THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 9, 2021
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met by videoconference this day at 12 p.m. [ET] to examine the subject matter of Bill C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada’s efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.
Senator Paul J. Massicotte (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, my name is Paul Massicotte, and I am a senator from Quebec. I am the chair of the committee. Today, we are conducting a virtual meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
Before we begin, I’d like to remind senators and witnesses to please keep their microphones muted at all times, unless recognized by name by the chair. I will ask senators to use the “raise hand” feature in order to be recognized. I will do my best to get to everyone who wants to ask a question to witnesses, and in order to so, I ask senators to try to keep their questions, and preambles, brief. We will allow six minutes per senator for questions and answers. The clerk will raise her hand on the screen to signal that time is up.
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk, and we will work to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.
Now, I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are participating in this meeting: Margaret Dawn Anderson, Northwest Territories; Douglas Black, Alberta; Claude Carignan, Quebec; Brent Cotter, Saskatchewan; Jean-Guy Dagenais, Quebec; Rosa Galvez, Quebec; Mary Jane McCallum, Manitoba; Julie Miville-Dechêne, Quebec; Dennis Glen Patterson, Nunavut; and Paula Simons, Alberta.
Welcome to all of you, and to the viewers across the country who are watching.
Today, we are continuing our pre-study of Bill C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada’s efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.
This afternoon, for our first panel, we are honoured to have with us the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson.
Welcome to the committee, minister. You are joined by John Moffet, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch; Douglas Nevison, Assistant Deputy Minister, Climate Change Branch; and Samuel Millar, Director General, Corporate Finance, Natural Resources and Environment, Economic Development and Corporate Finance.
Welcome and thank you for being with us today.
The floor is yours, minister.
[English]
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you for the invitation to discuss Bill C-12, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. I would certainly like to start by thanking senators for undertaking a preliminary study of this while it works its way through the House of Commons.
[Translation]
Our government’s highest priority continues to be the health and well-being of Canadians. That is why we are taking unprecedented action to combat the health emergency presented by COVID-19. Canadians are getting vaccinated in unprecedented numbers, and we will get past this pandemic. But another global threat remains — climate change — and Canadians rightly expect us to have a thoughtful plan to counter the climate crisis.
[English]
Over 120 countries have already made a commitment to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, including our friends in the United States. A global transition is underway.
On the day before Bill C-12 was introduced in this House, Tiff Macklem, the current Bank of Canada Governor said, “We need to position Canada to seize the climate-smart opportunities that consumers, workers and investors are looking for.”
Low-carbon, climate-resilient projects and technologies are not just good for the planet, they are good for business. Major Canadian companies recognize this and have already committed to net zero by 2050 — companies like Cenovus Energy, Teck Resources Limited, MEG Energy, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Enbridge, Suncor, and the Canadian Steel Producers Association.
And I would underline the announcement this morning by the Oil Sands Producers Alliance in this regard, a commitment to 2050.
Leveraging climate action as we rebuild Canada’s post‑pandemic economy is simply the smart thing to do. It will ensure we emerge stronger, better prepared and more competitive in a low-carbon world.
As you are aware, the House of Commons is considering a number of amendments that will further strengthen Bill C-12. The government has worked collaboratively with MPs and has announced its support for a number of these amendments, which have the support of a majority of members of Parliament. It is that projected version of the bill that I will speak to today.
[Translation]
I look forward to the Senate’s work on Bill C-12. I remain committed to an approach of cooperation and collaboration and I would welcome observations on the bill with respect to its content and its implementation.
[English]
Bill C-12 codifies the government’s commitment for Canada to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 with national greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets set at five-year intervals starting in 2030. It also creates a detailed accountability and transparency regime to ensure that we methodically plan, report, and course correct on our way to net zero.
The 2030 initial target will be our Paris target, which we have announced will be a 40 to 45% reduction of GHG emissions from 2005 levels, and it will be incorporated by reference upon coming into force. Subsequent targets will be set by the minister of the environment ten years ahead of the milestone year.
In setting the targets, the bill will require the minister to take into consideration the best scientific information available, Canada’s international commitments with respect to climate change, Indigenous knowledge, and submissions provided by the net-zero advisory body. Within one year of setting the targets for 2035 and beyond, the minister will have to publish a high-level description of the key greenhouse gas reduction measures the government intends to take to achieve the target. This is meant to ensure that the planning begins immediately and is updated on an ongoing basis.
The first emissions reduction plan would have to be tabled six months after the coming into force of this Act.
Bill C-12 also requires the minister of the environment to develop each plan with the ultimate objective of achieving net‑zero emissions by 2050. The minister will be required to take into account the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the advice provided by the net-zero advisory body when establishing a plan.
Bill C-12 will also include additional obligations on the minister of the environment for interim accountability before 2030, including an interim greenhouse gas emissions objective for 2026. The plan will include measures to attain that 2026 objective as we work to keep Canada on track to achieve our 2030 milestone target. For each target, two types of reports will be prepared: progress reports and assessment reports. Progress reports will cast forward to provide an update on Canada’s progress in implementing its plan to achieve the target for the relevant milestone year.
[Translation]
Assessment reports, on the other hand, will explain whether the most recent target was achieved. If Canada fails to achieve a target, the minister must explain why and must include a description of actions the government will take to address the failed target.
In addition to the accountability provided by setting targets and planning in an open, consultative process, Bill C-12 includes specific measures for third parties to hold the government to account. The Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development in the Office of the Auditor General must regularly examine and report on the government’s implementation of the climate change mitigation measures, including those undertaken to achieve each target.
[English]
The bill establishes the net-zero advisory body, consisting of up to 15 members. This group will provide independent advice to the minister on how best to reach net zero by 2050, including advice on targets and emissions reduction plans. It must provide an annual report to the minister; and the minister must, in turn, publish and publicly respond to their advice within specified timelines. The minister would also be required to ensure that the advisory body has expertise in or knowledge of climate change science, Indigenous knowledge, relevant physical and social sciences, climate change and climate change policy, energy supply and demand, and relevant technologies. As you are aware, there is already a ministerial net-zero advisory body, and it is our intention to transition from that to the proposed Governor-in-Council appointed advisory body.
[Translation]
The year 2030 is approaching as we work towards the goals established in the Paris Agreement. The Prime Minister recognizes the scientific imperative for early and ambitious action in order to decarbonize and give ourselves the best chance to hold global temperature increases in check. In April, Prime Minister Trudeau announced a new 2030 target of a 40% to 45% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions at the Leaders Summit on Climate. Measures announced in Budget 2021, along with ongoing work with our American colleagues on issues including transportation and methane, will help us achieve this target.
[English]
By putting our climate obligations into law, the Canadian Net‑Zero Emissions Accountability Act will ensure that governments are accountable for, and transparent about, their actions to combat climate change. Bill C-12 will require all future governments to table strong climate plans, based on science, to address the threat of climate change.
Canadians are counting on all of us. I look forward to the robust discussion on Bill C-12 in the Senate, and I hope we are able to work together to ensure this legislation is moved forward as expeditiously as possible.
With that, I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. We will go to questions.
Senator Galvez: Thank you so much, minister, for being here this morning to answer our questions.
Monday, an umbrella group for central banks issued a report to the effect that a quick shift to net-zero emissions could boost GDP. On the other hand, and conversely, the cost of inaction has been estimated as very high, and it could be extremely high in terms of trillions of dollars. Can you please tell us what the problems and risks will be if Canada fails to pass this legislation?
Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you, senator. The focus of this legislation is to establish a science-based target and process through which we will ensure that this government and all future governments are held to account in terms of making progress toward that science-based goal.
As you said, the Network for Greening the Financial System, which is the umbrella organization of the world’s central banks, made a profound statement this week, which is that only a quick and orderly transition to a low-carbon economy will add growth and employment. A delayed transition will cut deep into the economy.
This is very much consistent with what we have been hearing from financial institutions around the world, which are demanding not only climate disclosure from companies and from governments but also concrete climate action. This is extremely important for Canada in terms of ensuring that we are contributing to making this a livable world as we move forward but also to ensuring we have a competitive and thriving economy in a low-carbon future.
Senator D. Black: Minister, thank you for being here, and to your officials, thank you very much as well.
The record is clear that I very much support this aspirational legislation, minister, as I think you know. As you just indicated in response to Senator Galvez’s question, I think there are tremendous economic opportunities for Canada and Canadian business.
My concern, of course, continues to be that, as we move from 60,000 feet to ground level, I want to avoid a crash landing.
So, minister, I have a number of questions, but I’m going to focus this morning on my view that what is being undertaken here is no less than a restructuring of the Canadian economy. That’s what we are doing here. This legislation will involve every aspect of our economy, and it will affect all Canadians. It will also have social, economic, health and environmental effects. As such, minister, as good as you are and undoubtedly as good as your successors will be, to have sole responsibility rest with the minister of the environment seems to me unnecessarily limiting. I also observe that under Bill C-69 inordinate power is vested in your office, as well.
I am wondering, minister, whether you might be open to having some key decisions that we can identify taken by the whole of government through the order of the Governor-in-Council process.
Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you for the question, senator, and I certainly appreciate your comments at the beginning about how important this work is to move us in the direction and ultimately to the achievement of the net-zero target by 2050.
In my view, the legislation already accomplishes what you are talking about. It does so in a number of ways. Clause 12 explicitly requires that other relevant ministers be involved in the decisions that are taken with respect to the moving forward to address the climate issue. And, as you know, with respect to any major policy decisions, including targets and emissions reduction plans, those require policy cover from the entire cabinet. The entire cabinet is involved actively, but it is the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to ensure that they are coordinating the all-of-government efforts, and I think that’s appropriate.
Senator Simons: Minister, thank you very much for meeting with us this morning. My concern about the act — and when we spoke with the assistant deputy minister, this was a question many raised — is that it is, as Senator Black says, “aspirational.” It is a plan to have a plan, and the very name of the act incorporates words like “transparency” and “accountability,” but I’m not seeing an actual accountability mechanism.
Can you tell us how you see this act going beyond nice words on a piece of paper to being something that functionally incents carbon reduction and holds the government of the day accountable for not reaching those goals?
Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you, senator. I think that’s a very important question that deserves a very thoughtful answer.
I would say that this act is a process act. It is about establishing a process through which a government and all future governments will be held accountable. Actually, in many respects, it is very similar to legislation that exists in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, France, Sweden and a number of other countries.
It provides, as you know, requirements on the government to establish targets and emissions reduction plans and to monitor that through progress and assessment reports. It also provides an audit mechanism through the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. It is an all-of-government plan, so the government is responsible for delivery of that.
One of the criticisms in the past in Canada has been that the government has not achieved their targets. One of the reasons they haven’t done so is because they have not been required to have plans and most have not had plans in terms of establishing the detailed pathways through which they will be able to reach their targets. In fact, the first government who has done that is ours.
The accountability mechanism is exactly that; it’s forcing the transparency of all of the various measures that I talked about to be on the public record. All of those things are required to be tabled in Parliament and to be made public, and in a democratic society, the ultimate determinant of accountability is the electorate. It forces this to be fully public and top of mind for all governments going forward.
Some people have suggested there needs to be some kind of a penalty mechanism. I would just say, look, if you think that requiring the minister of environment of the day to step down or to pay some kind of financial penalty will do anything, in my mind, that’s just not correct. You may have a government that comes to power one year before a milestone year and misses the milestone, so what have you accomplished by doing that?
