Environment Committee on Oct. 17th, 2023

[Derek Hermanutz]

Yes, the RIAS contains a cost-benefit analysis, which showed that there's a net benefit to the regulation. The benefits to society exceed the costs.

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

Okay.

Commissioner, the government tells Canadians that the environment plan is working. They tell Canadians to trust them. They tell Canadians not to worry, yet your report proves something very different.

You mentioned that the government's emissions reduction estimates “were either overly optimistic or had no rationale.” On the emissions reduction plan, you state that the government “was not transparent in its reporting”. On the government's environmental regulations, you stated that the department “could not estimate whether any regulation had its intended effect.”

How can Canadians believe that this government's plan for the environment is working?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

For the series of audits—and I'm going to go back—from 2021 to now, during my tenure as commissioner, the conclusion is on a net basis on the climate file. Canada's plans have not been working over the past 30 years.

We will soon be tabling our initial analysis of the new emissions reduction plan this November, which is over a year earlier than required under the legislation. We're trying to lead by example by meeting a deadline ahead of time with that report. We will have more to say about that. We're happy to come back in November once we table our first report under the net-zero act.

To date, I can tell you—and the graph that is on the cover of our 2021 report shows—that Canada's plans to date have not worked in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions are up from 1990 to now.

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

I will go back to Mr. Hermanutz. Did the government conduct a specific analysis on how the clean fuel regulations would impact rural Canadians, yes or no?

[Derek Hermanutz]

The analysis includes regional breakdowns by different provinces in Canada, but does not have a breakdown of the impacts on urban versus rural.

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

Then for the regional, could you table those results?

[Derek Hermanutz]

Yes, we can provide you with a copy of the RIAS and the cost-benefit analysis contained within it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses and experts who joined us today. It's a big group, and so far it's been cruising along pretty well. Actually, I'm pretty impressed with how many folks we're managing to hear from today, so thank you very much for your contributions.

My first question will be for Mr. DeMarco. The 2021 ERP clearly shows that, if other sectors exceed their 2030 targets in the emissions reduction plan, we still might miss our targets if emissions from the oil and gas sector continue to increase. I have a couple of questions with respect to the balance between emissions from electricity production, which you said—and correct me if I'm wrong—are coming closer to meeting their targets, and other sectors such as transportation.

The question I would like to pose is whether or not you think it's likely that emissions from the oil and gas sector, as well as electricity production and transportation, will possibly decline in the absence of any regulation or emissions cap for the oil and gas sector. I suppose the question with respect to electricity applies only to provinces that use fossil fuels to produce electricity, but that's the first half of my question to you.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Okay. That's a big half. Let's try to cover off some of that.

The question about whether oil and gas-related emissions.... The two biggest sources of emissions in Canada are oil and gas and transportation, as I think you are aware. Whether oil and gas emissions will decline...and they do need to decline for Canada to meet its 2030 target and, obviously, meet the 2050 net-zero target.

Can they decline without the imposition of a cap? Is that what you're asking? Conceivably they could because there are so many different tools that you can use to reduce emissions. Whether it's a regulation, a cap, an incentive or a carbon price, there are a whole bunch of different tools. Our office isn't here to say which tools you should use for every one, but I know that the federal government is thinking of imposing an oil and gas cap. It could achieve reductions through a range of different tools, though.

I should add, though, that this historical and present belief that oil and gas production can continue to rise in Canada, especially from the more carbon-intensive sources, but we could still have a net reduction in emissions because of efficiencies hasn't been the case. We've had increases in efficiencies over the last 30 years, but the total volume of production has outpaced the efficiencies so that many of those efficiencies are drowned out by the overall increase in production.

Canada has to get a handle on that and either make vast improvements in efficiency or figure out something like a cap on emissions, if it's going to actually add up to the 40% target in 2030 and net zero in 2050.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I'm going to skip the second half of my question just to focus on some of the things you mentioned there.

You referenced some of Canada's more carbon-intensive oil and gas products. We asked the CEO of Suncor to come to the committee. He rejected our invitation. I would have loved to ask....

