Environment Committee on Nov. 9th, 2023

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

We were looking at five-year intervals. I think we started with 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040. Are we still on a five-year interval, or do you think we might see something less than five years?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

The plans are on a five-year interval, and there will be a new target for 2035 fairly soon. Hopefully, we don't forget about meeting the 2030 target because the 2035 target has come in its place. We have to meet all of them, including the objective in 2026, the target in 2030 and the next target in 2035.

With respect to our office, we're going to report more frequently than the legislation requires. We're going to lead by example by getting this report out 13 months early and putting out the next report well before 2029. Essentially, Canada's track record doesn't inspire confidence, so we are going to keep on discharging our accountability role more frequently until we see results coming in that are more positive.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

I think that between 1990 and just a few years ago, we had no act in place, and we had no accountability. We made promises, but we didn't follow up in terms of the federal government—particularly the Conservative federal government, of course, but I think any government needs accountability.

Mr. Ngan, could you comment on how this is helping the department in terms of its own accountability?

[Vincent Ngan]

The Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act received royal assent in June 2021. It sets an accountability cycle that we need to continuously set for progressive greenhouse gas emissions targets. The next one will be 2035. There's one for 2040 and one for 2045. The target needs to be established 10 years in advance, supported by a climate plan that will provide measures to draw a critical pathway to meet those targets. In addition, there will be—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

“In addition” won't be able to make it. That's over.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

If you could submit it in writing, that would be great. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Thank you, Mr. Longfield.

Now we have Madame Pauzé for two and a half minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Earlier I spoke about how the Liberal government is looking through rose-coloured glasses. Then, I talked about the fact that it was focusing on measures that do not yet exist. Now, I would like to talk about the fact that it is focusing on technologies that do not exist.

Report 6 states the following, and I quote: “The models assumed that some of the technologies required to reduce emissions would soon be available. For example, the modelling results suggested that carbon capture and storage facilities would be built and would avoid 27 [megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent] of emissions annually by 2030.” I would like everyone to remember that.

Experts told the government that carbon capture and storage technologies were inadequate and that it should not rely on them. Such technologies are expensive and ineffective. Perhaps they will be more effective in 10 or 15 years, but that is not the case right now. These experts came and spoke to us in committee. Their findings were picked up by newspapers. Dozens of scientists wrote to the minister responsible and the Prime Minister's office. The Bloc Québécois has been reminding the government of this for two years, and yet the government still decided to give billions of dollars to oil companies to develop this technology, rather than investing in renewable energy. By 2035, the government will have given oil companies $83 billion, but we are supposed to meet our climate target by 2030. Obviously, things are not going well at all.

Mr. Ngan or Ms. O'Brien, could you tell us how the government was able to count these reductions in the 2030 emissions reduction plan despite all the warnings from scientists? These technologies are still in the early stages of development and, right now, they are expensive and ineffective. Even if they did exist, such facilities could never be put into service in such a way as to meet the 2030 projections.

How could the government do that?

[Erin O'Brien, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fuels Sector, Department of Natural Resources]

With respect to technologies and questions regarding emissions reductions in the oil and gas sector, it's true that the sector is the largest emitting sector in Canada. Absolute emissions have increased, although I would also indicate that emissions intensity for the sector has been decreasing over a number of years. That is also largely due to the adoption of technologies—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

I'm sorry to the witness. We have to keep strictly to the times or we run over. If you want to table any information on that, you may.

Would that be acceptable, Madame Pauzé?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I was just going to ask if the information could be sent to the committee, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Thanks, Ms. O'Brien.

Mr. Bachrach, go ahead for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One of the pieces of the report from the environment commissioner that I keyed in on was this statement around fragmented action by agencies not directly accountable to the Minister of Environment. I think this really underscores a systemic problem that needs to be addressed if we are to get back on track.

One thing that happened in British Columbia around 2008 under the Gordon Campbell government was that when he committed the province to broad climate action, he created a climate action secretariat in the premier's office that was in charge of overseeing and directing climate actions throughout all of the provincial ministries.

