THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 10, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference this day at 8:59 a.m. [ET] to study emerging issues related to the committee’s mandate.
Senator Paul J. Massicotte (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Today, we’re conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
I would like to ask my fellow committee members to introduce themselves, beginning on my right.
[English]
Senator Robinson: Good morning. Mary Robinson from Prince Edward Island.
Senator White: Good morning. Judy White, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum from Manitoba.
Senator Anderson: Margaret Dawn Anderson, Northwest Territories.
Senator D. M. Wells: Good morning. David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez from Quebec.
The Chair: Today, the committee has invited the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development along with representatives from government departments to appear as part of its study on emerging issues related to the committee’s mandate for a briefing session on five performance audit reports on the design and implementation of certain environmental policies and programs by the Government of Canada.
Welcome, and thank you for being with us. Ten minutes are reserved for your opening remarks.
Mr. DeMarco, the floor is yours.
Jerry V. DeMarco, Commissioner or the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Mr. Chair, I am pleased to be here today to discuss our five performance audit reports that were tabled in Parliament in April of this year.
I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered today on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people, a place that is home to many other First Nations, Inuit and Métis, whose contributions I also recognize and value. I am accompanied by Kimberley Leach, Markirit Armutlu, Nicholas Swales, Susan Gomez and Nicolas Blouin, who were responsible for the audits.
[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 toward eliminating plastic waste.
[Translation]
On the positive side, we found that waste-reduction activities under the initiative were achieving good results and were strongly aligned with Canada’s priorities. For instance, Fisheries and Oceans Canada funded 67 projects that were removing abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear from the water.
However, organizations lacked information to show to what extent their efforts were contributing to the Canada-wide goal. For example, there is a three-year delay in Statistics Canada’s data on plastic waste released into the environment.
Successfully reducing plastic pollution requires the collaboration of the federal government with many others, including provinces, territories, municipalities and the private sector.
With so many partners in play, robust tracking systems are critically important.
[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 the 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 work is still needed to reduce the financial liability related to contaminated sites and to lower environmental and human health risks for current and future generations.
As well, the government needs to take urgent action to advance socio-economic benefits, including employment opportunities, and to support reconciliation with Indigenous peoples whose lands are often affected by contaminated sites.
I’m going to turn now to the last three reports, which focus on measures to fight climate change. Our recent reports have looked at the two largest-emitting sectors.
This year, we looked at other large sources of emissions, namely construction materials, manufacturing and agriculture. In all these audits, we found slow progress and a shortage of long-term approaches to cut emissions. This does not diminish the potential of these spending measures to help Canada reach a net-zero future, if they are designed and implemented in a more effective manner.
Our audit of greening construction materials in public infrastructure found that the shift to low-carbon construction materials had been too slow, given the urgency of the climate change crisis.
[English]
Though the federal government first expressed in 2006 its desire to move markets toward 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, Housing, Infrastructure and Communities 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]
Our next audit focused on the net zero accelerator initiative, which aims to lower greenhouse gas emissions by incentivizing Canadian industries to decarbonize their operations.
We found that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada had failed to attract the country’s largest industrial emitters. Out of 55 large-emitting companies, only 15 applied for funding under the initiative.
At the time of our audit, only two had signed a contribution agreement.
The lengthy and complex application process, which takes on average 407 hours to complete, has likely not helped the department’s efforts to attract more applicants.
We also found that the department did not always know the amount of emission reductions that most companies participating in the initiative would achieve, or whether the funding provided will result in 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. At the time of our audit, the department had 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 growing seasons that remain.
[Translation]
We also found that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada had yet to define performance targets for two of the three programs, making it difficult to assess progress.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s contributions to reduce emissions are integral to the fight against climate change, which is why setting targets and tracking results are so important. Despite the limited results reported to date, all these climate initiatives have the potential, if improved, to help meet the 2050 net-zero goal and effect meaningful change 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 would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. It’s a bit discouraging, but we’re going to discuss it.
[English]
Senator Galvez: Thank you so much, Commissioner DeMarco, for being with us today.
I am concerned about plastic pollution. Recently, I addressed an open letter to Minister Guilbeault because we seem to worry about the physical plastic pollution but don’t seem to make the link with the greenhouse gas emissions and the fact that it contributes to global warming. It is a contributor.
My first question is, based on your audit, do you believe that the Zero Plastic Waste Initiative is on track, and why not? Why don’t we have a holistic approach to pollution, including plastic specifically?
Mr. DeMarco: Thank you for the question. I read with interest your opinion piece on that which was published recently.
The Zero Plastic Waste Initiative, on the plus side, is a national initiative as opposed to just a federal one, so there is a recognition on the part of the federal government that it needs to work closely with municipalities, provinces, Indigenous communities and the private sector to achieve this whole-of-society challenge in terms of reducing plastic waste.
However, despite the fact we found many of the initial initiatives are on track to meet their objectives, it is in the global tracking toward net zero plastic waste where we found problems. The performance-management framework was lacking. It was missing important information. That, in turn, impairs Environment Canada’s ability to measure how their activities are contributing to the Canada-wide goal.
I can’t say whether they are on track because the monitoring and surveillance needed to measure that is the subject of several of our recommendations. Once they fill those gaps, then they will be able to know whether they are on track, and we will be better able to audit that progress.
Senator Galvez: Yesterday, Minister Freeland announced the taxonomy, but it is not just green taxonomy. There is a transition taxonomy where liquid gas is included. We know liquid gas is the primary component of plastics. Will you look at how all these things are interconnected? What will we recommend to the government to have a more horizontal approach so that we meet our targets?
Mr. DeMarco: The need for more coordination and better leadership on the climate side of things is the subject of the first lesson in our 2021 report entitled “Lessons learned from Canada’s record on climate change,” so we are certainly taking a holistic view of it.
However, as you know, the government is set up, because of historical reasons, in silos where it is easier to work vertically than horizontally. Many of those challenges still remain, despite the fact that initiatives like this and others are designated as horizontal initiatives. It doesn’t mean that we have cracked the code on how to actually effect change on whole-of-government and whole-of-society issues like this. There is definitely a need for horizontal collaboration — in this case, with plastic waste and climate change — across departments and governments, including across Indigenous communities.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Welcome, Mr. DeMarco. I’d like to ask you a topical question. Yesterday, the government announced something that should be of interest to you, namely the famous guidelines for sustainable investment in Canada and, therefore, the new requirements for corporate disclosure of climate-related financial information.
These disclosures are based on financial risks to companies, not on the impact on the environment, known in the jargon as double materiality. Do you think it’s enough today, in 2024, when climate-related challenges are enormous, to ask for the disclosure of financial risks for the company, and not for the planet?
Mr. DeMarco: Thank you for the question.
It’s not surprising that we didn’t complete an analysis or an audit after 24 hours. Before giving the department a chance to talk about their progress, I can say that we talked about this in our audit of the Office of the Superintendent. Yes, I agree that it’s important to analyze business and climate risks, but also all aspects of sustainable development, the economy, the social dimension, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and biodiversity.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: That’s not what the directive does.
Mr. DeMarco: Then you can ask the department why they chose to do that, but because it’s a new initiative, we haven’t completed an audit.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: The department is here, isn’t it? Go ahead.
