Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue No. 41 - Evidence - March 27, 2018
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 27, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 5:38 p.m. to study the effects of transitioning to a low carbon economy.
Senator Rosa Galvez (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening, and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. My name is Rosa Galvez. I’m a senator from Quebec, and I’m the chair of this committee.
First of all, I want to apologize to our guest because of this delay. It was not our intention. Higher forces kept us at the Senate.
I will now ask senators around the table to introduce themselves.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Paul J. Massicotte from Montreal.
Senator Dupuis: Renée Dupuis from Quebec.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
The Chair: I would also like to introduce you to the committee staff: our clerk, Maxime Fortin, and our Library of Parliament analysts, Sam Banks and Jesse Good.
In March 2016, the committee began its study on the transition to a low carbon economy. The committee is studying five sectors responsible for 80 per cent of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions: electricity, transportation, emission-intensive and trade-exposed industries, oil and gas, and buildings.
[English]
Today we welcome, by video conference from the City of Halifax, Shannon Miedema, Energy and Environment Program Manager, Planning and Development; and Maggie MacDonald, Managing Director, Government Relations and External Affairs.
Thank you for joining us. I invite you to proceed with your opening statement, after which we will go to a question and answer period.
Shannon Miedema, Energy and Environment Program Manager, Planning and Development, City of Halifax: Thank you very much for the invitation to speak with you today. I’m very pleased to be here to represent the Halifax Regional Municipality and to discuss the critical role municipalities play in Canada’s transition to a low-carbon economy.
Halifax is unique in that it is home to half of the population of Nova Scotia and is graphically as large as Prince Edward Island. While most of our almost half million people live in the metro area, we are also the largest rural county in the province by both population and size. We believe these characteristics, along with being the largest city in Atlantic Canada, allow innovative policies, programs and technologies to be tested here for possible replication and upscaling.
Climate change and extreme weather are felt by communities worldwide, and while cities account for more than 70 per cent of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions, they typically have direct influence over less than 5 per cent of these emissions. As a coastal community with one of world’s deepest, ice-free working harbours, Halifax has experienced several severe weather events in recent years. We’re committed both to reducing emissions and to preparing for and adapting to our changing climate.
Since helping found the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ 20 per cent club in 1997, now the Partners for Climate Protection program, Halifax has been proactive in developing programs, regulatory measures, plans and policies that help transition our organization and community toward a smaller carbon footprint and a more resilient future.
Our 2014 Regional Municipal Planning Strategy is foundational to these efforts, addressing climate change mitigation directly through community energy plan and our corporate plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change mitigation is addressed indirectly as well through many other plans such as our Halifax Green Network Plan, Integrated Mobility Plan and Urban Forest Master Plan.
In addition to the Partners for Climate Protection, Halifax is a member of the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, the Carbon Disclosure Project cities initiative and the Calgary Climate Change Accord. We regularly build our municipal buildings to a LEED silver standard at a minimum, incorporating many green energy and energy efficiency technologies. We continue to upgrade and renovate our buildings to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Halifax is committed to working with our community, other levels of government, industry, businesses and academia in what is likely the greatest global challenge of our lifetime. We are a city rich in expertise, innovation, creativity and commitment. Municipal governments are nimble and can make great gains in mitigation at relatively low cost. So what do we need to be more impactful? A comprehensive list of barriers and recommendations is included in our written briefing submission, but the two we would like to highlight here are appropriate legislative authorities that are essential for action and flexible financial support.
Nova Scotia is one of last provinces to provide municipalities with natural person powers, and municipal governments’ authorities to mitigate climate change through energy efficiency measures, technological innovation or adoption of alternative energy sources are often undefined. Despite these limitations, Halifax spent considerable time and effort to create its award-winning Solar City program to help residents reduce their carbon emissions and benefit from solar energy for heating, hot water and electricity. This required amendment to our municipal charter to grant us the proper authority to run such a program.
To date, the Solar City program has reduced community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by about 920 tonnes annually. A first of its kind in Canada, Solar City covers the complete upfront solar installation costs for property owners and allows them to repay over 10 years with an interest rate of 4.75 per cent. We believe this program is replicable in other cities and could be expanded to other types of renewable energy technologies.
Lack of clear authority and financial resources are current barriers to municipalities wishing to run a similar program.
