Bill No. 57 - Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act - 2nd Reading

 I'm pleased to rise and say a few words on second reading of this bill. I was glad to hear the minister speak, and I will address most of my comments to the forestry and aquaculture provisions in the bill as proposed.

Congratulations to the Progressive Conservatives for bringing this forward. It is a good bill. It's a bill that, as we've heard many times, first came in under a previous Progressive Conservative government, but I do think it is worth noting that it came in in the context of a minority government and so it was genuinely a bill that came in, I think, with the co‑operation of all Parties in this Legislature.

I was pleased to see the minister say - although I know that this falls directly under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change - I was pleased to hear the Minister of Natural Resources and Renewables refer to the fact that he wanted to hear what the other members thought in terms of substantive comments on the bill or suggestions for the bill, because I think that is the spirit in which this bill came into being and hopefully with which it will continue to be relevant.

I think we do need all hands on deck with this legislation. I think we do need co‑operation in this House and I think we do need - also to the Minister of Natural Resources and Renewables' point - co‑operation within this province. We know that some of the provisions of this bill are going to impact some of our traditional industries, particularly around resource extraction and that that will continue to be a challenge and the way that that has been a challenge for Nova Scotia as we transition into a cleaner future.

That, certainly, is not lost on us, but I will say that I do experience a little bit of a cognitive dissonance having come out of the last day of the last session hearing the now-government, then-Opposition rail against what I would argue are biodiversity targets that are absolutely required to meet the kind of twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change, to then, in this first session as government, bring in what I do think, as I said, is a good piece of legislation. But we will be forgiven for being vigilant because I think, as has been raised in this debate, those of us who have been here for a little while have not always seen the Progressive Conservative Party as champions of the environment.

There is a record, there is a commitment, but I think that the track record is a little spotty, and so we are doing our job. We are doing our job here to ensure that this bill can progress in the way that it was originally introduced, which was with the agreement of all parties, which I would argue recognizes that science actually does change. I mean we have seen science change just in the course of this pandemic, in terms of how we understand it and how things move. We're not talking about health, we're talking about environment, but it's not different. I see an acknowledgement from the minister.

With those few comments, I would turn specifically to the Lahey report and I would ‑ I take the minister's comments, but I would echo the comments of the member for Timberlea‑Prospect and I would say that I really think that 2023 is too long to wait. We are pleased to hear that there are boots on the ground; I think that's great. I know there is progress being made and, as I said, disrupting traditional industries, which disrupts communities, which disrupts families - we're not casting that aside. We're not eliding that reality and yet we are genuinely in a climate crisis, and because that good work has been done and because it's been in the department for so long, we think that that implementation needs to be faster.

If the challenges of that implementation need to be mitigated by job creation or community work in one way or another, we know there are some already funds set up for that purpose, but if more needs to be done, you will find support for that on this side of the House. At least I can speak for our caucus, but I would say that that implantation needs to happen faster. In particular, we are concerned with clear‑cutting and so we would renew the call that we have made for some time, which is regardless of when that report will be fully implemented, we need an immediate moratorium on clear‑cutting on Crown lands in the meantime.

We have some questions - and we've talked about this in the context of another bill on the order paper - around aquaculture and the provisions on aquaculture in the bill. The government is bringing in targets, but these targets, as we read them - and hopefully we'll hear more about this in the debate - feel vague, particularly for those folks across the province who are concerned about open-net pen fish farming and its impact on coastal communities and on the environment.

Before Lahey, we had Doelle-Lahey in the aquaculture context, and many key recommendations from that report were never implemented. This piece of legislation, this conversation, would be a great place to put those, but we don't see those in here. So that's a challenge that we see, a gap that we see, in our initial read of this.

Again, if we want to be forward-looking, if we're looking to the future, which is how this bill has been presented, let's see some provisions around closed-containment fish farming or transitioning the existing open-net pen fish farms. I think it's arguable that there's a social licence for those - maybe there is, maybe there isn't. That's work to be done. But if there isn't, which is our sense, then let's talk about how we transition those out of the water and we keep those people employed and we keep that industry going.

I think there's opportunity for all of that. Again, I think this government has really - in the course of the election, what we heard from many coastal communities is that they had faith in the PC Party that there would be action in this area, particularly around open-net pen fish farming. I think people are still waiting, so this would be a place that that action could be taken.

Last, I want to talk a little bit about energy. We're glad to see a renewable energy target back in this legislation. In general, I will say we are glad to see targets in this legislation. One of our big criticisms of the previous version of this bill was that those targets were left to regulation, and while we heard the arguments about why that was, we joined the voices of many who came to Law Amendments Committee and canvassed our offices in the opinion that those targets should be in legislation.

We have some differences on the targets, which my colleague for Dartmouth North spoke of, and which I am sure we'll continue to debate, but we're glad the targets are there. In renewable energy, they could be more ambitious.

