Environment Committee on May 20th, 2021

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I imagine my time is almost up. I was going to ask Mr. Bolduc about the advisory body and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

What's the question?

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

Well, I'm just wondering what his ideas are around moving towards expertise versus interests to make up the committee, but I'll ask it down the road.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, it's okay.

Please answer very quickly, Mr. Bolduc: expertise or diversity?

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

How do you ensure the shift towards expertise from interests?

[Denis Bolduc]

Of course, scientists need to be on this committee to guide the government, but workers also need to be represented on the committee, which I think is already in place. We need employers and businesses, but primarily scientists, to be on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to pick up on that subject. I worked for many years in industry, building things—farm machinery and then, later, housing. One of the reasons I got into government is that it's pretty much accepted that government does things rather inefficiently and slowly. It serves a purpose, no doubt, but compared to business.... Business can be very expert at getting things done, like we were just speaking about.

Dr. Henry, I just want to get your opinion on this. You mentioned an economic lens, and that's what Dr. Burch was just speaking about. Dr. Burch also said that we need skills-building in our smaller enterprises and a broad diversity of visions. On the other hand, Mr. Bolduc said that we shouldn't have any corporate interests on the advisory board, for example.

In order to get the capital released and in order to actually get things done when we come up with a plan that all of us are so expert at coming up with—the actual execution of that plan and implementing that plan—I believe we need people who are from the business world and actually know how to get things done and can get them done. What is your perspective on that in this legislation? Are we missing that, somehow, in this legislation?

[Dr. Aaron Henry]

I might also just suggest that the dichotomy suggested between interest and expertise is potentially a bit of a false one. There are people who can be experts and also be interested and come from different spaces. There's no reason someone from labour couldn't be an expert. There's no reason someone who's come from industry couldn't also be an expert and so on and so forth—just to put that in place.

This is the concern that comes into play. I'm not quite sure if there is a mechanism here that really allows for the alignment of whatever decarbonization strategies are developed by the advisory board with the business community that can essentially execute on those strategies.

There are two points there. To be able to execute on the strategy, we need to make sure the strategy itself is granular enough and is couched where businesses are actually situated, where the opportunities lie. What can actually be achieved? That's the recurring concern that we have: There needs to be some way to ensure that any decarbonization strategies that are developed are developed with a view for public health, with a view for social inclusion and with a view for workers' rights, as well as in consultation with industry, which is going to have to carry this forward.

I would just go back to that point. If you want to get to that level of granularity, you really need to have some type of mechanism that ensures that the advisory board goes through a very rigorous consultation process or that industries are, in fact, represented on the advisory council. If, potentially, each decarbonization strategy group becomes its own miniature committee, I'm not sure exactly what the mechanism might look like, but currently it's not there.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thanks.

You mentioned policy certainty earlier on. I'm thinking about the most recent goalpost movements we've seen. We originally had a target of 30%, and then we had a major carbon tax increase, and then the target went to 36%, then up to 45%.

The minister told us that he consulted widely before moving this target from 36% to 45% in that three-day period. Did he consult with you or any of your members, that you're aware of, on those targets moving around?

[Dr. Aaron Henry]

I can't speak for the members and whether or not they were consulted. We were not. From our vantage point, it was a bit of a surprise to see the goalposts moved overnight.

That's still another element that we'd like to see. There are a lot of different companies in Canada that have pledged to become either net zero or carbon neutral. They're starting to develop their blueprints. There's still a need to bring those plans into closer orbit with the public policy that's in place. There's some encouragement with something like the net-zero accelerator as a policy plan, but I think there's going to have to be stronger alignment and coordination between business and industry on this to meet these goals.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

What are the implications for business when these goalposts change like that overnight?

[Dr. Aaron Henry]

They're significant. It essentially means that you might have had an emissions reduction strategy that no longer meets the goal that the government sets. It creates ripple effects where there are concerns. We've moved from, say, a 30% benchmark now, to 40%, to 45%. Well, how is that going to be achieved? Are we going to see more stringent policy? Does it mean that certain investments we've planned and made are no longer as attractive as they previously were? Does it mean that financial markets will not allocate capital to those projects?

