Environment Committee on May 7th, 2026

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I want to turn to the “Avian Influenza” report. This may be a question more for the witnesses from CFIA.

The audit found that CFIA successfully completed stamping-out procedures at all 47 sampled sites, issued movement controls within one day in 94% of cases and paid $360 million in compensation. In your view, does that operational record reflect that Canada's overall response to avian influenza was managed effectively on the ground?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

We issued conclusions on three different aspects of the avian flu ecosystem: monitoring in wild birds by Environment and Climate Change Canada; CFIA's efforts, which you just spoke to; and the Public Health Agency's efforts with regard to human vaccines.

I can give you a response with respect to CFIA, which is that based on our sample of 47, we found it had successfully eliminated the virus in those premises. There were some gaps in documentation, but the end result in terms of the stamping-out procedures being effective was a positive one.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

I'll turn it over to Mr. St-Pierre.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. DeMarco, congratulations on your new role today. Thank you for leading the conversation with the 15 or so witnesses at this briefing. There are a lot of us.

Emergency management is often a shared area of jurisdiction with the provinces. To what extent does the flood hazard mapping depend on the work of provincial governments? Can you briefly tell us about the collaboration with the Government of Quebec? I would appreciate that.

Thank you.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I'll start, and then senior director Susie Fortier can add a few words.

Under our Constitution, land management, planning and use fall largely within provincial or territorial jurisdiction. As you know, the federal government launched a mapping program to help the provinces and territories with this.

As Mr. Jeanty said, we need all levels of government—provincial, territorial, federal, municipal and indigenous—to collaborate on this endeavour.

I will ask Ms. Desbiens to discuss the situation in Quebec.

[Susie Fortier, Principal, Office of the Auditor General]

We certainly don't dictate the provinces' performance directly. However, our audit included reviews. We found that ministries used strategies that varied from province to province to implement the agreements and establish the criteria. We briefly discuss this in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the report entitled, “Flood Hazard Mapping”.

We found that Quebec's approach was adapted to its needs. The province's information was used to verify the technical requirements that were in place.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Fortier.

My next question is for you or for Mr. DeMarco: Can you also talk about how the federal government and educational institutions—mostly universities—are working together to better plan for flooding?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Public Safety Canada could probably speak to that. In its response to recommendation 24 in our report, which addresses the portal's shortcomings, the department said that it had launched a multidisciplinary project in collaboration with universities.

The official from Public Safety Canada may wish to elaborate on that.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Patrick Bonin]

I'm sorry, Mr. DeMarco. Unfortunately, time is up, but maybe we'll get the answer in the next round of questions. Please stay at the table; you may be called upon.

As my colleagues and I have agreed, even though I'm acting as chair, I'll use my time to ask questions as the Bloc Québécois representative.

Commissioner, there's something I'd like to understand. There are two reports, one on flooding and one on climate change resilience, both of which clearly show that the federal government is lagging behind. The graphs actually show an almost exponential increase in the number of floods and the associated costs.

In your report, you say that, according to Canada's national adaptation strategy, failure to invest a dollar today will cost between $13 and $15 later on. Does that mean that the government's failure to produce results and the fact that it's falling further and further behind are already generating additional costs for taxpayers and that, if nothing changes, those costs will be even higher for future generations? Can you put a dollar value on those costs at this point?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I can start with the qualitative aspect.

This certainly is about intergenerational equity. We need to protect the interests and rights of future generations by investing today to avoid higher costs for future generations.

There's an example in paragraph 35. According to the Treasury Board Secretariat report on resilience, not the one on mapping, “climate change was estimated to cost in the range of $3 billion to $8 billion annually […] by 2030 and in the range of $6.2 billion to $13.5 billion annually by 2050.”

That's why it's so important to invest now not only to avoid disasters and the destruction of federal assets, such as bridges, but also to protect the interests of taxpayers now and in the future.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Patrick Bonin]

According to a Radio-Canada report this morning, the federal government is working to speed up the approval and deployment of new pipeline projects. As I understand it, these pipelines will increase greenhouse gas emissions because they have to be filled up. That means there will be even more repercussions that will require even more adaptation.

In your view, by increasing emissions, is the government essentially increasing the need for adaptation? Will we therefore be looking at increased risks if these projects produce more emissions?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

That's a good question because we talk a lot about adaptation in our report on greenhouse gas reduction efforts. The truth is that one of the best ways to reduce adaptation costs is to invest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Failing to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions will exacerbate the harmful effects of climate change.