Dany Drouin, Director General, Plastics and Waste Management Directorate, Environment and Climate Change Canada: My answer will be relatively short. I’m here to talk about plastics, so I don’t think we have anyone who can speak to yesterday’s announcement.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Fine.
I was surprised by what you said in your report about building materials. Does that mean that the right hand of the government doesn’t know what the left hand is doing? How do you think it is that we have construction standards and that this isn’t even part of the calls for tenders?
Mr. DeMarco: It’s a bit of a situation of…. It’s the main finding of our audit that progress was very slow. Now we only have standards for cement. As you said, it’s not fully incorporated with the department, but there are no standards for steel, for example, which is another source of intrinsic carbon emissions.
It’s a problem, the right hand and the left hand, and we’re targeting a lot of issues in our audit. In this case, it’s mainly a situation of very slow progress.
[English]
Senator Arnot: Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
Mr. DeMarco, this committee began studying a private member’s bill on plastics last year. That was held in abeyance, but it did identify a serious problem, and it showed that Canadians are not engaged on that plastics issue. They don’t understand the seriousness of that situation. You have identified significant data gaps. How can Environment and Climate Change Canada improve its data collection and risk management strategies to better track that process?
This may be for Ms. Withington. With respect to significant gaps, how is Statistics Canada addressing these gaps to provide more timely and more comprehensive data on plastic waste management?
Mr. Drouin, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, or CESD, report on zero plastic waste again identified significant gaps. What is your directorate doing to address these gaps to provide more comprehensive data on plastic waste management?
Mr. DeMarco: Thank you for the question. I will start, before passing it along to the other witnesses. I would direct the committee to the six recommendations in this report that touch on your question.
Developing a data framework is the starting point for this initiative. They’ve launched several initiatives. We have looked at over a dozen of them, but we couldn’t see how it all fit together in terms of a pathway to zero plastic waste. They will need not only a pathway but the proper data to be able to monitor progress on that pathway. I would emphasize the need for a pathway to get to zero plastic waste and to have a data framework that will help inform that pathway and measure progress.
The second item that you also mentioned is the timeliness. I mentioned that in my opening statement. It is far too slow in terms of the “up-to-datedness” — if you can call it that — of information on the plastic waste stream in Canada. We are also slow on other data collection issues, such as greenhouse gas emissions, compared to other countries. That needs to be addressed on more than one file.
I will now turn it over to my colleagues to address some of your questions directed at departmental intentions.
Jennifer Withington, Assistant Chief Statistician, Economic Statistics, Statistics Canada: Thank you. I’m Jennifer Withington from Statistics Canada.
We are in a state of continuous improvement where we are always identifying data gaps and looking for ways to improve them. Since 2016, we’ve added some questions on surveys on waste management and manufacturing. We will continue to look for available sources and see how we can implement them in our assessment for plastics.
In terms of the timeliness question, it is something we acknowledge, but we do put the data in a very comprehensive framework — the supply and use framework — which measures all the inputs and outputs of commodities and industries in the economy. That does cause some delays. You are about as good as the latest data source, and it does come with a three-year delay. We could look at possibilities of looking at advanced projections for that data, but that always comes with a risk of higher revisions once the actual data comes in later.
Thank you.
Mr. Drouin: Thank you for the question.
The department agrees with all of the recommendations of the commissioner. The department’s response is also included in the report itself. I have four points outlining the strategy to implement the recommendations.
First, the data framework is in development with all of the departments included in the horizontal initiative, trying to break the silos from that exercise. It will be completed by the end of March. Most of the other recommendations are completed. They are being integrated within the regular department reporting mechanisms. That’s the first thing.
The second thing is that, in April, the government launched a plastic registry that will compel industry to provide data on the amount of plastics they put on the economy, what’s going on with that plastic for its life cycle and what happens at the end of its life. That first reporting period will start next year. That will give us important data.
I want to also talk about the work that Statistics Canada is doing, because that’s an important element. Before that exercise by Statistics Canada, the government was relying on proxy data, estimated data. We will, over time, with the combination of the work of Statistics Canada and the plastics registry, obtain real-time, accurate data.
Lastly, all this will feed into two progress reports that we will be issuing in 2025 and 2027.
Senator Anderson: Thank you to the witnesses.
Mr. DeMarco, can you can expand on your comment on the North regarding the failure to properly implement the polluter pay principle? How do you explain the increase in costs from $2.9 billion to $10.1 billion?
Mr. DeMarco: I will start with the first half of your question. It is disappointing that taxpayers end up footing the bill for sites that are abandoned, including eight large mining sites in the North, as well as others. With respect to polluter pay, it’s mainly the private sites that have had to be taken over by the federal government. Many of the sites in this report were federal sites from the start — whether for Defence or Transport or so on — but the more expensive bigger-ticket items were ones inherited by the federal government from failed private enterprises such as the Giant Mine or Faro Mine. To the extent that Canadian taxpayers are left holding the bag, that’s a failure of the polluter pays principle because taxpayers end up paying long after a company has reaped whatever profits from a mine and then left or gone bankrupt.
Is it still just an historical issue? No. We have seen spills this year with a mine in the North relating to a spill where the Government of Yukon is having to take over that site. We still see that problem recurring. We’ve seen it again with orphan wells in Alberta recently. It is not just an historical problem. There are still gaps. I’m looking at the issue globally here, not just federally, across Canada, ensuring that there is enough financial security associated with private sector mining so that taxpayers are not left holding the bag in the end.
What was the second half of your question?
Senator Anderson: To what do you attribute the increase in costs?
Mr. DeMarco: The increased cost is not entirely bad news. It is partly bad news, but it is also partly due to the fact that Environment and Climate Change Canada and other departments have increased their knowledge of the extent of the problem. Part of the increased cost is better information on the number of sites as well as the depth of the problems at the sites. Knowing things better often leads to a higher liability.
There have also been delays in utilizing funds set aside for cleanup. That can increase liability because, if you don’t use the funds in a timely manner, then that just puts more of a burden on future costs. I will use an example. If it takes $1 million to keep a site safe without addressing the source of the pollution but would take $3 million or $4 million to address the problem and close it, it can increase liability by simply maintaining it year after year as opposed to addressing the pollution at its source and cleaning up the site and closing it. If they get a better handle on utilizing the available funds in a timely manner, that’s an investment now in preventing costs from ballooning in the future, which is something we’ve seen on this file as it is something we have audited more than once now.
The Chair: Senators, I encourage you to ask questions of any one of our people. Let me list the people who are with us, some of whom are not directly under the responsibility of the Auditor General:
Kimberley Leach, Principal; Susan Gomez, Principal; Nicholas Swales, Principal; and Nicolas Blouin, Director, are from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada.
We also have representatives from Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada: Shannon Nix, Assistant Deputy Minister; Liz Foster, Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch; and Marco Valicenti, Director General, Innovation Programs Directorate.
From Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, we have Georgina Lloyd, Assistant Deputy Minister, Northern Affairs; Jeffrey Mackey, Acting Director General, Northern Contaminated Sites Program, by video conference.
[Translation]
From Environment and Climate Change Canada, we have Nicole Cote, Director General, Environmental Protection Operations, and Dany Drouin, Director General, Plastics and Waste Management Directorate. From Fisheries and Oceans Canada, we have Brett Gilchrist, Director of National Programs.
