:
Good afternoon, everyone.
Welcome, Commissioner. We're pleased to see you again. We saw you a few days ago at the members' briefing.
I'd also like to welcome all the departmental representatives. As the list of witnesses is rather long, I won't read out all the names and titles of the witnesses or else we'd be here all day. So welcome to all of you.
Everyone here is aware of the acoustic feedback problems that have been experienced by the interpreters. I would therefore like to take a few moments to review the rules. You've heard them before, whether in this committee or another one, but I'd like to read the new guidelines for preventing acoustic feedback.
[English]
All earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please only use an approved black earpiece. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting. When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the middle of the sticker for this purpose, which you will find on the table as indicated.
Please consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. The room layout has been adjusted to increase the distance between microphones and to reduce the chance of feedback from an ambient earpiece.
[Translation]
Keep your earpiece either on your ear or on the table well away from the microphone to avoid any acoustic feedback that could cause injuries to the interpreters. All open microphones can be a source of acoustic feedback. When the microphone is on, don't touch the boom. Stay a reasonable distance from the microphone when you're speaking. Lastly, avoid increasing the volume level of your earpiece to maximum.
That's it for the instructions.
Without further ado, I am now giving the floor to the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development.
:
Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to be here today to speak about the five performance audit reports that were tabled in the House of Commons on Tuesday.
I'd like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered here on the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people. This territory is also home to numerous other first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples whom I also acknowledge and whose contributions I appreciate.
Also with me here today are Ms. Kimberley Leach, Ms. Markirit Armutlu, and Ms. Susan Gomez, as well as Mr. Nicholas Swales and Mr. Mathieu Lequain, all of whom are principals who conduct audit assignments.
[English]
Our first report is on the zero plastic waste initiative. We found that the federal government did not know whether its reduction activities would eliminate all plastic waste by 2030. Although the initiative refers to zero plastic waste, its targets refer only to reducing plastic waste and are not measuring against the end goal of zero plastic waste. It is an important distinction that needs to be reflected in the initiative's reporting so that Canadians and parliamentarians can see how much progress is being made towards eliminating plastic waste.
[Translation]
The good news is that we found that the waste reduction activities under this initiative have been achieving positive results and are in close alignment with Canada's priorities. For example, Fisheries and Oceans Canada funded 67 projects to remove abandoned, lost or discarded gear. However, the organizations did not have the information required to demonstrate how their efforts contributed to achieving the Canada-wide objective. For example, there was a three-year delay in publishing Statistics Canada data on plastic waste in the environment. To reduce plastic pollution, the federal government must work together with many parties, including the provinces, the territories, the municipalities and the private sector. With so many partners, it's particularly important to have strict tracking systems.
[English]
Our next audit examined contaminated sites in northern Canada, which continue to carry significant health, environmental and financial risks. We found that Transport Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, which manage many of these sites, complied with the federal contaminated sites action plan; however, this was not enough to meet the objectives of reducing the health, environmental and financial risks associated with these sites.
The Canada-wide financial liability for known federal contaminated sites has increased from $2.9 billion to $10.1 billion since the launch of the action plan in 2005. While only 11% of sites are in the north, over 60% of Canada’s total estimated financial liability is linked to the remediation of northern sites. This is an enormous financial burden on taxpayers and represents a failure to properly implement the polluter pays principle, as many private sector sites had to be taken over by the federal government.
[Translation]
After 20 years, much remains to be done to reduce the costs of dealing with contaminated sites and mitigating environmental and human health risks in the interests of current and future generations. The government needs to urgently introduce measures to foster socio-economic benefits, including job opportunities, and to support reconciliation with indigenous peoples, whose lands have often been affected by contaminated sites.
I will now move on to the remaining three reports on measures to combat climate change.
Our recent reports examined the two largest emission sectors. This year, we looked at other major sources of emissions, which are building materials, manufacturing industries and agriculture. In all of these audits, we found that progress was slow, and that there were no long-term approaches to reduce emissions. This finding does not, however, affect the potential of these measures to help Canada become carbon neutral, provided that they are designed and implemented more effectively.
Our audit of the greening of building materials in public infrastructures revealed that the transition to low-carbon building materials was too slow given the urgency of the climate change crisis.
[English]
Though the federal government first expressed in 2006 its desire to move markets towards goods and services that carry a lower carbon footprint, it took more than 10 years for it to consider the use of low-carbon construction materials, and it was only in late 2022 that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat established the standard on embodied carbon in construction. As of now, the standard applies only to ready-mix concrete.
We also found that Public Services and Procurement Canada had not finished incorporating the requirements of the standard into its infrastructure procurement process. Meanwhile, Infrastructure Canada has incorporated considerations related to reducing the carbon content of construction materials into its funding programs only in a limited way.
