:
Welcome to meeting number 33 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
Today we are studying Bill , the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. I won't go over all the procedural rules because they are quite obvious.
I ask witnesses to address the committee through the chair. When you are not speaking, your mic should be on mute.
This afternoon, we have five groups of witnesses with us. We have, as an individual, Robert McLeman, professor in the department of geography and environmental studies at Wilfrid Laurier University; from Climate Action Network Canada, Caroline Brouillette, policy analyst; from Équiterre, Marc-André Viau and Émile Boisseau-Bouvier; from Mothers Step In, we welcome Dr. Kelly Marie Martin and Laure Waridel; and from Pulse Canada, we have Corey Loessin and Greg Northey.
Each group will have five minutes for its opening remarks. Then there will be two rounds of questions from the members of the committee.
I will be following the order on the list I have here.
Mr. McLeman, you have the floor for five minutes.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen
I'll be making my presentation in English but will be able to answer questions in French.
[English]
Thank you.
First of all, I would like to thank the committee and the committee members for this opportunity to address Bill , which is probably one of the most important public policy initiatives to be undertaken by the Government of Canada in many years. I hope that my comments and the written brief that I provided earlier will be of some help in further refining the bill and will lead to its adoption and implementation.
I am an environmental scientist by training, but from 1990 until 2002 I was a Canadian foreign service officer. I served at Canadian embassies and consulates in the former Yugoslavia, India, Hong Kong, Seattle and Vienna, so I have some practical experience of how federal policies are acted upon once they're implemented.
I left government about 20 years ago and I have since been a researcher and a professor, specializing in the study of the human impacts of climate change. I was at the University of Ottawa before, and now I am at Wilfrid Laurier.
In particular, I specialize in studying how climate change affects human migration, displacement, and what is often referred to in the popular media as “environmental refugees”. I was nominated by the Government of Canada and am currently serving on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, where I am a coordinating lead author for a team of 13 scientists from around the world who are currently assessing the impacts of climate change on human health, well-being, migration and conflict. What I am going to say now reflects that.
Decisions taken by governments today, including through this bill, will have a tremendous influence on both our well-being and our economic prosperity for decades to come, and failure to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 will have consequences for our children—including my own—and grandchildren—yet to come, I hope—which can truthfully be described as catastrophic. Just allow me to give a few brief examples.
We're currently entering into a drought spring in western Canada, with all the challenges that presents for farmers and for urban municipal watershed managers and so on. If we do nothing to control our greenhouse gas emissions, the current trajectory of what we will see in the second half of this century is an up to 500% increase in the frequency of those severe droughts that we've seen in the Prairies every 20 to 30 years—the big ones—in western North America.
For every degree Celsius that we warm the planet from today, we increase by about 50% the risk of severe or catastrophic flooding, which affects many of the constituencies represented in this group today. The World Bank has estimated that by the year 2050, a business's usual emission scenario could lead to as many as 140 million people displaced from their homes, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa, Central America and South Asia. To give you some context, right now the annual number of people displaced worldwide is about 21 million people, so we're looking at a sevenfold increase by 2050.
Last year I was approached by the community of Tuktoyaktuk for advice and assistance on planning the relocation of that community, because by 2050 the town site will no longer be viable because of flooding, permafrost loss and erosion.
The point is that these are not hypothetical risks. These are things that are happening or that will happen. The good thing is that they are avoidable if we take action, such as through Bill .
I wish to draw the committee's attention to three specific points in the brief I submitted.
First, with respect to clause 16 of the bill, there is no consequence for failure to achieve the emissions reductions targets that the minister sets. Essentially what happens is that the minister is told to formulate a plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions; if that plan fails, then the minister is instructed to make a new plan. That is how governments in this country have dealt with greenhouse gas emissions policies since we signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. We set targets; we make plans; we miss them; we come up with new plans, and the circle repeats itself. I think committee members will recognize that we need to avoid that situation in this bill.
Second, there are now specific milestones with respect to emissions reduction targets in the bill. It simply says, here are some years for which the minister shall set some milestones and move forward that way. We already have targets set by the Government of Canada. We already know what the final destination is. It's 100% reduction in current emissions by the year 2050, so I think it's quite simple at this point to put the targets right in the bill and proceed quickly to making the actual action plans.
Finally, just to wrap up my presentation, what is missing from Bill is a formal mechanism to ensure that the provincial governments and the territorial governments are actively involved in the formulation of plans and in the implementation and execution of those plans. Consultation is not enough. We've seen that. I am not naive. I recognize that simply getting the provincial governments and the federal government to agree to something, let alone act upon it, is a big task, but the fact that it's a big task doesn't mean to say that we should not be attempting it and insisting that it be done.
I also recognize that the challenges to reducing greenhouse gas emissions will fall more greatly on certain provinces and sectors than on others. At the same time, the benefits of a transition to a green economy in terms of the innovations, the technologies, the economic benefits and the general improvements in well-being will also fall disproportionately to those sectors and provinces that have the greatest accomplishments.
The reality is this: The world is transitioning to a low-carbon economy, and Canada is either going to be left behind or it's going to be a part of it, and I encourage us, through this bill, to be a part of it.
Thank you.
:
Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for having us.
Today I am speaking from the unceded lands of the Kanien'keháka people.
I represent Climate Action Network Canada, which is a network of more than 130 organizations, including labour, development, faith-based and indigenous groups, as well as the key national and provincial environmental organizations working on climate change across the country.
[English]
Canada has been setting climate targets for decades and has failed to deliver on every single greenhouse gas emission reduction commitment it has ever made. Canada is the only G7 nation whose emissions remain well above 1990 levels and whose emissions have continued to rise since the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2015. If we missed target after target, it wasn't because those targets were too ambitious or unattainable—quite the contrary. It is because of the critical lack of climate governance in this country.
[Translation]
Bill is a chance for us to rectify the situation, but it has to be amended. Working with our members and colleagues from Ecojustice, West Coast Environmental Law and Équiterre, we have submitted a briefing note to the committee that outlines, under five headings, recommendations to reinforce Bill C-12 and to make it a more robust piece of climate accountability legislation. Those headings are: ambitious short-term action, medium- and long-term certainty, credible and effective plans, accountability and science and expert opinion.
On Monday, you heard my colleagues discuss a number of those headings, all of which are equally important. Today I will focus my remarks on ambitious short-term action and accountability.
To limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the critical threshold beyond which we expose ourselves to the most disastrous and irreversible impacts of climate change, we must completely decarbonize the economy by 2050. This long-term objective is important, but so is the path we take to achieve it. To reach this temperature-related objective, we must flatten the curve of greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions as soon as possible, and that means we must start work now. To borrow an analogy that committee members will remember, studying in advance rather than cramming the night before the exam is the right strategy for better results.
Consequently, the lack of an interim target for 2025 is troubling. Bill should at least establish a control point before 2030, provide that plans include modeling that reflects emissions for every year, including 2025, and require regular reports on progress achieved starting in 2023.
[English]
While carbon budgets were not the approach chosen by the drafters of this bill, international examples have clearly shown the benefits of a budgeting approach to facilitate choices that have an impact on emissions. CAN-Rac still believes Canada would benefit from such an approach, but in the absence of carbon budgets, Bill must at the very least require plans to show annual emissions projections if it is to come close to having the efficacy of the international examples.
[Translation]
Now let's talk about accountability, an essential component of responsibility. Legislation elsewhere in the world clearly defines who is responsible for meeting targets and how those targets are to be met. As in any financial undertaking, someone must be ultimately responsible for ensuring that all measures adopted to meet commitments are adequate.
This element is still missing from Bill , and the minister should be required to demonstrate that, taken together, the measures outlined in the plans will make it possible to achieve targets. The choice of words is also important in describing legal obligations. The language chosen should avoid references to obligations "to try" and instead establish obligations "to achieve" results.
[English]
To conclude, a strengthened Bill has the potential to end our cycle of broken climate promises and forge a path for Canada towards a future that is healthier, more resilient and more just, and that prioritizes abundance and well-being for all. We ask all parties to work together to strengthen and adopt Bill C-12 quickly. If you, committee members, and your colleagues in the House rise to the challenge, history will remember you as the parliamentarians who ushered in a new era of climate accountability in this country.
[Translation]
Thank you very much.
I will be pleased to answer your questions.
:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and distinguished members of the committee.
My name is Marc-André Viau, and I am the director of government relations at Équiterre. I will be sharing my time with my colleague, Émile Boisseau-Bouvier, who is our climate policy analyst.
First, I would like to say a few words about our organization. We have been in existence for more than 25 years, and we have more than 150,000 members and supporters. We have expertise in climate and energy policy, mobility and food and consumption systems at both the Quebec and federal levels.
