Environment Committee on June 7th, 2021

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

One of the things we've heard, which is also something stakeholders have raised with me privately, is that they're not always sure whether or not this particular bill has any kind of jurisdiction over provincial actions. This simply recognizes that if there is an agreement with a particular province on a particular measure, there can be reporting on that, but again, it's at the discretion of the minister. Is that correct?

[John Moffet]

That's correct. This in no way infringes on provincial jurisdiction or requires provinces to do anything.

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

Usually when we include the term “provinces”, it's a very broad term that includes the provinces and territories. Is that not the case?

[John Moffet]

That's correct, but the reference to other governments could be interpreted to include municipalities. We have agreements with municipalities. It can also be interpreted to include agreements with indigenous governments.

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

That was going to be.... You kind of jumped ahead. I'm glad that you're a bit ahead of me, because it shows that someone is on the ball here.

To ask again, though, does this not give the minister a bit of an arbitrary power to decide to report on provinces, territories, indigenous governments or municipalities that it is politically in alignment with or is in more of a co-operative stance with? Does giving such discretion to a minister not politicize the bill?

[Vincent Ngan]

Mr. Albas, if it's okay, I can provide an example of how key measures can be derived.

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

Sure. Please go ahead.

[Vincent Ngan]

As you know, in 2016 the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change was adopted. It is based on consensus among federal, provincial and territorial governments. Since then, the Government of Canada has been working with the provinces and territories to report on progress on a yearly basis. Over the past four years, we have developed and agreed to, on a consensus basis, measures in the pan-Canadian framework for reporting on progress and measures on key initiatives put in place by the provinces and territories that they would like to showcase.

In a nutshell, of course, we would not be able to provide an exhaustive list of all the measures from the provinces and territories. Pragmatically, it is not doable. That being said, from a key measures perspective, there is already a document, based on consensus, from the provinces and territories where information can be extracted. These are definitely measures that the provinces and territories deem as key to put forward, and they report on them on an annual basis.

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

I'm glad you raised the pan-Canadian framework, because that's exactly what I had in mind when I was considering MP Saks's amendment. Saskatchewan did not join in with the consensus in Vancouver in 2016.

Have you been reporting on provincial actions of provinces that have elected not to participate in the framework?

[Vincent Ngan]

All 13 jurisdictions that participated in the pan-Canadian framework have been reporting for the past three years, despite the fact that one jurisdiction has elected not to join. That said, the key measures of Saskatchewan have been reported on an annual basis as part of the measures, along with those of the 12 other jurisdictions.

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

Okay. I believe Ontario came into compliance later on, but there doesn't seem to be.... The pan-Canadian framework is an example that could be used with regard to this amendment. Is this amendment necessary? The pan-Canadian framework is already reported on.

[Vincent Ngan]

I think the answer goes back to the very beginning of the question, that is, whether there is discretion by the minister to cherry-pick what measure is deemed as key. Given that there is already annual reporting based on consensus among the provinces and territories, the key measures that will be reported through the assessment report will be drawn from that consensus vehicle, therefore minimizing any probability or optics that the minister is cherry-picking.

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

Mr. Chair, I'll finish my intervention today by thanking both officials for clarifying things for me. I know these questions can be difficult, because I struggle with them when stakeholders ask me whether or not this law applies to things under provincial jurisdiction. It wasn't entirely clear.

The government obviously felt that Bill C-12 needed this amendment. Otherwise, they wouldn't be putting it forward. That being said, I believe that by allowing the minister—instead of having a whole-of-government approach—to arbitrarily pick which key examples will be selected.... Maybe this isn't such a bad thing. Maybe showing some positive examples could be good. However, it could be a punitive tool whereby you showcase provincial or territorial governments that are aligned with the government of the day, or municipalities it will perhaps want to recruit new candidates from to put them on a bit of a pedestal so the candidates can have a good news story. I think that having one minister make these decisions, rather than having a whole-of-government approach, doesn't make a lot of sense. As we know, much of the reporting is already being done right now through the pan-Canadian framework, and there is regular reporting.

This is too arbitrary and, again, doesn't necessarily add to the bill, so the Conservatives will be voting against it. However, if any of my Conservative colleagues want to ask a question or raise a concern, they should, because we do think that provinces are a key area here. We would like to see further reporting on the summaries of what provinces are doing, but not in an arbitrary, politically driven process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, the vote is called.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The amendment G-12 passes.

