THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 24, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met by videoconference this day at 9:02 a.m. [ET] to study emerging issues related to the committee’s mandate.
Senator Paul J. Massicotte (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I’m Senator Paul Massicotte from Quebec. I’m the chair of this committee.
Today, we’re conducting a hybrid meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
Before we get started, I would like to remind senators and witnesses to please keep your microphones muted at all times unless the chair recognizes you. When you speak, please do so slowly and clearly.
For those participating by Zoom, please use the “raise hand” feature to take the floor. For the others in the room, please let the clerk know if you wish to speak.
I’ll do my best to get to everyone who wants to ask a question. To that end, I ask that you keep your questions and preambles brief. This applies both to the senators and the witnesses. Thank you.
Should any technical issue arise, particularly in relation to the interpretation, please let the chair or the clerk know so that we can resolve it quickly.
Please note that we may suspend the meeting if technical issues arise so that all members can fully participate in the meeting.
I would now like to introduce the committee members who are participating in today’s meeting. We’re joined by Senator Anderson of the Northwest Territories; Senator Arnot of Saskatchewan; Senator Carignan, P.C., of Quebec; Senator Galvez of Quebec; Senator Gignac of Quebec; Senator McCallum of Manitoba; Senator Miville-Dechêne of Quebec; Senator Seidman of Quebec; Senator Sorensen of Alberta; Senator Verner, P.C., of Quebec.
I would like to welcome all of you, as well as the Canadians across the country who are tuning in.
Today we’re meeting pursuant to our general order of reference. We are honoured to welcome, for the first hour, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, the Honourable Steven Guilbeault.
Minister, welcome to the committee.
With you for the first part, from Environment and Climate Change Canada, are Ms. Christine Hogan, Deputy Minister, and Mr. Paul Halucha, Associate Deputy Minister.
From the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, Mr. Terry Hubbard, President.
From Parks Canada, Mr. Andrew Campbell, Senior Vice-President, Operations.
Welcome everyone and thank you for accepting our invitation.
I would like to remind the honourable senators that the minister is here to talk about his mandate letter. For questions relating to Bill S-5, which is still in the Senate, we will invite the minister when the bill is referred to us.
Minister Guilbeault, you have the floor.
The Honourable Steven Guilbeault, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you, honourable senators, for inviting me here today.
I am happy to have this opportunity to discuss the mandate letter that the Prime Minister delivered to me last December.
[English]
Chair, as you have already mentioned the most excellent members of the department who are here with me, I will skip over that.
[Translation]
The health and well-being of Canadians depend on a healthy environment and economy. I am sure many of you saw the report released last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, commonly referred to as IPCC.
[English]
Once again, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has reinforced the need for urgent, comprehensive action on both mitigation and adaptation to climate change from all countries. Failure to act comes with immense cost.
Honourable senators, in just the last 12 months we’ve seen the impact of extreme weather events — floods, wildfires, mud slides and wind storms. My ambitious mandate letter as Minister of Environment and Climate Change recognizes these realities.
[Translation]
It calls for progressive policies with effective and meaningful actions developed and implemented through ongoing collaboration and engagement with all Canadians, levels of government, Indigenous peoples and key players in society and the economy.
[English]
This includes actively seeking out and incorporating the diverse views of Canadians, including women, LGBTQ2+, and Black and racialized Canadians.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, our inclusive and transparent approach to consultations has been ongoing since 2016. We have made climate investments and promoted science-based policies.
[English]
Accelerating the fight against climate change: We now have to take it to the next level. As you would expect, accelerating the fight against climate change is one of my top priorities. My mandate commits me to continuing to deliver on Canada’s strengthened climate plan. It commits me to implement the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act and bring forward an emission reduction plan to achieve our 2030 targets by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 45% below 2005 greenhouse gas emissions. My mandate commits me to further accelerate climate action to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and limit the increase in global average temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
[Translation]
The Prime Minister also included two commitments in my mandate letter, including the following, and I quote :
Enact a strengthened Canadian Environmental Protection Act to protect everyone, including people most vulnerable to harm from toxic substances and those living in communities where exposure is high.
I would add the commitment to recognize the right to a healthy environment in federal law.
[English]
Our government introduced Bill S-5, the Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act, in the Senate on February 9, 2022. The bill proposes amendments to CEPA along two major themes: recognizing the right to a healthy environment as provided under CEPA and strengthening the management of chemicals and other substances in Canada. Once the bill is referred to committee, I look forward to returning to discuss it in detail. I would urge all honourable senators to lean in on the first major update to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in 20 years.
[Translation]
Since 2016, there has been a government-wide effort to change the trajectory of Canada’s pollution levels.
When our Liberal government took office in late 2015, Canada’s emissions were headed for a 12% increase by 2030. Correcting Canada’s climate trajectory has been a monumental task.
Since 2016, we have committed more than $100 billion for economic investments in climate and ecology in more than 100 different actions.
[English]
In 2021, Canada showed we are finally on track to surpass our longstanding 2030 reduction target of 20%. Our government then announced Canada’s new nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement, 40 to 45% below the 2005 levels by 2030.
Not long after that, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act became law and enshrined Canada’s commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. The act also established Canada’s 2030 target as the first key milestone on this path and ensured a transparent and accountable process in meeting our climate objective. That is why I will bring forward a key requirement under the act, the 2030 emissions reduction plan, on March 29. It’s the first of many. The act requires that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change set targets for 2035, 2040 and 2045 at least 10 years in advance and report on the plan to achieve them.
[Translation]
This plan will be guided by the advice of the independent advisory body Net-Zero (Net-Zero Advisory Body), and will include input from provinces and territories, Indigenous partners and Canadians across the country. This will provide us with a road map to reach our current goal.
Honourable senators, the mandate letter also requires me to work with the Minister of Natural Resources to achieve a net zero emission power grid by 2035 and a 100% clean electricity future. This is climate action that will provide Canadians with affordable and reliable energy while achieving carbon neutrality.
We are also working to reduce pollution from transportation. The goal is that more than half of all new vehicles sold in Canada will be zero-emission vehicles by 2030, and all of them by 2035.
[English]
My department is also working on a plan to reduce methane emissions. This mandate commitment will achieve reductions across the broader Canadian economy. It will include regulations to reduce methane from the oil and gas sector by at least 75% below 2012 levels by 2030 and other regulations to capture methane from landfills. I’m also working with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, or AAFC, to ensure the agricultural sector does its part.
[Translation]
Unfortunately, we have reached the point where we can’t just work to slow climate change. We must also help people adapt to its impacts.
[English]
As a matter of priority, we are accelerating the important work of adapting to climate change, including the development of Canada’s first National Adaptation Strategy, to make communities safer and more resilient.
[Translation]
In addition to addressing critical adaptation issues in Canada, such as the local impacts of floods, forest fires and heat waves, the strategy will consider the impacts of climate change that cross borders and affect shared well-being. We expect to introduce the strategy this fall.
[English]
Honourable senators, the climate and nature crises are two sides of the same coin. Conserving lands is one of the most important ways to tackle the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity lost.
