Environment Committee on Dec. 9th, 2024

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the motion, Ms. Collins. I very much appreciate all of your work on this committee.

I would like to discuss this. I would like to debate it. It warrants some conversation. However, given that we have the commissioner here—I would like to ask questions as I have interest in this panel as well—I would just ask that we postpone debate on this until a date when we don't have witnesses so that we can complete this meeting before one o'clock. We all have things to do.

Mr. Chair, I would ask that we adjourn the debate for now and come back when we have more time and no witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It's a dilatory motion, so we'll vote and see what happens.

Ms. Collins, you have your hand up. Is it a point of order?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I just put my hand up to be on the speaking list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. I'll put you on the speaking list, but right now, we have to vote on Mr. van Koeverden's proposal that we adjourn the debate on this.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

We'll go to Mr. Kram for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. DeMarco, in your report on the net zero accelerator, you noted that it did not effectively track emissions or emissions reductions. This echoes what you said in report 7.

If you step back and look at the big picture of everything you have audited in the department, have you come across significant evidence that the government is making adequate efforts to track emissions reductions in the initiatives you have investigated?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

It's been a theme of our reports over many years, even before I started, that there needs to be more transparency in this area. Despite repeated recommendations, we're not at a level of transparency, monitoring and tracking, as you said, that I think parliamentarians and Canadians are owed.

I would agree that there needs to be more transparency and better tracking, as I indicated earlier, so that Canadians have confidence that the money being spent on this initiative, which is of critical importance for current and future generations, is being spent in a way that is obtaining results.

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

I would like to switch to page 10 of report 4. I would like to read a quote from this report. It says:

There are not enough international initiatives to encourage industries to decarbonize, such as definitions for “near zero emission goods” or regulations requiring greener materials.

I found this statement quite interesting, because we heard at this committee for our report on climate financing that there were many international investors with great deals of money that are looking to invest in these decarbonization initiatives, and that Canada was even missing out on these investment opportunities.

Do you feel there is an appetite among international investors to invest in green initiatives in Canada, or isn't there?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Certainly there's a trend towards greener investment and, eventually, net zero and a carbon-neutral future, but what we indicated in that report.... I apologize; I didn't bring my net zero accelerator binder with me. I brought my net-zero act binder with me because we were here last week on the accelerator. My recollection is that section of the report is especially focused on hard-to-abate industries that don't necessarily have enough of a price signal or available technologies currently to make a shift. You know some of those sectors already in terms of steel and cement and so on.

Existing measures have not been enough to shift those industries. There's an interest in it and there's a global appetite for it, but government levers are needed if that shift is in need of acceleration, as is the policy of Canada. That's why they're using other measures, such as subsidies, to try to complement regulations and carbon pricing in order to get at these more hard-to-abate industries.

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

Would it be fair to say there is global interest, just not enough global interest to invest in and of themselves?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

There's enough that there's a trend towards that, but is it happening fast enough and effectively enough to meet, for example, the Paris Agreement's 1.5° or 2° target? No, and that's why we have things called accelerators that are meant to accelerate. The idea is to make sure that they do that, and it's not just to have a name—that it's accelerating.

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

Okay.

Last week, we had Canada's climate change ambassador before the committee. She claimed that economic growth has been decoupled from emissions reductions. In other words, we are not paying an economic price for climate policy, and yet, in report 4, you've stated that heavy manufacturers and some of the biggest contributors to the economy aren't motivated to reduce emissions. Is that because it's just too expensive? Have we done all of the low-cost initiatives and everything remaining would be very costly to the economy? Is that accurate?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Yes. On the first point, we mentioned in our lessons learned report in 2021 that there has been some decoupling of emissions as against both population and production. That's a good sign that it's not just in lockstep now that for every additional unit of production you have an additional unit of equivalent greenhouse gas emissions. That's good. It means that there are getting to be some efficiencies, but it hasn't been enough, because, especially in the oil and gas sector, efficiencies have been outweighed by increases in production and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much. We'll end on that very good point.

