Environment Committee on Nov. 20th, 2024

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

We made a lot of recommendations in our report regarding Canada's critical minerals strategy.

The government can improve its approach to this issue by acting on our recommendations to restore balance in the way the strategy is implemented. That would allow all the economic, environmental and indigenous community objectives to be met. It would also prevent the economic objective from having an adverse effect on the other objectives.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I've read the report, Mr. DeMarco, but I'm concerned about the issue of provincial jurisdiction in this area. We are a federal government. Your recommendations have a lot to do with provincial jurisdictions.

What exactly do you recommend?

Do we need to partner with the provinces? We can't dictate certain things to them. For example, Quebec has developed its own critical minerals strategy. We really must respect provincial jurisdictions, in accordance with the Canadian Constitution.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

That's a good question.

The federal government funds its strategy in order to promote it. We're not saying that the federal government should ignore provincial jurisdictions, which are set out in the Constitution. The question is how the federal government will use those funds to implement its strategy. It's not a question of how Canada is going to regulate this.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

So your recommendation is more about funding.

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I would really like to hear Mr. Jeanty's comments on this.

Mr. Jeanty, do you have anything to add?

[Rinaldo Jeanty, Assistant Deputy Minister, Lands and Minerals Sector, Department of Natural Resources]

Thank you for the question.

We believe that respecting provincial jurisdiction is crucial and that we must work in partnership with the provinces. The recommendation draws attention to the fact that there's more to be done, and we want to work collaboratively with the provinces on that.

In addition, the current regulatory system already includes many measures to ensure these protections. We believe that the current system will help us get things done. Furthermore, this strategy was designed to be compatible with the systems already in place. In my opinion, we have one of the best regulatory systems in the world.

We expect provincial jurisdictions will be respected and we expect the federal government will make no changes without provincial input.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Chair, do I have a little more time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 40 seconds.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jeanty, the report makes some very important points about the balance that needs to be struck. The world, Canada included, absolutely needs critical minerals to protect our planet and stop global warming.

We also need our biodiversity, because it's our best ally when it comes to climate change. In Outaouais, mining the minerals will harm biodiversity and undermine indigenous rights.

Therefore, how do we strike the balance that Mr. DeMarco is recommending?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, we won't have time to get an answer to that question.

Witnesses can always send us more details in writing.

We'll go now to Ms. Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us this afternoon and answering our questions.

According to the Bloc Québécois, the week of November 4 was a very bad week for the government. It set the emissions cap, but it said the same thing it said a year ago, and it said the same thing about its reporting. We feel we're not really making progress, even though we urgently need to take action on climate.

I'll focus on report 7 about net zero. It confirms what the Bloc Québécois is saying: Canada is headed for a climate failure in 2030 and won't rise to the challenge because of the many delays in implementing the main climate measures announced.

Canada has six years left to reduce its GHG emissions by 40% to 45% by 2030. That means that if we don't ask enough of the oil and gas sector, we'll be asking a lot of other businesses.

Mr. DeMarco, last year, you sounded the alarm in your report. However, it seems to me that your recommendations are similar to last year's. Did the government listen? What steps need to be taken? I draw that parallel with the emissions cap, because a plan was in the making for the cap last year, but here we are a year later, and no progress has been made on it.

The table on page 40 of your report clearly points to significant barriers to imposing emissions caps on the oil and gas sector:

Timeliness—The measure was delayed. This measure was first proposed in 2021, and the regulation design was expected to be completed in early 2023. However, regulation design was not published until December 2023. Draft regulations were initially expected by December 2023 but have yet to be published.

The Bloc Québécois supports this emissions cap measure, but it must be implemented quickly if we want it to be effective.

Commissioner, you looked at 20 measures in Environment and Climate Change Canada's 2030 emissions reduction plan. The bottom line is that measures are being put in place and helping to improve the situation, but things are moving much too slowly. In addition, emissions reduction estimates are often overly optimistic. I have to say that this is similar to what was said a year ago.

You also say that the measures taken in response to your recommendations are not being implemented in a timely manner or that organizations are not acting on them. I want you to know that the House has full confidence in you to help it monitor and analyze the government's policies. Your help and your reports are invaluable.

That said, do you get the sense that people are reading these reports and that the government will be proactive about your recommendations?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I hope that the government will be proactive about my recommendations. As you mentioned, I'm disappointed to see that many of the findings I made in 2024 are similar to those in 2023, 2022 and 2021, since I took up my position as commissioner.

In 2021, there was the announcement on the cap. In 2022, there were discussions about the cap. In 2023, a framework was presented. In 2024, the government drafted regulations. I'm hoping that by 2025 the regulations will be implemented. I'm just giving examples.

We're facing a climate crisis. The announcement on the cap was made four years ago, and all we have right now are draft regulations.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay.

Let's now turn to the clean electricity regulations, which are the fruit of another key measure in Canada's policy to fight climate change. Report 7 states that this measure is facing challenges and it's been delayed.

