Environment Committee on May 2nd, 2024

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

If we can maybe get into some specifics.... On page 9, it talks about the Rayrock uranium mine project. Could you give us the details for that particular one since it's featured in the report? Why did the costs of the cleanup seem to increase so much?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Principal Leach can respond. She recognized the technical nature of that question before I did. Ms. Leach was the principal responsible for this audit.

[Kimberley Leach]

We use that as an example of how the cost adjustments contributed to the increased liability for that. Rayrock is a very complex site, a uranium mine from the 1990s. Part of the problem is that when they began the assessment, they weren't exactly sure of the nature of the issues they were dealing with.

Then, projects also encounter delays because of different consultations and different communications that needed to happen. As a result, some of the money was not spent in the year that it was allocated to be spent.

We use that as an example because most of the reason for the increased liability is different cost adjustments, and that example includes almost all of those issues.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Okay.

I'd like to read a quote from page 17 of the report. It says, “Some issues identified included...a lack of sufficient details about sites—for example, the reasons for annual adjustments made to liabilities and the current status of sites”.

Is it the case, then, that we are increasing these cost estimates upward every year without actually knowing why? That sounds very concerning.

[Kimberley Leach]

The departments do not have to report why the costs were adjusted but just that they were adjusted. The nature of our recommendation is that departments should specify why the costs are adjusted so that there could be lessons learned and perhaps other mechanisms developed whereby those cost adjustments could be avoided in the future.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Are all these estimates being done internally by the department, or are we contracting out this work to contractors and consultants?

[Kimberley Leach]

There are a lot of contractors that do work in the north. Of course, it can be very specialized work. We're talking about chemicals that need expert attention. Therefore, yes, some of the reasons that are given for the cost adjustments are things like the pace of the remediation process, the involvement of experts and the fact that these are often remote locations and the construction season may be very limited because they are in the north.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. van Koeverden, please.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleague, Shafqat, for lending me some time.

My questions will be for Ms. Cote, the director general of environmental protection operations.

I apologize for making you come back up. I'm sorry. I ran out of time the last time.

My opening question will be more or less the same question I asked Mr. DeMarco with respect to oil and gas emissions. Like a lot of Canadians who care about fighting climate change, I've been poring over the reports, both the NIR and the report from the CESD, this week.

One of my main reflections from the net-zero accelerator is that locally—at least in Halton where I'm from—we're seeing some investments making a huge impact on our air quality. I grew up doing sports in the Halton region, and we have bad air quality in Halton, Oakville and Burlington. It's a result of being right in between Toronto and Hamilton and of having a lot of heavy industry and a lot of highways around. It got a lot better when we stopped burning coal to generate electricity in southwestern Ontario, but there's still a lot of work to be done.

When I look at the graph titled “Change in Canada's Oil and Gas Sector GHG Emissions Since 2005”, it's really obvious to me why our emissions are dragging their feet and why we haven't yet made that goal of 1990.

I also reflect on the fact that we always say that Canada's emissions are higher. It's not Canadians. It makes Canadians feel as though they're doing something wrong, and they're not. It's the oil and gas sector that's doing something wrong, and they're doing something that's obviously just generating more and more emissions per barrel of oil and gas, not even becoming more efficient over time.

With the steel industry in my area changing its ways, I'm hopeful that other industries will be able to do the same.

I'm asking for your reflection on two things. How is oil and gas contributing to us dragging our feet on reducing emissions? Also, could you correct the record for us and explain a little bit how emissions are calculated and, if you're willing, corroborate that they haven't been as low as they are now—with the exception of COVID—since 1997?

I know it's a lot.

[Nicole Côté, Director General, Environmental Protection Operations, Department of the Environment]

Thank you.

Actually, I am not the right person to answer that question. I'm so sorry to the committee. I'm here for the contaminated site side of things.

I'm looking to other colleagues around the table who might be here from Environment. My apologies.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I'm sorry, Ms. Côté. I thought I had it right.

[Nicole Côté]

I mean, I could provide some thoughts, but....

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

That would be great. We could keep the clock running. I know that we are cleaning up a lot of contaminated sites. There's more work to be done. Heavy industry has had a pretty deleterious impact in the oil sands and elsewhere.

Perhaps you could offer some reflections on that while somebody else comes to join us up front.

[Nicole Côté]

Maybe I can speak to contaminated sites and the historical nature. The commissioner did speak to the fact that this program is intended to look at those historical sites that have been contaminated. Many of the regulations and policies we've been putting in place over the last 20 to 30 years have been helping to reduce the number of new contaminated sites that are coming on board.

Unfortunately, in terms of the emissions, I don't want to misspeak; it isn't my area of expertise.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

That was my oversight. I apologize for that.

Would anybody from the department like to provide some reflections on emissions?

I recognize that we asked you to come for the CESD and not the NIR. I understand. Thank you.

I'll cede the rest of my time to the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll start our last round with Mr. Deltell.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

How much time are you giving me, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have five minutes.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Commissioner, I'd like you to talk about your second report, whose title is “Greening of Building Materials in Public Infrastructure”. People always say that the best and greenest energy is the energy you don't use. Eco-responsible buildings that use less energy are the fastest way to reduce emissions and achieve sustainable energy.

Your report takes stock of what happened between 2006 and 2016:

We noted that in that time span, Public Services and Procurement Canada made progress in reducing the operational carbon emissions of federal public infrastructure.

That, approximately, was the period during which Stephen Harper's Conservative government was in power.

And yet, just a little later, you say that there had been “insufficient progress since 2017”. Among other things, you pointed out that “insufficient consideration of embodied carbon in funding programs represents a missed opportunity to contribute to government-wide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”.

How could such an obvious opportunity be bungled, when it had begun so successfully on other occasions, and yet yielded such disappointing results over the past nine years?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

It was relatively easy to work on operational carbon in buildings, vehicles and so on.

Embodied carbon is relatively new, but I had heard about it in the 1990s. People talked about life-cycle analysis and the carbon footprint and they wanted to incorporate embodied carbon into the infrastructure program.

Now, nobody talks about anything except concrete. Steel and other materials should also be included. I agree.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

You are really reading my mind, Commissioner, because in one section of your report, it says that you concluded that the Canadian government had not used its procurement powers effectively to support and encourage the use of low-carbon building materials such as steel, aluminum and concrete.

Aluminum is produced mainly in Quebec and Ontario. Quebec also happens to produce more aluminum than anywhere else in the world, as well as steel, and thanks to new technologies, it's clean steel.

We believe that by investing in new technologies, we'll achieve concrete results.

Why was this opportunity missed again?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

That's a question for the department.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I'm disappointed about the missed opportunity, and that there is now some catching up to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm sorry. We have a point of order.