Mr. van Koeverden, go ahead.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

How long do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have five minutes.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. DeMarco, there's been a lot of debate at this committee, over the last couple of months certainly, on whether Canada is on track with the current climate action and emissions reduction strategies implemented so far.

I'll be honest. I don't think it's super productive to debate whether we're on track. Modelling has us at 34%, 35% or 36%, when we all know that more ambition is necessary. We know we need to do more, not less, to lower emissions and to fight climate change. I've expressed confidence and ambition because I think it's important to be positive, and I think it's really productive, in fact, to talk about things that are working. I've been called a liar by some colleagues for stepping up and saying that I think we can do this; I think it's possible, and I think we are on track with these and increased ambition.

Much more important than arguing about whether it's 34%, 35% or 36% is to talk about trajectory, because when things are going up, we can see they're going up, and when things are going down, we can tell. Emissions are also unique because they have momentum and inertia, and they're not quickly reduced or eliminated.

My question goes back to 2015. My understanding of Canada's overall emissions is that they were on their way up under the Harper government, and its goal of reducing emissions by 30% below 2005 levels was clearly out of sight.

Is that your take on the situation eight or nine years ago?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

As indicated in our exhibit, for the early decades of Canada's fight against climate change, the graph was going in the wrong direction. Since then, there's been a relative plateau and then a little bit of a decrease in the last few years of around 7% since 2005. There's no doubt that if there had been no measures put in place by any government, the graph would have continued to go up because of increases in production and population in Canada. The exact amount is subject to different assumptions, but it's certainly true that the emissions would be way worse than now if there had been no measures at all.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

You mentioned population and production. The size of our economy also contributes to that. Is that correct? Our economy is three times larger now than it was in the 1990s. That is a large factor, is it not? I understand wealthier countries have larger carbon footprints.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

That's what I meant by production. The economic production has been going up, and the population has been going up.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

That's right.

We put in over 100 measures to reduce emissions. We've seen some progress, and the modelling shows that we are getting closer and closer to those goals for lowering our emissions.

Then we enhanced that target, from 30% to 45%, in order to be more ambitious. In that same period of time, we've seen the Alberta premier, the Saskatchewan premier and the Ontario premier—three of the largest provinces in terms of economy and carbon outputs—go in the wrong direction.

Every time you come to committee, you talk about the importance of collaboration and co-operation with other jurisdictions, because they have quite a large role to play, as well. I would like to know whether these actions taken by provincial premiers will increase emissions or dampen those ambitions. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith recently vowed to fight the cap on emissions.

Will the cap on emissions help us reduce those emissions, or will they increase? Is fighting that counter to climate action, or is it in line with it?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I'm not going to insert myself between the federal government and the Alberta government to try to adjudicate that debate. I'm no longer an environmental adjudicator, although sometimes I feel like I am.

Clearly, we need to reduce emissions. The choice of measures is up to governments, and they need to have effective ones.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Perhaps I'll move to a more qualitative approach.

The Premier of Saskatchewan said:

A lot of folks will come to me and say, “Hey, you guys have the highest carbon emissions per capita.” I don't care.

Is that type of approach going to help us lower our emissions? Is that the type of co-operation we need to encourage?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Again, I'm not going to insert myself into parts of conversations between the provinces and the federal government.

However, we have a graph in our lessons learned report about per capita emissions. It is important to track that, because Canada as a whole is quite a poor performer on per capita emissions.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives was willing to insert themselves. They said, “If you want to understand why robust national climate policy is being blocked, look to Saskatchewan.”

Since Doug Ford got elected, he's eliminated the drive clean program, which was a mandatory emissions test for passenger vehicles. He also recently passed legislation so that Enbridge, a natural gas company, can lock in customers for decades to come, overriding Ontario's independent energy regulator.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have to stop there, unfortunately. There's no time left. Your five minutes are up. I'm sorry.

Mr. Leslie, go ahead for five minutes.