Greening Government Strategy

Opening Statement to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

Greening Government Strategy

6 November 2018

Julie Gelfand
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to appear today before your Committee. Joining me at the table is Principal Kimberley Leach, and we are from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. I, as Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, have the specific mandate to audit and monitor issues related to the environment and sustainable development and to report them to Parliament.

Climate change has been identified as one of the defining challenges of our time. The impacts of a warming climate and of extreme weather events are already being felt in Canada and pose significant risks to Canadians, their governments, and the economy. Changes include increased flooding, thawing permafrost, and rising sea levels, as well as more severe wildfire seasons as recently seen in British Columbia.

Since the beginning of my mandate, I have made it a priority to look at climate change from many different perspectives. This means that since 2014, we have audited areas such as mitigation, adaptation, severe weather, 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 fossil fuel subsidies—a topic I will follow up on in my spring 2019 reports. We have also recently audited Canada’s preparedness to implement the United Nations’ sustainable development goals.

This afternoon, I will present to you an overview of recent audit results that may provide your Committee with useful information and context as you begin your study of this strategy. I will then provide you with a few comments on the proposed strategy itself, from an auditor’s perspective.

Mitigating the impacts of severe weather (spring 2016)

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 becoming increasingly more 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, engineers rely on tools to predict the probability of extreme rainfall amounts and the duration of storms when planning and designing municipal water infrastructure. Yet the data used to inform these tools had not been consistently produced since 2006.

Similarly, flood-plain maps allow municipalities to better plan for future growth in areas of low flood risk and compensate for areas of high flood risk. National guidelines for flood hazard assessment and mapping had not been updated in 20 years. This has left the provinces and territories to manage and update their own maps.

With significant and ongoing investments in infrastructure across the country, resilience means a focus on building and rebuilding better.

Federal support for sustainable municipal infrastructure (spring 2016)

Let me now turn to our spring 2016 audit that looked at federal programs intended to support the sustainability of Canadian communities.

Overall, we found that it was not clear to what extent a decade 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 spent 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.

Three audits on climate change (fall 2017)

In fall 2017, we presented to Parliament 3 audits on topics related to climate change: mitigation, adaptation, and funding of clean energy technologies.

We audited 3 funds that support the development of demonstration projects on clean energy technology. These technologies are one way to decrease greenhouse gas emissions from the production and use of energy.

I was happy to report that the 3 clean energy funds we looked at were working well overall. The money was properly spent, it was easy to track which projects were funded, and they were approved through rigorous and objective processes.

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 5 of 19 departments and agencies we examined had fully assessed their climate change risks and acted to address them. For example, Fisheries and Oceans Canada determined that rising sea levels and increasing storm surges could have an impact on some small craft harbours. For this reason, in Nova Scotia for example, the Department raised a wharf after the harbour flooded, to guard against a reoccurrence. In another example, as a response to the risk of permafrost degradation and sea level rise, Natural Resources Canada examined the vulnerability of mine waste management practices in the North and developed adaptation strategies.

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.

If Canada is to adapt to a changing climate, stronger central leadership is needed along with increased initiative from individual federal organizations.

Collaborative climate change audit (March 2018)

Finally, in March 2018, we published a collaborative report on the perspectives on climate change action in Canada. This report was historic and ground-breaking, because it was the first time that so many auditors general in Canada worked together on any topic. And that topic was climate change action.

Canada’s auditors general found that most governments were not on track to meet their commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and were generally not ready for the impacts of a changing climate.

The collaborative report includes questions that legislators and Canadians could consider asking of their governments as governments across the country move forward on their climate change commitments. You will find these questions in the Appendix to this opening statement.

Comments on the Greening Government Strategy

As an auditor, I wish to provide you with some comments on the Greening of Government Strategy. My Office looks at these strategies with the SMART framework in mind—that is, are the objectives specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and are there timelines associated with the activities.

Overall, I find that the sections of the strategy dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, real property, mobility, and fleets have specific targets that have timelines and that are measurable for the most part. We do not see this same specificity in the rest of the strategy. I am particularly concerned with the area of adaptation to climate change, given the results of our audit. Questions for each part of the strategy should include the following: When will these activities be completed? Who will complete them? How much will be done? I encourage the 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 this 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.

Appendix

From Perspectives on Climate Change Action in Canada—A Collaborative Report from Auditors General (March 2018)

Moving forward on climate change

A number of critical questions arise from the audit results that may be useful to consider as governments across Canada move forward on their climate change commitments. The following are some questions that legislators and Canadians can ask of their governments.

Mitigation

A national 2030 target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions has been established; however, it is unclear how Canada will meet this target. Although it is important for governments to set broad goals around climate change, they must also provide detailed timelines and interim steps for achieving these goals.

Adaptation

Although most governments had high-level adaptation strategies, auditors found little evidence that governments were systematically evaluating the risks posed by a changing climate or were prioritizing risks for action. This means that governments may not know if resources are being directed to the most important risks.

Coordination

Most auditors across the country found that there was limited coordination among government departments and agencies, and where included in the audit scope, between provinces or territories and local governments. Without effective coordination, government responses to climate change may be ad hoc and inefficient.

Monitoring and reporting

Auditors found that governments were often not monitoring their progress on climate change and not reporting regularly to the public on that progress.