Environment Committee on Feb. 1st, 2022

[Matt Parry, Director General, Policy Development and Analysis Directorate, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

The government indicated that it was intending to work with the agriculture sector to look at opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with fertilizer use. That work is ongoing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Ms. Thompson now for six minutes.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I want to say how pleased I am to be part of this conversation today. I am one of the six members from Newfoundland and Labrador. I represent St. John's East. This is very important within my riding, and certainly in the conversations I've had with stakeholders in the community. The link to a movement to lower emissions through actions to get to net zero in a timely fashion is incredibly important.

The balance between the environment and the economy and the need to move very much in a just transition are things I hear all the time. I respect that many of these things have been discussed, so I don't want to bring you down that path again but rather shift a little and still stay with climate change.

I'm not sure, Mr. Commissioner, if you're the one to answer this, or you, Ms. Geller. I'm really curious to learn from you something that's very important to me, which is this whole concept of partnerships. As we move to address the climate change crisis, we know that it requires leadership and coordination among all government actors. I believe that was the word you used, and I absolutely agree with this. It's not only federal organizations, but also provincial, territorial and municipal governments. Also, you state that there's a risk that climate action could be hampered through an uncoordinated policy approach.

With that in mind, this is for whoever wants to take the question. Can you point to the percentage of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions that are attributable to federal measures as opposed to joint measures, or those that are initiated purely at other levels of government? Can you give us that lens of the different players involved in getting us to net zero?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I'll jump in and start, and then perhaps Ms. Geller would like to add in.

We're looking beyond just governments, of course. A whole-of-society approach is necessary.

In terms of apportioning the amount of work that needs to be done at different levels, the answer is that everybody needs to do a part. One of the recent advancements was that the pan-Canadian framework was a national plan as opposed to just a federal plan. That idea of a national plan and working together is an excellent starting point, so that people have a common goal as opposed to their own agendas.

Even federal initiatives can be provincial initiatives at the same time, such as with the carbon price or the methane regulation. There are equivalency provisions allowing the province to step in with a made-in-province solution that displaces the federal solution as long as it reaches the requirements of the federal one.

Yes, they need to work together. I can't tell you that 60% of the target will be achieved by this level and 40%.... We need a national approach whereby the federal government—which signed the climate change convention and the Paris Agreement—takes the responsibility for coordinating all of those efforts but doesn't act at the exclusion of all those other actors you mentioned, as well as indigenous and local communities and so on.

Does Ms. Geller wish to add something to that?

[Hilary Geller]

Thank you. I think my colleague Doug Nevison is going to step in on this point.

[Douglas Nevison, Assistant Deputy Minister, Climate Change Branch, Department of the Environment]

Mr. Chair, it's an excellent question. I agree completely with the commissioner that meeting Canada's climate targets and commitments will require positive partnerships across the federation. That extends to not just federal, provincial and territorial governments but also municipal governments, national indigenous organizations and representatives, industry associations, stakeholders—you name it. As the commissioner rightly noted in his retrospective, it will require effort and coordination across the board to achieve the ambitious targets.

With respect to your question in terms of who is doing what, and at what level, between the federal, provincial and territorial levels, a number of reporting mechanisms are in place. The commissioner mentioned the pan-Canadian framework. Under that initiative, there is an annual synthesis report on the actions that have been taken at the federal level and by each of the provinces and territories in order to contribute to Canada's climate efforts. The next synthesis report will likely be coming out in the next couple of months for the 2019-20 year, I believe. We have a bit of a lag in reporting on that front.

Another area was in the nationally determined contribution that was submitted to the UNFCCC back in July, which announced Canada's commitment to 40% to 45% GHG emissions reduction below 2005 levels by 2030. There were annexes that provided, for each province and territory and also national indigenous organizations, the efforts they are making to help achieve those targets.

That's just to say that there's a lot of information out there and a lot of activity and effort across the board.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks.

Ms. Pauzé, you have six minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

First, I would like to thank all the departmental representatives who are here. My question is for Ms. Johnson, from the Department of Natural Resources.

With respect to the emissions reduction fund, did the department have a mandate to create a program that would achieve real greenhouse gas reductions, yes or no?

[Mollie Johnson]

Just to make sure I'm clear, is that to create a real-time emissions inventory? I just want to make sure I understand your question properly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Could you repeat your question, Ms. Pauzé?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes. I hope this won't be taken away from my time.

The fund is called the emissions reduction fund.

