Evidence of meeting #5 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was targets.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Ellis Ross
We are resuming the meeting. We are in public now. We are out of in camera.
We are commencing a study on the effectiveness, potential improvements and capability of Canada's 2030 emissions reduction plan.
We have witnesses with us today. I will start by allowing each witness to introduce themselves. They have up to five minutes apiece.
We'll start with Mr. Normand Mousseau.
Normand Mousseau Scientific Director, Trottier Energy Institute, Polytechnique Montréal, As an Individual
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
Every three years, the Trottier Energy Institute publishes a document on the Canadian energy outlook it has established. Among other things, it presents techno-economic models that assess the impact of existing measures in a baseline scenario and compare these results with the transformations required to achieve Canada's climate goals.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Ellis Ross
I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt you there. I'm going to see if our translation is....
I'm sorry about that. Please resume.
Scientific Director, Trottier Energy Institute, Polytechnique Montréal, As an Individual
The latest edition of our energy outlook is unequivocal: Even including the clean electricity and zero-emission vehicle regulations, the reduction of greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions in Canada from the 2005 level will be at best 14% in 2030 and 25% in 2040—a far cry from the legal targets of 40% to 45% for 2030 and 50% for 2050.
Those results did not surprise us. In 2021, we had already published a report that showed the gap between the necessary changes on the ground and the measures being implemented.
There are a number of reasons for this.
First, with the exception of regulations on fugitive emissions and the two others previously mentioned, the deployed measures are neither transformative nor foundational.
Second, opposition is significantly slowing down the development of appropriate measures. It has descended into a denial of the need for a successful energy transition.
Third, provinces have largely taken a wait-and-see approach. They have barely deployed any meaningful measures to truly advance decarbonization initiatives.
Fourth, the industrial carbon market is not working to reduce emissions in the sector.
In our North American bubble, Canada's failure may seem insignificant. That is not the case. While Canada is treading water, our competitors are transforming themselves. They are meeting and exceeding their ambitious targets, and using the energy transition to modernize their economy, develop new and better technologies and roll out high-value-added products.
These efforts, led by China, the EU countries and a few others, are based on massive electrification, which promotes advanced technologies in transportation, heating and industry—technologies that can more easily integrate sophisticated monitoring approaches, increasingly driven by artificial intelligence.
Between 2005 and today, China's share of electricity in final energy consumption has gone from 15% to over 30%. During the same period, the share of electricity in the Canadian economy remained constant at around 23%. In other words, as China rapidly adopts higher-performing technologies, Canada continues to pretend that nothing has changed, and is relying on yesterday's methods to secure its place in the global economy.
However, electricity-related transformation is accelerating based on recent successes—successes we ignore and don't want to see in Canada.
As a result, Canada is losing ground on a daily basis. It does not develop the intellectual property associated with the most modern technologies and does not build up know-how in this field. Thus, its industry is losing competitiveness, forcing it to erect insurmountable barriers to prevent superior products, such as Chinese electric vehicles, from tearing down its own industry, which is slow to modernize.
Given the clear inability of Canada to meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, there needs to be a change in strategy, as we explain in some of our reports, which I will provide to the committee.
First of all, we need to look at climate policy as an industrial and economic policy, not an environmental one.
We must stop counting tonnes of GHG emissions and focus instead on in-depth transformations in various sectors. These include the electrification of passenger transportation and much of the transportation of goods; the mass deployment of heat pumps in the building, manufacturing and industrial sectors; and the large-scale deployment of carbon capture and sequestration solutions.
All of this must be supported not only by a major and rapid increase in the production and distribution of clean electricity, but also by a vision that will integrate these transformations into the major technological disruptions of the day, such as automation and artificial intelligence.
To accomplish this, we need to identify technologies in which Canada can still carve out a place for itself while welcoming others without hesitation. Such an approach requires proactive and guiding action on the part of governments.
Canada's future prosperity is not guaranteed. It can sink into irrelevance by continuing to defend outdated approaches, or it can choose to integrate itself into global economic transformations.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Ellis Ross
Thank you very much.
Now, representing Climate Action Network Canada, we have Ms. Caroline Brouillette.
Caroline Brouillette Executive Director, Climate Action Network Canada
Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you very much for welcoming us to your proceedings.
I'll just note for the translators that I'm going to switch between French and English.
I lead Climate Action Network Canada, which is a coalition of over 180 organizations, and not only those in the environmental sector. It also brings together private and public sector unions and first nations from coast to coast to coast.
Today I want to talk about competitiveness. In 2025, competitiveness means ensuring that Canadian workers, industries and citizens are fully equipped and well positioned to thrive in global markets that are shifting, as Normand was saying, to the technologies of the future.
