Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue No. 9 - Evidence - May 19, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 19, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 8:01 a.m. to study the effects of transitioning to a low carbon economy.
Senator Richard Neufeld (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
My name is Richard Neufeld. I represent the province of British Columbia in the Senate and I am chair of this committee.
I would like to welcome honourable senators, any members of the public with us in the room and viewers across the country who are watching on television. As a reminder to those watching, these committee hearings are open to the public and also available on the sen.parl.gc.ca website. You may also find more information on the schedule of witnesses on the website under "Senate Committees.''
I would now ask senators around the table to introduce themselves. I will begin by introducing the deputy chair, Senator Paul Massicotte, from Quebec.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler, New Brunswick.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson from Nunavut.
The Chair: I would also like to introduce our staff beginning with our clerk, Marcy Zlotnick, and our two Library of Parliament analysts, Sam Banks and Marc LeBlanc.
Today marks our eleventh meeting for our study on the effects of transitioning to a low-carbon economy as required to meet the Government of Canada's announced targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions. Today we turn our attention to the transport sector, and we are pleased to welcome, from Transport Canada, Ellen Burack, Director General, Environmental Policy; and Jim Lothrop, Director General, Sustainable Transportation Stewardship. Thank you for joining us. We look forward to your presentation and then we'll go to some questions and answers. The floor is yours.
Ellen Burack, Director General, Environmental Policy, Transport Canada: Good morning. Thank you for inviting Transport Canada to discuss the opportunities and challenges presented by the transition to low-carbon transportation.
The transportation system plays a vital role in the lives of Canadians and in the Canadian economy. It links people to jobs, delivers products to consumers and connects regions and communities to each other and to international markets.
In 2014, Canada's transportation system moved over $1 trillion worth of goods to international markets and employed 896,000 Canadians. That's 5 per cent of total employment in Canada.
In the same year, the system moved 2 billion urban transit passengers, 3.8 million commuter rail passengers and 124.5 million air passengers. Transportation also contributes 23 per cent of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. Given the close relationship between economic growth and transportation demand, the challenge continues to be improving fuel efficiency at a faster rate than the growth in demand.
Our efforts are helping to move things in the right direction. Although overall transport-related emissions grew considerably — by 30 per cent — between 1990 and 2005, between 2005 and 2013 this growth slowed to only 1 per cent. We expect to see these emissions beginning to decline by 2030, and this is largely thanks to passenger vehicle improvements driven by Canada's light-duty vehicle emission regulations developed and implemented by Environment and Climate Change Canada.
As you know, transportation and the environment are both areas of shared federal-provincial-territorial jurisdiction. The role of the provinces and territories in the transition to low-carbon transportation cannot be understated. Transport Canada's role is to support a safe, secure, efficient and environmentally responsible transportation system. But even within the federal family, we do not work alone. Natural Resources Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada are responsible for different pieces of the transportation and environment puzzle, as you've heard from previous witnesses.
Transport Canada uses a number of tools in support of its own mandate: international cooperation and related regulation; domestic regulation; transfer payment programs, such as grants and contributions; research and development; and partnerships with industry.
Transport Canada works closely with the International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO, and the International Maritime Organization, or IMO, both United Nations-specialized agencies to advance international initiatives for marine and aviation. Recently, Canada has been actively involved in the discussions to develop a market- based measure for international aviation in support of ICAO's aspirational goal of carbon-neutral growth from 2020. Transport Canada is also actively engaged with the United States under the Regulatory Cooperation Council on addressing emissions from locomotives and on emerging technologies such as connected vehicles.
Within our borders, Transport Canada is responsible for regulating emissions from aviation, marine and rail, as well as safety, across all modes. To inform the development of regulations and to facilitate innovation in clean transportation, we research, test and certify new technologies. For example, in aviation this includes supporting in- flight biofuel emissions monitoring and the assessment of safety and operational aspects of biofuel use.
With regard to cars, trucks and other on-road vehicles, the department provides support to Environment and Climate Change Canada's emissions regulation activities and does a significant amount of in-depth safety, environmental and performance testing on new and emerging vehicle technologies through our ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles Program.
Transport Canada's testing helps ensure that new innovations provide their anticipated safety and environmental benefits and can operate in a wide array of environmental conditions, including harsh Canadian winters. Technical evidence from these studies helps to ensure that regulatory approaches reflect safety, environmental and economic outcomes.
We also support research and development that advances clean technologies. Some of the projects we're working on for rail include supporting R&D in biofuels, specifically lignin-derived drop-in renewable diesel fuel and energy storage technologies, such as supercapacitors and batteries.
We manage several grant and contribution programs to address market barriers to the uptake of clean technologies and to promote environmentally responsible practices. One example is the Shore Power Technology for Ports program, which supports the introduction of technologies that enable ships to plug into the local electrical grid instead of using their auxiliary diesel engines while in port.
