Industry Committee on May 6th, 2021

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It's been increased.

[Dan McTeague]

Yes. I don't know how you can achieve that.

Look, the next data and information that the committee has to understand, and I think is going to hear, is that with the lockdown in Canada, we saw a 7% decrease. Are we all planning, then, to accept a sevenfold, seven-year lockdown in order to achieve those targets? We need to make sure the technology is there and evolves in such a way that we get credit for the things we do.

I'm with you. I think those are great stretch goals, but I think they're impractical, and they may very well be unrealistic. I think that's where all of our political parties have to be. We have to provide realistic objectives in the context of the great things we've done in this country, especially from your riding, which was the first adopter of Tesla technology globally.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to MP Erskine-Smith for five minutes.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair.

Mr. McTeague, first, thank you for your service. I know that you served a significant amount of time. This job isn't always easy, so I do appreciate that.

You and Ali were going back and forth about science. Obviously, we should listen to the science. Obviously, we have obligations to the international community. But this is also about our kids. It's also, frankly, about jobs.

You said it is a “nice idea”, and I think the contrast you're trying to make there is that this is a nice idea, but there are more pressing matters for Canadians. Perhaps I can put it in a different context. If I went back to my constituents and said, “Well, we should address pandemic risk—it's a nice idea—but I'm really focused on affordability right now,” don't you think my constituents would say, “Nathaniel, you should be focused on reducing pandemic risk”?

[Dan McTeague]

It's a very good question, Mr. Erskine-Smith. I know of your good work. I see a streak in you that I might have seen in myself 20 or 30 years ago, so hats off to you. You're on the right committee.

My constituents would have raised issues at the time of why you'd see increased taxes in the midst of a pandemic, which unfortunately the government did not just once, but twice. I think we have to deal with these crises as they come, but we also have to plan the long term in terms of where we want to be. Yogi Berra put it very well...or to use a Jean Chrétien expression, if you don't know where you're going, chances are you're going to wind up somewhere else.

I think in the context of [Technical difficulty—Editor] what are the deliverables of this federal government, of our Parliament, in terms of its ability to address the issue at hand? We've spent a considerable amount of time talking about green energy and green ideas for the future. I think they're important, but I also think they tend to lose a lot of people—

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I am sorry. I only have five minutes.

[Dan McTeague]

Yes. Go ahead.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I want to talk about pandemic risk in particular. When I look at the dollars and cents of it—I know you're a dollars-and-cents guy—the estimates I've seen are that the costs of preventing a pandemic are measured in the billions and the costs of pandemics are measured in the trillions. We are living through that today. I care a lot about pandemic risk, not just as a nice idea but reducing pandemic risk.

Then I read the UN Environment Programme report from July. They say that of the seven human-mediated factors that are most likely driving the emergence of zoonotic diseases, something I care a lot about in terms of reducing that risk, one of the seven is climate change. If we look at the dollars and cents and where we want to be, shouldn't we be addressing climate change in a really serious way?

[Dan McTeague]

I think you're correct, but what I wasn't able to say in my original comments—I hope you get a distribution from the clerk—was that Steve Koonin, the former undersecretary under Obama, also said we can't overestimate the idea that somehow climate change is going to have a negative economic impact.

Specifically to health—this may be completely converse to what we are thinking today, but it wasn't 10 or 12 years ago—without fossil fuels, without hydrocarbons, you wouldn't have the kind of protection of a civilization, you wouldn't see the proliferation of civilization, as you're seeing today. While climate change may be connected, which I don't for a minute doubt, debate or dispute, to other issues, it's also one of the main reasons our fossil fuels, the things we're trying to get rid of, have a lot to do with increasing, improving and protecting.

Think of PPE here. They're made of fossil fuels—

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I agree that we've built civilization, and in large measure our certain prosperity in Canada, on our expansion of fossil fuels, but we also have to recognize the risks it poses to us in the long term, including our kids, and to the rest of the world. Again, that UNEP report says that an “extensive literature review of emerging diseases in Brazil revealed relationships between infectious diseases outbreaks and...extreme climate events...and...environmental changes...[including] deforestation.” That very progress that we like to hold out is not necessarily sustainable progress.

