:
I will call the meeting to order.
Welcome to the 32nd meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, for the first meeting of our clause-by-clause study of Bill .
I think everyone here is experienced with the modus operandi of committees, especially in virtual space, so I won't go over that.
We have with us again today, with great pleasure, Minister Wilkinson. Joining him, from the Department of Finance is Mr. Samuel Millar, director general, corporate finance, natural resources and environment, economic development and corporate finance branch. We also have, from the Department of the Environment, John Moffet, who was with us as well last week, assistant deputy minister, environmental protection branch; and Douglas Nevison, who was with us last week as well, assistant deputy minister, climate change branch.
I will now invite Minister Wilkinson to make his opening remarks.
:
Thank you for the invitation to discuss with you Bill , the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act.
I would start by thanking members of this committee for undertaking a timely examination of this bill. I understand it is a constituency week. With the climate crisis before us, we obviously cannot afford to wait.
Over 120 countries have already made a commitment to net zero by 2050, including our biggest trading partner south of the border. Major Canadian companies have also made this commitment.
As I have said, I remain very open to constructive amendments that will further strengthen Bill . I look forward to the committee's work in this regard, and I remain committed to an approach of co-operation and collaboration. That is how the parliamentary process should work and I firmly believe that is what Canadians expect of their elected representatives.
Bill codifies the government's commitment for Canada to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, and our newly announced target for 2030. It also creates a detailed accountability and transparency regime to ensure that we methodically plan, report and course correct on our way to net zero.
[Translation]
In December of last year, we published Canada's strengthened climate plan. This plan is one of the most detailed GHG reduction plans in the world.
Recognizing the scientific imperative for early and ambitious action, we announced a new 2030 target of a 40% to 45% reduction in GHG emissions at the Leaders Summit on Climate in April.
[English]
Measures announced in budget 2021, along with ongoing work with our American colleagues on issues including transportation and methane, will support that new target. We know more action will be required. This continued ambition is what Canadians expect—that we will continue to prioritize climate action, and that we will work to achieve targets that are aligned with science.
To ensure we meet our targets, Bill requires that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change prepare two types of reports, both of which are required to be tabled in Parliament and made available to the public: progress reports and assessment reports.
Progress reports will provide updates on Canada's progress towards achieving the target for the next milestone year and any additional measures that could be taken to achieve the target. Each progress report must be prepared at least two years before the relevant milestone year.
Assessments reports, on the other hand, will explain whether the most recent target was achieved. If Canada fails to achieve a target, the minister must explain why and include a description of actions the government will take to address the failed target. Each assessment report must be prepared within 30 days of Canada submitting its GHG inventory report to the UNFCC for the relevant target year.
[Translation]
Bill also holds the government to account by requiring the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development to regularly examine and report on the government's implementation of the climate change mitigation measures, including those undertaken to achieve each target.
The bill establishes an advisory body of up to 15 members, which will provide advice to the minister and conduct engagement on pathways to achieve net-zero by 2050.
The advisory body must submit an annual report and the minister must publicly respond to their advice.
[English]
All of this is in addition to our existing reporting requirements under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. My department has developed a chart outlining the suite of reporting requirements and transparency mechanisms, which will be provided to this committee.
By putting our climate obligations into law, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act would ensure that governments are accountable for and transparent about their actions to combat climate change. Bill would require all future governments to table strong climate plans, based on science, to address the threat of climate change.
Canadians are counting on us to have constructive discussions to strengthen this legislation, but they are also looking for us to enshrine the commitment to net zero and a pathway to get there in law.
I look forward to the robust discussion on Bill at this committee, but I also hope that this legislation will be moved forward as expeditiously as possible.
[Translation]
Thank you very much.
Thanks, Dan, for this unexpected opportunity.
Minister, thank you for being before committee. Thank you for your personal commitment to climate action. It's evident. You know that you have my deepest respect in knowing that you care. When you say that we “cannot afford to wait”, I firmly believe you mean it, which is why I'm very disappointed with this legislation.
My first question is why. In developing this legislation, it seems apparent that Environment and Climate Change Canada chose not to study the climate accountability acts of other countries—the U.K., New Zealand, Denmark—and to do better than what they recommend. In three places I note the differences with that legislation: We don't start right away with a five-year target, with five years from when the legislation started, the milestone year; we don't include carbon budgets; and we don't rely on an expert committee that reports to the whole of Parliament and actually sets those carbon budgets for the government.
There must have been a decision not to look at the gold standard of climate accountability elsewhere in the world. I wonder why not.
:
Thank you for the series of questions. Certainly, thank you for your ongoing commitment to the climate issue, which I know is very deeply felt.
We did certainly look at all of the other relevant acts around the world. We came to the conclusion that we were going to develop something that we felt fit best within the Canadian context. As you will know, we have established an expert panel. The expert panel is one piece of this. The role for the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development is another piece. In some other jurisdictions, those roles are fused, but in this case the commissioner does the review and effectively the auditing of that function. The expert panel is appointed to provide advice to the government, which is public. It must be responded to by the minister every year, so that piece of it is, we think, the gold standard in terms of how we actually are moving forward.
With respect to other elements of the bill, certainly, as I say, we looked very closely at those. We believe setting five-year rolling targets that essentially embed in them emissions relating to sectors is the right way to go in Canada, a federal system. We believe it is essentially similar in terms of outcomes as to what you get from carbon budgets. Many other countries, including Denmark and Scotland and others, have gone the same direction that Canada has.
:
Thank you for that very important question.
Hearing from Canadians, scientists and experts is extremely important. It's important in a whole range of perspectives in terms of getting to the right answers. It's also important in terms of building consensus in the decisions that are going to be made going forward.
Clause 13 of the bill provides that the Minister of Environment must, when setting or amending a national greenhouse gas emissions target or an emissions reduction plan, provide an opportunity for Canadians, experts, indigenous peoples and other governments to contribute their thoughts and perspectives. For instance, those opportunities could be virtual—for instance in a webinar or through social media—or in person with round tables and assemblies.
In addition, the independent net-zero advisory body is mandated to engage Canadians in a transparent and inclusive process and provide advice to the minister on pathways to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. We think this is very important.
