Public Accounts committee  Sure. Yes.

Public Accounts committee  To be clear, we are tracking only fuel purchased by DND and the Canadian Armed Forces.

Public Accounts committee  I don't have that information right now.

Public Accounts committee  No, I have nothing to add to that.

Public Accounts committee  We don't break it down by deployed operations versus domestic. We'll have to look at that.

Public Accounts committee  The challenge is where you buy your fuel. If you're in deployed operations and you're buying the fuel as part of a joint mission, we wouldn't account for that consumption or those emissions.

Public Accounts committee  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.

Public Accounts committee  No, I won't add anything.

Public Accounts committee  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.

Public Accounts committee  The market is—

Public Accounts committee  That's correct. We're looking at risks and opportunities and costs to get to 2050. In the next year or so we'll have decarbonization plans for both the real property portfolio and the national safety security fleet. That will give us what we call a road map to 2050.

Public Accounts committee  Prior to the pandemic, our emissions at National Defence were at 31%, and then we saw them go up to 38%. That's where the 7% gap is. The COVID impact versus the impact from emissions reduction initiatives is hard to attribute or allocate. There's no question. The reduction in operational activity tempo contributed to that 7%, but we're also confident that the measures we've taken to reduce emissions are also contributing to that reduction.