[Translation]
The climate crisis and the nature crisis are two sides of the same coin. Conserving lands is one of the most important ways to tackle the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss.
That is why my mandate letter from the Prime Minister asks me to continue to work with the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard and his partners to ensure that Canada meets its conservation targets of 25% of its land and water by 2025, and 30% of each by 2030.
The letter also commits us to working to halt and reverse the loss of nature by 2030 in Canada and achieve full nature recovery by 2050.
[English]
Working in partnership with Indigenous peoples is key to that success. That is why we’re ensuring this work remains grounded in science, Indigenous knowledge and local perspectives. Indigenous-led conservation efforts include supporting new Indigenous Guardians programs, establishing new Indigenous Guardians networks and helping Indigenous communities build capacity to establish more Indigenous-protected and -conserved areas.
My mandate on conservation includes establishing 10 new national parks and 10 new national marine conservation areas in the next five years.
[Translation]
The confinements associated with the pandemic have only strengthened the connection between Canadians and their great natural spaces. I have been mandated to add 15 new urban parks by 2030 with at least one new national urban park in every province and territory. Access to green space is so beneficial to mental and physical health and quality of life, I look forward to helping create these new national parks and marine conservation areas.
[English]
Honourable senators, you understand the incredible benefits that come with timely climate action: job prosperity and a healthier and more sustainable economy and environment for all Canadians. We’re putting in place robust regulations, legislation and policies to combat the crises of climate change, nature and biodiversity loss and so much more.
[Translation]
At the same time, we are also working with businesses, industries and regions of Canada to help them build a more sustainable, nature-positive and carbon-neutral country that will benefit everyone.
Honourable senators, I encourage you to read my mandate letter to see the full range of environmental measures we look forward to implementing over the next few years.
In the meantime, I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Welcome, Minister, and thank you for your commitment.
Indeed, your mandate letter talks about bold measures. Up to now, and you alluded to this, we have been hesitant and have even taken steps backwards at times.
I’ll give you three examples of this. Canada has adopted a carbon tax, but has exempted several of its major polluters so as not to harm the economy. Secondly, as you said, our greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 20% since 1990. Finally, what is quite disturbing is that even if we try to reduce the carbon footprint of our oil and gas industry today by calculating only scope 1 and 2 emissions, these only account for 20 to 30% of total emissions, and this is in contradiction with scientific standards.
Given this reality, Canada’s climate actions have always been subordinated to the short- and medium-term economic imperative. Do you believe that this approach is still justifiable today, given the climate emergency?
Mr. Guilbeault: Thank you very much, Senator. I will answer your three questions.
In terms of pricing, I want to make it clear that large emitters are not exempt from carbon pricing in Canada. There are measures for all sectors and all large emitters. In fact, the International Monetary Fund recently published a study in which it cited the Canadian model as an international model to follow in terms of carbon pricing.
As you know, the system has been in place in Canada since 2018, and in terms of the intensity of the price per tonne of carbon emitted, we have already surpassed what Quebec, British Columbia and California are doing, and we will surpass the European Union. These are all states and nations that started implementing their system over a decade ago—15 years almost in the case of the European Union.
In terms of the increase in GHGs, you’re right to say that since 1990, there has been an increase, but since our arrival, thanks to the implementation of our plan—according to the latest available inventory from 2019—we have managed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 million tonnes.
To put that in perspective, Quebec’s annual emissions are 81–82 thousand tonnes per year. In just a few years, from 2016 to 2019—our plan started to be deployed in 2016—we have managed to reduce emissions by 30 million tonnes; however, I totally agree with you, this is only the beginning and more needs to be done.
Regarding your last point about inventories, like any self-respecting country, we use the IPCC standards on greenhouse gas emission inventories. This is what all the countries in the world do. Generally speaking, to simplify things, because it is quite complicated, emissions are calculated at the point of combustion. Now, we calculate the emissions of the oil sector in relation to the combustion of oil and gas at the point of emission and in the case of transport. You say that type 3 emissions are not taken into account; of course they are taken into account when gas is burnt in the car, for example. It is in the transport sector that emissions will be accounted for, but there are no emissions that escape the inventories. We use the standards prescribed by the IPCC for inventories.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question was more general as to whether the short- and medium-term economic imperative is still the necessary criterion for combatting climate change, knowing that there is an economy, at the moment, that operates with a lot of carbon, but that this economy could become green. When we look at the measures—you talk about the carbon tax—many experts say that they are only taxed at 16%. There’s all kinds of controversy about that, but I want to hear from you more generally about the importance of the economic imperative to protect existing jobs in your plans.
Mr. Guilbeault: When we say that the economy and the environment go together, it is not a hollow formula to please the gallery. Today, we can no longer simply look at the economic aspect of our society without taking into account the impacts of climate change, which obviously have repercussions on humans and biodiversity, but also significant repercussions on the economy. We need only look at the cost of the latest natural disasters, the floods in British Columbia, the heat dome, the forest fires. This must be part of our analysis.
Where you and I agree is that we clearly need to do more. We’ve started to turn the curve on greenhouse gas reductions in Canada; this is the first time that’s happened. There have been small declines in the past, mostly due to economic downturns. We don’t have the inventories yet for COVID, but from 2016 to 2019, there were no economic downturns either in Canada or globally. The economy was firing on all cylinders, and we were able to reduce greenhouse gases. We need to do much more and integrate environmental and climate change criteria into our decision-making. Not to do so would be irresponsible even from an economic point of view. Internationally, we can see that investments in clean energy, in green energy, exceed investments in fossil fuels. If we want to preserve jobs, we must decarbonize our energy sector, our transport sector, the industrial sector, the production of electricity, otherwise we will lose jobs and investments.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
[English]
Senator McCallum: Thank you, minister, for your presentation and for joining us today.
I want to look at the protection of communities and the protection of the habitats and waters that exist in Canada and your mandate in working with the Minister of Natural Resources for a clean electricity standard and the Canada Water Act to reflect Indigenous rights.
I live in Manitoba where there are mega dams that have created so much damage. They have been unchecked all this time. Hydro is being touted as the alternative to oil and gas, but no study has been done to ensure it is clean and green because it is not clean and green. We don’t want to make the same mistakes that we did with oil and gas with hydro, especially when we’re looking at the electric vehicles and the batteries that are going to come with them. Batteries need to be addressed.
When I work with the groups in Manitoba, I look at the toxicity that exists from hydro across the environment, the communities, the people and the habitat of fish. In Manitoba, I’m speaking about the sturgeon in the Churchill River in Manitoba where the mega dams are. The people in the communities are concerned about these fish.
Do you think it’s time to look at the unequal responsibilities that we have as parliamentarians and the levels of access to the necessary resources that First Nations require to secure an equal world that privileges them and not the privileged people who have benefited from climate damage due to the economy? Can you speak to that?
Mr. Guilbeault: Thank you very much, senator.
