Environment Committee on Nov. 20th, 2024

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

Conservative governments provincially that are stopping these projects, the renewable projects, are hurting our ability to meet these targets.

I was also wondering about the approaches put forward by other parties that have said that we should axe the price on pollution program, that we should cut funding for programs and scrap regulations, and that we should only use technology to meet our goals. Do you believe that solely relying on technology would actually meet our goals, or do you believe that things like the price on pollution program or the cap on pollution from oil and gas companies are helpful in meeting these goals?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Canada uses a mix of measures, almost 150, set out in the plan in the progress report under the net-zero act. There's a whole range of measures available—and I've answered that question earlier—in terms of regulation, carbon levy, subsidies and others.

It's a choice for the government of the day to make in terms of what that mix is, but the problem in Canada is that from 1990 to now, whatever the mix has been under whatever target and under whatever plan, it has never worked in Canada.

In other G7 countries, we have seen large reductions, including in countries that were extracting quite a bit of fossil fuels in 1990, just like Canada. Germany and the U.K. have had major reductions, even though they were large fossil fuel extractors in 1990, when the world came together to work on climate change.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Absolutely, but my question more specifically, Mr. DeMarco, was whether you think we could meet the goals we have set out by cutting any of the regulations and the carbon levies and just relying on technology.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Technology does have a role to play. Between now and 2030, it would largely be existing technologies in order to have an effect on 2030. Investing in new technologies could have an effect on the net-zero target in 2050, but it would be unlikely that they could essentially be created, deployed, commercialized and put in place between now and 2030 to have a major effect.

New technology is more promising for 2050. Existing technology is more promising for 2030.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. DeMarco.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'll go back to report 7 on the issue of double accounting. It says the following:For example, the Clean Power priority investments from the Infrastructure Bank and the Smart Renewables and Electrification Pathways Program from Natural Resources Canada fund the same projects and report on the same expected emissions reductions. This can lead to overestimating the measure's contribution to emissions reductions.

My question is quite simple. Do you talk to each other?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

What do you mean?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm asking if you talk to each other, i.e., the Infrastructure Bank, the Department of Natural Resources and your office.

The government says it's optimistic, but there's double accounting.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

We've also talked about double accounting in other reports, including the one on the emissions reduction fund in 2021. More recently, we addressed this same issue with regard to the 2 billion trees program.

This is one of the consequences of taking a decentralized approach to climate change. Departments look at their needs in isolation, and this can lead to double accounting problems. We made a recommendation in this regard a year ago, so that these organizations could improve their systems and integrate all measures. This would avoid double accounting.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Jeanty, I believe you represent the Department of Natural Resources.

Is that right?

[Rinaldo Jeanty]

I also have colleagues with me who will be able to answer your question.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

All right.

In the table on page 42 of report 7, regarding the Canadian small modular reactor action plan, the commissioner says: “The department had not assessed the expected emissions avoided for this measure.” He also says: “The department had not assessed the value for money of this measure.”

Basically, we know that the Canadian small modular reactor plan isn't about the public. Rather, it's designed to fuel the oil sands industry. Now, if you're not able to assess the reduction in emissions, it may be because there won't be any, since it's being used to produce green oil, which I don't believe in.

[André Bernier, Director General, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources]

My name is André Bernier, from Natural Resources Canada.

Unfortunately, I missed the last part of the question as I was moving to take my seat at the table.

Could you repeat the question?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, will you allow me the necessary time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Please ask a concise question. I would also ask the witness to give a concise answer.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

If you say you're not in a position to assess the reduction in emissions when it comes to small modular reactors, maybe it's because they're just going to be used to further fuel the oil sands industry. The promoters of this technology are trying to sell us what they call “green oil”.

[André Bernier]

As part of the Canadian small nuclear reactor plan, we're working collaboratively. We're not saying it won't contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. It's a collaborative approach, and no targets have been set.

It's not a question of evaluating the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, we have to stop here.

Mr. Bachrach, you have the floor.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. DeMarco, you said earlier that 2030 was a year “heavy with expectations”. I was just observing that when it comes to the net-zero accountability act, a lot of the timelines and targets are outside the political horizon. Looking back at the years since 1990, it seems that many of the targets have been outside the political horizon, and perhaps much of the backsliding has been the result of changes in administration and changes in the degree of commitment to the cause of reducing greenhouse gas pollution.

I worked on the net-zero accountability act. One of the things we fought very hard for was the 2026 emissions “objective”, I believe it's called, because we couldn't get the Liberals to agree to the word “target”. I note that it's just after the fixed election date.

I guess I'm asking you to stray a little bit outside the bounds of the report you've presented. If we could go back to that piece of legislation and ensure that the targets and the reporting years were all within the political cycle.... We have fixed election date law in Canada. Why not have governments commit, when they come in, to a certain emissions reduction during their term? When the voters go to the polls, they can measure them against something that is tangible.

It feels like we're always falling behind, and then having elections, and then starting all over again. Is that an accurate observation?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

It is interesting that you ask that question, because if I go back to lesson 8 from our 2021 “Lessons Learned” report on climate change, we start lesson 8 with the following:

Governments often struggle with long-term problems. Governments—and those who wish to form a government—often plan around the next election, rather than around longer-term challenges.

We've highlighted that as a problem for a few years now. Are there ways to address that? There are. There was the attempt to put in what's called the interim objective—I think that's what you're talking about—for 2026, but even then, that is five years after the date that this act received royal assent. The net-zero act was in 2021.

There are other options. Annual carbon budgeting is another one. There would be accountability every year. You could have sectoral measurement. That could be for the entire country or for a jurisdiction or a sector.

There are ways of turning long-term objectives into annual deliverables.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Kram is next.

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

Than you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being here this afternoon and for all of their thorough and diligent work in the most recent round of audits.

Commissioner DeMarco, I'd like to start with you.

In Report 7, you made a number of alarming statements about the government's emission reduction goals. You said that its plan “remains insufficient to meet Canada's target”, that Canada was “the worst performer” amongst the G7 countries, that its “measures were often overly optimistic”, and that the plan had “missing and inconsistent information” and so forth.

In light of your findings in Report 7, I would like to read to you a series of statements. I was wondering if you could share with the committee whether those statements are accurate or inaccurate.

On May 6, Minister Guilbeault stated in the House of Commons that “for the first time in the history of Canada, we are on track to meet our 2026 and 2030 [emissions] targets.

Commissioner, would you say that statement is accurate or inaccurate?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

We haven't done an analysis of the projections for 2026, the interim objective that we just talked about. The government has told us that it believes it's on track. That's all I have to say about it.

With regard to 2030, I do not agree that Canada's existing measures put the government on track for meeting 2030. There is a gap that needs to be filled for the measures to add up to 40% to 45%.

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

On October 8 of this year, Minister Guilbeault said in a CBC interview, “What is also clear is that our plan is working.”

Commissioner, would you agree that the government's plan is working to achieve our 2030 targets?