From Industry Canada, we welcome Stéphanie Tanton, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Innovation Fund, Denis Martel, Director General, Strategic Innovation Fund, Collaboration and Networks Branch, and Milena Mitrovic, Acting Director General, Business Development and Strategy Branch.
From Natural Resources Canada, we have Victoria Orsborne, Director, Analysis and Coordination. From Public Services and Procurement Canada, we have Kelby Hamilton, Director General, Technical Services Service Line.
From Statistics Canada, we have Jennifer Withington, Assistant Chief Statistician, Economic Statistics, and Augustine Akuoko-Asibey, Director General, Agriculture, Energy and Environment Statistics Branch. From Transport Canada, Ross Ezzeddin, Director General, Air and Marine Programs, and Adele Cooper, Director, Environmental Management.
Lastly, from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, we welcome Nick Xenos, Executive Director, Centre for Greening Government.
[English]
I think we have the whole government here.
Senator Galvez: I would like to echo the comments of my colleague Senator McCallum with respect to the organization of this meeting. Last week or before last week, a Thursday meeting was cancelled at the last minute. We would have had that time plus this time to be more relaxed in asking questions to so many people who have had the courtesy of coming here to be questioned by our committee. We are a big committee and we all have questions. This time is really not enough. I would appreciate a more efficient way of using our time in this plan. Thank you.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, everyone, for appearing, and I echo the comments from my colleagues.
I have a question on the plastic waste, Mr. Drouin. In your findings, did you see this as a question of the government promising zero or targeting zero and delivering something that was more vague than zero?
Mr. Drouin: Thanks for the question.
I should probably start by saying there’s a national strategy that is comprised of action by all provinces and territories, and that is the commitment that collectively F-P-T environment ministers made in 2018. That implementation is divided up by actions by some jurisdictions alone, many together or all of us together. The federal contribution is one part of that overall strategy. That overall strategy will not be implemented if there is no progress made by industry, by Canadians and municipalities. It’s a complex change in the way we manage plastics that must happen. Instead of producing plastic, using it and throwing it in a landfill, we need to delay that landfilling or that recycling through different strategies, mostly reducing, reusing and recycling. All levels of governments are working on this. For example, in 2027, 90% of Canadians will live in a place where plastic packaging is covered by a program called extended producer responsibility from provinces and territories. That is a big change from the current situation.
The zero plastic waste is a collective goal to which we are providing and have identified our own contribution for the federal government. It has a few science-based approach investments in innovation. You’re aware of the single-use plastic prohibition, the plastic registry and international leadership. That’s kind of our lane, I would say, in some ways. The provinces and territories are also implementing extended producer responsibility programs and some prohibitions, so they have quite a lot as well.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you. One more question on plastics. From time to time, we see news articles about a shipment of plastic going to the Philippines or a shipment of plastic going to some place that’s not Canada. How important is that to the whole question of the global problem with plastics? Does any department in the federal government have control over that?
Mr. Drouin: It is a real problem. It is a problem that is not only a Canadian problem. This is why countries are working together through the Basel Convention, and the result of that is that, since 2021, exports of plastic waste are controlled in Canada, which means that they will not leave Canada unless the recipient country provides us with their consent to receive that plastic. If we do not get that consent, we will not issue a permit to the exporter. That is how the system works, but the system is not totally opaque.
Sometimes we see issues of illegal exports, and those are real. This is why we are working with the Canada Border Services Agency, as well as with the enforcement branch and with the World Customs Organization, to organize what’s called Operation DEMETER, which is essentially spot checks where countries will work together and open containers. We have done some in Halifax, Montreal and Vancouver, and sometimes we do find illegal exports and take enforcement action. One way we see that sometimes the export is illegally shipped is through the mislabeling of what is in the container. Someone could say it’s very clean plastic bottles, for example, but in reality it’s mixed with other things. It is a real issue. We are working on it. There is a system in place for controlling the waste.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you.
I’m familiar with the practice of changing the HS code to make it plastic for recycling, whether it’s actually plastic for recycling, and that’s a fairly easy thing to do, to change the HS code. Would there be any process in place where the product going out can be confirmed that the HS code is as it states?
Mr. Drouin: One of the ways you could confirm exactly this is by opening every container, though, to be honest with you, the resources that are available do not, perhaps, allow for this on a regular basis, so that’s why we rely on spot checks and on the assessment of what the labelling looks like and if there are any discrepancies that would suggest targeted enforcement activity.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentation and for the work that you do.
I find this very overwhelming. It just seems that this keeps coming up. A lot of the reports hit First Nations. You look at the contaminated sites and the greening of building materials, but when we look at hydro, they want to increase their numbers. When we did the study on plastic waste, the guy said it would take two years to fill all their landfills, and I said, “Well, I hope you’re not going to target First Nations areas for your next landfills.” He didn’t respond. Then you look at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. There, it’s the herbicides and pesticides that have now gone into the lakes, like Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba, and filtered further north.
When you said we need a strategic, coherent, results-oriented approach and that it’s essential, how will you accomplish this when, after 20 years, we still need to do so much work on different sites like the contaminated sites, considering that there are so many health problems and ill effects that First Nations, Inuit and Métis are experiencing?
In one of your recommendations, it said that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs should find better ways to involve Indigenous people in the management of contaminated sites. More importantly, why are we going to the end? Why aren’t we doing prevention so we are not mitigating all the time?
In its response, the department agrees with the recommendation but does not provide examples. Can the department provide concrete examples of how they plan to involve Indigenous people in the management of contaminated sites but also to prevent further abandoned facilities?
Mr. DeMarco: I will address that, and then, since you posed part of your question to the departments as to what they are going to do, I will leave some time for them.
Your question goes to the heart of the problem. Do we treat the symptoms or the source of the problem? I’ll use plastics as a first example before going on to contaminated sites. We have an Exhibit 3.2, ways to manage plastic waste from least to most harmful to the environment. Sometimes we forget that it’s not just a waste-management stream to be managed and to do spot checks and so on.
If we reduced our reliance, in this example, on plastics, which is the source of the problem, then there would be less of a waste stream to deal with. If we reduced our reliance on fossil fuels, then there would be less of a climate change problem to address in terms of both mitigation and adaptation. In terms of what we’re seeing in these persistent problems in Canada, for example greenhouse gas emissions not having dropped from when we started working on it over 30 years ago, we really do need to go to the source of the problem and not just address symptoms on a program-by-program basis. It’s part of that holistic approach that we spoke about in response to an earlier question.
If we go to your other example of contaminated sites, it’s the same sort of thing. We need to prevent these sites from ever becoming contaminated by having better protections in place in the management of the sites and, at least in terms of preventing violations of the polluter pays principle, by having adequate financial security at the outset in case there is a problem. These are examples of the need to look at the problem’s original source, the root cause of the problem, as opposed to just the symptoms.
In terms of what the departments are going to do to address some of these things in terms of their actions, I will leave it to them to address that aspect of your question.
Georgina Lloyd, Assistant Deputy Minister, Northern Affairs, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you for the question.
The Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada is responsible for the remediation of over 160 sites across Canada’s North. The majority of the sites in the North are abandoned and what we would describe as legacy sites, so they were abandoned prior to the polluter pay policies coming into effect. As Mr. DeMarco described, we are left with these sites and to come up with a remediation plan for them.