We sometimes speak about clean energy or green energy, but really we should be talking about cleaner or greener because producing any type of energy will have an impact on the environment. We now have much better tools and processes to evaluate the impacts of different forms of energy production. I think our role as a society is to move toward the forms of energy that have the least impact on the environment. There’s no way that we know of right now that we can produce energy or electricity where there is no impact on environment.
You are right to point out that hydroelectricity has an impact on the environment — less impact in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, although there are some greenhouse gas emissions that come from the production of hydroelectricity. The impacts tend to be very local and certainly in terms of mercury contamination in the bodies of waters that are flooded mostly because of the degradation of the biodiversity and the biomass that is there. We now know much more about this than we did 20, 30, 40 and 50 years ago, when many of the big dams in Canada were built and we didn’t have a lot of that information. We now understand what the impacts are on local communities.
I agree with you that we have a responsibility to ensure we provide adequate resources to communities, namely, Indigenous communities, who have been and continue to be affected by this development. This is something we do now through different programs at Environment and Climate Change Canada, specifically in the case of environmental impact assessment, where we provide resources for Indigenous communities so that they can participate fully in impact assessment processes, whether it’s on hydroelectric dams or other projects. I do think we have a responsibility to do that.
You spoke a bit about electric cars and batteries. We have to look at what we would call full-life-cycle analysis of these products. Obviously, how the electricity is produced in your jurisdiction has a lot of influence on how beneficial going from an internal combustion engine to an electric vehicle is. Even in places, for example, in many U.S. states where coal is being produced, you still have a greenhouse gas benefit of about 30%. It goes up to 60 to 80% in terms of greenhouse gas reduction in a jurisdiction where most of the electricity is generated through low-emitting sources like hydro, wind and solar. That’s the case in Quebec, for example. So there are benefits, but you’re right. We need to mine critical minerals to produce batteries and electric vehicles. It’s not without impact either, which is why we have to be extremely careful and better and better at ensuring that we have a good understanding of what those impacts are.
Senator McCallum: To lessen the impact in the North, do you think that we should seriously look at building dams near the cities that use the majority of the electricity but do not see the impacts when they’re hidden up north near Indigenous communities so that people will understand what happens? Would you agree that we should start doing that?
Mr. Guilbeault: I understand your question, senator. Obviously, hydroelectricity is very site specific. You either have a river with good hydroelectric potential or you don’t. These rivers don’t tend to be close to our big urban centres. They tend to be far away from urban centres, which presents a challenge. You’re right. People in cities often won’t realize the impacts of these large projects.
I think in terms of electricity, what we’re seeing right now is we’re slowly moving away from a model where we have large production centres, like hydroelectric dams, coal-fired or natural gas-powered stations, to what’s called more decentralized. In the future of energy development, large wind parks or solar parks will be created, but more and more people will have solar panels on the roof of their house or will have battery systems to accumulate energy in their houses, and I think by doing so, they will become more aware of the impacts of electricity production and electricity consumption because we will all become small producers of electricity and will be part of that, which is not the case right now.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Minister, welcome to our committee. Before I ask you my questions, I would like to clarify something. You mentioned a reduction in greenhouse gases from 2016 to 2019, and your website says the opposite. The website shows an increase in emissions from 707 to 730. Is this an error on your website? Could you please clarify?
Mr. Guilbeault: Yes, I should have said that the 30 million-tonne reduction was over the 2030 horizon. The projections indicated that we were going to be 12% above 2005 levels, whereas in fact, we will be 30 million tonnes below those projections.
Senator Carignan: Thank you. It was confusing.
Mr. Guilbeault: You are right.
Senator Carignan: My other question is about the Bay du Nord project. This is a project for which the decision to proceed has been delayed once again. On March 4, your government asked for an extension of about 40 days, following other requests for extension, the first one on December 6, the next one on March 6. You talked about reducing or contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gases beyond our borders.
The Bay du Nord project can provide transitional energy. It is a project that will replace the operation of coal-fired power plants, in particular, but that will also help our European friends to move away from their dependence on Russian oil and gas.
In addition, the report by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada states the following: “The Bay du Nord project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.”
Why wait so long to make a decision when the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada says there are few adverse effects? Why are you constantly asking for extensions? It seems to me that this issue is keeping you awake at night. It seems to me that this is a win-win issue, for which it is easy to decide.
Mr. Guilbeault: Let me reassure you, senator. I rest easy at night and sleep very well indeed.
Senator Carignan: That reassures me.
Mr. Guilbeault: As you know, there was an initial extension request in December 2021 and a second one this past March. A decision on this complex project will be made by mid-April. When the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada presented the report to me, I had been minister for just a few weeks. This is a complex file and, as Minister of the Environment, I want to make sure I do my job reasonably before making a decision.
I would like to clarify a few things. In general, no one considers oil to be a transitional energy. There is little use of oil in the energy production sector. If the Bay du Nord project is to proceed, coal-fired electricity generation will not be displaced, since oil is used in industrial processes and transportation. To my knowledge, only one plant in Canada uses oil to generate electricity, and that is in New Brunswick.
We want to do everything we can to help our European friends and colleagues reduce their dependence on Russian oil and gas. However, it is important to understand that if the Bay du Nord project goes ahead, it might not produce oil until 2028. I doubt that our European friends and colleagues will wait that long, but having said that, we will do everything we can to help them as quickly as possible.
I am simply quoting the President of the European Union who said recently that the best way to reduce Europe’s dependence on Russian oil and gas is to reduce the European Union’s dependence on oil and gas altogether, and therefore to accelerate the transition to clean technologies and renewable energy. However, it will take a few years to do that, and Europe has needs between now and then.
My colleague and friend, Minister Wilkinson, is currently at the International Energy Agency in Paris working with his European colleagues to see what can be done in Canada and in other western countries to help them.
Senator Carignan: Still, gas produces less greenhouse gases.
[English]
The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, Senator Carignan, but I want to warn everyone that we have 25 minutes left. We have six questioners, so we must limit to one question each. The minister must leave us at 10:00, but we’ll have the other witnesses with us for another 45 minutes so we will continue with the questioning in his absence. I would ask the minister to be a bit curt and tighten up his answers. That would be helpful.
Senator Seidman: Thank you, minister, for being with us today.
Minister, in addition to modernizing the Canada Water Act, which has not been reviewed or significantly modified since 1970, you have been mandated by the Prime Minister to establish a Canada water agency, which was given a budget of $17.4 million over two years as of 2021.
In early March, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer appeared before our committee, I asked him about the Canada water agency and its budget. In response to my question, he answered:
. . . to see a very specific number like $17.4 million but still not having details as to the mandate of the agency and its composition, that strikes me as a bit inconsistent with my previous experience.
In the draft 2022-2026 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy, shared with our committee, it is stated that a Canada water agency will be created only by the end of 2023 and not 2022 as previously promised.
Minister, you have a lot of work to do on a very important issue, and I might just ask you a few direct questions. The first one is: Why the delay? You were given a budget as of 2021, and the Liberal promise was that the agency would be established in 2022. According to this new draft strategy, the agency will only be established by the end of 2023. Is there a mission statement for the agency and a detailed plan for its activities and responsibilities? Thank you.