:
Thank you again for the question.
Committing ourselves to transparency and accountability is certainly important because it helps people and businesses plan and investors know that they can count on Canada to be a great place to invest. It also sets very clear goals that Canadians expect us to deliver on. They will hold our government—and any future government—to account if we don't. There is a wide range of accountability measures outlined in the act. I think you are all very familiar with those.
The act is also proactive. It requires the federal government to bring forward climate plans to meet targets based on the best available science and the advice of experts.
The commissioner will help to ensure accountability as well, with the act calling upon the commissioner to examine and report on the government's implementation and mitigation measures at least once every target. The net-zero panel will also publicly report and the minister is required to respond.
I've also indicated publicly that I am open to going further with respect to accountability measures. I have noted that I would be pleased to see the bill provide additional progress reports in 2023 and 2025, ensuring two reviews on the implementation of the Government of Canada's commitments to the Office of the Auditor General in advance of 2030, with the first to occur no later than 2024. It would have more prescriptive requirements for what the government must include in progress reports and the emissions reduction plan.
All of these will ensure accountability and transparency.
The green transition of Canada's economy is required to achieve net zero. It requires advanced planning, investments in technology development and the deployment of those technologies. These measures would mean significant changes to our daily lives in the decades ahead.
The launch of the advisory panel would create an independent and credible platform to gather ideas, research and analysis on the many pathways to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 across Canada, and to do so in a manner that will ensure the prosperity and economic health of Canada in the future. The advisory panel would comprise eminent Canadians drawn from all regions of the country and from various sectors and perspectives. The advisory body's analysis would support the Government of Canada in making informed choices with respect to reducing emissions and growing our economy. The primary mandate, as you know, is to provide advice on the most promising pathways to achieve net zero by 2050.
We certainly recognize there is a need for this independent body to have the resources to carry out their work. That is why there is a dedicated budget of over $15 million over the next three years and a dedicated secretariat to support their work.
The advisory body, going forward, would establish a transparent and inclusive process to engage with stakeholders.
Thank you, Minister, for taking the time to answer our questions.
I also thank the witnesses for being here.
Minister, the current version of Bill does not contain a GHG reduction target. In fact, subsection 7(2) states that you will establish the target within six months of the act coming into force. Yet, last April, you announced that your new target range would be a 40% to 45% reduction in GHGs by 2030, compared to that of 2005.
In question period, I asked whether your government would include this new target range in the act. Minister Guilbeault, who seems to have a fairly senior position in your department, replied that this new target would indeed be included in the act.
Can you confirm this statement?
Speaking of partner countries, the 27 countries of the European Union and Quebec calculate their GHG reduction targets using 1990 as the base year. However, Canada has decided to use 2005. Since the increase in GHGs was quite staggering between 1990 and 2005, this choice makes a big difference, because it looks like Canada has given the oil and gas companies a 15-year break so they could pollute.
For example, in 1990, Canada emitted about 603 megatonnes of GHGs, whereas in 2005, it was 739 megatonnes. By choosing the year 2005, it is clear that the target is much less ambitious.
In fact, Canada reduced its GHGs by 9 megatonnes between 2005 and 2019. However, it increased them between 1990 and 2019.
Compared to other countries, there is a real difference because of the way the projections are calculated. Would the government be prepared to use 1990 instead of 2005 as a base year in its calculations?
Thank you, Minister, for being with us today to answer our questions.
I understand we're covering some well-trodden ground, but I wanted to start with the matter of the 2025 milestone.
So much of the feedback and response we've heard from constituents, and from civil society, is around this perceived need for some sort of near-term milestone or accountability measure that shows we're on track. When we look at the U.K. model, one of its big successes was that, right out of the gate, they set a five-year carbon budget. It was a near-term budget that they not only met but exceeded.
Could you explain to the committee why it is so difficult, in your view, for your government to set a 2025 milestone?
Thanks, Minister, for being here.
I just want to carry on right there. You talked about the targets and the way they're changing. Of course, you would know that it was 30% with no carbon tax, then we added a carbon tax or you increased the carbon tax, and then you came out with the budget that said 36%, and I still think it's a typo because a few days later the corrected it to 40% to 45%. I was speaking with some stakeholders who were caught unaware of these increases until they saw them on social media.
You speak of collaboration. Between when the budget was released on April 19 and when the announced the targets on April 22, who specifically did you consult and who did you collaborate with during that 60-hour window on these new increased targets?
You also spoke of course corrections, and I think that's what you're getting at here.
I come from business. In order to achieve goals, you have to have lots of planning and you have to invest lots of money. In order to do that properly, you require some stability as you're looking forward into the future.
Stakeholders have complained that when the goalposts keep moving it's very difficult to implement a plan. As we move forward, are you going to keep moving those goalposts? If so, how do you expect provinces and companies to make the investments they need to make when they have to keep going back, throwing the plan out and coming up with a new one?
:
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister, for being with us here with us today. Minister, it's a pleasure to speak with you.
I would say, Minister, that my constituents in Etobicoke Centre are very concerned about the impact of climate change, and I think they expect us to do everything possible to protect the planet. They expect the Government of Canada to ensure that our emissions, in Canada and globally, are reduced to the degree necessary to achieve that objective.
Over the last few months, our government has taken important steps and announced significant investments, including in the last budget, to fight climate change. Just a few weeks ago, the announced new emissions reduction targets.
For the sake of my constituents in Etobicoke Centre, could you summarize what emissions reduction targets our government has committed to, and to what degree this will reduce our emissions?
:
Thank you for that very important question. I think constituents in many ridings around the country are asking similar questions.
As you know very well, climate change is an existential threat to humanity, but it's also a massive economic opportunity for countries that move early and move aggressively. When our government took power five years ago, Canada's emissions were going the wrong way. They were on track to be 12% higher in 2030 versus where they were in 2005.
We developed Canada's first national climate plan. It will reduce emissions dramatically. In December, we brought forward a strengthened climate plan that provides a very detailed pathway for Canada to exceed its initial Paris Agreement targets. The plan represents one of the most detailed plans that exists in the world.
