Environment Committee on March 24th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Mr. Weiler, for six minutes.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the minister for his first visit to our committee. Hopefully, it will be the first of many.

Over the last couple of years, we've seen the provincial NDP government in B.C. increase the pace at which old growth has been logged, in spite of an old growth strategic review that recommended immediate deferrals. This has led to widespread protests throughout the province. Recently, the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Committee issued a very dismal report card on progress on the strategy.

Your mandate letter includes the commitment to bring forward federal funding to protect old-growth forests, as well as to include a nature agreement with the province to protect some of the last intact old growth in B.C.

Could you please update this committee on the progress of concluding this agreement?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you for the question. This is clearly something that I and the department are very seized with. We've had a number of meetings with B.C. ministers in the four months that I've been environment and climate change minister on specifically the question of old-growth species at risk, as well as the signing of a nature agreement with the Province of British Columbia.

I can tell you that the work is going well. There's good collaboration. I think everyone agrees that it's in our best interest to come to an agreement on this. The alternative would be for the federal government, in the case of certain areas where species are at risk, to intervene unilaterally, which is not something that we want to do.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you.

As part of the Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, which became law last year, the government is required, as you mentioned in your opening remarks, to table an emissions reduction plan by the end of this month that will indicate how we're going to be able to get to our 2030 GHG reduction goals.

Your mandate letter also includes a commitment to bring in a cap on oil and gas emissions that will steadily decline in five-year increments. I was hoping you could give some information to the committee on when you expect this cap to be announced and how we're able to reliably report and track our emissions reduction goals without including certainty on our largest and fastest-growing source of emissions.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you for the question. The emissions reduction plan that will be tabled next week will be the first of many, but it will be the first time that we show parliamentarians as well as Canadians everything we've done so far and where we are in terms of emissions reduction.

It will include modelling. It will also include sectoral emissions for 2030. These are not targets, per se, but according to the analysis that the department did, this is our best analysis of where we think various sectors of the Canadian economy need to be in terms of their emissions reduction in 2030 for us to achieve our target. So this will not be the cap specifically in the case of oil and gas.

We have started consultations on the oil and gas cap. In fact, I was in Calgary just before Christmas to meet some oil executives. I was really fascinated—Christine and other officials were there with me—by the fact that everyone we met in the private sector said they wanted to work with us on this cap. I did not meet a single representative from the private sector who said they didn't want to have anything to do with the oil and gas cap. In fact, the cap was inspired by the fact that some of the largest oil companies in Canada said they wanted to be net-zero by 2050. The cap is simply a way for us to put that commitment into regulation and to chart a course as to how we get there.

So all of the measures that we've announced will be included in the emissions reduction plan, keeping in mind that some are in the process of being developed.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you. That's reassuring to hear.

Canada has brought forward carbon pricing for large industry through the output-based pricing system that requires industry to emit less than the industry average for that sector, as well as provide credits for reducing emissions even further. Canada is also in the process of finalizing the clean fuel standard that will provide compliance credits for reducing the emissions intensity for oil and gas. We've also proposed bringing forward a tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage to encourage investment in a space that the IEA has recognized is critical to meeting the world's GHG reduction targets.

Given that we have these three mechanisms, what assurances can Environment and Climate Change Canada provide that the emissions reductions activities won't be able to double or triple count with these three mechanisms and indeed be able to show that emissions reductions will be verifiable and additional to what would already be required under our carbon pricing system?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

This is a really good question. It's certainly something the department and my team are working hard on, as did Minister Wilkinson and Minister McKenna before, to make sure there's no double counting, because sometimes it is a bit complicated. There are a number of measures—you talked about the pricing, the clean fuel standards, the cap. We have to make sure that our methodologies are solid, to ensure that when we say a tonne is being reduced, then an actual tonne is being reduced.

We have a very robust system when it comes to inventories, based on the IPCC methodologies that we update as they are updated internationally, but this is something that we pay very close attention to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We will now go to Ms. Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being with us today, Minister.

In this committee, we have undertaken a study of the governance of radioactive waste. And then, of course, we have heard about World Water Day. In your presentation, you talked about the Canada Water Agency. Personally, I think the precautionary principle must always guide our actions, but I am not always sure this is a priority for everybody.