Mr. Guilbeault: Thank you, senator.
The creation of a Canada water agency is one of the priorities in my mandate letter and of the ministry. You ask about the delay. Unfortunately, COVID has slowed down the process of developing the water agency and its mandate. We’ve gone through extensive consultations with provinces, Indigenous partners and other stakeholders, and we are going to some significant progress on this, including a detailed plan, in the very near future.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Welcome, Mr. Minister. Thank you for being here. I want to congratulate you because, frankly, you are in a very difficult position. I imagine that decisions and pressures can have an impact on you and our society.
I have a question about Bill S-5.
[English]
It has been more than two decades since Parliament passed the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and this is a cornerstone bill for pollution prevention. Pollution prevention is different than pollution abatement.
I have two questions, and I would like it if you could explain some of the changes. Some are very good and I welcome them, but there are two that make me think.
Scheme number one is that things are no longer going to be identified in a list of toxic substances. The words “toxic substances” are taken away. Yet, for transparency reasons, not only for the public but for the people who intervene, manipulate and transport substances, people need to know that they are toxic and can be dangerous to their health and safety. Why have we made that disappear?
The second question is about the timeline. We should be able to ban some substances. We have banned substances in the past. I think about the ozone layer, and we had the possibility to ban substances that were too toxic. It seems we are stopping that in this new version. Can you please elaborate on that? Thank you.
Mr. Guilbeault: Thank you, senator, for your kind words.
On toxic substances, there are various reasons why we’re changing the name. We are adding substances like plastics, which in some cases could be considered toxic but in other instances, not necessarily, depending on what we do with them. If it ends up in a landfill or on our beaches, then it has an impact, but if we move towards a circular economy and make sure that it doesn’t end up in our environment, in our landfills, and that it is reused over again, then we’re creating something with it.
We will still have the ability to ban toxic substances if we come to the conclusion that they have too much of an adverse impact. The bill doesn’t prevent us from doing that. If you feel that there are some elements that need to be strengthened in the bill along those lines, I would be happy to receive your proposal, and my office could reach out to yours to ensure that we understand perfectly what your views and proposals are.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Welcome, Mr. Minister. You will not be surprised to know that my question is more of a financial one. Before I ask my question, allow me to congratulate you, because earlier this week, we learned that, for the first time in its history, Canada had issued green bonds. That is quite an achievement.
I saw in your mandate letter a reference to working with the Minister of Finance. I would like to know more about the mandatory disclosure of climate-related financial information. Earlier this week, we learned that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is already in action mode. It is consulting, and it will be mandatory for companies to disclose their carbon footprint in their annual report, as well as how climate change may affect their business model. I would like to know when Canada will move on this.
Mr. Guilbeault: Thank you, senator. Just as a quick comment on green bonds: you may have seen that there has been a lot of interest from the private sector and investors. We received twice as many offers as were proposed for bond issuance. This bodes very well. This is the first time we have done this. We will learn from this exercise, and I suspect we will repeat it. Governments alone will not be able to fund the transition. We need the private and investment sector to be part of this venture with us.
With respect to financial sector regulation, my department works closely with my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. You may have seen that during the Glasgow conference, the Bank of Canada issued a press release stating that it would require more and more information from financial institutions on the exposure of their investments to climate risks.
On the one hand, we have the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, which has started to work on this. We have set up a committee of experts from the world of finance, Canadian financial institutions and investors — a world you are very familiar with — to determine all the measures the federal government should take, in some cases in co-operation with the provinces — I am thinking in particular of the securities authorities of the various provinces — so that Canada can develop a system like the one that is emerging in Europe and, as you mentioned, in the United States.
Senator Gignac: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Sorensen: Good morning, minister. Again, thank you very much for visiting us recently in Banff National Park. Your visit was much appreciated. I am passionate about all of Canada’s national parks and deeply proud of the five national parks in Alberta.
With a mandate to establish at least one new national urban park by 2030 — I’m a big fan of Rouge; I have watched it from its inception and watched its success — and to invest in existing national parks as more Canadians visit these sites, and we all know that is going to happen very quickly, I’m curious to know where we’re at with selections for the new urban parks in terms of locations other than in every province and territory, or maybe what provinces or territories are being prioritized right now. Also, what criteria or formula will be used for investment in existing national parks? You could say that I’m asking for a friend.
Mr. Guilbeault: Thank you for your question, senator. It was great to spend a bit of time with you in Banff National Park.
On the point of urban national parks, I would ask my colleague from the department, Andrew Campbell, if he could give you a more specific answer. In terms of the criteria we are using to determine the choice, one of the first criteria is Indigenous involvement in every single project across the country.
We are striving to achieve a number of different things, including certainly accessibility. We know that, for many Canadians, some of our national parks are simply not accessible. They don’t have the means to fly to the other end of the country to visit some of our most beautiful parks. We want to bring nature as close as possible to them. Biodiversity protection, or in some cases restoration, is another criterion we’re looking at.
Mr. Campbell, if you could tell us where we are with different projects across the country, please.
Andrew Campbell, Senior Vice-President, Operations, Parks Canada: Thank you, minister, and thank you, senator, for the question.
We certainly have a number of projects going on within each of the different provinces, as is clearly articulated in the mandate letter from the minister. We have had some recent announcements as recently as [Technical difficulties] we also have —
Mr. Guilbeault: Andrew, my apologies. We’re having difficulties hearing you.
Senator Sorensen: Minister, why don’t we move on to questions for you, and Andrew can respond to questions after?
Mr. Guilbeault: Sure. With regard to the last question, I can tell you exploratory work has been done in Victoria, Edmonton, Meewasin Valley in Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Windsor and Halifax. There have been initial discussions with Montreal. The work has started, and there is, as you can imagine, a lot of enthusiasm and excitement across the country.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
Senator Arnot: Good morning, minister. Thank you for coming today.
I will be concise. I’ve heard you speak publicly in Saskatchewan on news talk radio, and you have explained clearly your positions, despite rigorous questioning. I will be less rigorous.
Minister, I support a multi-action approach, which you have, but I want to see every viable new energy option explored, including wind, solar and batteries. I didn’t hear you speak much about small modular reactors that would need to be part of the plan in order to hit the targets you want.
I’m also interested in the transition to new energy sources and the adaptation of the workforce. It’s important to Western Canada, for obvious reasons. Your mandate letter outlines several dozen commitments. It’s very ambitious and a heavy set of expectations.
What are your priorities in order for you to best meet the expectation of the Prime Minister? It’s not clear to me. You have so many dozens of targets.
Mr. Guilbeault: Thank you, senator.
In answer to your first question, we’re exploring all forms of low-emitting and non-emitting energy sources, including nuclear energy. I believe it was last week that Minister Champagne announced a $50-million investment with Westinghouse in the sector of small modular nuclear reactors.
You also spoke about just transition. It’s a critical element in our overall strategy. However, it’s not in my mandate letter. I suspect the Prime Minister felt the letter was already long enough. It is under the responsibility of Minister Wilkinson and Minister O’Regan to table a bill on just transition in this Parliament. They are actively working on it, and although it is not part of my mandate letter, I have done some extracurricular activity and participated in some of the meetings they’ve had to start developing it, because I have worked on that a lot in my previous life.
