Environment Committee on March 19th, 2024

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I would like you to provide the committee with a written explanation of the various locations where regional assessments will be conducted.

Mr. Moffet, I would like to return to the famous Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which was passed and has received royal assent. I am very interested in the toxic substances management policy. Since our study pertains to water, there are links with the management of toxic substances.

Further to the amendment of the act, the following statement appears on the Government of Canada website: … the Minister of Health will be responsible for fulfilling the risk management obligation under CEPA where the Minister of Health will be leading the development and implementation of the new risk management instruments in relation to substances that pose health concerns …

As you can see, we are not working in isolation. The ministers of health and the environment work together. They have regulatory powers.

Since royal assent, what progress has been made with regard to the management of toxic substances?

[John Moffet]

I will answer your question in English, Ms. Pauzé.

The federal government has been involved in the assessment and management of toxic substances for over 30 years. In the last 15 years, the government has become a little more coordinated and centralized through the development of what we'd call the chemicals management plan. As you correctly mentioned, the bill that was recently passed, Bill S-5, requires the government to essentially renew that plan by developing a new plan of priorities. The law requires the minister to come forward with that plan in two years.

We have started consultation broadly with the public and with indigenous communities on what that plan should contain. We will continue those public discussions. Then we will release, as we usually do, a draft, and then a final report. That work is well under way.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you for your answer.

I will now turn to the officials from the Parks Canada Agency.

Hello.

Natural Resources Canada is responsible for the famous program to plant 2 billion trees, and the Agency has requested $37 million for the fund to fight forest fires.

Can you tell me how many Parks Canada forests were decimated by forest fires in 2023?

I am asking because, when trees are replanted, we must avoid past errors that led to the forest fires spreading so quickly. The trees that are planted must be diversified.

[Darlene Upton, Vice-President, Protected Areas Establishment and Conservation, Parks Canada Agency]

Last year was very different for us because the fires burned nine times the number of forests in our parks. That requires a lot of work from the agency and a lot of coordination with our provincial and territorial partners. Further, we have a monitoring program to measure the effects of the fires and a process for determining the best way to restore those forests. In some cases, it is better to wait because nature will do the job itself, while in other cases we can use more specific processes, such—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. I gave you a bit more time, but we have to stop here.

Ms. Collins, you have the floor.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of the officials for coming today and sharing their expertise and knowledge.

One of the questions I wanted to ask the minister but didn't get a chance to ask was around forestry emissions. Many experts, including the environment commissioner, have noted that emissions in the forestry industry are wildly under-reported. They estimate the government is under-reporting emissions by 100 megatonnes.

When are we going to see a review of these forestry emissions?

[Jean-François Tremblay]

John can go into this with the details, but the way we account for this, as you know, is being reviewed internationally on a regular basis and by peers in Canada. There has been a review process, and we should get new numbers quite soon, if I remember it well.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Do you have any comments on the discrepancy? That's a huge number.

[Jean-François Tremblay]

It's more of an accounting issue. I think John can go into this. It's a different methodology, but the methodology we use is recognized internationally. It's been recognized by United Nations organizations and by experts. It's just a different way, but we're not....

I don't know if John wants to handle this.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

The environment commissioner has noted this discrepancy, and experts are saying we don't have integrity in our accounting and that we're missing 100 megatonnes. That's huge.

[John Moffet]

As the deputy explained, there are methodological issues and choices need to be made. I don't think it's fair to say that our system lacks integrity. There are definitely judgments that have to be made in the way that we estimate emissions. The goal is to estimate anthropogenic emissions only. To do that requires modelling a forest with no human impact, which of course requires—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Can we expect any changes?

[John Moffet]

Any changes we make will be changes that are guided by evolution in international norms.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thanks.

I want to give you a quick opportunity to.... Maybe this is a question for Mr. Tremblay as well.

We've heard about the cost of the carbon pricing system, but there is a huge cost to climate change.

When we are comparing the impact of crop failures, droughts and extreme flooding on grocery store prices and folks who are struggling to pay for their food, do we have numbers on what the impact of the carbon pricing system is for Canadians?

[Jean-François Tremblay]

Just to give you a sense, when we were looking at the costs more than a decade ago, on an annual basis, the cost in insured goods or assets per year after catastrophes and environmental disasters was an average of close to $500 million. We're more in the $2-billion range now, so when the minister uses the $2-billion figure, that's where it's from.

When you look at what happened with the fires, I think we need to include in this that there's a cost in life when there are events like that. When the air is not good, as you mentioned before, it has a significant impact on the population—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

There are 15,000 preventable deaths every year.

[Jean-François Tremblay]

Exactly, so there's a significant number there, and there are also, of course, other consequences, such as people losing days of work and productivity in businesses going down during those times. It is a serious number that varies a lot, but I would say that over the last few years it's been skyrocketing, if I could say that.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Could you follow up to the committee with the same kind of analysis that Mr. Moffet provided with the 0.33% figure? Could you find a similar number?

[Jean-François Tremblay]

I'm sure there's a list of recent events and the costs for each of them, including on lives. We can send that to you.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

If there is a larger look at one year or something along those lines, that would be helpful as well.

[John Moffet]

Could I just add that this is the methodological disagreement that we have with the Parliamentary Budget Officer?

The Parliamentary Budget Officer's estimate of the GDP impacts did not compare the GDP impacts of carbon pricing to an economy facing climate change without the carbon price. It compared the impact of carbon pricing on the economy to an economy with no carbon price and no climate change, so it was an unreal comparison.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Given the report showing that there's going to be a $25-billion slowdown in our economy because of the climate crisis, clearly this needs to be accounted for.

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 45 seconds.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I know that there's other business, so I'll cede my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

We'll now go to the parties in the second round. Mr. Leslie, you have five minutes.