We're also supporting ports in improving the efficiency of port-related trucking to reduce wait times and thereby reduce idling and the associated emissions through the Truck Reservation System program.
In many cases being green makes good business sense. Fuel represents a large cost to transportation operators, even when fuel prices are lower, and this is continuously driving improvements in efficiency. For example, many international marine shipping companies have adopted voluntarily the practice of slow steaming, which is much more fuel efficient than operating at full speed.
To further these types of voluntary initiatives at home, we've worked closely with industry to develop Canada's Action Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aviation and to sign a memorandum of understanding with the Railway Association of Canada on reducing locomotive emissions. We also provide support to and work closely with Green Marine, which is an industry-led environmental excellence initiative that challenges participant companies to improve their environmental performance beyond regulatory compliance.
Looking to the future, there's certainly more that must be done to further reduce the transportation sector's contribution to Canada's emissions.
It's important to note also that the sector faces some unique challenges. Emission sources are highly distributed, coming from millions of independent sources: individual transportation companies and 23.5 million personal vehicles. Vehicles in all modes are in use for a long time, meaning that new standards can be slow to result in emission reductions.
Infrastructure also has a long life span and is critical to dictating transportation patterns. The decisions made 15 or more years ago constrain our options today, and the decisions we make today will set the limits for the next generation.
Efforts will be required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across modes, but the greatest opportunity will most certainly be in addressing cars and trucks, which contribute the lion's share of the sector's emissions. The on-road sector, particularly for freight, differs from other modes in that the infrastructure is generally free to users.
But the challenges are not insurmountable. The good news is that many clean transportation technologies are at or near market. Sometimes all that they need is a little boost.
The key to driving emission reductions and promoting economic growth from a government perspective will be identifying where there are market failures and other barriers that governments can help to reduce or eliminate.
One promising example is the Canadian bioproduct sector. Canada has more biomass capacity per capita than any other country on earth. Tapping into this fully would create jobs, could support a predictable supply of domestic biofuel and would reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation and other sectors.
However, technical and financial barriers facing the domestic biofuel supply mean that around half of the ethanol used in Canadian fuel is actually imported from the United States. Government leadership could provide that extra push needed to launch a new Canadian market.
Other transformative technology areas include connected and automated vehicles. Information and communications technologies have reached into every facet of our lives, and transportation is no exception. Over the next decade, our vehicles, road infrastructure and pedestrians will be connected, creating access to safer, more efficient and sustainable travel for everyone.
Transport Canada is actively working with provinces, territories, the U.S. Department of Transportation and others to prepare Canada for the deployment of these technologies.
To identify these opportunities, as you've heard from Environment and Climate Change Canada, federal, provincial and territorial governments are working together to develop a plan for addressing climate change and promoting clean growth. In addition to this, I note that Minister Garneau is engaging stakeholders — industry, non-governmental organizations and other experts — as he works with his colleagues to develop a long-term agenda for the transportation system. One of the themes he has identified for this work is green and innovative transportation.
In closing, the challenge of moving towards a low-carbon transportation system is significant, but so are the opportunities. Transport Canada continues to work hard to support this shift, while ensuring the transportation system meets the needs of its users in a safe, secure and efficient manner.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll now go to questions, beginning with Senator Massicotte.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Thank you for your presentation. We obviously all share the very important goal of reducing our impact on climate change, and transportation plays an important role in climate change.
According to my calculations, 10 per cent to 12 per cent of CO2 in the air is from passenger cars, and approximately 6 per cent to 7 per cent is from other road vehicles. In your sector, these are the two most important factors to handle and to take into consideration.
You often speak about potential innovations and about what can happen, but it's always speculative. However, as you mentioned at the start, the CO2 in the air is currently increasing by 1 per cent. Our goal for the next 15 years — not 50 years or 100 years, but 15 years — is to decrease the total emissions by 30 per cent. We still have a 1-per-cent increase, but the goal for the next 15 years is to achieve a 30-per-cent decrease.
When there is talk about the future and potential innovations, I don't take it too seriously. In my experience, merely implementing a new technology can often take three to five years. It's like winning the lottery. You have to hope. It's not reliable enough. The results can't be accurately predicted.
It's more concrete to consider the fact that we have only 15 years to achieve our target. How will we reduce CO2 emissions by that much in the passenger transportation sector in 15 years? We must start immediately because we are already behind.
Ms. Burack: Thank you. That's an excellent question.
[English]
I think you've heard from other witnesses as you've begun this study that this is a very significant challenge. You're right to talk about the short time frame in which to achieve that goal.
You mentioned a few challenges, and I would add to that some of the other things I referenced earlier, which is the federal-provincial-territorial dynamic. Due to the fact that our system is a little bit different across the country, and due to the fact that many of the levers to influence behaviour and other things are at the provincial or territorial level, this national process has been launched to develop plans over the course of the next six months to achieve those objectives.