We have a detailed plan in terms of how we intend to deliver on the various elements of the mandate letter. I spoke about some of the short-term priorities, for example, the emissions reduction plan that will be tabled next week in the House of Commons, the continued implementation of our climate change mitigation strategy and the development of the first ever national adaptation strategy. It’s not a federal adaptation strategy; it’s a national adaptation strategy, which means we want to develop it in collaboration with the provinces, territories, municipalities, Indigenous leaders and other interested stakeholders. The work has already started on that.
The nature file is very important, protecting 25% of our lands and oceans by 2025. We have had tremendous progress. When we came into power in 2015, barely 2% of our oceans were protected, and we’re at 14% now. I’d like to take some credit for that, but I can’t. It’s all the work of my predecessors.
Regarding plastic, we have a number of things we need to do in the short-term, including working with the international community to launch successful negotiations on the international legally binding treaty to reduce plastic pollution and to move towards a circular economy.
There are many more things, but in the short term, these are some of the priorities.
Senator Anderson: Welcome, minister.
My question has to do with the water mandate. Given the issue of fuel in water in Iqaluit this past fall — and now the fuel smell and an oily sheen in the drinking water in the Indigenous community of Sachs Harbour, which is the only community located on Banks Island and which is currently undergoing a do-not-consume announcement for their drinking water — there is serious concern about the provision of clean drinking water for Canadians, particularly in Indigenous and northern communities.
Interestingly, in the newspaper article pertaining to the Sachs Harbour do-not-consume warning, there’s a link to a webpage entitled Fact Sheet for Gasoline Oxygenates in Drinking Water from the New York State Department of Health.
My question to you is, how does the federal government work with the territories and municipalities together to ensure clean drinking water? What kinds of information sharing takes place? Who is responsible for that information? Are there federal information sheets created in Canada with information for Canadians who are dealing with the water issues and challenges we face?
Mr. Guilbeault: Thank you for your question.
As you know, we have lifted more than two thirds of the boil-water advisories that were in existence when we came into power. In Indigenous communities, we realize and understand that we have some work to do, but it continues to be our goal to eliminate all of those advisories in the near future.
More specifically, in terms of the second part of your question, perhaps I could turn to my deputy minister, Christine Hogan, for a comment on the work between the provinces, territories and federal government in terms of water monitoring.
Christine Hogan, Deputy Minister, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Thank you, minister. Good morning, senators. Thank you for the question.
This is an area that preoccupies a number of federal departments’ leadership on the particular issues raised by the senator this morning. It falls within the purview and leadership of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, or CIRNAC, and Indigenous Affairs Canada, or ISC. We, of course, are an important resource, given the work we do on science and water quality monitoring, but the leadership really does reside there. We’re part of the larger interdepartmental effort to address many of the concerns that you’ve raised this morning.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Minister, I think you want to leave the meeting around 10 a.m.
Can I steal a few more minutes to ask you a question?
Mr. Guilbeault: Of course, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: I am a businessman, and when I interpret the economic situation, I look at the supply, I look at the demand and, consequently, I project the price. We talk a lot about supply. We are talking about international convenience, and when you look at other countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and so on, leading experts agree that there is plenty of supply, that there will be no shortage. This is an international market. Is this statement true? If so, why are we trying so hard to control supply when there is a sure defeat in the international market?
Mr. Guilbeault: That is an interesting question. I will give you a few points.
The strategy that we and many of our international partners have adopted is to work on both supply and demand. For example, we have committed to a zero-emission vehicle act, where 50% of the vehicles sold in 2030 will be zero-emission vehicles and 100% in 2035. This will eliminate the demand for petroleum products in the transportation sector over the next few years. The same commitment is in the document we just released on a clean electricity standard. The goal is also to have a zero-emission electricity grid by 2035. Canada’s electricity system is already about 80% renewable.
On the supply side, in the electricity sector, there will be virtually no fossil fuels by 2035. There will probably be some natural gas left for peak demand in the winter and for network security issues, but it will be very little.
In terms of supply, the latest report from the International Energy Agency estimates that as all countries around the world are working to fight climate change, oil production will peak around 2028. We are at about 90 million barrels a day, and that production will decrease by 75% by 2050. According to the agency, there would still be oil in 2050, but production will go from 90 million barrels a day to about 25 million barrels a day.
We are working on both the supply and demand side of the issue.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I believe you have to leave to go to a House of Commons committee. Unfortunately, I am sure it will not be as interesting as it was with us. Thank you for your availability. We will continue our discussion with your officials.
Mr. Guilbeault: Thank you very much.
The Chair: For our second hour, we have with us from Environment and Climate Change Canada, Douglas Nevison, Assistant Deputy Minister, Climate Change Branch; John Moffet, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch; Hilary Geller, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch; and Nicole Côté, Director General, Protected Areas, Canadian Wildlife Services. We also have from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, Simon Brault, Vice-President, Corporate Services; and Patricia Brady, Vice-President, Strategic Policy. Finally, from Parks Canada, Michael Nadler, Vice-President, External Relations and Visitor Experience; Christine Loth-Bown, Vice-President, Indigenous Affairs and Cultural Heritage; and Darlene Upton, Vice-President, Protected Areas Establishment and Conservation.
Thank you for joining us today. Do you have any opening remarks or comments, or can we go straight to our questions?
[English]
Ms. Hogan: No comments off the top. I think we’re good to just go to the questions, senator.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question is for the associate deputy minister of the Department of the Environment and Climate Change.
We all read the mandate letter with interest; it is long and includes many commitments. One thing that caught my attention is the idea of developing a plan to phase out public funds from the fossil fuel sector, including federal Crown corporations.
You are talking about federal Crown corporations providing funding to the fossil fuel sector. So does that include the biggest and richest of the federal Crown corporations that provide the funding, the Canada Pension Plan, which is investing about $12 billion in fossil fuels right now?
The Chair: I believe the question is for the deputy minister.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes, it is for Ms. Hogan or Mr. Halucha.
[English]
Ms. Hogan: Thank you very much, senator, for the question related to the government’s approach on fossil fuel subsidies.
Members may recall that as far back as 2009, the G20 committed to rationalizing and phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. The government, as reflected in the mandate letter, has made a commitment to accelerate its own commitment to this and to do this phase out by 2023. I think the progress is under way. You’ve asked a question about the coverage there, and, as you described, it does encompass federal Crown.
I would ask Hilary Geller, who is our assistant deputy minister for our Strategic Policy Branch, if there is any supplementary information to share with the senator this morning.
Hilary Geller, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Thank you very much.
We’re looking at two commitments in the minister’s mandate letter, and one is about phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, which we’ve been working on with the Department of Finance for a number of years now. Significant progress has been made in that regard on the tax side, which lines up well with the other G20 countries that have indicated that they are concluded with this G20 commitment and moved forward. It’s largely been on the tax side.
