Evidence of meeting #9 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was work.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Beyond the action council, we are seeking the input of indigenous—
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I absolutely hear you, Minister. Really, my question is about this council in particular. Its advice was to include climate experts, civil society and indigenous groups, so that they can form policy as well.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
If your question is specifically on that, I will have to go back and follow up with you.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Okay. Thank you, Minister.
Canada has been falling behind our peers in ensuring Canada's financial sector is prepared for climate risks. Canada's banks are some of the largest financers of the fossil fuel industry. Why should the finance industry be trusted to effectively regulate itself?
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
If you look at the composition of the SFAC, we have people who are experts in their field, people who have undertaken a number of initiatives to help Canada improve what it's doing when it comes to climate finance.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I have no doubt, but they are representatives of Canada's financial institutions. Their interest lies with the people they represent. That's fundamentally my concern, but maybe—
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Have you met with them? If you haven't, I would encourage you to do so. I was pleasantly surprised to see that there are a number of very active and activist.... I know that not everyone likes that term, but—
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you so much for the recommendation. I'll follow up on that.
I hope you will take seriously the concern I'm expressing.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
The horizontal initiatives include “[f]unding to help developing countries address the impact of climate change”. At COP26, Canada was reluctant to show leadership and commit to our fair share towards loss and damage funds. The climate finance delivery plan pulled together by Germany and Canada does not even mention loss and damage.
The impacts of the climate crisis are already a reality for people around the world—here in B.C.—but are disproportionally impacting lower-income countries, displacing more than 30 million people in 2020 alone. Poor and vulnerable countries are least responsible for climate change but are already facing the worst of its negative impacts. I'm curious as to why Canada has been reluctant to pay its fair share toward loss and damage finance.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
I would beg to differ when it comes to doing our fair share. We doubled our climate finance commitment in the lead-up to the Glasgow meeting. We've increased from 30% to 40% our share of grants versus loans, and I know there is a willingness or a request that it be fifty-fifty. We were at 30% and 70%. We're at 40% and 60%. We're definitely going in the right direction.
On loss and damages, it's a complex decision. We have agreed to the establishment of the Santiago network, which will inform how countries could move forward on the issue of loss and damages, and Canada is a happy and willing party to this initiative.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I want to follow up on one of Madame Pauzé's questions.
You stated publicly that your government promised that an oil and gas emissions cap will not be part of the emissions reduction plan due next week. Do you plan to follow the Net-Zero Advisory Body's advice to set legally binding oil and gas sector emissions targets?
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
I know there was an article that said the oil and gas cap would not be part of the emissions reduction plan. Everything we're doing will be part of the emissions reduction plan. Keep in mind that some of our commitments are still under development.
We have said it wouldn't be a voluntary cap. We've been very clear on that. Is it going to be regulated or legislated? The consultations will inform that decision. As you know, obviously, different paths are available to us to do this, and that's why we're consulting.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
The Net-Zero Advisory Body's advice is that carbon removals and offsets should be used only as a last resort. Currently, the CCUS capture capacity is only 0.1% of global annual emissions. The IPCC points to uncertainty in the future deployment of carbon capture, utilization and storage and cautions against reliance on that technology. How does this align with your support of the CCUS tax credit?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Minister, perhaps you wouldn't mind answering the question when you are given another opportunity, because we're at six minutes. I'd like to go to the second round. You can work that answer in, of course.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
You mean instead of answering someone else's question?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Well, there might be some commonalities. We are very collegial here and we all want the same thing, which is to combat climate change.
Liberal
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
Thank you very much, Minister.
If I were to discuss that, I'd probably take it in exactly the opposite direction.
I would like to talk to you about one of the grants and contributions, the terrestrial cumulative effects initiative, and the transfers over to Natural Resources.
The government has stated its support for the development of an action plan with indigenous people to implement UNDRIP in Canada, indicating that this “can be a powerful tool to build alignment, understand mutual expectations and close existing, significant socio-economic gaps for Indigenous peoples.” As we look at the environmental policies put forward by your government and the fact that 65% of indigenous people support natural resource development, it seems as though there is potential in the making.
I'm just wondering how you see the future of oil and gas development in indigenous communities under the UNDRIP umbrella, in a way that acknowledges the need to maintain Canada's competitiveness as a consideration that is important to reconciliation. Can you explain how you will manage those who choose to develop oil and gas under their inherent rights to lands, territories and resources?
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Thank you for the question.
As the Prime Minister has said time and time again, no relationship is as important to us as our relationship with indigenous people. I think going forward, there is no scenario in which we will continue to develop resources or protected and conservation areas without the full involvement of indigenous peoples.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
Specifically, then, on their development of oil and gas.... We hear a lot about how they want to shut it down and so on, but that's not the way it is in their communities. They are full partners and they are looking forward to opportunities to engage in an industry that is in their backyard. I just really want to talk about whether your government is going to look at that and say that maybe we can change the rhetoric, and that oil and gas are important to indigenous Canadians.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
I would never speak on behalf of indigenous people, but I think we can probably agree that, as in the rest of Canadian society, there are different views about many of these issues. Perhaps I could turn to—
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
I can always come back later. I'll just make this final point on that, if you don't mind.
We do tend to speak on behalf of indigenous people when doing so fits our narrative.
You also mentioned that no nation can do it on its own. Just a month ago, Russia and China had a 100-million-tonne agreement as far as coal is concerned. We know it is happening there. We understand the situations that are happening in eastern Europe and the ramifications of those, and also the significance of how, here in Canada, we can help. We could have been right there to help, but we can help.
I'm just wondering, when we're talking about money being spent on international initiatives and so on, if we're starting to have a different focus because of the realities in the world right now, or are we still just repeating the mantra that we have to do our part, even though the rest of the world is kind of falling apart?