Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 28th, 2022

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Is that for Defence?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Yes.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I think they themselves have indicated that, with current resources, they are only in the 60% range, and with—

[Bill Matthews]

His question was about 2025.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

It was about 2025. I'm sorry. Thank you for that clarification.

That is best directed at the department.

The trend line is going the right way. We have the paragraph in the report indicating the progress being made. We're even able to attribute it to certain particular initiatives, including energy costs in Alberta, for example. I think the trend is going the right way on the scope on emissions. If they implement and have the resources they need to implement, they should be on track.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

When I'm thinking about on track and I'm thinking about how Defence.... Defence is an incredibly important ministry in Canada. Particularly and unfortunately because of climate change, we're actually asking the Department of National Defence to do more. I can anticipate that your activities within the Department of National Defence will increase.

My colleagues and I have seen that just recently, of course, in the emergency debate on the issues in Nova Scotia and the Maritimes. We've seen huge climate disasters there. We've seen massive climate disasters in British Columbia. We've seen massive climate disasters across the Prairies with drought and wildfires.

I imagine that your activities and your asks to be deployed are going to increase. Without a credible or better form of response to these natural disasters, it's going to be the Department of National Defence. It's going to be your planes and your equipment that's deployed more frequently.

I'm not exactly confident that you're going to hit those targets based on the fact that climate change.... We're already in a climate battle. How do you imagine your increased activities as climate change continues to ravage our country? How are you going to imagine it and build that into your prediction to be able to hit that target?

[Bill Matthews]

Mr. Chair, there are a couple of points.

One, we're very confident about 2025. With COVID or without COVID, we were on track, and in fact ahead of schedule.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

What about climate change?

[Bill Matthews]

I'll come back...yes.

In terms of the activity and the draw on the Department of National Defence in terms of responding to domestic climate change-related events, we have seen the trend go up, up, up. When we do look at our climate change plans.... Our plan is more comprehensive than that. It's our buildings, the retrofitting of them. We are the biggest landlord in Canada. The vehicles we're procuring are now largely electric or hybrid.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

But 2050?

[Bill Matthews]

By 2050.... We still have some work to do, as I indicated. We have plans in place that we're confident will get us part way there. To get us all the way there, we still have some additional work to do.

I think one of the things that will be interesting to track as time goes on, when you look at the fuel consumed by ships and planes, and those things, is how much greener it will get. That will certainly have an impact in terms of the footprint from our operations.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Matthews.

That's my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

That is spot-on.

Turning to our second round now, MP Kram, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My questions will be mostly for the representatives from the Department of National Defence.

Is it fair to say that it is not realistic for National Defence to reach its 2050 net-zero reduction targets and that we should start talking, acting and planning accordingly?

[Bill Matthews]

No, I don't think that's fair at all, Mr. Chair. I think the fact that we're ahead of schedule for the 2025 target of 40% is a good indication.

As we have indicated, we have plans that we are confident will get us to 63% by 2050, and with some additional money to 83%. But then that leaves a gap. The question is, what are you doing about that gap?

As I had mentioned, we have a bit of time, but as was mentioned by the Auditor General's office, time is important on this file.

I think one of the questions we should come back to at this table in years to come is, what are your plans to get there by 2050 and have they developed? That's a fair question.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

On page 8 of the report is chart 2.2. It says that for National Defence, the RCMP and the Coast Guard, there's been only a 0.6% reduction from the 2005-06 baseline year. I don't understand how it can be realistic when we're down by only 0.6%.

[Bill Matthews]

You may have to ask the commissioner to speak to the report first, and then I can chime in.

Have you found it?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Are you looking at the first two cells in exhibit 2.2?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

That's right.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

If you go back to paragraph 2.7, it's the difference between departmental emissions and national safety and security fleet emissions. They're definitely on track with the departmental emissions. As Deputy Matthews just indicated, it is a challenge with respect to national safety and security fleet emissions in terms of ships, planes and so on. That's something they can speak to as to their plans for that.

Cell one is just about the departmental emissions outside of national safety and security fleet emissions.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Let's expand on that a little bit. According to the Pentagon, the F-35 fighter jets are expected to be in use until the year 2070. What's going to happen in the year 2050? Are we going to ground the F-35 fighter jets? How would that possibly work?

[Bill Matthews]

No. I think the question is that when you look at the assets employed for national security purposes, they are outside of what I'll call the core departmental emissions. As I've indicated, there's lots of discussion with industry about what you do to make those types of fuels more efficient, more green, but that's work still to come.

One of the key things you look at from a defence perspective is operational requirements. The military and the air force would obviously need planes to fly, and so I don't view grounding fleets as an option on that front. It's more a question back to industry; that is, what can you do to make your products greener as time goes on?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Okay, but if the F-35 fighter jets can't get to net zero by 2050, then we don't achieve our goal.

Is that accurate?

[Bill Matthews]

Do you want to....?

[Saleem Sattar]

When we established that target with Treasury Board on national safety and security emissions, we realized that it would be harder to get to net zero by 2050 on the military side. They gave us some flexibility by allowing us to use carbon credits, carbon removal and carbon capture technology. In 2050, if we're still flying with fossil fuels, we're going to need to find a way to offset or capture those emissions.

Let's be clear. That doesn't mean we don't do anything. We're going to look at cleaner fuels, cleaner platforms and cleaner operations, but if we're still burning fuel, we want to be able to offset that gap to net zero.