Evidence of meeting #3 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was municipalities.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, Mr. Brown.
Turning to Clean Energy Canada, all the way from Brooklin, Ontario, we have Ms. Petrevan.
February 4th, 2020 / 1:10 p.m.
Sarah Petrevan Policy Director, Clean Energy Canada
Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to appear remotely. I have to apologize, but I have a little bit of a cold.
My name is Sarah Petrevan. I'm the policy director for Clean Energy Canada. We're a climate and clean energy program within the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue at Simon Fraser University.
The 2020 budget is an opportunity to turn climate ambition into climate action in Canada by prioritizing areas that provide benefits to Canadians, such as helping them save money, supporting jobs and, of course, cutting carbon pollution. I want to briefly focus my comments on three initiatives that do just that: increasing the deployment of electric buses, enabling more Canadians to drive electric vehicles, and building our infrastructure in a way that reduces pollution.
Transportation accounts for almost one quarter of Canada's emissions. Based on recent Government of Canada estimates, we know there are at least 1.5 million tonnes of pollution to be saved by electrifying public transit buses and trains. Depending on where you are in the country, an emissions-free bus will pollute 40% to 90% less than its diesel counterpart.
Right now, a fully electric bus costs $500,000 to $600,000 more up front than a diesel bus, but less if you factor in fuel savings over the life cycle of the bus. Estimates have these buses reaching price parity with their diesel counterparts in as little as five years, but in the interim, budget 2020 should include a rebate program fashioned after the popular program for electric cars.
The government should put in place a dedicated fund from which cities and transit authorities can receive rebates towards zero-emission buses. This fund should be very simple to access for municipalities, and it should help transit authorities save money over the life cycle of their new, clean buses, allowing them to reallocate their dollars towards other priority areas. Budget 2020 should also provide the infrastructure required to support electric transit buses, from charging infrastructure to new retrofitted bus depots.
Canada is home to four electric bus companies. Of the 298,000 jobs in the clean energy sector in Canada, 58% of them are in clean transportation. Electrifying public transit not only will cut pollution, it will create careers for Canadians in our evolving economy.
Now, what about passenger vehicles? The Government of Canada's iZEV program has spurred electric vehicle sales upwards by 32%, providing rebates to more than 30,000 Canadians. This program has surpassed expectations in terms of its popularity, and budget 2020 is an opportunity to both renew and expand its noble aims.
The government should move forward on its commitment to offer incentives for purchasing used electric vehicles. The purchase incentive could be retooled so that the scale of the incentive correlates with income level. Low-income Canadians benefit most from the cost savings that come from owning an electric vehicle, but low-income Canadians are not always in a position to spend more up front even if they see the long-term benefit.
Finally, budget 2020 is an opportunity to reduce pollution in the infrastructure we build. Each time we construct something—a road, a bridge, a building—we generate pollution in the manufacturing of building materials, in transporting those materials and even in tearing buildings down when they no longer serve their purpose.
Within Canada and internationally, policy-makers have designed policies that help us waste less energy through energy efficiency, policies that consider the fuels we use to heat our homes, our office towers and the stores we visit. What we in Canada have thought less about is the 11% of global carbon emissions that come from just constructing these assets, which is equal to half of the entire carbon footprint of new construction between now and 2050.
The good news is that there are many products and materials in existence today—low-carbon cement, steel and mass timber—whose production generates less pollution. These low-carbon versions are being used across the U.S., the U.K. and even most recently in a project at the Calgary airport. Simply changing the type of cement we use in Canada can save us one million tonnes of pollution, and in this instance it's at no extra cost. The lower carbon option costs exactly the same as what is currently being used.
While policy-makers consider the broader opportunities associated with infrastructure in Canada, budget 2020 should establish a low-carbon infrastructure fund to help municipalities and other jurisdictions that want these well-commercialized, less-polluting building materials in their infrastructure projects. This would be a demonstration fund and therefore time limited, supporting the most ready products and materials. The fund would increase demand and the prioritization of lower-carbon domestic materials in cleaner construction.
With more than 1.2 million Canadians employed in the construction industry alone, infrastructure supports the jobs that will help build Canada's sustainable economy.
We should be building the future with the best materials available today.
Thank you for your time. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, Sarah.
With the Green Budget Coalition, we have Mr. Van Iterson and Ms. Daviet.
1:15 p.m.
Andrew Van Iterson Manager, Green Budget Coalition
Mr. Chairman and honourable committee members, thank you for inviting the Green Budget Coalition to speak to you today.
