Environment Committee on Nov. 9th, 2023

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

As we indicate in our report 8, oil and gas and transportation together account for 50% of the anthropogenic emissions in Canada. That's 28% for oil and gas and 22% for transportation. Within that 22%, 51% is from light-duty vehicles.

That's a big chunk of emissions that can be addressed in one measure or suite of measures for zero-emission vehicles. It is a very important suite of measures to pursue in terms of bringing down emissions in the transportation sector, which is the second biggest.

You can see the effect of incentives in exhibit 8.4 of report 8. You can see that Québec has a fleet size of over 100,000 zero-emission vehicles already. Forty-five percent of the whole fleet in Canada is in Québec, even though Québec's population is only 22%, so you can see that.

Then, similarly, with B.C., you see a very high number of zero-emission vehicles compared to its actual population.

You do see leadership in those provinces paying off with the actual switchover from traditional vehicles to zero-emission vehicles.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you.

Earlier this year an opinion was shared by the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of the Impact Assessment Act.

Commissioner DeMarco, do you believe that this ruling will hamper the government's approach to impact assessments? Do you think it has implications for building the infrastructure necessary for us to get to our emissions reduction goals?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

In terms of the impact of the ruling on reaching the emissions reduction goals, I guess I'll pretend I'm in my previous role as an environmental adjudicator at the federal and provincial level, rather than in the audit office.

There's no question that carbon pricing, which is one of the signature pieces, is constitutional under national concern doctrine. There was a recent decision from the Supreme Court about that.

There's no question that pollution regulation is valid under the criminal law power in terms of regulations relating to contaminants under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. That's from the Hydro-Québec case from, I think, 1997. Somebody can check that later to make sure that's right.

The signature pieces—carbon pricing and regulation under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act—are already upheld by the Supreme Court. The recent decision on the Impact Assessment Act would have no impact on those two pieces, which are the big-ticket items.

Will that ruling have an effect on impact assessment? Yes. That was what the decision was about.

The federal role in impact assessment will have to abide by the delineation of jurisdiction set out in the recent Supreme Court ruling that was issued.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you. You mentioned in your report that you found that the department was planning to update its methodology for calculating historical emissions data for the coming inventory report in 2024. I was hoping you could speak a bit more to this and to the types of changes that you see as necessary.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Please answer very briefly, or if you want you can table something.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

We have a recommendation about speeding up the availability of emissions information. If it's a priority, like economic issues are a priority, we can get faster information. We give examples of countries in Europe where they can turn around data on this.

There's always going to be some uncertainty. Canada is still going back and correcting data from previous years, because it's not like counting widgets. Emissions are a little harder to get a handle on. We do recommend, though, that they work on this in a more timely manner and especially improve their data on methane, land use change and forestry.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Thank you for that.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Yes, sir.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Chair, since Mr. Weiler used my example for his argument, I would like to clarify some of what I said earlier. I actually own a fully electric car and I am very happy about that. I do not know if the member heard me say that, but it is a used car that I bought. The reason I wanted to say this earlier was to show that I had not received any form of subsidy or tax benefit. Since it was mentioned in his argument, I wanted to give you an update.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Thank you, Mr. Deltell.

I have Mr. Garon for two and a half minutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll go to Mr. Ngan.

The commissioner politely tells us that the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan is based on science fiction. This science fiction is carbon capture technologies. Dozens of scientists who appeared before the committee told us that these technologies would not be ready for 2030 and would never allow us to eliminate more than 27 megatonnes of CO₂ equivalent annually by 2030.

What is worrisome about all this is that your plan is based on these technologies and, if the scientists are right, you are pretty sure to fail by 2030.

So who is telling the truth: the scientists who appeared before the committee or the science that took place behind the closed doors of your department?

[Vincent Ngan]

First of all, I think Mr. Hermanutz has indicated the fact that the emissions reduction plan has a robust mix of policy instruments. There are different technologies that will be spurred, accelerated and invested in in order to help us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There are different sectors that the emissions reduction plan targets in order to help move the yardstick. In the building sector, we are trying to help increase affordability but at the same time make households accelerate the adoption of more energy-efficient equipment—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I'm going to interrupt you, because time is scarce.

You have most likely read the reports of the scientists who appeared before the committee and who told us that these technologies would not fulfill their promises for 2030.

Are these people right or wrong? It doesn't take very long to answer that.

[Vincent Ngan]

First of all, as we talked about the modelling, it takes into account uncertainty and interacting factors. Also, investment in one technology does not represent the whole of the climate plan.

That being said, I don't know if Mr. Hermanutz would like to add something.

[Derek Hermanutz]

I can speak to that from the modelling perspective. We look at the academic literature that's out there around energy and environment economy modelling. We consult with provinces and territories and other federal departments in coming up with the assumptions that we use in the modelling.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Thank you.

We go on to Mr. Bachrach for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. DeMarco, you mentioned something when we were talking about the contribution of reductions in the oil and gas sector to the overall emissions reductions plan, and I think it had to do with the inability of the department to show its homework when it comes to that number, the 30% contribution.

Could you talk very briefly about what information was missing? It seems like there's a bottom-up approach you can take to these kinds of sectoral targets, and there's a top-down approach that's more aspirational. It basically says to make the rest of the math work, the oil and gas sector has to contribute at least 30%, so let's put that 30% number in there and hope and pray that we can come up with some things to backfill it so that we actually reach it.

Which of those approaches does it seem that the department took?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I'm going to rely on the principal, Kim Leach, to address that. It's a technical area involving bottom up and backcasting and so on.

[Kimberley Leach, Principal, Office of the Auditor General]

In the emissions reduction plan, the government talks about how it took a hybrid approach in modelling. It used backcasting, which is where the 31% number is from.

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

I'm not sure that I understand backcasting. Did they look at the reductions the industry has managed to achieve in the past and say that 30% is easily achievable? Is that what they said?

[Kimberley Leach]

Our mandate is to look at the measures in the plan. We looked at the modelling that was done for the measures. The backcasting is done to set a point in the future, in 2030, and then to look at pathways that might be possible to achieve that. Both are important aspects, but the 31%, the number that we talked about in our work here, is the number that the oil and gas sector is to contribute, the emissions reductions that that sector will contribute by 2030. That's a very important number, and we could not determine where that number came from. We determined no analysis.

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

That's what I wanted to get at. That's the homework that's missing.

Mr. Hermanutz, I'm wondering if that homework exists and whether you could table it with the committee so we can better understand that 31% contribution of the oil and gas industry to the overall emissions reduction?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Can you table that information?

[Vincent Ngan]

Doing the audit process is a way to provide all the information that the commissioner and his office requested. That being said, a lot of the information pertains to cabinet deliberation; therefore, we have followed the Canada Evidence Act—