Natural Resources Committee on March 23rd, 2022

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I just think this is so staggeringly rude. Obviously, my colleagues don't want to hear testimony that is vital to our committee, so they're trying to interrupt.

We have international witnesses here. Our colleagues are turning this into some kind of circus. I think they should show basic respect for the committee, for their colleagues and for the fact that people from the international community have taken time to come to our committee to speak about the most urgent issue facing our country.

If the Bloc and the Conservatives want to turn this into a circus, I think this is appalling behaviour.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Maloney.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I fear Mr. Angus's desired outcome. I don't feel the same way about it as the way he expressed it.

In light of what he did say, I will move to adjourn debate, so that we can finish with these witnesses, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We'll move to Monsieur Simard.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I have a speaking order, so I need to go to Monsieur Simard, Mr. Anandasangaree and then back to you, Mr. Maguire.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

It's a dilatory motion. It's not debatable, Mr. Chair. We have to put my motion to adjourn debate to a vote right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Yes, I'm sorry. I missed it. I was getting some direction on something else.

Yes, you're right. It's a dilatory motion.

All in favour of adjourning debate on this?

(Motion agreed to)

We can get back to our witnesses.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Chair, there were no hands up on the screen from members, were there? Four of us here in the chamber voted for the motion to adjourn and five voted against.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I saw Mr. Chahal and Ms. Jones with their hands up as far as adjourning debate.

Do we need to take another—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

He'd have to challenge the chair. The vote was taken. We don't do the vote twice.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

That's fine. Go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

With that, we will move then to the next person.

Mr. Maloney, you have six minutes.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to say thank you to our witnesses.

We're a very friendly, agreeable bunch here, notwithstanding what you just witnessed. I appreciate all of you taking the time to be here.

Mr. Anderson, I'm going to start with you.

I must say that I was not feeling inspired by the time you finished your opening remarks. I think your suggestion that Canada has shown “no meaningful leadership”, if I'm quoting you correctly, is a little harsh, to say the least. You attributed this to our car fleet and a number of other factors.

Are you saying there is no chance that Canada can meet these targets that have been set, like the 1.5°C, for example, or, are you saying that there is no chance these targets can be met unless we cap and stop all production by 2034, which is what I think I heard you say?

[Kevin Anderson]

I simply take here what the physics tells us. We have a carbon budget that comes out of the IPCC. It's not just for Canada, of course. This is the same for all of the wealthy, high-emitting nations, which represent around about 60-odd per cent of all emissions. They have broadly got to stop production by 2034, but they also need the pathway that goes to about a 75% reduction by 2030, or we exceed the 1.5°C budget.

There's not really a personal judgment in that. It's really just simple maths and science. That's where we are. Fortunately the first IPCC we brought was in 1990. We have done nothing on climate change but watch emissions rise for 30 years, not just Canada, but let's be clear. Canada's emissions are 27% higher than they were in 1990. We have had—

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

To answer my question, then, are you suggesting that no further projects should be approved and all should be shut down by 2034? Is that what you're recommending?

[Kevin Anderson]

If Canada is to commit and succeed in delivering on its commitments in the G7 and Paris for 1.5°C, we have to close all oil and gas production in the wealthy parts by 2034, and we have to open no new projects. That's true not just for Canada. The no new projects is true at a global level for oil, coal and gas—

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I won't ask you to comment on what you think that might do to our economy, because it's sort of a rhetorical question, frankly.

[Kevin Anderson]

Well—

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Sorry. I'm limited in time. I don't mean to be rude.

I'm going to move to the other witnesses.

Do you share Mr. Anderson's fatal view, or do you believe that Canada has a realistic chance of meeting these targets through either mechanisms that are currently in place or others that you might suggest?

Mr. Fong, why don't I start with you. You seemed the most optimistic of the bunch.

[Francis Fong]

Personally, I do feel that it's possible, but given that other witnesses have taken great pains to join us internationally, I'd like to yield my time to hear from them as well.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Okay. I respect that.

Mr. Merk, what about you? Particularly in light of what Mr. Anderson said with respect to transport, and that is your area of focus, do you share his view that the targets cannot be met?

[Olaf Merk]

On the transport sector, what we have done in our work is look at what measures would be necessary to be able to achieve that. Then you come up with a very ambitious set of policies that would need to be introduced. I mentioned some of the elements that are necessary to achieve that.

That includes a very substantial carbon price, for example, but it's not impossible.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

You said one-third of maritime traffic is oil and gas. That's worldwide, I'm assuming. You said that would be included.

When you said it should be included in the carbon pricing mechanism, I'm assuming you're talking about worldwide. Canada couldn't go it alone on that.

[Olaf Merk]

The one-third was, indeed, a global figure. What I suggested could be looked at is the traffic related to oil and gas transported to and from Canadian ports. This could be considered in the cap you are considering. My reasoning was that a global carbon pricing scheme for shipping is going to be very difficult to realize in the short term.