Together with the Quebec Environmental Law Centre, from which you'll be hearing when the next panel of witnesses takes our place, we recently defended, before the Supreme Court, the position that the federal government has jurisdiction over the carbon pricing system in a manner consistent with the jurisdiction of the provinces.
We thank you for this opportunity to discuss Bill . I will begin with a brief reminder. The first climate accountability bill was introduced nearly 15 years ago. For all kinds of wrong reasons, the bill that the House of Commons passed at the time, Bill , didn't receive royal assent in 2010. Consequently, one might say we've already missed the first milestone set forth in that bill, which was a 25% reduction in greenhouse gases from 1990 levels by 2020.
I hope we don't miss our rendezvous—
I'll continue where my colleague unfortunately left off.
This time, we hope we don't miss our rendezvous with history. Some changes will have to be made to ensure that's not the case.
The purpose of our presentation is precisely to propose improvements to Bill to guarantee that better mechanisms are put in place to achieve our targets.
We have submitted a brief together with our colleagues from Ecojustice, West Coast Environmental Law and Climate Action Network Canada. We invite you to consult it for more details.
As you heard on Monday, we have established that five pillars are needed to firm up Bill C-12. First, we must act quickly and have ambition. Second, we need medium- and long-term predictability. Third, we must draft credible plans and reports. Fourth, we need robust accountability mechanisms, and, fifth, planning must be guided by the advice of experts and the best available scientific data.
We wish to draw your attention to the last two pillars.
The fourth pillar is very important because of our unfortunate tendency to fall short of our targets. The accountability mechanisms provided for under Bill C-12 as drafted are weak, even nonexistent. For example, the bill establishes no obligation to align the measures proposed in the plans with the necessary reductions to achieve the targets. Consequently, we believe that, to solve this part of the problem, the government must focus mainly on absolute GHG emissions reductions, not on carbon credits or future technologies.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't conduct research and development, but rather that we should base our decisions on what currently exists, not on what we would like to see in an ideal world.
In our brief, we ask that Bill C-12 ensure that 90% of efforts to achieve carbon neutrality focus on absolute reductions and that there be a demonstrable alignment between established targets and measures proposed in the climate plans.
The fifth pillar is equally important. Canadians must be confident that decisions are based on the best available scientific data, not on political compromises.
Science helps remove politics from decisions, which can at times be emotional and polarizing. The result is better governance. For example, the United Kingdom's climate change committee, which was established under its climate legislation, is wholly independent and bases its decisions on the most recent scientific evidence. It works. The committee's opinions are respected by all parties, despite changes in government, and the United Kingdom is in a better position than Canada to achieve its GHG emissions reduction targets.
More specifically, it is essential that the targets and plans provided for under Bill C-12 be based on the best available scientific information. Clause 8 of the bill currently provides that the minister must merely take into account the best scientific information available in setting targets.
Relying on science also means that the advice provided by the advisory body must be based on the best available scientific data concerning credible paths to achieving carbon neutrality and meeting Canada's commitments under the Paris Agreement.
Yesterday the International Energy Agency announced that no new fossil energy projects can be authorized if we want to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. That's the kind of information that is essential to the credible decision-making that must be considered and conveyed by the advisory committee.
In conclusion, Bill C-12 has the potential to become the structural legislative framework necessary to achieve Canada's climate ambitions and targets. To ensure this actually happens, we invite parliamentarians to accept the amendments we have just discussed, which complement those proposed by our colleagues from other environmental organizations that have testified before the committee.
Thank you for your attention.
I will be pleased to answer your questions.
:
I am here today on behalf of tens of thousands of mothers, fathers and grandparents across Canada, represented by two national networks, Mères au front and For Our Kids. For Our Kids is across Canada from coast to coast, and Mères au front is in many provinces, with tens of thousands of people who are asking for climate change action.
We are here to ask you, no matter what your political party is, to take courageous action on the climate crisis. We desperately need a climate accountability act in Canada that will protect our children from the climate emergency, but Bill is not ambitious enough and we have concrete proposals to make it the bill our children need.
First and foremost, you must know that our population and our children are already dying from the effects of climate change. For instance, a 2021 publication from the Harvard School of Public Health shows that close to 900 babies die annually in North America as a result of particulate matter in our air, which is a direct result of burning fossil fuels. The evidence shows that increasing temperatures, heat waves and the emissions from burning fossil fuels not only exacerbate child respiratory illness and death but cause them.
If you have any excuses in your mind for not taking bolder action on the climate crisis, I invite you to let me walk you through one of the many cases I've seen in our pediatric emergency, of a perfectly well baby losing their life because they cannot breathe.
As wildfires rage through many of our provinces as we speak, droughts threaten our food security and farming livelihoods, and deaths from extreme heat events become more common, we as parents feel strongly that it is our job to be sure that you protect our children. This is why we are here before you today. We feel very strongly that four aspects of Bill must be improved if this bill is to protect current and future generations.
First, a key aspect is that our kids need a climate accountability act with real accountability to ensure that the incremental targets are met. This means an impartial advisory committee. The majority of this committee must be experts in climate science and exclude industry representatives. The committee, as it exists, must be reassessed. The U.K.'s climate accountability law, as one of the previous speakers said, is working. They have an arm's-length, truly expert-led advisory committee that can take action when government decisions threaten the commitments to targets.
Second, Bill must be a race to carbon neutrality. We need to go faster than what is proposed in this bill. The science about this is very clear. Reset the first target to 2025, with a clear plan from now until then. Canada is already 30 years late in meeting its climate goals, so deferring until 2030 sets us up to fail.
Third, Bill must be modified to ensure that every decision taken by the government goes through a climate test in order to evaluate how policies will impact our reduction targets. Because greenhouse gas emissions transcend jurisdictions and sectors, we need to ensure that all government decisions are in harmony with our climate goals.
Finally, it is the responsibility of the government, and that is you, to ensure intergenerational equity and to take actions that protect future generations. Our children cannot vote, but it is they who will be impacted the most by a bill whose present target would result in a rise in temperature of 3°C in their lifetimes. We are asking you to remember your obligation to their future as you work to change these targets to match the science.
This is the fight for our children's lives. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown us what happens when we put short-term economic benefits ahead of their lives and the long-term economic success of Canadians. The climate crisis is not different.
I believe that all of you, as members of different political parties, care about the future of our kids and your kids, and understand that our industry and economy have to change rapidly to compete internationally, given the reality of the climate crisis. Our kids are looking to you to ensure a livable planet and jobs in the new or the green economy that will sustain their generation in the future.
We are not asking for more than Canadians want, nor are we asking you more than you can deliver. Our children deserve your action and your protection. They need you to act as courageous politicians in this crisis to ensure them a livable future.
Thank you.
:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and thanks for the opportunity to speak to the committee on behalf of 30,000 Canadian pulse growers. I am Corey Loessin. I farm with my wife and son northwest of Saskatoon. We grow peas, lentils, canola, wheat, oats and barley. We've farmed here for 30 years. My family has farmed on the same land for 125 years.
For the past year I've served as chair of the board of Pulse Canada. Pulse Canada is the national organization that represents growers, traders, processors and exporters of Canadian pulses, including peas, lentils, chickpeas, dry beans and fava beans. Our membership consists of grower organizations across the country, from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, and also the Canadian Special Crops Association, representing over 100 processors and exporters of pulses.
Canada is the world's largest exporter of pulse crops. Our pulse industry is well established and continues to grow in terms of acres seeded and domestic and international demand. We export pulses to over 130 countries around the world, with priority markets in China, India, the EU and the United States.
In 2017, the pulse industry established a “25 by 2025” objective, an industry-wide goal seeking to provide 25% of our Canadian production into new, diversified markets and new end uses by the year 2025. Our strategy is to create new demand for Canadian pulses while finding efficiencies in the trade environment and continuing to keep existing markets open.
Pulses are very well positioned to take advantage of emerging global food trends that emphasize healthy and sustainable diets and food products. While sustainability may not be the leading factor influencing consumers' food choices, we believe it's going to become increasingly important as the world finds a way to feed a growing population with nutritious food from sustainable food systems.
At Pulse Canada we have two goals that drive our sustainability work. Number one is to create conditions so that growers, processors and exporters can seize high-value market opportunities resulting from global sustainability commitments. Number two is to establish the Canadian pulse sector as a leader in providing food and ingredient solutions that drive Canada's carbon reduction targets and demonstrate our industry as a global leader in fighting climate change.
With reference to Bill , of course, if Canada is to capitalize on the tremendous opportunity in front of us, it must show some leadership at the policy level. Pulse Canada fully endorses policy that creates market-driven conditions for growers, processors and exporters to monetize commitments being made to global environmental sustainability. Pulses and pulse ingredients are some of the most sustainable foods around, due to their capacity to fix nitrogen, their water-use efficiency and their contribution to soil health. Thanks to the world-leading stewardship practices of our producers, Canadian pulses are a leader among sustainably grown crops.