We knew we needed to do more. Science tells us that we need to do more to avoid catastrophic effects, so in April the announced the new target of 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030. Just to put that in context, that's an increase of up to 50% over our previous target. That was made alongside our partners and friends in the United States, Japan, the European Union and the United Kingdom. Collectively, half of the world's GDP is now aligned with the goal of limiting temperature increase to 1.5°C. It is both ambitious and attainable, and puts us on a credible path to net zero.
This legislation is extremely important in ensuring that it continues.
:
As I mentioned, during the Leaders Summit, we announced the new target. That is a significant increase.
The Paris Agreement, as Ms. May pointed out, calls on countries to limit global warming to less than 2°C, with a focus on 1.5°C.
The Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act is aligned with the Paris Agreement's requirement for increasing ambition over time. In addition, when setting greenhouse gas emissions targets, the minister needs to take into account the best scientific information available, as well as Canada's international commitments.
As we work towards these new ambitious targets, the bill makes clear that we need to look beyond 2030 and to ensure that governments of all stripes in the future are thinking through how we actually take the steps we need to achieve net zero by 2050. That is what this bill does.
I would like to come back to the new target range of 40% to 45% reduction compared to the 2005 base year emissions.
Currently, to meet the minimum 30% reduction target, Canada's emissions would have to reach 511 megatonnes in 2030, or 517, depending on how it is calculated. However, according to the Department of the Environment's estimates, they would total 588 megatonnes at that time. So we have a 77-megatonne surplus. I am talking about the latest figures received. Of course, if the department has new projections, we will be very happy to get them whether they are more optimistic or pessimistic. We have to keep in mind that all the measures announced may not be implemented by 2030.
I would like to know how you can announce figures like 40% to 45% when your own department's data show a somewhat less optimistic scenario.
:
Thank you. I certainly agree. When our government took office, as I said, five years ago, Canada's emissions were going very much the wrong way, and they would have been 12% higher by 2030 versus 2005.
Both the international Paris Agreement and the recognize the importance of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global human-caused C02 emissions must reach net zero around 2050 to achieve 1.5°C.
Canadians are already experiencing the significant impacts of a changing climate. Canada is actually changing at twice the average rate around the world, and in the north, it's three times. There are enormous impacts of that. The Bank of Canada found that climate change could cost the economy between $21 billion to $43 billion a year by 2050 if no action is taken. The Insurance Bureau of Canada has put out its own set of figures, and we've all seen some of the extreme weather events around Fort McMurray and in B.C. with respect to forest fires. This is real. It is happening. It's a science issue. It's not a debate; it's a science issue. These effects are expected to intensify in the future.
Already, there's a lot of global momentum, and 120 countries have adopted this science-based target. Canada has an opportunity to address the potential impacts of climate change to ensure that we're moving towards an economy that will provide the products and services that people in a low-carbon world are going to want, and to ensure that we can actually have a prosperous economy that will sustain and grow good middle-class jobs. That's the focus of this bill.
:
Mr. Chair, I can take that question.
Thank you very much for the question, Member.
Currently, coming back to one of the questions that you posed to the minister, there's no funding for the net-zero advisory body in the main estimates for 2021-22. The funding was approved in the budget, but it is now going through the Treasury Board process. As a result, it will show up in future estimates.
In terms of the body itself, it is a voluntary group at this point in time, serving, as you said, at pleasure, on appointment by the minister. With the coming into force of Bill , whenever that happens, the proposal would be that this would become a Governor in Council appointed body.
:
Thank you so much, Dan.
I want to ask these questions to John Moffet. There were a couple of points in the minister's testimony to us that reflected inconsistencies between—and I don't know that he's aware they're inconsistencies—what we agreed to do in Paris, and what he thinks we've agreed to do. I want to put them to you.
One is that we know from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change October 2018 special report on 1.5°C, that it is not true to say that if we get to net zero by 2050 we have held to 1.5°C. There's only one pathway that the IPCC identified that holds to 1.5°C, and it requires most of the heavy lifting to be done before 2030. Therefore, I also find it worrying that the minister and many Liberal MPs persistently say in the House that there's nothing that we agreed to in Paris that required that we work in five-year increments starting in 2025.
There is indeed in the Paris Agreement the commitment to 2023 being the first global stock-taking, and paragraph 24 of the COP 21 decision document said that Canada should have improved its target in 2020, and every five years thereafter.
How is it that the department has advised the minister that Bill , with a first milestone year in 2030, is not completely inconsistent with what we agreed to do in Paris?
:
I think that's an excellent question and a really important issue.
It's one where we need to distinguish between the specific legal obligations under the bill and the process that the government, and future governments, will follow in order to drive really effective action on climate change.
This bill requires the federal government to set targets. It also requires the minister to consult broadly, including via an advisory committee. The bill also enables the minister's plan to refer to actions of other levels of government, but does not require that. That's because the government cannot compel provinces, territories or indigenous governments to do something on their own, but it can encourage them.
The degree to which any government, current or future, does that will influence the overall effectiveness of the plan. At the moment we have a highly engaged process of engagement with federal, provincial, territorial, municipal and indigenous governments, as well as with a wide range of stakeholders, in developing and rolling out the design of individual measures, and in identifying opportunities for collaboration at a regional, provincial or local level. As well, very formal distinctions-based processes have been in place for a number of years with our indigenous partners.
:
I want to thank Mr. Millar, Mr. Moffet and Mr. Nevison. We will now break for five minutes while a new panel of witnesses connect.
I will just take a moment to remind members that we have two more three-hour meetings this week with witnesses, on May 19 and May 20 at 2:30 p.m., same time, same channel.
The following week, on May 26, we will start clause-by-clause, so I'm asking that amendments be submitted by Friday, May 21, at 5 p.m. and no later. The next week, it looks like we only have two meetings of two hours. That's all we could get under the circumstances. Hopefully, maybe there will be an extra hour we could get somewhere, but right now it looks like four hours over two meetings. Please submit amendments by Friday, May 21, at 5 p.m.