This is important because emissions from construction and construction materials account for 11% of Canada's total emissions. This slow pace of change is concerning, because steel production typically emits high amounts of greenhouse gases and is widely used in major construction projects. To increase Canada's chances of meeting its 2030 and 2050 climate commitments, the federal government needs to more actively promote the use of low-carbon construction materials in public infrastructure.
[Translation]
The next audit was of the net zero accelerator initiative, whose objective is to reduce greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions by providing incentives for Canadian industries to decarbonize their activities.
We found that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada had been unsuccessful in attracting the country's largest industrial emitters. Of the 55 companies that generated the most emissions, only 15 submitted a funding application under the initiative and only two signed a contribution agreement. The lengthy and complex application process, which required an average of 407 hours to complete, was no doubt one of the reasons why the department did not attract more applicants. We also found that the department did not always know to what extent GHG emissions had been reduced by those companies that took part in the initiative, or whether the funding provided would lead to reduced emissions.
[English]
Surprisingly there is no overarching industrial decarbonization policy to provide Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada with a clear picture of which industries are most in need of funds to reduce emissions. I am concerned about what the department plans to do to address the significant gaps uncovered in our audit, given the vague responses it provided to our recommendations.
Our last audit looked at agriculture and climate change mitigation. We found that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada had not developed a strategy for how the agriculture sector would contribute to Canada's 2030 and 2050 climate goals despite a strategy being first called for in 2020.
In 2021, the department launched three key programs aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions; however, delays in funding approvals resulted in recipients missing a growing season. The department has so far achieved less than 2% of its 2030 overall greenhouse gas reduction target. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will need to ensure that all expected reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for 2030 take place in the six growing seasons that remain.
[Translation]
We also found that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada had not yet established performance targets for two of the three programs, making it difficult to assess progress. The department's contribution to reduced GHG emissions is indispensable in the battle against climate change, hence the importance of setting goals and monitoring results.
Despite the limited results reported thus far, all of these climate initiatives could, if they were improved, contribute to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 and making key changes for current and future generations.
[English]
Given the ongoing climate crisis and the federal government's repeated struggles to achieve real emission reductions, a strategic, coherent, results-oriented approach is essential if Canada is to play its part in the global fight against climate change.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening statement. We'd be pleased to answer any questions that the committee may have.
Thank you
Thank you, Commissioner, for your report.
We'll pick up where we left off, on the ag section. I think the important highlighted quote for me was that Canada has “no strategy in place to guide its climate change mitigation programs and activities”.
You mentioned the fact that the AAFC in no way consulted with farmers regarding the fertilizer piece. As somebody who used to work in that sector, I can assure you that this is very true. It was an extreme frustration to farmers. It's not the only area in which farmers were not consulted.
I'm going to ask you a set of questions, and I'm hoping your answers can be fairly tight. Your audit found that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada spent hundreds of millions of dollars on three programs but could not verify the quality and accuracy of the data being provided.
First, during your audit, did you ever come across any evidence where you saw Ag Canada officials try to verify the data that was being provided to them?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to get back to the questions my colleague Mr. Trudel asked, and to recommendation 36, to which the industry department responded. I would therefore ask Ms. Stéphanie Tanton of the department to answer, if she's with us. If she's not, I would ask Mr. Lapointe to do so.
We received the national inventory report, which showed that Canada's climate policies were working. We've had the lowest GHG emissions in 25 years, with the exception of the levels recorded during the years of the pandemic. The fact remains that the oil and gas sector was yet again the largest source of these emissions in 2022.
Ms. Stanton, according to recommendation 4.36, concerning the Strategic Innovation Fund's net zero accelerator initiative, the department “should analyze how to better encourage large emitters to apply to the initiative”. The department answered that it had some possible solutions and that it had received a number of applications. Sixteen large emitters have submitted projects since March 2022.
Could the departmental representatives give us more details about this response to recommendation 4.36?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Dear colleagues, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen from the public service, welcome. Thank you very much for the work you are doing on behalf of Canada and Canadians.
Commissioner, I would naturally like to talk to you about the net zero accelerator initiative component of the Strategic Innovation Fund.
We're talking about $8 billion of taxpayer money. That's a lot of money. Is it effective? That's the question.
On page 7 of your report, there's a description of the system's lengthy and complex process. On page 12, it's clearly stated that difficulties are encountered in attracting large emitters, with only two of the 55 companies involved responding to the invitation. On page 17, we learn that of the 17 contribution agreements, only five companies signed up.
Commissioner, with a track record like that, which shows that the program is not very attractive, do you believe it's effective?
:
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to Mr. DeMarco for coming back.
I have some questions for Stephanie Tanton on some details on the net-zero accelerator investments. I've spent a lot of time in Canada's steel industry, and I've spent a lot of time in the Saguenay, a beautiful part of Canada where the aluminum is produced. We're looking at green steel, green aluminum.