Protecting our natural sources of water and drinking water is important. I always point out that our bodies are made up of two thirds water. I believe this is an essential service. Watercourses in Quebec and Canada must not be imperilled by projects that are put on the table.

Would you be open to the idea of governance of radioactive waste being transferred to your department? I mention this because there are people who are calling for it. Having it under Environment and Climate Change Canada rather than Natural Resources Canada would make people feel a bit safer. It seems like a good idea to me.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you for the question, Ms. Pauzé.

I can tell you, honestly, that this is the first time that proposal has been put to me. I had never heard of this. I would therefore propose that we discuss it in the department and that we follow up with you directly on this subject.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you. There have been witnesses who have appeared before the committee in connection with the study who talked about it. They would feel much better if it were under your department.

I am now going to come back to the document that the Net-Zero Advisory Body recently published. The document was released on Monday this week, so you may not have all the answers. On page 7, the Net-Zero Advisory Body said it had received a joint letter from your department and the Department of Natural Resources, and stated:

This request for advice was focused on reducing emissions associated with the production of oil and gas products, rather than their use, and, rather than reducing emissions specifically by reducing production.

That caught my attention. We talk about caps. Why have you abandoned setting caps, at least in the letter that was sent to the Net-Zero Advisory Body?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

In fact, we have to distinguish between emissions and production. As you know, the production of natural resources is under provincial jurisdiction. At the federal level, we can make regulations or enact legislation concerning emissions, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Our commitment to capping emissions and reducing emissions in the oil and gas industry corresponds precisely to that. We are acting within our jurisdiction, which is pollution. We have not abandoned anything. On the contrary, we are moving forward on the proposal we made during the last election campaign.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Right. My interpretation is that when we set a cap, it's so it is not exceeded.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

That's right.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

However, a target can be exceeded.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

It is really a cap for emissions, not a cap for production.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Right.

Can we get your agreement, officially and systematically, that the committee will be able to meet with the Advisory Body when it submits its report?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I would think that to be a reasonable request. I can certainly put the question to the people on the Advisory Body, but I would think it entirely desirable for you to speak with them too.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I wanted to draw your attention to something else the Advisory Body said that seems really important. It is on page 10 of the document:

3. Prioritize the development of a climate change data, insights, and monitoring digital platform by the end of 2023

That is the third item in the advice given by the Advisory Body. It is talking about every major GHG emissions source and sink.

The fourth item in the advice given is this:

4. Ensure that the models and analytical approaches used to project and assess Canada’s progress towards emissions reduction targets are transparent, robust, and coordinated

Those two points seem to be very fair. This would provide concrete data.

Still on page 10, the document states: "draw on the expertise of government, academia, civil society, labour, and industry." I find that proposal very interesting. Of course, it doesn't appear in the supplementary estimates. At least, I haven't seen it. I should note that the report was released on Monday.

Could it be included in the general budget?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

When it comes to the data, quite honestly, I will look to my colleagues in the department.

Is there some provision for data availability? I think that was the sense of the Advisory Body's recommendation.

[Christine Hogan]

Thank you for the question.

I would just say that we received the advisory board's report on Monday and are digesting the recommendations contained in it. I think the idea of gap filling, and some of the issues they've identified from a governance point of view and the roles of different ministries to get at some of these issues going forward, is a very sensible recommendation. We will be looking at that in the context of our work going forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We will now go to Ms. Collins for six minutes.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister for being here to answer our questions.

The “horizontal initiatives” include funding to establish a sustainable finance action council. The council would include only representatives from Canada's financial institutions. It would exclude climate experts, civil society and indigenous groups from contributing, despite the recommendation from the expert panel report on sustainable finance that they actually be included.

The financial industry has been very slow to address the risks of the climate crisis, and they continue to push for inadequate and voluntary standards. Expert and civil society input on financial reform is critical if we're going to achieve financial regulatory reforms that will help Canada reach its climate targets. I'm curious: Why wasn't the advice of the expert panel report on sustainable finance to include experts and civil society followed?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

That's a good question. As you know, I wasn't minister at the time that decision was made. I could certainly look with the department as to why the decision was made the way it was, and we could follow up with you.

That being said, you probably have seen, as I have, that we are starting to make some progress in Canada. I'm not saying that we're a leader on these issues, but the Bank of Canada report, the OSFI report—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Really, my question is whether there is an interest from your ministry to head in a direction where we're including civil society and expert analysis into this.