Environment Committee on Feb. 1st, 2022

[Mollie Johnson]

Mr. Chair, I'll maybe just say one thing and then ask Debbie to jump in afterwards.

When infrastructure is added with the intention of eliminating it—so when we put the infrastructure on we can say that it does eliminate the intentional venting and flaring of methane emissions into the environment—it's adding it to a facility. It's gone. It's having a positive impact on those emissions, and when we get to the G20 definition of an inefficient fossil fuel subsidy, it is not.... This is something that is helping move on the trajectory to a net-zero pathway, so it is—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Just to pause you there for a moment, given that companies were given public dollars when they admitted in their applications that they were increasing emissions, how does this not constitute an inefficient fossil fuel subsidy?

[Mollie Johnson]

I'll pass over to Debbie, who is on the program, but this is the production that was already planned.

Debbie, can you jump in on that?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

For sure, but just before you continue, could you connect that to Mr. DeMarco's comments on the kind of change in frame that he is recommending?

[Mollie Johnson]

We have made changes on January 19 with the implementation of the third intake period, so maybe, Debbie, you could run through that too.

[Debbie Scharf, Director General, Clean Fuels Branch, Department of Natural Resources]

Just to reiterate, this is a program that is focused on reducing sources of methane from existing oil and gas production. It's not a program that is tackling the emissions from an entire sector. It's one part of a plan, one part of several instruments that are addressing GHG emissions.

We are focusing on reducing the sources of methane, the things that make methane go up in the air. The particular ones we're focusing on are what Ms. Johnson has referred to as the intentional venting and flaring of emissions, because those sources are responsible for 75% of the methane emissions in the oil and gas sector.

When a project was being implemented with funds under the emissions reduction fund, after that project was implemented, we counted how the emissions would go down. If there were already scheduled increases in production, we counted how the emissions would go up associated with methane, because that was the point of this program.

I'd also like to add that every company is required, as part of receiving federal dollars, to implement continuous monitoring and verification for five years following the implementation of those projects, and to report that data to the Government of Canada.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have very limited time. Doesn't it seem like public dollars would be better spent investing in renewables? When we find out that these subsidies are not achieving even the kind of overall credible reductions in the oil and gas sector, can you explain how Natural Resources Canada will ensure that money in this and other funding programs is used in ways that actually reduce our net emissions?

[Debbie Scharf]

The first thing I'll say is that the IPCC makes it very clear that we will not get to 1.5 degrees in the long term without tackling methane. The International Energy Agency agrees with that. Tackling methane in the short term is critical. We are talking about a global warming potential significantly higher than CO2 and a short-lived climate pollutant. This is critical to reducing emissions nationally.

As I said before, and as Ms. Johnson indicated, when there is a project [Technical difficulty—Editor] that eliminates the sources of methane, whether production goes up, down or stays the same, it's eliminated.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'll ask for a quick yes or no.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We need a very quick yes or no, because we're over time.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Given the environment commissioner's report, are you concerned? You seem to be defending a program. Are you concerned, given the commissioner's report?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We are way over time here, Ms. Collins. I'm sorry. It's an interesting question and an interesting line of attack, and those are interesting answers.

This brings us to the end of our meeting.

Yes, Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Rather than having a full committee meeting—respecting members' time on Thursday—maybe we could use the time for the subcommittee and we can discuss the subcommittee report and update it. That would be a much more efficient use of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Could you repeat that?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Rather than having a discussion about the subcommittee report on Thursday, why don't we just have a subcommittee meeting where we can discuss and maybe issue a new report? Maybe it's the same; maybe it's slightly different or maybe we add a few more items that perhaps you and the clerk are dealing with. Rather than have a full committee meeting on Thursday to discuss the subcommittee report, it might be helpful for us to have a meeting of the minds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'll take note of that, but we still have the problem that the full committee has to adopt the subcommittee report. It wasn't able to do so today, on a very simple matter.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Well, Mr. Chair, I don't want to be critical of anyone but, again, I'm not the person who approves the subcommittee report. I just noticed that there was a detail in that report that I don't believe was agreed to by everyone. Now, I may be wrong, and that's why I'd like us to have a subcommittee meeting where we can maybe do a new report and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'll take it under advisement, but we are past one o'clock now.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Chair, again, I'm just trying to save a big, long process. Maybe if we have a good meeting of the minds and we actually agree that it's verbatim, we won't have this issue again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Perhaps. My objective is the same as yours: to get on with the nuclear study, and so on, if we agree to a nuclear study.

Do I have a motion to adjourn?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.