Any increase in municipal dollars for climate change mitigation is money well spent. We are dedicated, fiscally responsible, mature government organizations and are most in touch with our communities. Funding programs that are flexible in their timelines and cost-sharing requirements will best serve municipalities’ efforts to reduce their carbon footprint. Programs that are flexible in project criteria and eligibility allow municipalities to put forward projects that best meet local needs while achieving the objectives of the funding program.
Much of the federal funding for climate change mitigation right now needs to be negotiated with the provinces and territories through bilateral agreements. Nova Scotia’s negotiations are ongoing, so municipalities have no way to tap into these significant funds until they have been finalized. These agreements need to consider the municipal context to be effective, which requires meaningful collaboration with local governments.
The federal government could also choose to direct a larger portion of its climate change funding through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, allowing for greater influence over the structure of those funding programs.
Another option is for the federal government to consider funding applications that don’t fit within existing funding program structures. Halifax is one of six Canadian cities that have partnered together to request a completely different model for federal funding for climate change mitigation. Along with Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Vancouver and Edmonton, we are requesting funds to form low-carbon innovation centres in each of our cities, similar to Toronto’s Atmospheric Fund model. This funding will be structured as an endowment and will leverage federal funds with contributions from provincial, municipal and philanthropic partners. The proposal was submitted in February, requesting $161 million, with an estimated eight megatonnes of emissions reductions annually by 2030 — an average cost of $20 per tonne.
Municipalities are willing and able to work quickly and effectively. We just need the appropriate authorities and resources to do so. We believe the federal government recognizes the vital role cities are playing and will play in climate change mitigation and adaptation, and we are encouraged by the many bold and significant actions the federal government has taken in this regard.
In closing, thank you very much for engaging cities across Canada in this important conversation, and we look forward to the discussion to follow.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Miedema.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Can you give us more information on your funding application for a group of different-sized municipalities? We would like to have an idea of the differences between the funding you are asking for and the funding you have now.
[English]
Ms. Miedema: Yes. The proposal and all of the information for this innovative ask is available online, and in the briefing we submitted, the website is included. I think it’s www.lc3.ca. This initiative has really been spearheaded by The Atmospheric Fund out of Toronto, which has been incredibly impactful in both demonstrating, de-risking and upscaling different climate change mitigation initiatives, programs, technologies that have come to be adopted in policy by the City of Toronto or the Province of Ontario or to be adopted by the development community.
They have had a really large impact through this type of endowment model, and currently there is no federal funding opportunity for this model. But we think, based on research they have done across the country, that if we give this opportunity to cities, through impact investment and leveraging federal funds with private funds we could have a much bigger impact and more quickly get to our greenhouse gas reduction target for 2030.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Madam Chair, could we ask for these documents, and have them distributed to the committee members, please?
The Chair: We can make that request, yes.
Senator Dupuis: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: I have two questions. I would like you to explain a little more than what you just said about Halifax experiencing the extreme weather event and what the impact of that has been. Maybe you could give us some numbers on how much this has cost so far to repair or to attenuate these impacts.
Ms. Miedema: In Halifax, one of the most severe weather events we have had recently was Hurricane Juan in 2003. We do have numbers we could provide on the economic impacts of Hurricane Juan because we have done studies on that.
We have had severe overnight flooding of our riverbanks, as well as storm surge events which, in addition to sea-level rise and high tides, have had an impact on our coastal properties and communities.
There are infrastructure costs, as well as economic costs from businesses shutting down and not having power for five days — all those types of things that we experience on a fairly regular basis. We are working hard on the adaptation side to better prepare for what we are seeing now and what we predict we will see in the future.
The Chair: My second question concerns your recommendation that the federal government could direct larger portions of climate change funding through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Are you concerned that some of these funds may be lost on the way to the municipalities?
Ms. Miedema: No. We have great faith in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in representing our best interests. Our current struggle is the delays with the bilateral agreement negotiations. We think it poses a risk to achieving the greenhouse gas reductions we need by 2030 when we have these long negotiation processes. There is a role for that, and there is an important place for those bilateral agreements for funding. We think that having the additional funding that has not caught up with the dynamics of the province and the federal relationships, and where the federal government could more strongly influence what that funding is used for, would benefit everybody in achieving those reduction targets.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you for being with us this afternoon.
In the last couple of days, the Auditor General of Canada, in accordance with the auditors general of every province that cooperated, came out with a report on climate change and compared the results of each province, and the country, to the objectives we set out some time ago.
Overall, I must say that it is not very encouraging; the Auditor General’s report makes it very clear that we are far off our targets. While we talk a good deal about policy and about getting it done, our path forward is not detailed enough. We have not fixed specific objectives of how to get there, and we’re not measuring results. It is a feel-good moment, but the results do not at all equate to what we need to get there.
