Environment Committee on May 19th, 2021

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Great. That will be helpful, too, in terms of potential amendments to the bill, Ms. Joseph.

It's my last minute here before the chair jumps in. You touched a little bit on the panel. Just out of curiosity, we've had other testimony to the effect that there shouldn't be any industry involvement on the panel at all. I'm just curious as to what the perspective of CAPP would be when it comes to the composition of the panel.

[Shannon Joseph]

I think it would be unfortunate if the panel does not include the expertise of the people who know how to do things.

As for some of the comments made earlier by other panellists about cement-making, steel-making, oil and gas and mining, all of these industries have very specific expertise and are highly technological. You can't just have a committee of climate scientists deciding what the pathway to net zero is; you need all of these other experts.

I'll speak about the business sector experts. I agree that there need to be other types who can speak about the best technologies right now, the opportunities available regionally based on energy mixes available, how to pursue those to reach our emission reduction goals and do that in a way that still preserves companies' ability to be healthy and continue to operate.

We think that is critically important. We think what would help is ensuring that there is a role for cabinet in deciding the terms of reference of this group, who sits there, and also defining in the act the role that those sectors will play, especially when there are sector-related plans established under this legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Is it Mr. Baker from the Liberal side? Am I correct?

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

That sounds good to me, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, go ahead.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much.

Thank you to all of the witnesses.

I'd like to ask everyone some questions, but unfortunately, I won't have enough time. I hope the witnesses will understand.

Mr. Jeneroux, on multiple occasions today, has suggested that nobody likes this bill. On my part, I kind of see this process as the process that legislation should go through, which is one where the government puts forward a proposal, and then people provide their input to make it better.

That's not how I read the room, but I want to recanvass the room, because I want to make sure that I understand where you're all at. I won't be able to ask all of you because it will take too long.

Mr. Fauteux, are you opposed to this bill's passing?

[Paul Fauteux]

I am definitely not against Bill C-12. As I said at the outset, it's a step in the right direction. But I feel, as do others here, that it's inadequate. It's not bad, but it simply needs to be enhanced and improved.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Do you think it's urgent to adopt this bill, with or without amendments?

Is it urgent to adopt a bill like this one?

[Paul Fauteux]

I believe that the required amendments are important enough for us to take the time to debate them. It would be a bad idea to forge ahead and adopt the bill too hastily.

There really is a climate emergency. The United Kingdom passed a climate act in 2008. Canada is trailing behind. It's one of the laggards in the G7, perhaps the worst in terms of climate leadership. We have some catching up to do, but this will be our first climate act, and it will be there for decades. Let's take the time to get it right.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

If I've understood you correctly, you're saying that it's urgent, but that it's urgent to do it properly.

[Paul Fauteux]

Exactly.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Okay.

Ms. Paul, I'll ask you the same question.

Do you oppose the adoption of Bill C-12?

[Geneviève Paul]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Baker.

We are categorically not against the adoption of this bill, and we agree entirely with Mr. Fauteux.

As we pointed out, this bill is essential. We have to develop a legislative framework in response to the climate emergency, but if we are going to legislate, we might as well do it right. It's clearly our job to make proposals.

As Mr. Fauteux said, there are some key, and very clear, amendments, based on proven best practices. This process is therefore useful. We may be lagging behind, but we can learn from what other governments are doing, after they have tested these mechanisms and proposed amendments. The federal government is perfectly capable of including these amendments in the current bill.

I agree with you that it's urgent to take action, and especially urgent to pass a good act that will get us back on track.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I understand what you're saying. Honestly, I think that every member here, and probably everyone sitting in the House of Commons has a different idea of what would constitute a good bill to combat climate change. That's why we're all here today to hear your opinions. You are experts with different backgrounds, and differing points of view. I believe that it's important for us to listen to what you have to say so that the changes we make to Bill C-12 will make it as good as it can possibly be.

Ms. Paul, people in my riding and from across Canada are watching us on television right now. I have about a minute and a half left. Could you briefly explain why it's urgent to adopt a good bill?

[Geneviève Paul]

There are several reasons why it's urgent to adopt a good bill, including the fact that if the government does nothing to address climate issues, it will be harmful to Canada and all Canadians, and come at a very high price, not to mention the repercussions that our inaction might have internationally. It's therefore up to Canadians and the government to adopt a framework climate law.

What's a good climate framework law? It's one in which we mark out the guidelines needed to arrive at our destination, as we mentioned earlier. What's interesting is that you are consulting numerous experts, whose proposed amendments to Bill C-12 are converging to help us get there.

The repercussions on our fundamental rights are extremely important. You've also heard from experts who agreed on that too. It's not only the greatest threat being faced by humanity, but also, as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said, "The world has never seen a threat to human rights of this scope." There is no longer any need to demonstrate the urgency of taking action with respect to climate change. It benefits everyone, including the various economic sectors.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is it Ms. Michaud's turn?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

It's my turn, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Ms. Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

It's my turn to thank all our witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Meadowcroft pointed out that all kinds of ideas have been suggested for potential amendments.

My first question is for you, Mr. Fauteux. This is the second time you've appeared before the committee. In your opening address, you discussed what is happening with climate legislation elsewhere in the world. Then, in response to Mr. Baker, you spoke about Great Britain.

Could you tell us about what has happened in other countries?

It's not necessary to name them, because I have other questions for you.

[Paul Fauteux]

Of course.

I spoke briefly about Great Britain. I'll now say a few words about Germany, which has been in the news recently. It had a climate law for a number of years, and it included a specific target, as I was recommending with respect to Bill C-12. The law was struck down by the German Constitutional Court because it did not go far enough and only provided for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to the year 2030. Now 2030 is only nine years away. On the geological scale, it's the day after tomorrow.

I fully agree with what Ms. Paul said with respect to human rights. The German law was struck down because of human rights. It placed a disproportionate burden on future generations. In other words, as Professor Meadowcroft was saying, everything needs to be changed. Achieving carbon neutrality by mid-century requires a radical transformation. An enormous effort is therefore going to be required to get there, and the effort needs to be equitably distributed over several generations. Thus we can't say that we're going to do only a little to deal with the situation and leave the task of coping with the problem to our children, our grandchildren, and their children.

That's why the law was struck down, and a new law was just adopted by the German cabinet, which will be ratified by its parliament next month. Germany is therefore making significant advances.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

That's definitely very interesting.

In March, when you appeared before the committee, it was suggested that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development might become an officer of Parliament. It's not the case now, and there doesn't appear to be the desire to do that. Bill C-12 establishes a role for the commissioner and the advisory body.

You have decades of experience in government. Don't you think there should be a link and collaboration between the commissioner and this body in Bill C-12?

[Paul Fauteux]

Absolutely. I mentioned earlier that the important thing was independence. If the commissioner were to become an officer of Parliament, it would definitely strengthen that independence.

A little earlier, Ms. Paul mentioned the need to make the advisory body established in Bill C-12 independent, which it is not. At the moment, the minister appoints members, and may determine and amend the terms of reference of, the advisory body.

I agree with what Ms. Joseph said. Industry representatives need to be involved. Some private sector experts have the required expertise, but they can be brought together on an independent committee made up mostly of scientists with input from industry experts.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Fauteux. Your comments are always interesting.

I'll continue on this subject with a question for Ms. Paul this time.

Ms. Paul, many people would like to appear before the committee, including farmers and representatives of the oil industry, and probably the plastics industry too.

Do you think that the terms of reference and functions of the advisory body, including the selection criteria for membership, should be included in the bill?