Let's take a break, and we can test the sound for the other witnesses. Thanks again to our three witnesses.
My name is Christie McLeod, and I'm calling in from the unceded, ancestral traditional lands of the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish nations in the city of Vancouver.
As mentioned, I am an articling student at Miller Thomson LLP, and I have a master's degree in environmental studies that focused on Canadian climate accountability. I have authored and submitted a brief that 179 young individuals and 11 youth-led organizations signed on to. I am also a co-author of the brief submitted by the national group, Lawyers for Climate Justice.
My generation and the generations to follow will bear the brunt of the climate crisis in the coming decades. It is our future that will be shaped by the strength or weakness of the climate accountability laws we pass now.
The Canadian government has recognized the climate emergency, yet it continues to faithfully subsidize the industry most responsible for fuelling climate change. Canada's projected oil and gas expansion from now to 2050 will consume a staggering 16% of the world's carbon budget in a 1.5° C world. We have tried maintaining business as usual, but it has failed. Since setting its first target in 1992, Canada's emissions have increased by net 16%. Our emissions in 2019 were higher than when the Liberal government took office in 2015. We can and must do better.
I understand the challenges that politicians face in addressing the climate crisis. The benefits of climate action emerge over time, while our election cycles focus on the short term. As our futures are at stake, however, it is critical that climate efforts not be politicized and that Canada's accountability legislation contain sufficient measures to ensure the government meets its climate obligations. I am frightened by the lack of urgency and accountability presently in the bill.
Bill 's focus is on achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. The target set by the minister for each milestone year is to look towards achieving the 2050 target. We need to ensure that our focus is, first, doing as much as we possibly can by 2030 and then looking towards 2040 and 2050. We cannot leave the brunt of the effort to be tackled in the distant future.
As the bill presently stands, Canada's first milestone year is 2030, which means that the minister's first progress report would not occur until 2028. We should not have to wait that long to receive an update on the progress made towards Canada's targets. By amending clause 2 to include the year 2025 as a milestone year, the minister would be obligated to prepare a progress report in 2023, which is a much more appropriate timeline.
Under subclause 7(4), each target must be set a mere five years in advance. Under clause 10, Canada is only required to create an emissions reduction plan that contains key reduction measures and strategies as opposed to a robust plan of how the target will be reached. The stakes are simply too high for us to draw our map to net zero while already en route.
Young people deserve to know what Canada's plan is to address this emergency and secure a better future. Those working in industries and markets want to know Canada's plan to get to net zero so that they can respond and adapt.
When Teck Resources withdrew its federal application for the Frontier oil sands project, they noted that industry values jurisdictions with frameworks that reconcile resource development and climate change, and that this was lacking in Canada.
The international community also deserves to know what Canada's plan is. Canada is responsible for 1.7% to 1.8% of all the emissions in our atmosphere. In 2018, Canada was the 11th-highest emitting state globally and the fifth highest per capita. Our country's actions have and will continue to play a pivotal role in the global race to reduce emissions and address the climate emergency.
A target that represents Canada's fair share of the global mitigation burden would have to be an estimated 56% to 153% below 2005 levels, which is significantly more than the 40% to 45% range enshrined in Canada's new target.
I urge the committee to ensure that Canada follow its peers by setting bold targets that begin to approach our fair share of mitigation and put forward a credible plan that ensures we can reach these goals. As young people, our future hangs in the balance.
Thank you.
Thank you for having us today.
My name is Claudel Pétrin-Desrosiers. I am the president of the Association québécoise des médecins pour l'environnement, and I am also a member of the board of directors of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, or CAPE.
With me today is Dr. Courtney Howard, former president of the CAPE and Emergency Physician in Yellowknife.
The World Health Organisation, or WHO, has identified climate change as the greatest threat to health in the 21st century. In fact, climate change acts as a risk amplifier. It increases asthma and evacuations due to forest fires, particularly in western Canada. It increases secondary mortality and morbidity from heat waves, as was the case in Montreal in the summer of 2018. It lengthens allergy seasons and amplifies symptoms. It poses food safety issues. Most importantly, climate change accelerates the spread of some diseases, including Lyme disease, and even increases the risk of some new pandemics.
The impacts are unevenly distributed. Above all, in Canada's North. They also affect women, children, racialized people and indigenous peoples.
Many deaths could be avoided if we change the current trajectory, and as quickly as possible. A recent CAPE report even showed that improved air quality could save 112,000 lives between 2030 and 2050 in Canada alone.
I am a family doctor by training. In everyday life, I treat patients from the time they are very young until the end of their lives. I don't have a miracle pill to protect my patients from climate change. I need an effective treatment, that is, strong legislation that enshrines the state's climate responsibility.
Strong climate accountability legislation has proven successful elsewhere in the world. In the United Kingdom, binding carbon budgets, which have been legislated since 2008, have improved the efficiency of the health sector like never before. The National Health Service, the public health network, reduced its emissions by 18.5% between 2007 and 2017, despite a significant increase in clinical activity.
In 2020, in the United Kingdom, a group of health experts was brought into the process and development of the sixth carbon budget at the request of the Climate Change Committee. The aim was to take the best possible approach to protecting people's health, focusing on measures that have health co-benefits, for example, improving air quality, increasing active transport to reduce chronic disease and even improving the food system. These kinds of successes are possible here too.
In CAPE's view, Bill contains some of these key elements, which have enabled similar legislation to succeed internationally.
We would like to highlight three important elements. First, the establishment of a framework on climate responsibility. Second, the requirement to have national climate targets. Finally, the idea of creating plans to reduce GHG emissions and drafting regular reports on progress.
However, some of the current shortcomings of the bill diminish its scope and limit its ability to truly protect the health of the youngest and the oldest. In our view, three amendments are necessary.
Firstly, a GHG emission target from 2025. We would like to have a target and a requirement to report, as early as 2025, to really give us the impetus to start reducing our GHG emissions quickly and effectively, so that we can be sure to reach the 2030 target.