It is a significant challenge, but everything from pricing carbon to very specific actions within the transportation sector proper are being considered. It's also important to note that it's impossible to say at this point, but at the end of the day you may not get the same reduction from every sector of the economy. In some places it may be possible to get greater than 30 per cent reduction, and other places it may not be possible to fully achieve 30 per cent, but overall what we're looking to achieve is that 30 per cent.
Senator Massicotte: You're right; everybody from different departments of our government has responded the same way. You acknowledge that it's a significant challenge. You also hope the improvements will come from somebody else more than from your own sector. But the way I read that, it's a polite way to say we're not going to get there. Everybody says the same thing.
Let me ask you another question. The way you calculate GHGs, for instance, in aviation, and your charts often talk about domestic aviation, how do you count it? Let's say you have a flight from Toronto to Florida or Cancun. What do you do with the GHGs? Who is responsible for that emission?
Ms. Burack: Flights that take off and land in Canada, the fuel associated with that is counted as Canadian emissions. Flights that take off in Canada and land elsewhere, or take off elsewhere and land in Canada, are considered international emissions.
Senator Massicotte: Who's responsible for the international?
Ms. Burack: We are very actively engaged at ICAO, at the International Civil Aviation Organization, to address the international portion of emissions, which belong to no individual country. It would be impossible to apportion a flight from London to Toronto in a way and be able to do that with every single international flight, so those emissions are considered international emissions. What is being developed at the international level is an offsetting system to require aircraft operators, airlines, to purchase reductions in other sectors to offset a portion of their emissions post-2020 in order to achieve the global target of carbon-neutral growth post-2020 for the international portion of emissions.
Senator Massicotte: Let me take the example of a passenger car. The GHGs being produced, let's say, from Alberta, in other words, the process of converting the oil sands to fuel, that's all Canadian, right? It's basically produced, but if the same fuel is imported from, say, the good parts of California or Venezuela and has higher CO2 in its petroleum than we do, then our GHGs go down because it would produce the same impact?
Ms. Burack: For these kinds of questions, I would recommend you ask Environment and Climate Change Canada. They're responsible for the framework on climate change, which has kind of set up the rules on what's considered domestic and what's not considered domestic emissions.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much. I'd like to talk to you about the electrification of transportation. I'm from Quebec, and in Quebec transportation is the highest source of GHG emissions, accounting for 43.5 per cent of total emissions from major sectors. Last year, the Ministry of Transportation of Quebec released its electrification for transportation action plan 2015 to 2020 which included concrete efforts on behalf of the provincial government to transitioning from gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles to electric vehicles. The efforts included collaboration of industry players, levels of government and communities. It was very broad-based and it proposes to include rail, government fleets, public transport and cars.
I'd like to know what role Transport Canada sees itself playing in the electrification of transportation and that would be programs, incentives, government fleets, et cetera.
Ms. Burack: There are a couple of things. It's worth noting that Transport Canada has already contributed to electrification not necessarily of on-road vehicles but in the case I mentioned, the shore power program that we have, which allows ships in port to electrify rather than burning their diesel engines. My colleague is responsible for that program if you have questions specifically related to that.
In terms of the on-road fleet, a lot of the conversations that we will be having and are already having with the provinces in the context of this national discussion aiming at a plan for the fall have been circling around the question of electrification of the on-road fleet. Quebec is one of the leaders. Ontario is discussing an enhanced package; B.C. has a number of incentives as well. A number of provinces have taken a large step in the direction of promoting electric vehicles.
We're in the process of working through with provinces what the barriers are and then we would need to consider what the federal government was best placed to address and what would be best addressed at other levels of government.
Senator Seidman: Are you aware of what share EVs have of the current vehicle market in Canada?
Ms. Burack: In 2016, roughly 1 per cent of the vehicles sold were plug-in electric vehicles. So we're starting from a very low level of penetration. It's a little less than 1 per cent, in fact. I think there were 19,500 electric plug-in electric vehicles sold in 2015-16.
Senator Seidman: Are there ways to create incentives and programs or do you think consumers have issues? What are the limitations on this? I suppose it goes beyond individual purchases, but it's a larger concept of government fleets as well.
Ms. Burack: I can't speak to government operations. If you have questions about that, Public Works and Government Services and Treasury Board Secretariat are responsible for the federal fleet.
With respect to what the limitations are, what the barriers are, generally price is a significant barrier. There are some technical issues such as battery life that are affected by cold weather conditions. In the winter, depending on temperatures, with current technology, you could lose 25, even 50 per cent of the battery life because you need to use things like high heat and defrost functions in the car. If the distance that you can travel in an electric vehicle is 120 or 150 kilometres and you lose half of that, depending on your commute, that can have implications.
There are some real technical issues that are still being worked on, but one of the major barriers is price. That's why at least three provinces have come forward with price incentives, both to support the purchase of the vehicle and the charging facilities, either personal in your home or, in some cases, in workplaces and other locations.
