Public Accounts Committee on June 11th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You have 30 seconds, Mr. Mazier.

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

Commissioner, are you concerned about the answers the deputy minister gave about this net-zero accelerator?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Yes, I am, in terms of the principle of transparency.

If Canada were a country that showed it could set targets and meet targets, and we didn't necessarily need to see what was going wrong because nothing was going wrong, I would still agree they should be transparent. However, it's even more important that they be transparent with a track record of failure after failure. Be transparent with peers in terms of modelling, and be transparent with Canadians in terms of targets. All of this is important.

I don't have any specific comment about the document or the Excel sheet that you're speaking about, but increased transparency is something our office is concerned about. It's a theme in several of our reports, including this one.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Weiler, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. There are some familiar faces from the time I had the honour of sitting on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

Commissioner DeMarco, this report was tabled over a year ago now. I think we had you at the ENVI committee to talk about it. In the time since then—with the responses of the government to your report, and with the recent policy and program responses the government has brought in with respect to climate change—would any of the major conclusions of your report change today, if you were doing the report today?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Time flies, but it hasn't been a year yet. It was in November, I guess, when we tabled this report.

I would say there's been no major change in the key, existing measures when Environment Canada models them. Do they add up to 40% to 45% yet, or do they not? They still do not. It's oscillated between 34% and 36%. Their latest addition in the progress report.... It's back up to 36%. Whether it's 34% or 36%, it's still not 40% to 45%, so there's still a gap to be filled through additional measures.

Their target is a little odd. It's not a number target but rather a range of 40% to 45%. I would argue that they may have to focus on the upper part of that range because of their historical failure to meet targets. They may need to factor in a bit of a buffer and aim for something higher, not the bare minimum of 40%.

At this rate, they're on track for what they believe to be 36%. We believe there are overly optimistic assumptions here and that it's actually something lower than 36%.

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

Commissioner, if you had to put your finger on one area that should be the priority for the government to act on to reduce emissions, what would that be?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I can answer that from two perspectives.

The first is at a conceptual level. Our 2021 “Lessons Learned” report says stronger leadership and more effective plans are needed.

Then, at a sectoral level, I can answer it from a second perspective. Canada really needs to get a handle on oil and gas and transportation. Together these account for more than 50% of total emissions.

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

Thank you for that. I know there are a number of regulations with respect to the transportation sector, with a zero-emissions vehicles mandate or availability standard being chief among them.

I think you're pointing to a measure that has long been worked on but hasn't been completed yet: the cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector.

I want to put this question to officials from Environment and Climate Change Canada. Could you provide this committee with an update on where the cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector is at in the process of regulatory development?

[John Moffet, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment]

I can respond.

The Prime Minister committed to develop the cap. We put out a discussion paper on different approaches. We then put out a regulatory framework. The minister committed to publish a draft of the regulations. As you know, these regulations always have to be published twice, in draft form and then in final form. The minister committed to publish the draft regulations this fall for comment.

We're very close to the final design of the draft regulations based on about a year of extensive engagement with various experts in the sector and our own internal analysis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Moffet.

Could you maybe provide some details to this committee on why this process has taken as long as it has, understanding that this may be longer than a lot of folks, including me, would have liked? I'd be curious to hear why the consultations and this process took this length of time.

[John Moffet]

I know that we've seen commentary from the commissioner and others about the length of time to develop regulations. While I think the government would...and as my colleague the deputy minister has acknowledged, there is urgency to address climate change. I take serious issue with any allegation or assertion that the speed at which we've developed these regulations has been slower than usual or slower than could be expected. In fact, for a regulation of this magnitude, I think we're moving considerably faster than would have been the case for the normal pace at which we develop regulations of this kind.

As I said, we've moved from a general commitment to a discussion paper to a regulatory framework to draft regulations in the space of a couple of years. That is faster than has been our track record for many different kinds of regulations. We regulate air, water, soil and greenhouse gas.

The last thing I'll say about this is that while one metric of success in terms of a regulation is how fast we get it out, I think equally important is ensuring that we have a well-informed, well-designed regulation that can stand the test of time. That's our goal.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

I will now suspend the meeting for votes. I'll bring it back into order right after those votes.

This meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I call this meeting back into session.

Just to update everyone, I'll let you know that we'll have about another 15 minutes of questions, at which point I will thank and excuse the witnesses. Then there is just some very brief business to conduct, which will be neither controversial nor lengthy.

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to turn to you, Mr. Conrad. I wouldn't want you to come here and not have the opportunity to answer questions and share your thoughts.

In exhibit 6.8 of the report, we can see the Privy Council Office's climate responsibilities. I'll read them out for everyone.

You're responsible for “supporting climate policy development and consideration at cabinet and supporting the Prime Minister on climate policy.”

