Environment Committee on May 19th, 2021

[Dr. Laure Waridel, Co-Instigator, Eco-sociologist, Adjunct Professor at Université du Québec à Montréal, For our Kids Montreal, Mothers Step In]

Thank you for your question, Ms. Michaud.

Thanks as well to all the members for their remarks.

You can see from a cursory consideration of the scientific news the extent to which humanity has come to a crossroads. The window is closing on the possibility for us to take action and prevent runaway climate change and all the known harmful consequences for the health and safety of populations. That's also what we've heard today.

We know that all the measures put in place to date have looked more like good intentions and haven't helped us meet greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Starting now, all our decisions must be closely examined for the impact they may have on climate. When we say we're at a crossroads, that means we have to ask ourselves whether every decision, policy, regulation and tax measure will have the effect of reducing or increasing GHG emissions.

That's the question that all federal government decision-makers should ask. As far as possible, we must then determine how that will affect relations with the provinces and various stakeholders, as well as the policies that are introduced in the provinces and all those who interact with the federal government. This seems essential because, as long as we have no such mechanisms, we'll keep saying we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but will still subsidize the fossil energy sector, when we know it's the heart of the problem.

We're currently funding rising greenhouse gas emissions. Some $30 billion of public funds has been allocated to this sector since the pandemic began. We know the Trans Mountain project will cost more than $12.6 billion. A "climate test" would prevent us from heading in that direction and would encourage us instead to subsidize the people who depend on the fossil energy sector to encourage them to engage in the transition.

We must not abandon workers in the fossil energy sector. We must support the people of Alberta, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan. I think it's essential. We have to make this transition together, but from this moment on all our decisions must be closely examined to determine the impact they'll have on the climate and our children's future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll pick up where I left off, Mr. Viau. You talked about the connection between measures and targets and the failure of the bill, as it's currently written, to directly connect those two things. Why is that so important? What is the risk if we don't amend the bill to strengthen the connection between the measures and the targets?

[Marc-André Viau]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Bachrach.

As we've seen in the past, we've missed our targets because the plans don't include measures that would help us meet them.

If we don't establish a direct connection in Bill C-12 between the measures outlined in the plans and the targets, if we don't demonstrate that connection, we'll wind up back in the same situation.

So we have to establish that connection both in reality and in the bill so the targets are met based on the measures set forth in the plans.

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

Thank you for that response.

Ms. Brouillette, I have a question about carbon budgets, which you mentioned in your introductory comments. We've had quite a bit of discussion about these two different approaches. We heard from the government. We heard from the minister at our previous meeting that he didn't feel it was the right approach for Canada.

Do you feel that the carbon budget approach would work in Canada, given the way the federation is structured, and why is that?

[Caroline Brouillette]

First, I'm going to speak briefly about the carbon budget. A carbon budget provides a clearer picture for the purpose of making decisions on regulations and infrastructure, for example, which have an impact on our GHG emissions.

Here's an analogy. If I want to cut my spending by 40% to 45% over the next nine years, I have to know how much money I have in my bank account and how much I can spend on periods shorter than nine years or else I won't be able to do it.

I repeat that, in Climate Action Network Canada's view, this is still an appropriate approach for Canada, even though the government hasn't opted for it. We believe it's possible within the federation because the federal government has tools at its disposal such as regulations, tax policy and the spending power.

However, if we want to ensure a minimum degree of transparency in plans and progress reports in the absence of a carbon budget, the bill should absolutely be amended to provide for annual modeling of GHG emissions in the plans.

The advisory group of the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices could look into that issue in future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. McLeod.

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

Do I have more time, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No. I'm sorry, Mr. Bachrach. you were actually given much more time than is normally indicated, but it was a good question with good answers.

We'll go to Ms. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses. Again, we're having what I think is a really important dialogue.