I must say, though, that Nova Scotia is actually one of the better ones. In fact, the Auditor General noted that Nova Scotia — not your city, but the province — has actually achieved most of its goals, being a rare exception. But they also note that Nova Scotia met its goals some years ago, and now there are no further goals or stretch goals for the future.
You are an expert in climate change. When you read this report, it’s devastating in that it says we are really off track. Everybody still says we will meet our targets, but frankly, from what I read, there is no way we will get there.
One can argue that Canada is a small country and it won’t matter, but everything matters because it’s a cumulative effort by everybody to achieve those goals. It’s planetary stuff. It’s not Halifax, Nova Scotia, but we all have to suffer together.
Do you have any comments, as an expert in this matter? When you see what’s happening and you see these reports coming in and you say, “Wow, we’re probably never going to meet our targets,” does that concern you? What advice would you give us in terms of what we should be doing and how we can get there?
Ms. Miedema: I’m gravely concerned about our ability to meet our 2030 targets. There are some promising steps that everybody is taking to get there, but I agree with the consensus that, as a country, as a globe, we are not going to be able to prevent going beyond that 2-degrees-Celsius warming.
In terms of what we can do, it seems that we talk, we plan, we release funds, and everything has a long timeline. As municipalities, we can actually work a little more quickly, just because we are that much smaller an organization than both the provincial and the federal governments. So anything that can be done to more quickly get funds to those projects to make them happen — which I think was the intent of Low Carbon Economy Challenge; we just went to the announcement here in Halifax this morning — would be beneficial.
In terms of barriers that we see, they are more detailed than the briefing that we submitted. However, one thing we face is a lack of data availability and accessibility to be able to properly calculate our community-wide greenhouse gas emissions and then set targets and measure towards them. We know this is a really important step, and it’s quite a barrier for most municipalities across the country.
Senator Massicotte: We are all rational people. The climate change science, to a high percentage, is scientifically proven to be accurate, and I don’t think there is a lack of knowledge about what we need to get done. So why is it we are not getting it done? Is it because politically some people will respond negatively to it, so we talk a good deal but we don’t execute it because we don’t want to offend Canadians or people from your city? Why is it we’re not rational people, making rational decisions, and getting on with it? Why is it we’re not doing that, in your mind?
Ms. Miedema: I like to think sometimes from a psychological perspective, or just a human nature perspective, when I’m grappling with these types of questions. I completely understand where you’re coming from. Because our current economic system is the way that it is, the idea of changing it so drastically, when we are so entrenched in the way we are, is really complicated and overwhelming to people and organizations.
If you look back in human history, we tend to not mobilize quickly until we are faced with what everybody perceives to be an imminent disaster, or just have one happen and then have to recover. I feel that, despite the writing being on the wall for something like this, there are still a lot of people in Canada and across the globe that don’t spend time thinking about this concern and this reality. They don’t understand it and aren’t really comfortable engaging in the conversation.
Senator Massicotte: We price carbon to make it such that every decision we make every day is influenced by that cost, and therefore you respond to it. Is that a big part of the solution, to put a real price on it so that the average consumer now understands the consequences of the consumption of CO2 indirectly?
Ms. Miedema: Yes. I think that anything that influences people’s behaviour and their consumer behaviour is a powerful tool. In our briefing we talk about subsidies, looking at how much we spend as a nation on fossil fuels subsidies, and what we can do to retract some of those subsidies while maintaining a stable economy and shifting that — so putting our money where priorities are, on different green alternatives instead of all the subsidies, even for the shipping of goods and services.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
Senator Seidman: Thank you so much for being with us today.
You presented to us your Solar City, and you said that Halifax spent a considerable amount of time and effort creating this, and it is award-winning. You also say you think the program is replicable in other cities and could be expanded to other types of renewable energy technologies.
Given that it is so successful, I’m wondering, do you have a protocol or something, best practices? How would you pass that down to other cities so that they could replicate it?
Ms. Miedema: We don’t really have any package for cities, but we’ve spoken with many cities that have been interested in the program. We’re doing research to see if it is something in their best interests to pursue. We have everything available online, though. The landing page is www.halifax.ca/solarcity. It has the entire process, all of the documents, the sample contract and everything that’s public-facing for the program.