I believe you heard from Natural Resources Canada about the activities that they are now funded to do from Budget 2016 to enhance the accessibility of charging stations in Canada.
Senator Seidman: Do you know if there are many Canadian companies working on EV technologies?
Ms. Burack: I don't know the answer to that question. I don't know if you do. We can certainly investigate that.
Senator Seidman: If you could give us an idea, given, as you say, there are some obstacles and urban areas are much more conducive to the use of EVs given limitations of mileage.
I'd like to ask you about passenger rail service in Canada. It doesn't compare very favourably to other countries in Europe or in Japan in part because freight transport in Canada has priority over the rail tracks. VIA Rail has developed a proposal for a high frequency rail service in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor that could see VIA Rail operate on dedicated tracks exclusive to its services.
In 2016, the federal budget proposed to provide $3.3 million over three years to Transport Canada to support an in- depth assessment of VIA Rail's high-frequency rail proposal. Could you tell us the parameters of the assessment of VIA Rail's high-frequency rail proposal? Does that proposal include trains that use diesel? Are electric trains something that's feasible?
Ms. Burack: That's outside my area of expertise, so I would need to come back to the committee with information on what is available on that study.
Senator Seidman: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Patterson: Thank you for the presentation. You talked about progress being made in vehicle emissions, but it seems gains in fuel vehicle efficiency are being offset by growth in larger vehicle purchases. I understand that in 1990 passenger trucks comprised 20 per cent of Canadian vehicle stock and by 2013 it accounted for 37 per cent. I see that certainly in my own region of Nunavut; trucks and SUVs are ubiquitous.
While we're making gains in vehicle fuel efficiency, is that being offset by the growth of larger vehicle purchases? A professor from McGill, I believe, recently testified that Canadians should get off using trucks if we want to get serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions in vehicles. Is this a problem you're aware of?
Ms. Burack: You're probably used to people saying this, but I'll start by saying that obviously the regulation and consideration of light and heavy-duty vehicles is the responsibility of Environment and Climate Change Canada. I think we do need to consider that there are some rural issues and other considerations when thinking about whether no one should be able to have a truck or an SUV. But it's obvious that sales of light duty trucks have been significant. You are right that those vehicles are becoming more efficient, but as the balance of vehicles changes, that changes the impact.
I know that there is awareness of this as a challenge, and I believe that it will be taken into consideration as plans are developed for moving forward with further programs and regulations.
Senator Patterson: You talked about government giving a boost in certain directions to encourage progress. How would government discourage the use of passenger trucks?
Ms. Burack: Again, the passenger side of on-road vehicles is not something that has traditionally been the domain of Transport Canada. Rather Environment and Climate Change Canada has had that as its area of focus. We have not done any studies to look at behaviour and consumer choices around those types of vehicles, so I'm not sure that I would have something to offer but I can say that in the context of both the Vancouver Declaration process and of Minister Garneau's outreach around the long-term vision for transportation, some web portals have been set up precisely to try to generate good ideas from either the industry or non-government organizations or individual Canadians in order to add to the analysis by the federal and provincial governments.
Senator Patterson: Just further on vehicles, which are such a big part of the picture you have described, it seems that the combustion engine is becoming more and more efficient. I'm wondering if you would offer an opinion about whether this makes it harder for alternatively fuelled vehicles such as electric vehicles to compete in the marketplace.
Ms. Burack: I'm not sure that my opinion is worth much to the committee, but it is true that as efficiency improves in traditionally fuelled vehicles, it has implications for the return on investment for a higher priced alternative fuel vehicle. I believe that is a large part of why, in the case of personal vehicles, for example, many jurisdictions are looking at how to develop price-related incentives to address that return on investment.
Senator MacDonald: Good morning. You mentioned a couple of times in your address the negotiations with government and industry regarding locomotives, and their emissions. The federal government introduced GHG emission standards, but it exempted aircraft and locomotives and allowed them to be voluntary. I'm curious about why locomotives in particular would have a voluntary alternative when it came to responding to GHG emissions. What is the logic behind that?
Ms. Burack: I would point out a couple of different things. We work closely with the U.S. EPA on the question of locomotive emissions, and these are things that would be difficult for Canada to address in isolation in a North American marketplace. Canada has no locomotive manufacturers. Virtually all of our stock is purchased south of the border. Canada's demand for locomotives is reasonably small, so the regulatory signal that would come from regulating the emissions of locomotives would be insufficient to generate a supply of locomotives that could meet that demand. So that's one important consideration and explains why we work closely with the EPA to try to push for progress on the question of GHG emissions.
You mentioned aviation, which is a global sector with a much longer shelf life, if I can put it that way, for the aircraft, but I would note that one of the reasons we didn't approach that from a domestic perspective is we have been in discussions and negotiations at the global level. In February of this year, a new carbon dioxide standard for new airplanes was agreed upon at the International Civil Aviation Organization. That will be endorsed this fall at ICAO's assembly and then will find its way immediately after that into Canadian domestic regulations so that all new aircraft will need to meet that efficiency standard going forward.