I'm looking at some of the projects that have been announced, like $420 million at Algoma in Sault Ste. Marie, and $500 million for green steel in Hamilton at ArcelorMittal, closer to my riding. ArcelorMittal Dofasco is looking at halting the use of coke by 2028. They're in the process of demolishing their coke plant.
Sweden is looking at locating in Quebec a $6-billion Boden-like site for green steel. It looks like steel has a solid focus in terms of industrial emissions.
I look at aluminum and Rio Tinto's $1.1-billion expansion of the AP60 smelter in Quebec with 96 new AP60 pots that were announced in June 2023. That's also in the Saguenay. They'll be up online by 2028. Alcoa has invested $60 million.
As we're building our inventory of steel and aluminum conversions, some of these numbers aren't going to be shown for a while. Are they included in your reduction forecasts for greenhouse gas emissions? Are they included in the audit scope, or are these outside the scope?
I would like to continue, Commissioner, as I was cut off there. With the news coming out today from the government in terms of the 708 megatonnes of emissions reporting, I went to look at the previous 25 years history because they say it's the lowest outside COVID years.
Thanks to the Wayback Machine, we can see that the numbers, at some time during question period, changed significantly. It seems as though that is due to a shift in the methodology of a number of measurements of land use and things like that.
You have mentioned, in previous reports, that we were double-counting trees. In these reports, we're double-counting our emissions. We seem to be artificially inflating our reporting of reductions. ECCC has changed the way it has reported on previous years. It seems to have elevated those numbers and, I worry, tried to demonize the past to make decisions taken look good in the future.
Is it a normal practice when the government says, “the lowest in 25 years” to see such a shift in numbers into the past? How is that reported back into previous NIR years?
:
I will ascribe the motivation then because I firmly believe that it is trying to make it seem as though their programs are working, but your reports are highlighting that there's no strategy, no verification of results. There are clearly flaws in the way the government is going about this. Given that, directly and indirectly, Canadians are paying the price for a number of these features, given that our economic growth is stagnant at 0.2%, and given that our American counterparts with the same interest rates are rising very quickly in their economic growth, Canadians are, I think, rightfully skeptical of these numbers, which is why I asked previously about the totality of the NIR reporting numbers.
I'll give you an example of the ag report. You mentioned the N2O emissions. That is an impossible thing to measure at the field level, and unfortunately, the N2O emissions stemming from crop production can't be right because the number is based on a coefficient measurement of rainfall, climactic zones and soil types, and the estimation that all fertilizer purchased in that province is applied within that year with no carryover. You therefore have a whole bunch of assumptions that—ask any farmer—you know are wrong.
Generally speaking, I'd like to hear your comments on N2O emissions because they are a major contributor, and one of the most controversial pieces of this government's plan to reduce emissions of that type by 30%.
Again, how can Canadians have confidence in any of the modelling when we're changing numbers in the past to fit?
Oh, we have the lowest emissions in 25 years. Suddenly the website's different, and that now proves that, despite the fact that, yesterday, the website would not have proved that. I think Canadians are rightfully asking questions about whether these policies are actually reducing emissions, whether the modelling is accurate and whether they're getting value for money.
My questions will be, in addition to the commissioner, for Nicole Côté and Dany Drouin.
I'll start with a quick question for Mr. DeMarco.
I know today's NIR is not precisely the reason you're here, but there seems to be a lot of conversation about it. I find the news quite encouraging, as somebody who cares about reducing our emissions. Some of the headlines today indicated that, and some suggested, as we all expected, that emissions are up a little bit from 2021.
However, taking a pragmatic approach to this, we all expected emissions to come up a little bit postpandemic. There really is an elephant in the room when you're reading that report because all of those emissions increases since 1997.... The minister said in the House today that emissions have never been lower in this country as long as Connor McDavid has been alive or since Google.com was registered as a domain name. So 1997 is a long time ago. Indeed, emissions have gone up a lot since then, but they've almost entirely been in Alberta, from the oil sands, almost entirely from the production of oil and gas. It's time that we look at that and actually reflect on the fact that our emissions are going up because of the way that we produce oil and gas in this country.
We need direction on that, but I would appreciate your reflection on other emissions-producing sectors that need to change their old habits, and whether you're encouraged or discouraged by today's news that it's been 25 years since they've been this low.
:
Yes, there are interactions amongst the many measures, whether you count them as 80-something or 120-something measures, depending on whether you group them under the emissions reduction plan.
We've heard previously from departmental officials at this committee, in fact, that they expect carbon pricing to account for around a third of the emissions reductions, and obviously regulations are the other big tool. There's a package of regulations, but if you put them all together, the regulations are the other big chunk of projected emissions reductions.
However, there are other tools, like subsidies that we're talking about in a couple of the reports today, and using the purchasing power, which we're talking about in the third one relating to climate. They're all supposed to fit together and result in the achievement of a target.
