Evidence of meeting #86 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was adaptation.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Julie Gelfand  Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
David Normand  Director, Office of the Auditor General
Arran McPherson  Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Oceans Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Donna Jean Kilpatrick  Director, Engineering and Technical Services, Small Craft Harbours, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Pierre Pepin  Senior Research Scientist, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Keith Lennon  Director, Oceans Science Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

8:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Good morning, everybody.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this is a briefing on report number two, “Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change, of the Reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development”.

Thank you for joining us this morning.

First, I'd like to announce to the committee the presence of the pride of Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Mr. Bob Sopuck.

8:45 a.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

You're far too kind.

8:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Bob, it's good to have you back—and I actually mean it.

8:45 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

8:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

No, I do.

8:45 a.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

A politician who means it.

8:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Yes, I know. It's a degree of honesty that comes by every now and then. That was lovely Liberal applause; I can say that.

To get things started this morning, for the first hour we have, certainly no stranger to this committee, Julie Gelfand—it's good to have you again—Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development; and a Director from the Office of the Auditor General, Mr. David Normand.

Thank you so very much.

I'm assuming it's one presentation, not two.

8:45 a.m.

Julie Gelfand Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General

That's correct; it's one.

8:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Ms. Gelfand, you have up to 10 minutes. Please go ahead.

8:45 a.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General

Julie Gelfand

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to be here today to discuss my report on adapting to the impacts of climate change, which was tabled in October 2017. I am accompanied by David Normand, the director responsible for this audit.

Before I present the findings of this audit, I wish to take this opportunity to highlight key findings from another one of my fall 2017 reports, which looked at the progress on reducing greenhouse gases.

In that report, we found that Canada had missed all of its reduction targets since 1992 and that it was not on track to meet the 2020 target. The federal government has set new, more difficult targets for 2030, which means extending the timeline.

In December 2016, the government released the newest of its climate change plans—the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. Environment and Climate Change Canada has made progress in working with the territories and provinces to develop this new plan to meet the 2030 target. However, the plan remains the latest in a series of plans that have been produced since 1992.

Environment and Climate Change Canada already estimates that even if all the greenhouse gas reduction measures outlined in the new pan-Canadian framework are implemented in a timely manner and result in emissions reductions, more action will be needed to meet the 2030 target.

Canada's climate, as you are all aware, is becoming warmer and wetter, and the impacts, such as extreme weather events, rising sea levels, increasing ocean acidity, and decreasing sea ice and permafrost, pose significant risks to Canadians and the economy.

In our audit on adapting to climate change, we wanted to know whether the federal government was ready to adapt to a changing climate. Overall, we concluded that it is not; however, in the case of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and a few other departments, there are a few glimmers of hope.

Environment and Climate Change Canada developed the 2011 “Federal Adaptation Policy Framework”, which is aimed at integrating climate change considerations into programs, policies, and operations. Through this framework, each federal organization is to apply its experience in risk management to the climate change issues that could affect its ability to deliver its mandate.

In this audit on adapting to the impacts of climate change, we looked at whether 19 federal organizations, including Fisheries and Oceans Canada, had assessed risks and taken measures to adapt to climate change in their areas of responsibility.

We found that most of the federal departments and agencies we examined did not take appropriate measures in order to achieve this. We also found that Environment and Climate Change Canada, in collaboration with other federal partners, did not provide adequate leadership to advance the federal government's adaptation to climate change impacts.

We are happy to report, however, that Fisheries and Oceans Canada was one of the five departments that did complete comprehensive risk assessments and integrated adaptation into its programs and activities.

For example, in 2005 Fisheries and Oceans Canada identified the greatest risks to its mandate, and in 2012 it refined its analysis: two times it had done risk assessments. Some of the risks they identified included potential negative impacts on ecosystems and fish stocks, the safety and accessibility of waterways, as well as impacts on infrastructure, such as small craft harbours and Canadian Coast Guard assets.