Secondly, we need an independent body of experts and scientists. For us, this includes health experts, who have their own secretariat and their own capacity to do climate modelling. This advisory group must have a substantial budget, to ensure its independence and accountability not only to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, but also to Parliament. It must also be able to applaud the government or even criticize it publicly, when necessary, without fear of reprisal. In our view, the net-zero advisory body does not meet all these conditions.
Thirdly, the bill must explicitly reflect the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is important to remember that the health of indigenous peoples is already profoundly affected by climate change, and any assessment of climate liability must reflect the rights of these peoples.
Science tells us that climate change is truly the greatest threat to health in the 21st century. But it also tells us that an effective climate change plan, anchored in strong climate accountability legislation, is our best opportunity to improve the health of everyone here at home and around the world. That's why the Paris Agreement is considered by many to be the most important public health treaty in the world.
So I wish for us to have that future, for our health and that of our parents and children.
Thank you.
:
Okay. I will start rolling through, and then I'll let Fawn jump in if she wants to.
Good afternoon. Thanks for the opportunity to appear before you today. I'm Reynold, the science director with the beef cattle research council. My silent collaborator is Fawn Jackson, who is the director of policy with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.
The CCA represents 60,000 beef producers in Canada. The beef industry contributes $21.8 billion to Canada's GDP and supports 348,000 full-time jobs. Fifty per cent of Canada's beef is exported around the globe.
The beef industry is a hidden gem when it comes to Canada's environment. Beef production is one of the best tools Canada has to reach our shared conservation and climate change goals. When we talk about net-zero emissions, it's important to recognize where beef production fits into Canada's climate change picture. The emission intensity of Canadian beef is about half the global average, and we're continuing to improve. Our per-kilogram greenhouse gas footprint dropped by 15% between 1981 and 2011. That happened because Canada is a world leader in research and because Canada's farmers and ranchers are adopting the improved animal and plant health, nutrition and genetics practices and technologies that research generates.
Reducing consumption of Canadian beef would be detrimental to Canada's net-zero emissions goals, and here's why. Beef contributes 2.4% to Canada's total emissions, but emissions are only one side of the carbon ledger. The other side of the ledger is the soil carbon that's stored in grasslands. Canada's ranchers steward 44 million acres of grasslands, which are a stable store of 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon. Reducing beef production and consumption would mean that privately owned grasslands would be converted to other agricultural uses. Cultivating Canada's remaining grasslands would release much more soil carbon into the atmosphere than we would ever save from reduced cattle emissions. This risk is real. Canada lost five million acres of grasslands in the early 2000s when beef producers faced tough economic times.
To further improve the net greenhouse gas footprint of Canadian beef, we need to tackle three key challenges. The first is to further reduce our emissions per kilogram of Canadian beef. Our industry's goal is to reduce Canadian beef emissions intensity by another 33% by 2030. Achieving this will require continued advancements in genetics, animal health management and nutrition. Canadian researchers are also investigating nutritional supplements for cattle that could significantly accelerate those improvements.
The second challenge is to further increase carbon sequestration on grasslands. Our industry's goal is to sequester an additional 3.4 million tonnes of carbon every year. This will require research to develop more productive plant varieties and to identify forage and grazing management practices that increase productivity and carbon sequestration. We will also need to support producer adoption of these beneficial practices.
The third challenge is to protect the large and stable store of carbon in Canada's grasslands. Canada's beef industry has a goal to maintain and protect the 44 million acres of grasslands that are under our care. We've already lost 80% of our natural grasslands. The World Wildlife Fund's “2020 Plowprint Report” found that the great plains are continuing to be lost at a rate of four football fields every minute. We're working very closely and collaboratively with the conservation organizations and the Canadian round table for sustainable beef to protect these grasslands.
We worry that these efforts will not be enough. The biggest unknown is how a myriad of government policies such as offset protocols, clean fuel regulations and significant investments in irrigation will drive land use change, on top of record high crop prices. We need thoughtful deliberation to avoid policies that drive irreparable damage to this grassland ecosystem and its significant carbon stores.
We give this detail on Canada's beef industry because it emphasizes why, in regard to Bill , our key ask is that holistic policy analysis be done to understand the potential unintended negative consequences of well-intended environmental policies. We also ask that experts from Canada's beef industry be included in advisory roles under the act to ensure that the best analyses and policies to support net-zero emissions are developed.
We look forward to being partners in this work towards net-zero emissions in Canada.
Thank you for your time.
:
Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today.
I am Alan Andrews, the climate director at Ecojustice, where I lead a program of law reform and litigation aimed at securing a stable climate.
I'm joining you from the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh first nations in Vancouver, B.C.
I'm a qualified lawyer both in Canada and in England and Wales. Prior to joining Ecojustice, I practised environmental law in the U.K and the EU, where I focused on holding governments to account for missing pollution targets and advocating for stronger laws so that I didn't need to.
Ecojustice is pleased to see Canada aiming to join the growing number of countries that have adopted this type of climate law, which has really become a standard tool worldwide to ensure governments meet their climate commitments and is increasingly viewed as essential for the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Ecojustice has made joint written submissions with West Coast Environmental Law and a number of other organizations. Given time constraints, I will focus on one of the key themes in these submissions and, thus, the obligation on the minister to prepare emissions reduction plans.
This is the foundation of the accountability framework that Bill establishes. These plans are where the real action and accountability stem from. Unfortunately, as I will explain, that foundation is, at the moment, rather shaky. Strengthening those provisions will be the key to the success of Bill .
If you fail to plan—
:
Okay, I'll do my best to talk clearly.
I'm going to focus on the emissions reduction plans, which I've explained are really the key to success of Bill . That's because if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. Too often, Canada has failed to meet climate targets because it has not had a credible and detailed plan for achieving them. Too often, we see climate plans that are really just a glossy marketing brochure with no real detail or substance.
A credible plan must do three things. First, it must explain how much carbon pollution needs to decline in order to meet the targets. Second, it must set out the policies that will close that gap. Third, it must explain who is going to implement those policies and when. The plan must be detailed enough that the public, Parliament and civil society can determine whether it is credible or whether it is overly optimistic and likely to fail.