On the lower level, down to less gravity, it's even a concern for small and medium-sized businesses, which are seeing a carbon price of $170 per tonne. These are groups that, as I think you've mentioned, are key to Canada's climate change strategy but generally don't have the resources and the sort of expertise—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks.

Mr. Longfield, you have the floor.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've been very patient in wanting to have my turn, and I have the last turn.

First of all, I want to say thank you to the witnesses, in particular to Dr. Anand from Guelph. Congratulations to Dr. Anand on your recently announced nomination for the Governor General's award for your book of poetry, with two other Guelph authors.

There is a story, and that's where I'm going with this. I have an English degree and a math minor. There is a role for this story. You were just finishing a sentence bridging what we're learning from the story of COVID and how that might apply to climate change.

Before I go to the comment you were going to make, I'm thinking of this advisory board we're talking about in this bill as being something like the National Advisory Committee on Immunization or the Public Health Agency of Canada, something that's created outside of government to solve problems on behalf of Canadians but connected to government through some governance.

Could you comment on the importance of the stories we're learning from things like COVID or the previous pandemic we went through?

[Dr. Madhur Anand]

One thing I said towards the end of my opening comments is that something we really need to see are some new narratives for climate change. The reason for that is, I think, that the lack of progress we're seeing is because we're stuck in old, wrong narratives. We have old-fashioned ideas or wrong ideas about everything like the impacts, but I think, most importantly, about what the benefits are for moving through some of the pathways towards net zero. The benefits of that are just not being communicated as well to society. Whether you call that honesty or whether you look for creative ways to do that, it doesn't matter. Ultimately, those are the benefits of that.

Part of that has to do with imagining pathways that we can't imagine. It's something that artists are really good at doing. There is a role for that group as well here. Storytelling is also a very important component, as far as I understand it, within indigenous communities. It's a part of how they manage their systems and sustain their own communities, and I think it's a very important thing.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes. Legislation does something. It doesn't solve the problems. It creates conditions under which problems can be solved. A lot of Canadians would look to us and say, “Well, fix it.” We can pass legislation, but let's do it in a way that allows for groups like this advisory board that's being created in this legislation to consider things like indigenous stories, or what we learned in COVID that did or didn't work. When politicians get involved and start fighting each other.... We had a panel of grade 12s, and one of them said to me, “If you'd stop fighting each other and fight climate change instead....” Politicians are fighting each other instead of fighting problems like climate change.

Maybe I'll go over to you, Dr. Burch. I have a minute left. You alluded to having multiple problems solved through legislation like this. I'm thinking of environmental racism. I'm thinking of helping to make sure this legislation doesn't make a bigger gap between people who have access to clean water and clean air and businesses that can buy clean water and clean air through carbon credits. Could you comment on that, please?

[Dr. Sarah Burch]

Sure. I would say that, as you say, legislation can't do everything, but it plays a crucial role in framing a problem. When we bring the justice element and the co-benefits strongly into the narrative, we have a better chance of solving those problems. One way to help do that would be this. I put a plea out there to have not just natural scientists and physical scientists on the advisory board, but also social scientists.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

We have an intermediate goal with 2030. We've negotiated internationally. We know that we are making that more aggressive, although maybe not as aggressive as others would like to see. I think you also commented on the importance of having intermediate goals as well as long-term goals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We have arrived at the end of our session today.

I would like to thank the witnesses for their insights and expertise on an issue that we all know is critical to the planet and to our country. It made for a very interesting discussion.

Committee members, the testimony phase of our work on Bill C-12 is now complete.

We were planning to have two two-hour meetings next week, but due to all sorts of constraints and unforeseen circumstances, we're going to have one four-hour meeting on Wednesday of next week. There will be breaks, obviously, and the meeting will be at 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday. We will be doing clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

With that, I am ready for a motion to adjourn.

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

I so move.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There seems to be a consensus.

I wish the witnesses, committee members, clerk, analysts, and technicians a good evening. Until next time.

The meeting is adjourned.