The Green Budget Coalition, active since 1999, is unique in bringing together the expertise of 22 of Canada's leading environmental organizations, that collectively have over one million Canadians as members, volunteers and supporters.
The Green Budget Coalition's mission is to present an analysis of the most pressing issues regarding environmental sustainability in Canada, and to make a consolidated annual set of recommendations to the federal government regarding strategic fiscal and budgetary opportunities.
As you noted, I am joined today by Florence Daviet, the national forest program director from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, to help answer questions later.
In November we emailed each of you copies of this document, the Green Budget Coalition's recommendations for budget 2020, which provides more detail, refinements and updates on the submission we made to the committee in August 2019.
The Green Budget Coalition's most important message to the committee today, in line with the theme of the committee's pre-budget consultations, is the following: Canada and the world face a climate emergency and a biodiversity crisis. Canadians are already experiencing floods, fires, ecological disruption and a rapidly warming Arctic, and scientists project that these and other impacts will intensify if climate change remains unchecked.
The Green Budget Coalition urges the Government of Canada to step up to this defining moment in history with the necessary investments in budget 2020 to enable effective action.
Our recommendations for budget 2020 will help Canada make rapid progress. We draw upon the expertise of Canada's environmental movement as well as global knowledge and experience to provide detailed, costed, strategic budget recommendations addressing critical environmental challenges. Implementing these recommendations would furnish economic health and environmental benefits for Canadians.
The GBC welcomed progress in recent federal budgets on climate actions, protected areas, building and vehicle energy efficiency, food policy, water, transit and natural infrastructure. However, we now need to scale up action before it is too late to address the closely related climate and biodiversity crises.
In this context the Green Budget Coalition has developed its recommendations for budget 2020, addressing four themes.
First, the coalition urges scaled-up fiscal action to address the climate emergency, including eliminating fossil fuel subsidies and allocating major funding to nature-based solutions, and building energy efficiency, transportation, community energy, international climate financing and marine shipping, plus a number of complementary measures, including those on carbon pricing, the sustainable finance report, and a just transition for energy sector workers.
Second, the coalition urges continued and ongoing investment in nature conservation and biodiversity, with a focus on protected areas on public and private lands; habitat restoration, including wetlands and grasslands; oceans and migratory birds.
Third, our recommendations regarding sustainable agriculture call for investment in agri-environmental programs, research and development, and a new facility for the national insect collection to improve the agricultural sector's sustainability, resilience and competitiveness.
Fourth, on toxics and pesticides, we point to the need for regulatory departments to receive sufficient resources to meet and exceed the legislative requirements for managing toxic substances, including pesticides, to protect the health of Canadians and our environment.
Last, in our document we also outline a number of complementary recommendations regarding environmental data and science, governance, plastics, water monitoring, collisions of wildlife and vehicles, as well as first nations water infrastructure.
Implementing these recommendations together would lead to dramatic progress in advancing a healthier future for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Thank you again for inviting the Green Budget Coalition to appear today. We look forward to your questions and we would also be happy to arrange for other experts to follow up with further information.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you very much. I believe we have a copy of that document somewhere.
To get as many in as possible on a tighter time frame, we'll go to four minutes per individual.
Mr. Poilievre.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Dr. Lee, you mentioned Canada's demographic problem, which you say will materialize in approximately 10 years. What should we do about it now?
1:20 p.m.
Associate Professor, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, As an Individual
I would be delighted, and I say this very seriously, if this committee recommended to the Minister of Finance a general operating principle that, going forward, all programs must be targeted, not universal. I'm excepting health care itself because it's been around for 70 years and you can't take back what's there. We all support it, but every other social program should be targeted, not universal.
Quebec showed this with the day care. It's giving free day care, or massively subsidized day care, to a husband and wife making a quarter of a million dollars each. It just does not make sense and it's not sustainable. I'm referencing pharmacare but it applies to all of our programs. We shouldn't be giving electric vehicle subsidies to a person making $150,000 a year and not at least make that person declare it on their income as taxable. Why are we giving free money to high-income people?
A good start would be to say that all programs must be targeted, and revenues received as “grants” for various benefits should be taxable.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
1:20 p.m.
Associate Professor, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, As an Individual
I haven't crunched those numbers. I would like to see some numbers. I'm starting to do some work in that area but I would like to see it. There are many different grants, as we know. There's just a plethora of grants.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
1:20 p.m.