We've had several plans over the years that, on paper, appear to add up—although the current one doesn't quite add up to 40%; it adds up to 30-something per cent in terms of measures that are in place now. They're supposed to all add up in an economic model that Environment Canada uses to project emissions.
There are interactions, and sometimes it is difficult to parse out the effect of one program in isolation from others, and it's certainly true in the electric vehicle and infrastructure area, for example.
However, that shouldn't be an excuse to not do the calculations when you can, and to try to get the best numbers possible, and to be transparent with Canadians as to how much each of these measures is costing them or costing industry or costing government. We're looking for more transparency and more reliability of the models and the measures.
There may be the need for more measures. Other than just barely meeting 40% from past practice, maybe they need to go a little bit higher, recognizing that some of these measures don't pay off as much as they had hoped.
I'd like to thank my colleague, Shafqat, for lending me some time.
My questions will be for Ms. Cote, the director general of environmental protection operations.
I apologize for making you come back up. I'm sorry. I ran out of time the last time.
My opening question will be more or less the same question I asked Mr. DeMarco with respect to oil and gas emissions. Like a lot of Canadians who care about fighting climate change, I've been poring over the reports, both the NIR and the report from the CESD, this week.
One of my main reflections from the net-zero accelerator is that locally—at least in Halton where I'm from—we're seeing some investments making a huge impact on our air quality. I grew up doing sports in the Halton region, and we have bad air quality in Halton, Oakville and Burlington. It's a result of being right in between Toronto and Hamilton and of having a lot of heavy industry and a lot of highways around. It got a lot better when we stopped burning coal to generate electricity in southwestern Ontario, but there's still a lot of work to be done.
When I look at the graph titled “Change in Canada's Oil and Gas Sector GHG Emissions Since 2005”, it's really obvious to me why our emissions are dragging their feet and why we haven't yet made that goal of 1990.
I also reflect on the fact that we always say that Canada's emissions are higher. It's not Canadians. It makes Canadians feel as though they're doing something wrong, and they're not. It's the oil and gas sector that's doing something wrong, and they're doing something that's obviously just generating more and more emissions per barrel of oil and gas, not even becoming more efficient over time.
With the steel industry in my area changing its ways, I'm hopeful that other industries will be able to do the same.
I'm asking for your reflection on two things. How is oil and gas contributing to us dragging our feet on reducing emissions? Also, could you correct the record for us and explain a little bit how emissions are calculated and, if you're willing, corroborate that they haven't been as low as they are now—with the exception of COVID—since 1997?
I know it's a lot.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Once again, I want to thank the commissioner and all of his team, because the observations they make and the feedback we get help to improve performance, and we learn from those things.
I want to comment about my colleague's comments on the oil and gas sector. I don't believe that we are criticizing Canadians who work in the oil and gas sector. I think one of the questions we've had is how sincere these large multinational corporations, which are making record profits, have been in making progress on emissions reductions.
I'd like to ask about the NZA. In the NZA, of the 55 largest emitters, only two signed agreements and 15 put in applications. I'm wondering if the lack of participation of the oil and gas sector in this program is somehow an indication that they're not that sincere about making these changes.
Do you have any comments there? Why do you think the oil and gas sector has not been more concerned about participating in some of the programs that could help make disruptive technology or transformative changes? We see what's happening in Alberta, where renewable energy sources or renewable energy methodologies are being put on hold. We've had CEOs say that they're not interested in any of that anymore, especially Suncor. Perhaps you could comment on that for me.
:
I'll clarify the point I want to make, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Mazier, what I'm saying is highly relevant, because the net zero accelerator initiative is precisely the investment tool box. The motion asks whether it's effective.
With this tool box, I think we'll get there. In your motion, you conclude that it's perhaps not the best tool. Billions of dollars have to be invested in the technology. That being the case, what other options are there? Two other tools can be used—I've already spoken about the first.
The second tool would be the introduction of regulations, as was done for plastic. Because we want to stop using plastic, regulations were introduced. The government tells us what we ought and ought not to do.
The third tool would be to place a ceiling on oil sector emissions.
If investment isn't working, as you claim in your motion, what other options are there, Mr. Mazier? There could be a ceiling on emissions or—
:
I'd like to summarize my comments. Mr. Mazier moved his motion further to our lengthy discussions about the net zero accelerator initiative. This initiative provides funds for industries to invest in technologies to make them more effective and reduce their carbon footprint and their GSG emissions in their respective sectors. Furthermore, according to the report referred to in this motion, the net zero accelerator initiative does not appear to be as effective as desired. As I said earlier, it would be in everyone's interest to work together towards effective ways of achieving a carbon-neutral economy. That's our objective.
But then my Conservative colleagues are directing all their efforts and strategies towards achieving this objective, while engaging in a magical thinking exercise in the belief that investing in technology will inevitably lead to a carbon-neutral economy. However, as Mr. Mazier himself admits, and in view of the questions we've been asking the commissioner, it appears that certain sectors, unfortunately, like oil and gas, are not taking advantage of the initiative.