As the conversation around sustainability grows, so does the expectation of Canadian pulse growers and the trade to realize and monetize the opportunity that exists. With Bill , the government is seeking to outline Canada's path to achieving net zero by the year 2050. Canada's pulse industry will play a key role in achieving those targets.
There's real economic opportunity in meeting the global food demand for ingredients produced in a sustainable manner, and this demand has been created by the marketplace. Market-driven solutions are the way Canadian businesses will be able to remain competitive. It is important to each and every farmer who has the opportunity to meet this growing global demand on his or her terms as a small business owner.
To ensure that Canada's path to net zero is market driven, Pulse Canada is advocating for seats on advisory bodies to be allocated to Canadian agriculture—both farmers and representatives from the broader agriculture value chain. Government should look to the expertise our industry has already gained from having been involved in lowering emissions for the past several decades.
I can tell you that on our own farm we've seen tremendous gains being made in soil conservation in particular, and soil health.
Finally, please note that in Canada we export about 85% of the pulse crops we grow. There's more than one way to meet climate targets, and the correct path forward must take a broader look at how Canada meets its targets by supporting and expanding free trade. By investing in trade-enabling infrastructure and supporting agricultural exports, the government can ensure that Canada continues to be a key player in the world's net-zero solution.
In closing, I'd like to re-emphasize that the agriculture sector, and specifically the Canadian pulse sector, will be a major contributor to Canada's success on the path to net zero. Thank you.
:
That is a great analogy. The move to zero till—through my career, really, over the last 30 years—has just been a tremendous benefit in western Canada. Soil erosion has gone from catastrophic, I would say, in the early 1980s, to almost non-existent today. That's all been market-led, as you mentioned. Farmers embraced that change in farming systems, really, as a result of technology being available and the market enabling them to adopt that technology.
I should also add that on our farm, in that same time period, our fuel consumption has dropped by approximately 50%, just because we are not using tillage to work the land anymore, so we make much fewer field passes, if you like.
Any time you can see an example like that, where there has been technology and market pull coming together to enable a system to adapt, and farmers embrace that system and employ it, it's just a success story. The same thing can happen, is happening and can happen further with regard to how emissions and crop rotations can further enhance the drive to get to a net-zero position in the future.
:
Thanks. Your group has been very vocal for free trade agreements, to opening foreign markets. As you say, pulses are almost all exported out of Canada.
Buyers need certainty. I guess one thing I've seen that the Liberals have been really good at is adding uncertainty to businesses in Canada: for example, changes to the regulations on the natural resource development programs we've seen in the country.
Recently, the Liberals shifted the environmental goalposts on a few things. Carbon tax, for example, is now three or four times what it was originally supposed to be. Then, just recently, emissions targets have gone from 30%, to 36%, to 45%. Do these shifting goalposts cause problems for farmers? Does this lack of certainty cause problems for your overseas customers?
:
There are two points I could add there. Farming, farm business, is a long-term enterprise, so you have to plan for the long term. Many of the practices we employ are put in place for the long-term benefit. In our case, it's mostly about the soil. Preserving the soil is so important, so we have long-term strategies and methods to do the best we can over that period of time.
When things change, yes, you have to adapt, but when costs increase suddenly or dramatically, essentially the effect is that it restricts your ability to adapt. A lot of the adaptation to, say, zero tillage, like we mentioned before, did require considerable investment on behalf of farmers. If cost increases restrict the ability to adapt as needed, it slows that process down, I would say.
The second point about reliability to export customers, is that it's absolutely critical. We have a number of pieces of our export chain, if you like, that experience problems from time to time, and that always concerns our export customers. The more reliable a supplier we can be to huge markets like India and China, and I should add quality markets like the EU, the better off the whole industry is in both the short and long run.
:
I have a couple of thoughts. One is that it is a worst-case scenario. That is the case where we continue to essentially follow the trajectory we're on in terms of taking coal, oil and natural gas out of the ground as quickly as we can and burning it as quickly as we can. Hopefully we don't go down that pathway. It's what scientists refer to as an RCP 8.5 scenario.
Yes, water scarcity is an ongoing challenge in western North America. There will be localized variations in that.
In terms of the economic impacts of a 500% increase in drought severity or frequency in western Canada, I don't think anybody studied the agricultural economics of that, but I think it's fairly easy to calculate, if one wanted to, in terms of just looking at the insured crop losses that will occur, say, over the next five-year period. From that you can make some extrapolations. Plus, then you have the urban impacts. A city like Edmonton, for example, needs to have a certain amount of surface water in the river in order to accept waste water for treatment and to provide drinking water and so on. These are quantifiable. Obviously, you can assume, in very simple math, that a 500% increase in frequency or severity of droughts would have a corresponding economic cost.
Then again, I've also studied historical droughts such as the ones of the 1970s on the Great Plains. There's often a cascading effect. The drought is just the start of an economic crisis. If you look at the 1970s and 1980s, droughts on the Great Plains coincided with a period of rising interest rates. Many farmers found that the drought put them into a position where they were borrowing money to get through the drought, and then interest rates rose. That helped trigger the farm crisis in the United States in the 1980s.
All this is to say, Mr. Bittle, that yes, it's quantifiable, and it's obviously something we would want to avoid.
:
First, I would like to thank the witnesses for being with us and sharing their expertise. We are very grateful to them for that.
I'll go first to Ms. Brouillette.
Ms. Brouillette, we were discussing greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. The present version of the bill contains none. Clause 7 provides that the minister will set the target within six months after the act comes into force.
When he appeared before the committee yesterday, the minister assured me that his new target range, a 40% to 45% reduction in GHG emissions, would be added to the act. However, some of the projections of the Department of the Environment show a shortfall. Even the measures announced in the 2021 budget indicate that we'll achieve a reduction of approximately 36%.
Do you think this new target range would be adequate, even if it were added to the act?
How could this bill be amended to firm up the targets set for 2030?
:
Thank you for your question.
It's important to note that it's a good thing the target is periodically revised. That's part of the process for increasing contributions under the Paris Agreement whereby the parties normally review their targets every five years. We take a positive view of the government's new target. However, it's still not enough to represent Canada's fair share of the global effort to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
We at Climate Action Network Canada have determined that a target that would represent a fair share would be an approximately 60% reduction from 2005-level emissions by 2030, which means an 80% reduction in funding to support the fight against climate change in southern countries.
However, Bill should reflect the Paris Agreement by enabling us to revise our targets only upward in order to increase contributions.
As you mentioned, clause 7 should ideally be amended to permit that.
Earlier I heard someone mention market certainty. One of our recommendations is that targets and plans be established 10 years in advance precisely in order to provide markets and investors with that element of certainty. When targets must be revised along the way, as required under the Paris Agreement's process for increasing contributions, it is possible to reduce the gap because action will be taken much more in advance.
Earlier you said that this bill often refers to "trying" to reach targets rather than "compelling" the government to meet them. In that connection, even though the bill expresses some lofty ambitions, I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to add a minimum greenhouse gas emissions reduction target such as the one stated in the Paris Agreement.
That might afford an additional legal guarantee in the event we fall short of our targets. This could happen if the measures announced by the government aren't all introduced, or if a new government comes to power in a few years, for example, and they aren't yet in place.
Should we establish that guarantee by adding a minimum target to the bill?
:
Yes, those mechanisms should be interrelated.
The Paris Agreement doesn't impose targets on the signatory parties. Instead it's the targets themselves that determine what are called the NDCs.
The Paris Agreement states that, every five years, countries must communicate their new NDCs under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Under the agreement, countries must regularly report the progress they've made in implementing their NDCs.
The mechanisms provided for under Bill should indeed be synchronized with Canada's NDCs. That would increase our responsibility in the fight against climate change because both follow a similar contributions cycle that requires Canada to present more ambitious targets every five years.
Progress reports are a minimum requirement from an international standpoint. That's why we recommend that Bill C-12 include corrective measures where the government fails to meet its targets. Interim reports should require the minister to specify the measures that will be taken to rectify the situation where a target isn't or won't be met.
:
Thank you for your question.
Near-term ambition is important. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, we will have to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 if we are to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius and thus avoid the catastrophic and irreversible effects of climate change. However, the path we take to do that will be just as important. We'll have to flatten the GHG emissions curve. We're all familiar with the expression "flatten the curve" since we've often heard it in the context of COVID-19.
Canada is a rich country whose level of responsibility has remained high over the years. Consequently, it must do more than the global average established by the IPCC, which is a 45% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030.
The transformation we must make in order to reduce our GHG emissions in such draconian fashion is so complex that we won't be able to do it if we don't attack the problem starting today and if we fail to plan by adding an accountability control point before 2030. In particular, we have to ensure that we model GHG emissions annually. We can't postpone the measures we need to take to meet the 2030 target.