On the additional commitment of phasing out public financing, that’s broader than the fossil fuel subsidy work that has been under way for a number of years now. I think it’s fair to say that the exact nature of that work is still being scoped out with colleagues at the Department of Finance and Natural Resources Canada. We certainly expect it to include bodies like EDC and BDC. In fact, EDC has already been quite transparent about their specific plans in terms of where they invest in the fossil fuel sector.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Will it include the Canada Pension Plan? That was my precise question. It is a big investor in fossil fuels.
Ms. Geller: I think it’s fair to say that the details of exactly what it will be scoped and how and when the commitment will be implemented are still under discussion among the implicated departments.
Senator Galvez: I have two questions. The first one concerns transparency. We know that the Trans Mountain pipeline has now tripled in cost to $21 billion, and the PBO officers told our committee that it’s very unlikely that the Trans Mountain pipeline will be profitable over its lifespan. We know that you ordered two reports, from BMO and TD Bank, on the economic viability. Since Canadians own these pipelines, could we have these two documents released, please?
My second question: In the last budget, we gave substantial funds to the petroleum industry to clean up abandoned wells, but again the PBO tells us that no cleanup has been done with this money. Can you explain how these things happened? Thank you.
Paul Halucha, Associate Deputy Minister, Environment and Climate Change Canada: I’m pleased to respond to the two questions you posed, senator.
On the first one with regard to the financing of TMX, the Department of Finance is responsible for budgetary issues regarding the TMX corporation. Our department does not have responsibility around nor visibility beyond what’s in the public domain around those issues. We’re unfortunately not in a position to add to it from our perspective with additional details.
On the second question regarding the orphan wells program, this is administered by the Department of Natural Resources, and so they would be best placed to provide you a response to that question.
The department is a part of the TMX implementation. We provide a significant amount of scientific expertise. We have responsibilities around habitat protection and monitoring of effects, including in the Salish Sea, and migratory bird populations. We have also been heavily involved in work with First Nations to ensure that the environmental concerns they have along the route have been considered and are part of the TMX action plan that has been put in place following the decision to proceed with the construction. That’s an ongoing work, and I can provide more detail if it would be helpful.
Senator Galvez: I would like them to confirm that on projects such as the TMX, Environment Canada has not had a word to say. It’s done and it’s out of your hands. With respect to the contamination of the oil wells, Environment Canada has nothing to say again. We were talking about silos and ministers working with one not talking to the other. I think this is confirmed. Thank you.
Senator Seidman: I will go back to the question I had for the minister about the Canada water agency. Unfortunately, I didn’t have time to follow up to try to get a little more information. The minister said that the agency is delayed because of COVID and, as a result, will only be established by the end of 2023. There is $17.4 billion set aside for this agency, but my question is still about whether the mandate has been developed and whether there’s a plan for its responsibilities and activities.
Ms. Hogan: I’m happy to take that question, senator, and elaborate, given the time constraints on the minister earlier.
The Canada water agency is a very important priority for the department and the government. You may be aware that more than 10 different federal departments have different roles and responsibilities when it comes to freshwater management in Canada, and there is also the complicating factor of federal-provincial and provincial-territorial jurisdiction around water issues.
The work that we’ve been doing and that is reflected in the number that you mentioned with respect to the resources the department has largely been to help us ensure an appropriate consultation engagement process. That includes with Indigenous communities across Canada who have spoken up and have a considerable interest in this work. We did issue a report last year on what we heard through the consultation process, and we have now been intensifying our analysis as to exactly how and what this agency will do.
The consultations revealed to us questions around its role related to science and to program delivery. There are new issues on the horizon, climate change adaptation being a very important one. We have to think through, interdepartmentally and with our provincial and territorial partners and Indigenous Canadians, what the optimal structure, management and scope of the water agency will be. That is the work that we are doing right now.
I will make one point, and that is that the work on freshwater management within the department and across the federal government continues. There is some very important programming. This year we’re marking the fiftieth anniversary of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Our work and our investments, whether in hydrological work, water quality analysis, freshwater management, the delivery of programs with communities, all of that continues while we go on with the design work related to the Canada water agency.
Senator Seidman: Ms. Hogan, this very committee conducted a study on water-related issues back in 2005. One of the recommendations was to standardize the collection of water-related data and create a centralized depository of water statistics. Would you see this as one of the responsibilities of the new agency?
Ms. Hogan: That issue has surfaced in the consultations and discussions. It is something that we are considering very seriously, what the role of this new entity would be. We also have to keep in mind what the core competencies are of Environment Canada. That is where a lot of the federal work around water quality assessment and monitoring happens. As you can imagine, when you add a new piece to the architecture, there are a lot of sets of considerations. One of the goals of all of this work will be to strengthen that issue related to data management.
Senator McCallum: Welcome to the group that is speaking to us now.
In a document released by Indigenous groups entitled Rights of Nature & Mother Earth: Rights-Based Law for Systemic Change, it is stated that “we must stop treating the Earth as a commodity,” adding that recognizing rights of nature, including land and water, are inseparable. We can’t separate one from the other. It means that human activities and development must not interfere with the ability of ecosystems to absorb their impacts to regenerate with their natural capacities to thrive and evolve and require that those responsible for destruction, including corporate actors and governments, be held fully accountability. How will accountability toward the ecosystem, as well as the human rights and rights of Indigenous people, be addressed by the government?
Ms. Hogan: Thank you very much.
This is actually an important set of questions and considerations. I want to indicate to the senator that these issues are increasingly core to the work of Environment and Climate Change Canada in how we approach our policies on climate change. In that I include both mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and also the very important work that we’re doing around climate adaptation and the development of the national adaptation strategy where we are extremely proactive in engaging with Indigenous communities, First Nations, Métis and Inuit. It is also very core to the work that we’re doing in our commitments related to nature and protected areas and how we manage species through our Canadian Wildlife Service. These are core considerations and genuine partnerships. We have programs, including the Indigenous Guardians program, which really engages Indigenous communities on the front lines of our work on nature. I mentioned the water agency and the work that we do in freshwater management and how we’re thinking and contemplating the future Canada water agency. All of these considerations related to Indigenous peoples are now very much at the core of how we approach these issues.
Thank you for the question.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you all for being here with us. It is impressive to see this number of people joining us, and I certainly appreciate that. Again, a special nod to my friends at Parks Canada.
I wanted to allow Andrew Campbell the opportunity to expand a little bit on my earlier question, since we couldn’t hear him very well, with respect to where the urban parks are being considered. I think it’s fantastic that there is a mandate to put one in every province and territory. On the question around investment in current parks, the minister alluded to what the criteria was, but I’m always interested in those formulas and criteria.
Mr. Campbell: Thank you, Senator Sorensen, and thank you for not getting upset at our earlier difficulties. I think it would be best, because I am nervous around the technology now, to ask my colleague Darlene Upton to provide that answer.
