Environment Committee on Oct. 17th, 2023

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

On the application, I know that about 200 applications came in. Twenty-three, maybe more, have been signed since the end of the audit period, and 71 are awaiting signing.

In your estimation, Commissioner, why does it take so long to sign these deals? What is the actual hindrance—likely from the public service side of things—that is getting in the way of these agreements being signed faster? Do you think the remaining 100 or so applicants from the first intake are on pace to be signed at any time in the near future?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I hate to pass the buck, but I have no idea what causes the delays within the department right now. I think the department would be best positioned to address that question.

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

I'm happy to have them answer, but I would also ask this at the same time: How many public servants are currently working on this program specifically, to try to implement it?

[Monique Frison]

There are a number of reasons that it takes a while to approve a project. I talked earlier about the right tree in the right place at the right time and about survival rates as well.

We look at all these things. Do you have permission to plant on the land? That's about private land ownership and the ability to do this. What are your plans for species? Who do you have involved? Where are you going to get the capacity for advice on how to prepare the soil? In some instances, you're going to need....

What about access to nurseries? Where are you going to get your seedlings? How is that going to work? What other permits do you need to have? Do you know what permits you need to have for the particular jurisdiction?

There are lots of things we need to consider before we enter into a new agreement with a partner to make sure we're getting that right tree in the right place at the right time, and that's a lot of the reason.

I can get back to you on the exact number of employees. I would say it's about 50, but I'll get back to you.

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

It's all right. We'll get the actual number later. Thank you.

There's quite a difference—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm sorry, but we're out of time. I gave you a bit more time there because it was interesting.

We'll go now to Mr. van Koeverden for five minutes.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

My question's also about trees. In fact, I am going to open with a statement. Over the weekend I took part in a tree-planting event. I got really cold because it was freezing cold and raining. We planted about 200 trees as a group. It was for the two billion trees program.

I just want to reinforce that community groups like Trees for Halton Hills and Conservation Halton are inspired by the ambitious proposal to plant two billion trees. They have and are currently still looking for more solutions to plant them in urban areas, in suburban areas, in already conserved areas and in areas that have been affected by fire. I can speak for them today, because we announced a couple of hundred thousand dollars for a quarter of a million trees. They have quite a few trees in the ground already, and I can state confidently that Conservation Halton is our greatest ally in the fight against climate change in the Halton region and beyond. They're doing great work.

I want to ask about mitigating fire risk and the loss of trees due to wildfires. Could you provide us with some kind of estimate about how many trees were lost, particularly mature trees, in this year's remarkable and unprecedented wildfire season, and tell us why, now more than ever, the two billion trees commitment is important?

[Monique Frison]

We don't have a count for the number of trees. We see that a little more than 18 million hectares were affected by wildland fire this year, so it's quite a lot. It's far more than we've experienced in the past. There were about 6,500 or more individual fires across the country.

The two billion trees program can help in at least two ways, probably more. One is that some fires we've seen in the last number of fire seasons burned so hot that they burned the soil level: They burned below the tree level and burned the bacteria. Those areas will not regenerate naturally. You have to go in there and intervene in order for those areas to regenerate. That's one way that two billion trees can help.

The other way it can help is by encouraging provinces and territories...or not encouraging them, because we know they're already thinking about it, but supporting them in planting trees and thinking about the ways they're managing their forests to ensure resiliency and adaptation in the long run and to protect communities. For example, in the funding we recently announced with Yukon, they're going to use their two billion trees contribution to create firebreaks and some protection for some of the communities that might be affected in the future by fire.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

That sounds like a really important innovation. Thank you very much.

My second question is for Mr. Tardif, if I have time. Mr. Tardif, you stated that OSFI should ensure that we have a strategy for addressing climate-related financial risk that is as consistent as possible among federally regulated pension plans.

Over the last couple of weeks I've read that two-thirds of Albertans are really frustrated and afraid that their pensions might be taken over by the province, and that a lot of those funds would undoubtedly be reallocated and invested into oil and gas. Do you share that concern, and do you think that providing some sort of sub-sovereign or provincial pension fund would add risk to those portfolios?

[Stephane Tardif]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

It's an interesting question, and I would say that I'm not well positioned to comment on Alberta's initiative with regard to its pension plans.

I can say this with regard to the work that OSFI is doing. They're trying to ensure some consistency, some level playing field, between the small percentage of assets under the administration of federally regulated private pension plans, as well as working with provincial regulators to ensure there's consistency in expectations with the broader set of pension plans that are regulated by other supervisors in Canada.