We continually hear that Canadian oil and gas is the cleanest and lowest carbon-intensive in the world, but then sometimes when you talk to others you hear another story. Can you tell us what some of those more oil-intensive oil and gas products are in Canada, what the balance is and how that's different from other countries' products?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

To use an obvious example, the oil sands, it takes a lot of energy just to extract the oil, usually by using natural gas and other fossil fuels, which have their own emissions. That's not even counting the fact that much of that fossil fuel is then exported and combusted somewhere else, which also adds to climate change. You get, essentially, a double whammy from the emissions related to the extraction and production, and then you have the emissions related to the combustion in a vehicle, a boiler or a power plant overseas.

We can't continue to have this net flux of fossil carbon in the form of coal, oil and natural gas go from underground or under the seas into the atmosphere while thinking that we can somehow limit warming to 1.5°C. If we keep having that transfer of fossil carbon from underground into the atmosphere, the planet heats up. There's no getting around that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

I want to come back to the impact trees and forests have on emissions and climate change. The impact has been poorly assessed and accounted for, and therefore we won't be meeting the targets. That's clearly the case, and I believe you said it a couple of times. So how could the government claim for years that its two billion trees program would help meet the 2030 emissions reduction target?

So far, 110 million trees have been planted, and it's estimated that 317 million will have been planted by 2031 in this program alone, not combined with others. Then again, this past summer's wildfires destroyed plantations that were supposed to be included in the two billion tree target. We know that trees only capture carbon several years after they've been planted. However, the government plans to plant trees mainly in 2029 and 2030. So how can they claim that we're going to reach the two billion tree target?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

It's still possible to reach the goal of planting two billion trees, but that won't help reach the 2030 target. There are issues, and one of the things I talked about was counting the same trees twice in different programs.

If you look at exhibit 1.4 in our report one, you'll see that the two billion trees will capture carbon, but it's going to take decades to do it. So it's worth doing, yes, but it won't help meet the 2030 target. In 2040 and 2050, when those trees have matured, they will capture more carbon, which will likely help a little to reach the 2050 target, and a lot more after that.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Ms. Frison, earlier you talked about tree species. You talked a lot about coniferous trees, like spruce.

What comes to mind for me is monoculture. Again, I'll refer back to this past summer's wildfires, which proved that monoculture was definitely not a good thing. Has anything been done to address that?

Where the two billion trees are concerned, I can only conclude that they were nothing more than a big empty election promise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Frison, there are 10 seconds left, so please be brief.

[Monique Frison]

We did look at monoculture. Ninety per cent of our projects so far have been with multiple species of trees.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Picking up on the trees, I do think it's a bit of a distraction given the really deep flaws with the program.

Ms. Frison, I'm curious whether the commitment is to plant two billion trees or to have two billion trees alive at the end of the commitment period in 2030-31. I talked to a tree-planting company that was planting trees this summer during a class-5 drought in northern British Columbia. His estimate was that 75% of them would die.

That's the question. Are we talking about two billion live trees at the end of the period, or are we just putting two billion trees in the ground and crossing our fingers?

[Monique Frison]

We are doing both. We want to plant two billions trees. It's a whole-of-government commitment. We want to increase forest cover by about the size of P.E.I. in Canada. That would be the number of hectares that we would be planting.

We have a lot of measures in place to ensure long-term monitoring of those trees, as well as measures to ensure that when they go in, the people who are doing it have the expertise and the capacity to do it well. That's very determinate of whether a tree will survive, making sure that it's planted well.

I hope that addresses your question.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It certainly clarifies the intention.

I think what's depressing is to hear the real shortcomings of this program. Mr. DeMarco, who is a watchdog for the work your agency is doing, said that it's become a tree-counting program, not a tree-planting program. That's something that should concern everyone on this committee, and indeed all Canadians.

I'm going to try to squeeze in one more question because I know time is limited.

Ms. Shannon, your agency is in part responsible for the methane commitments. One of the mandate letter commitments is that there's going to be a centre of excellence for the measure of methane emissions. We haven't heard much about that commitment. Is the centre of excellence coming, and if so, when?

[Tara Shannon]

I'll actually turn that question over to my colleague Mark Cauchi.

[Mark Cauchi]

The government has announced its intention to proceed with the centre of excellence. Work is ongoing at Natural Resources Canada and ISED. We're jointly tasked with developing the centre.

If you want more details you'd need to ask Minister Wilkinson's staff.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Do you have an estimated timeline?