:
That's a good question.
The International Energy Agency's report suggests many ideas for specific public policies. Ultimately, the agency informs us on the role that science plays. That's the aim of the agency's report: to demonstrate scientifically what we must do to reduce our GHG emissions in order to stay below the critical threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius.
I could tell you about a lot more things, in particular the need to stop expanding the oil and gas industry, the need to stop selling gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035 and the fact that the liquefied natural gas sector will have to be capped relatively soon.
So we have many findings, but Bill must reflect the findings of science, with the aid of various mechanisms, and apply them in the specific context of Canada to ensure the country meets its set objectives.
:
Thank you for that question.
We actually recommend opting for absolute reductions. In the past, we've tried to use compensatory systems and untested technologies. However, we have to rely on what exists in order to draw a roadmap that works. As my colleague said, the reductions we can plan are the existing reductions.
We can nevertheless continue conducting research and development to discover technologies for sequestering carbon. We could also come up with nature-based solutions. Earlier, and at Monday's meeting, we actually discussed nature-based solutions at length, agriculture-based solutions in particular. However, if we rely on nonexistent technologies, we're relying on probabilities, not on anything tangible. What we want is to make sure we can reduce our current emissions, not the ones we'll eventually make.
:
Yes, I love Guelph, Ontario, and enjoyed my time greatly at the university there. It's one of the greatest agricultural schools in the world as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, I think we've been talking a lot about the economic impacts of what we need to do to move to a green economy. This is the type of discussion that you see at these conferences of the parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which I've attended and where you will see the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia saying forget about the impacts of climate change: What about the impact on our economy? I hear the conversation is revolving around that dimension, which is very real—don't get me wrong. Even though I don't farm pulses in Saskatchewan, my pension plan probably benefits from a lot of the agricultural industry that's based in Saskatchewan, and so on.
Nonetheless, at the same time there are human impacts. I mentioned in my talk the community of Tuktoyaktuk where, by 2050, they will have to move. That's a big deal for people, especially indigenous people, who have lived in the same place for a long time and who are told that because of actions they bear no responsibility for, they must now leave and move their homes, families, schools and so on. It's a small microcosm of the risks that we face if we do not implement this bill and move quickly towards actually achieving net reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Dr. Martin spoke earlier about the health impacts, and that's something I've been working on with the IPCC in our reporting right now, which is looking at not just the health impacts, but also the co-benefits to human health by addressing greenhouse gas emissions, because, of course, four million people each year worldwide die because of air pollution. If we reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are not only just causing climate change but also causing urban air quality problems and child health issues and so on, we can actually have win-win situations. Those cascading risks that we create for ourselves by not addressing greenhouse gas emissions, we can reverse in the other direction.
To circle back to your initial point, you're right: It is an economic conversation, but it is also a conversation about who we are as people and the quality of our life and our broader well-being beyond just our pocketbooks.
I'm going to speak once again, and my questions are for Ms. Waridel from Mothers Step In.
Ms. Waridel, I carefully read your brief, in which you say that climate action must involve a restrictive, cross-sectional and whole-of-government approach resulting in a "climate test" applicable to all major government decisions.
You suggest that Bill should provide that all government decisions must be put to that "climate test" in order to assess their impact, as the government is already doing on gender and racism issues, for example.
Could you explain to us how the "climate test" might take shape in Bill C-12?
:
Thank you for your question, Ms. Michaud.
Thanks as well to all the members for their remarks.
You can see from a cursory consideration of the scientific news the extent to which humanity has come to a crossroads. The window is closing on the possibility for us to take action and prevent runaway climate change and all the known harmful consequences for the health and safety of populations. That's also what we've heard today.
We know that all the measures put in place to date have looked more like good intentions and haven't helped us meet greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Starting now, all our decisions must be closely examined for the impact they may have on climate. When we say we're at a crossroads, that means we have to ask ourselves whether every decision, policy, regulation and tax measure will have the effect of reducing or increasing GHG emissions.
That's the question that all federal government decision-makers should ask. As far as possible, we must then determine how that will affect relations with the provinces and various stakeholders, as well as the policies that are introduced in the provinces and all those who interact with the federal government. This seems essential because, as long as we have no such mechanisms, we'll keep saying we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but will still subsidize the fossil energy sector, when we know it's the heart of the problem.
We're currently funding rising greenhouse gas emissions. Some $30 billion of public funds has been allocated to this sector since the pandemic began. We know the Trans Mountain project will cost more than $12.6 billion. A "climate test" would prevent us from heading in that direction and would encourage us instead to subsidize the people who depend on the fossil energy sector to encourage them to engage in the transition.
We must not abandon workers in the fossil energy sector. We must support the people of Alberta, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan. I think it's essential. We have to make this transition together, but from this moment on all our decisions must be closely examined to determine the impact they'll have on the climate and our children's future.
:
First, I'm going to speak briefly about the carbon budget. A carbon budget provides a clearer picture for the purpose of making decisions on regulations and infrastructure, for example, which have an impact on our GHG emissions.
Here's an analogy. If I want to cut my spending by 40% to 45% over the next nine years, I have to know how much money I have in my bank account and how much I can spend on periods shorter than nine years or else I won't be able to do it.
I repeat that, in Climate Action Network Canada's view, this is still an appropriate approach for Canada, even though the government hasn't opted for it. We believe it's possible within the federation because the federal government has tools at its disposal such as regulations, tax policy and the spending power.
However, if we want to ensure a minimum degree of transparency in plans and progress reports in the absence of a carbon budget, the bill should absolutely be amended to provide for annual modeling of GHG emissions in the plans.
The advisory group of the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices could look into that issue in future.
Thank you to all of the witnesses. Again, we're having what I think is a really important dialogue.
I have two things that I hope to accomplish in my five minutes. One is just a quick follow-up in terms of the net-zero advisory body. I find that perhaps the government should have waited for this legislation to pass, because we're having some good dialogue about what an advisory panel would look like. We had one person here who said it should absolutely just be scientists, with no industry involvement. Of course, Mr. Loessin talked about how industry could add so much to the debate. If you look at the current component of the advisory committee, it's a bit.... Although they're all very knowledgeable people, I'm not sure the government waited for the best advice possible.
My personal perspective is that we can get further when we include industry, because we understand the challenges, but we can also understand what they can accomplish. I think we can all agree on the importance of pulses to our diets, not just in Canada but worldwide. The diets of more and more people are increasing in terms of pulses.
Perhaps I could get Mr. Loessin to quickly address that issue again. I hope to go to some more generic questions after that.
Thank you.
We had the Cattlemen two days ago, and of course, what I didn't know—and I live in ranching country—is the important contribution to the grasslands, the health of the grasslands and sequestration made by that particular industry.
Over the last five years, I've been focused on the indigenous file, so of course I'm a rookie to the environment file. For those who are much more knowledgeable, I would really appreciate.... This bill is clearly process. It's about a process, and we hear from all people who have been before us that it's even flawed in terms of what their process would be.
When we talk about net zero, maybe Prof. McLeman would be the best.... Canada was basically shut down in a significant way last year. How much impact did that have in terms of our emissions? How much did that bring us towards our goal, and how can you tell Canadians who might be listening what a future would look like in terms of whether it would be like last year, when no one was getting in their cars and no one was flying? Could you tell us a bit about that so that Canadians who are listening might understand better what Canada is trying to achieve?
:
Yes, the increase in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada did essentially stop over the last year because, you're right, people did stay home and work closer to home, and industry was shut down. I don't think that's what's being advocated for here.
I think what we're looking for is economic growth. It's based on an energy-based economy, where oil and gas are not necessarily the basis of the energy source.
That's one of the things I think we need to look at in the future. No one is projecting that net zero means we go back to horses and buggies. In fact, the reason we got rid of horses and buggies was not that we ran out of hay to feed the horses; it was that better technology came along. We are at that threshold now in society technologically, where the reason we are getting away from gasoline-powered automobiles, other devices and things that run on fossil fuels is not that we're running out of fossil fuels in the short term; it's that there are better technologies in place.
One thing we should take away from the report that came out from the International Energy Agency yesterday is that the necessary technologies and innovations to achieve net zero already exist, so the science bit has already been done. The key is how we make the transition to an economy that's based on those new technologies and innovations.
It's possible, I think, which is the message I would ask all members of this committee to take away. You're right, this legislation is a question about process, but it's important because the government sets the process that helps the economy transition to this new technology.
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you very much to all the witnesses for coming out today. It's been a very interesting conversation.
Dr. McLeman, I want to start with you first, because you mentioned something in your opening comments that I think we have not really drilled down on. We've neglected this aspect, and that is in terms of the importance of the global refugee crisis.
As we've seen in the past, the refugee crisis has created an element of xenophobia and certain amounts of extremism that are currently playing out in the Western world.