I have two things that I hope to accomplish in my five minutes. One is just a quick follow-up in terms of the net-zero advisory body. I find that perhaps the government should have waited for this legislation to pass, because we're having some good dialogue about what an advisory panel would look like. We had one person here who said it should absolutely just be scientists, with no industry involvement. Of course, Mr. Loessin talked about how industry could add so much to the debate. If you look at the current component of the advisory committee, it's a bit.... Although they're all very knowledgeable people, I'm not sure the government waited for the best advice possible.

My personal perspective is that we can get further when we include industry, because we understand the challenges, but we can also understand what they can accomplish. I think we can all agree on the importance of pulses to our diets, not just in Canada but worldwide. The diets of more and more people are increasing in terms of pulses.

Perhaps I could get Mr. Loessin to quickly address that issue again. I hope to go to some more generic questions after that.

Thank you.

[Corey Loessin]

Yes. Just to reiterate, pulse crop farmers are farmers, and they include other crops in their rotation for necessary reasons, certainly. However, pulse crops have been a growing and very beneficial component in our crop rotation in Saskatchewan for 30-some years.

Having farmers, or at least industry representation, on an advisory committee that could help, as you say, shape the direction forward and what more can be achieved would make complete sense. The industry can help point out what can be done to enable that improvement going into the future, so I think farmers would be a completely logical addition to such an advisory panel.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you.

We had the Cattlemen two days ago, and of course, what I didn't know—and I live in ranching country—is the important contribution to the grasslands, the health of the grasslands and sequestration made by that particular industry.

Over the last five years, I've been focused on the indigenous file, so of course I'm a rookie to the environment file. For those who are much more knowledgeable, I would really appreciate.... This bill is clearly process. It's about a process, and we hear from all people who have been before us that it's even flawed in terms of what their process would be.

When we talk about net zero, maybe Prof. McLeman would be the best.... Canada was basically shut down in a significant way last year. How much impact did that have in terms of our emissions? How much did that bring us towards our goal, and how can you tell Canadians who might be listening what a future would look like in terms of whether it would be like last year, when no one was getting in their cars and no one was flying? Could you tell us a bit about that so that Canadians who are listening might understand better what Canada is trying to achieve?

[Prof. Robert McLeman]

Yes, the increase in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada did essentially stop over the last year because, you're right, people did stay home and work closer to home, and industry was shut down. I don't think that's what's being advocated for here.

I think what we're looking for is economic growth. It's based on an energy-based economy, where oil and gas are not necessarily the basis of the energy source.

That's one of the things I think we need to look at in the future. No one is projecting that net zero means we go back to horses and buggies. In fact, the reason we got rid of horses and buggies was not that we ran out of hay to feed the horses; it was that better technology came along. We are at that threshold now in society technologically, where the reason we are getting away from gasoline-powered automobiles, other devices and things that run on fossil fuels is not that we're running out of fossil fuels in the short term; it's that there are better technologies in place.

One thing we should take away from the report that came out from the International Energy Agency yesterday is that the necessary technologies and innovations to achieve net zero already exist, so the science bit has already been done. The key is how we make the transition to an economy that's based on those new technologies and innovations.

It's possible, I think, which is the message I would ask all members of this committee to take away. You're right, this legislation is a question about process, but it's important because the government sets the process that helps the economy transition to this new technology.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I think we've clearly heard that agriculture is going to continue to be important, so to not have—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Sorry, Ms. McLeod, I was saying that your time had been reached, but I was on mute, so it was like a tree falling in the forest, and nobody hears it.

Last, but by no means least, is Mr. Saini.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much to all the witnesses for coming out today. It's been a very interesting conversation.

Dr. McLeman, I want to start with you first, because you mentioned something in your opening comments that I think we have not really drilled down on. We've neglected this aspect, and that is in terms of the importance of the global refugee crisis.

As we've seen in the past, the refugee crisis has created an element of xenophobia and certain amounts of extremism that are currently playing out in the Western world.

How do you expect the refugee crisis [Technical difficulty—Editor] moving forward, if we don't achieve net zero?

