Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to appear today before your committee. Joining me at the table is our principal, Kimberley Leach.
I, as commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, or essentially the environment auditor general, have a specific mandate to audit and monitor issues related to the environment and sustainable development, and I report them to Parliament. In fact, I have a legislated mandate to review the federal sustainable development strategy.
Since the beginning of my mandate, I made it a priority to look at climate change from many different perspectives. This means that, since 2014, we have audited areas such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, adapting to climate change, the issue of severe weather and how Canada is ready to adapt to that, the funding of clean energy technologies, and federal support for sustainable municipal infrastructure.
We have also audited whether Canada is reaching its commitment to eliminate inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, and this is a topic I will follow up on in my spring 2019 reports.
This afternoon I hope to present to you an overview of the recent audit results that may provide your committee with useful context as you begin your study of this greening government strategy. I will then provide you with a few comments on the proposed strategy itself from an auditor's perspective.
In our spring 2016 reports, we looked at what the federal government was doing to support efforts to mitigate the effects of severe weather. Severe weather events are expensive and are becoming increasingly common. The federal government had spent more on recovering from large-scale natural disasters between 2010 and 2015 than in the preceding 39 years combined.
We found that the federal government had not been successful in its efforts to encourage provinces and territories to invest in projects designed to mitigate the impacts of severe weather. The federal government could have also better supported the planning of resilient infrastructure through the information and tools it made available to decision-makers.
For example, the information used to predict the probability of extreme rainfall amounts and the duration of storms, and to enhance flood-plain maps had not been updated in 10 years and, in some cases, 20.
Let me now turn to our spring 2016 audit that looked at federal programs intended to support the sustainable infrastructure of Canadian communities.
Overall, we found that it was not clear to what extent a decade, 10 years, of federal funding programs in excess of $13 billion had produced the environmental benefits they were supposed to bring.
When we looked at infrastructure projects that Infrastructure Canada had funded under the gas tax fund, for example, we found that the department did not have indicators in place to assess to what extent the money had resulted in cleaner air, cleaner water and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
When it comes to considering infrastructure projects for funding, we found that Infrastructure Canada expected proposals for major projects to include information on environmental risks, but it did not use this information to analyze the risks of climate change, for example.
In the fall of 2017, we presented to Parliament three audits on topics related to climate change: mitigation, adaptation and funding of clean energy projects.
We audited three funds that support the development of demonstration projects on clean energy technology. I was happy to report that the three clean energy funds we looked at were working well overall.
With respect to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, our office has indicated that meeting Canada's new 2030 greenhouse gas emission target will require substantial effort and actions beyond those currently planned or in place.
With respect to adapting to climate change, we looked at whether 19 federal organizations had identified and addressed climate change risks to their programs and operations.
Environment and Climate Change Canada developed a federal adaptation policy framework in 2011, but the department did not move to implement it. The department also failed to provide other federal organizations with adequate guidance and tools to identify their climate change risks.
As a result, we found that only five of the 19 departments and agencies we examined had fully assessed their climate change risks and acted to address them. We found that the 14 other departments had taken little or no action to address the climate change risks that could prevent them from delivering programs and services to Canadians.
This is a really important point. Canada has $66 billion in assets, and overall, in reviewing those assets to see whether they were prepared to adapt to a change in climate, we found that the Government of Canada was not prepared to deal with a change in climate and these $66 billion of assets.
With respect to the strategy you are reviewing today, I would argue that the section on adaptation could be improved by reviewing our audit recommendations on adaptation and integrating them into the greening of government strategy.
The last report I wish to draw your attention to is the collaborative report, “Perspectives on Climate Change Action in Canada”, presented in Parliament in March 2018. This report was historic and ground-breaking, because it was the first time that so many auditors general in Canada—provincial, territorial, and the federal Auditor General—had worked on any topic. The topic that they picked to work on together was climate change action.
At the provincial-territorial and federal levels, Canada's auditors general found that most governments were not on track to meet their commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and that most governments were generally not ready to adapt to the impacts of a changing climate.
The collaborative report included questions that legislatures and Canadians could consider asking their governments as these governments move forward on their climate change commitments. You will find these questions in the appendix to this opening statement. I encourage you to look at them and perhaps ask the government representatives here some of those questions.
Finally, as an auditor I wish to provide you with some comments on the greening of government strategy—which at some point we will audit, so I can't give you too much. My office, though, looks at these strategies with the SMART framework in mind; that is, are the objectives specific, measurable, achievable, and realistic, and are there timelines associated with the activities?
When I reviewed the strategy, I found that the sections of the strategy dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, real property, mobility, and fleets have fairly specific targets that have timelines and that are measurable, for the most part.
We did not see that same specificity in the rest of the strategy. As I indicated earlier, I am particularly concerned with the area of adaptation to climate change and even the area of oversight and performance management, given the results of our previous audits.
From my perspective, questions for each part of the strategy should include the following. When will these activities be completed? Who will complete them? How much will actually get done?
I encourage this committee to consider a recommendation to include SMART objectives throughout the entire strategy so that Parliament and Canadians can measure the results.
Finally, I encourage the committee to consider the accountability of the strategy and ensure that it is made clear to everyone.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.
Thank you.