And yet, it's a good initiative. We are investing, and using taxpayer money to help these sectors develop technologies that will work much more effectively. The trouble is, it's not working, and that's what we've just learned today. We want it to work, but we can't force companies that don't want to invest to do so, even with our help. We have the financial leverage. Not only that, but we've been talking about billions of dollars in investments to help companies transition to a green economy. The fact is that we need a carbon tax, or an emissions ceiling. We won't get there without these other tools.
The problem is that if we don't have these other tools, we'll have to rely once again on a net zero accelerator fund. That's why we absolutely need other tools in our tool box, and that's what we have. We have several.
Just to recap, because it was a number of days ago, at the end of Thursday's meeting, we witnessed a surprise filibuster from the Liberals to talk out the clock until the meeting ended. Thankfully, we were able to suspend this meeting. I thank colleagues for that, because I do believe that this is an important issue.
While the Liberals' intent was to avoid a vote at the end of the last meeting regarding the order of production of documents regarding the complete contribution agreements for the net-zero accelerator fund, which was the topic of major conversation from all parties with the environment commissioner before us, this was that same program for which the environment commissioner had discovered that due diligence was not always, if rarely, done before approval of any of the government funding.
The commissioner also found that there was really no clear demonstration of the project's value for money in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The commissioner had also found that the initiative was not part of any coherent or comprehensive industrial policy on decarbonization whatsoever.
The commissioner also found that there was a risk of double-counting when tracking emissions reductions, which is of major concern, particularly given that the government made the announcement of its national inventory reporting that same day.
The commissioner found that the government did not follow some of the principles of calculating emissions, which throws into doubt the numbers they announced just a couple hours prior to that.
The commissioner found that, in one project, the department did not include all relevant information in the greenhouse gas assessment exercise, breaching the principles of transparency and completeness.
I could go on about the commissioner's compelling testimony that day, but I think my point is understood and recapped effectively for members and Canadians.
The reality is that the Liberal government has badly mishandled its $8-billion program. Given that the environment commissioner can't come to conclusions as to whether we received value for money, I have no idea how Canadians could possibly figure out if there's been value for money.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a pattern emerging from the Liberals in filibustering.
I had the chance to visit my colleagues at the government operations committee a couple of weeks ago, where we were looking at the intended release of the contracts regarding the electrical vehicle battery plants that have been announced with major subsidies to foreign companies by Canadian taxpayers to bring in Chinese parts and components and have them assembled by foreign workers at the company's choosing.
Obviously, I think it's fully reasonable in that case, just as in this case, to request that the contracts be provided. Obviously, there can be redactions made. I think my colleagues don't want to see any sensitive data released if there are legitimate reasons, but willingness needs to be there to release the contract. We were talking about billions and billions of dollars and a government unwilling to release this.
It's a trend of broken promises. Unfortunately, I don't have time to go through the entire list of broken promises from this government, but this is a reminder that the next time the government says that it is going to spend $8 billion on something, I think it's reasonable to ask where it's going and what results it is achieving.
This Prime Minister, once upon a time, said that sunshine was the best disinfectant. Once upon a time, this government was going to be open by default. Once upon a time, this was going to be the most transparent government in the history of Canada. Clearly, these are broken promises on the fronts we have looked at in terms of the carbon tax emissions modelling assumptions and data that we have been denied access to, the same as the electric vehicle contracts at another committee.
I hope that my Liberal colleagues will perhaps cease the desire to break those promises, move back towards a desire to be open by default, release the contracts, vote in favour of this motion and not force opposition parties to come together to seek out this information.
Canadians and anybody who watched the testimony of our environment commissioner before us would have the very same questions we are asking.
I hope that we can get quick, unanimous consent to support this motion, hand over the contracts to both the environment commissioner and this committee to make sure that we can review them and get an understanding if there is, in fact, value for money through those.
I know there's a long speaking list, but my hope is that we can get through this very quickly so that we can finish any other committee business and get on to our next study.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I won't take long. I don't want to go back over the list of all the impediments that my colleague just raised with respect to accountability around this issue.
This whole thing is kind of uncomfortable. We had Mr. DeMarco here to talk about some very uncomfortable things, including the willing buyer-willing seller contracts that we know absolutely nothing about.
I would remind everyone that the net zero accelerator has $8 billion in funding. Everyone here represents constituents who expect us to do our job, which is to hold the government to account for the money it spends. That is all the more true when the government boasts that it is one of the most progressive governments in the world on a particular issue. MPs in the House of Commons talk about how good we are, how Canada is a leader in the fight against climate change, how things are getting so much better on the greenhouse gas emissions front, how our investments are targeted and how everything is working. However, Mr. DeMarco told us last week that it really isn't working as well as people think despite all the money being spent.