In terms of how we engage Indigenous partners, the one element I would bring forward that sits alongside the polluter pay policies is the co-management regime across the North. The northern regulatory framework differs in the North than it does in the South in the sense that it’s borne out of a co-management regime that is provided for by modern treaties. The Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act and the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board are all borne out of modern treaties and requirements from modern treaties, and they bring together in a co-managed way Indigenous partners, territorial partners and Canada to manage environmental and natural resource decision making. All of these sites will be permitted and assessed environmentally through this system. That is baked into how any project operates in the North.
Then, sitting alongside that, just in terms of how we manage the remediation of these sites, we also work knowing that these sites are all part of traditional territory. They have significant historical legacies in terms of how activity was undertaken at these sites, so we have worked very closely with Indigenous partners. Each of the sites — particularly, I would point to the Northern Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program sites, the big eight that account for more than 90% of the environmental liability in the North — all have well-established governance mechanisms, so advisory boards or oversight boards where Indigenous partners come to the table, have a voice and work with us to help us define things like the remediation plans. Then we’re able, through that mechanism, to provide funding for Indigenous partners.
It differs by site and by partner in terms of how Indigenous partners may want to engage. For some sites, for example, we invested over $8 million directly to Indigenous partners for their participation last year in 2023-24. Some partners spend that on activities like building capacity to be able to be more competitive in the procurement process because they may want to participate in the procurement process, while other partners just want to do some historical research in terms of what the impacts have been over time so that they can gain a better understanding for their communities of how they would like to participate in the future. We really leave that as an open conversation of where partners would like to engage and how best they would like to engage with these projects.
Nicole Cote, Director General, Environmental Protection Operations, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Ms. Lloyd has talked about some of the activities in the North. For sites that are in the South, in 2019, we actually expanded our eligibility so that some of the sites that are on reserve and, according to the hierarchy of risk, may be at lower risk are now eligible. Recognizing our need for reconciliation, we expanded our eligibility to assess and remediate more sites on reserve with Indigenous people in the South.
In addition, not in the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan program, but other programs that Environment and Climate Change Canada has, we are doing compliance promotion on various types of regulation and all types of pollution. One of the target communities to do that compliance promotion is Indigenous communities so that they understand what the regulations are, what they mean to their communities and so that they can play an active role in the prevention of new contamination in the future by adhering to the regulations.
I just wanted to add those extra pieces of information on some of the southern sites and other activities that Environment and Climate Change Canada is involved in.
The Chair: Would anybody else like to add to the topic?
Senator McCallum: When you talk about the sites, how do you monitor the companies coming in when they are looking at exploring, especially with mining the minerals now? Wrapped up with that is the lack of movement for the nations presenting land claims. I met with one of them from Alberta yesterday. How do you ensure that there will be no more abandoned facilities?
Ms. Lloyd: I can speak from a northern perspective. The key ingredient there is the northern regulatory regime. It is how new development may be assessed through an environmental impact assessment, and then also permitted with water license permits or other types of permits, and once those are provided, how those are monitored. All of that is provided through the process I described.
The northern regulatory regime is co-managed by Indigenous partners, provided for through all of the legislation of the land claims and with territorial governments, and Canada has a role in that as well. These three parties come together to make decisions about how permits are issued, how environmental impacts are assessed and how they would be monitored in the future. That would be the most essential element.
Today, in the polluter pay policy structure, there are requirements for new development, for example, to be able to post bonds, and those bonds would be drawn upon should there be an environmental disaster or should the mine be abandoned in the future. That investment would be held until such time as it’s needed, and then that funding could go toward the remediation in the future.
Senator Robinson: I will ask my question of Mr. DeMarco and then ask the folks from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, or AAFC, if they might have something to add.
My first question is as follows: Report 5 notes that AAFC launched three programs aimed at reducing emissions and notes that, because of late funding approvals, the growing season was missed. We all understand the seasons and how they impact agriculture. No results were reported.
We are now coming up to growing season 2025, so my count indicates that we have five years to land on these targets, and I have a number of concerns about five years and what we can practically do in five years.
I’d like to hear your comments on how effectively AAFC has resourced its efforts with the three programs you mention in Report 5, including the Sustainable Agriculture Strategy Advisory Committee. The findings of the Auditor General in the report were the following:
We found that as of January 2024, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada had no strategy in place to guide its climate change mitigation programs and activities.
Does this mean that government is relying on agricultural groups to do this work?
Mr. DeMarco: I’ll start before handing it over to the department.
I’m equally concerned about the slow progress and missing opportunities, given that we’re in 2024 and the targets are 2030. As you know from our report, they have tracked a total of only 0.2 megatons of reductions so far against their initial target of 13, which they have now reduced down to 11, so there has been very little progress. One might say, “As long as we are doing programs, what’s the need for a strategy?” However, when you see that the programs are delivering so little, it’s all the more important that there be a strategy to unite them, bring them all together and provide a pathway to reaching the targets in 2030.
It’s concerning when we look at various components of the portfolio of climate change initiatives that the federal government has and we see overestimations of reductions, double counting or examples like this where there’s very little progress. It’s not that surprising that we keep missing targets. Something needs to change. That’s why I emphasized in my opening statement the need for a more results-oriented approach to these things so that meeting a target becomes a real objective as opposed to providing excuses as to why you have missed a target again now for 30 years. Canada is the only G7 country that has had an increase in emissions since the world got together in 1992 to fight climate change under the convention. We have a long way to go. Should we get discouraged? No. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to address this as best as we can as opposed to just assume that we will continue to fail to meet targets.
With regard to the specifics of these programs, I would turn it over to my colleagues at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to discuss their progress and intentions.
Shannon Nix, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: I will start with assisting on the agricultural strategy. AAFC is currently finalizing the sustainable agriculture strategy. It will set a shared direction for collective action to improve the environmental performance of the sector over the longer term in order to advance the sustainability competitiveness and vitality of the agricultural sector.
The Sustainable Agriculture Strategy, or SAS, is informed by fairly extensive consultation with the various stakeholders implicated. There was a public consultation, some targeted engagement sessions and, as you noted, senator, it is directly informed by the SAS advisory committee. The SAS will also include an approach to identifying and addressing the challenges and gaps in the agricultural-environmental data at the farm, regional and national levels. A governance structure, including a stakeholder advisory body reporting structure, will be established once the SAS is released to support its implementation.
I’ll stop there and turn it over to my colleague to speak about the programs.
Liz Foster, Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Thank you.
To further add to how we develop the programs in this sort of environment, I would be happy to speak to that aspect because there was a question about whether the government was relying on farm groups.
In fact, as one of the precursors of developing the Sustainable Agriculture Strategy, the department undertook an extensive science-based analysis of which beneficial management practices would be helpful for the agriculture sector — helpful for farmers — as well as their likelihood to adopt those practices. When we put in place those programs, we did it on the basis of sound science. That’s how it was done.
With respect to program results, first, I would like to talk about the target as well as the results achieved to date on specific programs. The target referenced in the commissioner’s report relates to the overall target for the agriculture sector as a whole. AFC programming and the three programs which were studied as part of the audit are just some of the measures that have been put in place.
That said, we do expect to see increasing results for those programs over time and that it will move to higher levels in subsequent years. We know already that we have seen tremendous interest in our programming. We’ve also already seen a higher number of producers involved in our programming than we had expected. We’re already seeing a greater number of hectares under improved management than we would have expected. Clearly, we are on a good track and will continue to gather and improve data and report results according to the departmental response that is in the report.
