Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 49
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
On a different subject, your government has often spoken about businesses needing to retool in the new economy, and workers needing to retrain, often in the context of oil and gas. I was shocked to hear from a company in the clean-tech sector that's facing the same problem. New regulations coming into effect shortly will require that emission controls be added to industrial engines prior to their arriving in Canada.
Safety Power in Mississauga adds emission controls after these engines arrive in Canada, and its products are world-leading and result in lower emissions than the regulations require, yet the new regulations will take away its ability to sell its products in Canada.
When you develop new regulations such as in this case, do you challenge your officials as to the possible economic consequences of their going into effect?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Of course we do. When you're moving forward to try to put regulatory mechanisms in place, you're thinking about how you would advance the environmental efficacy of these products. At the end of the day, what we're talking about here is enhancing the requirements on engine manufacturers with respect to the pollution that's produced through the engines.
What you're talking about is an after-market solution. Certainly, we are bringing ourselves into alignment in terms of reducing air pollution such as nitrous oxide. We're bringing ourselves into alignment with many countries around the world, including the United States, which is requiring engine manufacturers to become cleaner.
View Yvan Baker Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thanks very much, Chair. That's correct, I'll be sharing my time with Ms. Saks.
Minister, thank you very much for being here today to speak with the committee.
My constituents in Etobicoke Centre are understandably very concerned about the impact of climate change. They expect us, as a government, to do what's necessary to protect our planet. To do so, they expect the Government of Canada to ensure that we reduce our emissions in Canada and globally to the degree necessary to achieve that objective.
Our government has made substantial investments, including in budget 2021, towards a green recovery, to create middle-class jobs, build a clean economy, and fight and protect against climate change. Could you summarize for us what emission-reduction targets our government has committed to, and to what degree this would reduce our emissions? What legislative measures will we pass to ensure this government and future ones will live up to these commitments?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
As you know very well, climate change is both an existential threat to humanity and a massive economic opportunity for countries that move early and aggressively. When our government took office five years ago, Canada's emissions were going the wrong way. We were on track to be 12% higher in 2030 than emissions were in 2005. We developed Canada's first national climate plan in 2016, and brought forward a further-strengthened climate plan last December that provides a very detailed pathway for Canada to exceed its initial Paris Agreement target. That plan represented one of the most detailed climate plans that exists around the world, but we knew we needed to do more. Budget 2021 made significant additional investments in that regard.
In April, alongside the Prime Minister and with the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union and Japan, we announced that Canada would commit to reducing emissions to 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, which is an increase of up to 50% from Canada's previous target. To keep all future governments accountable, we are also moving forward with a net-zero accountability act to enhance accountability and introduce five-year binding targets.
The bottom line is that these targets are not just ensuring a healthier environment. It's a plan to build a cleaner and more competitive economy for generations to come.
Mark Winfield
View Mark Winfield Profile
Mark Winfield
2021-02-01 16:08
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My name is Mark Winfield. I'm a professor of environmental and urban change at York University. I also run the joint program on environmental studies and law that we offer in conjunction with Osgoode Hall Law School.
I want to thank the members for the opportunity to speak to the committee today about these important issues related to the administration and enforcement of CEPA. I have a long history of engagement with the act. I was very involved with the original CEPA review back in 1995, when the late Honourable Mr. Caccia was in the chair. The committee led the review that led to essentially the current version of the act. I have continued to follow this over the years, particularly with respect to the federal-provincial dimensions. Most recently, I was an adviser to the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development on their most recent audit of the act.
I will focus on the wider issues around the enforcement of CEPA and not so much on the specifics of the Volkswagen case. Others have spoken to that. I think we need to think of the Volkswagen case as a bit of an outlier in terms of the overall enforcement story around CEPA. I really want to focus on that narrative. This is a complicated story, and that reflects the scope of the act.
In approaching this, I had a look back at the report that was done through the commissioner's office and the annual reports under CEPA. A number of things come out very strongly in this. One is that there's really a number of regulations under CEPA, but the enforcement activities on the part of the department seem to be relatively focused on a fairly short list of those regulations: PCBs; the import and export of hazardous waste; and in 2017-18 a lot on the environmental emergencies and also on petroleum storage tank regulations that apply on only federal lands and federal jurisdiction.
The implication of this that is you have a wide range of regulations. Some are very significant from an environment and health perspective, around which there seems to be very little enforcement activity in terms of inspections and warnings. We have already heard about the relative rarity of actual prosecutions. Thinking about pulp and paper regulations, new substances regulations, rules around the national pollutant release inventory, and ocean disposal, an area where the federal government is the primary regulator, we're seeing relatively little activity.
The other area I want to highlight to the committee members is a perpetual one: The enforcement of certain regulations falls under administrative or equivalency agreements with some provinces, and from an information perspective, that situation is fairly opaque. We get very little meaningful information about what's happening under those agreements at the provincial level. I also note that we do have a new wave of these agreements emerging, particularly around climate change measures related to coal-fired electricity and methane.
Thank you.
View Yvan Baker Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much.