We’re always open to discussing with cities what we actually had to do internally to make it happen, and they can figure out what their barriers and abilities are to pursue. We’re not the only ones who would have to go for a charter amendment to be able to do this. Sometimes that’s a big enough barrier that municipalities would choose not to do it.
Other municipalities across the country are doing similar programs now — the PACE, Property Assessed Clean Energy program, for example. There are organizations that administer it on behalf of municipalities. There is some movement in that area right now.
Senator Seidman: I know, for example, that Montreal is doing electric cars as a very serious means of transport in the city; Quebec is focusing a lot on this as well.
What would you say, though, is the criteria for success as you have discovered it? You spoke about one barrier. There may be others you might like to highlight, but what were the key reasons for your success as a city in carrying out this kind of project?
Ms. Miedema: In order to have a successful program, we were successful in getting the authority to do so and then worked internally across our procurement — that is, finance, legal and my office — with all different types of groups to structure the program and then properly present the information to the public. We had to carefully set the interest rate because we, as a municipality, have to cover our cost of borrowing and our program administrative costs. That’s what that number is for. We don’t currently have any funding for the Solar City program. We ran a pilot program originally that had substantial funding from the province as well as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which helped offset the costs. The Solar City program right now is a three-year program that was adopted and approved by council. We’re striving towards cost neutrality, but whether we’re actually going to get there depends on how many residents participate in the program .
In the end, it might actually be a municipal cost to run that program, but we made that decision based on our desire to promote solar technology at the community level here.
Senator Seidman: It says in your presentation that the upfront solar installation costs for property owners are covered, so they don’t have to pay for them. If you don’t have funds, where does that money come from to cover it?
Ms. Miedema: We’re basically a financier, so we pay the full costs for the permit and the installation. We do the due diligence to make sure the homeowner is protected, and we help. It’s an open-market approach, so they get quotes from the contractors, and we pay all the money. They enter into a contract with us to repay all of that money over 10 years at that interest rate, so we’re not actually paying it for them. It’s all tied to their property, not to the individual, similar to a local improvement charge structure.
Senator Seidman: And they’re quite willing to enter into a contract like a mortgage, in a way, to make this improvement to their homes? You’re saying that people are willing to do this?
Ms. Miedema: Yes. We’ve had our biggest month just this month, actually. For solar electricity, the average cost for the installation is about $16,000 to $18,000. It’s a barrier if you have to pay that up front, so we do it. They have no penalties for paying all of it at any time. They have to pay it within 10 years, and we set up automatic, preapproved payments so they can pay every two weeks or every month — we’re really flexible. They can pay it down within a year if they want to. It just removes that original cost barrier, yes.
Senator Seidman: Thank you. Very good.
Senator Wetston: I’m sorry; I came in bit late and I didn’t hear your presentation, but I wanted to ask you a couple of questions. I have some familiarity with Halifax, as Senator MacDonald knows. I wonder a bit about district energy. I would have thought you had a great opportunity for district energy in Halifax, and I would have thought that opportunity would have existed for years. In looking quickly at your remarks, however, it seems it’s still a work in progress, if I can put it that way — maybe it’s more advanced than that. Tell me what’s going on there. I think it’s low-hanging fruit for Halifax, in my opinion, to get the pipes built and the water flowing. Do you have any thoughts about that?
Ms. Miedema: I absolutely agree. It’s an area of focus for us now. The province just introduced a bill to amend our charter to enable us to pursue district energy for the Cogswell Interchange redevelopment. There’s a large interchange right in Halifax’s core in the downtown harbour that was built in the 1970s. It’s being torn down. We’re redoing all of the road network. Big buildings will be built. It’s a really great opportunity for Halifax. It’s right close to the Harbour Solutions waste water treatment plan. We’re proposing to use the waste heat from the treatment plant for about a five-building complex in this area. But we need to be able to create a bylaw to require a mandatory connection for the feasibility of that system. That’s what we’re asking the province to allow. It has gone to feasibility, and we’re just waiting for that process to conclude.
Senator Wetston: Can I follow up and suggest maybe you have an opportunity to work with Dartmouth on this as well? I’m not going to ask for Senator MacDonald’s comment on this. There might be an opportunity there. I throw that out, of course.
I wanted to follow up on that for a second. I’ve observed that when we’re talking about cities and about what they need to do, basically it all rolls down to the cities and towns. It’s one thing for the federal government to provide lofty policy goals and money and the provinces to do the same, but the municipalities have to deliver. I think that’s where the big challenge is.
