Environment Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2024

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

There are offshore wind turbines, but there are also drilling projects in areas designated as marine refuges, for example. Knowing that the government will continue to allow development projects like Bay du Nord, which no longer exists because investors listened to reason, thank God, can you tell us to what extent those projects have an impact on meeting the Government of Canada's targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

[Normand Mousseau]

In a purely Canadian context, emissions from offshore extraction are lower than emissions from oil sands, for example. Obviously, we should choose industries that will reduce their net emissions. The export of oil means that emissions related to its combustion are not the formal responsibility of Canada. Instead, Canada is responsible for emissions related to oil production.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

You've developed emission reduction scenarios for Canada—I think it's called the Pathways Explorer—to make it easier to compare the potential transformation pathways to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in Canada by 2050. Can you explain how that can be done in Canada?

[Normand Mousseau]

To achieve net-zero emissions, our modelling tells us that we must first decarbonize our society as much as possible, which is to say, electrify a large part of our energy consumption with clean electricity. The second is to reduce emissions from the oil and gas sector. Our analyses show that it's difficult to do so in a cost-effective manner. We'll also have to reduce oil and gas production and make large-scale carbon capture and sequestration. We are at over 150 million tonnes a year. So between 20% and 25% of greenhouse gases emitted in Canada should be captured and sequestered to offset emissions from agriculture and other sectors.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Next we have Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

I want to start off with the witness from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. You thanked the Bloc, the NDP and the Conservatives for their vote. I did want to note that while it does not have official party status, the Green Party also voted in favour of that exemption on drying fuels.

My questions are to Ms. Levin. You mentioned that last year, on average, oil and gas lobbyists were able to meet with the government five times a day. This year, from January to September, the Department of Environment and Climate Change met with these lobbyists 123 times. In our last committee meeting, the minister stated that this has little impact on regulations. I have a difficult time believing that these lobbying meetings aren't having an impact, given all of the loopholes in the draft emissions cap regulations and the watering down of other policies.

Can you speak a little bit to this?

[Julia Levin]

We can see the impact of fossil fuel lobbying. In fact, every single time the federal government has put forward any kind of climate policy, it's been attacked and then watered down by fossil fuel lobbyists, so there's a track record that clearly shows the influence of these meetings.

Of course, these lobbyists would not be spending hundreds of hours each year having meeting after meeting if they did not think it had an effect. If you meet with someone five times a day, you are going to be susceptible to their point of view.

Clearly, there is an influence by these lobbyists. It's also why the fossil fuel lobbyists and executives show up in droves at international climate negotiations as well. They're there to weaken climate progress, just as they've been doing for the last four decades.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Can you talk a little bit about what you've seen when it comes to the unfair burden and the loopholes provided to oil and gas producers? In your opinion, do you think it's fair that oil and gas companies can apply for CCUS grants to grow oil and gas exploration?

[Julia Levin]

Oil and gas companies, despite being some of the wealthiest companies operating in Canada and bringing in massive profits, continue to be one of the most subsidized sectors of the economy. This includes massive, massive subsidies for their technology fixes, meaning carbon capture and storage. CCUS has been around for 50 years, has a terrible track record and keeps getting downgraded by the IEA. However, the federal government is putting tens of billions of dollars towards these technologies.

In terms of the emissions cap, the cap on pollution from the oil and gas industry, which is a really important piece of Canada's climate plan, we saw that the design really did match what companies like those in the Pathways Alliance have said they could achieve. That is a very generous way to regulate an industry. Other industries are not regulated that way; other industries are asked to go further than what they publicly say they can do anyway. We see that in these compliance flexibility options.

Offsets and decarbonization funds are the two compliance flexibilities. Offsets mean that companies don't actually have to reduce their emissions, and every investigation that has occurred internationally into offsets has found that most of them are junk. Mostly, they're unverified climate reductions, greenhouse gas reductions. It's very difficult to prove that they're additional, that they're reliable and that they're durable. They're not.

This is the sector driving climate pollution in Canada. We need to hold these companies responsible for reducing their emissions directly—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Julia Levin]

—not provide them with escape mechanisms. That's what these regulations do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Leslie, you have three minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Drover, the environment commissioner's audits reveal that the Trudeau government is not conducting value-for-money audits on various programs, such as the net zero accelerator initiative. In some of these cases, massive corporations are being given millions of dollars in taxpayer money with no clear indication of whether or not there's any value for money or which emissions will be reduced.

I'm curious about your view on the Trudeau government freely disbursing taxpayers' hard-earned money without any understanding of whether or not it has any purpose at all.

[Devin Drover]

There are a few things there to unpack.

First is the fact that the only way the government will ever get the books balanced in this country is if we stop wasteful spending. The most successful way that the government of the day in the 1990s was able to get there was through significant reviews of every dollar spent. We would like to see the federal government actually start to exercise that same level of caution that its predecessors did and actually start doing serious audits of all government programming.

Of course it's not a good use of tax dollars. It's also not a good use of tax dollars when we see governments handing out cash to any business, regardless of the purpose. Generally, we're opposed to all forms of corporate welfare and think that this government needs to stop handing cash out, especially unaudited, to big business.

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

Thank you.

You may have heard the last conversation that we had at the last meeting with Minister Guilbeault when he was asked about a new international carbon tax on global shipping. What is your view, as an organization, on that?

[Devin Drover]

I'm sorry. You want our view on....

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

I want your view on a new carbon tax, a third one—at a time when everyone's suffering—to add carbon tax to everything we ship around the world and then send the money off to other countries.

[Devin Drover]

No, we're absolutely opposed to all carbon taxes. You say that there are just two carbon taxes. It's funny that you even build in the fact that the sales tax is then added on to the post-carbon-tax price on gasoline. It's just an out-of-control tax-on-tax system that we've set up in this country that absolutely needs to be repealed.

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

It is ridiculous.

I will let you comment on Bill C-234, because you were not given the opportunity to comment on a great piece of legislation that will help farmers despite the Liberals' opposition.

[Devin Drover]

My understanding is that the blockade right now that the Conservatives have brought in Parliament is for an accountability measure. I think if the Liberals want to get serious about passing that bill, then they can follow through with the government accountability and then bring that legislation to the floor.

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

Can I have a point of clarification, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Sure.

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

I just want to clarify. The member opposite asked a question about three carbon taxes. I don't know of any carbon taxes in Canada, so I don't understand the witness's response.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Well, that's—

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

Could you please tell me what you're referring to, Mr. Leslie?