Canada's being competitive does not mean we should move back on our existing climate commitments, including our 2030 targets and our 2035 ones. The United States may have capitulated to the interests of oil and gas lobbyists and executives. President Trump may be clinging to the technologies of the past and bullying the world into further dependence on volatile fossil fuels, but it would be very ill-advised for Canada to follow suit.
Instead, we should be paying attention to where a majority of countries are going, scaling up renewable energy and electric-based technology. The European Union, our second-largest trading market, has a carbon border adjustment mechanism that will become fully implemented in 2026. It's already targeting some key sectors of our economy. China is rapidly dominating key sectors of industry, such as electric vehicles, batteries and solar photovoltaics, which are rapidly taking off across the world.
To realize this economic potential, we must redouble our efforts to meet our targets rather than weaken them. Businesses and industry sectors need certainty rather than increased instability.
Canada's greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan provides clear direction for the economy as a whole and for each of its sectors. This will enable us to increase our innovation performance and boost our exports in high value-added sectors, rather than perpetuating what I would frankly call a “colony-trading post” position in an increasingly underperforming North America.
The latest data on greenhouse gas emissions paint a very clear picture: We are not on the right track. GHG emissions are stagnating in Canada due to increased emissions from the oil and gas sector, even as other sectors of the economy are making efforts to reduce theirs. For example, there has been a reduction in greenhouse gases in the building, electricity, and heavy industry sectors.
Mathematically, we cannot pull megatonnes of GHGs out of a hat. Therefore, there can be no backtracking on capping emissions from the oil and gas sector without putting forward an alternative solution that will allow us to make up for the delay that this sector is imposing on all Canadians and the world.
We are nowhere near achieving our goals. The latest modelling from the Climate Institute of Canada shows that, if the trend continues, we will reduce our GHG emissions by about 20% to 25% by 2030, whereas the target set out in the law is a 45% reduction. Now is not the time to backtrack on policy.
The ERP not only is a legal obligation that we have collectively set for ourselves but also is key to Canada's future planning and Canada's competitiveness, not just in this unprecedented treacherous moment but also in the long term. With the high geopolitical turbulence and economic uncertainty, Climate Action Network Canada hopes that MPs across the aisle in this committee and beyond, as well as policy-makers across jurisdictions, will help guard against the risk of Canada being left behind in rapidly changing global markets and will also seize the opportunity before us to transform our economy for the better in a way that benefits citizens, workers, industries and the planet.
Thank you so much.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Ellis Ross
Thank you.
Now, by video conference, we have Professor Simon Donner.
Professor, the floor is yours.
Simon Donner Professor, Net-Zero Advisory Body
Thank you.
My name is Simon Donner. I'm a professor at the University of British Columbia and a climate scientist. I'm also co-chair of Canada's Net-Zero Advisory Body. I join you today from Vancouver, which is situated on the unceded traditional territories of the Musqueam, the Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations.
The Net-Zero Advisory Body is mandated to provide the Minister of Environment and Climate Change with independent advice on the most likely pathways for Canada to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and also to advise on the setting of interim emissions reduction targets.
I'll say there is some irony to joining you on this day of all days on the calendar to discuss the 2030 emissions reduction plan. Today is Yom Kippur, the day of atonement for the Jewish people. It is a day when we are supposed to fast in order to reflect, to repent for our sins and to take the lessons forward into the new year.
The 2030 emissions reduction plan is the most comprehensive climate policy package in Canada's history. However, the plan is not sufficient to meet the 2030 emissions reduction target, and several of its key components have now been cancelled or are at risk.
In 2021, our body provided sectoral advice for the plan. That advice appears in the appendix of the plan itself. Last year, upon request of the minister, we also provided advice on how to close the gap between the plan and Canada's 2030 target. We also recently conducted follow-up research on ways to work with the provinces to unlock investments and reduce emissions.
In my reading of all of our work, three relevant findings emerged. The first is that the initial emissions reduction plan was insufficient to reach the 2030 target. The government's own modelling indicated that the plan could, at best, achieve a 36% reduction by the year 2030. That analysis presumes every element of the plan is fully implemented and works precisely as intended. That result was only ever best interpreted as a theoretical limit of the possible emissions reductions, not a likely outcome of the plan.
The second main finding is that the implementation of the plan has been insufficient. That's leading Canada even further off the path to the 2030 target. In 2024, we wrote a report called “Closing the Gap”, with advice to the minister, in which we advised taking a series of actions in order to achieve those modelled emissions reductions. These actions included implementing measures that were announced but not finalized. Those are things like the clean electricity regulations and included strengthening the industrial pricing system, which was not performing as intended, and included securing emissions reductions from the oil and gas sector, which is responsible for about 30% of Canada's emissions.
