Natural Resources Committee on June 13th, 2023

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

You said the word “realistic”, so some of the government's initiatives may not be realistic. Do you think getting rid of fossil fuel subsidies is the most effective and realistic way to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I believe we've already appeared before the committee on that issue, probably last year. Yes, we released two subsidies reports. Canada has long been saying that it's going to end its subsidy participation, but the debate around what constitutes an inefficient subsidy continues. I agree that it's been going on too long and that the government needs to take action on that front as well.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're out of time there.

Next up is Mr. Angus, who will have two and a half minutes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

I want to go back to your comments about how you have been repeatedly ringing the alarm bells and now these bells are almost deafening.

All across the eastern United States and central Canada, the smoke from Canadian forest fires burning has left.... Flights have been cancelled. People have been forced to stay indoors. People have been sent to the hospital. We're dealing with a different kind of beast with these fires—the intensity and the fact that they're burning right down to the soil. This is not rejuvenating our forests. These have extremely devastating impacts on biodiversity and animal life. Yet, we see the two billion trees program. To me, it seemed like such a perfect Instagram quote, our doing this.

When I read your report, I saw that we are not only seriously missing the target but also, in terms of reductions being planned.... It's 0.1 megatonnes of CO2. Is that, in any way, sufficient to address the emissions coming out, heating our planet, destroying our forests and threatening communities?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

You're referring to paragraph 1.22 of our report, where we comment that their initial estimates of the carbon sequestration benefits resulting from this program were not realistic and that they would only generate 0.1 megatonnes by 2030 and 4.3 by 2050. These are relatively insignificant amounts. There are greater sequestration benefits further out, beyond 2050, as the trees grow larger.

It means that we should not distract ourselves, with programs like this, from the urgent need to address fossil fuel emissions. That's the key thing Canada needs to deal with.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I love planting trees. We have tree planters up here all the time. That's great, but it is not a substitute for putting in a cap and dealing with the emissions coming out. I think it's a very important element.

The one other thing I want to ask you about is the kind of tree.

We know that deciduous trees, such as aspen, can provide dramatic breaks for fire. However, we know that industrial forestry is basically planting burners. You talked about monocropping. Has the government looked at the kinds of trees that would not only be able to sequester carbon but also be resisters to wildfires burning through coniferous forests?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

For the most part, if you're walking through Canada's forests, there's a diversity of species. It's not like a tropical rainforest, with that level of diversity, but there is a diversity. There are some areas—lodgepole pine and certain stands of aspen and so on, for example—where it is close to being a monoculture, at least at the site scale.

There have been recent studies about that. I don't profess to be an expert in the area. The University of Alberta has recently been studying the fact.... Their findings were that.... I believe it was Professor Chang at the University of Alberta who published in the journal Nature, this year, that a more diverse planting not only has the biodiversity benefits we talked about in our report but also has the benefits you're talking about, in terms of being more climate-resilient and resisting, or at least diminishing, the intensity or extent of fires.

You may wish to hear from experts in those areas of forest ecology and forest fires, in order to hear more about that. I'm intrigued by those new studies.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're out of time on this one.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

We're now going to Mr. Dreeshen, who will have five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I want to start with a couple of different things.

I'm glad you mentioned the two billion trees. It's never really been discussed that it's in addition to what is already done. Many people don't understand that it takes about two and a half years for the provinces to put in two billion trees, and they're at about 800 million per year at this particular point in time. Yes, it's a target, but I also think we should realize that these partners are already stretched. Nevertheless, they have the capability, and if we can get the seeds to them, they will be able to move forward with it. I'm glad you mentioned that, because I think that's important for folks to understand.

My other thought is that one of the aspects of the massive forest area losses right now are that we have two choices. Either we can emphasize planting there or we can let nature do its own thing. Now that we have the forest floor burnt off and all of this extra fuel gone, we can make sure it will do what it's supposed to do, which is what has happened for tens of thousands of years. Hopefully, we can sort that part out.

Another thing I would like to talk about is that you said that since 1992, we haven't done very much on this. Twenty-three of those years have been under a Liberal government, but we see that there are issues.

One thing you also talked about has to do with carbon pricing.

In a 2022 report, when you compare a bunch of countries on U.S. dollars per tonne for carbon, for all of the western hemisphere and counting China, the costs for Canada are five to 11 times that of these individual countries. If we take a look at Argentina, it's $5 per tonne, compared to our $40 at that time. Mexico is $3.7. Colombia and Chile are $5 in each case. China is between $8 and $9—I have a little trouble figuring out what that is.

We have this massive tax for us here in Canada. How do our results compare to these other countries that I mentioned when we're looking at five to 11 times more that we pay, and that's when we look at $40 U.S. per tonne as the number?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

There's a lot there.

I guess I'll start with your second point first, which is natural forest fires. Especially in the boreal forest of Canada or in the tall grass prairies and so on, fire has been an important part of the ecosytem for thousands of years. However, it's the intensity and the extent and the frequency of fires that are of concern now. Jack pines evolved with fires as being part of their life history in terms of the evolution of their cone structure and so on.

