties. Instead it's the targets themselves that determine what are called the NDCs.
The Paris Agreement states that, every five years, countries must communicate their new NDCs under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Under the agreement, countries must regularly report the progress they've made in implementing their NDCs.
The mechanisms provided for under Bill C-12 should indeed be synchronized with Canada's NDCs. That would increase our responsibility in the fight against climate change because both follow a similar contributions cycle that requires Canada to present more ambitious targets every five years.
Progress reports are a minimum requirement from an international standpoint. That's why we recommend that Bill C-12 include corrective measures where the government fails to meet its targets. Interim reports should require the minister to specify the measures that will be taken to rectify the situation where a target isn't or won't be met.