In most cases, it's because of the global nature or the continental nature of the industry, so we need to focus on an approach that reflects that context.
Senator MacDonald: We all know that diesel is notoriously dirty, and I don't know the numbers. I assume we use a lot of diesel on a per capita basis in Canada with big trucks on the highway, the locomotives in the isolated areas of the country that have to use diesel. I just don't understand why there isn't more of an effort to convert from diesel to at least natural gas, and all these machines that are used are obviously targets for this.
Do we have in Canada a measurement of our per capita diesel use compared to other countries?
Ms. Burack: Not that I'm aware of or Jim is aware of. We can look into that and see if there is such a thing that we can share with the committee.
Senator MacDonald: It would seem to me that the more trucks we can get off the highway and get heavy freight onto rail, the more we reduce our emissions. What efforts are being made to push traffic in that direction? I have spoken with provincial highway engineers, and they tell me that if it weren't for the heavy trucks on the highways, our basic highway system would last for 75 years — lay out asphalt and it would never be disrupted.1 The trucks are pounding the highways. Very few Canadians that drive the highways in this country don't complain about the number of trucks. Around Toronto it's unbelievable on the 401. It seems like provincial and federal governments are doing nothing to get the heavy trucks off the highway.
Is there any indication in terms of the regulatory process that there will be some movement in this area?
Ms. Burack: You raise a very interesting issue, which is the question of mode shift, which is something that preoccupies us in terms of our analysis. You will never get all trucks off the road. Obviously there are, at a minimum, the last mile issues.
Senator MacDonald: Yes.
Ms. Burack: There is a cost that is not necessarily solely a financial cost. There is also a timing cost to intermodal traffic because of the time it takes to switch from one mode to the other. For some shippers that loss of time is not acceptable, so that has been a barrier.
One of the areas we have identified as interesting to look at is improving the efficiency of intermodal hubs. We have focused on trucking at ports as an example. I mentioned that program. The more efficiency you can bring to those intermodal points, the more likely you are to have those who are on the margins of it seeing it makes sense to do intermodal. That is an area of focus for us.
I did mention the issue of the cost of infrastructure and who bears the cost of that. That may be something the committee may want to investigate.
Senator MacDonald: When it comes to getting this heavy traffic, heavy freight, off the highways and onto rail, does the final authority rest with the federal government or is it more likely to be achieved through the regulatory process at the provincial level, basically by making it more economically efficient to get this heavy traffic off the highways and onto rail?
Ms. Burack: I'm not sure that one level of government is responsible for the whole bundle of issues that you are asking about. Certainly provinces are responsible for highways, and they have different rules in different provinces about what trucks can travel on their highways. The federal government is involved in the conversations.
Jim Lothrop, Director General, Sustainable Transportation Stewardship, Transport Canada: Once the trucks are on the road, they tend to fall under provincial jurisdiction. The sizes, the weights and the dimensions of those trucks are all governed through an MOU between the provinces and the federal government regarding weights and dimensions, but it's more of a provincial jurisdiction at that point.
Senator Mockler: Ms. Burack, you did talk about biomass. Would you please expand on how that would contribute significantly to reducing carbon?
Ms. Burack: Biofuels from non-food sources, so not from corn but from agriculture waste.
Senator Mockler: Do you include forestry?
Ms. Burack: Yes, it may be forestry and forestry by-products from paper and forest products processing. The life cycle of greenhouse gases associated with those biofuels tends to be significantly lower than fossil fuels. That is why there is movement in the direction of trying to increase the blending of those fuels with fossil fuels to the extent that existing engines can accommodate those changes. That is when we look at aviation as an example.
There is a lot going on in aviation in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, whether it is straightening out flight paths or upgrading the technology to more efficient aircraft like the Bombardier C-Series.
What is expected to deliver the most greenhouse gas benefits in the long term is the switch from traditional fuels to biojet fuel. The research is not yet complete to identify a perfect match between what is needed in terms of the biojet fuel and the stock that is available and how to ramp that up to volumes that would support the industry as a whole, but that is generally seen in a 2030-35 time frame to be a potential game changer in terms of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with that sector.
In other sectors, they are investigating how to improve and how to add more biofuel into diesel and use by locomotives as an example. Some of the barriers there are that the manufacturers won't guarantee the smooth functioning of those locomotives if the level of biofuels is increased at this point. So getting out of that cycle where these companies need to risk their multimillion dollar equipment by increasing the use of biofuels without guarantee that the engines will function effectively is the challenge.
We know the biofuels will be a solution. We need to do the work to both find the precise blends that we need to grow the volumes and to ensure that the equipment is in place so these continue to be effectively operating safely and able to be used.
Senator Mockler: Does Transport Canada follow quite stringently what is happening at the University of British Columbia when it comes to biofuels in the forestry sector or is it completely independent of your responsibilities?
