Opening Statement to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
2023 Reports 1 to 5 of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
17 October 2023
Jerry V. DeMarco
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are happy to appear before your committee to discuss 5 performance audit reports, which were tabled in the House of Commons in April of this year. I would like to acknowledge that this hearing is taking place on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. With me today are Nicholas Swales, James McKenzie, Kimberley Leach, and Jean‑François Nadeau, who were responsible for the audits.
Our first audit focused on whether Environment and Climate Change Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Parks Canada met the timelines set out in the Species at Risk Act for developing the documents that are required to support the recovery of wildlife species at risk. We also wanted to know whether the objectives set out in the recovery strategies and management plans were being met.
Overall, we found that the 3 organizations’ efforts to plan and report on the recovery of species at risk were slow and lacking, and that objectives were being met for less than half of all species for which there was sufficient data.
What this means on the ground is that 416 of the 520 species at risk that had been reassessed since 1982 either showed no change in status or had entered a higher risk category. In other words, in more than 4 decades, the status had improved for only about 1 in every 5 species at risk.
We also found large backlogs of progress reports that are intended to keep departments accountable and show whether the actions being taken are having a meaningful impact.
Turning now to our second audit, which also focused on species at risk. We found that Environment and Climate Change Canada did not have a proactive approach to providing the Minister with timely advice on using discretionary powers to protect wildlife species and their habitats.
The Species at Risk Act allows the federal government to step in when provinces and territories are failing to effectively protect species at risk and their habitats on non-federal lands. Since the act came into force almost 20 years ago, a total of 3 emergency orders have been issued, and all were the result of pressure from sources external to the federal government.
I will turn now to our audit of forests and climate change. The federal government launched the 2 Billion Trees Program to counter climate change, enhance biodiversity, and support human well-being. We found that given the number of trees planted so far, this program is unlikely to succeed unless significant changes are made. As well, even if the 2 billion tree goal is achieved, the program’s initial targets for carbon sequestration by 2030 and 2050 will not be met.
Although Natural Resources Canada nearly met its goal to plant 30 million trees in 2021, the department fell well short of its 2022 goal of 60 million trees. Delays in signing agreements with planting partners not only have significantly challenged the department’s ability to plant the number of trees it had planned for 2022 but the delays will also affect subsequent years, which have much more ambitious goals.
Since the end of our audit period, we understand that some progress has been made in signing additional agreements. On the other hand, the department has announced that it is now counting trees planted under another department’s program that has different objectives as part of the 2 Billion Trees Program. If this program is no longer focused on planting 2 billion incremental trees, then the benefits of the program will be reduced.
In our audit of emission reductions through greenhouse gas regulations, we examined whether Canada achieved its targets and contributed to the country’s long-term climate change mitigation goals.
Environment and Climate Change Canada did not know the extent to which the greenhouse gas regulations we examined contributed to meeting Canada’s overall emission reduction target. This was because the department’s approach to measuring emissions did not attribute results to specific regulations, recognizing that it is challenging to do so because of interactions between policy measures.
When we looked at individual regulations, we found mixed results. The regulations aimed at reducing emissions from power generation achieved their targets, but some of the regulations that aimed to reduce emissions from vehicles did not. The department was also very slow to develop new regulations, such as regulations about clean fuels.
Our last audit examined whether the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada—also known as OSFI—incorporated climate-related financial risks into its risk management systems and frameworks for federally regulated financial institutions and pension plans.
We found that, although OSFI has recently made meaningful progress toward integrating these risks into its supervisory framework, full implementation is years away.
In addition, OSFI did not view its role as including the advancement of Canada’s broader climate goals. There is an opportunity for OSFI to consider how to adapt its role to further Canada’s whole-of-government approach to climate change and sustainable development.
Our reports show that climate change and biodiversity are intrinsically linked and that these 2 crises need to be addressed through decisive and concerted actions. Government has in place a range of policy tools to better protect wildlife, restore habitats, reduce greenhouse gases, and better prepare for climate change. The question I ask is whether the government will step up—for our sake, for nature, and for future generations.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you.