:
I call this meeting of the Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to order. This is our second meeting of the 44th Parliament.
We meet today in a hybrid format. Welcome, everyone.
I remind you that taking screenshots or photos of your screen during the meeting is not permitted. We must follow some directives from the Board of Internal Economy. First, we must maintain physical distancing of two metres and we must wear a non-medical mask when circulating in the room. If you are in the room, I urge you to wear your mask at all times, except, of course, when you are speaking. You have hand sanitizer if you need it. I would also like to point out that, because of the current circumstances, we have been advised that we can only have one assistant per party with us, not one assistant per member. I see that we are complying with that directive.
I am not telling you anything you don't know because you are all experienced and the witnesses have all appeared previously. But I must mention that you can use the official language of your choice. Please stay on mute until I give you the floor.
[English]
That pretty much covers it for procedure and protocol.
Before we start, we have up to five minutes of committee business. Essentially, the item of committee business we have to deal with is adopting the report of the steering committee. Are members all agreed to adopt the report?
Thanks to Madame Pauzé. I really like the direction she was taking to try to get back to our meeting. A dilatory motion to do that would be, I think, something that could be considered in order. I would make that motion that we postpone the discussion of our motion, which, again, is exactly what I presented to the committee, and it's also the motion that we were considering in the last Parliament.
Nothing has changed, other than all of a sudden, today, at the last minute, Mr. Albas wants to reduce the number of meetings for a critical study for this committee to undertake, a study that includes the Canada water agency, which should be reporting back to Parliament. I would love to see what they're doing. Water is a critical issue.
I agree with Mr. Duguid. We need meetings to do that discussion, but obviously this is going to be a longer discussion, so I would defer this debate until our next meeting.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're happy to appear before your committee this morning.
I'd like to acknowledge that this hearing is taking place from the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
With me today are Kim Leach, James McKenzie, David Normand and Michelle Salvail. They are responsible for the reports that were tabled in the House of Commons on November 25, 2021.
I will start by providing an overview of the commissioner's role before going over the findings of those reports. The Office of the Auditor General of Canada conducts performance audits, including audits of the environment and sustainable development that are led by the commissioner, who is appointed by the Auditor General. We examine whether the activities and programs of federal organizations are managed with due regard to economy, efficiency, effectiveness and environmental impact. We provide parliamentarians with objective, fact-based information and expert advice.
On behalf of the Auditor General, the commissioner reports to Parliament at least once a year on environment and sustainable development matters that the commissioner considers should be brought to Parliament's attention. In practice, I will normally be reporting twice a year. The reports are referred to this committee.
The commissioner helps the Office of the Auditor General of Canada incorporate environmental and sustainable development considerations, as appropriate, across its work. This includes considering the United Nations' sustainable development goals when selecting, designing and carrying out performance audits. These goals are a priority area for the work of the entire office.
[Translation]
The Commissioner also reviews and comments on the federal government’s draft sustainable development strategy under the Federal Sustainable Development Act. Once the strategy is implemented, we monitor and report on the extent to which federal departments and agencies contribute to meeting the targets of the overall federal strategy and the objectives of individual departmental strategies. We also review the fairness of the information in the federal government’s progress reports on the implementation of the strategy.
The Commissioner manages and reports on the environmental petitions process on behalf of the Auditor General. Through this process, Canadians can directly ask federal ministers specific questions about environmental and sustainable development issues under federal jurisdiction and are guaranteed a response.
In addition, as you are aware, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act came into force in June 2021. The act requires the Commissioner to examine, report on, and make recommendations about the Government of Canada’s implementation of measures to mitigate climate change, including those meant to achieve the government’s most recent greenhouse gas emission target.
I’m going to turn now to our recent reports. The first report that I would like to focus on provides the findings of our audit of the Emissions Reduction Fund for the oil and gas sector. This fund was part of the measures that the Government of Canada rolled out in response to the COVID‑19 pandemic. It aimed to reduce harmful emissions while maintaining employment and encouraging investments in oil and gas companies.
We found that the program was poorly designed because it did not link funding to net emission reductions from conventional onshore oil and gas operations. For example, in two thirds of the 40 projects funded by the Emissions Reduction Fund, companies stated in their applications that the funding would allow them to increase their production levels. When production increases, so do the related emissions, and these increases were not reflected in Natural Resources Canada’s projections.
To help Canada achieve its national targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Natural Resources Canada should make sure that its policies, programs, and measures are based on reliable estimates of expected emission reductions.
[English]
I will now move on to our next report. In this audit, we examined whether Environment and Climate Change Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada were working together using a risk-based approach to reduce algal blooms caused by excess nutrient pollution in three Canadian water basins. The three basins we examined were Lake Erie, Lake Winnipeg and the Wolastoq Saint John River.
