Environment Committee on May 26th, 2021

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

With pleasure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With this amendment, we are proposing the Bloc Québécois' new target. This is the proposal we want to make to the government. As I said a little earlier, we want 1990, not 2005, to be used as the reference year. That is what the 27 countries of the European Union are doing, and so is Quebec.

We feel that the government's recent announcement of a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45% by 2030 is not ambitious enough. It is actually misleading, given that 2005 is being used as the reference year, rather than 1990.

Let me be specific: the European Union is targeting a GHG emissions reduction of 55% below 1990 levels. In our view, 1990 must be used as the reference year in this legislation. Canada's target must be at least as ambitious as Quebec's, which aims for a reduction of 37.5% of GHG emissions below 1990 levels.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

Mr. Albas, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just a question and then a comment for the member. Perhaps she might want to answer the question first, just because I want to understand this.

First of all, I raised earlier the challenge that many are having in terms of regulatory certainty, the ongoing dance, it seems, in which governments keep changing and keep moving the goalposts, and how difficult that can be, particularly for industry. Obviously there's more to Canadian society than industry, but it is an important part, because it employs so many. As I mentioned earlier, the process to Paris was long and arduous, and the Province of Quebec, like every other province, presented its goals and what it felt was doable.

Has the member sought the advice of the Government of Quebec in regard to setting this goal that she's wanting us to embed in legislation?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Michaud, do you want to answer that question?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

When we discussed the target with witnesses and with the Minister, he said that, for additional clarity, transparency and collaboration with other signatories of the Paris agreement, he was perfectly agreeable to using 1990 as the reference year. That argument alone seems valid to me. As the European Union is committing to reduce its GHG emissions by 55%, it seems quite reasonable to ask Canada to reduce its own by 37.5%. This is what Quebec is doing. Quebec is doing well in reducing GHGs and Canada should follow its example.

It seems perfectly reasonable to us to adopt that target.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Does that answer your question, Mr. Albas? Mr. Bachrach.

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

May I respond?

I appreciate that this member has done a lot in sharing her views in the House of Commons. She's presented a bill on it, so I respect her work and her sincerity on this, but I did specifically ask about the Province of Quebec. I have respect for all provinces, but if we're expecting there to be a whole-of-government approach federally but also that the provinces have their part, then I think we should be talking to them, because I imagine they would be included when we set these national targets.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Bachrach.

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

I appreciate the amendment. I can't support it, mostly because I think that putting the target itself into the language of the bill would mean that in order to change the target, the bill would have to be amended, which I think adds a certain amount of uncertainty and, obviously, time to that process.

I note that the 2030 target is intended to be reviewed in 2025. I think the intention is to create the framework within the bill for the setting of the target, but not to embed the target itself in the language of the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Redekopp, the floor is yours.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Further along those lines, if we as parliamentarians are going to embed a number in the bill, I'd like to know if it's achievable.

To the witnesses, perhaps to you, Mr. Moffet, could you inform the committee on that? Is 37.5% attainable? Do you have any studies or any knowledge to suggest that's too low, too high or right where it should be? What does the department have to say about that?

[John Moffet]

The government released modelling with a strengthened climate plan in December, which showed that the measures in the strengthened climate plan, on top of the already implemented measures, would achieve 31%. That is without any additional provincial-territorial or business action.

Then, in the 2021 budget, additional programmatic and tax measures were announced. The government indicated that with the addition of those measures, and based on ongoing discussions with the United States, existing measures would achieve 36%. Therefore, as Minister Wilkinson explained in his testimony to this committee, it's the government's view that a target well above 36%—in the range of 40% to 45%—would be attainable, given the opportunity for innovation and the development of additional policy measures over the next decade.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Moffet, just to clarify, are you talking about 2005 as the baseline, or 1990? The specific question here is about 1990. That's where I'm trying to put those two numbers together. To use the 36% number, for example, I believe that was on 2005 as the baseline. If we were to adjust that to a 1990 baseline, what would be the equivalent number? Do you have that information?

[John Moffet]

I didn't address that issue, and I don't know that I have it right now. I apologize.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

For the benefit of the committee, do you have any idea, any approximation, of what the difference is from 1990 to 2005?

[John Moffet]

I'd rather not speculate. I apologize.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Michaud, I see your hand is up. Do you have anything to add?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Yes, I want to answer the question.

In my opinion, the target is clearly attainable if Canada stops contributing to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions. It does so by continuing to subsidize the most polluting industries, like the oil and gas industries.

To respond to Mr. Bachrach's comment, I mean that the very essence of this legislation is to include a greenhouse gas reduction target for 2030, which is our principle target. The government has committed to include its target in the legislation. As I glance over the amendments that are coming, I gather that they are not going to do so. They are not keeping their word, unfortunately.

I feel that, for a country like Canada to have decent climate legislation, we need to include a decent, attainable target in this bill. That is why I feel that it's perfectly feasible to include the target in the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

As there are no further speakers, we can proceed to the vote.

I must point out that, if we pass amendment BQ-7, we cannot deal with amendment G-3. As I mentioned earlier, those two amendments refer to the same line.

We can proceed to the recorded vote, Madam Clerk.

The vote is on amendment BQ-7.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I thought we could break for a good, say, seven minutes. That would take us to 6:03 p.m.

In the interim, Madam Clerk, have you been able to find out whether we can make it to 8:00 p.m. or not? If not, perhaps during the break we could check.

[The Clerk]

I haven't had a response to my request in the negative or the positive, so I will confirm.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Chair, could we round it up to a nice, even 10 minutes, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Sure. Would 6:07 p.m. be good?

Okay. We'll be right back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We are back.

I am informing you that we hope that we can continue until 8 p.m., if all goes well. If we have to adjourn earlier, we will do so. But I think will be able to continue until 8 p.m.

We have reached amendment G-3.

Mr. Saini, do you want to introduce the amendment?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to introduce an amendment to add new subclauses 7(1.1), 7(2) and 7(3) for the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act.

On April 22, 2021, during the leaders summit on climate organized by President Biden, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that Canada will enhance its emissions-reduction target under the Paris Agreement, known as a nationally determined contribution, to a 40% to 45% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2030.

This amendment strengthens the act by codifying the target announced in May of reducing Canada's GHG emissions to 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030. Also of importance is that this amendment also prevents backsliding from Canada's greenhouse gas emissions targets by providing that a target for a specific milestone year must represent a progression beyond the previous one and be as ambitious as Canada's most recent nationally determined contribution.