Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue No. 38 - Evidence - February 15, 2018
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 15, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 8 a.m. to study the effects of transitioning to a low carbon economy.
Senator Michael L. MacDonald (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good morning, and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. My name is Michael MacDonald. I am the deputy chair of this committee, and I represent the province of Nova Scotia in the Senate.
I will now ask senators around the table to introduce themselves, starting to my right.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Renée Dupuis, independent senator from the Laurentian region, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Richards: Dave Richards from New Brunswick.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy, a senator from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte from Quebec.
Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Neufeld: Richard Neufeld, British Columbia.
The Deputy Chair: In March of 2016, the committee began its study of the transition to a low carbon economy.
The committee is looking at five sectors of the Canadian economy, which are responsible for over 80 per cent of all GHG emissions. They are: electricity, transportation, oil and gas, emission-intensive trade-exposed industries and buildings.
Today, I am pleased to welcome Warwick F. Vincent, Full Professor, Centre for Northern Studies, Laval University. Thank you, Mr. Vincent, for joining us. Please proceed with your opening statement, after which the senators will have a question and answer session with you.
Warwick F. Vincent, Full Professor, Centre for Northern Studies, Laval University, as an individual: Thank you very much, honourable senators, for the opportunity to appear before you today.
I am here to talk to you about Canada’s North and the front line of climate change. I am a professor at Laval University Centre for Northern Studies, Centre d’études nordiques, CIN, an interuniversity centre for the study of Northern environments, with particular interest in working with northern communities and the economic development of the North.
I hope all of you have a copy of the handout that I sent around. If not, the clerk has some additional copies.
If you wouldn’t mind just moving to page 2 of that handout, if anything over the last few decades within our centre, what has become clear is that Northern Canada is not only sensitive to climate change. It is hypersensitive to climate change.
There are two reasons for that. As shown on slide 2, the first of these is referred to as polar amplification. All that simply means is that global models of climate change predict that the greatest rates of warming of our planet will be at the highest northern latitudes.
Why is that? There are a number of mechanisms, but it’s especially because of positive feedback effects, for example the shrinking mirror effect. As we are melting more ice and more snow, less of that solar energy is reflected back into space. More of it is available to keep heating the ground and to keep heating the ocean, which is melting more of that reflective mirror. It is a vicious cycle that is accelerating through time.
As you see on slide 3 of the handout, what this means is that the physical science, the models, predicts that small changes for planet earth will translate into larger changes in the North. For example, the plus 1.5 degrees that we aspire toward with the Paris Agreement translates to 3 to 4 degrees in the North of Canada.
Of course, it is business as usual that translates into massive changes in the North and throughout the planet in moving very rapidly outside of safe operating space in the North and at a planetary scale.
In slide 4 you see, consistent with these model predictions, the highest rates of measured climate warming across the world, over the last few decades, have been at the highest northern latitudes, that is in the Subarctic and the Arctic.
If you look at slide 4, on the bottom right-hand corner, a little graph there shows temperature changes through time from 1960 to 2011. This is going from the South Pole on the left-hand side of the graph to the North Pole. You can see that line increases substantially as we move further toward the North.
The physical science says it should warm faster in the North, and the physical observation shows that’s exactly what is happening right at the moment.
The second reason that Northern Canada is hypersensitive to global climate change is shown on slide 5, and that is because of ice, Canadian ice. We have a lot of it: snow, permafrost, sea ice, lake ice and river ice.
Ice really underpins the Canadian North. It is the foundation of our North. It affects the functioning of our lands and of our seas in the North. It affects ecosystems of the North. It affects northern communities and the cultures of the North. It affects our industry and their economic stability and well-being, and it affects the infrastructure of the North.
On that slide 5, you see on the right-hand side a map of Canada showing the permafrost, which is permanently frozen ground. Some 50 per cent of our country contains permafrost. It is a foundation for our country in the North.
On slide 6, you see that the reason for the sensitivity is that it takes only small changes, of course, to shift that ice, to melt that ice. The transition from solid ice to liquid water changes everything in the North, but especially ecosystem services from the stability of the ground that we depend upon for our infrastructure in the North and that ecosystems depend upon, to flood control in the North and to plant and animal ecology.
On the right-hand side of slide 6 you have an example of this from Western Canada, from the Northwest Territories where an entire hillside has disappeared. It has fallen apart, as a consequence of the ice-rich permafrost melting and going beyond that stability. We are seeing these phenomena, megaslumps, increasingly throughout Northern Canada.
On slide 7, I put together a little outline of our network of stations in the Centre for Northern Studies. We have field stations, research stations and climate monitoring stations, over 100 of them, from Radisson in the James Bay area of Quebec, up to Ward Hunt Island, at the northern tip of Canada. Actually, that’s a place I work at each year, each summer, in our research program.
Throughout this network of 3,500 kilometres of Eastern Canada we are now seeing changes associated with climate.
On slide 8, I have a summary of some of these changes that we are now seeing. It’s not simply the graphs. It is visually so obvious. For example, on the top left-hand corner of slide 8, in Quttinirpaaq National Park, “top of the world park”, we are seeing the loss of ancient ice that dates back thousands of years. There are spectacular changes in the icescapes around that northern coastline.
In Northern Quebec, we are seeing the expansion and flooding of lakes that depend upon permafrost. We are measuring changes in the plants and the animals of the North. Through our work with communities and with industry, we are seeing major changes and implications at a social level, at an economic level and at a business level in townships such as the one in the bottom left-hand corner, Salluit, where the mayor has said, “I feel the whole town should move.”
Thawing permafrost is affecting the safety of our airports in the North because in the past this has been the foundation. It impacts on mining in terms of stability of infrastructure, security and the safety of mining wastes in the North.
On slide 9, I raise the question: “How do we cope with these changes?” Of course, it’s vitally important to be considering adaptation mechanisms. I will not go through the list here of different adaptation strategies, but I would simply emphasize that monitoring and research are critical. We need to know what’s happening, why it’s happening, and how we deal with these changes that already are taking place.
On slide 10, my final slide, it is most critical now to be focused upon mitigation, on decarbonization. The first statement there is that it is not too late to reduce CO2 emissions.
I say this because a few years ago, I was asked to speak at a breakfast meeting here on Parliament Hill. One of the first questions I received from one of the honourable members of Parliament was, “Well, it’s too late, isn’t it, to do anything?”
No, it is not too late. Especially, it is not too late to avoid that 2°C guardrail, beyond which we know there will be massive changes as we move into dangerous operating space for the North and for the rest of the planet. The point is the earlier the reductions, the less severe the transition to keep below 2°C.
The graph on the right shows emissions of carbon dioxide per year. Through time it’s a series of scenarios. All it says is that the earlier we start this process, the less severe social and economic adjustments will have to take place to reduce down to keep below that 2°C, beyond which we see major changes throughout the planet and especially Canada.
The current changes in the North and its high sensitivity to warming underscore the urgent need for CO2 reduction. Really, Canada is on the front line of climate impacts. We should really be on the front line of mitigation and decarbonization.
Senator Wetston: I have two general questions. I keep focusing on what we hear, here in the Senate, and,of course, what we tend to read about in research and opinion pieces.
If you believe in climate change, that it’s occurring, what would your best advice be toward persuading those who do not believe that climate change is occurring?
There is a clear sense, and we have heard this before, that the media tends to focus on those who are believers in climate change and not on those who may disbelieve in climate change.
That’s my first question. Then I have a second shorter question.
Mr. Vincent: It is an excellent question. It is also, of course, a sentiment that I have often faced and our centre has often faced in talking to people around the country.
There is and has been in the past considerable skepticism. It is difficult for us as scientists to understand that skepticism. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It’s increasing. No one is arguing about that. Greenhouse gases absorb heat. Nobody is arguing that about that. The world is heating up. So, which part that have logical sequence is not correct?
Perhaps there is a lack of understanding as to what that means. As the world heats up it looks very complicated in terms of physical process, but it’s not especially complicated.
As we increase heat, things are moving around a lot faster. As the atmosphere increases, it absorbs more water. Clearly, as time goes on, we will be in a situation where storms will be more violent and extreme events will be more substantial. It’s a logical train of thought.
I think another concern that the public has, or an impediment to understanding the implication, is that we’re only talking about 2°C. It seems so small, relative to what you are able to adjust on your home thermostat.
What we have to keep in mind is that very small number is multiplied by a very large number, that is the size of the planet. You are multiplying a small number by a planetary number. That’s a very big number and the result is huge. The changes that we forecast are huge, and the changes that we’re seeing are huge.
The most convincing evidence for people who are still not entirely convinced that climate change is a real phenomena is to go to the North to see in front of their eyes, not the graphs, not the bar charts, not the diagrams, but the ice falling apart. You see the landscapes. You talk with members of the communities who talk about their concerns about their airports built on permafrost.
