Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 8th, 2022

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Do you have any metric, any number, you can point to of the economic impact of going from a 1.1% reduction to a 45% reduction in the span of eight years?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Under our new obligation under net-zero act, as soon as that new plan comes out next month, then we are going to start diving into it. Are these realistic at a cost—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

How can you say, Commissioner, that it's possible if you can't even provide any metric with respect to the economic impact?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Well, I can say that it's possible to do it. I haven't said what the cost would be. It's certainly technically possible to do it, even things that—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

I guess if we shut down everything in Canada, we might be able to do it, but, I mean, is that realistic?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

That's not realistic. It's going to be—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

It's not realistic.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

—a transition between now and 2030. But it's not realistic to keep having the planet heat up and then just deal with other types of costs, like flooding and health care and—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Commissioner, that's nice; that's nice. That may be the case, that it's not good to see that, but my question was specifically about achieving a 45% reduction. You provided nothing to back up the assertion that it's...that it might be possible.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

The obligation in the act is for the federal government to come up with a plan and then we'll audit it. That's what—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

We have a point of order.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I think we're all very appreciative of having witnesses come to give their thoughts. My point of order is that if a member is asking a question, I think it's fair for a witness to use, maybe not exactly to the second, but at least the same amount of time to answer. I think that's beneficial for all members of this committee.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Thank you.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

I think that was largely the case, Mr. Dong, but I take your point.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Please go ahead, Commissioner.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I think I've made my point. The costs of action are significant. The costs of inaction are also significant. Unfortunately, because of decades of inaction, we don't have the status quo null alternative that we can continue on with. It isn't going to work.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Thank you.

Mr. Dong, you have five minutes.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I want to share some of my thoughts on this issue.

Colleagues, we all understand that this is about human survival. It's about the survival of our kids and their kids. The conversation about whether or not climate change is real or about whether or not we need to transition away from fossil fuels—that conversation is done. The train has left the station. All major countries on this planet, their governments and their leaders, recognize this. That's why we have all these international agreements. I think the conversation for us to have as opposition parties and governing parties is this: How do we transition to cleaner energy, or actually a cleaner future, most efficiently and as quickly as possible? I think that's the conversation we're having.

With that, I want to turn to you, Commissioner. I have a lot of friends from Alberta, and they're telling me that the support for renewable energy and energy storage has been pretty vibrant. There's a lot of conversation about that. I'm sure you talk to your international colleagues. First, can you share with the committee what you observe in Canada from different provinces in terms of their general attitude towards renewable energy? Second, what do you hear from other countries? What are they doing? Obviously, they're doing better than we are, according to the report. What are they doing that we are not doing and should be?

I know you're not into policy suggestions and whatnot, but can you share with us some of the things that they're doing and we're not that can probably help us in the future?

Thank you.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I guess the biggest difference between other countries and ours is commitments being followed up by action. That would be the biggest difference in terms of what we're seeing elsewhere. Canada has had no shortage of commitments, but unfortunately has had a disappointing set of actions in terms of the climate change record.

I'd like to bring this back to the non-partisan nature of this committee and the depolarization point that we make in our report. You're absolutely right: We do need to work together. The interests being expressed by the various members today are not unimportant. We do need to figure out how this transition will work so that people aren't left behind in some sort of Darwinian transition, where communities or regions are left holding the bag while others transition to a net-zero future.

We have to be in this together and recognize that in terms of all of our interests—a healthy environment and quality of life for our future generations—everybody in this meeting, I believe, shares those interests. It's just a question about how to do it. That's why we focus on depolarizing the debate about whether we should do something and focus on what are the best tools to accomplish the government's commitments to a net-zero future and significant reductions by 2030.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you.

Chair, I'll give the rest of my time to my colleague, Peter.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you to Mr. Dong.

I have a question for Équiterre. In the opening remarks, the suggestion was made that there ought to be massive training of public servants on the issue of climate change, and, specifically, global warming. I take your point. That's a huge undertaking, though.

How should that proceed, number one, and number two, are there other countries, other democracies, that have carried this out?

[Colleen Thorpe]

Thank you for the question.

All of the questions today demonstrate that it is imperative to change the discourse on climate change and make it clear that it is an existential emergency and threat. Unfortunately, this is not at all the way it is understood, as the commissioner's report demonstrates.

In recent years, the government has provided guidelines for training. I gave the example of the rights of indigenous peoples. In its genuine desire to curb systemic racism within institutions, the government has offered training to civil servants on this subject. They are taking modules during their working hours.

This is not something new. In the days of the Harper Conservative government, there was safety training. There have always been different types of training. So the mechanisms are there, and outside organizations can design very factual training, to depolarize the debate and make room for something more constructive.

You also asked me if training of this kind was available in other countries. I have started to research this. I know it's done in Germany and France, but it's something that should be explored further.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much. I don't think I have much time, but look forward to thoughts at future meetings, maybe, on how those countries have done and what Canada can learn.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Thank you.

We are now on to our fourth round.

Please go ahead, Mr. Bragdon, for five minutes.