We also found that Fisheries and Oceans Canada was one of the five departments that made progress in responding to the climate change risks they had identified. Through its aquatic climate change adaptation services program, Fisheries and Oceans Canada conducted 38 research projects and developed 22 adaptation tools to monitor and study the impacts of climate change on Canada's fisheries, aquatic ecosystems, coastlines, and coastal infrastructure.

For instance, to address the high risks it identified to the 750 core commercial fishing harbours it manages, the department, among other things, developed two web-based adaptation tools to manage potential infrastructure damage from climate change impacts.

The first is the Canadian extreme water level adaptation tool, which provides future projections of sea level rise. The second is the coastal infrastructure vulnerability index, which combines environmental, harbour engineering, and socio-economic data into a measure of harbour vulnerability to climate change impacts. This helps engineers and managers plan where best to invest in adaptation projects.

One example of the way the Canadian extreme water level adaptation tool can be applied was seen at Margaree Harbour in Nova Scotia. Rising sea levels and increasing storm surges compromised harbour infrastructure. In 2010 the wharf was breached, and much of the facility was under water. Using information provided by the tool, the department raised the wharf by seven-tenths of a metre in 2016 to accommodate projected sea level rise over the structure's operational lifetime.

Risks from climate change cannot be completely eliminated; however, vulnerabilities can be reduced by taking measures to adapt, such as the measures we have seen with Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Other departments also see that it can be done.

Adaptation is about making informed, forward-looking decisions to manage the risks that climate change presents and to take advantage of new opportunities. Strong and sustained leadership from the federal government is essential because the cost of inaction is estimated to greatly exceed the cost of taking action.

Lastly, I will take this opportunity to mention two audit reports that I will present to Parliament this spring and that could be of interest to this committee: one is on salmon farming, and the other is on conserving biodiversity. In those audits, we checked to see whether Fisheries and Oceans Canada has made progress in meeting the 2020 biodiversity targets on protected areas and species at risk. I would be happy to appear before your committee to discuss the findings of these reports after they are tabled.

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

Thank you.

8:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Thank you, Madam Commissioner.

Let's go to the first question.

We're going to Mr. Hardie, I believe—for seven minutes, please. Thank you very much.

8:55 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning to our guests.

It would appear that with the exception of the record that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans produced over the last number of years, much of what we as a government have been talking about in terms of managing climate change has been aspirational but without necessarily the proper alignment to produce measurable results.

Is that a fair assessment?

8:55 a.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General

Julie Gelfand

I'm sorry, are you talking about adaptation, or are you talking about mitigating, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

8:55 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Well, we'll start with adaptation, because I don't think the other one is even as good a story as....

8:55 a.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General

Julie Gelfand

Yes.

In our audit we looked at whether or not 19 different departments did complete risk assessments to see whether they were vulnerable and what the risks to their mandates associated with climate change were. We found that five departments did a good job and about 14 did not.

The five that did good jobs did what Fisheries and Oceans Canada did. They looked at their entire mandate and asked what all the programs and policies they have were; what all the services they provide to Canadians are; what all the risks of climate change were—sea level rise, more bad weather, extreme weather events. They asked what they were going to do to all of their assets and programs and then how they were going to deal with those risks—not just identify the risks, but determine how they were actually going to deal with them.

Five departments did that. There are another 14 that did not. Now, it's not that they did nothing. Some of those departments may have done something small. For example, we found that National Defence looked at the north and said, “We have some assets in the north and we need to worry about them.” From our perspective, that wasn't a complete risk assessment. What does the Department of National Defence do for Canadians? What does their entire program look like? What are all the risks of climate change to its entire mandate? Are they ready to adapt?

We were looking for complete risk assessments and then at whether or not departments were actually getting ready to adapt. In the case of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, they were. Five departments did what we would say were good to really good jobs, and about 14 did not.

9 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Then, on the adaptation piece there are mixed results, but at least some work is happening, and DFO has been notable in its performance.

Let's turn to the other side, and that's the mitigation, the prevention of a problem in the first place. It would seem to me that, as one nation—there are certainly things that Canada can do on a localized basis, I suppose—we're on a wild horse that's running pretty fast. Probably we're relegated to just holding on for dear life in some cases, are we not?