Some others have suggested that we be required or governments in the future be required to buy international offsets to essentially close the gap. You could do that, but I’m not sure Canadians would be very happy to see billions of dollars going to buy international offsets to come back to Canada to close a target that their government did not meet.
Ultimately, what I would say is that this forces transparency. If the Canadian public believes that climate change is an important issue, they will hold that government to account.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. Senator Miville-Dechêne has to leave shortly, so if you don’t mind, we will allow her to speak ahead of us.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You referred to other countries that have done the same thing, but the difference, in our case, minister, is that we are a federation. Obviously, the bill is silent on that aspect given that the environment is an area of shared jurisdiction, and each level of government has its own responsibilities. How do you plan to get the provinces onside? Are you going to tell them what to do, or try to bring them into the process and move forward accordingly with a solution? That side of the equation seems a little trickier to me, given that your last attempt, carbon pricing, was settled by the courts.
Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you for that important question. We are, of course, a federation. Federal and provincial jurisdiction comes into play, and both levels of government have to work together. It’s a lot more effective if we can cooperate with the provinces and territories. We included mechanisms in this bill to engage in discussion, ensure cooperation across the board, set a target and develop a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have to have those discussions with the provinces and territories. We also said that the net-zero advisory body has to cooperate with the provinces and territories.
I must point out, however, that the target to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 is based on science. The federal government, along with its international partners, has a duty to ensure that the target can be achieved. Obviously, we want to work with the provinces and territories, and we must, but this legislation does not affect provincial jurisdiction. A process has been put in place to support these very important discussions.
Senator Dagenais: My question has already been asked, so I’m going to give my time to a fellow senator.
[English]
Senator Patterson: Thank you for being here, minister.
Your government has made it clear that protecting our environment and growing our economy can go hand in hand, that growing grain or, as you said, being climate smart is a great economic opportunity. Of course, we know, for example, that we can make hydrogen from our abundant natural gas. Canadians are probably the ones best able to do that through our innovative energy sector, though that will take capital.
We are also told public policy decisions should be based on science. As you mention in your opening remarks, the scientific method includes an important step analyzing the results of an experiment.
Considering these connections between environment and economy, when setting GHG emissions targets, we need corresponding economic metrics, such as real GDP, which will include measuring private investment as well as public sector investment and social indicators, such as the employment rate. We need an economic and social lens as well as a climate lens.
Bill C-12 seems noticeably silent on factoring these economic and social indicators alongside climate indicators. Why? Could you comment, please?
Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you, senator. I certainly agree with you that we need to be thinking on the economic side of things. Before I entered politics in 2015, I spent 20 years in the clean‑tech sector running technology companies that actually do things like create blue hydrogen, so it is a subject that I am very familiar with.
Certainly in the preamble of the bill, there is reference to the importance of ensuring that we have a resilient, inclusive and competitive economy going forward. We are requiring the net‑zero advisory body to account for a range of factors — including economic, technological and scientific — as part of its process of helping us to define pathways to net zero.
Fundamentally, the act itself is a process act. It’s the emissions reduction plans that actually need to ensure that we are looking at different pathways and the economic choices that we’re going to make in terms of choosing one pathway versus the other. That is exactly the work that needs to be done in the context of the development of emissions reduction plans. It will necessarily need to look at the trade-offs in terms of GDP and employment and a whole range of economic factors.
That’s not the act itself. That is the actual emissions reduction plans that will be required every time a target is set. Plans that look at both measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the pathways that will be best from an economic perspective for Canada and for the specific regions of Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is about the advisory body. It bothers me that an advisory body entrusted with providing independent advice would have its membership appointed by the minister, who would also determine the body’s terms of reference and the matters referred to it. Members are appointed on a part-time basis. Why not give the advisory body more teeth and have the government or House committees determine its terms of reference? Why not make the body accountable to the House? Don’t you think an environment minister might readily ask the advisory body to look into matters of questionable usefulness and perhaps sidestep the elephant in the room?
[English]
Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you, senator. I appreciate the question. The net-zero advisory body is obviously a very important part of this legislation.
What I would say to you is there are requirements in terms of the skills and competences of the people that actually are appointed who sit on this. One of the amendments coming from the house makes that even clearer. It has a very focused mandate that is established in the terms of reference and the new body that will be part of this act — because the current body is ministerial appointments — will also have terms of reference that may be similar, and may be enhanced from where we are right now.
The focus for them is essentially creating a body that is independent, that can do independent thinking to help the government to ensure that we are thinking broadly about pathways to net-zero by 2050.
I would say with respect to accountability, that body is required to submit a report to me and to future ministers of the environment and climate change every year. That report is public. It is fully public, and the minister must be able to respond to that report in the context of whether or not the advice will be accepted or not. I think it is quite transparent. You will see, if you look at the composition of the net-zero advisory body, that it is populated with eminent Canadians who bring enormous experience and reputations to the table to help us to move this forward, and they are doing it for no compensation.
Senator Cotter: Thank you, Mr. Wilkinson, for joining us today on a very important topic for all of us.
I see the legislation as a framework, and you have spoken to it in ways like that. I’m fully supportive. There may be improvements that come from the other place, and that would be valuable.
My questions are a bit beyond the scope specifically of the legislation. The first one asks the question whether in the philosophy of implementing the initiatives that are captured by the bill and other initiatives, whether our government sees the need for us to address the transitions in equitable and strategic ways. I think it’s fair to say — we have heard evidence from others — that some of this transition will be difficult. It will create opportunities, but it will create challenges for some sectors of the economy.
Let me choose agriculture, one with which you and I are both familiar. For many farmers who actually create a fair amount of greenhouse gas emissions, it will be a challenge for them to respond effectively, despite the fact that many farmers and members of rural communities are highly committed to the environment in general terms.
As well, with respect to agriculture, our government has identified it as one of the pillars of prosperity going forward, agriculture and agri-food. I am worried that some components of our economy will be set back unless the government has an equitable strategy to address and support their transition.
If I could ask my second question building on Senator Miville-Dechêne’s comment about federal and provincial dimensions. She identified the environment as a shared jurisdiction, but as we both know, in Canada the provinces have remarkable amounts of economic jurisdictional responsibilities. It’s not just an environmental question. Fundamentally, it seems to me that at a very high level, the federal, provincial and territorial governments will be working together on this, because if we have provincial governments using the weight of their economic and environmental authorities to pull in different directions than the federal government, your challenge, our challenge, will be that much greater. Could you comment on both questions? Thanks.
Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you, senator. Those are both very big questions.
To your first question I would say, yes, we do need to be thinking very carefully and it’s both sectorally and regionally in terms of equitability and customized strategy. We need to be thinking about ensuring that we are moving forward with agriculture, steel, mining and oil and gas, in a manner that is actually going to position us for success from an economic perspective, but to do so in a manner that allows us to get to the heart of this issue which is reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is fair to say in the agricultural sector there are opportunities to do both, but it needs a thoughtful and customized strategy in terms of how to do that.
That is also true at the regional level. Canada, as you know, senator, is a very diverse country in terms of the regional economies. They are very different. Just having straight national programs and policies that don’t account for regional differences is probably not going to work in this context.
That is something that I am very sensitive to as somebody who grew up in Saskatchewan and did federal-provincial relations for the Province of Saskatchewan, and it is something that I think about every day. I think we are working very hard on it.
That leads into your second question about provinces and territories. Yes, obviously the ideal is we are working in lockstep together. As you will have seen in the most recent Strengthened Climate Plan we announced in December, the focus for us was in areas of federal jurisdiction. We cannot tell the provinces what to do in the federation, nor should we.
The federal government needs to lead by example, in terms of an issue where we have made commitments to our international partners, to make steps forward. Of course we want to collaborate with provinces and territories, and again, that collaboration will look different in different regions of the country. We can make more progress by working actively together than we can working against each other.
Let me give you the example of zero-emission vehicles. In British Columbia, we provide a purchase incentive, the provincial government provides a purchase incentive. We built out refuelling infrastructure. The provincial government has put money into building out refuelling infrastructure. Right now, 13% of all the cars being sold in British Columbia are zero‑emission vehicles. In the rest of the country that’s more like 2%.
There are ways for us to work faster and better by working together. That is certainly something that we want to do with all province and territories. I certainly talked to my colleagues in all of the provinces and territories, but I will also say that the federal government cannot pause and wait for unanimity. You know that very well from the work that you have done in the past. That’s not the way this federation, nor any federation, has ever worked. We need to strive to collaborate. We need to try to hear each other and to work together in the areas where we do have common interests. There may be sometimes we have to park issues on which we do not agree. Certainly my view is the federation works better when we work together, and that is certainly what I try to do each and every day.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentation, minister. I wanted to shift the focus to Indigenous issues. In the paper Decolonizing Climate Policy in Canada by the Indigenous Climate Action Group, they state that their research shows that:
Indigenous Peoples in Canada and across the world, are among those being impacted first and hardest by climate impacts, while being among those least responsible for causing the crisis.
They go on to say:
Inextricably tied together, colonialism and capitalism have laid the groundwork for the carbon-intensive economics which is driving climate change.
They say they have not been invited to the table and that a few provinces actively opposed Indigenous inclusion in climate policy.
So they say if this continues: “. . . climate policies may serve to perpetuate the drivers and root causes of climate change.”
How do you see that changing in this bill?
Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you, senator. I think you have raised a very important issue with respect to Indigenous peoples and their involvement and also the observation of those who have contributed least to the problem are paying the highest price. That is certainly true in particular with Inuit in the North who are seeing the effects of climate change each and every day.
As a corollary, that is not entirely different from the international scene where the developing world has contributed very little to the climate problem, and yet many parts of the developing world are paying the price with respect to climate impacts each and every day.
I would say a couple of things. The first is that with respect to climate policy generally, we have endeavoured to ensure that we are working collaboratively and in partnership with Indigenous peoples. We have created three separate distinction-based tables on climate. There are representatives not just of the national Indigenous organizations but from regional membership to try to ensure that we are reaching down to try to get as close to rights holders as we possibly can and to engage those conversations.
It is also something we have asked the advisory panel to do.
In a number of different parts of the act there is recognition both of the requirement for us to incorporate Indigenous knowledge and also the need to consider and respect the commitments under section 35 of the Constitution and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Certainly we are striving to ensure active partnership and ongoing collaboration with Indigenous peoples in this country, and it is actually a requirement in the bill in at least five different places.
The Chair: Minister, if I could permit myself to ask you a question. I hear you loud and clear when you say people are asking, “What is the penalty? Where is the moral hazard? Where is the fairness? Where is the commitment?”
I must admit, I’m quite confident that you are the right person for this job. Your experience, your background and your personality will assist Canada a lot in getting there.
I still have problems with the fact that, as you know, three or four times in the last 30 years, we did not achieve our goals. It seems to work, obviously, but Canadians are basically told, “Sorry, we’ll do it better next time.”
I think there is an immense lack of seriousness about the commitment and the issue. It’s a non-negotiable issue. Our economic survival, if not our personal survival and quality of life, depends upon your success.
