Environment Committee on Dec. 9th, 2024

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

There's a difference between financial costs and economic costs. Financial cost is essentially actual outlays of money that people.... Economic costs can factor in externalities and the costs of doing nothing and so on. I'm talking about collective action problems. It's not just what Canada does. If Canada and other countries step up, do their part and avert catastrophic climate change, then the economic costs would be positive to doing that, in the sense that a much hotter planet will have all sorts of other negative economic costs associated with it, which the insurance companies are dealing with already.

There is a financial cost to most measures, but the question of an economic cost brings in more factors such as externalities. The whole reason that all of the countries of the United Nations are trying to work on this is that they feel that the economic, health and environmental costs of not combatting climate change are worse than combatting climate change.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Now, in the lessons that you've attached to your prepared statement, you say in lesson 3, “Adaptation must be prioritized to protect against the worst effects of climate change”.

I'm interested in your choice of the word “prioritized”. Are you saying that our adaptation efforts should be a priority over our climate mitigation efforts?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

No, one can have more than one priority.

Mitigation and adaptation are both important. Relative to mitigation, as of the date of our report of 2021, adaptation had not been given enough attention in Canada, so it needed to essentially get more attention. That's why Ms. Leach's team is actually doing an audit on Canada's adaptation strategy right now for submission to this committee next year.

We're prioritizing it by doing a specific audit on it. Frankly, since 2021 there has at least now been a national adaptation strategy.

What year did we recommend that there be one, Ms. Leach?

[Kimberley Leach]

It was 2006.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

In 2006, our office recommended that there should be a national adaptation strategy, and we just recently had it in the last few years.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Okay. I look forward to reading it when it comes to this committee.

In your remarks you noted that transparency has been an ongoing problem with the government's climate change initiatives, in particular with the net zero accelerator fund.

You and your team had the opportunity to review the unredacted contracts, but parliamentarians did not. In the course of your review of those contracts, did you see any real reason why so much in those contracts had to be redacted for parliamentarians?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

As I indicated quite quickly at the end of the previous round, I don't have the version you have, so I don't know what pages were redacted. I just know that some were redacted, but I don't know which pages.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

That's fair enough.

I would like to give my remaining time to Mr. Leslie.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you.

I'd like to follow up on a previous report, on the Liberals' two billion trees plan, where they were accused of double counting and were still something like 1.8 billion trees short. I'm curious if that Liberal promise is any closer to being achieved.

Also, as it relates to forests, I'm sure you followed our investigation into the devastating Jasper wildfire this summer. Obviously, it came to light that poor forestry management practices, particularly through Parks Canada, were devastating in consequence.

I'm curious if you've ever thought about doing a study toward emissions release, which is obviously extensive from forest fires, as it relates to government failures in forestry management, particularly the federal government and Parks Canada.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I understand that you've had several hearing dates about that. Coincidentally, on the cover of our report on the net-zero act, report 7, is Jasper National Park with the burnt trees. We haven't done an audit on that subject specifically.

We have reported on the problems associated with Canada's accounting system for forestry and in the larger category of land use, land use change and forestry as the second part of our two billion trees report from a couple of years ago. We haven't done an audit specifically on the efficacy of forest management approaches to limiting the scale of destruction associated with these increased, intense and frequent forest fires.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We will conclude with Ms. Chatel.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I'm going to let my colleague speak, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

All right.

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. DeMarco, you've come to this committee probably a dozen times since I've been here. I just want to thank you for being so available to the committee and also for your exceptional work. Canada's really fortunate to have an environment commissioner. Not every country does. I believe in accountable and transparent government. I believe in making sure that our ambitions and our goals are measurable and measured. For my part, I really appreciate your work.

Beyond that, I'm also very appreciative that we have somebody who believes in climate action, who believes in science and who comes here to genuinely.... I believe that you're doing your work so that our country plays a stronger, more ambitious role in reducing our emissions, fighting climate change and preserving our natural environment. Maybe in a future role or life, we'll find each other holding placards up in some kind of protest. I personally like “There's no planet B”. I can imagine you similarly caring enough about our environment to show up on one of those opportunities.

I had the opportunity to look through the agenda of this committee between 2011 and 2015, when Harper had a Conservative majority in Canada. They didn't talk much about climate change. They actually didn't address it once. Obviously, when you have a Conservative government, you control the agenda at committee.

The environment was an issue then and so was climate change. I looked at the final report that the commissioner gave—a previous commissioner, of course—in 2015. He said, “we observed that the federal government did not...have a plan for how it will work toward the greater reductions required beyond 2020, and that it was not coordinating with the provinces” and it was not setting goals commensurate with a reduction in emissions.

I mentioned some provincial stuff earlier. I know that you're reticent to comment on extra-jurisdictional actions, but one thing that really concerned me in 2018, when Doug Ford got elected as premier in Ontario, which is my home province.... He'll take a lot of credit for things that previous governments did with respect to the phase-out of coal and the reductions in emissions that it led to, but he immediately axed the position of commissioner of the environment in Ontario. He also repealed a bunch of environmentally focused legislation and has really not demonstrated a sincere commitment to fighting climate change or lowering emissions in Ontario. In fact, he spent $3 billion of taxpayer money buying gas plants for electricity generation.

I worry that a future Conservative government may not respect your role to the same degree that our government has. I worry that a future Poilievre-led government, given what the oil and gas sector has said with respect to Pierre Poilievre and Andrew Scheer, is the best thing that could ever happen for the oil and gas sector. It won't be held accountable.

My question is maybe a little bit more personal. Are you fearful about whether the work, which you are able to do and that you do so well here in Canada, will continue if a government doesn't demonstrate leadership and ambition with respect to lowering our emissions, and if it doesn't value accountability to the same degree that our government has? Are you fearful that a future Conservative government could eliminate, like Doug Ford has already done, the position of the commissioner of the environment in Canada?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

An auditor general's office—and there's one in almost every country—tends to stick around through feast or famine. It's an important accountability function that governments around the world have implemented.

I don't have a concern that our office would be hamstrung in the future from highlighting problems in the performance of government, whether it's on the financial side or in our performance audit work. We're here without fear or favour to provide the evidence that we found and to provide recommendations for improvement. Sometimes the truth can hurt politically, but our role is to provide that information to you as parliamentarians so you can hold government to account.

I'm fearful about the potential for catastrophic climate change and biodiversity loss, but I'm not going to be commenting on any fear. I haven't really turned my mind to any fear about my position or whatever. To be honest, the scale of the problem globally and nationally is what I'm worried about, not my own role.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

That's pretty much it.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Can I ask one short follow-up question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 15 seconds for a statement.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Can I ask, as a Canadian and as a self-described environmentalist, are you concerned in general about the direction the planet is heading in?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Yes. For the rest of my lifetime, due to the residency time of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, things are going to get worse on climate, and things are bound to get worse on biodiversity, but we have the opportunity to lessen the damage and to do our best for future generations, and that's what I hope for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Commissioner DeMarco, it's always a pleasure to see you.

We thank you for your insights and analysis, Ms. Leach and Ms. Da Costa.

We look forward to seeing you again in the not-too-distant future, I'm sure.

Thank you again, and have a good day.

Thank you, members, for your questions.

This meeting is adjourned.