Senator Robinson: Can you tell me the target date for that finalization? I think, Ms. Nix, you mentioned you are currently finalizing some of that work. You mentioned targets, and I will ask a question in the second round on that. Back to one of the components of my first question, which is timing and how we are missing windows of opportunity, I’ve heard a lot of rumblings of how slow we are moving with the money and if we will truly effect change here. Does your department have an approach to how they will more quickly and efficiently get money into the hands of people who have to invest in technology to reduce emissions?
Ms. Nix: Perhaps I can speak to the first question around timing for the strategy. As I noted in my earlier response, we’re currently finalizing it with the advisory committee. I think it would be premature to set a specific timeline for when that might happen given the fact that we want to get this right. We want to release a strategy that adequately and appropriately reflects the valuable input we’ve received from our advisory council.
Senator Robinson: So regarding timing, you don’t have a sense of roughly when it will be finished?
Ms. Nix: If I had to say roughly when, I would expect it in the next few months.
Senator Robinson: The next few months. Thank you.
Ms. Foster: Part of that question was about timelines to get funding into the hands of recipients of our program, so I thought I’d take a moment to speak about the steps involved. For example, following the program budget announcement, there is a requirement to get program authorities and then to launch the program. These were all new programs for us, as well as for our program recipients, so it does take a little longer sometimes when you are doing something new. We are continuously learning and making improvements to those programs as we go along. We’re absolutely committed to getting funding out the door as fast as we can to achieve the objectives that have been set forth in the programming and in the policy.
The Chair: If you don’t mind, before second round, I will add my own comments.
I must say I am discouraged and I am frustrated. This is so important to our country and so important to us as human beings living on this earth. We are so late with everything. Everyone has good intentions, but the bottom line is that it is clearly not working. Clearly, there is a problem with motivation. I am trying to understand that part of it. What can we do to change things? The bottom line is that we do live in a democracy. It looks like our ministers will spend effort where they can get some result or benefit from it, probably, to get re-elected. I’m not sure what is happening. A disjunction is happening where nothing — or very little — is getting done. We’re one of the worst in the whole world. We are good people, we have good technology, and yet we avoid deadlines because we don’t know — you are right. We don’t know the future. Nobody knows, but you have to have a set of objectives that you can achieve and that are good for us.
I throw it back to you, Mr. DeMarco. What is it we are not doing? It is obviously significant. I made the same comments a year or year and a half ago. It was the same thing. We are not getting it done. Everyone has good intentions, and I know that, but the bottom line is that the results are not adequate. It is not acceptable. Could you comment on that?
Mr. DeMarco: Yes. Your choice of words reminds me of a certain pathway being paved with good intentions. I guess I could replace the end point with a hotter planet instead of the original end of that saying. Yes, good intentions could pave the way to a much hotter planet.
There is no shortage of commitments or objectives in any of the areas we audit in environment and sustainable development, whether it is climate, biodiversity, pollution or sustainable development itself. We’re not seeing a problem where the federal government isn’t committed to those things. There are commitments, and that’s what we measure our audit against, those commitments.
To go back to my opening statement, there is not enough emphasis on the results-oriented approach. A lot of things are measured within a silo according to the outputs of a program, like funding achieved or funding disbursed. If we could refocus on actually meeting the targets and the pathway to get there, that would be a key thing.
One of the reasons we did that 2021 lessons learned report was to try to rise above the program level or the departmental level and ask, what does Canada need to do to reorient itself to become a target achiever instead of a target setter, which it has been on the climate side for 30 years?
In a committee meeting of this length, I could probably go on for quite some time, but I would direct the committee to re-review that climate lessons learned report from 2021 because that was the one report where we were able to bring together a couple of decades of work in this area to see what the patterns were for Canada’s rising emissions and the underlying root causes in terms of the lack of leadership, lack of coordination, continued reliance on a fossil-fuel-based economy and those sorts of things. Until we address those root causes, we will be just looking at peripheral progress as opposed to real progress.
The Chair: I have a sense that the guidelines are not lying. Some people are behaving as if we have lots of time to respond. I come from private enterprise. You have to make sure that everybody is going to the same place, and there have to be consequences if you don’t meet your objectives.
You have to start with the minister. You have to start by saying something is wrong here. The next level is yourselves. We have to make sure you are aligned and that it matters whether you achieve results or not. Just saying “good effort” and “I will do my best” is not good enough. I think a whole realignment needs to occur, not only on the political side but also in getting it done.
Mr. DeMarco: In getting it done, we realize that sometimes the departments feel that the auditor is saying what should be done but that they’re not standing in the department’s shoes.
However, we were given a deadline under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act in 2021 to do our first report under that act by December 2024. We had a deadline from Parliament in law, so it was a very binding one. It was not just one we set for ourselves. We issued our first report 13 months ahead of schedule. We are already on our second report, expected to be tabled next month, which is before our deadline for the first one.
We are trying to say that when you are given an objective or a deadline, work towards meeting it or, in our case, meet it ahead of time. That can be done in any area where the focus is on the result that is intended to be achieved. In our case, that was a parliamentary direction to issue a report, but in the case of each department, that’s their share of emissions reductions that they are responsible for.
Yes, we should focus on results and on serious accountability if they are not achieving those results. Right now, under the act, there is no direct control by any one central agency or by a department such as Environment Canada for an achievement. There is a requirement in the act that they have to provide an explanation when they don’t meet a target, but there is no obligation to meet the target.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I will continue along the same lines as our chair, Senator Massicotte, but I’ll be a little more specific.
You talked a lot about the government’s slowness to enforce laws and regulations to achieve zero emissions. As for our inability to reduce our CO2 emissions generally in Canada, is it more a question of political will? Are the requirements, particularly for the oil industry in Alberta and for the oil sands, enough to get us there? You talk about the laws and regulations in place, but do we have the necessary requirements to reduce our emissions, given that production is currently increasing? I’d like to hear what you have to say about this, because it seems to me that it’s the elephant in the room.
Mr. DeMarco: Yes, I can talk about that. We’ll have even more details in a month, because we’ll have another series of reports, and that will…. I’m sorry, but no, I can’t do that; however, I can talk about our fall 2023 report.
In our net-zero report, we found that although there’s an emissions reduction plan, the 2022 plan, which targets the 2030 target, including all of the measures that are part of the emissions reduction plan initiatives, this only represents about 36%.
To answer your question directly, no, we don’t have enough requirements to total 40% to 45%. We published this report more than a year before the deadline, and I’m disappointed that the plan wasn’t revised afterwards. It’s the same plan today as it was last year. I was hoping that there would be improvements in the plan so that it could total at least 40% by now, because the legislation dates back to 2021, but we don’t have a plan that adds up to a 40% reduction.
So we need more requirements and programs to meet the target on paper. Will we actually meet it in 2030? We’ll see. On paper, Canada has no plan to meet the 2030 target.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Are you talking specifically about the oil industry here? In this industry, which is a major contributor to emissions, should we both limit production now and demand carbon capture? Because that’s not what’s happening. Do you have a position on that?
Mr. DeMarco: It’s the government’s choice to target one industry or another and the rate of reduction by industry. I agree that with this sector and transportation, we’re talking about more than 50% of total greenhouse gas emissions.