Canada has a stated goal of increasing sustainable agricultural production, which could increase nutrient runoff. Excess nutrients can lead to a runaway growth of algae, which can in turn produce toxins that are harmful to humans, livestock, pets and wildlife.
We found that the two departments were moving in the right direction, but could have an even greater impact on freshwater quality outcomes if they further coordinated their science efforts and shared information with other organizations involved in water resource management.
For the next report, as we do each year, we assessed the progress of selected departments and agencies in implementing their sustainable development strategies, focusing on transparency and accountability in reporting. We reviewed departmental agency actions under three federal goals: healthy coasts and oceans, pristine lakes and rivers, and sustainable food.
Overall, reporting on actions to achieve the federal goals was poor. Departments and agencies did not provide results for almost half of the actions they reported on. Gaps in reporting make it difficult for parliamentarians and Canadians to understand progress being made against Canada's sustainable development commitments.
[Translation]
Our recent reports also included the annual report on environmental petitions. We received 14 petitions from July 2020 to June 2021. They raised concerns in areas that included biodiversity, climate change, and toxic substances.
I’m going to turn now to my last report, which is not an audit but a summary of lessons learned from Canada’s climate change efforts since 1990.
After more than 30 years, the trend in Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, which create harmful climate impacts, is going up. Despite repeated government commitments to decrease emissions, they have increased by more than 20% since 1990.
At the heart of this report are eight lessons learned from Canada’s action and inaction on the enduring climate crisis.
Leadership is the first lesson. Stronger leadership and coordination are needed to drive progress on climate change.
Other lessons include reducing dependence on high-emission industries, learning to adapt to climate change impacts, investing in a climate-resilient future, increasing public awareness, acting on and not just speaking about climate targets, involving all climate solution actors, and protecting the interests of future generations.
[English]
In closing, there is a need for the federal government to achieve real outcomes on environmental protection and sustainable development, not just words on paper or unfulfilled promises. All too often, Canada's environmental commitments are not met with the actions needed to protect air, land, water and wildlife, now and for future generations, and this is a trend we urgently need to reverse.
It is my hope that you'll invite us and government officials to appear before your committee on every one of our audits and at any other time we may be able to support your work. Using our audit work and the expertise and insight of department and agency officials and other stakeholders helps your committee enhance accountability. Asking departments and agencies to provide the committee with action plans to implement our recommendations and any recommendations that the committee makes will also help raise the progress bar on environmental and sustainable development issues on behalf of all Canadians.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. We're happy to answer any questions the committee may have.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and welcome to our witness, Commissioner.
Let me begin by stating that as a proud Albertan, I acknowledge the hard work and commitment of Canada's natural resource workers, and I give thanks that we as Canadians are blessed with these treasures.
It's what makes us a nation that has been the foundation of our outstanding contribution, not only to our citizens but to the entire world. Whether it's agriculture, forestry, mining, or oil and gas, Canadians have always sought the right balance between the environment and growth. Therefore, protecting our environment by proper stewardship of our water, our soil, and our air is something that all Canadians should celebrate. I believe this report speaks to the importance of this.
I live north of the 49th parallel, quite a ways north. It has been said that changes in latitude mean changes in attitude. I understand the issues of high-density urban settings and the love of isolated island paradises, but I also understand the uniqueness of our country. The special accommodations that allow for hydro projects, unique Canadian technology that allows for nuclear power generation, and the world-class oil and gas industry that generates the mobile energy that allows us to live in this vast country that spans six time zones and reaches from points as far south as California to the north pole, that's the Canada I love.
Having served as a member of the public accounts committee, I also appreciate the work of your office. I would like to deal with “Report 4: Emissions Reduction Fund—Natural Resources Canada”. Specifically, the onshore program makes specific assumptions about the potential benefit of government declarations.
I would like to start with exhibit 4.1, which shows the reality that emissions have risen from 2016 to 2020. I believe the commissioner already mentioned the difference between 1990 and the present. However, if you take a look at the linear target for 2030, as it goes down, that was from the 2005-06 point and the 2010 point. Coincidentally, the low point of 2010 is when the Harper Conservatives were there.
The model for exhibit 4.4 shows what would be the case, prior to 2020 and onward, if neither the federal methane reduction program nor the onshore program is implemented. It then shows lower trajectories, illustrating expected reductions from each of these two programs. This is in the report, but I also noticed that this comes from the World Resources Institute of 2014. The other chart I talked about was actually a 2021 chart.
We're making some assumptions that there would be expected reductions by complying with these federal methane regulations, or the onshore program to which you say there are difficulties in trying to track down exactly what has taken place. If we go to section 4.32, it speaks of the overestimate of emission reductions estimated from the onshore program, and it further states in 4.33 that the estimates did not consider the overlap of programs and, as your analysis has stated, that they are not accurate.
