Environment Committee on May 2nd, 2024

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

We can address the two findings you just mentioned.

As for the failure to follow standards, I believe we found problems in four out of six instances.

Mr. Lequain can give you further details.

[Mathieu Lequain]

We reviewed the six projects analyzed by the interdepartmental working group on greenhouse gas reduction. In four of the six cases, we found that recognized greenhouse gas reduction principles had not been followed.

For instance, for building sites, the analysis had not taken carbon emissions from building materials into consideration. Some of the project components were not covered by the analysis, which meant that it was not consistent and did not comply with standards.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

How can that be? How come standards can be complied with sometimes, but not others?

[Mathieu Lequain]

Sometimes the information required to do an evaluation wasn't available because when the interdepartmental working group looked at the work, it didn't have a reference model available to analyze the data. In other instances, very sensitive commercial information had not been provided. As a result, there wasn't enough information for certain projects.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Because the strategic innovation fund is a fund for innovation, can you tell us whether the funding had been approved for innovative technologies that existed only theoretically? When a company requests funding for methodologies that have never been tested, they may appear to be workable, but you're never sure, because they're new and people are focusing on innovation. That being the case, how is it possible to tell whether something is going to work or not? How can you assess that?

[Mathieu Lequain]

We looked at the project funding processes.

These projects cover a 15 to 20-year period, so it's sometimes difficult to assess their impact, particularly when they involve new technology that has not been used very much. That's why sometimes the department doesn't do a quantitative assessment of the project impact. As the potential impact goes beyond the 2030 horizon, it's difficult to evaluate.

On other occasions, there are projects that involve technologies for which there is a reference model, meaning that we already have examples that make it possible to determine what the project's impact might be.

So it really depends on the nature of the project being funded and the maturity of the technology being used.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I thought the net zero accelerator initiative was only for the manufacturing sector; the 15 applicants that signed an agreement were manufacturing sector companies.

Is that the case, or am I to understand that the initiative didn't attract the large industrial emitters? Is there a gap in the initiative that keeps the large industrial emitters from taking an interest?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

It's true that the department is having trouble getting funding applications from the large emitters. That's one of our key findings.

The large emitters are those that could contribute the most to reducing GHG emissions. So if we're going to invest $8 billion, we want the biggest players on board. But we are receiving very few applications from them. It's a major problem.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

What can we do to attract the big emitters to programs like these? Do you have any recommendations about this for the government?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

In paragraph 4.36 of our report, we recommend that the government make the application process more effective and efficient. That's one of the strategies we put forward to attract more large emitters. We also made other proposals in the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Trudel, you've run out of speaking time. You'll have an opportunity later to ask more questions.

Ms. Collins, who is online, has six minutes now.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the commissioner and his entire team for being here, for answering our questions and for doing this important work.

The first report I want to ask a few questions about is on the contaminated sites in the north. It is unacceptable that, after 20 years, the government is failing to reduce the health, environmental and financial risks from these contaminated sites and abandoned mines in the north. The costs seem to have skyrocketed. I was shocked to read that, since the launch of the plan, financial liability for contaminated sites has grown from $2.9 billion to $10.1 billion. I'm also curious about the human cost. The government needs to provide adequate resources and work with indigenous people, whose lands are affected, to protect these communities from toxic pollution. Can you talk a little about the human costs to this, beyond those massive financial costs?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Yes. From an environmental justice point of view, we focused on the north, where a lot of communities have borne the brunt of the environmental and human health risks and effects associated with these sites, but have not necessarily benefited as much from them as others. We talk about the opportunity, given the large outlay of funds that's going towards remediating these sites, for some of the socio-economic benefits associated with the cleanup to further community involvement and indigenous reconciliation. This would help, at least, countervail some of the negative effects to environmental and human health that we've seen taking place over the last several decades. That's one example of an opportunity, with this amount of expenditure, to share some of the socio-economic benefits associated with these cleanups with the local communities and indigenous communities that have, so far, been mostly on the negative side of the ledger in terms of environmental and human health risks.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

When it comes to the financial cost—and you talked a bit about the lack of the polluter pays principle—what do you see as the needed legislative or regulatory changes to make sure that this doesn't happen in the future?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

One reason I mentioned the polluter pays principle is that, even though these are historic examples long before the current environmental protection regimes were in place for some of these sites, we still have more current issues of the polluter pays principle not being implemented—abandoned gas wells in Alberta, as examples—and we have, likely, a new round of mines coming to help service the green transition, in terms of critical minerals. We are hopeful that the lessons from past legacies such as these will be learned and that in the next rush, for example, which will be for critical minerals, we will not see a repetition of the mistakes of the past and that the polluter pays principle will truly be implemented in a way that doesn't leave future generations and taxpayers holding the bag for past generations' failures.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

One other really concerning thing—as I was reading the reports—is in the agriculture and climate change mediation report. The fact that the department has achieved less than 2% of its overall 2030 emissions reduction target and there are only six growing seasons left to achieve the 2030 target is deeply concerning. Farmers are at the forefront of the climate crisis. They want to be part of the solution. They need the government to support them. We see only droughts, heat waves, flooding, but these all have extreme impacts on our farmers and then on consumers at the grocery store. By failing to have a climate plan for Canada's agricultural sector, the government seems to be letting farmers and Canadians down.

Can you talk a bit more about what needs to happen, and how the government needs to act urgently with a plan for sustainable agriculture to support farmers and to help them reduce emissions and adapt to climate change?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Yes. We focused on the mitigation side. We may look at adaptation in a future report.

On the mitigation side, as you mentioned, the farming community is part of the solution in terms of both reducing emissions and helping sequester more carbon through good practices. They can work on both sides of the GHG ledger, if you want to call it that, in terms of both reducing emissions and sequestering and storing more carbon. They also directly benefit from measures to mitigate climate change for the reasons that you mentioned in terms of at least mitigating some of the extreme weather events and droughts and water shortages that would only increase if we allowed unmitigated climate change to proceed worldwide.

They really are, as you said, at the forefront of this. I'm very disappointed to see...and it's not just us asking for the strategies. The centre of government asked this department for a strategy four years ago, and there still is no strategy. If they were able to reduce emissions through their programs without the strategy, that would perhaps be defensible, but if you look at exhibit 5.2, emissions have been rising steadily for the last 30 years and also rising steadily since 2005.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll have to stop it there.

Our second round will be led off by Mr. Leslie for five minutes.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner, for your report.

We'll pick up where we left off, on the ag section. I think the important highlighted quote for me was that Canada has “no strategy in place to guide its climate change mitigation programs and activities”.

You mentioned the fact that the AAFC in no way consulted with farmers regarding the fertilizer piece. As somebody who used to work in that sector, I can assure you that this is very true. It was an extreme frustration to farmers. It's not the only area in which farmers were not consulted.

I'm going to ask you a set of questions, and I'm hoping your answers can be fairly tight. Your audit found that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada spent hundreds of millions of dollars on three programs but could not verify the quality and accuracy of the data being provided.

First, during your audit, did you ever come across any evidence where you saw Ag Canada officials try to verify the data that was being provided to them?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I will ask Principal Armutlu to come up here to address that. If you have a series of questions on this report, it's probably best if we have our principal with us.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I'm sorry about that.

Principal Armutlu will be addressing the question relating to data verification.

[Markirit Armutlu, Principal, Office of the Auditor General]

Thank you.

To answer your question, yes, they did.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

They did verify it?

[Markirit Armutlu]

When we pointed out some questions, they did go back and verify the information for us.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

From there, is it standard procedure that they provide that data to ECCC to be included in the national inventory report?