If we don’t see progress in these areas, we won’t be able to meet the targets.
Emissions continue to rise in this sector, even though we’re aiming for a significant reduction by 2030 and 2050. Yes, we need to reduce our dependence on this sector in Canada, because we can’t avoid a climate catastrophe if we continue to do what we’ve done so far to achieve our situation, which is now a climate crisis.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: If I understand correctly what you’re telling me, it’s a problem of political will?
Mr. DeMarco: There are a lot of problems, but Canada hasn’t achieved the result it wanted, and political will is certainly one of the factors, yes.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Do any of the experts here have anything to add to that? Okay.
[English]
Senator D. M. Wells: I will put my hand up because I know a little bit about it. This is part of my advocacy for the province I represent. There is a massive difference in emissions in the petroleum industry for the offshore of Newfoundland and Labrador than there is in other parts of Canada. I would just lay a caution there that if there was ever a recommendation about the reduction of emissions, please make sure it is targeted in the right place. But that’s not what I wanted to talk about.
What I do want to talk about is the question of the contaminated sites. They are not just in the North, although that is a huge problem maybe because of representation or ability to voice loudly enough. There are ways to do it, because, again, it is done in the offshore. A remediation bond is posted as a condition of licence. That’s a huge motivator for any company that’s going to invest in offshore or mining or whatever. Of course, we know that companies or consortia will sometimes put together shell companies that can hold the licence that can be protected from liability. There are platforms out there that allow knowledge of the ultimate beneficial owner, or UBO, that could be attached to the condition of licence as well, so they would also have liability in that space. But if you make it a condition of licence — you have to put your UBO, and you have to post a remediation bond — that’s a huge motivator to do things right.
I wanted to put that there, because I know a little bit about it.
The Chair: Is there a question?
Senator D. M. Wells: There is a question, but it’s for the gentleman from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Mr. Gilchrist. My question is on the program that removes the ghost fishing gear. It was mentioned in the report that there were 60 or 70 funded projects that had a degree of success. This is a really important factor for — well, not just for my province — but for Canada’s waters, to remove the ghost fishing gear, because it, obviously, removes some plastics from the ocean, but it also stops the accidental killing of marine life, which is important for Canada. Because of the success of the funding that was given and the projects that were done, do you see an increase in funding or a greater emphasis on that program? It is really important.
Brett Gilchrist, Director of National Programs, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Thank you, senator, and thank you for the committee discussion on this issue and plastics.
Obviously, ghost gear — derelict, abandoned and lost fishing gear — is a huge challenge for Canada, but this is one of the scenarios where Canada is actually leading the world. We are the first on many fronts, including a national requirement to report all lost and abandoned fishing gear for all fisheries across Canada. This is to determine the source of the problem. We are one of the first countries in the world to join the Global Ghost Gear Initiative, and this is a reflection of that substantial fund that was delivered. It is now $58 million over the past several years. We now have 143 projects. The 67 projects are the projects specifically listed under the Zero Plastic Waste Initiative with our partners in other departments, but we have other initiatives, including a response to Hurricane Fiona, where natural disasters can also create devastation when it comes to fishing gear and loss, so we had an additional $30 million spent on that front.
There is no current funding — grants or contributions funding — on that front, but we are in a national engagement process this year. This is the first year we don’t have that funding, and we are in a national engagement process to determine what the remaining needs are. Very much what we have heard so far — we have had consultation across the country — is that there is still a need to retrieve gear out of the ocean, and there is still a need to work with Indigenous and non-Indigenous harvesters across the country, as we have been, to identify ways to reduce the loss of the fishing gear in the first place, and there is a need to determine in the future the best way to address both of those issues, preventing loss of gear but also dealing with any issue that may cause an individual incident of lost gear.
It is critical that we get this right. Lost fishing gear is directly linked to entangling, for example, endangered right whales in fisheries in Canada, and we are focused on addressing that issue.
Senator D. M. Wells: Of the $58 million — obviously not including the $30 million for Fiona — how much of that was spent on remediation or collecting ghost gear in Canada versus funding we provided internationally?
Mr. Gilchrist: The majority of the funding was domestic. There were a couple of projects in areas like Costa Rica and Panama to encourage our partners. Of course, some fishing gear doesn’t stay where it is lost. It actually moves around, so the majority of the amount — outside of Fiona, which was obviously all in Canada — but the amount from the Zero Plastic Waste Initiative was for domestic initiatives. We have incredible examples across the country with Indigenous communities. In Newfoundland, for example, the United Fishermen and Allied Workers’ Union are not just retrieving gear but are also developing technology to find decades of lost fishing gear and to identify technologies that will allow us to prevent the loss in the first place.
Senator D. M. Wells: In closing, I would encourage the department to increase funding on that, primarily for local, Canadian-based efforts.
Senator McCallum: In your report, you indicate that Environment and Climate Change Canada did not achieve a number of its targets in the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan that were meant to be achieved by 2020. Furthermore, the department is not on track to meet the target for the percentage of sites completing risk-reduction activities by 2025. However, your recommendations on this finding have to do with improving the accuracy of reporting mechanisms and collaboration across departments. How does this recommendation help to ensure that ECCC will implement risk-reduction activities? Are there other factors impacting the achievement of this target?
Mr. DeMarco: Thank you for the question.
In terms of achieving the actual results, we have some recommendations about better tracking and reporting, which is important in terms of transparency and accountability to the communities being affected, many of which are Indigenous communities in the North. We also have recommendations aimed at increasing the likelihood that they will meet the actual targets, not just about transparency but also about results, which is becoming a theme today.
Recommendation 26 in our report is aimed specifically at results as opposed to just reporting and transparency. There, we had talked about increasing custodians’ capacities and reduced funding carried forward, which I talked about earlier in terms of creating future liabilities by just maintaining a site as opposed to addressing the pollution at its source by removing it, treating it and closing the site, and also conducting an analysis to recommend more appropriate proportions for assessment and remediation funding. That first recommendation is certainly aimed at results, and so is the second one. Recommendation 41 is also about increasing the capacity of the custodians, which are the departments responsible for each site such as Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, or CIRNAC, and others such as Transport Canada.
In the spirit of reconciliation, we have two other recommendations about better involving Indigenous communities in addressing the fact that they have been the recipients of these health and environmental hazards, but also because so much money is being spent to maintain and clean up these sites, there is an opportunity for economic reconciliation by involving them in terms of employment. It is pouring salt on the wounds if the local Indigenous community is receiving the health and environmental effects of it but not receiving any of the employment and economic benefits from cleaning it up. It is all the more important that we push forward with reconciliation by having a greater involvement. It is strange to call it a benefit, but it is an economic benefit when we are spending money cleaning up these sites, and there is associated employment to it. Those are the subjects of two other recommendations here.
The recommendations as a whole — and they’ve been agreed to by the various departments — will both help to achieve better results in terms of the objectives of the program vis-à-vis environment, health and financial liability, and also do it in a more inclusive way vis-à-vis Indigenous communities and in a more transparent way in terms of Canadian taxpayers.
Senator McCallum: A group of senators and I went to visit the Suncor facilities in Fort McKay this past July. We found that Suncor has built AI-driven vehicles to carry on their extraction 24-7. We know that AI requires a lot of energy, and Suncor is using gas and hydro to run this. They are using the three. It seems there is no intention to lessen production. Rather, it will increase emissions. Did you know about that?
