Evidence of meeting #77 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was recovery.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Mark Cauchi Director General, Energy and Transportation, Department of the Environment
I heard three questions. I'll very quickly try to answer them.
The first one is on methane. I appreciate the comment made. We accept the auditor's report and are making efforts to improve how we measure methane.
It's really complicated right now. All of our international partners agree that the estimates for these emissions need to improve.
It's an issue that is very much globally recognized as a problem and as a challenge. We are working—
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We'll have to stop there, unfortunately. We're up to seven minutes now.
Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
In the interest of equity, Mr. Chair, I expect I'll get seven minutes as well.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you to our witnesses for appearing today. This is an ambitious meeting in which we're trying to ask questions about five different reports, so I'll try to be as succinct as I can.
Starting with species at risk act, Mr. DeMarco, one sentence that really stood out for me in your report was that the federal government has invoked emergency orders only three times. On all three occasions it was due to pressure from external sources. Is that how the species at risk framework is supposed to work?
What were those three sources of external pressure?
11:50 a.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
Yes, we are motoring through a lot of reports today. I hesitate to tell you that we have five more coming in a couple of weeks. Hopefully we'll be back for those as well, and we're happy to do a deep dive on any of these issues in a specific hearing, while we do the overview as we are today.
With species at risk, remember that, especially for endangered and threatened species, these are species that are already in, essentially, the equivalent of the emergency room of biodiversity. However, in the history of SARA, we've seen only three instances in which the emergency order power has been used and no instances in which the safety net power has been used.
This lack of action and lack of use of these tools run contrary to the urgent action needed on the biodiversity crisis. It wouldn't be a problem if we were confident that the provinces and territories were doing their part, as this is a matter of shared jurisdiction, but as the statistics in our report note, the vast majority of the species that have been listed since the 1980s are not in better shape than they were. We know, on the ground and in the waters, that the problem is getting worse. It's self-evident that these powers are being underutilized, given that we have so many species that are at risk and not recovering.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
11:55 a.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
The way the Species at Risk Act has been designed is unlike the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act or the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, in which the equivalent of the safety net, the equivalency provisions, apply automatically. The Species at Risk Act requires a positive government intervention in order to invoke the net. The status quo is that it's not applied if there's a lack of action.
In this case it's a question for the department and the minister, ultimately—and cabinet, I suppose—but the fact that these provisions are not utilized even though there's a biodiversity crisis and a growing list of species at risk shows you that Canada is not doing enough to protect its biodiversity.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I think there was a “yes” in there somewhere—that it's a lack of political will. I'm reading between the lines.
Just in the interest of time, I'm going to move on. There are also serious concerns about the listing process. The concerns you've expressed in your report are about species that have already been listed, but there's also a concern about the listing process for species.
I want to discuss specifically two runs of interior Fraser River steelhead. In the Thompson River run this year, there were 371 fish that came back. There should be thousands of fish. It's the eighth lowest on record. In the Chilcotin River, 134 steelhead returned, which is the sixth lowest on record. However, these runs, which are genetically distinct, are not listed under SARA.
My question is for Ms. Bouchard from DFO. In 2018 a DFO scientist raised alarm bells about the editing of a report completed by scientists regarding these two runs of steelhead specifically. Someone from the Canada science advisory secretariat, which is essentially a secretariat that conducts the peer review of science advice for DFO, warned that the changed document was undermining the scientific credibility of the process. Essentially, the scientists put together this document that raised alarm bells about interior Fraser steelhead, and then someone in the deputy minister's office edited the report to downplay the risks. That led to a decision by then minister Jonathan Wilkinson, in 2019, to not list interior Fraser steelhead.
Has the department taken any measures since then to prevent non-scientific officials from editing scientific reports to downplay risks and prevent the listing of species under SARA?
11:55 a.m.
Director general, Biodiversity Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Unfortunately, I don't know that specific event you're talking about. I don't have the information. It's not the topic of the day, so I was not prepared for that.
As we know, we have a robust CSAS process—the scientific peer review process. That's all I can say.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
How few fish would there have to be for them to be listed under SARA?
Is that a question you can answer?
11:55 a.m.
Director general, Biodiversity Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The listing process was also the topic of a previous report.
All salmon populations are under assessment for a decision regarding listing. We're doing the consultation, the science advice, the socio-economic analysis of impacts and all those considerations before we can make the listing decisions.
As you probably know, we also have the pacific salmon strategy, where we are putting a lot of effort into the recovery of pacific salmon.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That takes us to six minutes.
We'll start our second round now with Mr. Mazier for five minutes.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Thank you, Chair. Thank you to the guests for coming here today.
Commissioner, in 2019, the Liberals promised to plant two billion trees by 2031.
According to your estimates, will the government plant two billion trees through their original program on time, yes or no?
11:55 a.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
Given the developments this summer, I would say no, because it's no longer an incremental trees program. It's becoming partly a tree-counting program instead of a tree-planting program.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Thank you.
If the government somehow plants two billion trees, do you believe that the government's emissions reduction targets through this program will be met, yes or no?
11:55 a.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
Again, because they're double counting now with another program—the low-carbon economy fund—the added value of the program has diminished to the extent that, right now, of the 100 million or so trees that we just heard had been planted, about half of those—49%—actually come from another program.
Noon
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Thank you.
Mr. Hermanutz, the commissioner mentioned the regulatory impact analysis statement for the government's clean fuel regulations.
Was the government given this analysis prior to approving the clean fuel regulations, yes or no?
Noon
Derek Hermanutz Director General, Economic Analysis Directorate, Department of the Environment
Yes, that analysis is part of the decision-making process.
Noon
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
The impact analysis stated that the clean fuel regulations would increase the cost of energy and “disproportionately impact lower and middle-income” Canadians. Is this correct, yes or no?
Noon
Director General, Economic Analysis Directorate, Department of the Environment
That is correct, yes.
Noon
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
The government was advised that the clean fuel regulations would increase the cost of fuel and still proceeded with them.
Noon
Director General, Economic Analysis Directorate, Department of the Environment
The estimated impacts in the RIAS are for the full implementation of the regulations by 2030. There is flexibility within the regulations in terms of different pathways. Ultimately, the increase in costs will be determined by choices made by refineries and which pathways and which compliance options they choose to comply with the regulations.
Noon
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
There was no disputing that they were advised that these fuel regulations would increase the cost of fuel.