I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Sharpe, prior to being elected federally, I was a member of the provincial legislature in Ontario and I did a lot of work on consumer protection issues. One of the things I learned about consumer protection is that if you want to prevent violations of the Consumer Protection Act—things like people who are duping consumers or selling things door to door, which is now illegal in Ontario—there are two factors that someone who's about to breach the law considers. One is what's the likelihood of getting caught. Number two is what the penalty is if one does get caught.
If we're thinking about those two categories and about CEPA, do you have any thoughts or advice in those two categories? Are there things within CEPA that could be improved to increase the likelihood that violators are caught? Is there anything you would suggest needs to be done in terms of making sure that we strengthen the penalties for those who are?
Ben Sharpe
View Ben Sharpe Profile
Ben Sharpe
2020-12-09 16:24
It's an excellent question and absolutely something that we have continually made a tenet of our work at the ICCT. It's not good enough just to have strong regulations on the books. You have to have effective compliance, enforcement and penalties, so that these companies don't just see fines as the cost of doing business. It has to be a meaningful deterrent for ceasing that behaviour.
In terms of the specific actions that Canada can take, I think one is working with colleagues at the U.S. federal level to strengthen the in-use testing requirements for vehicles. As I mentioned previously, we've offered up several concrete ways in which remote sensing can be mobilized to start collecting lots of data about how vehicles are actually performing in the field and to actually pinpoint and find defeat devices or models that have defeat devices very cost-effectively. We're really excited to have governments start to use that method.
Absolutely, penalties have to be stringent. There has to be a commitment on behalf of the government to pursue those penalties, particularly in cases like these where the actions were just unprecedented and over several years.
View Yvan Baker Profile
Lib. (ON)
That's helpful, Mr. Sharpe. I will just follow up on that. I would like to step back and look at not just this case, but in general. CEPA covers a range of harmful and toxic substances. You talked about in-use testing of vehicles, but CEPA covers a whole range of things. We regulate dry cleaning, for example.
In terms of that “likelihood of getting caught” category that I talked about, and stepping back in general, is there something more we should be doing to increase the likelihood that people who violate CEPA get caught, regardless of the sector?
Ben Sharpe
View Ben Sharpe Profile
Ben Sharpe
2020-12-09 16:26
Yes, absolutely. I can say with confidence that, at a very high level, compliance and enforcement should be the bedrock of any regulatory program, whether it's vehicles, dry cleaning as you mentioned, or water quality. Across the board, it's not enough to have that strong regulation in place. Governments have to be verifying that manufacturers and companies are doing what we expect them to do. Our mantra has been “trust, but verify”.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
Even when exploring avenues to better understand motivations, deep down, we can't know. As you say, the Crown prosecutor would know.
I have another question, this time for Mr. Malas.
We talked about what happened in the United States. There were fines. There is a reparations aspect that I discussed earlier with Mr. Sharpe. An engineer was sentenced to 40 months in prison. Clearly, standards are not harmonized with those in the United States. Yet pollution has no borders.
Isn't there a way to harmonize standards for this sector?
Muhannad Malas
View Muhannad Malas Profile
Muhannad Malas
2020-12-09 16:30
I'm not sure I am prepared to answer that question in terms of harmonization within that specific sector, assuming that's the auto sector, considering that is not my area of expertise. If there's something else that I can answer with respect to this issue, I am happy to do that.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
I wanted to see if what applies in the U.S. could apply here. I was talking about the automotive sector.
Daniel Breton
View Daniel Breton Profile
Daniel Breton
2020-11-25 15:40
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you for the opportunity to address your committee as part of your study on zero-emission vehicles in Canada.
Founded in 2006, Electric Mobility Canada is one of the very first organizations in the world dedicated to electric mobility. We are a national non-profit organization and are considered the Canadian experts in electric mobility.
EMC has more than 220 member organizations, including utilities, vehicle manufacturers, infrastructure providers, tech companies, research centres, cities, universities, fleet managers, etc.
We work on electric mobility from bikes to cars, from buses to boats, from trucks to trains, from mining to research to assembly to infrastructure to recycling and in all parts of Canada.
I personally have been working on electric mobility for almost 20 years and have written many books on the subject. At home, we drive electric cars, and by the way, we live in a rural area.
EMC supports incentives for the purchase of light and heavy-duty electric vehicles from buses to school buses to trucks, incentives for the purchase of used EVs and PHEVs, financial support for the purchase and installation of charging infrastructure, a federal ZEV standard, innovation programs related to the EV industry, education for consumers, the electrification of government fleets, and training and retraining programs for workers across Canada.
In the first half of 2020, ZEV sales were at 3.5% of all light-duty vehicle sales in Canada.
Unless a ZEV standard is adopted, Canada won't be able to meet its EV adoption targets. It still is very hard to find an EV, since only 33% of dealers in Canada have at least one EV in stock. Outside of Quebec, B.C., and Ontario, fewer than 20% of dealerships have at least one EV on their lot, so even though dealers want to sell EVs, they don't have enough supply to meet consumer demand.
According to a 2019 report by Clean Energy Canada, 560,000 clean technology jobs are expected to be created in Canada by 2030, with 50% of them in the clean transportation sector.
