Environment Committee on May 19th, 2021

[Geneviève Paul]

Thank you for your question, Ms. Saks. I'll answer in French, if that's okay with you.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Certainly.

[Geneviève Paul]

To follow up on a comment from Ms. McLeod, it's not too late to amend what's already there and make sure that the body is independent and science-based. Provided that the necessary details are in the act, it's possible. The body's terms of reference could then be adjusted, and some would be easy to deal with. The important thing is to make sure that the majority of its members are scientists.

At the CQDE, we had suggested that an advisory committee should recommend appointments to this independent body to the Governor in Council. I am aware that there already is such a committee, but we feel that even though it is highly competent in its fields of expertise, it does not match the terms of reference and disciplines that should be guiding its work in terms of the advice it would be giving the government to ensure that science is central to all decisions and advice.

It's not impossible at this point to strengthen the body's structure in the act and then amend its terms of reference afterwards.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Paul.

I'm going to shift gears a little bit, if I may, because all of this legislation is happening because change is hard. Fundamentally, we know as humanity and as Canadians that we are creatures of habit. We know that reaching net zero will require a tremendous amount of change and effort from industry, as guided by science and also really with a nod to what we produce, how we consume it, how we use it and how we dispose of it.

I would like to switch to Professor Meadowcroft.

We haven't had a chance to hear from you. Where do you see Canada making strides to achieve net zero in terms of where we should be focusing our efforts to essentially get the best bang for our buck?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have about 45 seconds, Professor Meadowcroft.

[Prof. James Meadowcroft]

Wow.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

There's no pressure.

[Prof. James Meadowcroft]

I think people should think about the economic opportunities for net zero. Let me take the automotive sector as an example. Gasoline sales have peaked in North America. This is a declining industry. We need to be building EVs and autonomous vehicles and developing the technologies of the future.

There's huge potential here. If we wait five years, we'll be buying everything from China and from the U.S. We have to get ahead of these changes. The key things now are transport, buildings and decarbonizing the electricity sector really fast, which are all bangs for the buck. There are emerging technologies like hydrogen where we could also play an important role if we act quickly.

One of the other panellists mentioned that we produce lots of hydrogen. Yes, it's dirty, grey hydrogen mostly, except for the project that used to be called Shell Quest. Blue hydrogen could play a role as well as green hydrogen, but we should not be focused on just dealing with the emissions of present oil and gas extraction but also on building a net-zero economy for the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to return to Ms. Paul.

Ms. Paul, it was pointed out earlier that it was important to achieve carbon neutrality as quickly as possible out of concern for intergenerational equity.

Do you feel that the current Bill includes provisions that could lead to long-term carbon neutrality? Would the measures adopted be applicable in the future, even if there were a change of government?

Please answer briefly, because I have only two and a half minutes left and I have a question I'd like to ask Ms. Khan.

[Geneviève Paul]

Thank you for your question, Ms. Pauzé.

The various amendments put forward around the table aiming at strengthening accountability would avoid shifting the burden onto future generations. Mr. Fauteux discussed the recent decision in Germany, which is an interesting one and reminds the government that we can't continually delay the measures that need to be taken and that it's essential to deal with these very difficult problems now^x.

Increasing accountability and requiring the government to explain itself when it strays from science would be a way of responding to what young people want and of explaining the decision for a particular trajectory, in addition to requiring the government to adopt interim targets as of 2025 so that it can no longer wait to take action and to report to Parliament as a whole.

These few steps would enable us to abide by the principle of intergenerational equity.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, that's very interesting.

Ms. Khan, several organizations, including yours, are in favour of Bill C-12, on condition that some amendments are made.

You say that it's important to take a giant step. I always say that it's more of a leap, because it needs to be done quickly. We are in the middle of a climate emergency right now.

Canada appears to be saying that the reduction of GHG emissions should be in the 40% to 45% range.

Can you tell us what you feel would be the most important measure to add to Bill C-12?

[Dr. Sabaa Khan]

Thank you for your question Ms. Pauzé.

Generally speaking, Bill C-12, in its current form, has all the essentials.

The really important thing to make sure is that targets are science-based. As I mentioned previously, we agree with the other non-government organizations on a target of 60% by 2030.

Something very important that is not in Bill C-12 at the moment is that the target should be science-based. This is imperative because otherwise, there is no chance that within the next decade, we would take the action required to achieve our carbon-neutral objective within 25 years.

