Thank you, Chair.
Good afternoon, honourable members. Thank you so much for this invitation.
I'm delighted to have this opportunity to share a new idea with you, a proposal for a new federal institution that, I believe, speaks to the challenges of fiscal federalism in the context of the climate crisis and the urgent need to transition our economy.
I am joining you from the unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations, otherwise known as Vancouver.
As noted, I am the team lead with the Climate Emergency Unit. I'm also the author of the book A Good War: Mobilizing Canada for the Climate Emergency, which I believe most of you have received, because prior to the last election, an enthusiastic reader from Kingston purchased and delivered a copy to every sitting MP.
My book is structured around the lessons drawn from Canada's historic mobilization during the Second World War—an earlier existential threat—and applies those lessons to the climate emergency. Of course, that earlier mobilization in the face of fascism 80 years ago also had to navigate political differences, the challenges of Canadian Confederation and extraordinary financial challenges, and retool the economy—twice, in fact—and an entire workforce needed to be recruited and trained up. Indeed, as challenging as the transition we now face to tackle the climate crisis is, arguably the task we undertook then was greater.
The comparison is imperfect, of course, but I draw hope and inspiration from this historic reminder as we again face the need to retool our economy, as we again face a civilizational threat, and as the future of our children and grandchildren is once again profoundly put at risk. The World War II story provides a reminder of the extraordinary transformation we're capable of as we rise to this task of our lives.
MP Daniel Blaikie, as I understand, asked for me to be invited here today. In particular, he wanted me to share an idea from the book that speaks to fiscal federalism at this historic moment, and that is the idea for a new federal transfer, which I call “the climate emergency just transition transfer”. I provided the clerk with a short policy brief of the idea yesterday for distribution to you, but it probably still needs to be translated.
I should say that the idea for this new transfer came out of a discussion with the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, Gil McGowan, when I was interviewing him for my book. He was rightly making the case that Confederation needs to recognize and appreciate that certain regions of Canada—notably the oil-producing provinces—have more heavy lifting to do when it comes to energy and economic transition in the face of the climate crisis. What we believe is an innovative solution emerged from that discussion.
First of all, why do we need a new transfer? At the Climate Emergency Unit, we talk about the six markers of emergency, the key policy indicators that a government is genuinely in emergency mode. The first two of those markers are that, one, it spends what it takes to win and, two, it creates new economic institutions to get the job done. A third marker relevant to this topic is a commitment to leave no one behind.
The problem is that while the federal government has started to take some meaningful climate action, it's not yet hitting those markers. We're still trying to incentivize our way to victory, and I fear it will not work. We are not on a path to bending our GHG emissions curve at the pace and pitch required. We're not spending what it takes to win. We're not creating new transformative institutions to get this job done. And, frustratingly, we have yet to make a compelling counter-offer to the thousands of people understandably anxious about what this transition means for their jobs and their livelihoods.
In the face of the climate emergency, Canada needs to make an audacious and hopeful offer to those workers and communities whose employment and economic security are currently tied to the fossil fuel industry, or, to a lesser extent, the traditional auto industry, or steel and concrete, or the agriculture industry, all of which face substantial transition challenges, and to indigenous communities on the front lines of fossil fuel extraction.
As many have argued, and as is promised by the current federal government, we need a just transition act, but we also need this act to be paired with and backed up by a substantial investment in the jobs of the future so that the promise of just transition isn't a hollow one.
I believe a new federal climate emergency just transition transfer could be specifically linked to funding climate infrastructure projects that would create thousands of jobs, along with training and apprenticeships. Such a transfer could be a mechanism to renew Confederation while rising to the climate crisis.
The transfer should mean that as we embark on this grand transformation, we would be able to say this to thousands who currently work in the fossil fuel industry: “None of you will be out of work. We need your help to meet this moment. Your skills and strength will be deployed in building renewable energy projects, retrofitting buildings, building high-speed rail and public transit, renewing existing infrastructure to make it more resilient to extreme weather, and managing our forest to reduce wildfire risks in the years to come.”
How should this be structured? I believe the new transfer should be at least $25 billion a year, representing about 1% of Canada's GDP. It could and should fund much of the climate infrastructure needed in the coming years. The transfer would speak to a climate confederation conundrum, which is that most of the climate infrastructure needed logically comes under provincial, municipal or indigenous jurisdiction—energy, transit, housing—but it's the federal government that has the greatest capacity to pay.
Two features of the transfer would distinguish it from most other federal transfers. The first is that, unlike most transfers that allocate funding based on population, this transfer could distribute based on a formula linked to recent GHG emissions in each province, but fixed from that point forward so as not to perversely incentivize rising GHGs. Doing so would recognize that jurisdictions like Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador face a more challenging task to transition their local economies. For example, Alberta, which currently produces 38% of Canada's GHG emissions, would receive 38% of the transfer money, quite a lot more than its share of the population.
The second distinguishing feature is that, rather than this transfer money being handed over to provincial governments, the funds would go to newly established just transition agencies, one in each province and territory, jointly governed by the federal government, by provincial, territorial and local governments, and by indigenous nations from each province, and with civil society representatives also on the boards. This would ensure that the transfer money isn't simply absorbed into provincial budgets or used to displace other infrastructure or training funds. It would ensure that the money is used for its intended purpose.
There are already models of joint governance structures like this in Canada, such as the port authorities. It may be that a separate transfer should be made directly to indigenous communities, but the benefit of structuring the transfer around local agencies like this is that it provides assurance that the projects undertaken are sensitive to the realities and needs of each locale. Each province and jurisdiction has a different GHG profile and its own local labour market and training needs. This model would allow for those differences.
There is a long list of worthwhile projects that a transfer like this could fund. The key is that the transfer would represent real dollars for actual transition and new jobs, not vague assurances and the historical false promises of just transition. An innovation like this could be a linchpin within an overall transition plan that is fair and just.
Thanks. I'd be happy to take your questions.