I am having a bit of a problem. There is not enough of a pain if we don’t succeed. There is not enough demonstration of commitment. I would suggest to you that in private enterprise, if we delegated such immense response to one person, we would expect that person to offer his resignation if he doesn’t meet it in a material sense. I would say we should consider that. I would say sure, the Prime Minister may say, “It’s not your fault. It’s unfair. I refuse your resignation,” but there has to be something in there where people finally say, “This is serious.” Can you comment on that?
Mr. Wilkinson: Yes, I’m happy to comment on it. I have certainly heard those kinds of concerns expressed before. I have sympathy with the underlying intent of what you are saying.
I would say a couple of things. First, I actually don’t accept the premise in the sense that in the past, it has been similar, and this would be a continuation of what has gone before.
One of the issues that we have had over the course of the past couple of decades — and we certainly had it not only under the government of Prime Minister Harper but before Prime Minister Harper — is that governments actually committed to targets, but they never actually rolled out a credible plan. They never had to put into the public sphere a plan that actually could be credibly said to be based on science. They never had to actually track their progress in a detailed way and to be transparent about that through various mechanisms, including third party auditing by the Commissioner of the Environment Commissioner and Sustainable Development. Also, they did that at a time where I would tell you that climate change was not as big an issue as it is today in the minds of Canadians, if you look at public opinion polling.
What this bill does is force democratic transparency and accountability on an issue that I think is of increasing importance to Canadians. I would tell you that that is fundamentally different from what has gone before. In terms of democratic theory, the idea in a democracy is that if you are doing something or you are not doing something that you have committed to do that is of importance to the electorate, ultimately, the electorate is going to hold you to account for those things.
With respect to the comparison of a CEO, I would say, having been a CEO, I don’t think that the board would actually fire you if you had been appointed a year before and there was some problem that had existed for over 10 years. As you know very well, that’s not normally the way it would work. You would be held accountable because you were responsible.
Ultimately, what this bill does is it essentially makes very public your responsibility, and, ultimately, it will make you accountable for your actions as a government.
Senator Galvez: Minister, 13 years ago, Parliament adopted a private member’s bill that was implemented by the Mulroney Conservative government through the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, an independent body, but in 2012, we withdrew and this attempt failed.
I would like you to comment on where we were 13 years ago and where we are now, and why this legislation is so important to the levels of awareness of the risk of climate to our economy and our health. Thank you.
Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you, senator. Had we actually taken the actions that we probably should have taken 30 years ago or even 20 years ago, the challenges that face us would be more easily surmounted. The proof point in that is looking across at Europe. European countries actually took this issue seriously over the past couple of decades and have made significant strides in terms of reducing their emissions.
Now, the structure of their economies is different, but they made the conscious decision that they were going to start to work on this issue, and they are far ahead of us, the Americans and the rest of the world in terms of making significant and sustained change in terms of both the emissions coming from their economies and, ultimately, the long-term competitiveness of their economies.
Unfortunately, we Canadians have wasted some time on an issue where we no longer have any time to waste. We are now into the 2020s, 2030 is around the corner, and 2050 is not that far away. There is a scientific imperative that we make substantial reductions in the short term or the world that we are going to be leaving to our children and grandchildren is simply going to be extremely difficult. That is not a responsible position for any of us to take. We have to start. We have to start now.
Senator Patterson: Minister, under the Paris Agreement, there is a mechanism to help Canada get to net-zero. I refer to Article 6 which allows countries to trade credits for emissions reductions.
Apparently, one Canadian LNG project could displace coal‑fired electrical generation in Asia or China up to 100 million tonnes of emissions in the world in a year. There are coal-fired plants firing up every week in China. If clean Canadian fuels are reducing emissions, then we could get credit for reducing global emissions.
Should Canada not get credit for that as envisioned by the Paris Agreement which our country endorsed?
Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you, senator. Article 6 has not been finished. It was the subject of negotiations in Madrid two years ago, and it will be the subject of further negotiations in Glasgow this fall. The reason it didn’t get finished is nobody could agree on rules with respect to ensuring that emissions reductions actually are emissions reductions, that there is no double counting, that there is an accounting framework that ensures that you are able to track those emissions.
Canada is supportive of Article 6, but it has to be in a robust framework where we know that the emissions being reduced are real. Article 6 actually would help the world, because it means that you could actually ensure that you are getting the lowest‑cost reductions that are available, and it would open up some opportunities for Canadian companies, no doubt, but it has to be real and verifiable. Canada will only support a conclusion of Article 6 if it is real and verifiable. Otherwise, it would essentially obviate the entire Paris Agreement without strong rules.
Senator Simons: Thank you, minister. I want to pick up on what Senator Patterson was talking about. This is a net-zero framework, not a zero framework. When we heard from witnesses yesterday, they raised concerns that there would be too much emphasis on carbon removal rather than carbon reduction.
How do you see the right formula for getting us to net zero? I say this against the background that as we have been speaking, Minister Champagne has been in a Zoom event with the Premier of Alberta and the Mayor of Edmonton to announce major federal and provincial investment in hydrogen in my region.
How do you see getting the right bouquet of elements so that you get reductions, removals, offsets and that we get the right mix, the right balance, in our portfolio?
Mr. Wilkinson: That’s a really good question. I think it drives back to addressing the climate issue is anything but uncomplicated. If you look at the plans that we have brought forward, which I will tell you are some of the most detailed climate plans that exist anywhere on the planet, there are a whole range of different initiatives that actually go after emissions in different sectors of the economy. They do it in different ways.
Some of those initiatives are about trying to address carbon removals, and some of them are just about eliminating the production of carbon through combustion in and of themselves.
I would say that part of coming up with a plan to actually address the targets is looking at what you are able to do, and what is most cost-effective to do, to ensure that you’re actually taking the steps required.
In our plan, there are a couple of different areas that relate to what you’re talking about. One is the nature-based solutions, which is about planting trees, restoring wetlands and grasslands. In the context of the work that we have done, I would say that’s an important part, but if you aggregate the work thus far that we have invested in with respect to trees and wetlands, by the time you get to 2050, it’s maybe 10%. Maybe 10%. Probably less than the reductions we will need.
The second part, obviously, is things like carbon capture and sequestration, or direct air capture, where you’re actually sucking carbon dioxide out of the air. We certainly see a role for carbon capture and sequestration in the context of things like what you have talked about with blue hydrogen. But you have to be sure you’re capturing and you’re sequestering all of the carbon.
What Minister Champagne announced this morning is a project that essentially gets at 90% of the carbon that is produced when you’re creating blue hydrogen. Eventually it would have to be 100% as we move forward. That is an important piece in some sectors. I would say those sectors would be oil and gas; they would be steel and cement. And they may be long term, and it may be that there are other options like electric furnaces that displace them.
It’s important that we think about all these different pieces in the context of something that gets us to the end target we need to get to.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I listened to your response regarding the issue of [Technical difficulties] which you say are independent. The advisory body doesn’t meet any standard of institutional independence or individual independence. None of the criteria that affect independence apply. You’re talking about people who are there today. However, they may not be there tomorrow or in five, ten or 15 years. That’s why we need an advisory body with an institutional structure that favours independence, and why its members must follow rules regarding this independence. I don’t see any of that. How can you say that they’re independent? That’s a rather groundless comment.
Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you for the question. I believe that the body is independent. A few things point to the body’s independence. First, the body can choose the issues that it will study. It has the complete freedom to do so. It also has a secretariat dedicated solely to its work. It has a budget of $15 million and it can decide how to use that budget. In addition, it can issue reports on the work carried out. These reports must be released to the public. I believe that the body will carry out its work independently.
Senator Carignan: I wouldn’t want judges with independence rules of that nature, because I would be worried about democracy.
The Chair: We’re coming to the end of our session. Once again, I want to thank you, Minister Wilkinson, and your staff. It has been a good opportunity to share a fairly significant amount of information. I’m sure that the people tuning in also appreciated the information.
My fellow colleagues, for the second portion of our meeting, we’re joined by Marc-André Viau, Director, Government Relations, and Émile Boisseau-Bouvier, Analyst, Climate Policy. We’re also joined by Laure Waridel, Co-Instigator, Mothers Step In; Dr. Kelly Martin, Doctor and Epidemiologist, For Our Kids – Montreal; and Andrew Gage, Staff Lawyer, West Coast Environmental Law. Thank you all for accepting our invitation.
I want to remind you that you have five minutes for your remarks.
Marc-André Viau, Director, Government Relations, Équiterre: Mr. Chair, honourable senators, my name is Marc-André Viau. I’m the Director of Government Relations at Équiterre. I’m joined today by my colleague, Émile Boisseau-Bouvier, a climate policy analyst. I’ll be sharing my time with him.
First, let me speak briefly about our organization. It has been around for over 25 years and has over 150,000 members and supporters. We have expertise in climate and energy policy, mobility and agriculture. In short, we work in several sectors affected by the transition.
With the Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement, we took action to uphold federal jurisdiction in a carbon pricing system before the Supreme Court, while respecting provincial jurisdiction.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss your pre-study of Bill C-12. The study will speed up the legislative process for this bill that, if amended further and passed, could be a turning point in Canada’s climate record.
The first climate accountability bill, Bill C-377, was introduced almost 15 years ago. The bill was passed by the House. However, it died on the Order Paper in the Senate when the 2008 election was called. It was tabled again, as Bill C-311. That bill was passed by the House, but was defeated in the Senate by a vote at second reading in 2010.
Things come in threes, but we hope that this time will be the charm.
In 2020, under the bill passed by the House in 2010, we were supposed to have lowered our GHG emissions by 25% compared to 1990 levels. Instead, we’ve seen an increase in our emissions, particularly in the oil, gas and transportation sectors.
When it comes to the climate crisis, we no longer have the luxury of time.
As part of the House of Commons committee work, we’ve made recommendations with our colleagues from the Climate Action Network, West Coast Environmental Law and Ecojustice. I encourage you to look at our brief and listen to the testimony of this panel and subsequent panels for more details.
In our brief, we identified five pillars for strong climate accountability legislation. First, it’s necessary to act quickly and be ambitious. Second, there must be medium-term and long-term predictability. Third, credible plans and reporting are needed. Fourth, strong accountability mechanisms are necessary. Fifth, planning must be guided by expert advice and the best available science.
The Environment Committee’s work has strengthened the original bill. However, there’s still work to be done. For example, there’s currently no requirement to ensure that the measures proposed in the plans align with the reductions needed to meet the targets. One way to strengthen ministerial accountability is to ensure that efforts to achieve net-zero emissions focus 90% of the time on absolute reductions, not on potential negative emission technologies or offsets, which are too often a backdoor way to keep polluting.
I’ll now turn the floor over to my colleague, Émile Boisseau-Bouvier.
Émile Boisseau-Bouvier, Analyst, Climate Policy, Équiterre: There are many signs of the urgent need for climate action. On Monday, we learned that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has now reached 419 parts per million. This concentration hasn’t been seen on Earth for over four million years.
Last month, the International Energy Agency announced that no new fossil fuel projects can be authorized if we want to limit global warming to 1.5°C. The reasons for acting quickly are also well documented. The health effects of climate change could cost the Canadian health care system billions of dollars and reduce economic activity by tens of billions of dollars over the next few decades, according to the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices.
Oxfam is warning us that the G7 countries will lose 8.5% of their GDP per year within 30 years if temperatures rise by 2.6°C. This is likely based on the current commitments and policies of governments around the world.