My question is this. If these programs are ill-advised and will not meet targets, would a program that incentivizes innovation specific to Canada's unique greenhouse gas realities be a more logical goal, thereby recognizing advances in both renewable and non-renewable energy resources? Does your department have the ability to track such metrics?
On your first point, I would commend you to read the last page of our climate change lessons learned report, if you haven't already, because we do strike an optimistic note there, and we're hopeful that this can be turned around.
It's too late to stop climate change, but we can at least mitigate and reduce the magnitude of the potentially catastrophic effects. We live on a finite planet with a certain amount of carbon. We don't want to have too much of it in the upper atmosphere and too little of it in the biomass, water, soil and earth, so, yes, we have to reconcile economic development with environmental protection in the long term, because we live on a finite planet with finite resources. There has to be a sustainable approach, as opposed to looking at it as growth at the expense of the environment, because the environment ultimately provides us with the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. There needs to be more of what I would call an integrated approach—and this is reflected in the Federal Sustainable Development Act—to the environment and economy, and movement past the more old-style trade-off approach, which is that we'll protect the environment in times of luxury or when it's feasible but that economic growth takes precedence. They have to go hand in hand, and that's what I think a net-zero future looks at, a healthy environment and a healthy economy working together, as opposed to being at odds with each other.
:
Honourable members, I'm pleased to be here today to talk about Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's contribution to the report on scientific activities in selected water basins by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.
At AAFC, we welcome the findings of the commissioner as part of our commitment to continuous improvement. We will continue to work with our colleagues at Environment and Climate Change Canada to improve information sharing and collaboration. AAFC and ECCC will update their memorandum of understanding on science and re-establish national and regional joint science committees. For each water basin, we will work together to review our respective departmental objectives and research projects.
As well, we will closely track our outreach and knowledge transfer activities to ensure our external partners are getting the information they need. Through these joint science committees, we will identify new opportunities to coordinate our research. Our common goal is to help Canadian farmers and food processors continue to be global leaders in the field of sustainable agriculture.
Canadian farmers are an important part of the climate change solution. Farmers already contribute to safeguarding our environment and water quality through sustainable practices such as fencing, tree planting and reduced tillage.
At AAFC, we're working with farmers to help them protect our soil and water resources for future generations.
Over the past three years, we have been bringing researchers, farmers and other stakeholders together to form collaborative research networks known as “living laboratories”. Together, they develop and test sustainable farming practices and technologies that help reduce the farm's environmental footprint.
The research takes place directly on the farmers' fields. Farmers can see the results in real time and can adopt innovative practices more quickly, and they share their knowledge across Canada so other farmers can learn from their peers how to apply new stewardship tools and approaches to reducing emissions, build healthier soils, boost production and enhance wildlife habitat.
Living labs are now up and running across Canada, in Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario and the eastern Prairies. In PEI, farmers and researchers are working together to find the best ways to apply fertilizers so that they can save money, help the environment and reduce greenhouse gases all at the same time. In Quebec, farmers, researchers and first nations are looking at cover crops to reduce soil erosion; and in Manitoba, they're capturing and storing water on the farm to prevent nutrient runoff, while seeding plants that will attract pollinators.
The living labs model is also the cornerstone of our new agricultural climate solutions program, which will support regional collaboration networks across the country to develop climate-smart solutions on the farm.
The living labs approach has been endorsed by the G20 ministers of agriculture as a novel way to accelerate the development of sustainable agricultural practices and technologies around the world, and we are pleased with the commissioner's recognition of the living labs as a model for collaboration in both planning and project execution.
We will draw from the living labs collaborative approach and apply its best management practices to our ongoing projects with partners, including other departments such as ECCC.
To sum up, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada agrees with the audit recommendations. We welcome the findings of the commissioner as part of our commitment to continuous improvement, and we will take action to improve information sharing and collaboration with Environment and Climate Change Canada.
My colleague Matt Parry is also here today and will be able to address questions you might have on the department's progress in implementing sustainable development strategies.
Thank you again for the opportunity. We look forward to the discussion.
:
Good afternoon, everybody. Thanks for the opportunity to be here.
I'm speaking from Ottawa, as I mentioned a little earlier, which is the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
The Government of Canada's climate plan commits to decarbonization across all economic sectors by 2050. This includes, as you folks well know, a price on carbon pollution, strengthening existing methane regulations, clean fuels regulations, and putting a cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector.
The emissions reduction fund is part of that plan and one part of the comprehensive set of tools that are going to be needed to achieve our climate objectives, to support jobs, and to grow and secure the opportunities from the net-zero economy.