This may be an unfair question — don’t answer it if you think it’s unfair — but do you think the governance model for the municipality is sufficiently robust and modern to allow the municipality to do what it needs to do given the existing framework that we have of federal, provincial and municipal governments? I’m sure your job won’t be on the line whatever you say.
Ms. Miedema: I’m sure we would be much better prepared to do what we need to do if the municipal government act was reviewed for all municipalities in each province and territory because really the restrictions are one of the key barriers for us being able to be progressive and aggressive on climate change work.
Senator Wetston: Can I ask you for one recommendation as to what that might be? There’s that guy again. What’s his name. I think they want me to stop talking. Anyway, do you have a recommendation as to what you think an amendment might be? If not, that’s fine. I’m just interested in how governance functions because of the importance of municipalities in our system of government.
Ms. Miedema: Yes. So one thing that we are hoping to get in Nova Scotia is for municipalities to have natural person powers. That has happened for municipalities in most provinces across the country, but it hasn’t happened in Nova Scotia and I don’t think in Prince Edward Island.
It’s more like the door is open: You can work on climate change and other environmental initiatives, unless it’s specifically excluded, whereas right now, in our charter as Halifax, we have a list of what we can do. It’s limited because it was created far before the climate change and environment conversation generally. So I think that single change would have a big impact here.
Senator Wetston: Thank you.
The Chair: That was a very important question, Senator Wetston.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you. I didn’t expect to be talking about the Cogswell Interchange today, but I’m glad it was brought up because it’s the one question that grabbed my attention here on the sheet.
For the committee members who don’t realize, the Cogswell Interchange is the Halifax equivalent of the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto. It was a municipal initiative that was to be the wave of the future and we all could depend on it, and, of course, it just turned into an eyesore in a ridiculous skyway to nowhere.
I put that out there to remind you that I don’t always have a lot of faith in some of the long-term visions of municipalities, and the Cogswell Interchange is one of those examples. Although the senator referred to it good-naturedly, I think the suggestion of applying this to the Dartmouth side of the harbour, as well as Halifax, is well taken. I think there should be more emphasis on that.
My question is about using renewable waste heat source in that development. That is municipally owned land. I haven’t seen a redevelopment setup and what they’re proposing. Is this municipal land going to be sold or leased to private developers? Will they be required to buy into the renewable waste heat source program?
As somebody who lives around Halifax Harbour, speaking of waste as a heat source, I’d like to see something done about that. I’d like to see something be done about the sewage that’s pouring into Halifax Harbour, as well.
Ms. Miedema: Yes, for the district energy system that’s being proposed — this is all still to be approved by our council — the buildings that would be built in this area would be required to connect to the district energy system. That’s the authority that we’re asking the province for. The owner of the system would likely be Halifax Water, which is a utility regulated under our Utility and Review Board; they would own and operate that district energy system with its waste heat source.
This is all new territory for Nova Scotia and for Halifax, using a waste heat source like this from a sewage treatment plant, but feasibility studies have been done and it’s looking really promising.
So if we do get that charter ability and we get through the go/no-go and it proceeds, we think it would be a nice piece to the Cogswell redevelopment. I will say there is a concept plan available online if you want to look at the vision for the Cogswell redevelopment. It incorporates some interesting facets, like some green space, green infrastructure options and transit hubs, and I think it will actually be a nice development for Halifax once it proceeds.
Senator MacDonald: In principle, I like the idea, I have to say. Since municipal land is going to be privately developed, do we have assurances from the municipality that any investment in this renewable waste heat source would be private investment only and not come from municipal ratepayers? Has that been determined?
Ms. Miedema: Yes, so I think the Utility and Review Board has to regulate this waste heat source with Halifax Water, and Halifax Water has to obey all of the rules and regulations around protection of the ratepayers. So HRM specifically probably wouldn’t be involved in that process. That would be with Halifax Water, but that would be the intention for sure.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I would like to come back to the lack of data, and the fact that the data are often delayed by a few years. We have documents from the Library of Parliament that give us a breakdown of Nova Scotia’s heating sources: 45 per cent fuel oil and 25 per cent firewood. I must say that these data are from 2015. The situation may have changed. Can you give us more recent data?
These data are for all of Nova Scotia. What part of these energy expenditures are from Halifax? In other words, is firewood consumption greater outside Halifax than within the city? Do you have data on this?
[English]
Ms. Miedema: Just a clarification: Were you asking about heating oil, and did you also say wind?
Senator Dupuis: No, wood.
