Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 28th, 2022

[Saleem Sattar]

Yes, it's a scope 1 for the country that sold it to us, as opposed to who's burning it. We'll have to look at whether we can disaggregate it based on where we buy the fuel.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Okay.

Transport, just very quickly, how much of your plan to get to net zero is going to, not be held hostage by, but rely on innovation? How much of your cars and trucks, etc.? How much is going to be relying on future innovation?

[Michael Keenan]

That's a great question, Mr. Chair.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

It's not a criticism. It's a reality for your department.

[Michael Keenan]

Some of it is coming from just changing management practices. Some of it is coming from adopting different kinds of equipment. It's a mix. I'll give you two examples quickly.

In our national aerial surveillance program, we have a series of Dash 7s and Dash 8s that fly to find and prosecute polluters at sea and also to protect whales. We're beginning to shift some of the missions from a Dash 8 to a drone. We can't switch all missions, but we're switching some. We get the same information for the same purpose and—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Can I interrupt quickly? How much is going to rely on future innovation and how much is going to rely on updating, perhaps, fleets like you just mentioned?

[Michael Keenan]

That's a great—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. McCauley, I hate to do this, but your time is up again.

I'll turn now to Mrs. Valdez.

Welcome to the committee. You have the floor for five minutes.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the departments and witnesses for joining us today for this study.

I'll begin by directing my questions to the Department of National Defence.

Deputy Minister Matthews, you mentioned in your opening the magnitude and scale of the infrastructure work involved to reduce emissions with the older buildings, bases and wings.

What risk factors do you need to take into consideration to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions?

[Bill Matthews]

When we're looking at bases and wings and the infrastructure there, it's largely a question of investing to do energy refits. In some cases, it's to actually tear down old buildings and replace them with new. To date, Mr. Chair, we've seen about $145 million invested in military housing for green upgrades and around $50 million in energy performance itself. We've demolished some old buildings, as I mentioned.

The other thing I would flag is that at every base and wing we've put in an energy manager. They are responsible for identifying energy savings opportunities on bases. Some of them cover off multiple bases, but every one has one.

A final point that I should have mentioned earlier is that we do now have an example of our first net-zero building. It is in Gagetown, New Brunswick. We've had some New Brunswick mentions here today.

Those are the types of things we look at. It's no risk to operation. It's just a matter of time and money to either upgrade or replace the inefficient buildings we have on base and wing.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

You kind of answered my second question.

Taking that a little bit further, can you share with us what the higher or urgent priorities are? I believe you mentioned in your opening that there are 20,000 buildings. That's a lot. How are you prioritizing which buildings or infrastructure need to be first or be considered?

[Bill Matthews]

It's based on output and also the ability to actually get the work done. Some buildings, frankly, are very difficult to upgrade.

The other priority I'd flag is the purchase of green energy. Some of the commitments we have.... Obviously, we don't produce our own electricity, so we're reliant on the market. Getting agreements in place in all provinces to allow us to buy green electricity is certainly a priority as well.

Saleem, do you have anything to add there?

[Saleem Sattar]

No, I have nothing to add to that.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'm directing these questions now to the Department of Transport.

Mr. Keenan, can you describe what plans Transport Canada has to decrease GHG emissions from your fleets, since 80% of the emissions come from there?

[Michael Keenan]

I'll be happy to, Mr. Chair. That's a great question because that is exactly the challenge we face.

Every fleet has its own strategy. For vehicles on road, we're moving to zero-emission vehicles. I believe we have zero-emission vehicles for 30% of our on-road fleet. I think we're the number one in the Government of Canada. The Treasury Board can correct me if I'm mistaken.

The big one is ferries. That's the biggest source of emissions. A key part of the strategy is the procurement of two new ferries for the eastern ferry service. They're currently being designed and we're working with the shipyard to optimize design to reduce fuel consumption and carbon emissions as a result.

Those would be two examples of significant changes, both in terms of equipment and practice.

I'll actually just complete the example with the national aerial surveillance program. We run a fleet of aerial surveillance for environmental purposes. We're beginning, where we can, to swap a Dash 8 mission for a drone mission.

For example, with some of the whale surveillance off of New Brunswick—we're having a New Brunswick theme here today—we find that we're able to do some of those whale observation missions with drones, which is as or more effective than the Dash 8. Every hour on mission for the drone is a 96% reduction in carbon emissions in terms of the fuel burn relative to a Dash 8.

