Environment Committee on Feb. 1st, 2022

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

That's a big question.

I would say to please look at the lessons learned, because we couldn't narrow it down to one silver bullet that, if fixed, would address the climate crisis in Canada. We have those eight lessons learned. We have included in there questions you may pose to departments, not just in response to our reports but in the context of the other studies you're considering, as I heard earlier today in your deliberations. Those are questions you can pose to the department in terms of tackling this issue.

I would add that Canada has been the worst performer in the G7 since Paris. Canada has also been the worst performer since this whole file started in the early 1990s and the Rio Convention on climate change in 1992. Since that time, and, I would add, for the last three decades for which we have official data—from 1990 to 2019, because there's a bit of a time lag in retrieving the data—Canada is also the worst amongst the G7 from 1990 to now, not just from Paris to now. That's one of the reasons we look at the 30 years rather than just the recent history.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

You mentioned the lessons learned. One of the lessons you highlighted in your report was on the need to reduce dependence on high-emission industries. Oil and gas make up the largest. They're a huge and growing proportion of our emissions. I want to dig into that a bit more.

What kinds of risks does Canada face, both environmental and economic, if we don't start seriously planning for this shift to a low-carbon economy and really ensuring that those high-emission industries are reducing their emissions?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Please give us an answer in 20 seconds, Commissioner.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

The world is on its way to a net-zero future. Even the International Energy Agency notes that. Canada should get ahead of the curve in a just transition to make sure no one is left behind in that transition. It can't just stick its head in the sand and hope that it will catch up eventually. The economy and the environment are too important to leave for a later date.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to the five-minute round.

Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and welcome to our witness, Commissioner.

Let me begin by stating that as a proud Albertan, I acknowledge the hard work and commitment of Canada's natural resource workers, and I give thanks that we as Canadians are blessed with these treasures.

It's what makes us a nation that has been the foundation of our outstanding contribution, not only to our citizens but to the entire world. Whether it's agriculture, forestry, mining, or oil and gas, Canadians have always sought the right balance between the environment and growth. Therefore, protecting our environment by proper stewardship of our water, our soil, and our air is something that all Canadians should celebrate. I believe this report speaks to the importance of this.

I live north of the 49th parallel, quite a ways north. It has been said that changes in latitude mean changes in attitude. I understand the issues of high-density urban settings and the love of isolated island paradises, but I also understand the uniqueness of our country. The special accommodations that allow for hydro projects, unique Canadian technology that allows for nuclear power generation, and the world-class oil and gas industry that generates the mobile energy that allows us to live in this vast country that spans six time zones and reaches from points as far south as California to the north pole, that's the Canada I love.

Having served as a member of the public accounts committee, I also appreciate the work of your office. I would like to deal with “Report 4: Emissions Reduction Fund—Natural Resources Canada”. Specifically, the onshore program makes specific assumptions about the potential benefit of government declarations.

I would like to start with exhibit 4.1, which shows the reality that emissions have risen from 2016 to 2020. I believe the commissioner already mentioned the difference between 1990 and the present. However, if you take a look at the linear target for 2030, as it goes down, that was from the 2005-06 point and the 2010 point. Coincidentally, the low point of 2010 is when the Harper Conservatives were there.

The model for exhibit 4.4 shows what would be the case, prior to 2020 and onward, if neither the federal methane reduction program nor the onshore program is implemented. It then shows lower trajectories, illustrating expected reductions from each of these two programs. This is in the report, but I also noticed that this comes from the World Resources Institute of 2014. The other chart I talked about was actually a 2021 chart.

We're making some assumptions that there would be expected reductions by complying with these federal methane regulations, or the onshore program to which you say there are difficulties in trying to track down exactly what has taken place. If we go to section 4.32, it speaks of the overestimate of emission reductions estimated from the onshore program, and it further states in 4.33 that the estimates did not consider the overlap of programs and, as your analysis has stated, that they are not accurate.

My question is this. If these programs are ill-advised and will not meet targets, would a program that incentivizes innovation specific to Canada's unique greenhouse gas realities be a more logical goal, thereby recognizing advances in both renewable and non-renewable energy resources? Does your department have the ability to track such metrics?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

There's a lot there, so I'll just highlight a few issues.

First of all, regarding the question of the environment and the economy, or the environment and growth, there's a growing recognition that we need to work on the two in parallel tracks. It's not necessarily a trade-off for one or the other. It's a trade-off in the short-term, but in the long term a healthy environment and a healthy economy should coincide with one another. We should work together to this cleaner net-zero future in a way that supports both the economy and the environment.