Between 2021 and 2030, if Canada follows the examples of California, B.C., Quebec and other jurisdictions around the world and adopts a ZEV standard, expected sales revenues, according to our calculations, are projected to exceed $190 billion.
Canada's goal is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gas, or GHGs, by at least 30% of 2005 levels by 2030. Between 2005 and 2018, GHG emissions from cars and light trucks rose 9%. GHG emissions from the transportation sector may soon be the number one source of GHG emissions in Canada, ahead of the oil and gas sectors.
According to the International Energy Agency, Canada is the number one country in the world for GHG emissions per kilometer driven by its light duty vehicle fleet, ahead of the United States' light vehicle fleet.
Over that same period, GHG emissions from the electricity sector have decreased by 46%, making Canada's electrical system one of the cleanest in the world, with 82% of electricity in Canada coming from non-GHG-emitting sources.
According to the National Research Council of Canada, light and heavy electric vehicles are cleaner than gas and diesel vehicles across Canada. By 2025, new battery technologies will drive battery prices down more than 50% while range will increase by more than 50%.
Air pollution in Canada has caused 14,600 deaths, which is 7.5 times the death toll of motor vehicle accidents.
In 2017, transport was responsible for the majority of total nitrogen oxide emissions and carbon monoxide emissions in Canada.
According to the 2019 Health Canada report, the total annual economic value associated with air pollution is $114 billion.
In conclusion, EVs, from light to heavy-duty, can help Canada meet its goals on climate change, lower air pollution and help Canadian citizens' health as well.
Thank you.
David Adams
View David Adams Profile
David Adams
2020-11-25 16:03
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and honourable members, for the opportunity to appear in front of you today.
I apologize for the technical difficulties getting connected to the meeting, but I do appreciate the opportunity to be here.
I want to start off by saying that Global Automakers of Canada represents 15 international automakers and their Canadian operations in the country here, which represent 20-odd models.
Our affiliates and their members employ more than 77,000 Canadians in vehicle manufacturing, sales, distribution, parts, service, finance and head office operations. In 2019, the member companies with the GAC sold 1,146,000 vehicles, which represent about 60% of the auto market and over 60% of Canada's 3,300 new vehicle dealerships.
Our members are committed to the decarbonization of the products they are producing. However, it is clear the goal of decarbonization of the light-duty transportation sector cannot be achieved by focusing on new vehicle sales alone, which represent approximately 8% of all vehicles on the road. It is also clear that we will not achieve our GHG reduction goals for the overall light-duty fleet by focusing on driving the update of ZEV technology alone, as opposed to focusing on the real goal, which is GHG emission reductions in the transportation sector.
Currently in Canada there are about 168,000 zero-emission vehicles on the road out of a total light-duty vehicle population of approximately 23.5 million vehicles. This equates to ZEVs comprising less than 1% of all light-duty vehicles currently on the road.
That said, as others who have appeared before you have noted, hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested in zero-emission vehicle technology globally by automakers. While COVID-19 has in some cases delayed the introduction of models, it has by no means deterred automakers from the pursuit of the development and introduction of ZEVs. In fact, and importantly, I think, for those who have suggested that there are supply issues, GAC members alone will have more than 125 BEV and ZEV models brought to the market between 2021 and 2025.
In this regard, it's important to understand and underscore that the only real difference between the perspectives of governments, ENGOs and the automotive industry with respect to zero-emission vehicles is the issue of timing. We share the same goal.
The automotive industry is going through an unprecedented transition, the likes of which it has not experienced for more than 100 in its more than 100-year history. That transition is moving quickly, but it will time. It takes three to five years to bring a new vehicle model to market and roughly $1 billion to $2 billion. Auto companies must continue to earn profits on their current vehicle mixes to support the development of these vehicles.
Additionally, new suppliers and supply chain partners must be developed and cultivated to secure long-term contracts for batteries and other components that are completely new for the production of ZEVS.
As noted, the industry is changing, but it does take time, and the change is also responsive to demand and supply and will likely lag demand for the immediate further. However, we must underscore in no uncertain terms that short-term regulatory intervention in the form of ZEV mandates is out of step with the medium and longer-term time horizon of this industry transition.
We have a series of recommendations in our submission, but I think it's more important to hear questions from committee members.
View Raj Saini Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'll take his 10 seconds.
Thank you, Chair; and thank you, everyone, for coming today.
Mr. Breton, I want to follow up with you, because it seems that Mr. Adams has a different opinion on ZEV mandates, and your organization has a different opinion on ZEV mandates.
Whatever reading I've done, the jurisdictions that have ZEV mandates tend to have more sales, and where the cars are made or deployed, the uptake is higher in that jurisdiction. We see China with mandates, and that's why the investment there has been growing, companies are going there because they know that they will have a market. If you look at the European Union, they're thinking of having mandates; they're voluntary right now, but they're thinking of going in a more concerted direction.
We heard Mr. Adams' opinion. I just want to hear why you think ZEV mandates work.
Results: 1 - 15 of 49 | Page: 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data