Ms. Burack: I am personally not familiar with that. I couldn't speak for the whole department. I can certainly look into our connection.
Senator Mockler: I looked at airports across the world, and in North America there are only three accredited airports. I'm told there are about 82 airports under the supervision of Transport Canada and CATSA. The three accredited airports represent 0.4 per cent of airport traffic.
Looking at the responsibility of domestic aviation and air traffic, how can you explain there are only three: Greater Moncton International Airport, Victoria Airport Authority and the Winnipeg Airport Authority? Why are they not encouraged to all link to the program that you have alluded to, which is mapping, reduction, optimization and neutrality?
Ms. Burack: Thank you for that question. Just in terms of background for the other senators, Transport Canada worked with Canadian airports to develop a tool to enable airports to measure their greenhouse gas emissions. Through the domestic and international airport association, a certification program has been put together based on that work. There are actually five Canadian airports — the three you mentioned, as well as Montreal and Toronto — that have sought and achieved certification under that program.
It is a voluntary initiative. I can tell you, as an example, that Vancouver International Airport is also very active in addressing their greenhouse gas emissions, yet they have chosen not to seek this certification. This is a tool for their use, but it's not necessarily an indication that others are not taking action. I can say that under Canada's action plan on aviation we do work closely with the airports. There is a lot of activity on ground vehicles and on taxiing and other issues that we are working with the airports to develop solutions and options for.
Senator Mockler: We have approximately 82 airports under your supervision. This is in any industry. If you're not accredited in agriculture or forestry to reduce it, you won't see any innovation. Here we have five airports. I mentioned Montreal and Toronto, but would it not be the responsibility of Transport Canada to encourage all airports to look at better ways of reducing emission, that they be accredited and be part of that global or Canadian vision?
Ms. Burack: I'll separate your comment in two pieces. Transport Canada is very actively encouraging and supporting airports in using the tool to understand the sources of their emissions so that they can identify ways to address them. There are steps they need to go through in order to be accredited, and if they choose not to take that additional step, Transport Canada has not chosen to force them to do so.
I'll note that we have developed a port emissions inventory tool, and we do encourage ports to use that in a similar way, to understand their emission sources so that they are better equipped to address those sources more effectively.
Senator Mockler: You did allude to aggressive programs that you have to encourage, control and mitigate. Could you itemize those programs or send a copy of all those programs on the basis of the most important and when they were put in place in order to reduce carbon emissions?
Ms. Burack: We can send something in writing if that would be easier?
The Chair: To the clerk, please.
The Minister of Transport has said that he is going to consult with Canadians, industries and provinces about a plan that would bring forward what you're going to release in the fall, I believe. Is there a list of places that they are going to, to consult with Canadians? Or is that all kept quiet until the fall?
Ms. Burack: The minister did announce his intention to talk to Canadians about his plans for the transportation system over the longer term. This is in follow-up to the 18 months that were spent on the Canada Transportation Act review for which a report was tabled in the house earlier this year. The minister has looked through that material and recommendation and wants to go out to Canadians focused on a few themes in particular. As I mentioned in my remarks, one of those is greener and more innovative transportation. He will be having a series of round tables, not much bigger than the group in this room, and the program for those has not been fully laid out.
From those, as well as other conversations that he and senior officials within the department will be having over the course of the next months, he will be working with his colleagues to develop his plans for a transportation system over the longer term. He has also set up a web portal to receive any additional views that anyone across Canada can contribute to so that those can be taken into account as he deliberates on this issue.
The Chair: Can I be assured by you that the minister's announcement on April 27 that he was going to consult with Canadians and industry stakeholders through the spring, which is now, and summer, will be made public soon so the public can have an opportunity across the country to have dialogue? If so, let us know when that takes place.
Ms. Burack: Obviously, you'll understand this is not within my control, but I'm confident that as those round table sessions are set up, information about them will be available. They will be small sessions; they will not be open, public conversations. There will be an opportunity for dialogue with experts, as I mentioned in my remarks, so that the minister can gather his thoughts about the recommendations in the report and anything missing from the report.
The Chair: Well, I'm disappointed that it won't be open to Canadians because that's what I understood it was. This is obviously a huge issue moving forward. You have heard the questions from some of the members that the targets are very big and going to be hard to meet. Canadians don't know the impact.
That's what we're trying to find out here: What is going to be the impact on Fred and Martha at the end of the day? Because it's the taxpayer who will pay the bill. The person on the street is the one who will pay the bill. All those costs migrate down to Fred and Martha, and they will be paying the bill; so that's what we want to find out.
I'm a little disappointed he is not going to meet with average Canadians.
Ms. Burack: Could I add a point, sir?
The Chair: Sure.
Ms. Burack: I mentioned the web portal. Of course, the minister can't sit down with every Canadian to have this conversation. Similar to the process that is under way with the provinces and territories, which is the process that is focused on the 30 per cent by 2030 target, the subject of your conversation, that process is also attempting to engage stakeholders in the discussions and has also set up an opportunity for individual Canadians to contribute.