We're not saying that all forest fires are bad, but when you're getting this extent of fire over the long-term norm, then that is a big concern.

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

If I could jump in there, how much of that is related to changes in forest management that have taken place in the last 10 to 15 years? Was that ever analyzed?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

We haven't done that analysis.

There's a whole new area of attribution science in terms of trying to pinpoint the increases in severity of any type of event like forest fires, severe weather or hurricanes with climate change versus other things like forestry practices. We haven't done that, but there is an area of scientific inquiry and there are experts you could draw on for more information on that.

To your second point about carbon pricing, it's very complicated to compare across countries. Just like Canada, there are so many different measures in place in each country. You could have a high carbon price and not very strong regulations and get to where you want. You could have a lot of regulations and no carbon pricing and get to where you want. You could have subsidies. There are a whole bunch of different factors involved.

Simply comparing us to a country that doesn't have carbon pricing or to one that has a higher carbon price, like Sweden, you have to look at the whole suite and see how we're doing. Our whole suite, from 1990 to now, has not been a good package. We have not got the reductions.

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

That was the point I was making.

I have just a few seconds left.

What kind of a deal are Canadians getting by paying $40 compared to what is happening in all of the competing nations we have, such as China and all of the western hemisphere?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

That's exactly why we want them to track the measures or bundles of measures in how they're doing as opposed to just getting to 2030 and saying, “Again, we didn't make it. Something was wrong. We're not sure what.”

We would like to see course correction and more timely measurement and monitoring of the measures.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're out of time on that one.

We're going now to Mr. Sorbara for the last five minutes.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome, Commissioner and team. Thank you for your service and for what you do, not only for MPs but for all Canadians.

On the report on the emissions reduction through greenhouse gas regulations, the first thing I'd like to do is thank you for acknowledging the more than 100 policy measures that our government has put in place to combat climate change. They are obviously layered. There are many regulations, but it is the right direction in terms of combatting climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions overall. I think you put that in context in paragraph 5.13, if I'm not mistaken.

From that, I have two questions in my time permitted. The first one is on paragraph 5.57 with regard to our electrical grid and the ongoing phase-out of coal-fired electricity. I believe the target is 2035 when we'll have an electrical grid that is clean in the context of non-emitting GHGs.

On 5.57, please elaborate further in terms of:

Environment and Climate Change Canada established performance targets, indicators, and expected outcomes for the electricity sector regulations we examined and that the regulations had achieved their targets to date.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

This part of our report focuses on the coal-fired generation of electricity regulations and reaching their target. This is not as complicated as some of the other issues that we've just talked about. It's still a big endeavour to deal with this, but we found that Canada did appear to be on track working with the provinces.

Obviously, the federal government does not have direct control over electricity generation in Canada, but it can regulate it through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Yes, we did find that, with respect to the coal-fired generation of electricity regulations, they were on target for what they were expecting, and they appear to be on target for 2030 as well.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you.

My second topic relates to methane. Methane has been getting a lot of press, rightly so, for many reasons in the last several months and over the last few years. One thing we saw even during the COVID downturn and the freezing of economies is that worldwide methane emissions increased in the United States and so forth. As you say in paragraph 5.61, “methane is a potent greenhouse gas with at least 25 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period”.

I've read this part, and I've read some stuff online with regard to methane. We have put in place—a number of countries have put in place—measures to reduce methane emission. That is going to be one large aspect of meeting GHG emission targets for any country.

Is it a matter, in your view, Commissioner, that the data being collected needs to be strengthened or that the measures in place need to be strengthened or both? It is an economic win to reduce methane emissions and an environmental win to reduce methane emissions as we move forward.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Getting a handle on methane emissions and then limiting them through measures such as regulation provide immediate benefits partly because of the relatively shorter time frame that methane spends in the atmosphere compared to CO2 and because of their high warming potential, as you just talked about.

If we could get a better handle on methane emissions and then deal with them more effectively through regulations and other measures, that would go a long way. It would provide immediate benefits, as immediate as you can get on an issue like climate change, which is long term. Dropping emissions on methane saves a lot over a long period of time because of the difference between it and CO2 in terms of its residency time in the atmosphere.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

In terms of measuring methane, in 5.76 you speak to, as a policy point, a bottom-up approach versus a top-down approach. It seems that one captures more than the other. Is there anything you can elaborate on that, and is there anything else you could forward to me or the members to understand how we better measure methane emissions?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Yes. You'll have the department officials here in a few minutes as well to talk about their agreement and new funding with respect to getting a better handle on some of the emissions that have been historically not measured very well in Canada.

It's a theme between the two reports today. Land use, land use change and forestry emissions are not well understood in Canada, and methane emissions are not well understood in Canada. We need to get a better handle on both of those things so that we know what interventions need to be made to bring down those emissions from those two sectors.