As drafted, unfortunately, Bill does not require plans that meet that standard. Clauses 9 and 10 are the relevant provisions of the bill. Clause 9 requires the minister to prepare a plan for achieving the net-zero 2050 target and each of the five-year milestone targets. Clause 10 then prescribes the information that a plan must contain, but clause 10 is very light in terms of the specific details that plans must contain. There's a real risk of the glossy brochure type of plan that we so desperately need to move beyond.
For example, clause 10 does not explicitly require that the plan explain how it will achieve the milestone targets to which it relates. By contrast, the U.K. Climate Change Act is more explicit, establishing a clear duty on the government to not only achieve the 2050 net-zero target, but also to prepare policies that it considers will enable the five-year carbon budgets under the act to be met.
Bill also does not require projections of what impact the actions described in the plan will have on carbon emissions. It doesn't require plans to include any details of sectoral strategies or actions by provinces and territories. Taken together as drafted, the bill would allow the government of the day to prepare an obviously deficient plan or maybe even worse—a plan that contains so little detail that we really have no idea whether it will be adequate. This would undermine the main purpose of the bill, which is to ensure accountability for the achievement of climate targets through transparency.
Fortunately, some simple amendments to clause 10 would significantly improve the bill. First, the bill needs to make clear that the plan must demonstrate how it will achieve the relevant milestone targets. Second, it must require the minister to show how the action being proposed adds up, tonne by tonne and year by year, to the cuts in pollution needed to reach the next milestone target. This will require projections based on the evidence of what the plan is expected to achieve.
Third, the plan must—
:
I'm the head of West Coast Environmental Law's climate program, the author of several reports and submissions on Canadian climate law and a member, as Alan mentioned, of a coalition of organizations that really want Bill to be a real climate change accountability law.
In 1992 under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, Canada played a leadership role in negotiating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the governments of the world agreed to “[stabilize] greenhouse gas concentrations [and] prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” In 1992, I still had a full head of hair. I have waited my entire adult life for Canada to deliver.
Canada set specific targets in 1997 under Prime Minister Chrétien and then in 2010 under Prime Minister Harper, but as a country, we continue to miss every climate target set. My daughter at age 15 is now organizing climate strikes, worried about her future. The challenge is that climate change doesn't follow election cycles. Too often governments claim credit for setting targets and then push off the work and ignore the difficult choices necessary to meet those targets. We need accountability.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, here is the definition of accountability: “the quality or state of being accountable, especially: an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions”. At their core, climate accountability laws insulate climate policy from the election cycle by making each administration accountable for keeping the government on track to achieve both short- and medium-term climate targets.
Bill fails in a number of respects. First, as drafted, and as Alan noted, clauses 9 and 10 don't clearly require the minister to show how the country will achieve the climate targets that have been set by the government. Rather, the minister is required to identify measures and strategies that the federal government intends to take that will contribute to achieving the 2050 target.
Second, because Bill sets only one target at a time—initially a mid-term target for 2030 and then short-term targets of five years each thereafter—it never requires governments to consider both short- and mid-term action at the same time or to be held accountable on both time scales. Generally, international climate accountability laws achieve those short- and mid-term targets through rolling short-term targets that, together, plot a path to one mid-term target further down the road. For example, the U.K.'s Climate Change Act, when it was enacted in 2008, established three targets, known as carbon budgets, covering the next 15 years. When the first budget was finished, a new budget extending out to 2027 was established and so on. We're now expecting the sixth budget, which will extend to 2037, in July of this year. Each U.K. government is therefore accountable both for achieving a target within the next five years and for putting in place measures that will help achieve future targets further out.
By setting a first target for 2030, with the first progress report not until 2027 or 2028, Bill invites cynical claims that it creates accountability for only future governments. The post-2030 targets set for just five years at a time are equally problematic. Five years is simply not enough time in which to roll out new programs, to see them deliver significant emissions reductions and to get the results we're looking for, nor does a single five-year target give an administration an incentive to look beyond those five years and put in place the measures that will help future governments achieve their five-year targets.
Here's what we need from Bill : rolling five-year milestone targets—not one target at a time—supplemented by robust plans, set at least 10 years ahead, preferably 15. For example, in 2025, a target for 2035 should be set, and a new 10-year plan would then update the second half of the existing plan and incorporate new measures to extend the road map out to 2035.
Second, we need to require immediate action, ideally by setting a 2025 target reflecting the expected emissions reductions from Canada's climate plan or, alternatively, simply requiring all plans to identify emissions reductions for each year covered by the plan.
Third, we need frequent and earlier progress reports much more often than every five years, ideally annually, and starting by 2023 at the latest. As Alan mentioned, plans that actually set out a road map to achieving the milestone targets are key.
It's impossible to separate these aspects of accountability from the other important requirements that my co-panellists have already mentioned and that are referred to in our submissions.
Despite its name, Bill does not yet deliver on the promise of climate accountability. We hope that you will make the amendments necessary to bring it up to where it needs to be.
:
Certainly. Thanks for the question.
The first thing I'd point out is that, as I mentioned earlier, over a 30-year period we managed to reduce our emissions, per kilogram of beef, by 15%. That was between 1981 and 2011. Those dates are important, because that was before the beef industry really started to pay very specific attention to the environment. It was always understood that the environment was important, because so many of these are intergenerational farms and you're not going to keep these things going if you're not taking care of the environment you're living and working in.
Those improvements—and this is getting to the research point—happen because of steady incremental improvements in plant breeding, animal breeding, animal nutrition, animal health and so on. All of those things stack up together, not only to improve production efficiency and productivity but also to reduce emissions. In order to move forward, we need to do two things. One is to continue those investments in the steady, slow incremental things that have generated those improvements and will continue to, but the other is to invest in some of the more novel things that are very specifically environmentally focused.
A couple of examples—the ones that I mentioned actually—are nutritional supplements. There are a few of them. Some of them are kind of mundane. They are just simple dietary things. Feeding distillers' grains that are left over from biofuel production has been shown to reduce emissions by 5%. There are a number of more novel ones like biochar, algae, lemongrass, sprouted barley and whatnot. Those are, I would say, unproven. They've certainly been investigated in the lab, but before you know whether they're effective in cattle, you need to do large-scale feeding trials. Those haven't been done yet and that's important, because if cows don't eat it you're not going to get the benefit.