The reason I mention Mr. Garneau's process is because one of his personal interests and themes is greener transportation, and what he learns from his engagement through that process will feed into that broader federal/ provincial conversation.
The Chair: I am wise enough to know that he can't meet with every single Canadian. I appreciate you reminding me.
The question was asked about airline traffic and how those greenhouse gases are appropriated. What happens in rail? CN has the largest rail network in North America. What happens in shipping?
Is that in that never-never land of the international world where those aren't counted? It seems to me it's the same as aircraft. Those huge trains go across the border both ways. How does that get counted? How are the ships that go into and leave our Canadian ports counted?
Ms. Burack: So shipping is the one that is most akin to aviation. If a ship leaves a Canadian port and goes to a Canadian port, then there is a demarcation between domestic shipping and international shipping. So it is easy to carve the difference between those two.
With the international portion of the marine emissions, that is similar to aviation being dealt with in the context of the International Maritime Organization where we have now agreed on a monitoring, reporting and verification system in recent weeks and are moving into "now what?'' in terms of how we will make a contribution to reducing the impact of the existing fleet.
In terms of new fleets for shipping, there is an energy efficiency standard that was developed a few years ago for new ships, so that is already in place through domestic regulation in Canada.
In terms of rail, the companies are able to determine where their emissions end at the border, and that is reported as domestic emissions.
The Chair: So rail is similar to the trucking industry? Is that what you're saying?
Ms. Burack: With trucking, it's generally related to the fuel that is sourced. So if the fuel is sourced in Canada for rail, then it tends to be collected as domestic emissions.
The Chair: So even though the locomotive would fuel in Vancouver, they take an awful lot of fuel on, and all of that fuel would be attributed, even though they're heading south of the border which is a little ways away, all of the greenhouse gas emissions from that amount of fuel would be attributed to Canada?
Ms. Burack: I will check that for you and confirm with the committee exactly how that works. I would note that most of the rail activity is east-west within Canada or within the U.S., but I will double-check on exactly how that demarcation between domestic and international is done for rail.
The Chair: If it's similar to trucks, I know how they do it; they do it by mileage.
Do you have responsibility for ports moving containers with trucks? For example, a ship comes in and unloads thousands of containers and then trucks take it to different places. Does Transport Canada have control of the type of truck that can actually operate and pick up those containers? I would think they would have on port land.
Ms. Burack: I don't believe so.
The Chair: I think it's Transport Canada. In fact, I'm almost positive it is.
Ms. Burack: I believe Canada Port Authorities can determine what trucks can come onto their land, and those are independent agencies.
The Chair: They're not quite independent agencies, they're federal agencies.
Ms. Burack: Yes, but Transport Canada does not control them. We'll double-check that for you.
The Chair: If you could, please. The reason I ask is, for instance, in Los Angeles or some of the ports on the West Coast, San Francisco, they don't allow trucks that are really old and they actually have now gone to natural gas- powered, which one of the senators asked about.
My experience is individuals would buy an old, highly inefficient truck and idle at the port authority waiting to actually move containers. But if you were able to regulate the type of truck, maybe a newer truck a number of years old and powered by natural gas, you could reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. It's the same thing we do in Vancouver for the plug-ins for the ships that come into port. Is that something you could look into for me?
Ms. Burack: Absolutely, it is. I can tell you that Port Metro Vancouver has been looking at the issue of drayage trucks and certainly Transport Canada works closely with them on those plans. But we will confirm that that is within their jurisdiction.
The Chair: One last question. According to your notes, transport-related emissions grew considerably between 1990 and 2005, in fact by 30 per cent. Between 2005 and 2013, the growth slowed to only 1 per cent.
To my knowledge, and I agree with what you say, this is largely thanks to passenger vehicle improvements driven by Canada's light-duty vehicle emissions regulations that we worked with the U.S. on because the U.S. wants to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions also. There was a lot of discussion of removing light-duty trucks from the road. The world where I come from, it would be impossible to do that. You can't run huge forestry operations, oil and gas operations or huge farm operations with something other than a light-duty truck or half, three-quarter and one-ton trucks.
Is there still work going on — and that was the responsibility of Transport Canada, I believe — between Transport Canada and the U.S. to get those emissions down more?
Ms. Burack: Those regulations are the responsibility of Environment and Climate Change Canada.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Massicotte: We talk a lot about the electrification of cars and so on, and we seem to suggest that's the major solution. Currently, 10 or 12 per cent of emissions are related to passenger vehicles; is that accurate?
Ms. Burack: I have within transportation 53 per cent of the 23 per cent, so within that neighbourhood.
Senator Massicotte: You said 23 per cent?
Ms. Burack: 23 per cent of the transportation.