Someone mentioned earlier that there appeared to be a dichotomy between the economy and the environment. I believe that this is a false dichotomy. It's been shown that the climate perspective is now built into the federal budget. The budget also includes a climate analysis and a quality-of-life analysis.

I'd like to see us approach Bill C-12 in the same way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps staying with Ms. Khan, the question of how we make Bill C-12 work within Canada's federalism has come up several times. I believe that in this meeting we've heard a bit about the role of the provinces vis-à-vis the federal government. How do you see that aspect of this working? How can Bill C-12 adequately address the provincial climate plans?

[Dr. Sabaa Khan]

That's an interesting question. Federalism is not only a challenge for Canada. Germany is a federation within the EU, which is also a complex challenge. This is a framework law, so we're not looking at prescribing policy; what it does is lay down a foundation, a process, so that the government can organize a transition—its inevitable transition toward decarbonization.

We have in Canada a model of co-operative federalism. We have Supreme Court judgments that have carefully laid out, through legal doctrines, that the pith and substance of legislation really determines its constitutionality. There are always incidental effects on different jurisdictions—it's inevitable—but we have a long history.

Back in 1887, the Privy Council ruled that the provincial tax on banks was in fact constitutional because it was not an attempt to regulate banks, but simply an effort to raise revenue for the provinces. I think we have to take into consideration that every national law is adopted within a certain legal culture. We have a strong legal culture of co-operative federalism in Canada that can ensure there is a spirit of co-operation.

During COVID, we saw a team Canada approach, and we saw federal discretionary transfers to the provinces, so we know that in fact the federal government and the provinces can co-operate very tightly when it comes to public health crises, and this is the public health crisis of our lifetimes.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I very much agree.

I think the direction of my question was more about the fact that we've seen some provinces carve out spaces as real leaders on climate, and we've seen other provinces do much less and even move in the wrong direction. How does the federal government handle the divergence of approaches provincially within the context of this bill?

[Dr. Sabaa Khan]

As I mentioned, this bill is about process. It's about transparency. It's about going toward a certain goal. When Canada reports to the UNFCCC, it includes in its national inventory the provincial and territorial emissions and the sectoral breakdowns.

It's no different when it comes Bill C-12. With this legislation, we're not telling the provinces what to do; we're creating transparency over what those emissions are. That's in the spirit of democracy, transparency and accountability, and it can allow.... Transparency itself is not an infringement on the constitutional division of powers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you for that interesting perspective.

We will now go to Mr. Albas for five minutes.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today. Canada is great because we can have a diversity of views, ask respectful questions and engage on what are the best paths for our country in the short and long term, so I appreciate everyone's views.

Ms. Khan, I'm going to continue in the vein that Mr. Bachrach has gone. You talked about co-operative federalism and about how important transparency is. Right now, the minister has the choice that he may comment on provincial undertakings, but that leaves an open book for future government to polarize the issue and only report on the actions it likes or the actions it doesn't like. Do you believe there should be a summary of provincial actions so that the Canadian public can look to one document as to what is happening right across our country?

[Dr. Sabaa Khan]

I absolutely do think we need to see where the emissions are coming from and that transparency has to be clear. There's no other way around it. It will help each province take the steps it needs to take to make its contribution toward the net-zero goal.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Ms. Khan, I was also listening to your opening comments, and you particularly mentioned the need for public transparency, independent science and also climate resiliency. When I meet with environmental stakeholders, I hear more and more about nature-based climate solutions. Actually, COP26 is going to be focusing on this. Right now, this particular bill is completely silent when it comes to non-anthropogenic emissions as well as sequestration. Do you believe that we can do a better job by including in the bill a provision that would require a report outlining the non-anthropogenic emissions as well as sequestration?

[Dr. Sabaa Khan]

I think that when it comes to the concept of sequestration or even...we can't answer this question without addressing offsets. The bill is silent on carbon offsets, and there's an opportunity there. If we want to be really clear and transparent about what our emissions are, then we have to address the issue of offsets. French law explicitly excludes offsets. The guiding principle under Danish law is real domestic reductions. German law explicitly allows intra-EU trading, so I think we have to include provisions that stipulate limited use or exclusion of offsets. Then, in that context, we can also take into consideration the non-anthropogenic emissions.