Strong targets are a challenge, but they also will help with the clean jobs transition that we need, right? We know that a report commissioned by the Ecology Action Centre in 2018 said that with a goal of 90 per cent renewable energy by 2030 - so if we set that goal and we reach that goal, which we believe we ought to be doing - we could create 3,100 jobs per year for the next 12 years. I think that's at the heart of some of the - those jobs are underneath some of the arguments or disagreements we have, like who is this going to impact and what are the challenges going to be on the communities?

I think this goes back to getting to yes, like mediation training I did a million years ago, right? It's like, what are the real issues, what are we really talking about here? If we all really agree that there is a climate crisis, then let's agree to do everything we can to meet it and let's call the challenges in the way for what they are. They might not be a disagreement on the target. They might be a disagreement on how those targets impact the communities we represent.

If that's the challenge, let's talk about that challenge. Talking about that challenge is a great conversation to have, because that conversation is about how we rebuild our economy in a different way, in a way that meets the needs of the future. I think that's the opportunity in this bill, and it's almost there but not quite.

The same would carry through to community-owned power. That's something we've talked about a lot. Nova Scotia Power is a little bit of the elephant in the room in all of these conversations that we have, because they're kind of ours and they're not ours. But you know, I think we do need to strengthen the possibility of community-owned power.

The target for municipalities is vague. It's not quite connected to energy in a really clear way. We've heard from many municipalities through the last few years that have been held back from doing the energy transition work that they want to do because they find the policies restrictive, there's red tape and there's a lack of investment, quite frankly, provincially. I think that's another area of improvement that we could see in this bill.

On energy efficiency particularly, I think we need stronger mid-term targets. I want to say that we spoke this morning in Question Period - or maybe it was yesterday - about offshore drilling and do we know what our resource is, and do we not know what our resource is.

I want to take this opportunity in the context of this bill to remind the House that the International Energy Agency has said that in order for the world to hit net zero by 2050, which I think we're all agreeing we need to do, zero-carbon ready goals need to be the norm by 2030, and that we really can't take more fossil fuels out of the ground. As much as possible, our focus needs to be on leaving them where they are and leaving those hydrocarbons where they are.

Knowing that that is a challenge, our energies, our focus - whether it's on energy or the economy or job creation specifically - need to be focused forward on how are we going to get energy in the future? What kind of world are we building for our children?

The phase-out of coal in the bill is good but we need to think about looking at that around other fossil fuels as well. We're on the eve of COP26 and we know that a huge piece of the conversation there, a cornerstone of the conversation, is going to be how quickly can we get off fossil fuels. I want to be having that conversation in this Legislature as well.

I think, don't listen to me - listen to the International Energy Agency, right? They say net zero calls for no new oil and gas exploration. To the point of that: is what we're doing political, is it partisan? I mean, we're trying to work together on this frontier, I would say. But again, putting a dollar value on an imagined offshore resource creates political pressure to take it out of the ground. I don't think we need that political pressure, I don't think any of us need it.

I think what we need to do is to be focused forward and to take that money and that energy and the expertise of the Public Service that would be brought to bear on looking at a project like that and put it somewhere else. Help us figure out how to get all of our buildings to net zero. Help us figure out how to green the grid. Help us figure out how to do all those things that are so much more important than putting a dollar value on an imaginary source in the ground. Maybe a real resource, I don't know - I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm just saying I don't see any value in putting a number on it at this time. I would like to see something about that in this bill.

There isn't anything in the bill that addresses winding down offshore oil and gas exploration or reorienting, redirecting fossil fuel subsidies towards sustainable development.

I know that some countries have announced that they're shutting down new exploration entirely and have a date. Denmark, the largest producer of oil and gas in the EU in 2020, cancelled their last round of licensing and are committed to winding up all extractions by 2050. I mean, they are an active producer and they're done, and their GHG emissions reduction target is 70 per cent below 1990 by 2030.

We heard some talk about biomass in the recent days in the Chamber. Biomass releases more carbon than coal, people might be interested to know. I know biomass is a contentious subject, but I really hope that we don't see biomass come in the back door under the name of green energy because I don't think that's an accepted fact. I think some people might think it is. I think we don't, based on the science, which can be debated of course, but that's a conversation I think we want to have. Again, it's not here, so I hope we have it somewhere before any decisions are made in that area.

This is an ambitious bill. We've heard how ambitious it is but again, Quebec, right here in Canada, also announced a ban on fossil fuel extraction. So, there's not just a precedent in the world - there's a precedent right here in Canada and it's one that I think we can follow. We can always do more.

I suspect that it is difficult to constantly be criticized when you're trying to do really good work, and you're representing departments that are trying to do really good work. I hope that you will take this and all of my remarks anyway - but I would say those of me and my colleagues - in the spirit in which they're intended, which is that we can always do better. I really do believe that we can do better the more information and input we have.

I offer those remarks in that spirit. I really do look forward to hearing from folks at Law Amendments Committee and to having further conversations.