Ms. Miedema: Oh, wood. Okay. I don’t have specific numbers for Halifax. We think, generally speaking, that for home heating across the province, we’re at about 50 per cent furnace oil and 50 per cent other, which is electricity, wood and not too much natural gas, and I think it’s similar for Halifax. But I don’t have those stats in front of me; I apologize.
Senator Wetston: Given your Solar City program, you may have mentioned this, but how many homeowners now have solar in Halifax? Do you have any numbers? It may be commercial as well, but it looks like it’s more residential. Do you have a number?
Ms. Miedema: Our program is only for residential or non-profit, faith-based organizations, and most of the installations to date have been residential. I think we are, at least with the current program, over 60 households. Through the pilot, I think we had almost 400 households.
Corporately, we’ve put installations on probably at least 20 of our buildings, such as fire stations, community centres, gyms and things like that.
There are also people who put solar in outside of our program. We actually created a permit so that we can regulate for structural roof safety purposes, and also track the number of solar installations.
Senator Wetston: What’s your forecast? What are you hoping for?
Ms. Miedema: We’re hoping for everybody to have solar.
No, originally, I think the goal was to get another 450 homes through the three-year program. That’s pretty aggressive when you’re looking at $18,000 for photovoltaic installation costs, even with the financing program. And we recognize too that interest rates are really low right now, and 4.75 per cent is kind of high. We don’t require a credit check, so there are different pros and cons with going with our program versus going privately.
We’re seeing a continuous uptick in our program right now, so we’re excited.
Senator Wetston: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your testimony and answers.
We have our next witnesses also by video conference. Thank you very much for your presence. I will let you go ahead and introduce yourselves and proceed with your statement, and then we will go to a short period of questions.
Mary-Margaret McMahon, Councillor, City of Toronto: Thank you very much. I’m Mary-Margaret McMahon. I’m a city councillor for Ward 32 in Toronto, the Beaches area, and I chair Parks and Environment.
Jim Baxter, Director, Environment and Energy Division, City of Toronto: I’m Jim Baxter. I’m the Director of the Environment and Energy Division here at the City of Toronto.
Ms. McMahon: We also have Linda Swanston, who may step in for me for the questions because I may have to go back to council, but I’m going to read our statement. Is that okay?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. McMahon: Thanks for contacting us about this. Thank you very much for the invitation to present to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources today. We’re very pleased to represent the City of Toronto and to discuss the critical role municipalities play in Canada’s transition to a low-carbon economy.
With over 80 per cent of Canada’s population living in urban areas, the success of any national effort to address climate change will need to involve cities. With a population of over 2.7 million people, Toronto is the fourth-largest city in North America, as you know. It is also one of the most rapidly growing cities in the Americas, with around 150 new condo and office towers currently under construction.
Toronto City Council is committed to leading in the transition to a low-carbon economy and appreciates the actions of the federal government to partner with us to accelerate Canada’s transition to a low-carbon future. Toronto is engaged in helping Canada reach its international commitments under the Paris Agreement. We are members of the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, the Carbon Disclosure Project cities initiative, the C40 Cities, and the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance, and we actively collaborate with other Canadian cities through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
Toronto City Council first unanimously set the goal to reduce carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 against 1990 levels in 2007. As of 2014, we estimate that Toronto’s emissions have dropped by 24 per cent from 1990 levels. While a significant achievement, there are still barriers to further decarbonization, and future success is dependent upon continued alignment among all three orders of government in order to achieve this ambitious and essential transformation.
Now we’re going to brag about TransformTO, which is our climate change adaptation plan. In 2007, Toronto adopted local greenhouse gas emission reduction targets of 6 per cent by 2012, 30 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050 from 1990 levels. Actions taken by the city and its residents and businesses have contributed to Toronto exceeding its interim reduction target for 2012 and being on track to meet and exceed its target for 2020.
In 2014, Toronto City Council, however, recognized that, while progress was being made, additional action was needed if the city was to achieve the long-term goal of an 80 per cent reduction. Therefore, in 2015, we launched the TransformTO initiative. Over a two-year period and with the engagement of thousands of Torontonians, we identified a viable path to transform our city’s urban system and to create a low-carbon, resilient, equitable and prosperous city. The TransformTO recommendations were adopted unanimously in July 2017. More recently, as part of the 2018 budget, Toronto City Council approved the funding necessary for implementation of the first set of 23 short-term strategies required to get Toronto onto the low-carbon trajectory.
