2024 Reports 6 to 10 of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the Parliament of CanadaCommissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development’s Opening Statement to the news conference

Good morning and thank you for joining me. I’m Jerry DeMarco, Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

This morning, I presented to Parliament our annual report on environmental petitions and 4 audits that touch on the importance of 2030, a year heavy with expectations. Specifically, by 2030, Canada is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 45% below 2005 levels; halt and reverse biodiversity loss in Canada; generate 90% of electricity from renewable and non‑emitting sources; save 600 petajoules of energy every year, and meet the sustainable development goals set out in the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda.

I will begin with our audit under the Canadian Net‑Zero Emissions Accountability Act. In this audit, we looked at the government’s progress in implementing climate change mitigation measures. This is our second report under the act. Last year, we looked at the government’s 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan and found it to be insufficient to meet Canada’s reduction target because key measures were delayed or not prioritized.

This year’s audit assessed progress to date on 20 of the 149 measures included in that plan and its progress report. Overall, we found that measures were being implemented too slowly and estimates of expected emissions reductions were overly optimistic.

We also followed up on progress made by federal organizations in implementing 41 recommendations from some of our audits on climate change since 2021. We found that while some recommendations were implemented, organizations’ actions were sometimes slow or did not always fully address the concerns raised in our audits. This is important because slow and unresponsive actions impair Canada’s ability to meet its targets.

Our body of work has shown that the stakes grow ever higher each year, and the window of opportunity to reduce emissions and meet Canada’s 2030 target is rapidly closing. The federal government must act quickly and decisively by implementing effective measures.

Let’s turn now to our report on departmental progress in implementing sustainable development strategies. We assessed the progress made by 4 departments in meeting 2 energy targets: generating 90% of Canada’s electricity from clean sources and reducing annual energy consumption by 600 petajoules.

We found that results were limited, progress was slow, and most of the reporting by Natural Resources Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, and Indigenous Services Canada failed to clearly show how their results contributed directly to the federal targets. This left the federal government without a clear picture of its progress on clean power generation and energy efficiency targets.

Currently, over 82% of electricity produced in Canada comes from renewable and non‑emitting sources while the 2030 target is 90%. This gap is significant and the gap for the energy efficiency target is even larger.

Generating cleaner power and improving energy efficiency are both key to reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions and supporting the transition to a low carbon economy. Redoubling efforts to achieve these 2 targets by 2030 would demonstrate Canada’s leadership in the global fight against climate change.

Also on the topic of net‑zero, our next report looked at Natural Resources Canada’s critical minerals strategy. The federal government allotted $3.8 billion over 8 years to increase the supply of responsibly and sustainably sourced minerals. Canada needs these resources to support green technologies such as electric vehicle batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels. Our audit focused on 2 of the strategy’s objectives: environmental protection and advancing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

We found that Natural Resources Canada did not do enough analysis to weigh the benefits of increasing Canada’s supply of critical minerals against the impacts this might have on the environment and Indigenous communities. Though these resources are critical for supporting the transition to a net‑zero economy, caution and proper planning are necessary to avoid adverse impacts on climate, biodiversity, and Indigenous communities. For example, an increase in mining activities could also result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution, and loss of wildlife habitat.

Moving forward, Natural Resources Canada will have to fully assess risks and impacts of the Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy to help maximize the strategy’s benefits while minimizing adverse effects from increased mining activities. Otherwise, the benefits of advancing technology in support of the transition to net‑zero emissions could be offset by adverse effects on climate, biodiversity, Indigenous communities, and future generations.

Our next audit looked at the support Environment and Climate Change Canada provided for status assessments and reassessments of plants and animals at risk of extinction. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada is responsible for completing these assessments under the Species at Risk Act. Environment and Climate Change Canada’s role under the act is to provide the committee with the financial, administrative, and technical support it needs to carry out this work.

We found that in 2023–24 the department set a target to support only 60 assessments and reassessments each year without any formal analysis to support this decision. Even with that target, the department did not provide the committee with the support necessary to complete the 60. This is important because the committee’s assessment of the status of species at risk is the essential first step to protecting and recovering them.

With Environment and Climate Change Canada’s yearly limit of 60 assessments and reassessments, it would take the committee almost 30 years to assess prioritized species, and over a century to assess those that are potentially at risk. The department’s limit also makes it impossible for the committee to keep up with reassessments, which the act requires on a 10‑year cycle for every species at risk.

Given the scale of the global biodiversity crisis, the current rate of assessments and reassessments negatively affects Canada’s ability to protect plants and animals from disappearing because of human activity.

In closing, I want to re‑emphasize that time is of the essence and Canada is moving much too slowly. The window to avoid catastrophic climate change continues to close. Intense forest fires, heat waves, violent storms, and flooding have become more severe and frequent—affecting everyone, everywhere.

Canada’s action and inaction affect more than just present and future Canadians. Our country plays a very important role in meeting the global challenges of sustainable development, climate change, and biodiversity loss. Canada needs to step up and do its part.

Thank you. I am now ready to answer your questions.