I would like to remind everyone that, according to a report published by the International Monetary Fund, Canada invested $50 billion in the oil industry in 2022, both directly and indirectly. That really is a lot of money. That's $50 billion. I would remind everyone that the big five oil companies netted $200 billion in 2022. Even so, the government is pouring in more cash, and that's not even counting Trans Mountain, which ended up costing $35 billion even though it was originally supposed to cost around $7 billion, if I'm not mistaken. It cost about four times more than expected.
The Liberals can't be trusted to manage taxpayers' money in the fight against climate change. That has been clear for a long time.
People can listen to what we're saying. We are the people's representatives. I can't believe this. All we're asking for is accountability for the contracts that were signed. I cannot fathom why we're spending so much time discussing something that should go without saying. We are the people's representatives, and we have to be accountable to the people. People are worried about the fight against climate change. Eco-anxiety is everywhere. We're here, and we're asking ourselves this question.
I won't spend any more time on this. I really hope a vote will allow us to get to the bottom of things. This is the most basic part of our job. It's actually our raison d'être. We're here to hold the government to account.
Mr. DeMarco and his team have done an amazing job. We want to take this a step further. We want to find out more about what Mr. DeMarco couldn't tell us last time. I hope members will vote in favour of this motion. I hope my Liberal Party colleagues will see that doing so is essential. This is an important issue for democracy. We're here to represent our constituents, who are concerned about the fight against climate change. The government needs to be accountable.
That's what I wanted to say.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
[English]
We are totally open to the notion that we produce more evidence on this. I've talked about the poor air quality in Halton. Also, having gone to McMaster University, I've seen the belching black fumes of smoke coming from Dofasco. It's an eyesore and a “lung sore”, and it leads to negative health outcomes.
That news was very welcome—that they are going to pursue electric arc technology for steel production in my region, right in line with the Conservatives' approach to technology. This is precisely what we're talking about when we talk about taking innovative steps forward. Supporting innovation at the business level and within academia and science is the approach that our government has taken. For a number of large-scale businesses—at Algoma Steel and at Dofasco in Hamilton—it's been a real success story.
I want to see success stories in Brant county, in southern Manitoba, outside of Quebec City and all across the country. Let's get to it.
The only issue we have is with the amount of time to get good documents, so we'd ask for 14 days, and we can collectively vote. We don't even have to vote, actually. We can move on to other business as long as we all agree.
The matter before us today is extremely serious. There is a glaring problem here that should alarm every Canadian. In fact, after hearing the environment commissioner's testimony and reading his report, I think that this may be the most expensive cover-up since Justin Trudeau was elected.
In December 2020, the Liberals announced the net-zero accelerator. They charged taxpayers $3 billion to fund it. Less than one year later, they doubled the spending and announced another $5 billion for this government program, increasing the total cost to $8 billion.
It is very important to note that the Liberals claim that the purpose of this net-zero accelerator was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Their plan was to give away billions in tax dollars to large companies in exchange for a specific reduction of emissions.
Usually when a government announces $8 billion in spending, they brag about it for years and talk about the results. However, ever since the net-zero accelerator was established, we have barely heard a word from the Liberals on this $8-billion program. Now we know why they've been so quiet.
Last week, Canada's independent environment commissioner revealed that the government's net-zero accelerator is nothing more than another slush fund. He concluded that the Liberal government “did not effectively manage the...Net Zero Accelerator to decarbonize the manufacturing industries in accordance with Canada's climate goals or with due regard to value for money for Canadians.”
Not only did we learn that the government was giving—
:
I shall proceed. The Liberals are giving away billions of tax dollars in the name of emissions reductions, without knowing if there will be any emissions reductions.
When I asked the commissioner if the government is being fully transparent about the emissions data they share with Canadians, he stated, and I quote: No, they are not fully transparent.
In fact, the environment commissioner revealed that the Liberals are inflating their emissions reduction data, even stating that the government may be double-counting the emissions reductions being reported—yes, double-counting.
This is absurd, Chair. How can Canadians believe any of their emissions reports if they're fabricating the numbers?
Let's define the word “fraudulent”. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, fraudulent is defined as “not what it claims or pretends to be”. According to Canada's environment commissioner, the actual emissions reduction data is not what the Liberals claim it to be. This sounds fraudulent to me.
Why on earth is this government giving away billions of dollars without having any idea how many emissions are being reduced, if any. To make matters worse, the government hasn't released the funding agreements to the public, so we don't even know who this money went to or why. This is absurd.
That's why I move this motion to obtain this information. If the Liberals are spending $8 billion in tax dollars, Canadians rightfully deserve to know what their money is being spent on. There is no reason why these funding agreements cannot be handed over to the committee.
The promised that his government would be the most transparent government in Canadian history, but we have continuously witnessed this government blocking the committee from obtaining information. Not only must we uncover the funding agreements for this $8-billion slush fund. We also need to obtain the progress report of the net-zero accelerator.