Back in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, permafrost was referred to as permanently frozen ground. That’s what engineers based their designs upon. It was treated as concrete, but it is not concrete. A lot of it is ice, and that ice is melting. That creates enormous problems in terms of security.
We see right now that we have these fundamental problems. They are big money, big investments. The airport, which I showed as an example, is the largest airport in the Eastern Canadian Arctic, and $300 million has been invested there to try to keep it going in the medium term.
Our analysis shows that parts of that airport contain up to 80 per cent ice, which is fine at the moment; but as we move out into a warmer and warmer world that’s a major problem in terms of upkeep.
One of our most recent roads, the first Canadian road to the Arctic coastline, was opened last year. That was another $300 million investment that goes through permafrost land which will clearly be a problem in the future as it warms up.
Talking to the Inuit who live in the North, who have seen this for generations and who are now aware of these changes, is a more compelling narrative, perhaps, for people who have difficulty understanding what the consequences are of these changes. These changes are affecting their livelihood and they are affecting the safety of these communities in the North.
Senator Wetston: I am going to try to avoid a discussion with you because there is lots to discuss.
Mr. Vincent: Yes.
Senator Wetston: I wanted to follow up on your comment by saying that I am a believer in science, but I am less a believer in economic models.
I have spent a great deal of personal time with economic models, both on the regulatory side and the financial services side, and I have become quite a disbeliever in the use of economic models to determine particular outcomes, particularly in financial markets. Perhaps there is another time for that discussion, potentially, but that’s another matter.
The issue for me is what you are relying on. It’s one thing to persuade and go north to see what is occurring. I am from Toronto. How are you to persuade the 4.5 million people, who live in the GTA and pay for the cost associated with greenhouse gas reduction in many ways, to recognize its value?
How do you persuade those people that this is real, that this is the case? How will scientists and governments be able to persuade the public this is something that should be addressed, if that is the case?
Mr. Vincent: Yes, you’re right. This is a real challenge of bringing the North to the South. At one level, one has to hope that Canadians have a fundamental interest in fellow Canadians, including northern culture. There is a general interest among Canadians in the iconic culture of the North and the iconic animals and plants of the North. This is one mechanism of transmitting the message, but I agree it’s not enough.
The most compelling evidence relates to extreme events, to storm events. We cannot say, for example, that the flooding in Montreal recently was associated with climate change. We know there is a lot of natural variability. We cannot attribute the Fort McMurray fire to climate change, per se.
We cannot relate a particular extreme event to climate change; but what we can say, given the science, is that type of event will become more and more common as time goes on. That’s a fundamental problem for people living anywhere in Southern Canada.
The message from the North is that there are big changes in the pipeline. We need to really minimize those changes for all of us in the South, throughout the world. That’s good business in terms of the stability that business depends upon, the stability in terms of weather regimes and economic regimes.
It’s really the extreme events. There has been a lot of discussion about this concerning the 1.5°C. With 2 degrees, it is estimated that the number of extreme warm days, which affects people in Toronto, goes up very substantially. If we come down from 2 degrees to 1.5 degrees, that drops those extreme warm events by a factor of two.
That’s a big deal in terms of the imposition on health services, for example, in the South; the effects on transmission of disease; and the effects on invasive species, et cetera.
There is a lot of particularly extreme event examples that resonate more with individuals who have experienced those extreme events themselves and have been inconvenienced by them, whether it is simply a matter of getting to work in the morning or whether it is running a corporation or running a business and the presumption of continuous stability.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I would like to follow the line of reasoning in Senator Wetston’s question. On page 9, you talk about the exchange of national, international and indigenous knowledge. To what extent are indigenous people involved in your work?
Mr. Vincent: That’s an excellent question. Can I answer in French?
Senator Dupuis: Yes, we have an interpretation service. It’s up to you.
Senator Mockler: There are two official languages in Canada.
Senator Dupuis: Including in the Senate of Canada.
Mr. Vincent: Of course. I would like to answer in French, since the question was asked in French.
The connection with indigenous people is very important at the Centre for Northern Studies. We work closely with indigenous people in the area of education and the exchange of traditional knowledge. When we present our data on changes over time in Northern Quebec, in Kuujjuarapik, in Kangiqsualujjuaq or Salluit, Inuit ask us why we do not just talk to them because we are the ones seeing changes in the landscape, vegetation, lakes, and the significant problems with the ice of the rivers in terms of transportation, for example. Even the chief of Whapmagoostui — the Cree First Nation — lost his life because his snowmobile fell through the ice a few years ago. This is a major issue for them, and we can benefit from their knowledge because they have a long-term perspective. They have been in the village of Kuujjuarapik for 3,600 years. They have extensive experience and we rely on it when we make our presentations.
We have built a community science centre in Kuujjuarapik to work with and educate young people. We know that young people will be the future indigenous leaders, but that requires a major effort in education. This is an opportunity to learn about their culture and their observations about the environment. Perhaps we should share their stories with the communities of Toronto, Quebec City or Vancouver, for example, by sharing their concerns and the changes they are witnessing.
Senator Dupuis: In map 7 of your presentation, we see numbers, but from our point of view, we are talking about federal and provincial jurisdictions. How many jurisdictions do you go through on your trips to the research centres? This requires coordination in terms of legislation, interventions and operations.
Mr. Vincent: You are right. Yes, it’s very complex. When we work in Radisson, Kuujjuarapik, Umiujaq, Boniface, Kangiqsualujjuaq or Salluit, we mainly work with the Government of Quebec, with the Catholic regional administration associated with the Inuit and the Cree First Nation. There are also certain interactions with the federal authorities in this region. Further north, there’s Bylot Island and Ward Hunt Island in Nunavut. I want to mention that Northern Quebec is the territory of Nunavut. That’s why we have close ties with the Government of Nunavut and the Government of Quebec. We work closely with the federal government, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Nunavut Research Institute. Our two stations are in national parks, so everything goes through Parks Canada.
Senator Dupuis: Is there anything about Ontario on this map?
Mr. Vincent: Apart from collaboration with researchers, for example, if a student works at Environment Canada in Ontario, we have connections with people in Ontario and other provinces as well. For example, I have recently run a five-year program called ADAPT, which deals with permafrost. The program involved people across Canada, including Ontario through Queen’s University. The University of British Columbia and the University of Alberta also participated in the program. It is an opportunity to strengthen ties with partners, which include organizations in Ontario and other provinces.
Senator Dupuis: I have one last question on this issue. You mentioned the airport with its land threatened or affected by climate change. In your research, do you paint a picture of the economic costs of climate change? We are well aware that those who make money in the North are the people of the South. Many people in the South have a lot to lose and may not be very concerned about what is happening with Inuit. Are you able to paint a picture of real economic changes that are predictable? The fact that the airport is in difficulty can be measured in costs.
Mr. Vincent: You are right. Many industries in the North come from the South, such as the entire mining industry. At the Centre for Northern Studies, we have not conducted those economic analyses. However, I am part of a network of centres of excellence at the national level called ArcticNet, which calls on economists to look at those sorts of issues. I am not an expert on this, but they have specifically published comprehensive studies on climate impact. The idea was really to combine the expertise of a number of sectors, including the economic sector.
[English]
Senator Neufeld: Thank you for being here. On slide 7, I just want to ask a quick question. I see all of the places. Did you say you went to Bylot Island?
Mr. Vincent: Actually, I go to Ward Hunt Island, just at the top of the page.
Senator Neufeld: Are there the same number of stations and places to observe climate change farther west in the Arctic?
I guess you go north here because you’re out of Quebec. I assume you’re doing work for the federal government, would that be correct?
Mr. Vincent: I work with the federal government, yes. You are absolutely right.
Senator Neufeld: I live on the other side of the country. I am in British Columbia. I am not far from 60.
Mr. Vincent: Without a doubt, we work with other groups that have operations on the western side of Canada. Of course, that northern point, Ward Hunt Island, is part of a line that starts at Vancouver and goes northward as well. All of those lines converge.
One of my colleagues, for example, works at the University of British Columbia and runs a station on Ellesmere Island, just to the south of Ward Hunt Island. We have a lot of interaction with his group at UBC.
Yes, there are other stations in the West. All of us are now part of a national network called the Canadian Network of Northern Research Operators, CNNRO.
The idea is to federate groups working from British Columbia, from Alberta, from Ontario and from elsewhere to exchange our best practices and knowledge, and to monitor data sets, information and approaches. In total, I believe there is now in the order of 44 stations throughout Canada in all areas of the North, in the Subarctic and the Arctic.
I have also worked in the Western Arctic. Yes, we are seeing large changes associated with those stations. One is the example in the Northwest Territories, which I have on slide 6. This is an area in the vicinity of the Mackenzie Delta, where hillsides are collapsing. These megaslumps are becoming increasingly common, and temperatures are rising within the Mackenzie Delta area. The Mackenzie Delta-Beaufort Sea area is a place I have also worked. It has also been losing sea ice very rapidly. There is evidence of changes within the marine community in that area.
