Environment Committee on Oct. 17th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Good morning, everyone.

Good morning, Commissioner. It's a pleasure to see you at our committee once again.

There is a whole list of people who are part of this meeting today as witnesses or resource people. I'm going to put good manners aside and not introduce everyone, because I think that would take us to almost the end of the meeting. You're all very welcome, and I'm glad that you could all make it.

Before we begin, I have one small order of committee business to take care of, which I'm hoping will take only about 20 seconds, if not less. I would like to ask members if they would like to adopt the—

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

Chair, I do have a recommendation for the amendment. I'm not trying to hijack—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It was unanimously adopted.

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

It's about the Atlantic report. It is that the committee hold three witness meetings by the end of 2023 on the tidal power projects in Atlantic Canada, a motion adopted by the committee on September 26, 2023. The committee unanimously said, yes, we should do this study. Just add it as point seven. That's all I'm asking for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I don't know if there's going to be agreement on this. I'm holding a “future business” meeting on Thursday with the committee. Our meeting on Thursday is future business. Perhaps we could discuss it then.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll need a discussion probably much greater than what we could have at the moment.

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

Very good.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Commissioner DeMarco, with your opening statement.

[Jerry V. DeMarco, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to recognize that this meeting is taking place on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

We're happy to be here today to discuss the five performance audit reports that were tabled in the House of Commons in April of this year. With me today are Nicholas Swales, James McKenzie, Kimberley Leach, and Jean-François Nadeau, who were responsible for the audits.

Our first audit focused on whether Environment and Climate Change Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Parks Canada met the timelines set out in the Species at Risk Act for developing the documents that are required to support the recovery of wildlife species at risk. We also wanted to know whether the objectives set out in the recovery strategies and management plans were being met.

Overall, we found that the three organizations' efforts to plan and report on the recovery of species at risk were slow and lacking, and that objectives were being met for less than half of all species for which there was sufficient data.

What this means on the ground is that 416 of the 520 species at risk that had been reassessed since 1982 either showed no change in status or had entered a higher risk category. In other words, in more than four decades, the status had improved for only about one in every five species at risk. We also found large backlogs of progress reports that are intended to keep departments accountable and show whether the actions being taken are having a meaningful impact.

Turning now to our second audit, which also focused on species at risk, we found that Environment and Climate Change Canada did not have a proactive approach to providing the minister with timely advice on using discretionary powers to protect wildlife species and their habitats.

The Species at Risk Act allows the federal government to step in when provinces and territories are failing to effectively protect species at risk and their habitats on non-federal lands. Since the act came into force almost 20 years ago, a total of 3 emergency orders have been issued, and all were the result of pressure from sources external to the federal government.

I will turn now to our audit of forests and climate change. The federal government launched the 2 Billion Trees Program to counter climate change, enhance biodiversity, and support human well-being.

We found that, given the number of trees planted so far, this program is unlikely to succeed unless significant changes are made. As well, even if the 2 billion tree goal is achieved, the program’s initial targets for carbon sequestration by 2030 and 2050 will not be met.

Although Natural Resources Canada nearly met its goal to plant 30 million trees in 2021, the department fell well short of its 2022 goal of 60 million trees. Delays in signing agreements with planting partners have not only significantly challenged the department's ability to plant the number of trees it had planned for 2022 but will also affect subsequent years, which have much more ambitious goals.

Since the end of our audit period, we understand that some progress has been made in signing additional agreements. However, the department announced it is now counting trees planted under another department's program—which has different objectives—as part of the two billion trees program. If this program is no longer focused on planting two billion incremental trees, its benefits will be reduced.

In our audit of emission reductions through greenhouse gas regulations, we examined whether Canada achieved its targets and contributed to the country’s long-term climate change mitigation goals. Environment and Climate Change Canada did not know the extent to which the greenhouse gas regulations we examined contributed to meeting Canada’s overall emission reduction target. This was because the department’s approach to measuring emissions did not attribute results to specific regulations. The department recognized that it's challenging to do so because of interactions between policy measures.

When we looked at individual regulations, we found mixed results. The regulations aimed at reducing emissions from power generation achieved their targets, but some of the regulations that aimed to reduce emissions from vehicles did not. The department was also very slow to develop new regulations, such as regulations about clean fuels.

Our last audit examined whether the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada incorporated climate-related financial risks into its risk management systems and frameworks for federally regulated financial institutions and pension plans.

We found that, although OSFI has recently made meaningful progress toward integrating these risks into its supervisory framework, full implementation is years away. In addition, OSFI did not view its role as including the advancement of the Government of Canada’s broader climate goals. There is an opportunity for OSFI to consider how to adapt its role to further Canada’s whole-of-government approach to sustainable development and fighting climate change.

Our reports show that climate change and biodiversity are intrinsically linked, and that these two crises need to be addressed through decisive and concerted actions. Government has in place a range of policy tools to better protect wildlife, restore habitats, reduce greenhouse gases and better prepare for climate change. The question I ask is whether the government will step up for our sake, for nature and for future generations.

Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Commissioner.

We'll move on to the first round, starting with Mr. Deltell.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for being here, and welcome to your House of Commons committee. Good morning, colleagues.

Like all Canadians, we recognize that climate change is real and that it has a real impact on the lives of the men and women who live here in this country and around the world. Because humans are partly responsible for this situation, humans bear much of the responsibility for fixing it. There are several ways to measure our impact and, more importantly, to achieve our emission and pollution reduction targets.

In that regard, Report 5, “Emission Reductions Through Greenhouse Gas Regulations—Environment and Climate Change Canada”, is quite intriguing, to say the least. I'd like to read what I think is the most striking part of it:

Overall, we found that Environment and Climate Change Canada did not know the extent to which the greenhouse gas regulations we examined contributed to Canada’s overall emission reductions. This was because the department’s approach to measuring emissions did not attribute emission results to specific regulations. As well, we found that the department was too slow to develop the Clean Fuel Regulations, jeopardizing the pace of Canada’s emission reductions.

Reading that makes me wonder why the current government has spent years doing things if it doesn't even know the outcomes. Spouting lofty principles is one thing, but when there are no results to back them up, that's another. Plus, when they can't even figure out what the results mean, it's a waste of time. This is not a new issue. We've all known about climate change for 25 or 30 years now, and we're aware of the need to take action.

Can you help me understand why, after all these years, Environment Canada can't even perform a rigorous scientific analysis of the effects of our policies and the impact of pollution reduction, which is what all Canadians want?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Thank you.

It goes without saying that policies, regulations and so on interact. Even so, it's possible to measure or estimate the impact of each policy, each act and each regulation more accurately than what we're seeing now.

Those interactions shouldn't prevent the department from doing a better job of assessing how effective strategies and policies are at achieving their goals. Once drafted, each regulation or strategy has an objective, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions by a certain number of megatonnes. However, as you said, Canada's emissions have gone up instead of down over the past 25 to 30 years. We've been having these problems for three decades now.

That's why we offer recommendations so the department can improve its approach to things like modelling and estimating rather than fall back on the interactions excuse. I know that those interactions exist and that it's probably impossible to get precise answers about each and every policy, but it is possible to do better.

That's clearly something they need to do so that Canada can finally hit a target after 30 years of missing them.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

In that same report, you say that methane is what worries you most. Specifically, the report says, “This is worrying because methane has 25 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period.”

The government is unable to accurately measure whether everything it says it's been trying to do for the past eight years has had any real impact. The question remains. How can you accurately measure whether the policies implemented over the past eight years have produced results or whether the results the government claims it has achieved are real?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

That question should be put to departmental representatives so they can explain their approaches.

What we found was that there are problems with their estimates relating to methane and emissions from forests. We made a number of recommendations in reports 1 and 5 to help them improve their approach to measuring methane and emissions from forests. However, I would suggest you ask the departments what they intend to do to come up with better estimates of methane emissions and net emissions from forests.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you.

How can anyone really measure the consequences of pollution in Canada when our biggest neighbour, the United States, is so nearby? Consider very dense industrial areas like Detroit, Michigan, a city located very close to the Canadian border. How can anyone determine that pollution in Canada is generated by Canada and not by our neighbour?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Pollution and greenhouse gases certainly do cross borders, and they have a major impact everywhere. Emissions are the same whether they come from Canada or Detroit. What matters is that all countries, including Canada and the United States, need to reduce their emissions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

I have to apologize. I've just been informed that the representatives of the five departments and agencies who are here with us today want five minutes for opening remarks.

I'll ask the committee members if they would rather end the first round of questions before giving the representatives a chance to deliver their opening remarks or have them deliver those remarks now before Mr. Longfield, Ms. Pauzé and Mr. Bachrach get their turn.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

That's unfortunate for Mr. Deltell because he didn't hear all the departmental presentations. Does he think that's fair?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Ms. Pauzé, I really appreciate your concern, but I feel I accomplished what I wanted to. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, thanks.

I would now ask the representatives of the five departments and agencies to deliver their opening remarks. You have up to five minutes. Again, I apologize for this.

Ms. Bouchard, you have the floor.

[Nicole Bouchard, Director general, Biodiversity Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Good morning Mr. Chair and committee members.

My name is Nicole Bouchard and I am the Director General of Biodiversity Management at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee on behalf of the department to speak to the follow-up audit on the recovery of species at risk.

The Commissioner’s report raises awareness of the global biodiversity crisis and challenges the government and its partners face in delivering the best possible conservation outcomes. On behalf of my department, I'd like to thank the Commissioner for his work and acknowledge the report’s conclusions.

Moreover, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has agreed with the recommendations put forth in the audit report and is taking action to address them. These measures will help the department more effectively plan and report on the recovery of species listed under the Species at Risk Act. This will contribute to species recovery and, in turn, to the commitments Canada made under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.

