Evidence of meeting #11 for Natural Resources in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was going.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
I will start with Dr. Elgie.
Minister Bennett is in New York today, announcing that Canada is fully signing on to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. A big part of that declaration is the principle of free, prior and informed consent.
Could you comment on that idea and how it relates to this conversation.
5 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Associate Director, Institute of the Environment, As an Individual
Can we resolve the aboriginal challenges in Canada? I think it is great that we are signing it. I think the reality is that first nations have enough power right now to impede, if not block, most new linear development if it is not in a way that ultimately benefits their interests. It is probably a good thing. I don't need to tell people here that there is a crying need for sustainable economic development in the first nations and aboriginal regions of the country.
To me, the big challenge is how to do this in a way that builds viable, sustainable regional economies in those first nation areas. It isn't just about paying them enough money for them to say that the pipeline can go through there. It is about how to take that and create the skills, training, and job opportunities that will allow these places to be thriving in 20, 30, 40, 50, or 100 years, two or three generations, from now.
Those are huge challenges. Again, that is one of the big challenges of our nation. If we can take some of the wealth we are generating from doing this and reinvest it with that specific goal in mind, we will have solved one of the biggest challenges this country faces.
5 p.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Here is a quick, easy question for Dr. Plourde.
We have talked a lot about carbon pricing here. Canada has agreed, with the rest of the world, to work toward a 2°C limit on global warming.
I wonder if you have some magic price on carbon that would send a strong enough signal to people in Canada to do our share.
5 p.m.
Full Professor and Dean, Faculty of Public Affairs, Carleton University, As an Individual
That is a different question than it was when it started. There is no price that Canadians can pay that will bring about a 2°C solution for the world. I think we need to establish that pretty clearly.
This requires a world co-operation, and I think that is the message I would like to leave with you.
Yes, there is such a price. Whether we would be willing to pay it is a different story, but Canada on its own cannot identify a price to do this.
5 p.m.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
What is the carbon price the world will have to pay, then, to get them to do the right thing?
5 p.m.
Full Professor and Dean, Faculty of Public Affairs, Carleton University, As an Individual
I think it is a lot more than what people are charging now. I think Prof. Elgie was talking more about a hundred-dollar type of thing. That is where the conversation should start.
5 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Associate Director, Institute of the Environment, As an Individual
You see prices like that in some places around the world right now that have viable competitive economies.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
That uses up all the time we have under the current schedule. I am going to suggest we suspend the meeting for a few moments to discuss how we use the balance of our time, if the witnesses will bear with us for a few moments.
5 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Associate Director, Institute of the Environment, As an Individual
I will be in big trouble at day care co-op as a single dad this week, if I'm not out of here in 10 minutes, so I'll stay for 10, but don't take it personally if I leave after that.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you for the warning. We won't take it the wrong way.
Any questions for you should be posed first then.
Ms. Bergen for five minutes.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Dr. Elgie, I might ask you first to comment on this. I'm going in a different direction. The current government has now included upstream GHGs as part of the approval process for new projects, and not just pipelines, but mining and LNG, obviously.
I was recently in China and heard a new term there, which I find quite interesting. They talked about the global “handprint” as opposed to a footprint. You're chuckling, so I'm curious to see what you think about it. It would imply that a country like Canada would get credit when, for example, it sells LNG to China or wood products to China, instead of China using cement, which is highly GHG emissive. This is may be a strange idea, but do you think that Canada should get some credit for helping to reduce the global footprint in place like China when it sells its natural resources abroad?
Have you heard of the handprint idea? Do you think it's something the government should be looking at changing when overhauling the NEB and the regulatory process? If they're looking at upstream GHGs, why not look at the downstream handprint impact Canada has around the world?
5:05 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Associate Director, Institute of the Environment, As an Individual
It's a good question. Yes, in theory, as Professor Plourde said, climate change is a global problem. The only solutions that matter most are the global systems that we change with the production, transportation, and consumption systems. When it comes to getting into fights about national accounting, and who gets the credit, and who gets the debit, there's no right answer. China wouldn't be happy if we got all the credit, because they wouldn't get credit for reducing their emissions.
The only thing I would say—and this is where Professor Moore may know more—is that it isn't inherently obvious that selling natural gas to China or other Asian countries is only going to be replacing coal. They're now investing more in wind and solar each year than they are in new coal generation. You'd have to look at a case-by-case situation to see what it was replacing; but yes, to the extent—
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Associate Director, Institute of the Environment, As an Individual
Yes, case by case works, as long as there's honest, accurate accounting.