We know that 99% of the electricity produced in Quebec is renewable. However, in other parts of Canada, electricity is still produced with natural gas, oil and coal. Take Saskatchewan, for example, where 86% of electricity comes from fossil fuels, that is to say 44% from natural gas, 41% from coal and a small amount from oil.

I was in the room the Conference of the Parties, or COP, climate summit when the minister at the time, Catherine McKenna, had begun phasing out coal. It seems like Canada has failed when it comes to coal. Not only are we still burning coal to produce electricity, we are apparently exporting it. We've been asking the government to pick up the pace for a long time.

Commissioner, wouldn't it be easier to achieve the 2030 reduction target and net zero if Canada stopped burning coal and adopted renewable energy?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

We're talking here about one of the two targets we looked at in Exhibit 7.4 of Report 7. We also discuss it in Report 8.

We can see that Canada is still lagging behind regarding the 2030 target, with a 7.5% reduction. The goal is to produce 90% of energy from renewable and non‑emitting sources. That's not that hard to reach; it's less than 8%.

Over the past five years, the curve has held steady at 81% or 82%, which is quite stable. As you said, Canada will have to change directions if it wants to meet the target.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Bachrach is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome back, Mr. Commissioner.

Thanks to my colleagues for allowing me to sit in on behalf of my colleague Ms. Collins.

I was at the meeting, Commissioner, when you presented your report on the emissions reduction plan. Reading this report, it feels a bit like Groundhog Day. There are many of the same findings or similar findings around the lack of progress and the slow pace of change.

As someone who wants to see.... In opposition, many times, you get a sense that people aren't necessarily cheering for the government to succeed because they would like to replace it, but in this case, I think everyone should really want Canada to achieve our targets and address this critical issue that is such a huge threat to the future.

I thought I would ask a question about comparing your report on the emissions reduction plan and its findings with your report today. What things have changed in the time between those two reports?

Do you feel that the government took your recommendations from the emissions reduction report seriously and acted with a sense of urgency so it could get a different prognosis when you came back to the environment committee?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Yes, and I should say that we did bat around the idea of tabling on Groundhog Day because the findings were so similar to last year, but there was more urgency. We didn't want to wait until the winter to do the report.

As you recall, the deadline for our office, under the new net-zero act, was to release our first report by the end of next month and then to release our second report five years after that. We're already on our second report. We wanted to lead by example by issuing our first report over a year early and our second report much earlier than required under the act. That would be to lead by example and to say that if this is a climate crisis, then we're going to do what Parliament has asked us to do faster rather than slower.

To answer your question directly, though, I would have hoped, by sounding the alarm one year early under the act, that the government would have at least filled the gap between 36% and 40%. As I said last year, it should probably aim a little higher than 40% because of the problems that we've identified in terms of overly ambitious assumptions, double-counting and those sorts of things. I am surprised to see that we're still in the mid-thirties, in terms of a percentage, one year after last year's report. I'm not only surprised but also disappointed.

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

To be clear, Commissioner, the 36% is its estimate of reductions. Do you agree with that figure? My understanding is that you feel that the progress has been substantially less than that. If so, what percentage would your office estimate? I apologize if I missed it.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

As I indicated in the response to one of the first questions today, 36% is the government's estimation based on its bankable measures—the ones that have crystallized enough to be modelled. Both last year and this year, we found that the measures that make up that 36% do suffer from some problems relating to overly optimistic assumptions. I can tell you that if you were to ask me what the number is, I would be confident in a number lower than 36%, but we haven't come up with our own competing number, if that's what you're asking.

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

When it comes to the accuracy of the projections, you differ with the department. Have there been efforts to reconcile your two approaches to estimating progress?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

There has been some progress. That's one thing that has differed from last year to this year: We've decided to change our approach too. Rather than it being purely “Groundhog Day”, using your wording, we've decided to continuously track our recommendations, which we hadn't been doing up to now. That's the second part of our report this year. Now we do see that some of the recommendations are being implemented, so it's not a case that the government is ignoring all of our recommendations. It is making some progress in implementing them.

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

In all of your reports, you've highlighted the growing emissions from the oil and gas sector. I guess I'm curious as to what extent those increasing emissions contribute to or explain the lack of progress or the shortfall in meeting targets.

If the oil and gas sector had stable emissions—not even reduced emissions—over the period that you've been tracking, would the difference between that and what they currently emit put Canada on track? Would that account for that shortfall of 4% to 9% that is currently the shortfall that the government sees?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

It would likely have an even larger impact than that.

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

We'd actually be ahead. If emissions from oil and gas had simply remained stable since the government has been in power, would we then be surpassing the 40% to 45% target that it set based on 2005?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I haven't calculated it based on when the government was in power, but I do have data from 1990 to now. If emissions in the oil and gas sector had stayed constant, then we would have already reached our 2026 target by 2022. We would have actually reached the 2026 target four years early, if oil and gas emissions had stayed constant from the level in 1990.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Deltell, you have the floor for five minutes.