Mr. DeMarco: I didn’t know about that specific example. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
In my last appearance before this committee, we talked about the oil and gas sector being the largest contributor to Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions domestically and also exported emissions as well. There are degrees, as Senator Wells talked about, of carbon footprint amongst the different technologies used for oil and gas extraction in Canada. It is to no one’s surprise that extraction in the Athabasca Region is extremely carbon intensive. There is a much larger environmental footprint climate-wise and also in terms of the affected communities and the biodiversity in the area. Canada has to make some choices. If it is going to rely on fossil fuels, will it continue to rely on ones with a very heavy carbon footprint and also footprint in terms of effects and biodiversity effects? It is a big choice to make. To date, a large cause of Canada’s rise in emissions from 1990 to now has been because of an increase in reliance on carbon-intensive oil and gas extraction in that region.
The Chair: May I add to that question? We all read the newspaper. In the last two weeks, Suncor has made comment through a CEO, making it clear that he is not focused on having a cap. He wants to produce the maximum amount of oil and gas that he can, and he will worry about the cap later on. Over the past six months, the minister has had some tough words for Suncor and other producers in the oil and gas industry. It is a dispute. It looks to me that the oil and gas will not respond because there is probably an election coming up and maybe the next government may be more friendly than the current government. If that’s the case, we may be stuck in a difficult situation, but maybe it is time for the government to say, enough is enough. Do you want to comment on that?
Mr. DeMarco: We talked about another elephant in the room earlier today, but this may be an Asian elephant rather than African elephant — a different elephant in the room.
Yes, Canada has increased reliance on oil and gas. That means our emissions have increased from 1990 to now, whereas the other G7 countries have had a decrease. There has not been a willingness to slow that train. It has been running continuously now for almost three decades in terms of increased production. That affects Canada’s domestic emissions. It also affects exported emissions in the recipient countries that combust these fuels.
In terms of physics, we can’t keep displacing large amounts of fossil carbon from underground and under the seas to the atmosphere and expect that we will limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees or less. It is not physically possible to put that much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere and expect that we can still meet the targets. This is not just Canada; I am talking globally. We have to address the reality that this net displacement of large amounts of greenhouse gas from being stored in the earth to in the atmosphere causes significant temperature rise and significant increased frequency of severe weather, which we are hearing about again today unfortunately. Until we tackle that, Canada and the world will be on the path to a climate future that no one wants to see.
Senator Anderson: My question is for Georgina Lloyd. You spoke about the good work being done with Inuit, First Nations and Métis. I want to draw your attention to the report on contaminated sites in the North specifically pertaining to the Giant Mine in Yellowknife. It stated that the department had not met preliminary employment targets for northern and northern Indigenous workers, and it gave the example that in 2022 to 2023, target range for total hours by northern workers was 55% to 70%, but the result was 36%. Also, in regard to northern Indigenous workers, the target was 25% to 35%, but the result was 18%. As well, it noted in section 1.70 that several Indigenous communities stated that the federal government had missed opportunities to advance on reconciliation commitments.
I have a couple of questions, the first one being: What is CIRNAC doing to address these issues and ensure that, moving forward, CIRNAC meets the targets and advances meaningful reconciliation with Inuit, First Nations and Métis? And secondly, according to CIRNAC, what is the difference between a northern worker versus a northern Indigenous worker?
Ms. Lloyd: Thank you for the question. It is specific in this case to Giant Mine, so I’ll speak a little bit about Giant Mine, but of course, the sites are all very different and very specific, so we try not to layer on an approach that might work at Giant elsewhere because Giant is very specific. We are doing activities like maintaining 230,000 tonnes of arsenic trioxide, which is not the case at other sites where it’s all about stability. It’s really in terms of what the remediation plan is.
For sure, there are improvements to be made, and we thought the recommendations that came out in the report were really helpful in that sense, in terms of how we can engage with partners to ensure a higher level of participation, not just in procurement but what their interests are in the remediation.
In the case of Giant Mine, as part of the oversight board, we have worked — I would say Yellowknife Dene First Nation is the most directly impacted Indigenous partner with Giant Mine as the example. We have been working with them on a number of different agreements to make sure that we can be responsive in the remediation of Giant Mine. We have one agreement that’s specific to procurement, do how we can help them build the capacity to be more competitive in the procurement pieces. We’re working with the construction manager at Giant Mine to organize procurement packages in a way that suits capacity and skill sets. For example, some economic development corporations by Indigenous partners have certain capacities to run camps, so those are areas where we can kind of enhance and suit the procurement RFPs to match what the skills and capacities are.
Alongside that agreement for procurement is also, as was mentioned earlier, just a conversation and a process to talk about historical legacies. For Yellowknife’s Dene First Nation, it’s really important for them to understand the historical impacts, so we’ve provided funding for them to do their own research and take the time to fully understand the scope of impacts on their community from a historical perspective. That is something that we’ll continue to do.
Jeff Mackey is the director general for the program, and I might rely on Jeff to give a little bit more precision on the details about northern and Indigenous and the classifications for the procurement targets.
Jeffrey Mackey, Acting Director General, Northern Contaminated Sites Program, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you, Georgina. I can speak to that briefly.
We ask all our companies and all our folks to identify whether they are northern Indigenous, northerners, women or other categories within our contracting that we do for every dollar that’s spent on all our projects across the North.
The difference really between a northerner and a northern Indigenous person would be someone who identifies as living in a northern community. For us, that’s typically north of 60, so someone living in the three territories, and then a northern Indigenous person would be someone living in the three territories who identifies as an Indigenous person.
Senator Anderson: Just to clarify, for a northern person, how long do they have to live in the Northwest Territories before they are identified as a northerner?
Mr. Mackey: We can undertake to get that information 100%, but my understanding is that we require that person to just identify that they have an address living in the North. I don’t believe there is a time constraint on it.
Senator Anderson: I would appreciate receiving further information on this, and also if you can provide information on your targets for 2024 and 2025. Thank you.
Senator Robinson: I wanted to go back to something Senator Wells said about the ultimate beneficial owner, the UBO, and I want to turn that a bit and make the point that we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that Canada is an exporting nation, particularly for agriculture and agri-food. We are the fifth-largest exporter of food. I think a lot of people don’t recognize how significant that is, not only for our economy and our jobs but also for the people we feed. We play an incredibly important role in helping ensure the world is fed. I want to say that to emphasize that we should be taking that into consideration when we’re looking at emissions. I kind of like the idea that the ultimate beneficiary should own some of that instead of it all being placed on the people who are feeding those people.
My question is in regard to work to reduce emissions from fertilizer use in agriculture. I don’t know if our friends from Agriculture and Agri-food Canada want to come back up. On page 9, the Auditor General comments:
We found that the department did not consult with stakeholders (for example, farmers and industry associations) prior to establishing the fertilizer emission reduction target. One consequence of this lack of consultation was that some sector stakeholders interpreted the target as an absolute reduction of 30% in fertilizer use, rather than a 30% reduction in emissions from improved fertilizer application techniques.
The rollout of this message caused significant stress in the agriculture community, and the lack of consultation with industry expertise to tackle this issue was and continues to be frustrating, to say the very least.