The truth of it is that if we live in a world where there's pricing or stringent climate policy around the world, demand will drive us in that direction. This is where the beauty of a price system is. Rather than rather than having government having to sit in through regulation and ask how it can regulate everyone's behaviour to make them behave as if there were a price, you have the market tell the truth about environmental costs, whether it's in China, Canada, the U.S., or anywhere. At that point, private investment will move us in that direction, anyway, and we won't have to have government telling everyone to behave as if the environment had a cost.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I think I have time for Dr. Moore or Dr. Plourde to comment.
5:05 p.m.
Professor, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, As an Individual
Let me add one thing to what Professor Elgie said, and that is about the national accounts system. One reason we're entering into this discussion with Mexico and the U.S. is to try to imagine a regional framework that may in fact be a precursor to what you're talking about. It's a bit easier to manage because there are only three players. In fact, if we can make it work on a North American basis and get transferability, effective taxes, and accounting for emissions, the likelihood is that in the future it's going to transfer to or be very attractive to other countries that are larger and more diverse. It's a great place to start.
5:05 p.m.
Full Professor and Dean, Faculty of Public Affairs, Carleton University, As an Individual
I have two quick points. I would agree with Professor Moore on the notion that North America provides a laboratory for this. I'm not a big fan of transfers for credits, because the accounting issues are phenomenal in keeping all of that straight. Is it permanent? Is it temporary? Does it matter? There's all of that kind of stuff to consider. I think it's a make-work project for public servants, who I think have better things to do with their time than that kind of thing.
Down the road, I would see something tied much more to the World Trade Organization, as part of that sort of system. If we want to expand much beyond North America, that's a road I would see worth exploring.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
We talked about the challenges we've had over the last few years and on the environmental side. Maybe Dr. Elgie could comment more. I alluded earlier to our government's interim principles that were announced in January. How do they build public confidence in major projects? Do you have any examples? Could you give some examples of how you would streamline the regulatory process.
5:05 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Associate Director, Institute of the Environment, As an Individual
I agree with Dr. Plourde that environmental assessment is just one part of the regulatory formula and that it sets a low bar. You have to do that at least. It's the incentives we generate that are going to create the excellence we want. Having the minimum requirements is important, though.
Looking at the full environmental costs of a project is just good sense. Blinding yourself to the full cost is not a good idea. You don't have to change the information you have, but knowing the full cost is a good idea. We've always done that. The last case I did as a litigator was arguing that exact point in respect of energy exports from the Great Whale Dam. The Supreme Court of Canada said that it's inherently obvious that you should look at the upstream impacts of generating energy when you give permission to transport it. So this is not a new idea. It has been an inherent part of environmental assessment in North America for a long time.
That said, I think that environmental assessment should not be used as a delaying tactic. Sometimes it is used in this way. I like some of the things the previous government brought in, by putting time limits on environmental assessments. I think there needs to be flexibility. You have to recognize that just as every structure you build won't take the same length of time, every environmental assessment will not take the same length of time. Building a bungalow and building a skyscraper will not have the same time limit. So there should be a little more flexibility, but with some of those efficiencies built in.
The last thing is that if you unpack the oil sands challenges, you unpack a lot of what's jamming the environmental assessment process for pipeline approvals. People don't feel they have a forum to talk about oil sands issues, so they shove all that stuff into the pipeline approval process. It really shouldn't be there. If you take that out, pipelines become about pipelines again.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Dr. Moore, you talked about the need for an energy strategy. You have also referred to Wayne Gretzky going where the puck is going to be, not where it was. I take it from those comments that you believe that the current strategy or system isn't working, or that it needs improvement.
5:10 p.m.
Professor, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, As an Individual
I don't think we have a strategy today. We have a series of moving agreements and some policy fixes between provinces or parties, which don't have a long tenure. If we could change the way we look at how to react to markets and act more collaboratively, then we would be able to define a strategic intent.
Where do we want to be tomorrow? Do we want to continue to be an energy product exporter? Do we want to be involved in transformative industries that take the next step, which is probably more electrification and more chemical products instead of raw and unupgraded oil and gas products? If we could have that conversation and decide on a strategic goal, then we'd be at the beginning of a strategy rather than being involved in a series of interlocking plans.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
You also made it clear earlier that you're a federalist, and you seem to be applauding the fact that the federal government is embracing the provinces. I'm going to interpret that to mean you believe public engagement is necessary. It shouldn't be mandated. It should be based on consultations and gathering views from people who are involved in the process. Is that fair?