We then recommended a small set of additional actions that could close the gap from the modelled emissions reductions and the actual 2030 target. Those included strengthening the oil and gas methane regulations and promoting low-emission modes of transportation.
The government has not as of yet adopted any of this advice. Instead, some of the measures in the emissions reduction plan, like the consumer carbon price, were cancelled. The status of others, like the electric vehicle availability standard and the oil and gas sector measures are uncertain.
Our third finding from more recent research is it's very clear that good climate policy is also good economic policy. Clean growth investment in Canada is basically being held back because of climate policy uncertainty and regulatory overlap. Removing and weakening climate policies without a plan negotiated with the provinces to strengthen other measures will only further undermine clean growth by raising investor uncertainty.
Our latest research, which was conducted with the Canadian Climate Institute, reiterates immediate steps the government could take to unlock investment and get climate policy back on track. These include strengthening the industrial pricing system and the carbon market system. They include developing more accountable and transparent implementation deals with the provinces and include grabbing the low-hanging fruit, things like the methane regulations and heat pump incentives for low-income households.
Most of all, this latest research is a reminder that climate policy is not a luxury good that you cast aside during times of stress. Climate policy is an investment in our long-term resilience, security and economic strength. The question Canada faces right now is not whether to protect the environment or to protect the economy. It is whether we have the wisdom to make the upfront investments in policy and infrastructure today that will build the low-carbon industries of tomorrow and help deliver long-term prosperity.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Ellis Ross
Thank you very much to all of our witnesses for being here, and I apologize for our being late.
Thank you for being very concise in your remarks. You actually came under the five-minute mark.
Now we will open it up for questions.
We will start with the Conservative Party, Mr. Leslie, for six minutes.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to start with Mr. Donner. During your opening statement, you mentioned that good climate policy is good economic policy.
Given the results that we've seen after the last 10 years of stagnant, non-existent growth, a cost of living crisis, food bank use through the roof and, simultaneously, environmental policy that has led to reaching nowhere near our targets, as set out by your advisory board, is it fair to say that we've had both bad economic and bad environmental policy?
Professor, Net-Zero Advisory Body
I think the point we're trying to make here is that this is really about a choice about whether we're just investing for today or planning for tomorrow.
There are a lot of measures in the emissions reduction plan that the Net-Zero Advisory Body agreed with. Keep in mind that we did not author the targets or author the plan. We just give advice towards it. All of our advice is aiming towards what will get Canada on a long-term—
Bloc
Bloc
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
I'm sorry to interrupt you, but there is no longer any interpretation into French.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Ellis Ross
I'm sorry about that. It is basically a point of order, but our interpretation.... It's basically the audio quality. I assume we're going to try to fix it, or should we just carry on?
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Ellis Ross
To our witnesses, we do have technology here that's not currently working in terms of interpretation. We can't figure it out. I don't think we'll have interpretation for the rest of this meeting. I'm sorry about that. Our technicians are still working on it.
Is that going to be okay for awhile? I'm sorry about that. Please resume.
Professor, Net-Zero Advisory Body
My apologies. I guess I'll just continue with my comments to the member.
To summarize, I appreciate the question. I think some of this is about what is good long-term economic policy. Our job is to—
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt the witness, but I'm not hearing any interpretation into French.
Conservative
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Ellis Ross
I'm sorry about this. It comes down to our interpretation technology. A number of us are not getting the interpretation. I'm sorry, but there doesn't seem to be a fix. Our IT ambassador will be contacting some of our members, I'm told, but we don't have a quick fix here.
For continuity's sake, we've been very disjointed in this first round of questioning. I propose that we carry on. We'll start the clock again and start with your initial question.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Sure. I'll go to the room here. I'll redirect.
You said something similar during your testimony that climate policy is related to economic policy. I won't regurgitate the entirety of the question, but we've seen terrible results in economic policy, with stagnant growth, and we've seen lacklustre and failing results, according to your testimony here. Have we seen both bad economic and bad environmental policy?
Executive Director, Climate Action Network Canada
Simon, are you taking this?
As Mr. Donner was saying, the idea is to make long-term investments that will necessarily transform the sectors in which we are competitive.
It is therefore possible that certain sectors of the economy that, coincidentally, are responsible for the largest share of our greenhouse gas emissions, such as the oil and gas sectors, and that, in the long term, because of global demand—
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you. That wasn't quite the question I asked.
During the campaign, we knocked on a lot of doors, and a lot of people talked to me about energy prices, gas prices, food prices, the cost of living and the number of people who are volunteering at food banks now.
Do you think any of the policies that we've seen over the last 10 years have led to that? Do you think they could have been done better to actually achieve any environmental outcomes? I'll add to that. Now that you've seen the new government unload some new policies, can you comment on those and what they are going to do to our economic and environmental policy?