Where we can swap the mission, it's a great example of a management practice that reduces our carbon emissions quite significantly.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, that is all very exciting stuff.

On a similar train of thought, can you also share what types of risk factors you need to take into consideration as well as we transition to a greener future?

[Michael Keenan]

Because we have so many emissions from our transportation fleet, while it's different in composition, it's a similar challenge to DND's. One of the key risk factors, for example, in some of our aircraft is actually the transition to.... You can change the mission or reduce the hours, but it's the transition to a sustainable aviation fuel.

That's an interesting one, because we see the opportunities for a reasonably economic transition towards sustainable aviation fuel are getting better by the year. There is a lot of risk—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you. I agree it's interesting, and I hope someone will come back and ask you more about it. You've certainly piqued our interest.

We now go to Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd appreciate it if you could keep your answers short.

We discussed the importance of including Crown corporations in the greening government strategy. I have a simple question for you, Mr. Flack. Do you think Crown corporations should be covered by the greening government strategy and be required to have their own strategies?

[Graham Flack]

It's appropriate that the government would ask Crown corporations to come up with strategies using the mechanisms I described. If it were to flow from our report, we would have to hold consultations, as we committed to doing.

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

I have the same question for Mr. DeMarco.

Do you, as commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, think the strategy should apply across the board, to departments and Crown corporations alike?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Yes, of course. As I said, that's how the government chose to organize things, but it's a whole-of-government approach. In order for the greening government strategy to work, the system has to be consistent across all facets of the federal government.

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

Before I wrap up, I have a brief comment, and I think it's worth mentioning. I've heard it said a few times today that there was still time to meet the targets by 2050. That's a shame. What's important to keep in mind is that, in 2050, our children will be grandparents or older parents, depending on their health. If we don't move faster, it will be too late by then.

The work to implement a sustainable development strategy as important and as rigorous as this has to be done on a daily basis, piece by piece, starting now, with various milestones leading up to 2050. My hope is for better data collection and concrete measures to implement the strategy because those things are very important.

I'll give you an example of a concrete measure. The Government of Quebec committed to reducing GHG emissions and electrifying 100% of light-duty vehicles and 25% of pickup trucks. That is a clear and specific commitment by the Quebec government.

Will the Government of Canada go that far? Unfortunately, I don't think we'll get the answer to that today, but soon, I hope.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor now for two and a half minutes.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much again to the witnesses. I think this is our final round. Thanks for being present on this important discussion.

I just want to lead off on what my honourable colleague from the Bloc just mentioned in relation to how critical this strategy is for the leadership of the government.

I think when we talk about a whole-of-government approach, we have to really account for the circumstances the government as a whole is approached with. One of them, of course, is the innovation challenge. We've heard from multiple ministry officials today about how the innovation challenge is present, so when we're contemplating or even imagining what 2025, 2030 or 2050 will look like, I'm concerned that we do not have a strong enough or robust enough system to give Canadians the credit they deserve in terms of stability for this plan. I just want to make that thought very present, especially as it relates to the Ministry of National Defence.

This is nothing against the ministry's own plans, but it's particular to the actual condition that's facing the ministry. You're being asked consistently, and at an increasing rate, to deploy your services on behalf of Canadians across the country, in particular to combat climate emergencies as they arise. These are increasing in both severity and cost, so it's incumbent upon the government, I think, and upon members of the opposition to ask what this strategy could look like in 2050 and whether the ministry would agree that it's time we actually preserve the mandate of the ministry of defence, which is to ensure we have national security, rather than so often relying on the domestic deployment of your services.

I think it's going to change how you develop green strategies, particularly when it comes to fuel. Some fuels are more dangerous to deploy overseas than, for example, domestically. Some fuels are going to be more challenging to actually obtain overseas than they are domestically. I see a gap, a growing concern with how the actual greening of the government strategy, which is important, can affect the Ministry of National Defence mandate.

I think it's important that the government understand this really important piece, because I think it leads to the next question, which I think, for parliamentarians, is an interesting one, and that is on the creation of a new form of force that can actually deal with domestic climate change disasters. This is something I hope the Ministry of National Defence knows about.

Mr. Matthews, by your own description, is this a threat to your plan?