I wonder, Mr. DeMarco, if you could provide some comments on whether that kind of governance or administrative change could help achieve the kind of acceleration you're talking about in your report that we need in order to get on track to meet the 2030 target.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I'd be pleased to.

We talk about that in this report, and it's also one of the lessons learned in our 2021 report in terms of the need for better coordination and leadership. It is not for us to prescribe a specific avenue to address this, but we can point out that, after 30 years of using a fragmented approach and not achieving the results we have been hoping for, it is up to the Government of Canada to look at some sort of model that centralizes accountabilities, better coordinates accountabilities and increases powers for one department that has responsibility. There are a number of different approaches, but a decentralized, fragmented approach has shown to be ineffective so far in 30 years, so we have to try something new, because we can't just expect different results from the same old approach.

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

To be clear, that fragmented approach that you just described is the current approach. That's the state of affairs when it comes to climate action in the federal government.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

It is, largely. Perhaps Treasury Board can assist in answering this question. There is now more coordination than previously, but it is very limited.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

We go now to Mr. Leslie for five minutes.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commissioner and officials.

I'd like to go back to this question of one-third of emissions reductions by 2030 being accounted for by the carbon tax.

Mr. Hermanutz, when you said that, you didn't sound terribly confident.

I'm curious, Commissioner, as to whether you have seen the department's economic modelling. You deferred to them on the question of the expected valuation in reductions from the carbon tax. Has the department shared all the modelling documentation with you?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

We've had some documentation shared with us, but we wouldn't have a recommendation seeking more transparency if we felt that we were receiving enough. This plan definitely is better than previous plans, in that it has more disclosure of assumptions, more details in it and sector-by-sector objectives, so that's better than before.

However, it's not good enough in terms of the level of transparency that our office expects and that I believe Canadians expect, given that they haven't been achieving results to date. If they were constantly meeting targets and it was just a track record of success after success, there might not be as much of a need for that information, but, given that the track record is so poor, shining a light on the information behind these projections can only help them be better scrutinized and improved and, of course, corrected before it's too late. Therefore, we are recommending greater transparency in the modelling and the assumptions.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I appreciate that you say you found a lack of reliability and transparency in economic and emissions modelling.

Therefore, I'm wondering—and this is for the department—why there is an inability or a lack of desire to share that with the commissioner. Would you be willing to table all of the economic and emissions modelling that's been undertaken for the carbon tax scheme thus far to the committee for us to review, and then perhaps share that with the commissioner for his next report?

[Derek Hermanutz]

In my response, I was just citing the uncertainty and the difficulty around disentangling the impacts of the carbon price from the other measures. That's all. We do have an estimate, but it's highly uncertain how all the different measures interact with each other.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Understanding that it's difficult to measure these intangibles, it seems concerning to me that a marquee policy for the government really has no confident guess even as to what the emissions reductions are going to be in terms of our overall objectives. Is this not concerning, that we don't have a clear idea of what we're going to accomplish based on what is a sound theoretical practice, with the way we've seen it applied, particularly in rural areas across this country, and the discontent it has led to for many Canadians who are struggling with housing, heating and grocery poverty at this point? Is it not concerning to the commissioner that we don't have that transparency and that level of accountability?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

It is a concern. That's why recommendation 84 is there, about making substantive information publicly available, not just to our office but to the public. There was a question earlier from Mr. Bachrach, I believe, about sectors accounting for the most increases in emissions since 1990, and oil and gas is one of those. This plan says that oil and gas emissions are going to go down by 31%, even though they've been rising from 1990 until now, by 80% to 90%. That's a critical piece of information in the plan, that they're expecting a significant drop and that the trend line is going to reverse course.

We would like to know exactly how they got there, and I'm sure members of the committee would like to know how they got to that 31%. If they don't address the biggest sector in terms of emissions in a way in which they can show their work in terms of getting there, then Canadians will not have confidence in the plan. That's why I think an increase in transparency will not only help to bring more rigour to the process; it will also help the department in convincing Canadians that it is adding value and that they're getting value for money. These measures do cost people money; they cost industry money, and they cost government money. Let's see. Show your work in terms of the—

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I agree. Thank you, Commissioner.

I will cede the remaining time to my colleague, Gérard Deltell.