Anyway, I do appreciate your point about affordability. I care about consumer advocacy as well. I do think we have to focus on it. That's why the price on pollution has to be revenue neutral, with money back to Canadians. Ideally, those at the low end and the middle end are made whole, as much as reasonably possible. We do have to change our behaviour, obviously, and not just as related to climate change; also in relation to reducing pandemic risk. But I do appreciate your advocacy here.

With the remaining time I have, and I know it's not long, I'll ask Caroline from the Climate Action Network how we compare with other countries in terms of our climate ambition, particularly as it relates to recovery packages.

[Caroline Brouillette]

Thank you very much for the question.

First, it is important to note that several countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany, announced new targets in the context of the President Joe Biden's climate summit. Canada announced a new greenhouse gas reduction target of 40% to 45%. This is a step in the right direction, but of all the countries that have announced new targets, we are among those with the lowest targets. We must therefore continue to increase our climate ambitions.

On a per capita basis, Canada has made historic investments. However, compared to France, Germany, the European Union and the United States, Canada's investments remain among the lowest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much.

We'll now start our third round of questions.

Mr. Généreux, you have five minutes.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to inject a bit of humour. If Mr. McTeague's Internet connection is like his 1911 power line, he can't be surprised that he has so many problems.

That being said, the way my colleague addressed our witness should really be appreciated. It's important to show a modicum of respect, despite differences of opinion. It's as if I asked Ms. Brouillette and Ms. Latour if they were lawyers or scientists and I couldn't take their answers into account if they answered in the negative. Frankly, we cannot do that. Everyone is entitled to an opinion about our environment and everything we can do about it.

Ms. Brouillette, I'll give you the opportunity to continue what you started to say. You frowned a few times. Since you're close to your screen, I could see you frown when Mr. McTeague talked about more pipelines in Canada and the possible closure of Line 5. We'll see what will happen after this evening's debate, but there will be very serious negative consequences for Canada if it closes. We obviously support a possible transition.

What do you think the timeline should be for an effective transition in Canada?

[Caroline Brouillette]

Thank you for the question.

Before asking my colleague to complete my answer, I would like to explain my frowns. I want to set the record straight on the issue of renewable energy subsidies, which has come up several times.

This issue can't be examined without also looking at fossil fuel subsidies. We know that these subsidies tripled during the pandemic. So Canadian taxpayers' money is being invested in that sector, and it's contributing to slowing down this necessary transition. According to an Environmental Defence report, the federal government had recently announced or provided no less than $18 billion to the oil and gas sector. That includes almost 14—

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Are you talking about wage subsidies that were offered by the government to Air Canada or to Canadian companies?

[Caroline Brouillette]

This may take many forms, such as tax credits or programs that establish a cost for greenhouse gas emissions based on the polluter pays principle.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I apologize, but I would like to ask you a few questions, and my time is limited.

We all live on the same planet, where nothing is created and nothing is lost. That's what my mother always told me. If we didn't use oil in Canada or if we reduced our use of it to meet our targets, where in the world would we have to source our oil?

[Caroline Brouillette]

All of the new infrastructure planned as part of the expansion of the oil and gas sectors is for export. In Canada, the expansion of these sectors is, in a way, detached from the issue of energy demand and how Canadians get their energy. That doesn't mean that the fossil fuel demand of Canadians shouldn't be reduced. There are a number of possible measures. We've talked, for example, about a zero-emission vehicle standard, or ZEV standard, by 2035, like the one set by Quebec.

I would add that groups, including the Climate Action Network Canada and Environmental Defence, have done some modelling of the effects of reducing our emissions by 60% by 2030 on the Canadian economy. They found that it reduced household energy costs. These affordability issues—

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

How is it that Quebeckers, who claim to be great defenders of the environment, are also the biggest consumers of sport utility vehicles, or SUVs, and Ford-150 pick-up trucks in Canada, if not North America?

I'll remind you that I was the mayor of La Pocatière and that, in 2005, we were the first to introduce brown bins in all of Eastern Quebec—that was 16 years ago. Why is it that Quebeckers' garbage bags are the heaviest because of the organic waste they contain?

Isn't there some kind of hypocrisy here?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

I'd ask you to be brief, Ms. Brouillette.

[Caroline Brouillette]

That's a very good question.

We know that SUVs contribute to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector. I invite you, Mr. Généreux, to consult an Équiterre report on the advertising and marketing expenses for this type of vehicle. I'd be happy to send you the link to the report.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

However, there are consumers who buy them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Mr. Généreux—

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Excuse me, Madam Chair.