There is also an area of Western Canada where coastal erosion is of special concern. We’re losing Canadian real estate every day as a result of the fact that Canada is based on permafrost and that permafrost is ice-rich ground.
The ice is melting and that coastline is falling into the sea. You are probably aware, honourable senators, that the village of Tuktoyaktuk in Western Canada has expressed concern about its long-term viability because it is built right on the coastline that is disappearing very rapidly as a consequence of erosion and climate change.
Senator Neufeld: So that you don’t misunderstand me, I am not a person that says the climate isn’t changing. I agree the climate is changing. I live in the North, so in my short lifetime I have seen some changes.
If we stay at 2 degrees or less, do all these problems go away in the North?
Mr. Vincent: Unfortunately, they don’t go away, but that 2 degrees is such an important guardrail. Beyond the 2 degrees, we move into unchartered territory at a planetary scale where many feedback processes click into action, whether it be the thermohaline circulation of the ocean, which is also determined by what happens in the North, or whether it is the loss of even winter sea ice in the North.
As we move beyond that 2 degrees, we end up with a northern hemisphere that has no ice. That is a very different planet, but it’s also a planet with much larger sea level rises. That 2 degrees was established back in the beginning of the 1990s, with the realization that this is the point at which we start moving into massive changes at a planetary scale.
No, we will not avoid these changes in the North, some changes in the North. We are already seeing these changes, but we will avoid the worst of these changes and the most dangerous of these changes.
Senator Neufeld: In keeping it to 2 degrees, you said, it was very important for Canada to be the leader, and meeting those anticipated changes from the Paris Agreement will have a huge effect on the economy and how people live in all of Canada, as Senator Wetston said, not just the North but those in the southern part.
I hear from around the world things that are happening. In the next 10 years or even less, 2,000 coal plants are planned. All kinds of countries want the same kind of lifestyle that we have but they don’t have today. Fossil fuel will actually move them to that.
Fossil fuel is anticipated by the IEA to increase in use for a long time into the future. It’s entwined in our life with everything. It’s not just driving our cars and heating our houses. It’s almost the basis of everything that we consume.
I’ll use the word I don’t really care for, but if in fact we destroy or reduce our economy and the way people live in Canada and the rest of the world doesn’t, things still happen. It will still go to 2 degrees or maybe more.
I am a believer that we should be adapting. Adaptation is something we should also spend a heck of a lot more time looking at. Regardless of how good we think we can be in Canada that we can meet all those targets, it has been demonstrated to us at least in this committee that will be pretty difficult, if not impossible.
How do we deal with that, going into the future? We all live in the same atmosphere. It doesn’t matter if we don’t make the steel here and employ people, if we don’t do the things in Canada that we do now and employ people, it will go south of the border, and that’s very close to us. It will be done there, or it will go to Korea, it will go to Japan or it will go to China. It will go to any one of those countries.
How do you answer that to people? That’s part of the conundrum. It’s not just people in Toronto. It’s not just people in Vancouver. How do you convince people that this is something you really have to look at and be serious about, if in fact you’re to keep it below 2 degrees?
For thousands of people, their jobs are gone and the way we live. It is not just a few hundred; it is thousands. The clothes we wear have natural gas in them, or parts of it. It is just those simple things.
Mr. Vincent: You are absolutely correct, in that we have been addicted to a carbon economy now for more than 200 years. We are vitally dependent upon that carbon economy. The way I got here yesterday was by airplane. At the moment that cannot be done in a non-carbon economy.
It does require massive changes. It requires changes at a planetary scale, but those changes require global leadership. Canada is in a position to achieve that leadership at a planetary scale. We see an unprecedented momentum and interest even in places such as China and the United States.
Senator Neufeld: China should. I get that.
Mr. Vincent: Absolutely.
Senator Neufeld: Throw China at me. Sir, China should.
Mr. Vincent: It has to. I think they are getting the message.
Senator Neufeld: Don’t tell me they are doing much better than us.
Mr. Vincent: They are not doing better. In fact, if you look at that graph on slide 10, for a minute. There we thought maybe we had peaked at CO2in terms of emissions per year; but you see the estimates for 2017 actually rose by 2 per cent.
Part of that is from China because their hydro production was down this last year, so they had to fire up more of their coal plants. It’s a very precarious situation in China, but we are seeing a political interest and a movement in that direction.
I have been at so many meetings in the last 12 months when delegates from other nations have said it is time for Canada to step up to the plate. We don’t see that leadership. With all the other problems we see around the world, we see that this is an important time for Canada to show leadership to the rest of the world in terms of underscoring the need for decarbonization approaches.
Concerning the economic shifts, I have been inspired by the Schellnhuber team at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, which is responsible for a lot of these projections including economic projections, keeping in mind the uncertainties of these economic projections.
That team emphasizes that it is feasible, economically, to move into a decarbonized economy in a scaled way, in particular by encouraging innovative technologies, new industries and new economic opportunities that they suggest are not only feasible but also attractive in terms of offering opportunities to move toward that state.
Let’s think about the alternative. The alternative is going beyond the 2 degrees. Then we move into incredibly difficult circumstances of massive sea level rises and huge storms. They are further down the track.
We still have to adapt, as you point out, to changes that are taking place, changes that are right now in the pipeline. Do we have the capacity to adapt to the most extreme of those changes, with a population of 7 billion people in the world?
The arguments from the Schellnhuber group are that really this decarbonization and climate change should be on the same level as global economic growth, global peace and global security. It should be an issue within the United Nations Security Council because it has an influence on all of those, and increasingly so in the future.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Thank you very much for being here this morning, Mr. Vincent.
I will continue along the same lines. You say it is important to act. I have no problem with that principle, on the contrary. However, I’m afraid that it is almost impossible not to exceed 2°C. But that is not what I would like to hear your comments on.
Based on the forecasts, we see that, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, if the government honours its commitments, we will have an average of 3.6°C, a little under 4°C, which is significantly more than 2 degrees. Considering our personal habits, businesses and the current momentum, it will take decades to change things, despite the policies. Let’s not forget that the promises are rarely kept and that we are always a little idealistic.
Why are you so sure that we can reach less than 2 degrees? I feel that the goal is impossible to achieve, despite the major consequences for the population. Why are you convinced that we can achieve the target of less than 2°C, while the data show quite a different story?
Mr. Vincent: It is true that some projections show that the 1.5°C objective is difficult to achieve, if not impossible; 2°C is already a very ambitious target.
On the other hand, last year, other projections, such as those from Schellnhuber, Rockström and Potsdam, showed that the goal is achievable if we target certain types of industries and certain technologies, such as that of carbon sinks and biofuels.
Last year, we published projections that showed a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere by a factor of two every 10 years. The data also showed that, for the first 10 years, it would suffice to increase efficiency around the world, because there is a huge waste of energy. We’re wasting heat in Canada. In the North, we can do a lot more to conserve fuel. In the summer, the sun shines 24 hours a day. It is possible to use this resource in the North.
There are also opportunities in managing hydroelectricity. Projections have shown that, over the first 10 years, known as the “no brain decade,” some rather clear measures could make a difference. During the second 10-year period, however, we will have to implement a major technological change. We provide a number of examples. Disruptive technologies are rapidly changing around the world. Cellphones were not widespread 20 years ago, but today we are seeing the changes brought about by this technology.
Experts suggest that, with sufficient political pressure around the world and with a will, we will further move forward in that direction. Economically, there are significant benefits for countries that are at the forefront of these sorts of technological developments.
Senator Massicotte: I understand your answer. A number of witnesses indicated that technology is available and that, if we change our behaviour, we create opportunities. Of course, everything you mentioned exists. However, in reality, things are not getting done. In theory, if you invent the magic wand, things might work out. It’s sort of like winning the lottery. It is unrealistic to think that we will all adapt. I hope so, but it is very likely that we will not succeed, although it can be done. Last week, a witness recommended that we focus on energy efficiency. That is a red herring. Yes, we can do it, but it is not the case.
Mr. Vincent: I respect your opinion a great deal; however, some examples show the opposite. The electric car was not possible 20 years ago; we faced all sorts of opposition. However, Germany has decided that all cars will be electric by 2030. Today, we are seeing a movement and a public will to adopt a transportation model that does not use fuel. There is interest in high-speed electric trains. Those are some examples of starting points.
Today, we have an economy of scale in which energy plays a major role. In the past, it may have been important for small facilities. Today, we operate wind energy and solar energy in our grid. In Denmark, wind energy has gone from less than 10 per cent to 44 per cent of the total energy consumed in very little time. However, this shift required some will. As you pointed out, it is important for the general public to be convinced that the problem is real and needs to be addressed.