Darlene Upton, Vice-President, Parks Canada: On August 4, we launched the urban program, and we have money provided from Budget 2021 to establish six national urban parks by 2025. Between August and now, we’ve signed six collaborative agreements with municipalities. Those are in Colwood, Edmonton, Meewasin Valley in Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Windsor and Halifax. We’re in discussions with Montreal as well.
We have funding to support the involvement of municipalities and Indigenous partners in the program, and we have three main goals we’re trying to achieve with the urban parks. One is contributing to the protection and conservation of nature, including biodiversity and climate benefits. Heat islands and things like that are problems in urban areas that we feel national urban parks can help support. Another is connecting Canadians with nature, in particular ensuring that there is equal access to nature. We also want to ensure the support reconciliation, and that will be defined by the Indigenous partners that we’re working with on all these projects.
Senator Sorensen: I need to smile. As I’m sure Darlene and others are aware of, the past CAO of the Town of Banff is now the CAO in Colwood. That is an interesting twist of fate, and I’m sure Robert is excited to be working with you.
Senator Anderson: In a report entitled Inuvialiut Settlement Region; Drilling Sumps Failure and Climate Change, they have identified 153 sumps on NWT territorial lands, 69 on Inuvialiut lands and 7 on unknown lands. In a further report, they identified an artificial island that was built for oil and gas, McKinley Bay, which is experiencing erosion and degradation. Within that island are large amounts of waste plastic, fabric lining, wood, metal, electrical parts, as well as a six-foot-high metal sticking out of the island.
What is being done to ensure the cleanup of these sumps and the artificial island which are currently leaching into our lands, where the original companies may be defunct? Second, what has changed in policy or legislation to ensure that, in the future, these types of issues are addressed proactively to minimize the risks and hold companies accountable?
John Moffet, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Good morning, everyone.
I’m afraid I do not have the details of the specific report you referred to, senator, but we do have a Federal Contaminated Sites program that we administer primarily South of 60 with Treasury Board and North of 60 with Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. I think the best thing for me to do would be for me to commit to collaborate with my colleagues at CIRNAC and provide you with a detailed response as a follow-up.
The Chair: In writing?
Mr. Moffet: Yes, indeed.
Senator Anderson: Qujannamiik.
The Chair: Ms. Hogan, I wouldn’t mind following up the question I was asking the minister. In the examples you gave, it was quite noticeable that we were achieving some success in controlling the demand for carbon products. As I tried to illustrate, this is an international market, and it’s a commodity. There are a lot of countries and there is a lot of CO2 available if you wish. I don’t think we’ll ever be able to control the supply. There is endless supply. Where we have been successful is the demand.
If that is the case, why do we keep talking about trying to control the supply when it is a waste of time and money, international market? Let our companies do what they need to compete. At the same time, on the governments’ side as well as individuals’, let’s control as much as we can to cut off the demand for the product. Ms. Hogan, any comments on that? Is that too simplistic as supply and demand and trying to manipulate it through that function?
Ms. Hogan: Well, my response, senator, to that question is that we are, indeed, trying to do that as part of our climate implementation strategies. The strengthened climate plan that was launched in December 2020 speaks to a lot of those types of initiatives.
Maybe I can ask our ADM of the Climate Change Branch, Douglas Nevison, to comment a little bit on some of the dimensions of our work that relate specifically to that. John Moffet, who also deals directly on the regulatory side and with the carbon pricing, may also have some supplementary points to make there.
Douglas Nevison, Assistant Deputy Minister, Climate Change Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Thank you, deputy. Many thanks for the question, chair. I’ll leave the regulatory instruments and carbon pollution pricing instrument to my colleague, Mr. Moffet.
Just following up on the deputy’s comments, certainly the government’s climate plans to date and going forward have tried to use various degrees of instruments to address both the supply and the demand side of the issue. You mentioned the emphasis on the demand side, and that’s obviously a very important aspect.
On the supply side, a number of the investments the government has made to combat climate change — and there’s been about $100 billion in funding provided since 2016 — are aimed at helping companies transition their production facilities to low-carbon technologies, for example. One example that I would provide is the $8 billion that has been provided to the Strategic Innovation Fund’s Net Zero Accelerator which is aimed at helping companies adopt low-carbon technologies and undertake that transformation to help on the emissions side. That’s an example of helping companies on the supply side to transition or transform their business in order to succeed and be competitive in a low-carbon economy.
Maybe I’ll ask my colleague, Mr. Moffet, to respond to the regulatory and carbon pollution pricing instruments. Thank you.
Mr. Moffet: Maybe I would actually start with a more general response, senator, and that is that greenhouse gases do not respect borders. It’s a global challenge and we need a global response, so Canada’s actions on climate change include both a very active international presence as well as domestic activities.
Internationally, of course, we start with the science, working through the IPCC and then we also work through international fora like the UNFCCC which has led to the Paris Agreement. We also have very specific processes that we champion with like-minded countries to encourage other countries to reduce their demand for fossil fuel. We can point to the Powering Past Coal Alliance, which is having tremendous success in reducing reliance on coal worldwide; the recently signed Methane Pledge, which calls on all countries to reduce their methane emissions by 30% by the end of the decade; and there are many others. This is critically important so that we actually address the issue from an environmental perspective, but these activities are also important so that we do not take action alone and impair the competitiveness of the Canadian economy.
Similarly, our domestic actions, as Mr. Nevison emphasized, include a sweep of sticks and carrots of regulations and supportive measures to enable us to drive down demand for high-carbon and carbon-emitting products, while at the same time ensuring that we avoid adverse impacts on vulnerable populations and also enable our economy to transition to be able to be competitive in what everybody is expecting to be a low-carbon global economy. For example, on carbon pricing, we have taken particular pains to design our carbon-pricing system in a way that provides a market signal to drive down to decarbonize production and to reduce demand on the part of suppliers, while also minimizing the adverse competitiveness impacts. I’d be happy to provide more detail, but I’ll stop there.
The Chair: I’m all in favour of controlling as much as we can the demand. That’s where the focus must be. But I have a feeling that sometimes we are misled by the government, whereby you’re suggesting you’re trying to control the supply whereby it’s a waste of time because it is an international commodity or to be successful in controlling the demand per se. I sense we’re mixing up the public because it obviously sounds very popular to sort of control the supply, but it’s probably a waste of time and money. Any quick comments on that? Make it very short, please.
Mr. Halucha: Senator, we need to consider that, in fact, the sector is a source of emissions in addition to combustion, as the minister noted when he was there. It’s the point of combustion that is often discussed, but our production processes are very CO2 intensive as well. The sector has made an enormous amount of progress over the last 25 years in reducing the emissions related to its production, but it’s still a quarter of overall emissions in Canada. In our department, we tend not to think about the supply of oil or gas but the emissions that come from both the production and combustion of it.
Senator McCallum: I want to discuss some interjurisdictional issues that First Nations have. It’s an area I have spent a lot of time looking at, because Indigenous people fall between these gaps. They remain there because neither the federal nor the provincial government wants to deal, in a meaningful way, with legislation and what it does to people. Due to the shared jurisdiction and responsibilities regarding water and land resources, is there a danger that some matters will be left unaddressed because of jurisdictional confusion, dispute or lack of funding at the appropriate level? In such a case, how do you propose to remedy that?