How do you expect the refugee crisis [Technical difficulty—Editor] moving forward, if we don't achieve net zero?
:
That's a very good question.
I should start by saying my wife is an immigrant and my mother is an immigrant, so you can figure out that I'm pro-immigration on this. Different pathways.... I did a study for the Migration Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., last year, and decisions such as this bill here and the greenhouse gas trajectories between now and 2050 changed the landscape dramatically. If we get to zero emissions globally and nationally by 2050, we can actually reduce the number of people a year who are annually displaced from their homes. Right now about 21 million people worldwide are displaced each year by floods, storms, droughts and so on. We can actually reduce that number by hitting zero emissions.
Conversely, if we go the way we're going, we're looking at hundreds of millions of people being displaced. Canada as a refugee- and migrant-receiving nation will feel pressure from the international community, and source countries of Canadians who are here now whose family members experience the risk will be putting pressure on the government to do something. I think that with failure to implement these sorts of bills now, we'll see pressure from sources you may not have expected previously.
:
Thank you for your question.
First of all, it's important to make a distinction here: Catherine Abreu sits on the committee in a personal capacity, and I'm here today to present the remarks of Climate Action Network Canada. We've been working this way with our members and allies for many years, by which I mean that we recommend that a committee of independent experts be established. It's important to note that the committee the government has organized is a committee of stakeholders, whereas we recommend a committee of independent experts.
Today I heard several witnesses ask that such and such an industry be represented. The idea is actually to appoint individuals who have expertise relating to scientific issues, traditional indigenous knowledge and various types of social sciences. That may include knowledge of the way climate change will affect agriculture or employment. The issue of a fair transition is an important one. There has to be an independent committee, but the issue of scientific expertise on that committee could be expanded upon.
I would add a final point. Ms. Abreu definitely has the climate change expertise we have in mind, which is different from any expertise associated with the representation of an industry's financial interests, for example.
Thank you, Mr. Saini.
That concludes the first part of our meeting today, which was reserved for the first panel of witnesses. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the witnesses, who made some very interesting comments. We know that a committee appearance requires considerable preparation, and we are grateful to them for taking the time to prepare for their appearance today.
We will now take a short, five-minute break to allow the second panel of witnesses to connect to the meeting. It is now 3:57 p.m. I will be back at 4:03 to welcome the second panel of witnesses.
Thank you once again to the first panel of witnesses. As they know, next week we will proceed with amendments to the bill, and their interesting ideas will fuel our discussions.
:
We are now prepared to resume.
Welcome to our second panel of witnesses. I would like to acknowledge the presence of Paul Fauteux, who will testify as an individual.
[English]
We also have, from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Shannon Joseph.
From the David Suzuki Foundation we have Dr. Sabaa Khan.
From the Quebec Environmental Law Centre we have Geneviève Paul.
From The Transition Accelerator we have Professor James Meadowcroft of the School of Public Policy at Carleton University.
I think you probably all know the format, which is that every group of witnesses gets to make a set of opening remarks for five minutes, and then we move on to questions.
Please keep your mike off when you're not speaking, and address the committee members through the chair.
We'll start with Maître Fauteux, for five minutes.
Hello and thanks to everyone for giving me this opportunity to contribute to your work.
I worked for the Government of Canada as a diplomat and senior official from 1980 to 2010. Among other things, I directed Environment Canada's Climate Change Bureau and led the Canadian delegation in negotiations on the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.
The bill you are currently studying is a step in the right direction, but it is clearly inadequate to address the imperatives of the climate emergency. I believe that many improvements need to be made. Given the time constraints, I will mention six.
First of all, the title of the bill betrays its lack of ambition. While the carbon neutrality objective for 2050 is legitimate, it should not be used to camouflage the failure of the current Canadian emissions trajectory. The Paris Agreement clearly establishes that achieving carbon neutrality by mid century will first require establishing a global ceiling for GHG emissions as soon as possible. Canadians expect their government to achieve these reduction levels quickly. This ambition should be reflected in the title, which of course assumes that the wording of the bill will be improved.
Second, the states that are leading in terms of combating climate change, like a number of our G7 and other partners, are including specific GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved in their laws. Their general goal is to make governments responsible for their climate action and to avoid repeated emissions reduction failures like Canada's.
There are lessons to be learned from Germany's recent experience. Bill should at the very least include, and thereby make mandatory, the 2030 emissions target announced by Prime Minister Harper in 2015 to reduce its GHG emissions by 30% from 2005 levels; or as an alternative, include the 40% to 45% target announced by Prime Minister Trudeau on April 22. The bill should also provide interim targets as of 2025, and every five years thereafter. A climate act like Bill C-12 without any targets is, in my view, useless.
Third, Bill does not establish a credible accountability mechanism. The only obligation imposed on the minister in this respect is to report on, or in other words evaluate, the minister's own work. The bill should instead provide that the government's action plan and measures be examined by an independent authority. This could be the environment commissioner, who could then be made an officer of Parliament to strengthen the commissioner's independence.
Fourth, Bill establishes an advisory body to provide the minister with advice; the minister establishes the advisory body, and may determine and amend its terms of reference at any time. The climate emergency and the rapid reduction in emissions required in Canada should instead call for experts to be consulted to provide advice on short-term goals, interim targets and the 2030 objective. The bill should therefore be amended to include the establishment of an independent scientific council consisting of university and research experts whose mandate would be to identify policies likely to promote the achievement of Canada's emissions reduction targets.
Fifth, the progress report mentioned in Bill is required every five years, even though emissions data are available every year. To make it possible to evaluate progress or the lack thereof at each intermediate phase, the bill should be amended to require an annual report.
Sixth, Bill does not state that measures should be evaluated as a function of their ability to enable Canada to comply with its commitments under the Paris Agreement. There is therefore nothing to make sure that the targets established by the department will do that. The bill should be amended to specify that the environment commissioner's role would be to determine whether the planned measures would enable Canada to meet its targets, and whether doing so would bring it into compliance with its Paris Agreement commitments.
To conclude, I would say that a Canadian climate act worthy of the name would have to ensure the population and the international community that Canada will at the very least be meeting its own commitments, even though they may not be adequate to achieve the Paris Agreement objective, which is to limit the temperature rise over pre-industrial levels to 1.5°C.
In its current form, Bill C-12 in no way ensures that Canada will meet its climate commitments. Compliance requires that the bill be amended to establish a mandatory target, in addition to interim targets every five years beginning in 2025, to establish accountability mechanisms and to bring in the required expertise.
Thank you for your attention.
My name is Shannon Joseph, and I am the vice-president of government relations and indigenous affairs for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers or CAPP.
CAPP represents the upstream oil and natural gas industry in Canada. We would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear and to be part of its study of Bill .
This legislation and Canada’s work to fulfill its climate change commitments are important to all industries and all Canadians. CAPP and our member companies are strong supporters of and investors in environmental performance and innovation. We want to work with the federal government to achieve its climate change goals. That said, we would highlight for the committee that the pathway to net zero that Bill sets out is also intended to create economic opportunities for Canada.
We took note of the comment, particularly on the occasion of the April 22, 2021, climate summit, that our climate change response can be “our greatest economic opportunity.” As members can appreciate, you manage what you measure, hence the inclusion in the bill of milestone climate change targets towards 2050 performance measurement requirements. If the path to net zero is to create growth, investment and jobs, then as well as environmental performance, we need economic targets, and economic performance metrics must be built into this legislation as well.
Beyond this, pathways to net zero are going to look different in the diverse regions of our country as we pursue this agenda. This fact must also be integrated into the bill in the ways that the strategies are developed and evaluated. This should done in close collaboration with provincial and territorial governments and their climate change strategies and policies. Canada is an exporting country, and oil and natural gas are our number one export.
We contribute more than $1.1 billion annually to Canada’s economy. We employ over half a million women and men in well-paying, skilled jobs coast to coast, including 63,000 jobs in Ontario and 18,000 in Quebec. Our national supply chain outside of Alberta includes over 2,700 different firms with annual purchases of over $4 billion. In addition, we purchase over $2.4 billion annually from indigenous-owned businesses representing about 11% of our procurement in the oil sands. We are one of the largest employers of indigenous Canadians and are committed to our important role in reconciliation.
I highlight these points because this industry is an important part of Canada’s economic and social fabric and we have played and want to continue to play a role both in both supporting Canadian prosperity and helping Canada and the world achieve their environmental objectives.
An important way we will play that role is through innovation. One of your other speakers talked about technologies being available, but many still need to be developed. According to a 2018 study by Global Advantage Consulting Group conducted for the Clean Resource Innovation Network, or CRIN, about 75% of all clean technology investment in Canada comes from the natural gas and oil industry.