Senator Massicotte: You are talking about Germany, Denmark, and Finland. Even the electric car is not an ideal solution. Making them produces significant CO2 emissions and their impact is minimal. Despite all the efforts in Canada, progress is minimal. Germany has shut down its nuclear reactors, and CO2 has increased dramatically as it has become dependent on coal.
We can talk about some instances, but in general, progress is limited. I hope you are not mistaken, because we really need solutions. However, I remain a bit pessimistic about whether we can do it.
[English]
Senator Cordy: This has been a fascinating discussion. I really appreciate it.
When you spoke about the megaslumps in the northwest, how prevalent are they? What are they doing to the environment or to the landscape of that particular area?
Mr. Vincent: These megaslumps are becoming more common and more visually obvious even in Eastern Canada in the area that I work on. As I fly over Southern Ellesmere Island, increasingly we see hillsides that have disappeared.
This material ultimately ends up in the water supply, so it’s of concern in terms of drinking water. It’s affecting the quality of water for aquatic ecosystems. Ultimately, it has an effect on the coastal environment. I think the primary concern, really, with these slumps is in the vicinity of villages.
The example that I have here on slide 8 in the bottom left-hand corner is Salluit in Northern Quebec. A few years ago that town experienced a hillside that collapsed because of permafrost failure. It knocked out their community centre. Fortunately, nobody was in there at the time. It could have been a tragedy, but it led them to start asking this question: Can we really stay here because of these megaslumps that are taking place?
We have to realize that these sorts of things weren’t thought about decades ago because it was concrete as far as the engineers were concerned. It was a permanently frozen part of the environment.
There is a whole variety of effects of these landslides, ranging from ecological effects to effects on drinking water supply, to effects on human security.
Senator Cordy: And it is not going to stop.
Mr. Vincent: This is not going to stop, but again this is where adaptation is critical. I am in agreement with the honourable senator about the vital need to be looking at adaptation strategies. There are limits to those strategies, but we need to be putting a lot of effort into those.
One approach that I have illustrated on left-hand side of slide 9 is the map that is a risk assessment for the village of Salluit. Our scientists have worked with the village elders. They have worked with young people in the village.
These are typically very young communities. The average age is the 20s in these northern communities. Some 35 per cent of Inuit are aged 14 years or younger. There is a need for more houses. There are new families developing.
Our scientists are working with these communities to make basically risk maps of regions where you could build, where the landslides will not come down and knock out your house, where you put in your foundations, and where the permafrost is so unstable because there is so much ice currently frozen in the ground that in a few years time your house will collapse.
These are the sorts of things we can do in the future, relative to these kinds of shifts.
Senator Cordy: I had the opportunity a few years ago to go to Greenland with a NATO group. We were looking at security issues. Denmark, of course, and Danish authorities were also playing a major part in presentations that we were getting because they have a lot of concerns.
You spoke about the North being hypersensitive. I am from Cape Breton. We would say they are the canaries in the coal mines of years ago.
One of the things we looked at when we went to Greenland was ecotourism, which was a big thing, and the security concerns about it because now the waterways are open for so much longer. The cruise ships are going up, which is wonderful if you’re on the cruise ship, but their concern from a security perspective was if something happens to the cruise ship. They don’t have the resources on Greenland to rescue thousands of people.
The Danish government said that cruise lines had to travel in pairs so that if something happened to one cruise ship, at least they could use the other cruise ship to put some people on it.
We visited the American base. Of course their airstrip is a great concern, as it is with all the airstrips in the North. If you can’t travel in and out, that causes great concern.
In answering questions earlier from Senator Wetston, you talked about it not being too late to do anything. Are there changes that are there forever? Will we have to adapt and change our way of thinking, particularly in the North, but also as we move south? You spoke about Salluit. Will that community still be there?
Mr. Vincent: That’s a really good question. I think that the North provides lessons to all of us. There are a lot of messages from the North in how we behave, perform and plan in the South.
What Northerners have realized is that you cannot now build for current conditions because conditions are changing so rapidly.
The tourism example is very interesting. That has been of great concern to me. For the second time this last year — the first time was 2016 — we have seen one of the mega cruise ships in the Northwest Passage. Again, that was unthinkable 20 years ago. We still don’t have bathymetric charts of the Northwest Passage.
That ship has 1,700 people on board. There were more tourists on this ship than are in the communities, the villages they are visiting, and there are parts that are becoming more accessible.
I have talked to Inuit communities about this issue. They say they really appreciate the economic benefits of these visits. If it’s done correctly, then it’s a good thing for the North, but they also express concerns about safety and the strategy of a double ship or having an icebreaker in the vicinity as particularly important.
We have seen situations where ships have got into a lot of difficulty in the North. Our own Canadian Coast Guard research vessel, the Amundsen, managed through Laval University, had to rescue one of those cruise ships a few years ago in the Northwest Passage.
One of the messages from the North is that there are major changes ahead in the South in terms of extreme events. We have to build for those extreme events. For example, building codes in Northwest Territories now are focused on codes that relate not for right now, but codes that relate for the decades ahead in terms of planning for instability, channelling away water and preventing flooding that perhaps is not occurring at the moment but that will occur in the future.
That’s where in our own practices in the South we need to be thinking about how we will build for the future right now, including building our business models for the future given this instability.
We have had a lucky run for 10,000 years as human beings. Our human society has been predicated upon environmental stability. Our business models have been predicated on environmental stability. We are now moving into a different regime.
Although I do not share the honourable senator’s opinion that we have to deal with the worst ahead of us, we will have to deal with some big changes that are taking place and get ready for those.
Senator Mockler: Professor, I am going to give you a few statistics and then I am going to ask you a question, especially when we say Canada has to step up to the plate.
You know that we are only 36 million people, but in the last budget Canada will invest $20.9 billion over the next 11 years on green infrastructure. We say Canada is a rich country and we can absorb the cost needed to adapt and help others. When I look at infrastructure, including climate change mitigation and adaptation, over $4 billion will for measures to support clean technology and a low carbon economy.
Then, we look at our international responsibilities, notwithstanding the fact that President Trump doesn’t believe in climate change. We have committed to contributing approximately $2.6 billion to international climate financing between 2015 and 2020, which includes $300 million to the Green Climate Fund, $300 million to the Least Development Countries Fund, $150 million to the G7 African Renewable Energy Initiative, and $2.5 million to the United States Clean Technology Centre & Network environmental programs. I applaud that as a parliamentarian.
When we say Canada needs to step up to the plate, could you define that for me and tell me what more we can do?
Mr. Vincent: I agree. I applaud the government’s efforts in that direction as well. We should be promoting what we’re doing, first of all, to the Canadian public, to get that story back to the Canadian public to emphasize the fact that this government does see climate change as a critical issue, that Canada is part of this global effort at a critical time, and it is urgent. There is an urgency about this issue.
It’s getting the story back to fellow Canadians, but we also have an opportunity to get that out to the rest of the world and to emphasize all the sorts of things we’re doing as models.
Of course, our economy is limited relative to China or to the United States. We do have a lot of good brain power in Canada. We have Canadians. We have an incredible opportunity in Canadian know-how, Canadian technology and Canadian innovation. We have opportunities to continue to promote that and to export that to the rest of the world, and to do so proudly. It is the time.
In the United States, for example, yes, there are certain ideological difficulties that we face at the moment in terms of transmitting the urgency of climate change to certain levels of government; but there are other levels of government in the United States that are highly receptive to the urgency of climate change.
The relationship between Quebec and California is an example of that. California is very proactive and, like Canada, is and should continue to be a place where ideas can be generated to really galvanize the world.
I see the Canadian investment being not necessarily in terms of dollars, per se, but in terms of innovation ideas. That’s where we need to support our government in terms of the urgency and importance of climate change and their efforts to explain that to Canadians so that every Torontonian and every citizen of British Columbia understand the implications for coastlines and the implications for storm events.
As we move into these unchartered territories, this government has incredible stories to tell to generate enormous traction, not only in Canada, but also as a reliable broker internationally.
Senator Mockler: The Three Amigos are negotiating NAFTA right now. If we don’t have a NAFTA, how will that impact on climate change or our vision in North America and in the world?
Mr. Vincent: That is totally outside my area of expertise, but I appreciate the magnitude of concern. I think all Canadians are suffering this process. We read about it every day. We all suffer because we know the economic consequences will impact the lives of every Canadian as well.
Senator Richards: This is just an observation. I agree that the climate is changing but at times there is a kind of religious self-righteousness about this which I find disturbing.
My son was working in the oil patch, laying pipe at minus 30 degrees and his wife was five months pregnant at home on the Miramichi. Neil Young flies up, gives a talk about how terrible he is, and then flies back to L.A. The next day, Robert Kennedy Junior, who has never gone without a drop of oil in his life, flies up and does the same thing.
You’re talking about people trying to get a job and you have these multi-millionaires with their private jets telling us we shouldn’t use oil. It makes a gigantic divide between different types of people or what people think are different types of people. It’s rather elitist.