[Prof. Robert McLeman]

That's a very good question.

I should start by saying my wife is an immigrant and my mother is an immigrant, so you can figure out that I'm pro-immigration on this. Different pathways.... I did a study for the Migration Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., last year, and decisions such as this bill here and the greenhouse gas trajectories between now and 2050 changed the landscape dramatically. If we get to zero emissions globally and nationally by 2050, we can actually reduce the number of people a year who are annually displaced from their homes. Right now about 21 million people worldwide are displaced each year by floods, storms, droughts and so on. We can actually reduce that number by hitting zero emissions.

Conversely, if we go the way we're going, we're looking at hundreds of millions of people being displaced. Canada as a refugee- and migrant-receiving nation will feel pressure from the international community, and source countries of Canadians who are here now whose family members experience the risk will be putting pressure on the government to do something. I think that with failure to implement these sorts of bills now, we'll see pressure from sources you may not have expected previously.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I want to raise another issue. I'm glad you raised that point, because I think that's something we don't really reflect upon in terms of the refugee crisis. The other aspect of that is—and you talk about internal displacement—when we look at certain countries, water is going to be a huge, critical issue. You can look at the central Asian countries and at southeast Asia, and Iran has a huge water problem. How do you see that impacting global stability?

[Prof. Robert McLeman]

It's a great concern to people who work in security agencies, both within the Government of Canada—the Canadian Security Intelligence Service—and in the United States and others. They see it as a threat multiplier, which is the language they use. It's that you already have economic, social and cultural conditions that can create political tensions within countries and now you want to layer on top of that extreme heat events and water scarcity, which affects food supplies and food production around the world.

This would include if there's a drought in Canada, which is a food-exporting nation. That would raise global food prices and lead to political instability in countries that import food, like Egypt and others. It's interconnected, so that's yet another good reason to take action now to prevent this sort of threat-multiplier scenario from emerging.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I will turn my final few moments to Madam Brouillette. I'm aware that your executive director, Madam Catherine Abreu, was appointed to the net-zero advisory body. Could you provide some comments and your thoughts on the advisory body, particularly regarding the value that such a diverse selection of individuals will bring to inform the work our government does?

[Caroline Brouillette]

Thank you for your question.

First of all, it's important to make a distinction here: Catherine Abreu sits on the committee in a personal capacity, and I'm here today to present the remarks of Climate Action Network Canada. We've been working this way with our members and allies for many years, by which I mean that we recommend that a committee of independent experts be established. It's important to note that the committee the government has organized is a committee of stakeholders, whereas we recommend a committee of independent experts.

Today I heard several witnesses ask that such and such an industry be represented. The idea is actually to appoint individuals who have expertise relating to scientific issues, traditional indigenous knowledge and various types of social sciences. That may include knowledge of the way climate change will affect agriculture or employment. The issue of a fair transition is an important one. There has to be an independent committee, but the issue of scientific expertise on that committee could be expanded upon.

I would add a final point. Ms. Abreu definitely has the climate change expertise we have in mind, which is different from any expertise associated with the representation of an industry's financial interests, for example.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Saini.

That concludes the first part of our meeting today, which was reserved for the first panel of witnesses. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the witnesses, who made some very interesting comments. We know that a committee appearance requires considerable preparation, and we are grateful to them for taking the time to prepare for their appearance today.

We will now take a short, five-minute break to allow the second panel of witnesses to connect to the meeting. It is now 3:57 p.m. I will be back at 4:03 to welcome the second panel of witnesses.

Thank you once again to the first panel of witnesses. As they know, next week we will proceed with amendments to the bill, and their interesting ideas will fuel our discussions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We are now prepared to resume.

Welcome to our second panel of witnesses. I would like to acknowledge the presence of Paul Fauteux, who will testify as an individual.

We also have, from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Shannon Joseph.

From the David Suzuki Foundation we have Dr. Sabaa Khan.

From the Quebec Environmental Law Centre we have Geneviève Paul.