According to the environment commissioner's report, the government is also hiding the net-zero accelerator's emissions report from Canadians. He said, “The tracker is a tool that was designed to measure the Net Zero Accelerator’s progress toward an internal target set by the department itself and is not public.”
Canadians deserve to know the truth behind this slush fund. In the environment commissioner's 2023 report, he stated, “The federal government is not on track to meet the 2030 target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions....”
It's very clear why the Liberals are refusing to release this information to Canadians. Their environmental record is a failure. In fact, Canada dropped four rankings in climate change performance last year despite this $8-billion slush fund and another carbon tax increase.
Chair, I will remind this committee that just last year another Liberal slush fund was exposed, so I think it's imperative that we get to the bottom of this. Last year, we learned that the hand-picked a chair to run another billion-dollar green fund. Canadians eventually found that the chair of the green tech slush fund siphoned $217,000 of taxpayer dollars to her own company. That green slush fund was exposed for gross mismanagement and multiple conflicts of interest. In fact, the government official confirmed that no action was taken after these conflicts of interest were exposed.
Chair, my point is that there is a glaring history of corruption and cover-ups with this Liberal government. It is essential that we get to the bottom of this, given the environment commissioner's damning report.
For those tuning in, I would remind you that we're holding this debate as a result of a meeting we had five days ago here at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development with the commissioner of the environment. As everyone knows, the commissioner and his team are independent people who document specific issues and take an objective look at them. They have tabled five reports for us to look at, reports that could be the subject of political debate. That's why we're in politics, by the way. We have opposing views, and that's as it should be. That's called democracy, and our forums are the House of Commons and parliamentary committees like this one.
One of the environment commissioner's reports was on the strategic innovation fund's net zero accelerator initiative to decarbonize manufacturing industries. The net zero accelerator initiative is a program that pays companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, thereby reducing pollution. This program is not small potatoes; its budget is $8 billion. For those tuning in at home, I'll point out that eight billion of their income tax dollars, not their GST dollars, will be spent on this. I want to make that clear because we learned when the budget was tabled that $54.1 billion will go to paying interest on the debt, and that happens to be exactly how much Canadians shell out in GST. Every penny Canadians pay in GST goes to paying interest on the debt. None of it is used to fund this kind of program.
Now, has the program panned out? In our opinion, the answer is no, not at all. That's why we had questions for the commissioner of the environment. His answers were damning, to say the least. I started by asking him if it was effective and efficient, and he replied, “I'm not convinced it's effective. It might be if they're lucky, but it wouldn't be thanks to any grand plan….”
If it's luck you want, go to the casino across the Ottawa River.
:
I have nothing against the place you have there, but it's not the kind of place where the government should be investing $8 billion of taxpayers' money. I think the member would agree.
Conservatives aren't the ones saying it might work if we're lucky. It was the environment commissioner himself. He and his experienced team spent days and days studying the actual results of the accelerator that the government spent $8 billion of taxpayers' money on, and he concluded that he can't be sure it's working, but it might, with luck. There's no substance. We're not the ones saying that; it's the Ethics Commissioner, or rather the environment commissioner, sorry. There's been an awful lot of talk about ethics with this government, but I meant the environment commissioner.
We asked the commissioner questions about another topic, and he told us that he had never seen the carbon tax calculation model. That's a big deal. We're all here to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, shrink our environmental footprint and cut pollution. The duly elected government chose to do that by imposing a carbon tax. We're against that, but the government is in favour of it, and that's fine. That's democracy, but we still need to know if the program is working. When we asked the environment commissioner if it's working—I'm talking about the carbon tax, not the $8-billion fund—he said that he had never seen the carbon tax calculation model.
When you institute something like a tax, which involves a certain amount of money, the least you can do is figure out if it works or not, and there are ways to calculate that. However, the environment commissioner, whose job is to audit the effectiveness of certain government programs, said that he has never seen the carbon tax calculation model. We need to get to the bottom of this, Mr. Chair.
In response to a specific question from Mr. Mazier about how emissions reductions were calculated, a departmental official whose name I don't have—I just want to clarify that it wasn't the commissioner himself—confirmed that, in some cases, the same effect could be calculated twice.
As it turns out, it's possible to count emissions reductions from the same source twice. That's not very rigorous. Once again, Mr. Chair, this isn't coming from Conservatives. There were about 30 people here. They were well equipped. They had clearly taken their work seriously and done it thoroughly.
I also want to remind the committee of something that the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development said during our discussion. He said that most of the projects do not include commitments to reduce emissions. Most of them, Mr. Chair. I can see why that might be the case once or twice, here and there, but for crying out loud, most of the projects had no commitment to reduce emissions. What is the point of these projects if they're not reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions?
[English]
This is serious business, Mr. Chair.
We're talking about $8 billion of the taxpayers' money to be sure to reduce emissions.
Let me be clear, Mr. Chair. All of us here around this table share the same objective to reduce pollution and reduce emissions.