So, yes, if we change the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and worldwide, that will help reduce future costs associated with climate change. If the temperature doesn't go as high as expected and we keep it to 1.5°C or 2°C, that will be much less costly than a planet that is 3°C or 4°C hotter than it is now.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Patrick Bonin]

In light of your previous reports on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, net zero and adaptation, it would be somewhat counterproductive for a government to invest in infrastructure like pipelines, which increase emissions, and to accelerate the construction of that infrastructure, because that would increase adaptation costs. That's my understanding.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

The government can choose to approve or subsidize the project. All I can say that is that, if we don't manage to reduce greenhouse gas emissions overall, adaptation will indeed cost more.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Patrick Bonin]

Why do you think the government is so far behind? In 2022, the government was supposed to have climate change resilience plans for its critical assets. Now you're saying that it's pushing that timeline back to 2035, and that it has resilience plans for only 3% of its critical assets. In your view, why is it almost 15 years behind schedule?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Our principal, Ms. Grondin, can answer that question.

[Marie-Pierre Grondin, Principal, Office of the Auditor General]

Thank you.

Priorities did change in 2024. There have been several iterations of the greening government strategy. In 2020, the focus was on analyses and taking concrete action in the short term. In 2024, priorities changed, focusing on the long term in an attempt to increase resilience. That created a kind of illusion in which we had a lot of time.

However, the important thing to know about adaptation is that it's a fairly long process. It includes understanding risks to the assets, and making and implementing plans. It takes time to move from information to concrete action to improved resilience.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Patrick Bonin]

Thank you.

Mr. Leslie, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see you, Commissioner. It has been a while. I'm glad we are able to have you here for this report.

This is one of the more damning reports I've seen from your office in my time on the environment committee. It's timely because we just completed a study on flood insurance. At no point during that did we hear bureaucrats or Liberal MPs reveal just how badly the government was doing in terms of its flood mapping. Every witness said the same thing: It is important.

Your report outlines why this is so important. It's so that our communities and families can directly understand the risks, prepare properly and plan infrastructure for communities. To me, this report is a simple failure. The government knew about a threat, tried to address it, had money approved and identified high-risk areas, but it has been unable to provide usable flood information.

I'm hoping you'll walk me through the Public Safety portion, particularly the portal. I think you said that $10 million was the contract amount. Money was sent to a private company. It was not forward-looking. It was based on current data but not climate modelling for future risks. It's not updatable by the federal government or provinces. Then, magically, a week before your report came out, the government said, “It's done. We have it. It's just not going to be available, and there's no timeline for when.”

Is that how this played out functionally, in terms of the portal?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

The portal exists in, say, a teaser format. So far, it has some useful information about how to prepare and so on. The main feature is for inserting your address and receiving a map or a visual of flood risks. That is still greyed out in the portal. That's the main feature of the portal, so it's a significant problem that there's no functionality there. It would be a very useful thing for people to have when, for example, making what is perhaps the most important financial decision of their lives: buying a house.

Even if the portal comes online in a real form soon, it doesn't factor in climate change scenarios. For a long-term investment like buying a house, you want to know not just what's flooded in the past in a neighbourhood but also—given the warming trend in Canada, changes in precipitation and water levels and so on—what it will look like. It is subject to some uncertainty, obviously, because it's not an exact science, but it would be very useful information for Canadians.

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

With that, I'd like to turn to Public Safety.

I'm going to assume that nobody has been held accountable for this project not being on time or available to Canadians.

I'm curious. What was the cost of the program? What was the name of the company procured to do this?

[Kenza El Bied, Director General, Policy and Outreach, Emergency Management Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you for the question. I think the commissioner indicated that it was $10 million we received from the budget.

The portal was built by Public Safety and StatsCan. The company that we have been using said that the data was privately procured. The portal, right now, is available, but it's a basic version. We are working with provinces and territories.

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

The report here says that you can't update the information. Is that inaccurate? Is the commissioner incorrect?

[Kenza El Bied]

In what sense can we not update the information?

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

This is in regard to the back-end information that will be available to Canadians at some point in the future. The report says that you can't change or update it yourself. That's why I assume there's a third party involved in this.

If it's internal, why is that so difficult for you?