From The Transition Accelerator we have Professor James Meadowcroft of the School of Public Policy at Carleton University.

I think you probably all know the format, which is that every group of witnesses gets to make a set of opening remarks for five minutes, and then we move on to questions.

Please keep your mike off when you're not speaking, and address the committee members through the chair.

We'll start with Maître Fauteux, for five minutes.

[Paul Fauteux, Attorney and Accredited Mediator and Arbitrator, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello and thanks to everyone for giving me this opportunity to contribute to your work.

I worked for the Government of Canada as a diplomat and senior official from 1980 to 2010. Among other things, I directed Environment Canada's Climate Change Bureau and led the Canadian delegation in negotiations on the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.

The bill you are currently studying is a step in the right direction, but it is clearly inadequate to address the imperatives of the climate emergency. I believe that many improvements need to be made. Given the time constraints, I will mention six.

First of all, the title of the bill betrays its lack of ambition. While the carbon neutrality objective for 2050 is legitimate, it should not be used to camouflage the failure of the current Canadian emissions trajectory. The Paris Agreement clearly establishes that achieving carbon neutrality by mid century will first require establishing a global ceiling for GHG emissions as soon as possible. Canadians expect their government to achieve these reduction levels quickly. This ambition should be reflected in the title, which of course assumes that the wording of the bill will be improved.

Second, the states that are leading in terms of combating climate change, like a number of our G7 and other partners, are including specific GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved in their laws. Their general goal is to make governments responsible for their climate action and to avoid repeated emissions reduction failures like Canada's.

There are lessons to be learned from Germany's recent experience. Bill C-12 should at the very least include, and thereby make mandatory, the 2030 emissions target announced by Prime Minister Harper in 2015 to reduce its GHG emissions by 30% from 2005 levels; or as an alternative, include the 40% to 45% target announced by Prime Minister Trudeau on April 22. The bill should also provide interim targets as of 2025, and every five years thereafter. A climate act like Bill C-12 without any targets is, in my view, useless.

Third, Bill C-12 does not establish a credible accountability mechanism. The only obligation imposed on the minister in this respect is to report on, or in other words evaluate, the minister's own work. The bill should instead provide that the government's action plan and measures be examined by an independent authority. This could be the environment commissioner, who could then be made an officer of Parliament to strengthen the commissioner's independence.

Fourth, Bill C-12 establishes an advisory body to provide the minister with advice; the minister establishes the advisory body, and may determine and amend its terms of reference at any time. The climate emergency and the rapid reduction in emissions required in Canada should instead call for experts to be consulted to provide advice on short-term goals, interim targets and the 2030 objective. The bill should therefore be amended to include the establishment of an independent scientific council consisting of university and research experts whose mandate would be to identify policies likely to promote the achievement of Canada's emissions reduction targets.

Fifth, the progress report mentioned in Bill C-12 is required every five years, even though emissions data are available every year. To make it possible to evaluate progress or the lack thereof at each intermediate phase, the bill should be amended to require an annual report.

Sixth, Bill C-12 does not state that measures should be evaluated as a function of their ability to enable Canada to comply with its commitments under the Paris Agreement. There is therefore nothing to make sure that the targets established by the department will do that. The bill should be amended to specify that the environment commissioner's role would be to determine whether the planned measures would enable Canada to meet its targets, and whether doing so would bring it into compliance with its Paris Agreement commitments.

To conclude, I would say that a Canadian climate act worthy of the name would have to ensure the population and the international community that Canada will at the very least be meeting its own commitments, even though they may not be adequate to achieve the Paris Agreement objective, which is to limit the temperature rise over pre-industrial levels to 1.5°C.

In its current form, Bill C-12 in no way ensures that Canada will meet its climate commitments. Compliance requires that the bill be amended to establish a mandatory target, in addition to interim targets every five years beginning in 2025, to establish accountability mechanisms and to bring in the required expertise.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fauteux.

We'll go now to Shannon Joseph from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.