That is my observation.
Mr. Vincent: I agree with you. I find that really distasteful as well. I feel there is a lot of hypocrisy out there in the environmental movement in that there is still a presumption that if you plug your computer into the wall, electricity will come out and will set up your computer. There is no real understanding that it depends upon our carbon economy, including what your son is doing in the oil patch right now.
Like all Canadians, I want to see Alberta and all fellow Canadians prosper, but I also worry about the incredible set of circumstances we are pushing ourselves toward, as a scientist looking at the science which is so crystal clear now.
So much of this is based on earth system science. That was not a science that existed 20 years ago. Earth system science has developed enormously. There are many uncertainties, but we understand so much more than 20 years ago of how the atmosphere, the land, the ocean and the human components of our planetary environment interact. The new perspective clearly shows that we are headed into dangerous territory if we move beyond that 2 degrees.
We need to look at ways to work with the oil industry to find new carbon capture technologies and new systems. We see many of these energy corporations now investing hugely in alternate energy sources. They clearly see that in the long term there is a need to examine alternate business models.
As a nation, how do we encourage that momentum and work alongside people like your son? My brother-in-law is a miner and, like your son, is working in these very difficult conditions in a way that perhaps an average member of an environmental movement would not understand yet profits from.
Thank you very much for your comment.
The Deputy Chair: We are a little over time. I want to finish, Mr. Vincent, with a question for you.
I want to go back to our first question. The first thing we discussed was people accepting climate change as something that is real and believing the science.
I am a person who believes in science and I believe the climate is changing, but I also know that 10,000 years ago we were under 3 or 4 kilometres of ice right across this country, with the exception of southwestern British Columbia.
Obviously, the climate was changing without being driven by human activity.
Mr. Vincent: Absolutely.
The Deputy Chair: One of the great sticking points for people is the strong relationship people draw between CO2 production and climate change. Some scientists and some people believe that CO2 actually follows an increase in temperature as opposed to driving it. I am just curious what your response is to that.
Mr. Vincent: The first part of your question concerns the idea of natural cycles. It’s a question that I receive in public venues as well. It’s true that our world over the last 4 billion years, has gone through huge cycles, but it was not always a very good place to live as a human being.
The fact of the matter is that our civilization has developed the last few thousand years. Our economy, our society and everything we see around us is predicated upon the environmental stability of what happened after those ice sheets disappeared.
You make such a good point because the difference between ice sheets and now is only a couple of degrees, but you are multiplying by the big multiplier factor of planet earth. You are taking a small number and multiplying it in your spread sheet by a huge number, and the result is a gigantic number. It seems small but there are big consequences such as whether or not we’re underneath ice here in Ottawa.
Was your question related to the transmission of this idea of climate change?
The Deputy Chair: No, I am tying CO2 production to being a driver of climate change, but some people think it’s a follower of climate change.
Mr. Vincent: It requires some basic scientific understanding that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I don’t know whether we can get beyond any point in the argument if there is no understanding that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is like believing in gravity or not? If you don’t believe in gravity, good luck with that.
CO2 absorbs energy. We know it’s a greenhouse gas. We clearly see this huge increase at stations now throughout the world. We have now exceeded 400 parts per million for the first time, we think, in millions of years. We’re beyond any of the previous kinds of thresholds.
We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The science shows what it means is that it will heat up. It will absorb energy and it will get hotter. We also know that hot air absorbs more water. People are aware of that in their houses. They know that over winter in Ottawa one of the problems is that it’s so dry inside because the cold air that comes inside that doesn’t contain very much water. We know it will contain more water as we heat it up. We experience that as Canadians.
Water is also a greenhouse gas so that’s accelerating this amplifying effect. With more heat and more water inevitably there has to be more extreme events and a more violent kind of climate system. That’s a train of scientific logic. I am not sure that it will work with ideologues. No matter what you show an ideologue, there isn’t the scientific attraction or understanding.
What happens with an extreme fire? What happens with an extreme collapse of a hillside or a runway? What happens with a flood event of the type that knocked out Churchill last year? What are the consequences? If you can show evidence of extreme events and their consequences, that is liable to gather a little more interest.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We are pumping out CO2. There is clear evidence of that.
Senator Massicotte: I would recommend that the climatologist you refer to who has that theory come here as a witness. I would like to hear his views on that.
The Deputy Chair: Yes. Mr. Vincent, thank you very much for your presentation.
For the second segment, I am pleased to welcome from Quality Urban Energy Systems of Tomorrow, QUEST, Brent Gilmour, Executive Director, and with him is Tonja Leach, Managing Director. Thank you both for joining us.
Mr. Gilmour, please proceed with your opening statement, after which senators will have a question and answer session.
Brent Gilmour, Executive Director, QUEST: QUEST, Quality Urban Energy Systems of Tomorow, is the voice of the smart energy communities marketplace in Canada. As an influencer, connector and educator we support governments, utilities and energy providers, the real estate sector and solution providers to grow the smart energy communities marketplace.
Smart energy communities put in place the conditions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lower energy use, drive the adoption of clean technologies, enhance resiliency, and foster local economic development and job creation in Canada.
On slide 3, the actions of communities across Canada are critical to meeting federal, provincial and territorial objectives for reducing energy use and for meeting our greenhouse gas commitments.
Communities influence nearly 60 per cent of all energy consumption and over half of all greenhouse gas emissions. Most of the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions are associated with how we move, that is transportation, and where we spend most of our time, inside a building.
However, energy use is a complex issue for communities intrinsically interlinked with our current and long-term economic, social and environmental priorities. Current energy planning continues to match energy demand once community planning decisions are already finalized.
As a result, energy systems are designed and developed after energy needs, such as for heating, cooling, power and transportation, leaving little opportunity to reduce the need for energy and reduce emissions in the first place.
On slide 4, the end result is that QUEST is championing the reverse of this approach through the development of smart energy communities, where decisions related to land use planning, water infrastructure, wastewater, waste management, personal mobility, goods movement and building design are considered up front and become the pathway for communities to become low carbon communities.
The effect of the transition for communities is that they will look similar to what you see just outside the Senate chamber today. Many of the new sources of energy will emerge as commonplace, such as solar heating, solar photovoltaics, wind, tile power, run of the river, biogas, district energy, combined heat and power, and energy storage, to name a few.
As well, end users will have more options to manage energy, such as how much to use, when to use it and what sources to tap. There will also be a greater value on the avoided use of energy outright.
On slide 5, entitled “Supporting the Transition Beyond Emissions,” by focusing on how we use, move and produce energy through smart energy communities, we will not only be able to address our greenhouse gas objectives. We’ll also be able to respond to critical social and economic considerations that impact affordability and long-term economic resiliency of communities.
While energy use varies in communities across Canada, all are faced with increasing energy bills, which can be an economic burden on local economies. On average, the community per capita spending on energy ranges from $3,000 to $4,000 per capita, or $1 billion per year in total for an average size community.
In London, Ontario, as an example, of the $1.6 billion they spend on energy for heating, cooling and transportation every year, only 12 per cent remains within their community. London estimates that for every 1 per cent in reduction in energy use by their residents and businesses, about $14 million is saved.
Smart energy communities can do more than just reduce energy costs. They create opportunities for low carbon infrastructure renewal as a result of the physical energy and community infrastructure across Canada needing replacement.
They support economic development as well by capitalizing on a growing global clean technology market. They can create jobs associated with decentralized and clean energy networks in Canadian communities. They can support the establishment of healthy communities. Priority is being placed on establishing healthy communities right across Canada.
In a recent survey of communities engaged in the transition to become smart energy communities, about 60 per cent identified health benefits as a key reason for their transition.
On slide 6, entitled “Accelerating the Transition,” through our work with community energy leaders from coast to coast to coast, we learned that communities were missing an approach to help define priorities around energy. As a result, we have a meaningful way to improve efficiency, cut emissions and drive economic development to support a transition to a low carbon economy.
To help to address this need, QUEST championed the development and implementation of a community energy plan as a way of putting in place the building blocks to support a low carbon economy. A community energy plan is really a 360 degree review that defines energy priorities and improves how energy is used in a community, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and helping communities to become smart energy communities.
In 2015, with the support of the leading community energy experts in Canada, we documented for the first time that there were 170 community entry plans representing more than 50 per cent of the Canadian population as part of the Getting to Implementation - Community Energy Planning in Canada initiative.
Since that time growth of community energy plans has been staggering, increasing by over 250 per cent to over 400 communities today, including 165 Indigenous communities.
While communities in Canada are advancing community energy plans, all communities need help getting from plans and ideas to implementation. Through our work with Getting to Implementation and, more recently, with the Atlantic Canada Energy Data Roadmap, we have learned that there are three challenges impeding the effects of transitioning to a low carbon economy. I will refer to impediments to the transition.