There are a couple of new additives that have been tested and are showing promise. Probably the most promising one is a product called 3-NOP, which is developed by a Dutch company called Royal DSM. The product name is Bovaer. The point is that this feed additive can reduce emissions by 20% to 70% in feedlot diets. That's not lab stuff. That's not modelling. That's work that's been done in large-scale commercial feedlot trials.
I am speaking to you from a house in Yellowknife's Dene territory that is atop permafrost. This part of the world is already 2.5°C warmer than it was when an 80-year-old elder was born. We're deep into adaptation. We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on our foundation here to try to keep it from sliding down into Great Slave Lake. In 2014 we had, in fact, two and a half months of wildfire smoke, and it ringed Yellowknife. It didn't really even matter which way the wind was blowing, because there was a fire in almost every direction.
We published a study in the British Medical Journal Open recently showing that in fact we had a full doubling of our emergency department visits for asthma over the course of that time.
We did community-based interviews and asked people how it felt to live in smoke for that long. We got all sorts of answers, such as they felt isolated, they felt anxious, they didn't have enough physical activity, they felt disconnected from the land and it made them really worry about what climate change means for their children.
I'm a sort of voice from the future, in a way, because as Minister Wilkinson pointed out earlier, the north is warming at triple the global rate. What we need to know is that we're going to get worse until mid-century. Since I've done the wildfire research, I often get the question from media, “Dr. Howard, is this a new normal?” I have to say, no, it's not. It's going to get worse.
We need to prepare our hospitals for this adaptation that's already built in. “Canada's Changing Climate Report”, produced by Environment and Climate Change Canada, showed that we will continue to warm until at least the 2040s. That's when a child born today will only be in their twenties.
We need to make sure that our hospitals have adequate ventilation. We actually had to close our operating room for part of that summer, because it was filled with smoke and we couldn't operate. From having presented with some architects at a national architecture conference, we did an audience poll, and only about 40% of the audience were taking into account future projections of precipitation and heat as they built the buildings of the future.
We see from COVID, then, that not preparing for something does not protect you when it happens. Even to just adapt to what we're already facing, we have a lot to do.
:
I would like to add one thing.
I briefly mentioned that Quebec and the south of Canada will have heat waves. In line with that, some estimates can be made.
A few years ago, the Institut national de santé publique du Québec estimated that, in the next 50 years, extreme heat was going to cost 20,000 people their lives in Quebec alone. That is huge. It is distressing to realize that those deaths will primarily occur in urban areas. The people at risk are those presenting with various vulnerabilities to heat. The phenomenon has become worse because of a number of environmental factors.
I feel that it is important to mention the number of annual deaths related to air pollution. This is closely tied to climate change. A recent Health Canada report estimated that 15,300 people died because of air pollution in 2016. The pollution cost the Canadian economy $120 billion, which is certainly no small amount.
The more studies we do, the more we realize that pollution is too toxic for almost all organs and all parts of the body. A recent Harvard University study found that pollution was responsible for 18% of premature deaths around the world. At this moment, therefore, one in every five people in the world is dying as a result of air pollution.
Those figures concern us greatly as physicians. As I mentioned, I can't give patients a miracle pump that prevents them from breathing polluted air. We breathe the air every day. It's therefore important to have a climate plan that addresses greenhouse gas emissions and has a goal of improving air quality, and adapting to it.
To take a local example that can be extrapolated, last year we flew elders from around the territory down and sat around a map of the NWT and had people draw where different animals have gone in their lifetimes. We ended up with, “The beavers used to be here and now they're here; and the fish used to be here”.
Essentially, most of the infectious diseases, the new ones we've had over the past several decades, have come from animals. Therefore, as habitats change, as we have further biodiversity loss and everything is moving around, we end up in the position of having animals and vectors and humans in novel proximity and that's what puts us at risk of further zoonotic transfer events of further viruses and pandemics.
:
First, I would like to thank all the witnesses for being here.
This bill was introduced before Christmas but it took a lot of time for the government to fit it into the agenda. So everyone had to “turn on a dime”, as they say.
Like Mr. Saini, I am going to ask questions about health, because it's an area that interests me greatly.
My question goes to Dr. Claudel Pétrin-Desrosiers.
We have talked a lot about physical health, but climate change is also creating problems with mental health and psychological distress. I would like to hear your comments on that.
You would certainly wonder about me if I did not ask a question about the pandemic. Can you explain the links between climate change, disturbances in the ecosystems, and the risk of future pandemics?
:
Thank you for your questions, Ms. Pauzé.
Let me answer the second one, which we have already dealt with a little. We need to understand that the environmental disturbances are many. They include the degradation of natural habitats, climate change, intensive land use and deforestation. They all have impacts on the habitats in which insects or other transmission vectors live. We are in the process of bringing humans dangerously close to sources of infection.
The most recent great viral infections, Ebola and COVID-19, are diseases that are basically spread by animal zoonotic transmission chains. The disturbances are becoming more serious more quickly, which increases the risk that incidents like those will be repeated. The future is difficult to predict, but, in a way, we are playing Russian roulette. We are taking unnecessary risks with our health.
The World Health Organization and a number of UN bodies have, in recent months, recognized that environmental disturbances played a role in the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic.
I will let Dr. Howard tell you more about your first question, on mental health, because she has done research on the topic. Troubling mental health phenomena do occur in the context of climate change, specifically because we lose our natural reference points. We talk a lot about people feeling disconnected from their homes, their ancestral territory. But we also know that extreme climate events like hurricanes, floods and forest fires create stress.
Studies done in Quebec by public health agencies reveal that those who have gone through episodes of spring flooding subsequently show higher rates of anxiety and depression. Some even develop posttraumatic stress disorder. Of course, issues like that concern us.
Our young people are wondering what their future will be like. I am one of those young people wondering what kind of environment our future children are going to grow up in. It creates a kind of anxiety called ecoanxiety that psychiatrists, physicians and psychologists are studying a lot at the moment, in an attempt to find out the extent of the phenomenon.