These effects aren’t evenly distributed. In its ruling on carbon pricing, the Supreme Court noted that climate change has particularly severe effects on Canada’s Arctic and coastal regions, and on Indigenous peoples.
In short, action is urgent. Unfortunately, Canada does not currently have any sustainable structures to handle the biggest challenge of our time, and that does not work. Our GHG emissions are basically at the same level as in 2005, and we are the only G7 country whose emissions have increased since the Paris Agreement was signed. We cannot expect a different result if we continue to apply the same strategy. So Canada must follow the example of other countries that have adopted climate legislation if it hopes to get back to being an environmental leader.
To conclude, Mr. Chair, Bill C-12 has the potential to become the structuring legislative framework that is so necessary to the fulfilment of Canada’s climate ambition and to the meeting of our targets. Even if it is not perfect when it gets through House committee business, it will still be the best tool we have to ensure better climate accountability. So we invite senators not to miss this historic opportunity to ensure that the Canada becomes accountable with regard to its climate commitments.
Thank you, everyone. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Laure Waridel, Co-Instigator, Mothers Step In: Good afternoon. I am an eco-sociologist and associate professor at UQAM, but today, I am speaking to you as the mother of Colin and Alphée, and as the step-grandmother of Theodora. I am speaking on behalf of 5,600 members of Mothers Step In, mobilized throughout some 30 groups in Quebec and in Canada. We work with the organization For Our Kids on behalf of which Dr. Kelly Martin will take the floor.
I assume that many of you have children, grandchildren and even great-grandchildren. What kind of a world would you want them to live in in 20, 30, 50 years’ time? To protect their future, it is necessary to pass climate legislation that will force the government to meet science-driven targets. As senators, you have the duty to ensure that Bill C-12 is passed and ideally improved before the session ends. You have a responsibility to those who are still not allowed to vote and have no representation in Parliament.
We ask you to think about their future, beyond short–term economic interests. As senators, you must protect the economy of the future, which depends on the health of the environment.
Science is clear: we are in a state of climate emergency. Humanity as a whole must immediately begin its quest for carbon neutrality. So Canada must set short–term targets and report on them as of 2025. Bill C-12 must also provide for the striking of an independent and impartial advisory committee. That committee must predominantly be made up of scientists and, more importantly, it must exclude large GHG emitters.
Would we think it reasonable if tobacco industry representatives were asked to make recommendations to the government on preventing lung cancer? No! The same goes for the climate and fossil fuels.
I now yield the floor to Dr. Kelly Martin.
[English]
Dr. Kelly Martin, Doctor and Epidemiologist, For Our Kids — Montreal: Hello and thank you for the invitation and for your interest in our children’s future. As an emergency room physician and epidemiologist at McGill University, I’m here today to talk to you about the responsibility that we all have to protect our children from the climate crisis. Children are largely left out of the discussion about appropriate responses to climate change, but they should be central to these debates because they have a much larger stake in the outcome than we do.
The effects of climate change on our health are already evident. It’s hard to overstate how catastrophic warming of three or four degrees will be. Every year, we have 8 to 10 million people dying worldwide, and 900 babies between the ages of 0 and 4 dying in North America, as a direct result of climate change and fossil fuels.
These babies and small children are dying because they cannot breathe, and this rising incidence of respiratory illness has been shown to be causally related to temperature extremes — especially heat — and the byproducts of burning fossil fuels. If the deaths of these babies are hard for you to imagine, I would invite you to visit us in our emergency room to see these young babies and children — who could be your son or granddaughter — struggling to breathe because we have failed to protect them.
These children in our emergency departments today are the canaries in the coal mine. With increased global warming, children will be especially and severely affected by the extreme heat, the drought, the food and water scarcity and natural disasters we will be experiencing. Their health and economic possibilities will be severely affected if we fail to take action — not next year or in the next election cycle, but now.
Casting this bill as a trade-off between the economy and the environment is misleading. The real trade-off is between the short-term cost today and the economy and our health in the future, when your children will be trying to farm in the Prairies, fish on the East Coast or set up businesses, and when the effects of climate change will drastically reduce their possibilities and endanger their lives.
We, and the thousands of parents that we represent across the provinces and territories of Canada, are asking you to pass Bill C-12 with its amendments now to ensure that our children have a future on this planet. It’s not perfect, and it’s not the strong and inspiring bill we had hoped for. We are hopeful there will be more accountability when the bill is finalized. But it is a first step and will allow Canada to take further steps, and hopefully leaps, to where we need to go. We — and you — are fighting for our children’s future, and we are asking you to remember our children when you vote in favour of this bill. Thank you.
Andrew Gage, Staff Lawyer, West Coast Environmental Law: Thank you, members of the committee, for inviting me to speak to you today from the territory of the Lekwungen-speaking peoples in Victoria, B.C. I am the head of West Coast Environmental Law’s climate program, the author of several reports and submissions on Canadian climate law, and a member of a coalition of organizations calling for a climate accountability law.
In 1992, under former prime minister Brian Mulroney, Canada played a leadership role in negotiating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The governments of the world agreed to, “. . . stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations . . .” and “. . . prevent dangerous anthropogenic . . . interference with the climate system.”
In 1992, I still had a full head of hair. I have waited my entire adult life for Canada to deliver. Canada set specific climate targets in 1997 under former Prime Minister Chrétien and in 2010 under former Prime Minister Harper, but as a country we have missed every climate target set. My daughter, at age 15, is now organizing climate strikes, worried about her future.
Clearly we need accountability. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, accountability is:
“the quality or state of being accountable; especially: an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions.”
As a society, we have a lot more experience with financial accountability than we have with what I call “climatic accountability.” We expect our governments to: set budgets identifying how much will be spent and who is responsible for managing that spending; to apply rigorous and credible accounting principles to measure how we are doing; to report annually; and have regular audits by experts to ensure that the reports are accurate.
These structures are necessary to address political challenges that are true both for financial and climatic management. The costs and benefits associated with current decisions do not necessarily follow election cycles, and there can be incentives for governments to overspend now and defer difficult decisions, to “cook the books” or blame previous governments for budget shortfalls.
In 2008, the U.K. government adopted modified versions of principles of financial management in its Climate Change Act. It provided a structure for successive Labour and Conservative governments to reduce that country’s greenhouse gas emissions to levels not seen since the late 1800s.
You’ve probably heard the saying that the best time to invest in a healthy atmosphere was in 1992, but the next best time is now.
Canada, until now, has had no consistent science-based and credible framework for reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, and it shows in those missed targets.
Bill C-12, as amended by the House of Commons, will put in place many of the elements necessary for sound climatic management. I would not say that it meets the gold standard we have been promised, but nor did best practices in financial management spring fully formed into Canadian law.
Bill C-12 puts in place regular targets, set 10 years in advance. That’s like using budgets to set financial goals. It requires plans for achieving the targets. That’s like using budgets to describe a plan of who is responsible for spending. Although I will note that it’s less clear in Bill C-12 than in the U.K. or New Zealand climate laws that the plans actually need to add up to the target, which is a disturbing weakness of the bill.
There are clear requirements for the setting of targets and plans. They must be set with the benefit of expert advice and must consider best scientific information. Plans must include a description of measures to be taken and modelling of the reductions that will result. This is all equivalent to the requirement to follow generally accepted accounting principles in financial planning.
I do note that we are very disappointed not to see requirements to model the key cooperative provincial measures that the government is relying on to achieve the targets or requirements to release the assumptions and methodology for the modelling that they are doing.
We also have regular reporting on progress, although considerably less regularly after 2030, and regular independent reviews by the advisory body and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.
Bill C-12 is less ambitious in several respects than equivalent laws in other countries, and that’s disappointing. But when you haven’t learned to ride a bike at all, the first step is to get on and learn how to pedal. The unprecedented climate crisis has been ignored for too long, and if trying to make this bill perfect is going to delay it, that’s time we don’t have.
The most important thing right now is to start putting in place the structures and rules that support strong climatic planning, and to develop a culture in government and Canadian society that recognizes the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Many of the strongest aspects of the U.K. approach aren’t actually in the U.K. Climate Change Act but are part of how that country has chosen to implement its legislation. What we need now is an act and good-faith efforts to make it work so that we can stop missing our targets. If necessary, we can learn from our experiences and strengthen the act at some point in the future. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you all of you for your presentations. I think they were very useful. We will now proceed to questions.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have a question for Laure Waridel. I knew you as an eco-sociologist, so I am seeing you under another banner, with Mothers Step In, and I must say that it is very striking. What’s more important, credit to you for telling us that it is our children, and not us, old senators, who will be affected by this global warming.
Let’s come back to things that are a bit less interesting, technical considerations. You have been rather critical, I believe, of the advisory body this bill calls for and about the way things are developing. I believe there is a similar body in Quebec for the climate change issue. What would you like to see in that advisory body that does not already exist?
Regarding binding targets, I understand what you are saying — that would be wonderful in theory — but does it not risk leading us toward a series of lawsuits and counter-lawsuits, instead of keeping the debate on politics?
Ms. Waridel: Thank you very much for those highly relevant questions, senator.
You are entirely right. We could indeed find inspiration in Quebec for establishing a true independent committee and, to do so, at least 75% of the committee would have to be made up of scientists and researchers from various disciplines. Industry people could also sit on the committee, but from sectors that are not emitters or large emitters of greenhouse gases. That is what France and Great Britain have done.
In Quebec’s case, for instance, Alain Lemaire, who is a pioneer in circular economy and in reducing the environmental footprint in his sector, may make a significant contribution. Independence is extremely important to avoid conflicts of interest.
Right now, in Canada, four members of the advisory body have a total of 25 years of experience in the fossil fuel sector. So they have interests that are not necessarily in line with a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; that’s very important. Right now, only one person who has been appointed to that committee is a true independent scientist.
When it comes to binding targets, the situation seems clear to me. As my colleagues before me have said — especially the Équiterre representatives — Canada has repeatedly set targets it has failed to meet. So decisions must now be made through another process to enable us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, Canada has allocated more than $31 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel sector. That is a huge amount of money. That money should rather go straight to workers in the fossil fuel sector to help them directly, and not to help that industry go through its ecological transition.
Canada is full of potential in many respects. It’s not just Quebec with its hydroelectricity. Alberta also has a great deal of potential in wind and solar energy. That is where investments must be made. Communities and workers must be supported, and the government must stop subsidizing an industry that is sending part of its income to tax havens. We must be honest, face reality and make decisions in our children’s interest. They are the ones who will feel the consequences of good and bad decisions we make. We have a great deal of responsibility as adults.
As you have already mentioned, I’ve been involved for a long time, 30 years now. I’m speaking from my heart as a mother now, because I feel that it is through this that we will succeed in reaching the left and the right, regardless of religion, culture or age. It’s something that unites all of us, Canadians, the duty and the deep desire to protect those to whom we have given life. Thank you.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator Carignan: My question is for Mothers Step In, and it has to do with the independence of the advisory body. I don’t know if you heard the minister’s testimony. I raised this issue, and he was very tight-lipped about what makes this organization independent, which is the issue of the $15-million budget, the existence of a secretariat, and maybe one or two other administrative elements. I don’t find that very convincing.