Not only will our leadership in innovation help to reduce emissions here at home but through technology sharing and export, Canada can help reduce global emissions around the world. An example of this is carbon capture utilization and storage. The Weyburn-Midale project in Saskatchewan is one of the world's largest and longest running. We hope to see more of these projects.
Our emerging liquefied natural gas industry in British Columbia also has a role to play in reducing global emissions and in generating internationally traded mitigation outcomes or carbon credits for Canada under the Paris Agreement.
China alone is adding one new large coal-fired power plant to its grid every two weeks. Coal-fired generation is also continuing to grow in India and southeast Asia, all with a focus on improving living standards for their citizens. If these facilities ran on Canadian natural gas, they would generate significantly lower air pollutants and significantly lower GHG emissions, as Ontario experienced when we switched power sources.
We cannot afford, either environmentally or economically, to take a narrow view of what climate change mitigation can look like in Canada. Bill should articulate the role that economic sectors and other stakeholders will play in the development of plans and in achieving targets. It should ensure that expertise in the technologies and opportunities available to different sectors and regions are brought to bear on Canada’s advisory panel and overall decision process.
We recommend a greater role for the Governor in Council, and in particular the , in the development of targets, plans and supportive policies under the act, especially given their potential effects on the whole of Canada’s economy and society. We don't think it is appropriate for all of that to rest with one minister.
By working together, industry and government can accelerate innovation and develop technologies that reduce emissions while delivering responsibly produced energy to meet global energy demand. We hope our recommendations to the committee can support Canada in this process.
Thank you.
National legislative approaches to climate policy have become imperative to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. Not only do they have the potential to reflect authoritative and transparent state commitments, but they may also significantly facilitate and accelerate economy-wide decarbonization by providing predictable cross-sectoral regulatory and investment environments.
Canada's climate legislation will not exist in a vacuum. It will form part of an emerging global network of national climate laws, all of which are driven by the common global legal objective to tackle anthropogenic climate change. While no two national climate laws are the same, their frameworks draw on some common key requirements, obligations and procedures.
Our submission to the committee draws on international examples in the area of national climate legislation to inform substantive and procedural amendments to Bill , which would give this draft legislation the specificity, concreteness, transparency and accountability standards necessary to effectively map, monitor and reduce Canada's emissions.
While Bill in its current form embodies all core elements common to most climate laws, it falls behind international best practice in several respects. We understand that the government's intention is to require science-based targets, but we are concerned that as currently drafted, Bill C-12 leaves open the door to sidestep IPCC science and recommendations. In establishing targets and crafting mandatory climate plans, an independent scientific body is mandated to play an advisory role. However, under the current provisions, this body's composition, resources, capacity and functions remain loosely described.
A robust Canadian climate law could trigger the rapid collective transformation that is needed within the public and private sectors to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change, strengthen adaptation efforts, and enhance resilience across the country. Climate legislation should foster greater public transparency, ensure government accountability, and provide a clear, quantifiable and practical vision of how Canada intends to reduce economy-wide GHG emissions.
A robust legal framework for climate change can guarantee a leading role for independent science in determining Canada's climate ambition and ensure that this ambition never regresses. It can also ensure that Canada's plans of action to achieve periodical emissions reductions targets on the path to net zero do not deviate from the latest scientific recommendations of the IPCC.
Some climate laws go so far as to call for the explicit alignment between federal budget policy and climate policy, assign emissions reduction obligations for certain sectors to specific ministries, and even mandate the government to produce a global climate strategy related to imported goods, bilateral co-operation, and international climate finance. In the best cases, climate laws mandate independent scientific bodies to play a strong role in advising and monitoring government actions on climate change, and oblige the government to respond publicly to their advice, recommendations and reports. These mechanisms ensure that climate policy-making is not led by electoral cycles, but by the long-term objective of net-zero emissions by 2050.
We have before us today an opportunity to ensure the passing of robust climate legislation, which would propel us securely and collectively into the era of economy-wide decarbonization. It is essential that our climate legislation bind the relationships between climate science, government actions, and public engagement if it is to make a meaningful contribution to achieving net zero by 2050, and the end-of-century objective of the Paris Agreement.
In order for Bill to become a catalyzing force for change, target setting, plan rollouts, reporting obligations, monitoring procedures and the accountability framework must be significantly strengthened.
The issue of offsets should also be clearly addressed. In this respect, the David Suzuki Foundation supports the amendments recommended by Ecojustice and West Coast Environmental Law to the committee on Monday, which would help bring Bill up to the international standard of the Paris Agreement, in terms of accounting for anthropogenic emissions and removals in a manner that promotes environmental integrity, transparency, accuracy, completeness, comparability and consistency.
I strongly encourage members to work to strengthen the bill in line with international best practice, and to approve it.
Thank you.
I'd like to thank the members of the committee for having invited me to testify.
The adoption of a climate act is urgent and necessary, and we welcome the tabling of this bill. However, if the act is to have the means to achieve its ambitions, we believe that the bill must be improved. The bill would provide a much-needed roadmap. We propose the addition of a compass and the necessary landmarks so that we can arrive at our destination without getting lost along the way.
Here, then, are our five main recommendations.
Firstly, we believe that it is essential not to make the advisory body multipartite, but rather an independent body with the required expertise, something that is not guaranteed by the current provisions. As Quebec has just done with its advisory committee on climate change, we must draw inspiration from international best practices that have proven their worth.
We therefore propose that the selection process be independent. Members could be recommended by a diverse selection committee that would include indigenous representatives appointed by the Governor in Council. These members need to be independent, meaning that they ought not to have any relations or interests that could be harmful to the achievement of the committee's mission, as is already the case in Quebec.
We strongly recommend that scientists make up the majority on the advisory body, as is the case in France, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Quebec, among other jurisdictions. We propose that its terms of reference be clarified and broadened, and that they not be subject to the discretion of the Minister of the Environment, as is currently the case. For example, the body should be consulted on major issues such as setting interim targets.
To ensure that science guides our actions on climate issues, we suggest that the body be empowered to issue advice to all government entities. Such advice should be made public, and the body's annual report should be presented to Parliament, not the minister.
To improve subclause 22 (2), which is already a step in the right direction, we propose that the Minister of the Environment and any other minister who decides to disregard scientific advice from the advisory body be obliged to justify this decision, as is currently the case in the United Kingdom. Because the issues are so important and changing at such a rapid pace, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development should report every two years rather than every five.
To support the government in this admittedly complicated task, we propose the compulsory use of a climate analysis grid to be developed by the advisory body. This grid would help analyze government and administrative decisions on the basis of their impact on climate and on their achievement of targets to ensure that the actions of the entire state apparatus remain coherent.
In addition to a strong advisory body, the bill must also provide for interim targets and five-year federal carbon budgets. The bill mentions that one of the objectives is to ensure compliance with Canada's international commitments. This means that the act should refer directly to the Paris Agreement's flagship standards by setting normative benchmarks for GHG emission reductions and providing for means-based obligations, in addition to a milestone target as early as 2025 rather than 2020, as provided for in the Paris Agreement and on the basis of the best available scientific data. Furthermore, the act should include a performance obligation to ensure compliance with targets. Quite simply, we can no longer afford to miss the targets we set for ourselves because we have some catching up to do.
We felt reassured earlier this week to hear that there was a desire to strengthen accountability in the bill, and we hope that this will be reflected in the amendments.
Last but not least comes public participation. The bill falls short of Canada's international obligations concerning rights related to participation in public affairs and access to information, which must amount to more than an opportunity for the public to comment. In addition to making it obligatory to consult the provinces, as is the case in other legislation, we would like to see the act provide mechanisms for public engagement, awareness, training, and education. If we are to withstand the climate crisis, everybody must rally to the cause.
The Minister of Environment and Climate Change said this week that saving the planet shouldn't be political, and that it was rather a matter of believing or not believing in science. The goal of our proposals is to make science central to the bill while ensuring that the necessary guidelines are in place to fully address the crisis. It is in everyone's interest, and we are counting on both chambers to do what is required. We are submitting proposed amendments to you in the appendix to our brief and remain available to provide the legislator with guidance and support so that we can respond as required to the greatest threat currently facing humanity.
Thank you for your attention.
:
I'm from the Transition Accelerator, which is a national non-profit organization focused on building transition pathways in regions and sectors across Canada.
We issued a recent report called “Pathways to net zero: a decision support tool”, which we will send to the committee. I would urge you to look at. It goes into quite a lot of detail about concrete steps in various sectors to move toward net zero.
I'm going to talk about a few of the high-level findings of this report. I'm not proposing particular amendments to this piece of legislation; I'm sure members have a whole series of propositions before you. Really, my comments are focused more on the background and on how we should understand net zero.
The first thing I want to say is that net zero, from our point of view, changes everything. Once it is formally adopted as a goal, it changes the way the climate problem is framed. Net zero means balancing any residual emissions with removals, and since most of the negative emissions technologies are highly uncertain as to their outcome, permanence and cost, what that really means is driving down emissions towards actual zero in all sectors of the economy.