First, communities are averse to change and require evidence of success before investing. Communities rely on best practices for establishing multi-sectoral partnerships and implementing complex projects and programs needed for the transition to a low carbon economy, but they are without platforms for learning, benchmarking and comparison of the effective policies, processes and programs.
This lack of accessible and comparable best practices, especially with regard to what we refer to as multi-sectoral partnerships and governance models, is resulting in missed opportunities among essential stakeholders such as local governments, gas, electric and thermal utilities, and the real estate sector.
Second, the most impactful innovations for the establishment of low carbon communities are taking place at the local level, and communities are not ready.
Canada’s energy systems were designed more than 100 years ago and have been incrementally modified since. They worked well, especially in a time of vertically integrated, centrally supplied generation models. Innovation is taking place as it relates to how we use, move and produce energy, and the needs as well as expectations of consumers too.
The technological innovation is happening at a pace that is difficult for both the policy and regulation communities to keep up with. Local governments, utilities and the real estate sector have not yet put in place the models of delivery and operations, partnerships and networks needed to support our transition.
Third, we have a data dilemma. Energy data are necessary for good policy decision-making, to confirm the effects of transitioning to a low carbon economy, and to acknowledge that Canadian energy data is incomplete, varies in quality, lacks consistency and is not widely or easily accessible. This makes it very challenging for communities to know how they are progressing to a low carbon community. Real data on progress supports informed decision-making.
Accessing energy data is just part of the challenge, though. At the community level there has been a surge in processes and methodologies for the reporting and tracking of greenhouse gas emissions in response to international standards, subnational standards and even industry standards.
These challenges, though, are not insurmountable and are part of the transition to a low carbon economy. There are three ways that we can lessen the impediments and keep our efforts directed on implementation.
On the three considerations slide, first, we need to invest in comparison and benchmarking for communities with sector integration tools. Gaining confidence and trust requires providing community champions and decision-makers with the evidence of success stories, failures and lessons learned to build trust and insights to support investment and measures that will allow for deep energy and greenhouse gas reductions and, ultimately, the transition to a low carbon economy.
For example, QUEST has initiated the development of a smart energy communities scorecard to evaluate how the multiple sectors of local governments, utilities, real estate and other community stakeholders are progressing on a path to smart energy communities. The scorecard is measuring and valuing how we are achieving our outcomes in terms of policies, processes and programs that are enabling implementation and at the end of the day result in three things: a standard set of key indicators that define the pathways to becoming smart energy communities, a methodology to help evaluate how multiple sectors are contributing to smart energy communities, and a scorecard report that is really a web-based dashboard for profiling community scores and a roadmap for action to help those communities along the way.
Second, we need to invest in social economic process innovation, just like we have invested heavily in technology innovation. The dialogue initiated as part of the generation energy and the pan-Canadian energy framework has led to conversations about the establishment of a low carbon economy. That dialogue also needs to include how as Canada enters a period of transition.
The difficult and challenging conversation about implementation and cost needs to be thought through and evaluated to allow businesses, consumers and others to understand the practical implications.
A great example of how we can support businesses and local governments transition is through initiatives such as the Low Carbon Partnership. The Low Carbon Partnership is a collaborative of four organizations including QUEST that are working with small to medium enterprise companies across Canada, positioned to support the Government of Canada’s climate change objectives by undertaking to scale up proven tools and programs that will engage 4,000 businesses and 300 communities, from now to 2025.
We expect to be able to deliver $150 million in cost savings with small and medium enterprises and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from half a tonne by 2020, rising to over 1.3 megatonnes by 2025.
Third, we must invest in the access to real energy data to support decision-making. The adage that you can’t manage what you can’t measure is spot-on when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. Most greenhouse gas emissions are the result of the production and use of energy.
Through the research and consultations that we have undertaken for the Atlantic Canada Energy Data Roadmap, we have learned that we do not have the energy data we should have to improve accountability, measure progress, and develop new goals and objectives for a lower carbon economy and for smart energy communities.
Addressing this issue will require a balance between public and consumer interests. The public needs accountability and measurement. Consumers need data too, but privacy is paramount when it comes to their data. Consumers must be able to decide if they want to share their energy use data with someone else.
The roadmap outlines the path stakeholders can take, that is governments, consumers, energy providers, regulators and efficiency interests, to build a world where energy use and greenhouse gas data are collected, used, shared and reported at a high level to improve accountability while energy use data at an individual level are made more accessible to consumers and easily shared by them voluntarily.
Every region of Canada requires their version of an energy data roadmap. The federal government has a critical leadership and coordinating role and is best placed to support a central energy data repository, such as the Canadian Energy Information Agency that can work with all province and territories to report on the transition to a low carbon economy.
The Deputy Chair: Are you going to make a presentation?
Tonja Leach, Managing Director, QUEST: No, I am not making a presentation. I am just here to help answer questions.
Senator Seidman: I would like to ask you, if I might, about impediments to the transition. Intuitively, the concept of smart energy communities marketplace in Canada and all the issues around innovation are excellent ones; but when you talk about the data dilemma there are issues around cost effectiveness which are fed by outcome measures in science.
We have heard a lot from businesses and even municipalities that are very reluctant to make changes or to make investments in technological innovation without outcome data. If the science doesn’t provide the information, how do you get there?
Mr. Gilmour: In our case, when we think of energy data we are at the energy end use level. We’re looking at the household from that perspective. Most of us right now have that information. It’s there. It exists.
Most of what you’re often seeing, here presented or used, is modelled. Quite frankly, it’s extensively modelled, for the most part.
Our challenge is how to extract the real data being collected from coast to coast, often in a new meter, depending on whether you have it and how it is working. How do we bring that up to a level that can be shared?
Within the roadmap that we undertook, which involved all four Atlantic provinces, the privacy commissioners and the utilities, it became pretty evident for all of them that there was a level at which data could be collected and could be shared. It was through the use of AMI, or automated measurement information system.
As they start to get in place, the challenge becomes what is the requirement of the actual industry in terms of how they provide information. Right now if you asked a utility on the Atlantic coast if they are set up to provide that information in a way that they are willing to, the answer would be no. If consumers were to be asked what they would like and whether they could access that data, the answer would be no.
Some fundamentals are missing to allow for the exchange of data right now in terms of our process and our frameworks that would allow for that to ensure the protection of privacy. We’re at that stage where it’s no longer a technological barrier. It’s no longer a barrier in the sense of how to collect it and how to share it technologically.
It’s a barrier that relates to us and what we have decided we are are willing to share and how to share that. We can get past that.
To answer your question about where communities are at and where local governments and industry are headed, they are all after the data. They want assurance about the procedure and the process to do so and an understanding of what are each other’s expectations.
We took almost two years on the development of that roadmap. We worked with key stakeholders to walk through what those expectations would be. What would be the framework that you would need to have in place for government at the end of the day?
I can tell you it was well received as far as the fundamental honest approach that everyone agreed on. You could look at the well-established Green Button program in Ontario for the sharing of electricity information. Consumers can access the data should they wish. Businesses can too.
You can extend that beyond electricity for other thermal energy sources in water. We also realized that there are many other sectors that aren’t ready for that. In the Atlantic region, for example, data are not available electronically from oil providers, from propane providers or from many other types of thermal energy providers. We will have to put in more infrastructure for that too. There is a roadmap that will allow us to get there. That’s where we will have to head.
In terms of the last point on what is missing, it is an understanding of the federal government’s role and the provincial role about where data might actually be shared, who is collecting it and how.
There was a push or an incentive to create an energy information agency in the last 1.5 to two years for good reason. Everyone is moving on their own path right now to try to make data more available. At the end of the day, we will still need a central repository. That is still an important federal role.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: On page 3, under the heading “The effect of transitioning to a low-carbon economy,” in the table on the right, can you concretely explain what it represents in the context of the challenges that you face in terms of the exchange and sharing of data with the various municipal, provincial and federal authorities?
[English]
Mr. Gilmour: In concrete terms as they relate to the understanding of the transition to a low carbon economy, when we think about that the approach we take in our case is smart energy communities.
What does that look like at the end of the day? First and foremost, increasingly, they have focused on the efficient use of energy, outright. That means not just from the building side, but right across the community in terms of transportation as well.
Second, they have effectively integrated conventional energy networks which have allowed for the different types of technologies that we’re seeing now, whether that is combined heat and power, district energy, deep lake water cooling, photovoltaics for both solar and electricity, and solar walls. All of these new opportunities for local generation, at the point of either the building level or the community scale, are actually tied into our existing established distribution network. That would be pipes and wires.
Third, we’re also harnessing local energy opportunities at the end of the day. That can also mean thinking extensively about waste heat and the opportunities in waste sources of energy. For our case we think of sewer heat as an opportunity. As much as it is a source of heat, it is also a source of power. Another aspect when we think about this is waste inside our own buildings and how we’re capturing the opportunities for that. Harnessing local energy also means storage and thinking about how we can actually maximize the opportunity for that at the local level.