I cannot speak to Alberta's specific initiative that you're referencing in this question.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

To make it a little bit more specific, do you think that increasing investments in pension plans in carbon-intensive industries would add or subtract risk from those portfolios?

[Stephane Tardif]

Increasing investments in carbon-intensive industries would increase risks to assets under administration over long periods of time.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I yield the rest of my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. van Koeverden.

Go ahead, Madame Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

First, I'm going to make a comment on tree plantations. After all the questions that have been asked, the only conclusion I can come to is that people lied, the government lied. The government knew full well that planting trees would not contribute to achieving the 2030 reduction targets. It couldn't be clearer.

Now, I'd rather focus on report four. Maybe you can answer my question, Mr. DeMarco, or perhaps Mr. Tardif can.

What concrete risks do Canadian financial systems run if they don't address climate-related risks? We can see—and you said so in your report—that in this respect, we're lagging behind the European Union, particularly the United Kingdom. We're dragging our feet here. So what are the very real risks of not addressing climate-related risks immediately?

You told us in your presentation that full implementation would take years. However, we know that this is urgent. Can you give us a little more detail on the risks?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

There are two categories: physical risks and transition risks. Physical risks are simpler. We're talking about floods, wildfires and especially infrastructure losses caused by disasters.

Transition risks are related to changes in the economy, the rules and the legislation associated with the green transition. I believe that Mr. Tardif could provide you with more details on those risks.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Actually, because I have another question to ask but I'd still like to get a response from Mr. Tardif, I would ask you to please send us those details.

We know that the Canadian economy has one of the world's highest rates of greenhouse gas emissions per capita relative to its gross domestic product. Is Canada therefore more vulnerable to climate-related financial risks?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Yes, Canada is vulnerable to those risks. As we can already see, it's not a theoretical question. We now have terminology to describe the intensity and frequency of disasters and catastrophes, which are rampant.

That said, there are many opportunities in the abundant natural and renewable resources we have, which can help us make the green transition.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bachrach, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Picking up where my colleague left off on report four, there was one sentence in the “At a Glance” section that stood out to me. You wrote, “In our view, OSFI should consider whether it is appropriate to look beyond its current approach and find ways to advance Canada's broader climate goals, as stated in the latest Federal Sustainable Development Strategy.”

I didn't have time to read that strategy in advance of this meeting, but I wonder if you might elaborate a little bit on what you have in mind when it comes to looking beyond the current approach and advancing Canada's broader climate goals.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Thank you for that question.

As of next month, the list of federal entities subject to the federal sustainable development strategy moves from 20-something to about 100, including OSFI and including our own office, actually. All of these departments now have to put together what's called a departmental sustainable development strategy. We've already had one voluntarily, but the others will have to do their first ones.

That means outlining, department by department or entity by entity, because these aren't all departments now, how they will contribute to the federal sustainable development strategy. That new strategy has 17 goals, which, as per our recommendations last year, align with the agenda 2030 sustainable development goals of the United Nations. OSFI now has an opportunity in its first departmental strategy next month to contribute to the whole-of-government sustainable development strategy.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Could you provide a couple of examples of specific ways in which OSFI could make those contributions to the larger project?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Yes. The most obvious one that any department can do is to green its own operations so that its house is in order. Everyone has been on board with that.

Since our audit, OSFI has taken more proactive steps in the climate area to engage with its stakeholders and better incorporate climate risks into the macroprudential framework. It's being more active than it was at the time of our audit. It was already improving over the course of our audit, but my understanding is that since then, and with the action plan tabled with this committee, they're taking further steps to better address the climate issues in their work, not just in their operations but in terms of their regulatory capacity as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go now to Mr. Leslie for five minutes.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I have some questions regarding some of the costing and the particular breakdown of the cost per tree. There seems to be some pretty wide discrepancies. I understand that there are elements of cost-sharing between the provinces, and there's the potential for capacity building and other costs associated with it. However, it looks like for the provinces and territories it's a buck a tree. It's a little over that on the private land. For indigenous-led it's $2.80 a tree. It's up to close to $90 a tree on urban land, and it's $50 a tree on federal land.

Recognizing that the federal land, given that we have capacity...because we have other programs that are counting towards this. Why in particular is the federal lands portion so high? Could you or the department explain the breakdown and why these costs are what they are for each of these various types of scenarios? If there's a potential for cost overruns, are there more amongst any of the different scenarios of where we'd be planting?