So did the department have a mandate to create a program that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

[Mollie Johnson]

We were given the mandate to create a program to add infrastructure to existing projects that would lead to an outcome to reduce or eliminate methane from those facilities. A number of the projects and programs that we put in place have the outcome of reducing emissions.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, I did read that in your brief, but the commissioner's report is damning. I don't understand why we are continuing with a program that hasn't achieved its objective at all. This is a monumental mistake, in my opinion, given our obligation as elected representatives to fight the climate crisis.

I have another question, which will be for the commissioner.

Over the past five years, Canada has committed $2.6 billion to more than 50 projects under the heading “Canada's international climate finance”.

That's all well and good, but can we make sure that the money Canada invests is actually used in other countries to fight climate change?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

We may be doing an audit on this.

This is a good question. It's a question we ask ourselves. I can't answer it, because we haven't audited that yet. Having said that, like you, we are interested in seeing whether this fund is achieving results or not. We need to do an audit to answer this question. It's a good question.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

My next question is for the Department of the Environment official, Ms. Geller.

According to the commissioner's report, the federal government is failing to co‑ordinate efforts to advance climate change commitments.

Some decisions are inconsistent. I'm thinking, of course, of the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline and the creation of the onshore and offshore emissions reduction fund program.

Based on these two examples, how does your department respond to policy decisions made by other departments when they are inconsistent with the Department of the Environment's mandate to address climate change?

[Hilary Geller]

I'll start, and then my colleague Doug Nevison, who's responsible for the climate change branch, may want to come in.

Environment Canada is responsible for supporting actions across the government, including many of our own, that add up to achieving the government's climate change commitments. That's probably the clearest way I can articulate that. We don't tell departments what to do; we support the government overall in putting in place the cumulative programs and policies that they need to achieve the objectives.

Doug may want to come in on that point.

[Douglas Nevison]

If I may, I would like to add that under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, one of the key obligations is to coordinate across the federal government in developing, for example, the emissions reduction plan that will be established by the end of March.

Coming back to the question, it is indeed very important, now that climate is being mainstreamed in many government policy decisions, to ensure that this coordination across the government is clear. As I said, the act will help us on that front in terms of that coordination policy.

We have various other levels, such as the officials level and the deputy minister's climate policy implementation committee, as well as other levels.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Nevison.

I know a little about the structure, and I would like to ask one last question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Pauzé, very briefly, please.

I'll give you some extra time, but I'll ask you to be brief.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There is an upcoming study on climate risks. Climate risks concern the state of co‑operation between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Finance.

I have a question for you. Can you provide us with a document on the status of the collaboration between the Sustainable Finance Action Council team and the Department of the Environment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Your request is noted, Ms. Pauzé.

I'll now give the floor to Ms. Collins.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I'll go to Mr. DeMarco.

You described what you called the government's policy incoherence, for example, purchasing the Trans Mountain pipeline project extension on the one hand while pledging to reduce emissions on the other hand.

Do you see this emissions reduction fund as part of that policy incoherence? What impact do you think this policy incoherence has on our ability to reduce emissions and meet our climate targets?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

The emissions reduction fund has the potential to be an example of policy incoherence because of the refusal of the department to look at the big picture of net emissions.

You've heard the number “4.7 megatonnes” in emissions reductions. You heard yesterday at the natural resources committee about 97% of emissions being additional, but until you factor in the effect of production or continued production or expanded production, you don't have a net number, and if the net number is close to zero or negative because of increases in production, then you get into the policy coherence area.

If in practice the net emissions are lowered, then it is a worthwhile project as long as it's being done on an efficient cost per tonne basis. So yes, it does provide an example of the potential for policy incoherence, in this case, mostly because they will not look at the net emissions and continue to look at equipment-level emissions without looking at the whole facility and all of the facilities together that are subject to the funding.

Until we get to that approach of net emissions, we may never see the curve come down in Canada, because if we don't look at the big picture, then you can have individual programs that appear to be adding value, yet the overall emissions curve goes up. We need to look at it in a holistic manner.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thanks, Mr. DeMarco.

Ms. Johnson, will the department be conducting an additional analysis to determine whether the program constitutes an inefficient fossil fuel subsidy?

Reading report four, it seems pretty clear that the emissions reduction fund was essentially, at least in policy terms, set up to be an inefficient fossil fuel subsidy that allows companies to expand production rather than fulfill the fund's emissions reduction mandate.