You also raised the issue of independence and impartiality of members. Can you give us some examples of the guarantees of independence and impartiality that you would like to see in this bill? Would it be comparable to what is done elsewhere in the world and in Quebec, in particular?
Ms. Waridel: There needs to be a process that prevents conflicts of interest. Obviously, all prospective members of this committee would have to complete a declaration highlighting their affiliation or non-affiliation with certain sectors of economic activity that are major emitters of greenhouse gases. That’s one element. We need to make sure that at least 75% of the members, or at least a majority of them, are researchers from different disciplines, scientists or academics. They need to have a strong background that is relevant to the different sectors that will be affected in Canada.
However, there is indeed a legal framework for the committee of experts that needs to be done. I think we should look at what Quebec did this fall with the adoption of An Act mainly to ensure effective governance of the fight against climate change and to promote electrification, because there is a real framework in place, and it’s right here in Canada, so I think we can draw inspiration from it.
Senator Galvez: My question is for Dr. Kelly Martin.
[English]
You said that heat is coming, is warming, and it’s going to impact health. You seem to think this is coming in the future. However, by looking at what is happening in the Prairies, especially in the province of Alberta, with the forest fires, floods and droughts, right now the health costs due to the impact of climate change are growing exponentially. Even COVID-19 is a consequence of the encroachment of human activities into wildlife habitats.
Can you please explain and expand on how climate change has evolved and is impacting Canada? Why are we in a hurry, and why is this an emergency? As one witness said, time is now a luxury.
Dr. Martin: Just to clarify, I don’t think the health effects are coming. I work at the McGill hospital centre and the children’s hospital, and our emergency room is overwhelmed with these babies who are stuck on ventilators and respirators and pumping drugs into them. When I say 900 babies are dying, for every baby who dies, there are thousands of babies. This is just babies we are talking about. There are children who are suffering and who are admitted.
This is the very tip of the iceberg when we talk about deaths. We talk about a lot of suffering before we see a death. All you have to do is walk into our emergency department and see the crash rooms with two or three instead of one kid in every room, all of them with respiratory difficulties.
On the adult side, it’s cardiac and respiratory difficulties. As you know, yesterday it was 35 degrees outside, 41 degrees with humidity. On my shift, I had a 36-year-old with a cardiac arrest. It is non-stop. We have ambulances waiting outside. These are working young people who can’t work because of this extreme heat.
I am in no way saying it’s coming. I am saying it is here. I have been involved for 30 years in predicting climate change. We are not predicting it; we are seeing it every day.
If we talk about the health costs, I’m saying to act on climate change today. It costs already. As you say, we look at COVID if we want an example. We’re looking a predicting health costs. What will it cost with increasing infectious diseases? What will it cost with increased ground-level ozone, particulate matter, with all the cardiac and respiratory effects? We are predicting $400 billion or $500 billion. That’s what we were predicting before COVID-19. COVID-19 has a cost — in the predictions of economists — of $18 trillion in forgone GDP alone. This does not account for all the ICU beds, the admissions, the increased ambulances, all our tents and our loss of nurses that we don’t know how we’ll get back. What is going to happen to all of these COVID patients who will have to be treated for decades? If it will be $18 trillion for one year of COVID, what is it going to cost us when we have recurrent pandemics or heat-related illnesses? As you said, it’s an emergency. It was a climate change crisis; it’s now a climate change emergency.
We are really misleading ourselves — and the economists would agree — if we think that the small cost up front is not worth what it will save us in terms of our lives and economic possibilities for our children in the future. Look at COVID. Look at the provinces that didn’t take action. Look at where they are now. We have a meeting every week with our emergency physicians looking at trying to shift patients around from provinces that refused to take action while people are dying. I think we have to remember this as we go forward. We are not in control like we think we are.
Senator Galvez: Thank you so much.
[Translation]
Senator Simons: Thank you. I would like to ask my questions in French but, unfortunately, I lack the vocabulary to find the right words. That’s why I’ll have to speak in English. I have questions for Mr. Viau and Mr. Boisseau-Bouvier.
[English]
Now I will switch to English, having made my good-faith effort to speak in Canada’s other official language.
We are talking about a bill that looks at a way for us to get to net-zero emissions. You both spoke about your concern for the balance of options in the portfolio, if I can put it that way. But wouldn’t you concede that if we are actually going to get to net‑zero emissions, that we can’t do that simply by emission reduction? We’re going to need to have carbon removal, offsets and natural carbon sinks as strategies. Do you think it’s realistic to try to do this exclusively or even primarily with emission reductions as opposed to having a balanced portfolio of options?
[Translation]
Mr. Viau: Thank you very much for your question, senator. I’d also like to thank you for making your introduction in French. I truly appreciate it. You’re not far from being able to ask questions in French. I think it would be possible.
In our submission, we suggest moving towards absolute reductions of 90%. Other countries have some constraints as well, such as carbon offsets or capture. Other models exist. We wouldn’t be the first to do it. Is that realistic? It’s realistic because it’s the best way to achieve our targets as we want and as they have been identified.
If we rely on offset mechanisms, we can say that, often, offset mechanisms are used to continue the same industrial activities as before, without changing our behaviour much. For example, we will plant trees to buy a pipeline. That doesn’t work. We need these absolute reductions. The 90% target was suggested as a way to do this.
Research and development must continue to find alternative abatement techniques, which is perfectly acceptable. However, we cannot consider repeating the same economic activities with different results and adding technology. If something is broken, technology will not fix it. You’ll get a broken technological solution. It won’t be progress. It will be a problem on top of which a technological solution has been added. That’s why the 90% target is suggested. Is this realistic? We believe it is. It’s possible to do modelling. In the work we’ve done with partners, we’ve modelled a 60% reduction by 2030. However, the longer we wait, the steeper the curve will be. That’s why we need to act quickly, so that the bill can move through all the legislative stages.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Anderson: My question is for Andrew Gage. I’m speaking to you from the traditional territory of the Inuvialuit in Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories, where we are experiencing some severe effects of climate change and global warming. We’re experiencing threats to homes, infrastructure, our subsistence, lifestyle, where we hunt and fish, changes to our ice and the intensity of the Arctic Ocean during the summer months. Usually the municipalities are the first ones to identify the impact in the communities, and from the municipalities, it then extends to the territories, the provinces and the federal government.
My experience dealing with the crisis that has been happening in Tuktoyaktuk leads me to believe that as we move up, the urgency diminishes and the understanding of the impacts to those people directly affected is somewhat diminished by the time it reaches the territorial or provincial governments and then the federal government.
I would like to know, how do you see this bill supporting or reflecting the realities of municipalities, territories and provinces throughout Canada?
Mr. Gage: Thank you for the question. I would say that currently it doesn’t do a good enough job looking at that. The minister said that it creates a space for conversations, and that’s part of it. Clearly having a bill that puts the onus on the federal government to look to a national target and come up with a plan that will achieve that does encourage conversations with all levels of government about how to do so. But it is certainly not really baked into the legislation as it currently stands in terms of the role of those different levels of government.
I have proposed in the past — it’s not a model that is adopted in this bill — the idea that it would really be great if we could have one national expert body that could provide advice to all levels of government and include representation from appointments nominated by all levels of government. That’s not the approach here. As I said, I don’t think we can delay this in order to get to a perfect bill.
I would certainly agree with you that local governments are having to grapple with the impacts of climate change in a way that other levels of government are just beginning to think about.
The Chair: Thank you. If I could allow myself to ask a short question to all four of you.
Most of you are recommending amendments to the bill. As you know, it’s still in the House of Commons, and they are still making some amendments. We hope and suspect it will be remitted to us soon so we can continue with our study on the actual bill.
Most of you are recommending amendments, but if you look at the real-life situation we have, it may very well be that we only get it next week, yet as we customarily expect, the House of Commons is probably going on holiday late next week and they may not be around to look at any amendments.
Just a quick answer from you. Should we, therefore, wait until the fall to complete our analysis and give the House of Commons time to consider our amendments? Or shall we hold our nose and accept the bill as it is being presented now? To each one of you, would you wait or would you go ahead?
Mr. Gage: That’s a really challenging question, and I’m sure you’re grappling with it the same way we are.
As we said in our submissions, we think that the pieces that are in place with the bill as amended are positive. When you don’t have any climactic planning mechanisms in place, to put something in place is extremely helpful in order to begin figuring out whether it works.
The Chair: So you would accept that as it is?
Mr. Gage: I would accept it as it is with the proviso that this needs to come back. It needs to be revisited when we have some experience with the bill or with the act and how it works. We have to see if it’s doing the job we need it to and improve it.
The Chair: Mr. Viau, what are your thoughts?
[Translation]
Mr. Viau: I agree with much of what my colleague Andrew Gage said. This bill must be passed before the next election because the risk of an election before the House is to return in the fall is too great. Progress has been made and can still be made. My Ecojustice colleague, Alan Andrews, Program Director, Climate, will talk about this later in the next panel. However, as I said in my introductory remarks, we are already 10 or 15 years behind on this bill.
The Chair: So, do we adopt it as it stands?
Mr. Viau: Yes, by considering the fact that it could always be strengthened later.
The Chair: Okay, thank you. Ms. Waridel, are we adopting the bill as it stands?
Ms. Waridel: I agree with my colleagues. This is already a step in the right direction. It needs to be passed, and then we could ensure that the bill will take several other steps in the right direction and that other mechanisms will be put in place. It is fundamental that this bill be passed, and this should be a priority.
[English]
Dr. Martin: Thank you for the question. It is the question of the day. Yes, we do agree that it should be voted for. I would say to you that we will continue to stay on top of this and to push. We ask you to help us to stay on top of this and make it the better bill that we all want.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you. We’ll now go to the second round of questions.
Senator Galvez: My question is for Andrew Gage.
[English]
I couldn’t be more in agreement with you in comparing the climate accountability acts. The U.K. and New Zealand are much stronger, but they have more experience and are small countries. They don’t face what we face with the provinces and the shared responsibility for the environment.
You mentioned something that really caught my attention. You said that the frame of the bill or the act in the U.K. and New Zealand are something and it’s short. But there a lot of other tools and regulations that can come in and everything gets harmonized in order to push for attaining our goals. Can you please expand on how the regulations help with this matter?
Mr. Gage: Thank you for the question. I was speaking less about the strict regulation and more about the culture that has developed. The U.K. bill was supported by all parties in Parliament when it was enacted, and the advisory committee reports directly to Parliament.
As a result, the ways it has been used in Parliament by all parties to press for stronger climate laws has been very helpful. The level of detail included in plans is arguably not what is required in the act. It goes beyond what is required in the act. But because the government started doing that, successive governments have also delivered more detailed plans.
The strict legal requirements of whom can be appointed to the advisory committee are probably not much more detailed than what we see in the Canadian legislation, although there is a different process that is probably helpful. Yet experts that have been appointed have the type of expertise that we and many others have been asking for. So it’s those types of procedural pieces that maybe not even be in the regulations but which have become part of the practice in the U.K.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
Senator Patterson: Thank you. Mr. Boisseau-Bouvier, you mentioned the impacts of industry on GDP, quoting the AEA and Mr. Gage also talked about trade-offs between economy and climate. We know that moving to green technology requires capital investment. I hope you agree, some of that should come from the private sector. It can’t all come from government.