Why does it change everything? Essentially it's because it means that the climate issue is no longer about reducing emissions by a certain percentage before a certain point, but simply about stopping producing greenhouse gases; that's to say, absolutely squeezing them out of the economy.
For years our argument has been about how we find low-cost emissions to get to x percent. Forget that. What we need are new systems that simply don't emit greenhouse gases. The only way to get rid of these GHGs is for the large social systems of provisioning—transport, the way we move goods, the way we move people, the way the agri-food system works—have to go towards net zero. This means large-scale changes to those systems. Those systems, however, are already changing in response to all sorts of disruptive currents. Think about autonomous cars, which are pushing the boundaries of what transport systems will look like.
The task, then, is not to get rid of some emissions from the ways we're doing things now, but to engineer new systems that will be better in many respects and also be low carbon. This means the electricity system, the way we build buildings, transport and agri-food have to go through major changes.
One implication of thinking about it this way is that the focus should be on sectors and regions. Why? It's because the problems in agri-food are not the same as those with buildings or transport, and one policy instrument cannot drive these changes. There are different obstacles and different enabling factors. The same is true when we think about Canada's regional identity and differing regional political economies. Pathways will thus be regional and sectoral.
We also need to think about what the system will look like when we get to net zero and planning function of that. This will allow us to avoid some dead-end pathways.
An example I'll give you is blending ethanol with gasoline, which Canada has proudly been doing for more than a decade and which is not advancing us toward net zero, even though it may secure some incremental reductions, because the world is headed toward an electrified personal vehicle transport system. Industry has already opted that way, and there's not enough land anyway to create biofuels everywhere.
What we need is an analysis that looks at what these pathways to net zero are at the system level, not at sets of policies that encourage incremental emissions where they look fanciful, or where they look promising, if you like, because we will waste enormous amounts of investment building infrastructure that turns out to be useless a decade later because it isn't actually on a pathway to zero.
The last thing I would say is that t's great that Canada is moving toward a net-zero understanding of the climate problem, but what we really need is a strategic vision now about what the pathways are to get us there.
For a long time, the tendency has been to do a little bit of everything, to finance this and finance that. There are a few big things that make a difference, and we should be putting as much investment into these as possible: electrifying personal transport, decarbonizing buildings and driving the remaining carbon out of the electricity system. These things are big. We have the technologies. We know how to do them now.
Many other things like aircraft emissions are important and will have to be done, but they are not the priority now. There we need R and D, and we need experiments to identify solutions that can be rolled out at scale.
Thank you.
:
Yes, you are correct, Mr. Chair, and thank you.
Thank you, panellists.
I don't know about you, Mr. Chair, but I have yet to hear a panellist who says they like this bill. It seems to be across the board. I guess maybe the minister liked the bill. Outside of that, it seems that everybody is pointing out what appear to be flaws with the bill.
That said, I want to address most of my questions to CAPP.
Ms. Joseph, thanks for your presentation. In your remarks you mentioned the lack of economic targets and lack of accountability. I'm hoping you can expand on some of that. The question for you is, would you then agree that there needs to be a tracking system for those economic targets?
:
Thanks very much for the question.
Yes. When we first saw this bill, one of the things we thought was where the economic aspect of this was, because we know that the environment and the economy need to go together. They need to be thought of together.
We put forward amendments that were really about integrating those goals, looking at an economic target that goes alongside of what we're trying to achieve with net zero. Specifically, we think that if the goal is to create new jobs, etc., we should be measuring whether those jobs are being created. How does that look regionally and nationally? Are we attracting investment? How is that looking regionally and nationally? Is our real GDP increasing? How is that looking regionally and nationally? We ask these questions because, ultimately, a healthy economy and investments are going to be needed by industries, not just ours but manufacturing and others, to do the type of innovation that's needed.
If the government is only measuring its performance based on emissions reductions and not looking at this other side of the equation, it's potentially going to pursue solutions that are inefficient and cause unintended problems. If you look at them both together, you're going to find optimal solutions, especially when you put on that regional lens. We think having that built into the legislation in terms of the targets and reporting is critical.
:
The issue is just a lack of consideration. There is nothing in the bill that requires the federal government, in its planning process, to explicitly take into account the measures that provincial and territorial governments are taking, and how their measures interact with federal measures.
We think that is very important. Our companies operate in multiple jurisdictions across the country. When we look at our experience with a policy like methane regulation, we're happy today that we have, in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, equivalency agreements with the federal government. Before we had those agreements, we were very concerned about double management of the same molecules of CO2 and how that was going to work—the costs it would impose and what that would mean for our ability to operate, innovate, to employ people.
There are consequences from operating without consideration of these policies. The more the bill reflects the fact that those other policies being implemented provincially must be considered by the federal government, I think the more we can avoid double policies and inefficiency.
:
I think it would be unfortunate if the panel does not include the expertise of the people who know how to do things.
As for some of the comments made earlier by other panellists about cement-making, steel-making, oil and gas and mining, all of these industries have very specific expertise and are highly technological. You can't just have a committee of climate scientists deciding what the pathway to net zero is; you need all of these other experts.
I'll speak about the business sector experts. I agree that there need to be other types who can speak about the best technologies right now, the opportunities available regionally based on energy mixes available, how to pursue those to reach our emission reduction goals and do that in a way that still preserves companies' ability to be healthy and continue to operate.
We think that is critically important. We think what would help is ensuring that there is a role for cabinet in deciding the terms of reference of this group, who sits there, and also defining in the act the role that those sectors will play, especially when there are sector-related plans established under this legislation.
Thank you to all of the witnesses.
[Translation]
I'd like to ask everyone some questions, but unfortunately, I won't have enough time. I hope the witnesses will understand.
[English]
Mr. Jeneroux, on multiple occasions today, has suggested that nobody likes this bill. On my part, I kind of see this process as the process that legislation should go through, which is one where the government puts forward a proposal, and then people provide their input to make it better.
That's not how I read the room, but I want to recanvass the room, because I want to make sure that I understand where you're all at. I won't be able to ask all of you because it will take too long.
Mr. Fauteux, are you opposed to this bill's passing?
:
Thank you for your question, Mr. Baker.
We are categorically not against the adoption of this bill, and we agree entirely with Mr. Fauteux.
As we pointed out, this bill is essential. We have to develop a legislative framework in response to the climate emergency, but if we are going to legislate, we might as well do it right. It's clearly our job to make proposals.
As Mr. Fauteux said, there are some key, and very clear, amendments, based on proven best practices. This process is therefore useful. We may be lagging behind, but we can learn from what other governments are doing, after they have tested these mechanisms and proposed amendments. The federal government is perfectly capable of including these amendments in the current bill.
I agree with you that it's urgent to take action, and especially urgent to pass a good act that will get us back on track.
:
It's my turn to thank all our witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Meadowcroft pointed out that all kinds of ideas have been suggested for potential amendments.
My first question is for you, Mr. Fauteux. This is the second time you've appeared before the committee. In your opening address, you discussed what is happening with climate legislation elsewhere in the world. Then, in response to Mr. Baker, you spoke about Great Britain.
Could you tell us about what has happened in other countries?
It's not necessary to name them, because I have other questions for you.
I spoke briefly about Great Britain. I'll now say a few words about Germany, which has been in the news recently. It had a climate law for a number of years, and it included a specific target, as I was recommending with respect to Bill C-12. The law was struck down by the German Constitutional Court because it did not go far enough and only provided for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to the year 2030. Now 2030 is only nine years away. On the geological scale, it's the day after tomorrow.
I fully agree with what Ms. Paul said with respect to human rights. The German law was struck down because of human rights. It placed a disproportionate burden on future generations. In other words, as Professor Meadowcroft was saying, everything needs to be changed. Achieving carbon neutrality by mid-century requires a radical transformation. An enormous effort is therefore going to be required to get there, and the effort needs to be equitably distributed over several generations. Thus we can't say that we're going to do only a little to deal with the situation and leave the task of coping with the problem to our children, our grandchildren, and their children.
That's why the law was struck down, and a new law was just adopted by the German cabinet, which will be ratified by its parliament next month. Germany is therefore making significant advances.
:
Thank you for your question, Ms. Pauzé.
It is indeed essential to specify in the bill the terms of reference of the advisory body, as well as the selection criteria and the required expertise. There have been proposals about this, for example in an amendment to subclause 21(2), which is based on other climate laws in force around the world.
It's important to avoid making the advisory body's terms of reference dependent on the discretionary authority of the minister, and in particular, to steer clear of the pitfalls of a multipartite body. Based on what I've heard, that's something I find worrisome, and here's why.
