Skip to content

QUESTION PERIOD — Environment and Climate Change

Emissions Reduction Target

June 16, 2022


Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition)

Honourable senators, in April I asked Senator Gold a question about Canada’s emissions reduction targets and the fact that the NDP-Liberal government did not consult farmers on meeting those targets. Fertilizer Canada’s own research shows meeting these targets would devastate the entire sector, costing it $48 billion.

Leader, you were unable to say whether they were consulted or to what extent, but you did say that:

. . . I can assure this chamber that the government’s emissions targets are taken in the spirit and on the basis of advice and reflect Canada’s commitment to do its part to reduce greenhouse gases and climate change.

Leader, did the advice you referred to regarding meeting Canada’s emissions targets include advice from Environment and Climate Change Canada and Natural Resources Canada, or did the government ignore them while preparing its targets just as it has ignored the farmers and Fertilizer Canada?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) [ - ]

Well, I don’t have a different answer from the one you cited before. I do not know the nature of the consultations or advice, and I would not presume to answer given that I don’t know.

This government will continue to work to help Canada do its part to achieve reductions in carbon and greenhouse gas emissions while, at the same time, doing so in a way that protects and addresses the economic needs of all sectors, including the agricultural sector.

Well, I trust that you will get me the answer that I asked for if you don’t have the answer today.

A report in The Globe and Mail on Tuesday cited confidential government documents on the emissions targets released in March. Those documents, including findings from Environment and Climate Change Canada and Natural Resources Canada, showed the government’s targets of an 81-megatonne reduction in emissions from the oil and gas sector by 2030 was completely unrealistic, leader.

The documents showed the industry could only realistically reduce emissions by 43 megatonnes by 2030. Officials at Environment and Climate Change Canada said they would share documents with The Globe and Mail showing how the gap between 43 megatonnes and 81 megatonnes would be bridged. Then, of course, they reneged on that promise. This government constantly tells us it relies on science, but it ignores advice from its own experts.

Leader, can you tell us why the government ignored the more realistic figures on its emissions targets? Will you commit to tabling in this chamber the documents promised to The Globe and Mail on how a gap of 38 megatonnes would be bridged?

Senator Gold [ - ]

The government does not ignore the advice. Let me answer your question. I’m advised that the analysis referred to, Senator Plett, is one of the many internal inputs and early inputs that were assessed and considered in the process of developing the plan. The analysis provides a very incomplete picture of internal government analysis. It also does not reflect the final modelling done by the government. The final analysis used as a baseline the latest projections from the Canada Energy Regulator and its trajectory for oil production. The analysis that is referred to also does not incorporate the full scale at which emissions reduction technologies such as carbon capture and storage could reduce emissions. Rather, it focused only on technologies currently available.

I have been further advised that the emissions reduction plan, along with other developing regulatory approaches, shows that, with the right policy signals and the support of frameworks in place, Canada can indeed reach its target of a 40% reduction by 2030, equating to an 81-megatonne cut in pollution.

Back to top