What I would like to ask you is, you said planning must be guided by the best scientific data. Should we also not care about and measure the economic impact of plans to reduce GHG emissions on real GDP, on social impacts and trade-offs like employment? Would you agree with me that seems to be lacking in Bill C-12?
[Translation]
Mr. Boisseau-Bouvier: Thank you, senator, for asking that question. In my speech, I talked about the impacts of inaction on climate change, which are far greater than the economic consequences that go along with the transition we will necessarily have to make to meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets.
This will have obvious economic impacts on the Canadian economy, which is why the government must be present today to support workers, industries and regions that depend on high‑emitting industries, for example.
From an economic perspective, inaction is much more costly than the costs associated with the structural changes we need.
[English]
Senator Patterson: Thank you. If we’re going to produce hydrogen, a clean energy source, a great source would be Canada’s abundant natural gas resources and sophisticated energy technology. As you know, Canadian natural gas could also displace coal-fired electrical generation if it’s exported. Would you agree that there is a role for natural gas, say, in helping reduce global emissions that we’re all concerned about, as well as in our own country? Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Boisseau-Bouvier: Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, I disagree with you on fossil fuels’ role as a transitional energy. As I mentioned earlier, just last month the International Energy Agency indicated that we can’t allow any new fossil fuel projects if we want to meet our goal to limit warming to 1.5°C. Sadly, Canadian fossil fuel is not a transitional energy and will not help us achieve our targets. Hydrogen is an option; I understand that we can’t electrify certain sectors, though, and Canada is fortunate to have abundant renewable electricity. So let’s focus on renewable hydrogen, green hydrogen, to decarbonize some sectors that can’t directly transition to electrification.
The Chair: Thank you very much to our witnesses and our experts. We appreciate being able to hear your opinions and benefit from your knowledge; it was very helpful.
We will now analyze it all for our final report and consideration of the legislation, which we hope will happen very soon.
Colleagues, for our third panel of witnesses, we welcome Michael McSweeney, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cement Association of Canada; Alan Andrews, Program Director, Climate, Ecojustice; and Monica Gattinger, Full Professor and Director, Positive Energy, Institute for Science, Society and Policy, University of Ottawa, as an individual.
Welcome, and thank you for accepting our invitation. You have five minutes each to present your remarks. We will have questions for you afterwards. Mr. McSweeney, you have the floor.
[English]
Michael McSweeney, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cement Association of Canada: Senators, good afternoon. I am President of the Cement Association of Canada. Thank you for this opportunity to share a few brief remarks on the defining issue of our time, climate change.
Cement and concrete are essential strategic commodities in the modern world and will play a central role in Canadian efforts to modernize our buildings and infrastructure so that we can meet low-carbon and climate-resilient challenges in the future.
In the next five years, Canada will produce some 55 million tonnes of cement and 400 million tonnes of concrete. That would fill enough concrete mixer trucks to circle the globe four and a half times. So decarbonizing the cement sector needs to be a priority.
Right across the country, the cement and concrete industry has unflinchingly supported strong and effective climate policy, including putting a price on carbon and all of the actions of the Government of Canada.
Our industry’s ambition is to deliver carbon-neutral concrete by 2050, but we are building our plan to have targets for 2025 and 2030 as well. We are proud to have recently announced last Monday a formal collaboration with Minister Champagne, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, National Research of Canada and Standards Council of Canada to work across government on technology and policy road maps that will make our climate ambition a reality.
The pathway will not be easy, but there remains low-hanging fruit where implementation is impeded today not by technology but by outdated government policy, lagging codes and standards and, quite frankly, in my opinion, a lack of sense of urgency in some corners of the public sector.
We hope that the speedy adoption of Bill C-12 will help us uproot this complacency and send a clear signal that Canada is serious about living up to its climate commitments. Importantly, we believe Canada can leverage its advantages, natural resources, clean energy and innovative spirit to secure economic prosperity in the global transition to a clean economy.
In our industry alone, we have identified shovel-ready projects that could avoid some 15 megatonnes of emissions by 2030, with a permanent ongoing reduction of 4 to 5 megatonnes annually — almost half of our industry’s total annual emissions. Imagine if the cement industry by 2050 could reduce 15 megatonnes of CO2.
We can do this by replacing fossil fuels used to heat our kilns with low-carbon alternatives, like biomass, biosolids, construction and demolition waste, non-recyclable plastics, shingles, rugs, et cetera. Anything with a calorific value should not go into landfill. It should be sent to Canada’s cement industry to replace fossil fuels.
We are innovating with new low-carbon cements such as Portland limestone cement, a cement that could reduce greenhouse gases by 10% at no cost to the taxpayer.
We need to accelerate our investments, transformational technologies, including carbon capture utilization and sequestration. This promises to reduce carbon in the manufacturing of cement but also to sequester carbon into concrete. The solutions are out there.
This brings me to Bill C-12. We don’t deny this government’s ambition on climate. I believe climate change is a priority for all political parties, even if there are disagreements on the most effective path to get there. However, we must acknowledge that tackling climate change is not just an economic challenge. It’s not even a technological challenge. It’s effectively a cultural challenge. It requires new ways of thinking, of doing business, an innovation in the development and delivery of public policy and services. This level of system change is hard. It won’t happen organically without strong and transparent accountability mechanisms.
Bill C-12 may not be perfect. We encourage this committee and the Senate to consider how it might be strengthened, including how it can secure more accountability from our provinces, territories and municipalities. But if Bill C-12 can help promulgate the required sense of urgency, if it can uproot complacency and bureaucratic inertia and if it can signal to business and the investment community a sense of confidence, stability and predictability needed to attract capital investments in clean economy here in Canada, maybe we will have a chance for the first time in our history of finally meeting our targets.
Senators, I urge you to pass Bill C-12 before the end of this session. Thank you very much.
Alan Andrews, Program Director, Climate, Ecojustice: Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today. I’m Alan Andrews, Program Director, Climate, at Ecojustice. I am a qualified lawyer in both Canada and England and Wales.
I’m joining you today from the traditional ancestral, unceded territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations in Vancouver, B.C.
I’m originally from the U.K. and it’s the U.K.’s 2008 Climate Change Act which is usually held up as the gold standard for climate accountability legislation — and with good reason. It has been in place the longest, so it has a track record of enduring several changes in government, a financial crisis and Brexit and is based on a similar legal system to Canada’s. However, others, notably New Zealand, have taken that model and refined and adapted it.
Unfortunately, Canada took a different path with Bill C-12, and, as originally tabled, it fell short of that gold standard. But it has been significantly strengthened in committee, so I will focus my statement on summarizing, at a very high level, the key amendments made so far and assess how far they improve the bill.
By the end of Monday’s session, the committee got as far as clause 20 out of a total of 29 clauses of the bill. So we’ve seen most of the key provisions of the bill debated and amended. It’s obviously still subject to further amendments, but we do now have a fairly good sense of how strong the overall bill will be at third reading.
First, let’s look at the targets. They will now be set ten years in advance instead of five. Targets must be progressively more stringent so they can’t get weaker, and instead of being just six months after the act comes into force by the minister, the 2030 target will now be in the act from day one and will mirror Canada’s latest Nationally Determined Contribution. We will have to wait and see how ambitious that target is, but there will be a review of the target in 2026, so there is a possibility of a future increase in ambition.
I turn now to the planning and reporting obligations, which are really critical to the functioning of Bill C-12. This is the foundation of accountability under Bill C-12, and all the other checks and balances that it puts in place hinge on there being a detailed plan. Too often we have seen flimsy plans that lack the detail and don’t chart a credible path to targets, and the result has been the abysmal failure of missed targets that previous witnesses spoke of.
Fortunately, Bill C-12 as amended makes improvements in terms of the details required in plans and reports. We will see annual projections of the combined emissions reductions that the plan will deliver. Those projections must be disaggregated by the industrial sector, and there must be a projected timetable for the implementation of those measures.
We’ve also seen a small improvement to the progress report, so that now when there is an indication that we are going to miss a target, the minister must come forward with the actions that could be taken to increase the chances of achieving targets.
Finally, we will see more frequent reporting in the crucial period up to 2030.
While these amendments significantly improve the bill, they do leave several gaps. I will highlight three.
First, you heard earlier speakers about the lack of mandatory detail on plans on cooperative measures within the federal government and provinces and territories. I share those concerns. Clarity around who is responsible for what is essential for accountability.
Second, those detailed plans are only required five years before a target, which in the world of climate policy is no time at all. There is a requirement for a “high level description” of measures 10 years in advance, but it’s unclear how much detail we will see in that description.
Then we still have lingering concerns around whether the advisory body will have the necessary independence and expertise to hold the government’s feet to the fire on climate, so we will wait to see whether we will see further amendments in that respect.
I will conclude by saying that while these amendments adopted so far significantly improve the bill, it still falls some way short of the international best practice, but it does contain some of the basic elements of an accountability framework. If passed, there is no doubt it would be a huge step forward for Canada in terms of its climate accountability. Thank you.
Monica Gattinger, Full Professor and Director, Positive Energy, Institute for Science, Society and Policy, University of Ottawa, as an individual: Thank you and good afternoon.
I’m joining you today from the unceded territory of the Algonquin people.
At the University of Ottawa, Positive Energy is our flagship research and engagement program that uses the convening power of the university and solution-focused academic research to identify how to strengthen public confidence in decision making for Canada’s energy future in an age of climate change.
My testimony today draws on over five years of Positive Energy research and engagement. I have three key messages for the committee on Bill C-12.
First, public confidence will be pivotal on the road to net zero. Without the support of the public, communities, investors, Indigenous organizations, civil society and governments at all levels, Canada will not achieve ongoing progress on emissions reductions.
Targets are important. They raise ambition. They provide aspiration. Models are also important. They suggest possible paths to reduce emissions.
But both targets and models often falter in the real world of politics, markets, energy systems, consumers, investors, communities and federal-provincial relations. Plans that look good on paper don’t always cut it in the real world of energy.
Approaches that integrate all of these factors into planning and decision making will be key. A line-by-line read of Bill C-12 suggests there is room for improvement on this front.
Second, Canada needs to identify a constructive role for the oil and gas sector when it comes to net zero. One of the most divisive debates over Canada’s energy future centres on oil and gas, pitting those who call for aggressive climate action phasing out oil and gas as rapidly as possible against those who call for a more measured process of change with a continued role for oil and gas.
These two “realities” about what energy transition means for Canada are at the heart of many debates over Bill C-12, but there is a path forward.
Last month, the International Energy Agency released a report that lays out a proposed pathway to global net-zero GHG emissions by 2050. The part that grabbed the headlines: that there should be no development of new oil and gas fields if the world is to achieve net-zero targets.
This is being used by some to call for the winding down of Canada’s oil and gas industry. This would be a narrow and incorrect reading of the report. Nowhere does the IEA say oil and gas won’t be part of the global energy mix in the decades to come.
What is more, the report underscores that achieving net-zero hinges on innovation in the oil and gas sector: technological advancements in carbon capture, utilization and storage, and in blue hydrogen produced from natural gas with carbon capture will be necessary to reduce emissions in hard to abate sectors like cement, steel and chemicals manufacturing, as well as to develop global hydrogen markets.
What does this have to do with Bill C-12? It suggests that emissions reductions plans need to think about both the short and the long terms: technologies and energy sources that can be deployed now to reduce emissions to 2030 and those that will need to be developed over the next 30 years. There is room to build this kind of two-stage thinking into Bill C-12.
