Public Accounts Committee on June 11th, 2024

[Jean-François Tremblay]

It was around $2.7 billion. That may vary. There were changes.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Do you know how much money Canada invested in fossil fuel subsidies in 2022, according to the International Monetary Fund, or IMF?

[Jean-François Tremblay]

No, I don't.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

It invested $51.5 billion. Are you satisfied with this order of magnitude?

[Jean-François Tremblay]

It isn't my place to judge.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

The issue is that you don't have a target.

[Jean-François Tremblay]

It depends on what you call a fossil fuel subsidy. For example, does this include investment in decarbonization?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Perhaps. However, even assistance with decarbonization may be considered improper given that this industry rakes in billions of dollars in profits.

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You have 20 seconds left.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you.

It must be a bit frustrating, though, to see Canada doing more to help oil companies than to reduce emissions. Even if the goal really was to help them reduce greenhouse gas emissions, only five or six of the 80 objectives in your emissions reduction plan focus on the oil and gas sector. Yet this sector is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Again, isn't this a bit of a dichotomy? Aren't there two contradictory messages here?

[Jean-François Tremblay]

We have regulations for methane emissions. We're also working on a regulatory framework to cap greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector. These measures target the fossil fuel sector. When we work on reducing greenhouse gases, we need to work with the entire industry, because we need to go—

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Of course, that's my point. However, you probably aren't helping it enough, or you aren't imposing enough measures on this industry.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Next up we have Mr. Desjarlais for six minutes, please.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Growing up, I often heard a phrase from many of the elders in the very small, rural, indigenous community I grew up in, which was that for young people, particularly children, this planet and this place and this earth is more theirs than it is ours. We have a responsibility to that principle, to know that those who act and those who are stewarding this land have a real and very tangible connection to the next generation and the fact that they'll have to deal with many of these things.

I am a more recently elected member of Parliament. I'm sure our witnesses could sympathize with the many stories I hear about the fear of young people. At every school I go to speak to or visit, a young person comes up to me to ask whether enough is being done to make sure that they can have a livable planet. They fear that the smoke and wildfires that took over much of Canada last year will become the new norm; that the historic floods that we're seeing in some parts of the region, like those that destroyed our supply chains in British Columbia, could become the new norm; that the immensely dry conditions that threaten cities like Fort McMurray, Yellowknife and much of Edmonton will continue to get worse.

It's a serious question and one that I think we owe young people the most credible answer to, even if that answer is one of failure. I also do believe these audits, most particularly the audit presented today, make clear where we are and where we need to go.

I'm disappointed in a few facts. The report suggests that we've now had 10 climate mitigation plans since 1990, and Canada's current emissions are significantly higher than what they were in 1990. What we heard today, as admitted by the members of the government and by Environment Canada, is that there is a lack of centralized authority.

To the contention of the member from the Privy Council who said that they are the ones who act in the centralizing work of institutions, the audit makes clear that we're not seeing any tangible changes. It's clear to me—and I think it's clear to Environment and Climate Change Canada—that Canada is going to miss its target for reducing emissions. Again, these are the things we have to tell young people.

In addition to this, in December of 2022, the department revised the emissions reduction that is expected from the 2030 plan from achieving 36.4% below the 2005 level to 34%, missing the 2030 target by an even larger margin. This is, in my mind, the moving of goalposts. It doesn't seek to actually reduce emissions but tries to prevent what would be a better level of accountability. The audit suggests that only 45% of the measures in the plan had an implementation deadline.

My question is to the audit team. What measures did not have an implementation deadline that are of most importance to actually achieving emissions reductions, please?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Principal Leach will address that.

[Kimberley Leach]

In paragraph 6.26 and in the exhibit, we talk about the 80 emission reduction measures in the plan, and we point out that there was no deadline for about half of them. The ones that did have a deadline were mostly the regulations, because you have to do a regulatory impact statement when you're proposing regulations, so those deadlines and those emission reductions were fairly clear. We also noted there that 95% of those 80 measures did not have an emissions reduction target.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much.

It's deeply disappointing and a bit disturbing to me that something as serious as climate change and the crisis that faces Canadians in drier conditions.... Well, it's all over the globe, but the fact that we're now experiencing it means we're truly in the age of consequence.

As a young person, I experienced a wildfire, and I know how devastating that can be for rural people, for indigenous people and for those who succumb to its smoke. It's pretty devastating, and it leads to lifelong impacts, both to one's psychology and also to one's own feeling of safety and security, which is why I find these audits so difficult. They enable us to understand the grave severity of the consequences of not acting sooner. I think this act, which is intended to provide some kind of clarity, speaks more of an agenda of political theatre than it does of actually reducing emissions.

One part of the act, for example, does not require the minister to achieve targets, but simply explains why targets were not met. To me, the fact that we had to write in the act that the minister would have these powers speaks to the lack of genuine nature that I think the act provides a framework for.

Deputy Minister, what explanation do you have for young people in my riding and across Canada for the audit that you see here today and what is, I think, a pretty glaring litmus test for how far away we actually are from achieving this reality for Canadians, most particularly for young Canadians who have to deal with these facts and hear that the audit has failed them?

[Jean-François Tremblay]

First, as a grandfather, I have the same questions. I'm asking the same questions on how I would approach those issues.

Let's come back to a few things. I didn't say that the targets have changed. Our commitment in the targets for 2030 is still the same.

Second, on the—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Your department said that. Sorry, if I can respond, the department revised the emissions reductions.

[Jean-François Tremblay]

No. The 34% and the 36% you have there is information that is based on modelling and on the existing measures that are in place. With regard to measures that are being implemented, we assess that we will be at 36.2%, which means that we still need to do more to get 40% to 45%, but we never said that we don't want 40% or 45%, so that's something to change.

The other thing I would tell you is that we have, since 1990, with all the efforts that were made by different governments, decreased the carbon intensity of the economy, but it really took too much time to arrive at the tipping point where the emissions were reducing themselves because the economy, as you know, goes up and the population goes up, and even if you go with less intensity, you end up with more emissions.

We have turned that curve for the first time. What you had, in reality, in 2022 was a reduction. You're seeing a reduction in the emissions.

That's what we have been saying, and that's what we're seeing for the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Tremblay.

I'm sure we'll come back to this.

I do want to get two others in before we suspend.

Mr. Mazier, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Tremblay, the government gave away $700 million to a company by the name of PowerCo through the net-zero accelerator fund. PowerCo is owned by Volkswagen Group, a German company that made over $476 billion in revenue last year.

How many emissions are supposed to be reduced directly by the $700-million handout?

[Jean-François Tremblay]

I don't have that information. That's a question to ask the people who manage the programs, as I told you before.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

You are the deputy minister of environment—

[Jean-François Tremblay]

I am the deputy minister of environment, but I'm not responsible for all programs that are managed under the federal government.