Ms. Hogan: Thank you, Senator McCallum, for that question.
At Environment and Climate Change Canada, our work is done in an area where jurisdiction is shared with the provinces and territories, but we also have been, I think, extremely effective in designing processes, tables and ways of working collaboratively with the provinces and territories. On climate issues, I can point to the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change that was agreed to in 2016. We also have the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment and all of the architecture that exists around that where water and air quality issues are a core part of the work. There isn’t a day that goes by where people in our department aren’t engaging with other levels of government and Indigenous communities, First Nations, Inuit and Metis, on environmental management issues, but it takes work and commitment to push that forward.
Ms. Geller, do you want to add anything as the assistant deputy minister responsible for intergovernmental matters and strategic policy?
Ms. Geller: The only thing I would add to the deputy’s response is that we’re also looking for ways, through our day-to-day efforts, to work differently with Indigenous communities across Canada. There are some interesting examples I can point to. One is the way we’re working with a coastal B.C. nation on implementing the disposal at sea regulations. My colleague John Moffet is responsible for those. Another is the way we work with local Indigenous communities as we think through oil sands effluent regulations. Those are just a couple of examples where we could point to the evolution the deputy was talking about in the way we engage with and work extremely collaboratively with Indigenous communities across the country.
Senator Galvez: Thank you so much for the answers and the information you have brought to this committee.
I would like to continue with Bill S-5 and the modernization of CEPA. As I was saying earlier to the minister, this is the cornerstone legal framework for pollution prevention. I was glad the minister said that we will still have the ability to ban some substances, as we did in the past, because they affect the ozone layer. I’m also glad to hear that the minister said we are committed to the perspective of increasing and incentivizing a circular economy, so we want to recycle and reuse.
In clause 29 of Bill S-5, I was wondering if there will be an opening to safer substitutions of certain substances. When we need a toxic, dangerous or carcinogenic substance but industry could use safer substitutes, wouldn’t it be important to have the possibility to replace the harmful substances with safer ones and to have this recognized in the new bill? Thank you.
Ms. Hogan: Thank you, senator. I’m going to ask Mr. Moffet, who is leading for the department on Bill S-5, to comment and respond to your question.
Mr. Moffet: Thank you, senator. That is an excellent question, because you’re going straight to the heart of pollution prevention. I will make a couple of comments in response, and I look forward to further discussion with you and your fellow senators as we move through with Bill S-5.
First, regarding prohibition, the bill will expand the authorities for prohibition rather than narrow them. At the moment, there’s general authority to prohibit toxic substances, but the particular focus is only on persistent and bioaccumulative substances. We are now proposing to expand the category into a broader category of substances of highest concern, with particular reference to carcinogenic, mutagenic and reproductive toxins, as well as persistent bioaccumulative substances. Again, it’s a much broader focus for prohibition.
In terms of your question on safer substitutions, we agree 100% that one of the challenges Canada and the rest of the world have faced has been that as we identify substances that are problematic, it is sometimes not possible to identify the substances that could act as replacements and avoid unfortunate replacements. We are working carefully with our colleagues at Health Canada to, as much as possible, undertake activities, like assessing classes of substances, that allow us to look at as many possible substances that could serve a function as possible and, therefore, provide an informed choice to supply chains and consumers. Whether that requires the specific mention of safer substitutions in the bill is something we look forward to discussing with you as we move the bill through the Senate.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: My question is about the Canada Water Agency. I would like to know the mandate, especially the powers that are being considered. Your Federal Sustainable Development Strategy states, “Freshwater management in Canada is a responsibility shared between federal, provincial, territorial, and Indigenous governments.” A little further on, on page 64, is the following:
Provinces and territories have responsibility over areas of water management and protection within their borders….
This includes the development of hydroelectric power. In Quebec, the peace of the braves was signed; basically, the development of dams and hydroelectricity is done in consultation with the Indigenous peoples, since it is very often on their territory too. I would like to understand: once the agency is created, does that mean that when there are hydroelectric dam development projects in Quebec, the federal government intends to be a player, to be a stakeholder?
Ms. Hogan: Thank you, senator, for your question. Managing water resources in a country as large as Canada is complex, to be sure. Challenges vary by region, and solutions may involve several jurisdictions.
[English]
I would highlight that there are existing fora for issues of energy projects. As we discussed earlier and as the minister discussed earlier, this is not at the core of where I imagine the Canada water agency would be going. It really is about environmental management and ecosystem management. There may be opportunities to engage in those spaces.
What I can tell you is that the water agency will respect the jurisdictions of other governments. One of our preoccupations is to ensure that it doesn’t duplicate existing efforts, that there’s a real value proposition here when the new Canada water agency is stood up and that it is a complementary new element in architecture for fresh-water management in Canada.
Hilary, did you want to add anything there? The transition office that we refer to, which is working on the Canada water agency, sits within Hilary’s branch.
Ms. Geller: Thank you, deputy and senator.
I will say two things. First of all, to the deputy’s points about jurisdiction, that’s absolutely right. We’ve been very clear about that both in the consultation document that we released and in the series of bilateral meetings we’ve had with all provinces and territories. Yes, the money we received in the budget was for a transition office to consult and do some very detailed work on some core elements like data — to the senator’s previous question — and science and to be in a position to advise.
The other thing I would like to mention, given the interest in water, is that there is also a commitment in the minister’s mandate about increasing the protections to fresh water in Canada and an indication of expanded investment. That is the other part of the consultation that we’ve held over the last 18 months or so: where the federal government invests now to protect fresh water, how that’s working and where people would see opportunities to enhance that investment and protection separate and apart from thinking about the structure and mandate of a water agency. Thank you.
Senator McCallum: A news release in December 2021 by Kyle Bakx states:
The federal government has begun developing regulations to allow oil sands operators in northern Alberta to begin releasing treated tailings water back into the environment, something that’s been prohibited for decades.
. . . industry leaders and some scientists are convinced the water can be treated enough so it can be safely discharged . . .
It is deemed too costly for municipalities and industry, and the Indigenous groups have said:
We don’t want to swap one environmental liability, which is the tailings ponds at the moment, for another, which could be the deterioration of the quality of the water in the Athabasca River and the downstream.
Could you comment on that?
Mr. Moffet: Senator, just as a slight clarification. Environment and Climate Change Canada is engaged in discussions with industry and with all of the potentially affected Indigenous communities about this issue. The starting point for these discussions is whether there is a need to enable discharge of any kind from the tailing ponds, and then, if there is a need, what standards should be established so that there is no additional risk to the environment or to the surrounding communities, including in particular the Indigenous communities that rely on that water.
We have not made any decisions as to whether we are going to be proceeding, and we are fully engaged with all of the relevant Indigenous communities in the area on these topics.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you to all our witnesses and guests for their expertise. It is much appreciated. You’ve contributed to making us more informed. Thank you once again. We thank the minister. You will probably see us shortly in respect to another bill. Have a good day.
(The committee adjourned.)