The program was launched in 2020 as a COVID response measure. The program sought to ensure the continued reduction of methane emissions at a time of record low energy prices and to maintain jobs during a very difficult period. It did that. In just over its first year, $142 million was invested in 93 projects. Most involved small and medium-sized enterprises across western Canada, where they are having a positive impact on the local economies, such as Estevan, Brandon and Slave Lake. Those projects are expected to deliver 4.7 megatonnes of emissions reductions in the first 12 months after they're completed. That's equivalent to taking about one million cars off the road.
The pandemic is continuing, but at the same time we agree with the audit of the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development that thankfully many of the economic circumstances since the program was introduced just over a year ago have changed. We're going to continue to evolve. The situation will continue to evolve.
The input of the commissioner and of stakeholders, industry and non-governmental organizations regarding the program has been fabulously welcomed and valued. In fact, since the launch of the program the department has made periodic changes throughout to improve its delivery.
The audit report helped us shape the relaunch of the program that happened on January 19. We received the audit that came out in public on November 25. In particular, I would flag three things for you.
First, we narrowed the scope to only projects that fully eliminate intentional routine methane venting and flaring. Those are the projects that will come forward in the third project intake period.
Second, we strengthened the criteria applied to focus on the greatest return on investment from an emissions perspective.
The third big thing we did was to provide greater transparency to ensure that projects demonstrate reductions that are incremental to Canada's methane reductions. These changes are going to further improve the program from its foundation, consistent with the conditions we're in today.
We're really grateful to have the opportunity to talk to you about this today. This is a program that gets into some technical issues. I'm very grateful to have the director general of the clean fuels branch, my colleague Debbie Scharf, here to speak with me.
I'll end there. We look forward to your questions.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, committee members.
In the interest of time, let me say just two things. We, too, agree with the commissioner's recommendations. We look forward to meeting with you today and discussing the report.
My name is Hilary Geller. I'm the assistant deputy minister of the strategic policy branch at Environment Canada. I have direct responsibilities for sustainable development, including leading work across government on the federal sustainable development strategy. Also, my branch leads, through our regional offices, the delivery of various freshwater programs in the Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg and the Saint John Wolastoq river.
We also lead Environment Canada's collaboration with the Department of Finance on certain specific climate-related initiatives, like sustainable finance.
I'm joined today by my colleague Doug Nevison, the interim assistant deputy minister of the climate change branch.
Finally, we are also joined by Vincent Ngan, director general of horizontal policy, engagement and coordination in the climate change branch. As a collective, we're really looking forward to answering your questions on this report.
:
I want to say how pleased I am to be part of this conversation today. I am one of the six members from Newfoundland and Labrador. I represent St. John's East. This is very important within my riding, and certainly in the conversations I've had with stakeholders in the community. The link to a movement to lower emissions through actions to get to net zero in a timely fashion is incredibly important.
The balance between the environment and the economy and the need to move very much in a just transition are things I hear all the time. I respect that many of these things have been discussed, so I don't want to bring you down that path again but rather shift a little and still stay with climate change.
I'm not sure, Mr. Commissioner, if you're the one to answer this, or you, Ms. Geller. I'm really curious to learn from you something that's very important to me, which is this whole concept of partnerships. As we move to address the climate change crisis, we know that it requires leadership and coordination among all government actors. I believe that was the word you used, and I absolutely agree with this. It's not only federal organizations, but also provincial, territorial and municipal governments. Also, you state that there's a risk that climate action could be hampered through an uncoordinated policy approach.
With that in mind, this is for whoever wants to take the question. Can you point to the percentage of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions that are attributable to federal measures as opposed to joint measures, or those that are initiated purely at other levels of government? Can you give us that lens of the different players involved in getting us to net zero?
:
The emissions reduction fund has the potential to be an example of policy incoherence because of the refusal of the department to look at the big picture of net emissions.
You've heard the number “4.7 megatonnes” in emissions reductions. You heard yesterday at the natural resources committee about 97% of emissions being additional, but until you factor in the effect of production or continued production or expanded production, you don't have a net number, and if the net number is close to zero or negative because of increases in production, then you get into the policy coherence area.
If in practice the net emissions are lowered, then it is a worthwhile project as long as it's being done on an efficient cost per tonne basis. So yes, it does provide an example of the potential for policy incoherence, in this case, mostly because they will not look at the net emissions and continue to look at equipment-level emissions without looking at the whole facility and all of the facilities together that are subject to the funding.
Until we get to that approach of net emissions, we may never see the curve come down in Canada, because if we don't look at the big picture, then you can have individual programs that appear to be adding value, yet the overall emissions curve goes up. We need to look at it in a holistic manner.