Fourth, it’sas important from a land use and transportation planning perspective. When we talk about this we intuitively think of smart energy communities. The best energy dollar invested is the one you don’t have to invest in the first place. How you get there, though, isn’t retrofitting once you have built everything. It’s actually trying to do that up front.
When we talk about land use and transportation planning, in our case it’s about whether you have reduced the need in terms of the number of car trips. Have you provided the opportunity for mixed use development? Have you provided the opportunity for car sharing? Could it be in a rural or remote community? They might have an opportunity for a fleet conversion that is now electric vehicles. They might actually be able to put in a car sharing program. We are seeing that now in Quebec in a number of communities that have put in an innovative car sharing program with municipal fleets for rural and remote areas.
All this starts to build forward for our understanding of what smart communities are. At the end of the day, it creates the platform for a low carbon economy and a low carbon community.
In terms of the data part of that question, if I understood correctly, and how this relates back to what the federal role was, I want to make sure I understood part two of that question.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I am referring to the problems of data sharing. If you take the concrete example of the Atlantic provinces route map, you are working with the provincial governments and the municipalities. What is the federal government’s role? I’m trying to see what your role is with the municipalities and the provincial government in the first place.
[English]
Mr. Gilmour: For local governments in the Atlantic region and right across Canada, most of them are now moving forward to having to baseline their greenhouse gas and energy emissions for reporting purposes, whether they are part of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Partners for Climate Protection program, whether they are responding to new requirements like in Ontario that mandate the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions in energy, or whether it is in B.C. where it’s the opposite and the province is collecting and providing all the data on behalf of local governments.
In the Atlantic region we heard consistently that they need data. They have some, and they have a good understanding for the corporate buildings or those areas that they have control over. Where it becomes quite a challenge is when they have put in place, not a corporate plan but a community-wide plan.
How do they, then, start to engage and collect information that isn’t privy to them? It’s within the consumer or the private realm. What are the opportunities to access the data? That becomes a conversation with the local utility, which is often collecting that electricity or gas information, or other providers, whether it’s propane or oil, et cetera.
Those relationships are often not established. How they share the data becomes quite tricky because there is both a proprietary sense in it, but there is also a relationship around consumers and what kind of information is transferred in terms of private information.
Our conversations lead directly into that. How do you start that process when you need the data? What is the role of the province in trying to shape that conversation? Should the province take the role, as they have in B.C., of collecting, aggregating and sharing all the data with local governments that need the data for reporting purposes and to make informed decisions?
Was it a relationship where the utilities, if they knew what the opportunity was and/or what their expectation was for how to share the data, could provide the data at a meaningful level for local governments on a regular basis and aggregate it up in some fashion to remove any types of identifier information? That conversation also led to saying that could be another approach that you could take.
The third was the one that people often look to. Why aren’t we just making it easy and accessible for the individual to share their data? When you think of what is on your phone or your iPad in this room right now, you are sharing more data than you have ever shared before. We authorized it. We just didn’t know we had authorized it, in a sense.
Why do we have so much concern and why have we put in such a strong regulatory environment for the sharing of energy data? Why is that there? Is it purely a business concern, or was it truly an individual consumer concern?
The reality was that we’ve just had layer on layer on layer, without people actually questioning why we were doing it this way. Often, it was because we had different authorities regulating different parts of the data collection.
You have the economic regulator that is responsible for trying to ensure the protection of that energy consumption data on behalf of the consumer. You have local governments that are trying to understand how to collect data on behalf of their constituency. Then you have the provincial government that is trying to figure out the balance between the provincial interest and that of the consumer, and everyone has put in a different kind of expectation.
The end result, though, was more like the Green Button. The Green Button was the ability for the industry to know how to prepare data to be shared, on one hand, the standard. On the other hand, it was making the individual consumer public aware that they had the right to share and that it was helpful. We have never actually campaigned or had an educational process to ask, “Why is it good share your energy data?” This is something that’s really interesting.
When you think about all of the times that you load up a new software application and log on, it asks, “Would you like to share your data to improve your product?” Most of the time we click yes; not always, but there’s a good chance we do. We don’t think about that with data and sense of energy.
Part of the resolution of the roadmap was that one of the best directions forward was to voluntarily improve the way and the opportunity for people to share data. We haven’t put that infrastructure in place.
Increasingly, we are seeing good results, whether it’s in the U.K. that has very much moved in that direction, Australia as well, and New Zealand very much so. It’s outright voluntarily and there is a huge uptake, but it was awareness about why it was helpful, that it was not to be related back to you, that it could be aggregated and that it was making product improvements.
That is the longer answer to your question, senator, but it is a difficult, layered and complex issue we have just started to get into as a result of the transition to a low carbon economy. There is a need now to report, particularly when you’re putting in a carbon pricing system. Everyone wants to know exactly how much you’re using or not using and why; but we haven’t put in all of those opportunities to share data yet.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I have a supplementary question. What is happening with federal infrastructure data in the Atlantic provinces, be it airports, ports, Indian reserves, and so on? There is the issue of national repositories of those data, and I wonder whether that is also the case in the Atlantic provinces. How do you access those federal data?
[English]
Mr. Gilmour: I’d say, whether we’re in the Atlantic region, Ontario, Quebec, the North outright, or anywhere else in Canada right now, people cannot access that federal information outright. What we’re seeing is that the conversations we had around the roadmap led to a way to better deal with our own provincial data, let alone even touch the federal asset infrastructure opportunity or development activity, or if there are Indigenous communities that wish to share that information too.
If we put this in context with the reality that you can have several communities and an Indigenous community, does that Indigenous community have any better access to data? The reality is yes or no, they may not. Depending on where the data are coming from and where the energy source is, they can’t make that improved decision.
We mentioned that there are 169 or thereabouts Indigenous communities that are doing community energy plans. The number one struggle they had was getting their own data. For the most part they had to create data on their own. They had to work around or model data, and work with engineering firms and others to try to figure it out because they couldn’t get access.
Fundamentally, we are not providing, in place, the basic information needed to report on progress, let alone report on whether there are better ways to invest in your energy decision-making activities. It’s basic in that sense.
Senator Massicotte: I have a prelude to my question. I am not sure I agree. You say your focus, constantly, is to basically make more energy efficiency. I am not sure I agree with that language because a lot of things are maybe inefficient. You may have a power source that is 90 per cent inefficient but provides you with the cheapest cost energy you need. I prefer that market response rather than simply efficiency.
From my understanding in reading your material and reading your website, basically your organization helps communities, helps developers or anybody to provide a coordinated, macro approach to providing efficient energy.
I like that very much. I think it’s very necessary because I see the answers to the questions. It’s so complicated up there that I think people need your advice or your counsel. That’s very important. I encourage you. I wish you all the success in the world to get us there because I think it’s good for all of us.
What is it you would want from us? You gave a bit of reference. In simple terms, what can we do to help you there from a federal side? Just point form and short answers so that I don’t get mixed up but understand where you’re going.
Mr. Gilmour: In those three points at the end we were suggesting the following:
One, we would appreciate support in investing in comparison benchmarking tools. That’s a nice way of saying it. We have just piloted now by working with six communities to create a scorecard. The reality is that everyone will need that. Every community should benefit from that. We would appreciate that.
Senator Massicotte: What do you want from us? We’re involved with the federal government. What is it that we can do to help you with those three things?
Mr. Gilmour: One, it would be wonderful if you could encourage our colleagues at Natural Resources Canada to continue supporting that kind of direction, because this is something they are very much keen on thinking about, as well as also with Indigenous communities. They are missing a viable tool to help make better energy decision-making. That would be one of them, the smart energy community scorecard. We’d appreciate you encouraging them to invest in that direction, whether it’s our work or others.
Senator Massicotte: Are you looking for money? Are you looking for encouragement? What is it you’re looking for?
Mr. Gilmour: Both. It’s not just for us. It would be that we have not put that much support into the idea of benchmarking, for that matter, at the local level.
Let me just give you a little context.
Senator Massicotte: So, Natural Resources Canada should allocate more funds to benchmarking.
Mr. Gilmour: Yes.
Senator Massicotte: What is the second one?
Mr. Gilmour: One of the other key ones that we talked about is the low carbon partnership. We would encourage the Senate to encourage government as a whole to invest in a fund for this social economic innovation outright.
Senator Massicotte: What does that mean? Make it simple. I am not that smart maybe.
Mr. Gilmour: It is quite alright. We’ve put billions into technology development. The other side of that is: Are the businesses and local governments, with their own governance and regulatory processes and approvals processes, ready to take on those new innovations coming in?
The answer for most people is no. They are struggling to understand how to absorb the technologies coming through.
Senator Massicotte: Rewind for me. Are you looking for money to help Natural Resources Canada?