With this goal of reducing emissions by 30% — that was the wording — can you confirm for me if we have a measurement on what our total emissions are from fertilizer?
Ms. Nix: I can commit to getting back to you. I don’t have that specific number.
Senator Robinson: Can you tell me, do we actually have a number of what our total emissions from fertilizer applications for agriculture are?
Ms. Nix: I can commit to getting back to you. I don’t have that specific answer.
Senator Robinson: I’m pretty sure the answer is “no,” so I’m just wondering if you could give comments as to what thought had been given to how 30% of a number we don’t know was to be determined and measured.
Ms. Nix: I don’t think that I can specifically speak to the setting of the target itself. What I can speak to is the work that we’ve done to work towards that target.
Under the Sustainable Agriculture Strategy Advisory Committee, we have established a fertilizer reduction working group to strengthen the dialogue with the sector and to get expert advice that can inform the development of a strategy to meet the target. It was made up of representatives from industry organizations, commodity associations, academia and other key stakeholders who agreed on a mandate of a one-year term, from May of last year to May of this year.
The working group discussions have really focused on identifying opportunities to increase the adoption of beneficial management practices, address data and measurement issues and accelerate innovation in research and development while expanding outreach and extension services.
In June of this year, the working group submitted their recommendations and advice to the Sustainable Agriculture Strategy Advisory Committee, and that will inform the development of a collaborative approach for reducing emissions from fertilizer application in Canada, and it will form a significant part of the overall strategy.
Senator Robinson: Just to be clear, the timeline you’re talking about — that consultation with the SAS happened well after the 30% reduction was laid out, was it not?
Ms. Nix: Yes.
Senator Robinson: Okay, and back to the SAS, I think there’s something like 17 stakeholders at that table or something like that.
Ms. Nix: Approximately, yes.
Senator Robinson: I had also understood they were meeting biweekly at one point. My interpretation of these 17 groups and their resources is that they are not flush. Was there any consideration of compensation to help these agricultural stakeholders have the proper resources to bring meaningful input to the SAS? From how I read it, it really looks like government, in its attempt to consult industry — which I really applaud because we certainly didn’t see that when we came up with this 30% of a number we didn’t know — but I think in their efforts to consult on SAS, which I think was launched in December 2022, they have seriously downloaded the work and done that at the expense of commodity groups. I think it’s wonderful you’re looking to consult, but can you give us a sense if there’s any thought being given to how you properly resource these groups so they can help government do government’s work?
Ms. Nix: That’s an important consideration. The work of the advisory committee is coming to an end, given that we are quite close to releasing the strategy, I think. That’s something we can take under consideration when we look to work with our partners in terms of implementation of —
Senator Robinson: So we have probably had about 40 or 50 meetings of the SAS since it was launched in 2022. If we pencil that out and we think about a small commodity group trying to make sure their voices and expertise are brought to the table, I would strongly encourage AAFC to give some thought as to how they can ensure they don’t paralyze these small groups with such a huge workload when they are already working above their capacity. Not a question.
Senator McCallum: In the government responses to a number of your recommendations, ISED has indicated that it only partially agrees with your recommendations. In particular, I noticed the response to your recommendation related to improving the accuracy of greenhouse gas reduction estimates to avoid overstating project impacts, to which ISED justifies the status quo. Can you comment on the department’s response to your recommendation?
Mr. DeMarco: Yes.
As I mentioned in my opening statement — and I don’t often do this — I did feel compelled to comment on the vague and unresponsive responses from ISED. We’re now talking about the Net Zero Accelerator Initiative report. If you juxtapose those responses from ISED to the next report that is relating to agriculture, you see vague responses from ISED. You see, for some of them — the introduction — they partially agree, but you read their response and you can’t discern which part they agree with and which part they don’t. Much of the text is about essentially providing a counter-narrative to our report as opposed to responding to the recommendation. These responses from ISED are extremely disappointing and vague. They have no timelines associated with them.
If you look at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s responses in the next report, those are responses that relate to the heart of the recommendation as opposed to the report. They also provide timelines, for example, finalizing the strategy that we were just speaking about in 2024, and then doing other things in 2025 and 2026, even down to the actual month and date for the deadline.
I would say not only the response you’re talking about from ISED, but if you look at all of their responses in the Net Zero Accelerator, they are vague, and they do not give me confidence that that department is committed to really improving as opposed to just defending the status quo.
Senator McCallum: So what do we do now?
Mr. DeMarco: We are both in the business of accountability in a general sense, so it’s up to this committee to decide whether it wishes to study that issue further. That report has certainly been getting the attention of other committees. Mr. Blouin and I were just before another committee on Tuesday talking about that report, and I believe we will be doing so again the week after Thanksgiving with another committee.
We are not the only ones who have concerns about ISED’s management of this program. In particular, I’m concerned about the vague responses that they provided. They stand out compared to some of the more concrete responses in the other reports. Concrete responses aren’t a guarantee that the necessary actions will be taken, but they’re certainly better than a vague response.
Senator McCallum: I wanted to go back to AI. I also went to Laval University with a group of senators to look at how the university — and there are universities doing this across the country — is doing genetic sequencing and then, from there, prevention. They said it is very energy intensive. It just seems like there are new areas coming up that are driving up energy usage. It seems like despite the work that you’re trying to do, energy use is going up in different and new areas.
Mr. DeMarco: Yes. New technologies such as AI — crypto-currency is another example — are very energy intensive. This is all the more reason to do two things. One is to refocus on energy conservation. It’s something that was at the forefront during the energy crisis but is not talked about as much nowadays. We need to be more efficient in our use of energy. Second, we need to shift our energy mix much more toward renewables and low-emitting energy. Because of these other new draws on the grid, the total amount of energy on the demand side of the equation being on the increase, it is all the more important that we shift the proportion of our energy production to zero or low-emitting technologies. We will be looking at the progress in terms of Canada’s goal in that regard next month in one of our reports, so I would be pleased to come back to speak to the committee about our findings there.
I believe this committee hearing was supposed to happen in the spring and then there was a vote, so we got bumped. Typically, we do these meetings with all five reports and a number of departments soon after tabling. We would be happy to do that again this fall if it suits the committee’s calendar, and then we can also come back if you wish to do a deep dive. There was a comment earlier about there was not enough time to cover everything in two hours with all these departments. We’re pleased to come back with a specific department on a specific issue as well, if that would please the committee.
Senator McCallum: If you were a senator, what question would you ask yourself that we haven’t discussed today?
Mr. DeMarco: I think you’re asking all the right questions. I think senators and auditors have similar mindsets.
The Chair: It is a very good idea, because we have a lot of people here. It’s a very complicated issue, but it’s super important. I think we will do a deep dive on certain portions of your work and ask you to come back here so we can get more informed and share our knowledge and opinions. I think we will do that on a more specific basis, a more micro basis.
Senator D. M. Wells: I would agree with that. I really had to be selective with the questions I asked because my time is limited. There are a lot of people here and departments represented. A lot of good work is being done by the commissioner. I think it would be really helpful to have a more targeted hearing where we could dive even more deeply than we did.
The Chair: Thank you to all of you.
[Translation]
Thank you for your availability and your time. It’s very much appreciated.
[English]
I think it’s very good. We will come back to you in bite-sized pieces of information so we can understand the process. Until next time, thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)