We're now at CPC‑14.

Mr. Albas.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I'd like to move that one, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm sorry about that.

Mr. Redekopp, go ahead.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thanks.

I'm going to move CPC‑14, and I'll just read it into the record here. It's that Bill C‑12, in clause 15, be amended by adding, after line 21 on page 6, the following:

(a.1) a summary of the measures undertaken by the governments of the provinces to contribute to Canada's efforts to achieve the national greenhouse gas emissions target for that year and of their impacts on those efforts;

This kind of carries on with what we were just speaking about, and I think it expands upon it quite nicely.

The government has already proposed in G‑11, and just now in G‑12, that we would add some key co-operative measures or agreements with the provinces. It's very critical that we have provincial buy-in to the plan. That's why I'd like to propose this amendment, to deepen this a little bit more.

Ultimately, the vast majority of the reductions that are going to occur in Canada are going to come from measures that are under provincial jurisdiction. It's the provinces that control our natural resources and our electrical grids, and they also regulate a large portion of the transportation industry. We absolutely need the provinces on board or this isn't going to work.

Now, unlike the Liberals and the NDP, which have tended to be more combative with the provincial governments in Canada, Conservatives believe that we need to work together with the provinces. For example, under Liberals, we've seen lawsuits, such as the carbon tax lawsuit we recently saw, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. It tied up a lot of time and energy and created some animosity between governments. We don't want to do that. We want to be more co-operative.

Also, I think it's the people on the ground who know what they need to do to reduce emissions. They don't need Ottawa to tell them what to do. In Saskatchewan, for example, our environment has always been a very high priority, because our agricultural-based economy depends on a healthy environment.

I'll give you an example. For many years, I was involved in an agricultural company based in Saskatoon that brought a new innovation to farming, and it brought this new farming technique right into the mainstream. That technique was called “zero tillage”. In a nutshell, it's essentially allowing stubble to stand over the winter and then using an air seeder and air drill to seed directly into the stubble. Farmers are able to retain carbon in the ground and minimize fuel use by reducing the number of passes they have to take over the ground.

In Saskatchewan, when it comes to the environment, our farmers were doing what they should long before being told what they have to do.

We've heard testimony after testimony from pulse farmers, cattlemen, CAPP and the Chamber of Commerce about the need for provincial co-operation. I know that the federal government should work with the provinces, but the reality is that this act says very little about the provinces. In fact, it seems to me that it goes out of its way to avoid talking about the provinces. It seems that the government is being very careful to create a situation where it can work in isolation if it feels that it needs to. My fear, too, is that if we don't achieve our targets as set out in the legislation, then we're setting it up for finger pointing, where the federal government can accuse the provinces of not doing their part, because they weren't a part of this initially.

I believe that we need to modify this legislation and bring the provinces into this discussion in a more formal way. Instead of generating laws and fighting each other in court, the federal and provincial governments should be working together. This legislation should set the foundation for the provinces and the federal government to work together. It should set things up for a co-operative arrangement where everybody is pulling in the same direction.

I'll just end with a reference back to Ecojustice, from their joint submission to the committee. I believe it's one of the ones we didn't have a chance to hear from in testimony, but their submission called for regional and provincial jurisdiction to be respected. This amendment does exactly that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Albas.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just a couple of things I want to detail. Again, for those who are watching at home who may not have seen some of the previous amendments we have made, we think that, rather than giving all the ability to one minister, having some of the plans voted on by cabinet so that everyone can kind of break down silos and get a whole-of-government approach would make for a better bill.

We also believe that when Canadians think of their responsibility toward climate change, they think, “What is my government doing?”, whether it be federal, provincial or territorial.

Again, I just want to reinforce that the use of the term “provinces” here is a general term, so those in Nunavut, those in the Northwest Territories and those in Yukon can count themselves included in this particular amendment.

This is unlike the case of the previous amendment, in which the government—in that case, the individual minister designated, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change—got to decide which provinces to feature. That's not an all-hands-on-deck approach, Mr. Chair.

Canada is built on federalism, such that we have a field house of different methods. In Quebec we have a cap-and-trade system being used. British Columbia obviously has its own carbon tax, and in other provinces, such as Ontario, they use a combination; they regulate their emissions from industrial bases and there is the federal carbon tax.

Mr. Chair, there are different approaches being undertaken by different governments. A great example would be the tier regulations in Alberta, the structure of which is very different from perhaps that of the output-based pricing system.