These are certainly troubling questions, the more so because, over the last year, a lot of people have been isolated. There has been a lot of talk about mental health and we know that the issues are critical.
:
That is an excellent question.
Climate change is altering many of the risk factors for certain diseases.
Let me give you a very concrete example. Heat waves cause an increase in visits to emergency rooms and an increase in the pressure on the healthcare system. They are associated with hospitalization, heart disease, heart attacks, even strokes and blood clots in the brain. That results in costs for the healthcare system, because people spend weeks in the hospital and need complex care. Climate change causes heat waves, but also forest fires. We know that those phenomena will bring about an increase in consultations, both on the front lines and in secondary centres.
In addition, a number of good studies have been done showing that extreme meteorological events, like forest fires, can put the healthcare system itself at risk. When a hospital is located in an area that has to be evacuated, access to a healthcare network, essential though it is, becomes limited. During the Fort McMurray fires in 2016-2017, around 20 healthcare facilities and long-term residential care establishments had to be evacuated. When people are in residential care, they already present with a number of risk factors, and climate events cause additional stress that can have an impact on their health. We know that the healthcare system is not ready, because it is already at full capacity. Last year, we saw—
:
I would say that there are substantive differences, but done well an approach involving targets can achieve many of the same functions that a carbon budget approach takes.
One of the key points is the one that I mentioned in my opening. Carbon budgets have always been established going out a number of years, with carbon budgets covering different periods of time as opposed to one at a time. There are no examples of carbon budgets being used internationally a single budget at a time.
The other thing is that carbon budgets I think are actually better for a jurisdiction like Canada in that they express the emissions over a multi-year period in terms of how much we can emit as opposed to reductions relative to a base year. There's more opportunity for businesses, local government or provincial governments to take ownership over how much they're contributing and to see how that fits within a broader conversation.
I don't agree with the minister that carbon budgets are not well suited for Canada. That being said, if the government has decided to go with a targets-based approach, if it does it well—and currently Bill doesn't do it well—it can certainly achieve many of the same goals.
I think in terms of how beef production impacts other species, beef production occurs on one of the most biodiverse landscapes in the world, in Canada, in particular. Beef production is occurring on natural habitats that develop under the influence of a large grazer.
Maintaining the health of those rangelands means maintaining the health of everything that's on there and preserving those rangelands maintains habitat for pollinators, for thousands of different species of plants and for all kinds of wildlife. It contributes, obviously, to carbon sequestration—we've talked about that—but also to watersheds and maintenance of habitat for migratory waterfowl because we don't drain our wetlands. It's very compatible with biodiversity. It supports it actually, and one of the big challenges is, as we mentioned, the 80% loss of the northern great plains. That's led to significant habitat fragmentation.
We still have patches of northern great plains here and there, but it's shrinking and it's fragmenting and that's not good for biodiversity.
:
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
I have a couple of questions for a couple of the folks who are here, and I hope to get to them. I ask for your help in being as concise as you possibly can on a very complex topic.
Thank you all for being here, though.
Mr. Gage, first off, it's interesting that you said you had a full head of hair when Canada started setting climate targets, and then started not meeting them. I may lose my hair quickly as well, particularly in this line of work, but I'm pretty confident that Canada is going to start meeting those targets. In part that's because I believe the government is committed to it, and in part because I think Canadians consider this a priority and will support the government.
You spoke of something that I want to ask you about, if I could.
If I understood you correctly, you spoke about the need to set more frequent targets and further in advance. I'm wondering, in 60 seconds or less, why do you believe that's important?
[Translation]
I would like to ask Dr. Pétrin-Desrosiers a question now, if I may.
I represent the constituency of Etobicoke-Centre, which is located in the western part of the city of Toronto. Your colleague, Dr. Howard, explained to us in detail the impacts of climate change on her community. However, I believe that, at times, those of us in cities may not see the same impacts as in Dr. Howard's community.
For my constituents watching us, could you describe the impacts of climate change on people living in urban communities?
:
I would be glad to. Thank you for your question, I will be quick.
One of the most significant effects of climate change on health in urban communities is the exposure to extreme heat. Climate change will bring about heat waves that are more frequent, longer-lasting and hotter. So they will grow in intensity, as will the stress they cause on the public. During hot weather, those who are better off or who have few health problems can adapt. But in less fortunate areas, with lower socioeconomic levels, you find fewer trees and more concrete. That creates conditions that make exposure to heat much more toxic and dangerous.
In the south of the country, especially in the cities, the effect of heat can be very significant, both in terms of mortality, meaning the number of deaths linked to climate change, and in terms of morbidity, meaning the number of conditions that can become more serious. These are conditions such as cardiac disease, lung disease and diabetes, all very current in the adult population.
So, in cities, we can expect very specific impacts, without even considering significant additional exposure to the extreme meteorological events that can be expected. One example is the flooding we have witnessed in a number of cities in Quebec recently.
:
Thank you, Dr. Pétrin-Desrosiers.
As I listen to you and Dr. Howard, I was wondering whether there would be doctors on the committee.
My next question goes to Mr. Gage.
I will not be commenting on heads of hair, Mr. Gage, but you were very harsh in your assessment of Bill C-12. Do you believe that the environment commissioner has a role? In my opinion, it's more a cosmetic role than anything else.
Do you believe that the bill should provide for some collaboration between the commissioner and the advisory body?
If so, can you give us an idea of what that collaboration could be?
I want to thank all of our witnesses for making time for committee, and I appreciate your expertise and your sharing it with us and all Canadians.
First of all, I'd like to start with the Cattlemen's Association.
I've read a book called The Tyranny of Metrics. Sometimes, if you only focus on certain numbers, you get certain results, but you're blind to other things. One thing you mentioned in the grasslands video was the importance of natural sequestration.
As the targets in the bill, specifically the net-zero target, referred to anthropogenic emissions and reductions, there doesn't seem to be any mechanism for collecting and reporting on non-anthropogenic emissions and sequestration. Would adding that to the report so that Canadians can see the entire emissions picture be something that we, as a committee, should consider in ?