9 a.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General

Julie Gelfand

In the case of reducing greenhouse gas emissions overall, Canada has set several targets over time. Starting in 1992 with Kyoto targets, at least three or four different targets have been set. Canada has not met any one of those targets. During that time Canada has come up with—depending on how an auditor defines a plan—anywhere from five to eight different plans that have been developed. None of those has been fully implemented; our emissions continue to rise.

Overall, the new pan-Canadian framework is a positive note in this series of 25 years of not a lot of action—a lot of planning, not a lot of action. The pan-Canadian framework is notable because it's the first time that it has brought the provinces and territories together. Although a couple of provinces have not yet signed it, most of the others are part of the deal. It has more glimmers of hope, but we have not yet seen action and an actual reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

9 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

There's knowing what to do—and it would appear that the DFO has done a lot of work to assess its physical plant, if you will, its assets—and then there's doing it. You mentioned the Margaree Harbour episode as one in which, in fact, the remedial action was taken.

How vulnerable are other facilities up and down our coasts, including the north coast?

9 a.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General

Julie Gelfand

You'll be hearing from the department right after us. I would recommend that you ask them that question, for specificity.

I would say that generally the Canadian government has $66 billion of assets to manage. We know this because I live in the Auditor General's office, and he looks at the books. Having $66 billion of assets and not a lot of risk assessment to see whether or not those assets are at risk is, I think, putting the country at risk, from an adaptation perspective.

For the specifics about the harbours and which ones are more at risk, however, I think it would be best to ask the department. What we noted was that they are looking at risks associated with waterways, they're looking at the risks associated with their Coast Guard assets, with all the different harbours. They are looking at their full program, assessing the risks, and then coming up with actions that they can actually implement; with studies; with research tools that communities can use to deal with and adapt to the changing climate, the rising sea levels, etc.

9 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

That is something we noticed when we were up north with this committee to look at marine protected areas. We heard from people living up there that there was concern that the permafrost was thawing, that there were more slides coming down into the rivers, basically compromising fish habitat, etc. That kind of analysis on those issues and effects was beyond the scope of this review, is that correct?

9 a.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General

Julie Gelfand

That's correct.

However, I would like to draw your attention to a report that will be released this March by me and auditors general from the provinces and the territories. Over the past few years, auditors general from across the country have been doing a joint project on climate change. They've worked together. For the first time, we have almost all the provinces and territories working together and basically doing a common audit. They've asked the same questions around whether we're reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and they've asked the same questions about adaptation.

Right now our Auditor General is in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories doing a hearing on the climate change audit that was done for that territory. We've done them for all three territories. Nunavut will table in late March, Alberta and B. C. are tabling in March, and then we are releasing a joint report from all the auditors general on these, wrapping up all these individual provincial and territorial audits into one overall report. It's going to be released March 27, and I would be pleased to come to discuss it with you after that date.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Thank you.

Mr. Arnold, you have seven minutes, please.

February 13th, 2018 / 9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Thank you for being here today. I'm sure it's an interesting department to work in and to oversee.

The government has set targets for areas that will be protected via MPAs, marine protected areas. Has DFO implemented any planning to be adaptive, if climate change alters or moves certain marine conditions that are integral to the effectiveness of an MPA?

9:05 a.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General

Julie Gelfand

Based on the audit we did in adaptation, I suspect the answer would be yes, because they did a very good risk analysis. Again, I would ask the department, which is coming up right after us, to give you specifics on that.

We are in the midst right now of auditing the department on whether they're going to reach their targets for marine protected areas. That report will be tabled in Parliament on April 24. I'll be able to tell you a little more then.

This specific question you could ask to the department.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Thank you.

I guess more of a general question, then, for you on this, and hopefully you'll be able to answer this one, is how much of a global impact there will be if Canada reaches its targets or doesn't reach its targets. How much of a global impact is it going to have, and how will it affect Canada's need for adaptation?