This particular amendment would allow for a snapshot, a summary of the situation in all provinces and not just in the ones the government or an individual minister favours. There would be a summary of those so that people could be educated as to what their federal leadership was doing as well as their provincial leadership. This does not in any way, shape or form disrupt or intervene in provincial jurisdiction, so for the Bloc Québécois—we have a representative from the Bloc here—if that is a concern, certainly this is just a summary. I'm sure the Bloc member would agree that if we are to communicate that all governments are taking the threat of climate change seriously, there does need to be a place where people can look for it. Again, it should not be done on an arbitrary basis as described in the previous motion.

I would encourage all members to vote in favour of this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I think Canada can do more. Part of that is being fair and including everyone so that people will be better able to hold all levels of government—provincial, territorial or federal—to account on our climate change path.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

The vote is called.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We are on amendment CPC-15. Who is presenting that?

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

That would be me, Mr. Chair. Do I have the floor?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, absolutely.

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

Colleagues, appreciate that this is something I asked a number of different groups because, as we know thanks to Madam Pauzé, electrification is going to be an important step.

Our current electrical grid, as we know, is not sufficient. Even the uptake that people expect for electric vehicles, as was said during Madam Pauzé's study on electric vehicles, would require the equivalent of 7.5 Site Cs. Obviously, that's just the aggregate amount of energy. There could be many different sources for it, such as nuclear or hydro. There are so many new ways that people are utilizing electricity, from various renewables to high-efficiency natural gas.

Quite honestly, Mr. Chair, the need for this bill to reference the state of Canada's electrical grid is important. This is something that I'm asked about by constituents on a regular basis. They say, with all these new electric cars—and we all drive in at five o'clock or 5:30—when we all plug them in, how will that work? That's a great question, and one that provincial and territorial governments are going to have to wrestle with as we move forward with some of these adoptions of new technology and a new emphasis on things like electric vehicles. Obviously there have been some investments that we've seen in hydrogen, and that's a plus, but there are going to be increasing questions about electrical loads.

I asked a number of different groups who responded very positively that it would be helpful to have this. As you know, Mr. Chair, when you cross an interprovincial boundary or an international boundary, it is under the federal government's jurisdiction.

I'll read out the amendment, which is that Bill C-12 in clause 15 be amended by adding, after line 29 on page 6, the following:

(c.1) an assessment of electric grids in Canada and the steps needed to ensure that they can manage an increase in electricity demand due to transportation electrification;

Mr. Chair, we heard from the Canadian Electricity Association, and in their brief, they said they support the aim of Bill C-12 and believe that a clear and focused plan is essential for Canada's ability to achieve net zero by 2050, and that holding ourselves collectively accountable for meeting targets is important, but those targets must be matched with focused policy so that we can achieve them.

As I said earlier, one of the areas we are going to be looking to achieve in is further electrification. This would offer an update so that people can understand the grid. Again, it does not interfere with any provincial jurisdiction. What it does do, though, is create a summary, so that for the average citizen—all of our constituents—if they asked you the question, you could refer to that and give them an up-to-date answer.

This is part of good governance. This information is already publicly available to some extent, but nothing that I'm aware of actually includes it in a Government of Canada report. This would allow for greater transparency, which is one of the stated goals of Bill C-12.

I would ask all honourable members to support the amendment, because we need to have a greater understanding of the state of our electrical grid. I think this would be welcomed by groups like the Canadian Electricity Association, knowing that this is going to be an area that a lot of money—a lot of potentially private investment as well as public investment—is going to be needed for us to achieve our goals of electrifying the transportation network and making Canada a greener and more environmentally friendly country as a whole.

Again, I would ask all honourable members to support this particular amendment. It's an easy one for the Liberals to support, because I think this is one of those good governance provisions that we all can rally behind.

Again, just to make sure that Madam Michaud knows I'm thinking of the Bloc and of their constant quest to make Quebec as strong a province as possible, this would not interfere with that. Hydro-Quebec is a very respected organization and does a lot of good work, both interprovincially as well as internationally. I would hope that the Bloc members would be supportive of that.

I know that I referenced Site C. I just would say to MP Bachrach that obviously the provincial government is supportive of Site C, but I hope that by utilizing Site C he did not mean that he would somehow tie himself to be voting in favour of 7.5 more Site Cs. It was just an example that I was using.

I hope to get every committee member to support this particular amendment to Bill C-12 today, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much.