Mr. Gilmour: This would be a fund outright for those across Canada. If you think of all the challenge funds that are out there, if you think of the different types of infrastructure funds we have created, and if you think of the capital investment funds we have put in, we have put in everything to create infrastructure, tools and resources in the sense of building but we haven’t actually invested in people, yet.
Senator Massicotte: We don’t do any funding, so Natural Resources Canada should allocate part of their funding toward that.
Mr. Gilmour: As an example it could be them. It could be Infrastructure. We’re not going to be specific about what department. It could be any of those departments.
Senator Massicotte: Have you shared that recommendation with Natural Resources Canada?
Mr. Gilmour: As an example, yes, and we intend to encourage that not just with Natural Resources Canada but with Infrastructure and Communities and with Environment and Climate Change Canada.
There is one fund that touches on that a bit. That’s the Low Carbon Economy Fund.
Senator Massicotte: They have received your comments. How have they responded to your recommendations?
Mr. Gilmour: We have only spoken. We have not had a chance to formally present.
Senator Massicotte: What is number three?
Mr. Gilmour: The third one would be continuing to invest in access to energy data. We would appreciate support for a Canadian energy information agency or the equivalent of that.
Senator Massicotte: In all three cases, you’re looking for money for these three different objectives.
Mr. Gilmour: The third one may not be money in that sense. It could be the establishment of an agency, which, of course, would require funding for its operation.
That is something that has been talked about. It has been encouraged among many groups across Canada, but I am not sure it’s seeing enough attention yet within the decisions and opportunities within various departments.
Senator Wetston: I want to follow up on Senator Massicotte’s approach to this in suggesting that as we are considering our own work here, it seems to me that you are facing a huge challenge in this area because of the distribution of responsibilities among the federal government, provincial governments and municipalities other than Toronto. I think Senator Dupuis was getting at this. I know you’re familiar with what has happened in that city from the point of view of energy plans, et cetera.
Can you share with the committee a bit more insight as to where you’re seeing successful energy plans, not only in their development but in their implementation? It’s one thing to design a plan, and a whole other thing to see it working.
As the second part of that, can you share with us not only whether you’re seeing implementation and some success with respect to implementation, but also the areas in which success is occurring and with what technologies? Are their approaches starting to see the light of day when it comes to achieving the goals, the coordination and the support your organization is giving to communities?
Mr. Gilmour: I’ll give you two brief examples. For those who are familiar with the Ontario context, we’ll take a look at the region of Waterloo as an example.
They have developed a community energy investment strategy, a bit of an evolution from just a community energy plan.
Why has it been successful? Where are they headed? What made it worthwhile?
They didn’t focus purely on capital projects in terms of what would be the initiatives to reduce energy outright. They said, “Who do we need to work with to make this plan a success from the beginning?” More important, who takes on what role from the utility perspective, the local government perspective or the provincial government? How do we better planning alignment outright? Why do we think that has been very successful and will continue to be successful?
I put an example on slide 5 about supporting transition beyond emissions for you as a bit of an insight. This was their original plan that started with a few of these insights about how to better partner with local utilities and other local businesses.
From a modest investment that they made on the implementation of just 13 actions, they were able to report out a $350 million value added to the local economy. They employed 5,400 jobs through construction and some full-time employment. The average saving now yearly has been $21 million on those 13 projects that were in the community energy plan.
It was pretty successful, actually, just by focusing on key deliverable activities in areas. Often there were building retrofits. In other cases there were transportation initiatives, whether that be on electrical vehicle charging or on initiatives around broader capital improvements in projects that combine heat and power facilities. That would be localized generation. That was one example where we’re seeing success.
The second good example we could point toward, as another larger community, though, would also be in Halifax. For a point of reference, they have a fairly established community energy plan and adaptation plan.
What has been really beneficial is that they have had a larger scale number of projects going forward. They have been trying to encourage their solar-wide initiative program across the city that had good uptake and their Alderney 5, which was a well-established federally involved initiative that took seawater for cooling. They made sure it was available to a number of buildings. It was a good demonstration project that went on to actually informing other developments.
They have gone much further past that. They are now close to advancing on what would be the second largest waste heat, or in this case sewer heat capture, district energy facility that they will be developing with Halifax Water.
I wanted to point to them because that plan worked with other types of utilities, including the water utility. There is interaction between understanding that there are a number of ways to achieve your objectives and goals. There are a number of ways and partners you need to engage to do that. We are encouraging plans that focus on strategically linking with people who can do implementation.
In terms of some of the other ones we have seen starting to move forward that are very successful, they are around an initiative we have in Ontario called planning alignment. This is an interesting objective to help take capital infrastructure plans. All the utilities have capital infrastructure plans that they have to put forward. Local governments also have capital infrastructure plans that they need to put forward. Those would be the ones receiving gas tax dollars. From a utility perspective, it would be what they would take to their economic regulator for approval.
At the same time, you also have provincial planning authorities that have their own plans. You would be surprised but most of the time they never line up. The question is why. It is because they are all being done at a different pace, with a different objective and with a different audience.
One key thing we have done, which is helping improve these types of activities in community energy plans, is taking the time to bring those stakeholders together, ask them what is the key two or three priorities that they deem as a worthwhile investment, and try to have them align their infrastructure capital planning.
It seems pretty simple, but in doing so they can actually leverage one another’s capital investment approaches, which has significant saving opportunities, redirects sparse capital in a really effective way, and can start to move to actually accomplishing a number of community energy objectives.
It takes time. Again, this is the transition that people aren’t used to coordinating and aligning on how to make investments.
Senator Cordy: . I’ll ask a few questions at the same time.
Can you tell us how QUEST got started in 2007? Did you see a need for the gathering of data? I take the point you made frequently that unless we have the data we’re not going to make changes because people want to see that they are moving from one benchmark to another. I think that’s extremely important.
Who do you work with? Do you work with communities? I assume you work with the four provincial governments of Atlantic Canada because you have the plan together.
Did you work with Halifax? I live in Dartmouth, so I know that there has been a great promotion for many years on energy and recycling and those kinds of things in Halifax-Dartmouth.
You also work with industries, so I wonder if you could pull it all together.
Ms. Leach: Sure. I’ll answer the question about how we got started and then I’ll pass it over to Mr. Gilmour to answer whom we work with.
Senator Cordy: You’re not for profit, so how do you get your funding?
Ms. Leach: Fair enough. On how we got started, really what happened was a general frustration among industry that the discourse in Canada was all on energy supply and nobody was actually talking about how energy was being used in Canada.
We brought together a number of different stakeholders to suss out whether or not this was a common challenge, not just within the energy industry itself but also among municipalities, provincial governments and the real estate sector.
From there, there was a unanimous yes, that we absolutely need to kick off a conversation in Canada that was focused on the opportunities looking at things from, as one of our chairs would say, the opposite end of the telescope.
It’s not just about where is the next electron or next joule going to come from, but how do we look at things from the opposite perspective to ask if we actually need that additional supply. What can we do to curb or reduce demand? That’s where everything started from.
Senator Cordy: You’re not for profit, so where does funding come from?
Ms. Leach: I will jump to that one, and then pass it over to Mr. Gilmour.
Yes, we are not for profit. We do a number of different activities to generate the revenue that we need to operate. We have what we call the subscriber model. We don’t have a traditional membership structure, but we have organizations from industry, municipalities and the real estate sector, et cetera, that are investing in us by becoming a subscriber to our activities.
In addition, we do a number of research projects. We are able to build some capital from delivering research projects.
Mr. Gilmour: The third one that you will see regularly from us is that we run our own events. There is a small revenue stream from that.
The three main revenue streams for us are the subscribers. That works for their benefit and their value. What allows us to be across Canada in terms of who we work with is that at the end of the day we have often structured around eight caucuses.
Those caucuses were made up of three to four primary stakeholder groups: utilities, gas, electric, thermal at all levels, size and capacity, and local governments. When we say the real estate sector, that’s wide ranging. There are two groups within that: the owners and operators. Groups like Oxford, and OMERS are examples for you. A utility that would be an example would be ENMAX or Nova Scotia Power.
In terms of local governments, they are the size of Bridgewater as an example, to the size of Edmonton.
The fourth main group we work with are product and service providers like GE Canada and Siemens. What do they see in all of this? What is their value for participating?
At the end of the day, they are trying to understand this new market that is occurring at the local level. How do we service that? How do we respond to the needs of those investing in us, if you’re a consumer and a local government that has a significant share in that utility?
If it’s a local government, how do we get to our goals? If it’s a utility, how do we still make a return on investment and still help that government meet its greenhouse gas goals? If it’s Siemens, they are trying to figure out the smart energy solution at the end of the day that pulls it all together.
Hopefully, that addressed those questions for you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gilmour, for your presentation and Ms. Leach, thank you for being here this morning.
(The committee continued in camera.)