Environment Committee on Dec. 9th, 2024

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Commissioner, do you believe Canadians are getting good value for money from the government's $8-billion net zero accelerator fund?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Our view is they haven't demonstrated that they're providing value for money. It's possible that good value for money will be obtained, but we would like it to be shown in advance in a transparent way that it's happening, as opposed to just hoping that it will happen.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Did you have any examples in the reports that some projects showed that the value for money was beyond $160 a tonne?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

We did two calculations. Again, I don't have that binder with me, so—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Were there any numbers?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

We looked at five that had commitments in the contribution agreement, and it was a little less than $200 in terms of the cost per tonne. Then, if you divided it by 17, it was over $500, if I recall correctly.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Is that $500 a tonne?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

That was across all 17, if you did the calculation that way, so we do have concerns about that, yes.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Okay.

Has the current government ever misled Canadians about their emissions reduction data or projections, yes or no?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Do you mean misled in a sort of an intentional way or misled in...?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Well, if they did, how did they mislead?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Well, we've had examples of inaccurate projections in various audits, but whether there was a mental state of mind, if the government can have one, in terms of trying to mislead, I don't know. I only look at whether the projections are reliable and, if so, whether they're being met. I haven't really looked at the intention behind the statements associated with the predictions.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Or inaccuracies.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Yes, there have definitely been inaccuracies.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Okay.

Do you have any reason to believe that the current government is double counting their emissions reductions and therefore misleading Canadians?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

This has come up in several of our recent reports. The siloed approach and the lack of centralization on the climate file can lead to double counting. It could be innocuous double counting, you know, where one department doesn't know that it's also being covered by another, so there have been examples of double counting.

I guess the earliest example we had was from the emissions reduction fund, where a subsidy to the oil and gas industry was not designed in a way that would necessarily be additional to what was going to be achieved through regulation anyway, so there was a potential for double counting from the subsidy program and the regulation.

There have been other examples as well.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Commissioner, I'm going to quote the parliamentary secretary to the environment minister. Earlier this year, he stated in the House of Commons, “We are ahead of our initial 2030 target and firmly on track to meet the targets set out in our 2030 emissions reduction plan.”

Is this statement true or accurate, yes or no?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

As I indicated earlier, the words “on track” can be used in different ways in different contexts. That's why I define the way I'm using it. I would say that the government is not on track, according to the three criteria I mentioned a few minutes ago.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Earlier, you had a graph up. The parliamentary secretary referred to a motion, like once you get the wave started, it'll go, kind of thing. You had the same graph up here. At the very end of it, it's actually headed on the way back up again. With all the government's increases in the carbon tax, this $8-billion net zero accelerator fund and all this stuff, it's going up. Would you not agree with that?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Yes. That's one of the reasons why I said that, in terms of the third element of “on trackness”, if there's such a term, there needs to be an effective implementation of actions resulting in significant year over year reductions.

We're not seeing that post-COVID. We are seeing it bounce back up a little bit. The good thing is that it has not bounced back up all the way. That's good news if you want to look at it as a glass half full, but we do need a very steep drop to get down to our future targets. If you extrapolate the graph so far, you're still going to need a much steeper drop than what we've been seeing recently.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Ali, go ahead.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner, for being at the committee.

Commissioner, can you speak to the importance of the pollution cap when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas sector? Do you believe that government is achieving the right balance when it comes to incentivizing emissions reductions and requiring them through regulations?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

As I indicated earlier, the oil and gas sector is the largest emitter in Canada, and measures are needed to bend that curve. We know that it's possible to increase production and decrease emissions over time in another sector, the electricity sector, and we've seen good results there. I agree that measures are needed to bring the curve down on oil and gas. The choice of measures is up to the government in terms of which measures it will use to do that, but it is necessary to bring down that sector's emissions, its total emissions, if we're going to have any hope of meeting the 2030 target.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

In your opening statement, you indicated that at time of our 2021 report you noted that implementing the measures then in place was “expected to yield reductions of 36% by 2030.” What has changed since then for both the negative and positive?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

In 2021, we indicated that, “Taken together, full implementation of the actions and measures...are expected to yield reductions of 36% below 2005 levels by 2030.” We also noted that the emphasis this time “should be on meeting the targets and not just making plans. Sound plans are essential, but it is the outcome that really matters”, which has been a theme of many of my comments today and in previous....

What's changed? Unfortunately, the 36% hasn't changed, although it actually has. There have been different estimations between now and then. It's gone down to 34.6% and back up to 36%, but the gap remains, and that's unfortunate. Some new measures have been brought into place or at least are planned to be brought into place, such as the oil and gas emissions cap, the electricity regulations and the finalization of the clean fuel regulations. However, none of the ones that are in place are enough to fully fill that 4% gap. My understanding of the oil emissions cap, at least in the narrative that was associated with the draft regulation that was published, is that it, on its own, isn't enough to fill the 4% gap, but that it would contribute to filling that gap.