TransformTO identified that current efforts and actions by all parties will not be enough and that, if we don’t make significant change now, we will fall short of our 2050 target by almost 9 million tonnes. Our work, through TransformTO, identified, however, that with existing technologies implemented at an accelerated pace and scale, we could close that gap and reach the target.
The largest opportunities for emission reductions are in building energy efficiency and the development of local low-carbon energy supply, followed by transportation and waste management. TransformTO analysis also identified that two thirds of the needed climate actions have a positive financial payback over their lifetime, and there is the possibility of creating over 325,000 person years of employment through the low-carbon transition.
Analysis also identified that a suite of regulatory, policy and programmatic actions will be needed to reach the long-term goals and that significant capital will need to be invested across the community from the public and private sectors. We will only reach our goals in collaboration with others, including the federal government.
Now we’ll talk about decarbonizing the built environment. The built environment currently accounts for almost half of Toronto’s greenhouse gas emissions, so it is a critical area to focus on. Toronto has a number of programs and policies in place to support decarbonization of the built environment, and we can achieve even more with the support of the federal government to maximize our efficacy.
We believe the majority of buildings that will exist in the year 2050 are already built, making energy efficiency retrofitting a top priority. Under TransformTO, we have set the goal to see 100 per cent of all existing buildings retrofitted by the year 2050, achieving, on average, a 40 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Over the last 20 years, Toronto’s Better Buildings Partnership has supported more than 2,500 retrofit projects in multi-residential office and commercial buildings by providing access to technical expertise and a one-window approach to accessing incentive and other program offerings of the utilities and other orders of government.
In support of this work, Toronto initiated work on developing a mandatory energy reporting and benchmarking regulation for buildings 50,000 square feet or larger. The Province of Ontario took the lead on this work, and in 2017 it established a province-wide regulation.
Utilizing this soon-to-be-released information, we will be able to accelerate and expand this Better Buildings Partnership. Federal government could assist. First, develop a model national energy and building code for existing buildings, identifying that when major retrofits are being made to an existing building, the energy efficiency performance of buildings must be improved to a new standard.
Second, establish a federally coordinated energy reporting and benchmarking requirement similar to regulations being advanced in Ontario. Once that is established, then work with the provinces and cities to create regulations and program supports that will require low-performing buildings to be retrofitted for energy efficiency.
Toronto City Council has also established financing programs to leverage available incentive programs and assist residential property owners in making deep energy efficiency upgrades. There are two streams, the Home Energy Loan Program and the High-Rise Retrofit Improvement Support Program. Toronto offers residents and building owners low-cost energy efficiency retrofit financing through local improvement charges financing to provide loans against properties that can be paid back through municipal property tax bills.
To date, these programs have provided over $12 million in financing support, affording deep energy retrofits. It is our goal, through TransformTO, to expand these program offers to 5,000 homes and 10 multi-residential buildings by 2020. Our ability to achieve this goal is partially hindered by federal legislation. Staff at CMHC have indicated they cannot, under existing legislation, provide consent to homeowners with insured mortgages to participate in the program despite the fact that we could demonstrate that the homeowner will save on their energy bill the amounts needed to repay the local improvement charge.
We ask the federal government to address this legislative barrier and create the opportunity for willing homeowners to participate in the municipal LIC energy efficiency financing program.
The final area of significant focus for Toronto to achieve its TransformTO goals is in the area of local energy supply, specifically in the development of low-carbon thermal-energy systems. Given that Toronto is experiencing high growth and that this growth is being directed into specific areas of the city, we recognize that there are significant opportunities to create low-carbon district energy systems to power these new developments.
Toronto is in the process of developing a joint development agreement with Enwave Corporation to maximize low-carbon thermal network development potential across the city. It just passed at council today.
The federal government could accelerate these efforts by providing dedicated funding to municipalities through green infrastructure programs. Programs should be designed to leverage provincial and private investments, but be flexible in delivery to allow local implementation.
In conclusion, Toronto applauds the federal government for its leadership under the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. Toronto City Council, its residents and businesses are committed to achieving the goal of creating a low-carbon, resilient, equitable and prosperous Toronto. TransformTO provides us with a pathway to that low-carbon future, but we recognize that it will not be achieved without the active engagement of the provincial and federal governments.
There are many ways in which the federal government can support and partner with cities in taking action. We have given you just a few examples based on the experiences and goals we have for Toronto. We encourage the federal government to continue its leadership to maintain the momentum since the Paris meeting and enhance the durability of municipal efforts beyond current political regimes.