We all clearly agree that climate change affects everyone. It's partly for this reason that the CQDE, the Québec Environmental Law Centre, also came up with amendments to strengthen public participation, including all the stakeholders. It's important to hear everyone's voice, including industry players, because if we want to reach our goal, we have to move forward together. There are ways of doing so. For example, a variety of forums could be used to increase participation by the public and stakeholders when the act is implemented.
However, it's important not to turn the advisory body into a group of several stakeholders if we are to avoid the underlying pitfalls of that approach. It's absolutely essential for science to guide our decisions. We need to face up to this emergency now because we didn't listen closely enough to what the scientists were saying before. One of the keys to success will be the fact that we could analyze laws adopted as long as10 years ago, and more recently.
It's therefore critical that the act should specify the need for the advisory body to be independent and that most of its members be from the scientific community. Expertise should also be multidisciplinary.
:
Thank you, Mr. Bachrach, for this excellent question. Yes, I think we can build on some of the best practices that we have been looking at in other jurisdictions.
I would say there are two—perhaps more, but at least two—main criteria we can look at and should include in the legislation. The first one is the criterion of independence. How do we define that? I alluded to that in our introductory remarks. One way to do it is to make sure that the person holding the mandate does not have any interests that could affect his or her ability to fulfill the mandate. When we start looking at that, it reduces the number of possible candidates quite quickly, to be frank, but then we come down to really making sure the person would be independent and would make recommendations addressed to all political parties with a view to putting science first.
We made a recommendation for a suggested amendment with regard to the second criterion. It's based on what we've seen in other jurisdictions. We list some of the disciplines that should be part of the committee. Of course, the first one that comes to mind is climate change science. We have also seen that it's quite interesting to make sure that we have people who are able to assess the different impacts, in terms of vulnerable populations and regions, that climate change has and will continue to have. There's also public policy, for instance, and social science as well, but mostly, of course, it's with climate science in mind.
I hope that answers your question.
:
Thank you for that very important question. It calls for a brutally frank answer.
Ms. Joseph spoke of the importance of the Canadian oil and gas and coal industry—coal less so, but oil and gas more so. That's the reason. Canada is a petro state. Canada exports fossil fuels. Fossil fuels generate an enormous amount of economic activity.
As a result, Canada's climate policy has had, in effect, in reality, as a main objective, the protection of Canada's oil and gas industry. It has not been truly designed to protect the climate. The proof of that is that after all of these years of climate policy, emissions keep going up. Emissions from oil and gas in particular keep going up.
We talk about carbon capture and storage. We have a wonderful demonstration project in Weyburn, Saskatchewan. It is a world leader in this technology. As the professor who spoke earlier said—I'm sorry, but his name escapes me—this technology is completely unreliable in effectively sequestering carbon at an acceptable cost, at scale, in order to meet the needs of the climate emergency. The professor was quite right. We need radical change.
That in a nutshell is why Canadian climate policy has failed. Its real objective was not to protect the climate, but to protect the oil and gas industry.
:
Thank you, Chair, and again thank you to the witnesses for the really important dialogue that we're having. I'm going to make an observation and then I'll ask my question.
Mr. Baker, from the government side, talked about the importance of this process to make legislation better. There's been significant discussion about what the panel should look like. In this regard, I do want to note that the government did not wait to listen to our important reflections on what this panel should look like, and has already appointed it. That, of course, has diminished our opportunities to influence it, despite some of the good dialogue we have had on that.
We just had a comment made about our oil and gas sector. I'm going to use an example first and then I'll perhaps go to Ms. Joseph. The government has banned six plastics without doing any sort of analysis of the impact. You ask them what companies in Canada produce plastics, what's the impact going to be, do we import them, where do we get our straws from, and the government hasn't done any analysis of that. I think many of us agree it's important, but the analysis of the impact is also important.
Ms. Joseph talked about an economic analysis. I've heard many witnesses say that as we make this transition we're going to have lots of jobs—albeit just different ones. I don't know what the fear would be about having an economic analysis done that looks at that as part of this particular piece of legislation. We've talked about other sort of benchmarks.
I would open it up for you to perhaps comment on some of the things that have been said on oil and gas, but also on the importance of an economic analysis. If this transition creates more jobs, we should be transparent about it.
Could you go ahead, please.
First, I would say that it's absolutely critical for us to have an economic lens on the way we pursue net zero and what it changes for the affordability in all aspects of the economy. You don't hear that spoken about in the IEA's report and we haven't heard that from some of the other witnesses, but it is important for people, it's important for businesses, and it needs to be part of how we assess the pathways that we are on.
In terms of the contribution of the oil and gas industry to emissions, our emissions intensity has gone down by 21% and our operational changes can bring it down further. Part of the challenge is the demand for energy here and around the world. The cars that are driven, the planes that are flown, the factories that need our energy, the population that goes up, all of that increases the total demand. Whether that demand is met by Canada or Saudi Arabia makes a difference because of how we produce our energy and the commitments that our companies have to how they produce that energy. I think it's disingenuous to blame our failure to meet certain targets on just one sector.
I want to thank all of our witnesses. This has been a very fulsome conversation, and I'm learning a lot, which I appreciate.
I'd like to start with Dr. Khan, if I may.
Ms. Paul talked earlier in detail about the legislative issues that we're looking at in terms of amendments.
What's missing for me in this discussion right now is the importance of consulting indigenous Canadians and taking indigenous knowledge into account in fighting climate change. We've talked a lot about the nuts and bolts of these pieces, but they are a key stakeholder in this conversation.
I'd like some insight from you, Dr. Khan.
I'm going to move to Ms. Paul, if I may.
We've heard quite a number of concerns about the advisory body being formed before Bill has passed, and I'm a bit confused about that.
There seems to be some hesitation by some sides to act, even on just forming an advisory body when we've already set the 2030 and 2050 targets. To me, it seems that Bill is codifying in law what we're already trying to do to ensure that the government makes changes and that a new government can't ignore the issue. It has been made very clear by all of you that this is pivotal legislation for this time.
It would make sense to me that we'd establish formal requirements in the advisory body, like reporting requirements in Bill . Isn't it reasonable that we should be formalizing a body into the law now, even if amendments to it might be needed?
I'm going to shift gears a little bit, if I may, because all of this legislation is happening because change is hard. Fundamentally, we know as humanity and as Canadians that we are creatures of habit. We know that reaching net zero will require a tremendous amount of change and effort from industry, as guided by science and also really with a nod to what we produce, how we consume it, how we use it and how we dispose of it.
I would like to switch to Professor Meadowcroft.
We haven't had a chance to hear from you. Where do you see Canada making strides to achieve net zero in terms of where we should be focusing our efforts to essentially get the best bang for our buck?
:
Thank you, that's very interesting.
Ms. Khan, several organizations, including yours, are in favour of Bill , on condition that some amendments are made.
You say that it's important to take a giant step. I always say that it's more of a leap, because it needs to be done quickly. We are in the middle of a climate emergency right now.
Canada appears to be saying that the reduction of GHG emissions should be in the 40% to 45% range.
Can you tell us what you feel would be the most important measure to add to Bill ?
:
Thank you for your question Ms. Pauzé.
Generally speaking, Bill , in its current form, has all the essentials.
The really important thing to make sure is that targets are science-based. As I mentioned previously, we agree with the other non-government organizations on a target of 60% by 2030.
Something very important that is not in Bill at the moment is that the target should be science-based. This is imperative because otherwise, there is no chance that within the next decade, we would take the action required to achieve our carbon-neutral objective within 25 years.
Someone mentioned earlier that there appeared to be a dichotomy between the economy and the environment. I believe that this is a false dichotomy. It's been shown that the climate perspective is now built into the federal budget. The budget also includes a climate analysis and a quality-of-life analysis.
I'd like to see us approach Bill in the same way.
:
That's an interesting question. Federalism is not only a challenge for Canada. Germany is a federation within the EU, which is also a complex challenge. This is a framework law, so we're not looking at prescribing policy; what it does is lay down a foundation, a process, so that the government can organize a transition—its inevitable transition toward decarbonization.
We have in Canada a model of co-operative federalism. We have Supreme Court judgments that have carefully laid out, through legal doctrines, that the pith and substance of legislation really determines its constitutionality. There are always incidental effects on different jurisdictions—it's inevitable—but we have a long history.
Back in 1887, the Privy Council ruled that the provincial tax on banks was in fact constitutional because it was not an attempt to regulate banks, but simply an effort to raise revenue for the provinces. I think we have to take into consideration that every national law is adopted within a certain legal culture. We have a strong legal culture of co-operative federalism in Canada that can ensure there is a spirit of co-operation.
During COVID, we saw a team Canada approach, and we saw federal discretionary transfers to the provinces, so we know that in fact the federal government and the provinces can co-operate very tightly when it comes to public health crises, and this is the public health crisis of our lifetimes.