Recovery documents are planning documents that describe what needs to be done to arrest or reverse the decline of a species. These documents can be seen as the building blocks for recovery, the foundation. The department relies on robust scientific information to guide the recovery planning and implementation process.

Moreover, recovery planning doesn't happen in a vacuum. Rather, it depends on the co-operation and meaningful participation of a number of partners and stakeholders, including indigenous people and communities, provincial and territorial governments, wildlife management boards, industry, academic institutions, NGOs and the public.

Engaging partners and stakeholders through the recovery planning process sets the stage for the successful implementation of recovery measures. Per the Species at Risk Act, the protection and recovery of aquatic species at risk is a shared responsibility. Partner and stakeholder buy-in is essential to future leadership, collaboration and participation in advancing water stewardship and recovery projects across Canada.

The audit report highlighted the need for continued efforts to complete outstanding recovery documents and progress reports. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is working diligently and has made progress on recovery planning. For example, as of March 31, 2023, 90% of listed aquatic species had a published recovery strategy, compared to 80% in March 2020. Since 2018, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has also produced 48 additional progress reports. In addition, as of March 31, 2023, 98% of aquatic species with a critical habit identified in a recovery document have a protection order, compared to 54% in March 2020.

Internally, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has undertaken a review of its recovery document processes with a focus on implementing efficiencies, strengthening guidance, maintaining program capacity and enhancing collaboration. In response to the audit's recommendation, DFO has started an analysis of available data and information to estimate the timelines and resources required to address overdue recovery documentation. This analysis will further inform improvements to the current recovery planning process.

The nature legacy initiative helped to lay the foundation for work that is under way to transition the department from the historical use of species-by-species approaches to multispecies approaches, where it makes sense to do so.

In closing, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is committed to fulfilling its obligations under the Species at Risk Act, including with regard to recovery planning. The department will continue to develop recovery documents within the timelines set out in the Act and to work in close collaboration with all partners and stakeholders to support species at risk protection and recovery.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to the representatives of Natural Resources. I believe Ms. Frison will be speaking.

Yes, go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Monique Frison, Director General, Trade, Economics and Industry Branch, Department of Natural Resources]

Thanks.

My name is Monique Frison. I'm a director general at the Canadian Forest Service at Natural Resources Canada. We want to thank the commissioner for the audit on forest and climate change.

I just wanted to note that we agree with all but one of the recommendations from the commissioner. We are working very closely with Environment and Climate Change Canada. We're working together on those recommendations.

Forests and other nature-based solutions are an integral part of the fight against climate change. Trees generate many long-term benefits, including the revitalization of fire-ravaged areas, creation of green jobs, enhancement of the well-being of Canadians, carbon sequestration and habitat for diverse species.

As Minister Wilkinson has said, the commitment to plant two billion trees is a “marathon....not a sprint”. The two billion tree program will yield the majority of trees planted toward our commitment. As it moves forward, we will keep our foundational principle top of mind, which is to plant the right tree in the right place for the right reasons.

The Government of Canada has made significant progress on its commitment to plant two billion trees. In August, we announced we had already planted over 110 million of those trees toward that commitment. We have agreements signed or under negotiation to plant 370 million trees by 2031, and there's more to come because we will continue to fund projects that provide a wide variety of benefits to Canadians.

Provinces and territories are key partners for us in implementing our objective of planting two billion trees. Minister Wilkinson has engaged with his counterparts since this summer and the fire season to reiterate his commitment to work collaboratively with them to deliver climate change adaptation and mitigation solutions for Canadians, not only to recover from the recent and past wildfires but also to adapt for the future.

On forest carbon, we will continue to partner with Environment and Climate Change Canada to produce world-class GHG estimates using methodology supported by more than 100 peer-reviewed research papers. We continue our efforts to stay current with the latest advancements in this field. For instance, budget 2023, as part of its investments in forests and in forest workers, included funding to improve our forest data and reporting. Our regular discussions with forestry experts and stakeholders mean we are aware of the best available science, data and best practices, as well as where we can improve. Our modelling tools will continue to evolve thanks to scrutiny by experts and peer-review processes.

We're proud that our reporting methods align with internationally accepted practices, as the commissioner has noted. This means we produce a “big picture” report that collectively reflects human impacts such as harvesting, regeneration, fire suppression and conservation. This method of reporting meets the reporting guidelines of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and it reflects guidance from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

To conclude, there is no solution to climate change without forests. Nature-based climate solutions are an integral part of the solution. The good news is that interest remains high in tree-planting among all our partners, whether they are municipalities, indigenous communities and governments, private companies, or provinces and territories.

I'll say this again: The process is a marathon, not a sprint, but every tree planted along the way to two billion provides benefits for Canadians for decades.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Ms. Frison.

We'll go to Tara Shannon from ECCC.