In closing, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important conversation and for engaging municipalities across Canada.
We look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you for the presentation. Before we go to questions, we have a vote at 6:57 p.m. Can we do 10 minutes of questions? Then we’ll go vote. The people from Calgary are here, so we can come back right after the vote. Is this agreed, senators?
Senator Massicotte: Sure.
Senator Wetston: Sure.
Thank you both for coming today. I’m a senator from Ontario, and I live in Toronto. I wanted to talk to you a little bit about — and while Councillor McMahon is here, before you run off, as we all will, I would like to discuss the governance model for municipalities. It’s something I have thought about, and I actually asked the question to the last witness: What governance model would you propose to ensure that both the federal and the provincial governments understand that the municipalities have a very important and significant role in delivering these programs to meet the targets not only that you’ve proposed but that have been proposed by the federal government in the Paris Agreement?
Ms. McMahon: That’s a good question. I’m not sure if there is ever — you are looking at a steering committee or something like that where you have the politicians from each level of government, including staff, working together on that.
Mr. Baxter: From my perspective, it is a matter of defining roles that are appropriate at each level of government. Hazel McCallion once said the federal government has all the power, the provincial government has all the money, and the municipal government has all the problems. But clearly, it’s the municipal government that deals directly with the residents of the city.
When you look at the role of each level of government, we need to make sure we are performing actions relevant to each level. Sometimes we see each level trying to step on each other, and we get in the way. It would behoove us to coordinate how we actually do this.
Ms. McMahon: So that we are not duplicating each other’s efforts but are working together on the same goal at the same time, hopefully, and across different jurisdictions.
Mr. Baxter: The other thing is we see is that we’re trying to solve the same problem more than once. We should make a decision to move forward.
Senator Wetston: Thank you.
The Chair: I have a question.
You said in your statement that with these actions and the TransformTO initiative, you think there is the potential to create over 335 person-years of employment through the low-carbon transition. Can you please elaborate on that? That seems like a very huge number. Can you please elaborate?
Mr. Baxter: That’s the total number of jobs we would see created between 2018 and 2050. That’s over a 32-year period, but as we sit here today, we are seeing a significant number of green economy jobs. This year, for example, Toronto installed its one-hundredth potable tank system on our buildings, and that requires engineers, equipment suppliers, installers and maintenance contracts. We can point directly to green economy jobs, and we see this as growing.
The Chair: I have another question. You said that under TransformTO you have set a goal to see 100 per cent of all existing buildings retrofitted by the year 2050, achieving an average of 40 per cent reduction in GHG emissions. Are you using a model to calculate this? How are you calculating these reductions?
Mr. Baxter: As part of the process to create TransformTO, one of the things we did was to model a strategy for getting from 2018 to 2050. We modelled 36 different measures that would cross all economic sectors that are resident in Ontario.
Based on that, we identified that a legitimate target for existing buildings was to reduce their carbon footprint by 40 per cent, and that basically talks about energy-based retrofits in existing buildings.
In Toronto, we have about 18,000 existing buildings, many of which were built in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s. They are energy-inefficient and they are carbon-intensive, and the strategy basically looks at retrofitting them with lower-carbon-intensive technologies while providing the same heating, cooling and other services that they have come to expect.
The Chair: Do you have that in a public report? Do you think we could have a copy?
Mr. Baxter: Yes, we do, and we can send you the link.
The Chair: Thank you so much.
Senator Wetston: We are under some pressure here, obviously, but I wanted to follow up on an issue involving buildings versus transportation. We recognize that buildings tend to be the largest contributor to greenhouse gas production, and it appears, given your targets, that buildings are also the biggest challenge from the point of view of reducing greenhouse gases. That’s a general statement that you may agree with.
Transportation has challenges as well, but it appears that while municipal transportation might contribute less to greenhouse gas production, it still contributes a great deal. I would think that electrification of transportation might be something more achievable and more cost-effective than the approach you might be taking with buildings. Do you have any comments about that?
Mr. Baxter: The work that we have done basically indicates that we can’t do one or the other and meet our 2050 target. We have to do both. We don’t have a choice.
Senator Wetston: Which is the priority to the next 10 years?
Mr. Baxter: We made a point at council, when asked directly more than once to prioritize, to push back and say, “We will not prioritize. We need to do all of these.” That’s the position we are on now. When you look at the 23 measures we have identified, they cut across buildings and transportation, and there are a number of options there to deal with that.
Senator Wetston: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)