Senator Massicotte: So that is approximately, if you do the calculation, 16 or 17 per cent, and passengers are 57 per cent of that net which works out to be 10 or 11 per cent.
Ms. Burack: Okay.
Senator Massicotte: You have that starting point. If you fast forward to 10 or 15 years from now, what would that percentage be relative to electrification? Is that a big number? Does that 10 per cent become 3 or 4, or is that only 8 or 9?
Ms. Burack: Just for clarity, I certainly said nothing about a magic bullet or that electrification was the answer. I believe that electrification is part of the solution, and it's certainly something that is receiving a lot of attention in the federal-provincial discussions.
Senator Massicotte: So what number would you hope for?
Ms. Burack: It depends very much on what approach is taken, how aggressively that is pursued, how much of an incentive is created and whether the supply exists. It would be impossible for me to say in the abstract what could be achieved.
Senator Massicotte: When will we know what the plan is? In other words, tires have to hit the road eventually. What's the timing for that, in your mind?
Ms. Burack: All I can tell you is that Transport Canada is very much involved in the process now that will lead to recommendations in the fall, and those recommendations go through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to first ministers.
Senator Massicotte: Let me go back to the issue. You're at 10 per cent, and we often say that will be a significant impact if we electrify, especially in Quebec. We often talk about it and we've done quite a bit in Quebec. But are we not misleading ourselves? In Quebec, the power source is hydro, like B.C., and it's clean, and if you do electrification, there's a net gain. Ontario gains a bit because it's large part nuclear, so that's clean. What's the impact?
Are we making a serious error in saying when the person in Manitoba or Alberta buys an electrical car, I presume the net gain is significantly less because Alberta is probably still coal-fired electricity, which are higher emissions. Can you give me a sense of that calculation? In other words, if you have pure hydro like Quebec, it's a net gain, but if you do it in Alberta it's only a net gain of so much. Can you give me a sense of how big those differences are?
Ms. Burack: Certainly, it can be significant. You're right that the electrical grid is different across the country and we need to take that into consideration. It is a large part of why we talk about the importance of the provinces' engagement and doing what makes sense in different places across the country differently, because you will not get the same benefit in Quebec and in Alberta from electrifying vehicles.
Senator Massicotte: Is it a big difference? Let's say somebody buys an electric car in Calgary. Is it a significant diminishment as it would be in Quebec? Is that difference in material significant?
Ms. Burack: My understanding is it is, but I would recommend that you pose that question to Natural Resources Canada; they have a better understanding of the impact of the electrical system across the country.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
The Chair: There are no other questioners. I just have one. Could you provide a list to us showing the responsibilities that Transport Canada has for meeting these new targets? What are your responsibilities? I noticed in response to quite a number of questions you say that is some other department's responsibility. Could you just send us a list showing what Transport Canada is absolutely responsible for?
Ms. Burack: I can send you a list of the roles and responsibilities around transportation and emissions for the various departments. I would just note that the responsibilities around the target, as you requested, are not identified at this point until such time as there is a plan in place.
Certainly just around the issue of climate change and transportation more generally, we can provide you with a breakdown of roles and responsibilities.
The Chair: Okay. I would like to know what responsibility Transport Canada has in working towards meeting these goals. You've been quite clear about saying the responsibility lies with Environment Canada or Natural Resources Canada or someone else in response to questions. What the committee would like to know is what Transport Canada is responsible for so we can ask the correct questions to Transport Canada about things for which they are responsible.
Ms. Burack: Okay.
The Chair: We have one other question from Senator Mockler.
Senator Mockler: Thank you. Your comments, Mr. Chair, and your questions prompted me to go back to airports and the role that you play to engage. If I look back at history, airports in Canada have been carrying out environmental management programs since the early 1970s. Today we're all being mindful of reducing carbon, but there is a role I think you should be playing, and I would like to know why are you not more aggressive in engaging the Canadian airports to be part of this accreditation so that we would have better control of our environment. It is a mode that transports a lot of people.
My question is: Why would Transport Canada not try to engage or be the motivator to engage airports? We have 82 airports and I see there are approximately 160 airports worldwide contributing, but here in Canada there are only 5 out of 82.
Ms. Burack: All I can really do is repeat that Transport Canada is very actively engaging with airports across the country on this issue. We have several dedicated working groups to areas within airport operations that are the highest emitting functions where we are investigating, together, best practices, looking at the return on investment, looking at the experience of airports and what their challenges have been in implementing those solutions.
You ask why we are not being active; we are being very active with the airports. What we're not pushing them to do is to become accredited under a scheme where their non-accreditation does not necessarily reflect their inaction. As I mentioned, one of the most proactive airports is the Vancouver International Airport, and they have not sought accreditation, as an example, but they are a leading airport in this country in terms of addressing their greenhouse gas emissions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Burack and Mr. Lothrop. It was interesting. It was a good presentation, some good questions. We appreciate your time. You folks have a good day. We will adjourn.
(The committee adjourned.)