There are different ways to address it. The government—and it has the mandate to do that—proposed a taxation on the price of the pollution. The way we see it, this is not the way to reduce the emissions, but this is the debate. This is what democracy is all about. They agree; we disagree. Well, this is what Parliament is all about, and we shall protect this diversity of points of view. However, something that is very important is to share the same goal to reduce emissions, and to see if the way we address it is efficient.
[Translation]
Are the emissions reduction measures effective or not? In this case, Mr. Chair, we feel that the work was not done properly and that the goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is not being achieved at all, as the commissioner said. He said that he isn't convinced it's effective; that if it is, it might be mere luck; that he doesn't have the carbon tax calculation model; that, in some cases, an emissions reduction had been counted twice; and that most of the projects included no commitment to reduce emissions.
That's why my colleague, Mr. Mazier, tabled his motion, which quotes the commissioner's report. It begins as follows:
Given that Canada’s Environment Commissioner reported:
ç
a. That the Liberal government …
This is from paragraph 4.72 of the report. This is important. Listen to this:
… did not effectively manage the Strategic Innovation Fund’s Net Zero Accelerator to decarbonize the manufacturing industries in accordance with Canada’s climate goals or with due regard to value for money for Canadians”;
That's not from the official opposition's environment critic. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development himself wrote it right there in black and white in paragraph 4.72 of his report on the $8‑billion net zero accelerator initiative, which found that it was not handled properly. That's why the motion goes on to say:
ç
b. That the emission reduction progress and results of the Liberal government’s $8 billion, Net Zero Accelerator are not public to Canadians.
The motion ends as follows:
The committee order the production of (i) the government’s complete tracker tool used to measure the Net Zero Accelerator’s progress and results, (ii) all internal Net Zero Accelerator targets set by the government, including the government’s Net Zero Accelerator emission reduction target, and (iii) all complete contributions agreements signed, to date, for the Net Zero Accelerator, within one week of this motion being adopted.
We did adopt our Liberal colleague's amendment to give the government two weeks instead of one. We're absolutely fine with that. We'll take as much time as we need, but we need to see results.
In essence, Mr. Chair, we're here because the commissioner said that the whole thing was nice and all, but it isn't producing the desired results. We're here because we want real results so we can have an actual substantive debate about what works and how to bring about real, effective, practical, non-dogmatic greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the interest of Canada's future.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to my colleagues for their speeches.
I want to get some things on the record with respect to the net-zero accelerator fund. While I totally appreciate the desire for more information, I want to put in context some of these investments and what they mean for our region in southwestern Ontario, as well as for Sault Ste. Marie, in the context of Algoma Steel.
The members continually suggested that there were no earmarked emissions reductions attached to these investments, which is simply not true. For the Dofasco project on its own $400 million was announced, which will help cut carbon emissions from steel production at that facility in Hamilton by more than half. Their emissions will be reduced by 60%. This has been widely reported on. I'm not looking at a government document; it's just all of the news that came out on that great day three years ago when we were able to announce that by 2028 steel production in Hamilton wouldn't be as dirty as it always has been.
I used to work in steel in Hamilton, and it's a pretty dirty job, I have to say. My job was sweeping the floor and grinding the rust off steel that was stored outside. It's a dirty job but it doesn't have to be that dirty. It certainly doesn't have to pollute as much as it does.
The CEO of ArcelorMittal said the company was proud of the government for stepping up and that this investment would contribute to a 60% reduction in their emissions. Their emissions are very high. Both that plant and the one in Sault Ste. Marie will lower emissions by six million tonnes a year. That's really significant. Six million tonnes a year is six megatonnes. That would get us pretty close to under 700 megatonnes, which is one of those targets.
I also heard repeatedly that we're not on track to meet our emissions targets, but that's not true either. We are on track to meet our 2026 target, which is really great news.
Taking the report at face value is important, and one of the findings was that by 2026 we'll be right on target. We need to take further steps in order to reach our 2030 targets.
Let's go back to six million tonnes a year in emissions reductions. That's just carbon emissions, by the way. There's a lot of other stuff that goes into the air when we use coal to produce steel. It's going to mean a healthier environment. It's going to mean lower emissions. It's going to mean fewer upper respiratory tract infections. It's going to mean less respiratory distress in the summer.
It's the equivalent of taking 1.8 million vehicles off road. That's almost the number of passenger vehicles in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver combined. That's remarkable. That's remarkable progress, and that's the power of investing in technology with these companies.
Using technology is one of the ways of making sure we reduce our emissions. That annual reduction of three million tonnes accounts for 30% of Hamilton's entire emissions reductions. It's 30% of their emissions total. They currently emit 11 million tonnes of greenhouse gases annually, and Dofasco contributes almost half, 4.8 tonnes. It says 4.8 tonnes, but I'm going to presume that maybe it means 4.8 million. It might be a typo. I'm just reading from the article.