With respect to your question regarding options such as innovation, obviously innovation and new technologies will be an important part of that transition to a greener future, a net-zero future, and it would be one of many different strategies. As I said before, there's no one silver bullet; it's a component of the strategy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Longfield, you have five minutes, please.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Commissioner, it's wonderful to have you here. We just passed our accountability legislation in June, and at virtually our first meeting you're here to talk about accountability, which is so critical to us getting to the results that Canadians are expecting from us.

I want to build on some of Madame Pauzé's questions, which I thought were excellent, on the funding and the budget. I know that we increased the budget for the Office of the Auditor General and that she was going to be hiring some support people to look at the environment. Is that something you're evaluating, to see whether you need additional funding carved off, or are you working with her; are you working with the government?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

We're one office—the Office of the Auditor General—and I'm appointed by the Auditor General. The teams represented on this call with our principals are teams that work on reports for Ms. Hogan and reports for me. It's an integrated model.

The funding that you're talking about was announced in the fall economic statement of 2020. That has been received. The hiring has taken place for that. I believe Ms. Pauzé was asking whether we got additional funding tied to the net-zero act in June of this year. There was no additional funding for that. The last increase amounts were from the fall 2020 economic statement.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Great. Thank you. That was really well clarified. So that's an evaluation, as we pass legislation, to make sure that the enabling part of the legislation is covered off through funding.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Yes. We're assessing our options as to delivering on that mandate. We can speak about that at our next appearance.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Great. I really think that part of it is critical.

The action items that come from the departments are also critical. I served on public accounts as well. That is a non-partisan committee that really looks at results. I hope that this committee will reflect that type of attitude when it comes to climate change, so that we're working on the problem—not trying to get in each other's way but enabling each other to get there for results.

On the reporting, though, of the action items, Canada leads in some ways in our public accounts there. Is this something that you're seeing the departments embracing? When we were getting reports against the United Nations' sustainability goals, as an example, not all departments were embracing that. Is that a hurdle that we need to get over, or is that something that you see evolving quickly?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

One of the patterns we've noted is that it's not difficult for departments or governments to embrace environment and sustainable development objectives and goals, including the 17 specific UN SDGs. It's really the operationalization of those commitments and the focus on results rather than just on process; that's where we're seeing the problems that help account for the fact that we have a curve on emissions that's gone up 20% in three decades instead of down.

There was no shortage of commitments to bring the emissions down. There was a shortage of action. That's another reason for action plans and another reason to focus on results.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

As you're structuring your audits and your planning, emissions intensity seems to be a number that would be the best number for us to track. As Mr. Dreeshen mentioned, in 2010 we were coming out of a global recession. Our production was down. The market was down globally. Our emissions dropped because of production being down. Now production is increasing and our emissions are increasing.

Rather than looking at that curve, then, the curve to zero is the curve we should be looking at. The industry is taking steps to get the emissions intensity down. Is that a number you're focusing on?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Improvements in emissions intensity have been happening for quite some time. There has been a partial decoupling of growth and emissions in Canada in terms of population and production. That's a good trend. However, the atmosphere responds to the total net emissions—sources and sinks—so if you increase production and get more efficient at it, the atmosphere responds to the total emissions, not the intensity.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Your emissions have to outpace the increase in production in order to get progress. That's clear. That's also a challenge when we're a resource-intense economy. Canada is one of the leading reserves for oil and gas. We have this dichotomy of how we do this efficiently.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to Madame Pauzé now for two and a half minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thought that I only had two and a half minutes, but I'm very happy to find that I have five and a half.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Pauzé, you do only have two and a half minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

My happiness is fleeting, then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am sorry, Ms. Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Commissioner, I am going to leave the reports that have been submitted and ask you a question about reports yet to be published.

We read on your website that your teams are working on publishing a report, scheduled for the fall of 2022, on the management of radioactive waste. The committee will be starting a study on the same topic next week. Now, according to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's calendar, they are considering issuing permits to authorize a project at Chalk River and to abandon a reactor in the very near future.

I feel that you are meticulous in your work. Is it not your opinion that, out of an abundance of caution, the Commission should postpone issuing its permits until the committee's work is done and your report is published?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

That is the government's choice. We are conducting an audit on the matter and are planning to publish a report in the fall. However, all activity does not cease because we are conducting an audit. I cannot speak for the government, which will have to decide on its own if the project must be pushed back.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Nuclear waste presents very significant problems. Consequently, I feel that the government must go along with the important work that your organization and our committee are doing. I feel that the government has to have all the right information before it sets a precedent.

Let me go back to your previous reports. Given your experience in Ontario and given that the budgets have been renewed, are you hopeful that, in the next six years of your mandate, the government will get its act together, will respond to your recommendations, and will finally set off on the course that we all want?