Associate Professor, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, As an Individual
I know you're going to be debating it in the next 12 months. I hope there's a very serious debate on universal pharmacare. It is massively expensive and there are different studies out there. We're all aware of them. The figures are anywhere from $20 billion to $40 billion. These are staggering amounts of money to anybody.
Remember that, statistically, I have about 15 years left because a male lives to 81 in this country if they achieve 65 and a female lives to 84. If we impose these costs, they are going to fall overwhelmingly on our young people because they have 50 to 60 years ahead of them.
Millennials should be even more focused on this than people my age. I'm going to be the beneficiary of some of this largesse if you give me free drugs.
1:20 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
1:20 p.m.
Associate Professor, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, As an Individual
I don't need free drugs, I assure you, and neither does Conrad Black and neither do MPs.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
1:20 p.m.
Associate Professor, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, As an Individual
I'm living very comfortably and I don't have free drugs, other than through my benefits package, which I pay for.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Okay, good. We don't want to take that away either.
You mentioned that you would forgo the national pharmacare program. You'll—
1:20 p.m.
Associate Professor, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, As an Individual
The universal pharmacare program.... The targeting principle says that we help those who need help, not wealthy people who don't need help. That's what I mean. I didn't say “eliminate it”. We already have pharmacare in Canada.
One of the great urban legends right now is that Canada doesn't have pharmacare. Of all prescription drugs in Canada, 43% are funded through the provincial ministries of health. Almost half of all our prescription drugs are already under pharmacare. It is just simply false to say that we don't have a pharmacare program in Canada. We do.
1:20 p.m.
Associate Professor, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, As an Individual
We have many of them. We have 10 provinces and the territories as well. That's in the annual report from CIHI, which is superb and I urge every MP to read it. It's the annual analysis of pharmacare expenditures in Canada, going back some 15 years to the present.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
You've given some suggestions on how we can consume less wealth. How can we produce more of it?
1:20 p.m.
Associate Professor, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, As an Individual
I'm glad you asked that because these aging numbers are not theories. They're not opinions. It's called demography, and the demography is just relentless. We're going to have one in four people over 65. What we can do though, as you just suggested, is to try to reduce the barriers to economic growth. We're going to have to do that. We should be looking at ways....
I'm not talking about cutting taxes. For those who think that's always the solution and people like me just advocate for cutting taxes, I'm not arguing that. We have a lot of barriers to growth right now. We have barriers to pipelines in this country. We have barriers to natural resource development. We have to reduce those barriers, without compromising the environment of course.
I've been very lucky in my career over a third of a century. I've travelled around the world to many countries. I'm talking about developing, third world countries. We have, without any doubt, one of the cleanest countries in the world in terms of air, water and soil.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We'll have to cut you off there, Mr. Lee.
I'll just remind all witnesses that if you have a point to raise, even though a question is addressed to another witness, don't be afraid to raise your hand and we'll let you in.
Mr. McLeod.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to everybody who presented today.
My question is for the Green Budget Coalition.
The 2019 Speech from the Throne and also the mandate letter to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change talked about conservation of lands and oceans to 25% by 2025, and 30% by 2030.
Many of us believe that partnerships with indigenous nations, which can create new protected areas across different parts of Canada, are very essential to meeting those targets. I didn't see any reference to either the indigenous protected areas or the indigenous guardians in your submission. Both of these are good conservation tools to have, and we've used them in the riding I represent, the Northwest Territories.
They're very popular programs with my constituents. In fact, the first indigenous protected area in Canada was just established close to my home community of Fort Providence in the Northwest Territories. The government did an analysis and found that in the Northwest Territories anyway the investment in indigenous guardians returns a value of up to $3.70....
Does the Green Budget Coalition work with those types of programs, or would it support indigenous-led conservation efforts such as these?
1:25 p.m.
Florence Daviet National Forest Program Director, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), Green Budget Coalition
I am Florence Daviet with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.
Absolutely, we agree with you that indigenous protected areas are going to be key to helping us meet this target in 2025. It's perhaps an oversight that we haven't clarified that in this document.
As an organization, we work a lot with indigenous peoples. They have a vision for how they would like to see their lands being developed and also protected.
We've seen a lot of great land use plans, including in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon and in other parts of Canada, and we absolutely support the development of those plans and the creation of protected areas where they are appropriate within them as part of meeting these commitments, so we absolutely support it.
Thank you.