I provided the figures earlier for the government's contribution to the Department of the Environment's budget. The total is about $2 billion. I also pointed out that Canada has invested in, or rather subsidized, the oil industry to the tune of $51.5 billion.

In supporting climate policy development, don't you find that the Privy Council Office is doing something with one hand and something else with the other? Is this simply greenwashing?

[Alexis Conrad]

Mr. Chair, if I can maybe just back it up a little bit to explain my role in the system, I think that will clarify how the Privy Council Office fits in.

I have a responsibility to help manage collective decision-making through the cabinet process. We provide advice to the Prime Minister, but we do not take over individual ministers' line responsibilities and accountabilities. We do not make spending decisions ourselves on specific items. We play a role to bring parties together. We ensure that the right information comes to ministers for consideration and that things are properly vetted and properly analyzed. However, we leave it to the individual line ministers to manage individual progress.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you. Sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Conrad, but my time is limited.

We learn in CEGEP, and even in high school, that goals must be based on the SMART approach. This means that a goal must be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time‑bound.

Is the government generally taking a SMART approach to its climate change policy?

[Alexis Conrad]

Mr. Chair, I assure you that all proposals coming through the cabinet process meet strict criteria in terms of considerations. We don't use that specific terminology, but we have a very detailed set of considerations.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Yet the commissioner's report shows that all these criteria for good public policy aren't being met.

What's your role in this? Will you do something to ensure that climate policies simply move in one direction, either to openly subsidize oil energy or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stop lagging behind the G7 countries?

What position will the Privy Council Office take?

[Alexis Conrad]

I have a great deal of confidence in the internal process to ensure that all factors that go into collective decision-making are there. The report of the commissioner, which I respect—and we have agreed with the recommendations—is about our trying to improve our processes and bring greater clarity on accountabilities, and we have moved forward with an integrated climate lens, which is something that's part of a cabinet directive that has been publicly released. We're committed to being transparent on the results of that work. I have a great deal of confidence that we are on the right track, and we will use the report and the recommendations of the commissioner to help improve our processes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

We'll now turn to the NDP representative.

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

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I'm happy to be here covering for my colleague. My time is short, so I want to make sure that I get some questions in here.

First and foremost, as someone who is not a regular member, there are some benefits to coming to committee and seeing things more from a bird's-eye view. I'm able to figure out what the most important questions are that I'm hearing from Canadians.

One thing that's been brought to my attention is, despite the fact that we are clearly in a climate emergency and are feeling the impacts.... I'm from Vancouver Island. My riding is Nanaimo—Ladysmith. We've seen first-hand the impacts of the wildfires, the flooding and the heat dome that hit us. People in my riding are paying attention to the fact that we're in a climate crisis.

We need to see federal action from all departments. That's one thing I'm being asked about. We have the Minister of Environment, but why are we not getting all departments to have the priority of addressing the climate crisis at front of mind?

This isn't just the environment minister's job. It is the housing minister's, the fisheries minister's, the health minister's and everybody's job to make sure that we're all moving in the right direction.

The commissioner is perhaps the best person to answer my question.

What would his suggestion be to see a government that's taking this as seriously as it needs to be taken, and to see a comprehensive response being taken, rather than the patchwork approach that's currently being taken?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

In answering that question, I'll take us back to my first appearance before this committee a couple of years ago.

In the lessons learned on climate change report from our office in 2021, lesson one is, “Stronger leadership and coordination are needed to drive progress toward climate commitments”.

We've had a fragmented approach for 30 years now in Canada, without good results. Our emissions are considerably higher now than when we started this endeavour. Continuing to do the same thing but expecting different results is not a good approach.

Somewhat inadvertently, some of the responses you've heard from the departments today have reinforced our point that continued siloed approaches do not work. At least, that's been the experience on climate, and perhaps on biodiversity as well, in Canada. Stronger leadership and coordination...that's the reason we made it lesson number one in that report from 2021.

We've yet to see that tangibly occurring in Canada with respect to climate change. There's still a fragmented approach. It's a “not my department”, siloed approach.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

My final question will be for the deputy minister of environment, Mr. Tremblay.

Perhaps you can follow up in writing if we don't have time for this today. There's the assertion that certain first nations representatives are saying that the 2030 plan did not take into account the standards of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, when we know indigenous people have been stewards of the land since time immemorial.

Do you have any comment on that?

[Vincent Ngan, Assistant Deputy Minister, Climate Change Branch, Department of the Environment]

The development of the emissions reduction plan stems from the requirements of the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, which requires that the Government of Canada engage with provinces and territories, but also with indigenous partners. As part of the emissions reduction plan, there is an annex specifically dedicated to all three distinction-based groups providing input.

That being said, we recognize that we have to do better. On that front, the emissions reduction plan takes into account and reflects submissions from indigenous partners.