Third, energy security will be pivotal on the road to net-zero. The IEA defines energy security as “ensuring the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price.” Decision makers are alive to the “sources” component of energy security — witness our debates about oil and gas, renewables, nuclear and more. But availability and affordability often get a pass even though they will be crucial underpinnings of energy system transformation.
Electrification will be key when it comes to energy availability and potential disruptions to availability. As the energy system’s reliance on electricity grows, so too does its vulnerability to power outages.
The challenges are multiple and include climate change itself in the form of more frequent extreme weather events, the ability to integrate intermittent sources of power into the grid, guarding against cybersecurity attacks and the ability to finance and construct a mind-boggling amount of infrastructure. If supply doesn’t keep pace with demand, expect interruptions. Or soaring prices.
That brings us to affordability. Energy prices are notoriously difficult to predict, but one thing is sure. Canadians do not sit idle in the face of high prices and often channel their anger straight at politicians. This risks calls to roll back climate commitments.
None of this is reason to weaken climate change action. Rather, it underscores the importance of keeping energy security front and centre on the road to net-zero. On this point, I would like to bring to the committee’s attention that energy security isn’t mentioned once in Bill C-12. Neither is availability nor affordability. I submit that this needs to change.
I thank the committee for inviting me to testify and look forward to your questions and comments.
The Chair: Thank you to all three of you. Very good suggestions and a good sharing of your knowledge.
Senator Patterson: I would like to follow up on the last thing you said, Ms. Gattinger, that neither affordability nor energy security is mentioned in the bill. I’m also concerned that there are no economic metrics in other areas, such as real GDP, in the bill. I wonder if you would explain, if you’ve given thought to how those deficiencies could be remedied.
Ms. Gattinger: I think it really comes down to two parts of the bill. One is the preamble. It will be crucial, in my mind, to add in concepts around energy and energy security. I would also note that energy itself isn’t mentioned once in the bill, which I found a bit surprising. Certainly the preamble would be one area to rectify that.
The other area, of course, is section 10, the emissions reduction plan and the contents of it. I think there you could easily add in a clause around energy and energy systems, competitiveness and markets, to your point, as well as energy security. I think those would be the two key areas that I would consider or suggest that the committee consider.
Senator Patterson: Very valuable advice. Thank you.
Senator D. Black: Ms. Gattinger, this question is for you. Very helpful advice, which I think the committee appreciates.
There are tens of thousands of people listening to this today, so I would like you to take what you have said and translate it, if you can, to paint a picture for Canadians of what it’s going to take to achieve the objectives set forth in Bill C-12. What does it mean for Canadians, please?
Ms. Gattinger: That’s a terrific question. I think it will take a lot of collaboration and a lot of silo busting.
One of the things that I would observe as an energy analyst is that many of these debates take place in silos. We have the folks who are really keen on climate in one silo and the folks with deep energy expertise in another. We really need to start to bust down those silos and get that integrated approach that brings together both energy and climate imperatives. That will be crucial when it comes to securing the confidence of the public in the years ahead and getting the progress to reduce emissions for Canada.
Senator D. Black: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Yes, thank you. My question has to do with integration. Shouldn’t we have plans that would involve private enterprise to a greater extent? There are government targets and plans to achieve goals, but at the end of the day, it’s the private sector, especially the big polluters, that will help us reach our goals if we work together. Shouldn’t we have a system where all big companies that exceed a certain level of greenhouse gas emissions have a greenhouse gas reduction plan for their industry and for their factories? We have succeeded in implementing the pay equity program, we have established codes, we have created pay equity committees where we evaluate the situation in each company. We’ve done the same thing with regard to work accident prevention and fire prevention, with specific systems for each company. Shouldn’t we do the same in the environmental context?
Ms. Gattinger: I believe it’s very important and several companies are very active in that area, obviously. However, in terms of the bill, one thing that struck me in the preamble is that it talks about the action of several actors in society, including businesses, but it doesn’t talk about cooperation. I think we have an opportunity to add that concept to the preamble. I would also add, with respect to section 10, which deals with the content of the plan to reduce emissions, there’s no provision whatsoever on cooperation with the private sector or government agencies.
I believe you had a witness from Environment Canada; they do have a program, but it is voluntary, just for the kinds of initiatives that you talked about. In terms of whether it should be mandatory, I believe that’s more for the committee to look at, but I do see that energy-wise, more and more businesses are developing very ambitious plans and commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
[English]
Mr. McSweeney: I think that’s why it was important to see Minister Champagne announce last week a partnership between the cement industry and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. They will be working with a cross-Canada government working group consisting of ISED, the Treasury Board, the National Research Council, the Standards Council of Canada and public procurement on the development of a low‑carbon emissions supply chain that will be done through data strategy, industrial standards and procurement. It will be coordinating the work right across government on high potential research and investment for new technologies, products and processes that reduce the amount of carbon that will be released in the production of cement and concrete.
It will also engage federal, provincial and territorial partners, manufacturers and providers of clean-tech solutions and other stakeholders that will work on this together. I think this is the first time in my 13 years that I have seen the government, on an active basis, set up a working group that will bring everybody together around the table for our industry.
I hope the government will be encouraged to look at other partnerships with the forestry, mining and chemistry industries as well as other groups. Senator Carignan raises an important point that we need to bring in all of the stakeholders, such as environmental groups like Ecojustice, academics, civil society and the manufacturing industry. That’s the only way we will beat climate change, by working together. I commend and applaud Minister Champagne for announcing that with myself last week.
Senator Simons: I want to thank our guests this afternoon, Mr. Andrews and Professor Gattinger, for your excellent analysis and precis of this legislation. It has been hugely helpful to me in understanding what this bill does and does not cover.
My question is for Mr. McSweeney. I would like to know how things work. I wonder if you can explain two things to me. First, how can you use the production of cement and concrete to actually sequester carbon?
Second, how would you propose to burn carpets and old chesterfields without producing all kinds of old-fashioned air pollution particulate matter that would be extremely nasty?
Mr. McSweeney: Today, the fuels used to make cement are primarily coal and petroleum coke. Any material that has a calorific value and goes to the landfill today. We say send that to the cement kilns and we will use them as a fuel. On a scale of 1 to 10, if coal and petroleum coke were at 10 on the pollutant level, things like biomass and biosolids are zero emissions under the IPCC, and refuse-derived fuel, such as non-recyclable plastics, the things that you mentioned like construction and demolition wastes, rugs and shingles, are all around 2 or 3 on that index. Don’t forget, when these items go into landfill, they decompose over time and create methane, which is a worse greenhouse gas than we have today.
That is the answer to your second question. The first question is on carbon capture, utilization and sequestration. Our industry is applying for funds under the Strategic Innovation Fund, the net-zero accelerator, for which Deputy Prime Minister Freeland announced an increase of $5 billion in the last budget. So we have $8 billion that will be going to industry to look at reducing emissions in ways like carbon capture utilization and storage. At Natural Resources Canada, they also have a program that will address carbon capture utilization and storage.
We have other technologies out there like CarbonCure, which reduces the amount of cement that goes into concrete that also sequesters a small amount of CO2 when it goes into concrete. We have Svante, we have Solidia; there are many new companies. As the Minister of Environment has often said, the technologies we need to reduce CO2 to meet our 2030 targets have not yet been discovered but will be over the next decade, in large part with the help of the government and the private sector. We need to stop the inertia. We need to get the government working together. I have been a passionate advocate for the reduction of greenhouse gases for 13 years. Some of the things we have been asking the government to use, like, for example, we have a new cement, Portland Limestone Cement, which reduces greenhouse gases by 10% on that project. We have been trying to get the Treasury Board to mandate the use of that cement on federal government contracts for three or four years. There is no sense of urgency. We are in 2021. If we are to reduce 40% to 45% CO2 by 2030, we need to look at low-hanging fruit that does not cost the taxpayer even one penny. This new cement is equivalent to the general use cement. We only make two cements, general use and Portland Limestone Cement.
Senator Galvez: Thank you so much, Mr. McSweeney, for your incredible presentation. We agree 100%. Building codes and recycling things with cement is the way to go. They are low‑hanging fruit. My question goes to Professor Gattinger. We are going to host someone from the International Energy Agency, and we are going to ask them about some of the things you told us. I read the IEA report, and we don’t have the same understanding. I’m happy that this person is coming.
Ms. Gattinger, can you please confirm who funds the research of your Positive Energy Institute? I have here the Alberta Energy Regulator, the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission, and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, which had the exact same opinion of the last IEA report. Who else is supporting your research centre?
Ms. Gattinger: This is an academic research and engagement initiative that is funded by a multiplicity of third party funders. When we developed the funding model for this project, we wanted to make sure we had a big tent that spoke to the diversity of our energy system in Canada. We have over a dozen funders that include federal and provincial governments, Natural Resources Canada and Alberta Energy, which include regulatory agencies. We have had funding from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission, the British Columbia Utilities Commission, the Alberta Energy Regulator. There is funding from industry associations. You mentioned the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, but there is also the Canadian Electricity Association and the Canadian Renewable Energy Association. Again, a variety of different — what we really want to do is have our work focus on energy writ large, and individual companies as well. We have funding from Cenovus and Ovintiv, and also from innovators like the Clean Resource Innovation Network, which you might be familiar with. They have received Strategic Innovation Fund, or SIF, funding for reducing environmental impacts in the oil and gas sector; the full value chain. Our funding arrangements with all those organizations are third party, independent funding. This is academic research that goes through the Research Ethics Board just as any other research does at the university. It’s all peer-reviewed. We have also received funding from the Tri-Council Agency’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
The work we have done is academic research and engagement. We are using the convening power of the university to bring together leaders from all of the sectors. Business, government, regulators, Indigenous organizations, environmental NGOs and individual companies across the energy space. When it comes to securing public confidence in decision making for Canada’s energy future in the age of climate change, this is about all energy sources, and it requires that collaborative, collective approach. We use those opportunities of convening with folks in the energy space, — again, across the country; it’s a pan‑Canadian approach — to identify the issues. I head a research team of 15 to 20 researchers, depending on what we are working on at any given time, who undertake solution-focused applied academic research. It is applied research. We are looking to be helpful. What are some of the recommendations we can make to policy-makers, including yourselves, in terms of what it will take to secure the confidence of the public when it comes to decision making over Canada’s energy and climate future.
If you would permit me, I would like to speak to the International Energy Agency report. What I’m referring to is the net-zero road map. That road map is one scenario, it is not the scenario. The IEA is not proposing that this is the way things will happen. They are suggesting that this is a scenario of what the future could look like on the road to 2050. One of the milestones is no additional funding or no funding of new oil and gas fields, but they are not saying that oil and gas will not be part of the energy mix in the future. In 2050 — again, it’s a scenario — but their scenario is calling for 24 million barrels of oil per day being produced, and over 1500 billion cubic metres of natural gas being produced. A big question for Canada is: Do we want to be part of that production? I’m not here to say that I have the answers to that, but it is the sort of topic that Canada has not necessarily had the robust policy discussion on that it could have.
That report also lays out the importance of some of the innovation taking place in the oil and gas sector and in the fossil fuel sector. This is globally, it is not specific to Canada. The importance of that work and application of the learning from it to other sectors — particularly hard to abate sectors, whether it is cement, steel, chemicals manufacturing and the like — can actually be applied to other sectors.
Mr. Andrews: I want to add a note of caution to some of the comments made by the other witnesses. It is important to remember that Bill C-12 is primarily about holding governments to account for action to achieve climate targets. While we do have some useful language in there requiring sectoral strategies, which is important, this is primarily about governments. There is a danger that if we lose sight of that and start loading Bill C-12 with all kinds of other obligations, indicators of economic progress and all these sorts of things, we lose sight of the primary purpose. We need to stay laser-focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and holding the government’s feet to the fire. Yes, absolutely, industry has to play an important part in that, but those conversations will happen. The innovation will happen if we hold governments to account. Bill C-12 puts in place the basic building blocks of a mechanism that will allow us to do that.
Senator McCallum: Thank you very much to the presenters. What is not in this bill is the protection of Indigenous peoples and their lands during climate change. What does it mean for Indigenous peoples when their lands and lives are on the doorsteps of mega dams, as in northern Manitoba with Site C dam at Muskrat Falls, and with sand mining and the water crisis that comes with that?
When we look at the large hydropower dams and the deforestation that comes with it, that it continually reduces storage capacity and the life of the dams, and Bharat Lal Seth says:
Each source of power has sector-specific and site-specific benefits. What we are increasingly noticing is erratic weather, where the number of rainy days is decreasing while the intensity of the rainfall is increasing. What the stream flows could be like in the next 10-20 years makes hydropower a risky proposition, purely from a financial perspective, leave aside other social and environmental impacts.
How would you suggest that an accountability measure be put in place to ensure there is not continued erosion of the lands and rights of Indigenous peoples? I would like all the witnesses to answer if they can. There is so much cement in hydropower.
Mr. McSweeney: Thank you very much, Senator McCallum. The cement industry wants to, and does work closely with Indigenous communities. I know that in British Columbia we are working closely with Indigenous communities on the lands where we have our facilities. It’s incumbent upon us to work with the Indigenous communities and with governments — in partnership, and as closely as possible — to ensure that everyone’s needs are addressed.
Mr. Andrews: I would make three points. It’s critical that there is representation and consultation with Indigenous peoples throughout the process laid down by Bill C-12. There needs to be representation of Indigenous peoples on the advisory body. The advisory body needs to take into account Indigenous knowledge.
Going back to the planning and reporting regime, this is the most important provision within Bill C-12. It’s critical that Indigenous peoples are consulted at an early stage in the development of those plans and as those plans are implemented, so that they are not having the adverse effects that the senator discussed.
Ms. Gattinger: Thank you, senator, for the comment. It’s absolutely critical. This is an area we have done research on, including looking at the development of hydro projects. As I’m sure you would know, increasingly the standard is well beyond engagement; it’s partnership, and that takes time. It takes time to build trust. It takes time to develop a project that all parties are comfortable with.
If we’re laser-focused on what governments are doing, that also means laser-focused on their upholding the duties of the Crown when it comes to Indigenous peoples.
In terms of the bill, there are likely to be tensions there. That’s why it’s crucial to ensure that you have these various elements — which will need to be balanced and navigated as we move forward — to secure the confidence of everyone, including Indigenous communities, in emissions reductions.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have a question for Mr. Andrews. I’d like to ask you about the British experience. You said that the British legislation has been in force since 2008. We’re talking about 12 years. You are very advanced. In fact, you have quite good results. I’d like to know what the relationship is between your committee, your advisory body, and the government. From what I’ve read, the government has always followed — correct me if I’m wrong — the committee’s recommendations. Is that because of the way the legislation is written or is there also political will, if you compare it to the wording of our own bill?
[English]
Mr. Andrews: Thanks for that excellent question. In terms of the success of the U.K. Climate Change Committee, as an earlier witness said, some of those factors are not to be found in the legislation. The U.K. Climate Change Committee has a strong, vocal chair who is a former Conservative environment minister. He has proven to be an excellent and vocal critic of government inaction on climate.
The Climate Change Committee has a full-time staff of around 30 climate experts, which ensures that it has credibility, expertise and, crucially, independence from government. It’s not reliant on government for information, reports, modelling, and so on. Those factors have been key.
Also, the U.K. act was born in a spirit of cross-party cooperation. It enjoyed the support of Conservatives and Labour governments. While we have seen some pressure on it over the years, as governments have changed, as we have weathered the storms of Brexit, the financial crisis and so on, it has creaked, but it’s held in place. Crucially, the most recent development is that we have seen a Conservative government responding to the advice of the advisory body to increase its level of ambition. I think that’s significant.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: When you consider that the chair is a former Conservative, as I understand it, and not a scientist or scientific expert, would you say that goes against the idea that scientists should hold the majority of seats or almost all of the seats on such a committee? How do you see that balance?
[English]
Mr. Andrews: I think the key is to look at not just the body itself — which definitely should have a scientific perspective; that’s really important — but we should look at the overall expertise available to the committee. It’s the secretariat that provides the scientific knowledge and expertise. Of course, it’s guided in its work by the committee, who come from a variety of backgrounds.
The Chair: If I could permit myself a question and address it to Mr. McSweeney. I’m pleased. You’ve made the comment that even in your industry — because I thought industry — [Technical difficulties] steel, cement, chemicals, technical solution yet. You made a reference earlier that this is not the case; all the technology is there. Then you made reference to improvements in getting government support in position. Then you referred to two examples. One is the new cement 10% and also the CO2 within the [Technical difficulties].
As you know, while you are engaged in the 2050 goal, those two solutions are just a small pathway to 100% reduction. Therefore, you refer to working with government.
I’m always suspicious when people are enthusiastic about the solution and that the government will get involved, but seemingly they want a large part of their expenditure paid by the government. When you look at your industry, what percentage of the improvement required will be funded by the government and how much will be funded by the industry themselves, which they must do if they want to survive?
Mr. McSweeney: With the SIF Net Zero Accelerator fund — which is $8 billion, as I mentioned — industry will only be able to make an application for up to “50-cent dollars,” so nothing is 100%.
These are transformative changes that require huge amounts. For example, if we look at the proposed carbon capture utilization and storage at the Lehigh cement plant in Edmonton, that will cost you somewhere between $750 million and $1 billion. That’s a huge investment.
We see countries like Norway for example, which are funding at 100% government dollars the carbon-capture utilization and storage technology in Norway. So, multinational companies look for investing where they are going to get their biggest return on investment. Yes, they all have their strategic sustainability goals. Yes, they are all committed to fighting climate change, but they are supported and invested by investors. They are going to go wherever they can get the investment from governments.
Between now and 2030, our industry — with modest investments and regulatory and legislative changes — can reduce 15 megatonnes by 2030. I do not see too many industries coming forward today saying we can reduce 15 megatonnes with a modest investment or changes to regulation.
Imagine if you are going to build with concrete, why would you not use the cement that reduces greenhouse gases by 10% at no cost? It’s crazy. We have been trying to negotiate or plead with government for almost 13 years now. I have been pleading with governments in Ontario, Alberta, Quebec to allow us to use alternative low-carbon fuels or zero-carbon fuels. But the policies in those provinces encourage industries like the cement industry to use coal and petroleum coke.
The Chair: Fifteen megatonnes is what percentage of the total megatonnes the industry produces?
Mr. McSweeney: We would be able to reduce by 2050 half of our greenhouse gases that we produce in the cement industry.
The Chair: Why not 100%?
Mr. McSweeney: Well, when you make cement, 60% of your emissions are what is called process emissions; 40% are the combustion emissions used from the fuel. If we could put in carbon-capture utilization and storage, then we can reduce almost 100% of our emissions. You have to have the right geology and geography in order to store the CO2.
In Edmonton, Alberta it’s close to the carbon trunk line, but the company will have to decide who will use the CO2 going forward.
The Chair: Any other question from our senators? I think you all did a very good job of helping us to understand better your suggestions and recommendations. Ms. Gattinger, do you have a comment to add?
Ms. Gattinger: I do. Just to pick up something from your previous question and Mr. McSweeney’s response. To give you a sense that this issue of distance between point source emissions and storage sites for carbon is a big one. To give you a sense of scale, in the United States, recently a bipartisan bill was tabled to create an incentive structure to be able to facilitate the transportation. Basically, it’s going to take building pipelines, right? So you need to put in place some incentives to make that happen from the point of capture to the point of storage.
The dollar figure on that was $5 billion just for that piece of the puzzle. That’s for loan guarantees to support industries to move in that direction. These are some of the really key issues, looking across the different sectors and the kind of work that needs to get done to leverage the emissions reductions. Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Gattinger, if I could ask a question to that comment. You have a certain amount of space within Carbon Capture and Storage, or CCS. Everybody wants that space. They want it for free. How do you arbitrate that? How do you deal with that difference? It should not be free, first of all. It’s a commodity with significant value. What do you do with that issue? It’s a false solution.
Ms. Gattinger: I’m not sure I would characterize it as a false solution. What I would note is these are exactly the kinds of questions we have yet to develop answers to. There is going to be many of those that we’re going to need to think through the policy and regulatory frameworks. This is where the role of government is absolutely crucial. We’re working closely and collaboratively with those who are so-called on the ground, or in the ground in this case, working on the issues to try to identify what are the market structures that will actually make this work?
Senator Galvez: I think I would like to give my time for comments from Mr. Andrews.
Mr. Andrews: Thank you, senator. A really quick point on CCS. It’s important to remember that while it might not be a false solution, it’s certainly an unproven solution, at least on a commercial scale. It’s really important that as we move forward with Bill C-12, we are basing our plans and our targets on realistic assumptions around what those technologies can deliver, particularly in that shorter time horizon. This is one area where the advisory body could play a really important role in providing some independent, objective advice on what really is credible in the immediate future in terms of what we can achieve through CCS, so that this doesn’t act as a drag on ambition elsewhere and doesn’t slow down the roll out of renewable energy and these other technologies that will more directly address the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.
Senator Galvez: Thank you so much. I agree 100% with the statement of Mr. Andrews that we have to have laser focus on the problem, which is reducing emissions and attaining our targets because the costs and impacts of inaction are so huge.
What will be an observation that we can put down to Bill C-12 after the amendments? We know that 25-plus amendments have been adopted in the other place. What is something that we can provide as an observation according to you?
The Chair: You are addressing that to whom?
Senator Galvez: Mr. Andrews.
Mr. Andrews: Thank you, senator. I’m not sure I fully understand the process. But I think what you’re asking is there something that the Senate can be saying that expresses its viewpoint on Bill C-12 while it moves forward?
Senator Galvez: Exactly.
Mr. Andrews: Excellent. I think I would reiterate comments by earlier witnesses. Accept Bill C-12 isn’t perfect. It does fall short in some concerning ways, ways that we have talked about. Maybe the Senate could flag some of those concerns and identify areas that could be strengthened in future with perhaps a process by which the bill could be assessed and those improvements could be made at some point in the future as we learn by doing so. We don’t have to have everything perfect right on day one, but we are learning, and the process is evolving.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you everybody. Thank you for my colleagues. Thank you to the experts for their significant knowledge and your experience, which we appreciate immensely.
To my colleagues, we will adjourn and we will see each other tomorrow morning at nine o’clock. Thank you very much, all of you.
(The committee adjourned.)