Proceeding of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue No. 35 - Evidence - Meeting of October 17, 2017
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 17, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 5:30 p.m., to continue its study on the potential impact of the effects of climate change on the agriculture, agri-food and forestry sectors.
Senator Ghislain Maltais (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Good evening, colleagues. I am Senator Ghislain Maltais from Quebec and I am the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
Today, the committee is continuing its study on the potential impact of the effects of climate change on the agriculture, agri-food and forestry sectors.
Today, we are very pleased to welcome, from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, Ms. Julie Gelfand, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. She is accompanied by Ms. Kimberley Leach, Principal, and Mr. Andrew Hayes, Principal.
Welcome to you all.
Before we begin, I would like my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
[English]
Senator Ogilvie: Kelvin Ogilvie from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Doyle: Norman Doyle, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator Woo: Good afternoon. Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Ms. Gelfand, I invite you to give your testimony, with the reminder that the shorter it is, the more questions senators will be able to ask. Trust me, senators are really eager to ask you questions.
Before we start, allow me to introduce Senator Claudette Tardif from Alberta, who is also a member of the committee.
Senator Tardif: Good evening.
Julie Gelfand, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Thank you very much for inviting us here today to contribute to your very important study of the impacts of climate change on agriculture. As you mentioned previously, I am accompanied by Kimberley Leach and Andrew Hayes, who are two principals in my group.
My fall 2017 reports, which were presented to Parliament two weeks ago, pertain to three areas in which the government has been working to address climate change. The three areas are reducing greenhouse gas emissions, adapting to the impacts of climate change, and fostering the development of clean energy technologies.
You may also be interested in my spring 2016 report on mitigating the impacts of severe weather. Although none of the reports focus specifically on the agriculture and forestry sectors, some elements in the reports may be useful to your committee’s study.
These audits show that, when it comes to climate change action, Canada has a lot of work to do in order to reach the targets it has set.
[English]
Our first audit looked at whether Environment and Climate Change Canada had led efforts to meet Canada’s commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Canada has missed all of its reduction targets since 1992 — that’s 25 years — and is also not on track to meet the 2020 target. Our audit found that the federal government had shifted its focus to a new and even more difficult target, one that has to be met in 2030. This amounts to moving further into the future the timeline to reach the emission reduction target.
Last December, the government released its newest climate change plan, the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. While 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, it remains the latest in a series of plans that have been produced since 1992 and effectively have not been implemented.
Environment and Climate Change Canada already estimates that even if all the greenhouse gas reduction measures outlined in the pan-Canadian framework are implemented in a timely manner, emissions will go down, but more action — above what’s already in the pan-Canadian framework — will be needed to meet the 2030 target.
Our second audit examined the government’s efforts to adapt to climate change impacts. We looked at whether 19 federal organizations — including Natural Resources Canada and Agriculture and Agri-food Canada — had identified and addressed climate change risks to their programs and operations.
We found that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada was among the nine departments and agencies that did not fully assess climate change risks in their areas of responsibility. This means that the department did not provide specific information on the possible consequences, likelihood or magnitude of climate change impacts. The department did, however, take measures to address some of the climate change impacts identified in its corporate risk management documents. For example, it identified climate change as a contributing factor to catastrophic crises, such as droughts and violent storms.
In response to the risk of droughts and resulting production losses, the department reviewed its financial support to farmers under the business risk management programs to ensure that the department adequately supported producers in such events.
In our report, we recommended that Agriculture and Agri-food Canada should identify, assess, prioritize and address the climate change risks related to its areas of responsibility. The department agreed with this recommendation, and its response can be found in our report.
[Translation]
As for Natural Resources Canada, we found that it was among the five federal departments that completed comprehensive risk assessments and integrated adaptation into their programs and activities. Natural Resources Canada’s assessments described its most significant climate change risks and identified its most likely affected program areas.
In 2010, a departmental assessment identified 14 risks to the department’s mandate areas, including the forestry, mining, and energy sectors. Risks included more severe and frequent forest fires and floods, greater numbers of invasive species, rising sea levels, and thawing permafrost. These risks could have an impact on the viability of resource projects, including their access and distribution.
We also found that Natural Resources Canada made progress in responding to the climate change risks it identified, and that it played a leadership role to advance adaptation to climate change. For example, its adaptation platform was reportedly a helpful, Canada-wide forum that gathered practitioners to discuss common challenges and share knowledge.
However, we found that, although Environment and Climate Change Canada developed a federal adaptation policy framework in 2011, 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.
Many departments have an incomplete picture of their own risks, and the federal government as a whole does not have a full picture of its climate change risks. If Canada is to adapt to a changing climate, stronger leadership is needed from Environment and Climate Change Canada, along with increased initiative from individual departments.
[English]
Our third audit examined three funds that support the development of demonstration projects on clean energy technologies. These technologies are one way to decrease greenhouse gas emissions from the production and use of energy. I was very happy to report that the three clean energy funds we looked at were working well overall.
Although agriculture is one of the sectors where Sustainable Development Technology Canada supports projects, we focused our audit on the sectors that were more directly related to an intended climate change benefit. These sectors were energy exploration and production, energy utilization, power generation and transportation.
However, for your information, Sustainable Development Technology Canada indicates on its website that its sustainable development tech fund supports projects on clean energy such as technologies that assist large cattle and pig feedlots in using manure waste to produce energy and technologies that produce ethanol, electricity and fertilizer by-products through the biorefining of feedstock, such as grain or grown sugar beets.
Finally, in our spring 2016 report on mitigating the impacts of severe weather, we found that information to predict the intensity, duration and frequency of precipitation, which are called IDF curves, had not been produced continually since 2006. We also found that half of the floodplain maps in Canada had not been updated since 1996.
[Translation]
In conclusion, Mr. Chair, I would like to add that parliamentary committees like yours are in a position to help the government reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to a changing climate. I commend your committee for conducting this study and thank you again for inviting us to participate. We are now happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Gelfand. Before I give the floor to the senators, I would like to make one observation. You are well aware that the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry is the most important committee because, without agriculture, there is no food and we would have no energy to expend anywhere.
Ms. Gelfand: We would not have any ourselves.
[English]
Senator Doyle: Thank you for your presentation.
I don’t know if I understood even half of what you told me. I don’t have a scientific mind. If I look at my notes here, I see that the total GHG emissions back in 2009 were 689 million tonnes. That compares to the numbers for 2015 of 722 million tonnes. So obviously we’ve fallen behind a great deal. Are we now on the right track? Have we ever been on the right track?
I know you made some reference to the fact that leadership wasn’t what it was supposed to be on these issues. Are we getting on the right track now? Are you confident that we are really addressing this issue the way it should be addressed?
Ms. Gelfand: That’s a really interesting question. Let me tell you what we know. We know that Canada has set several targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the past. We know that they have not met any of those targets. Canada has not met any of its targets. Its most recent target, which it was supposed to meet in two years and a few months, it isn’t even talking about that target anymore and it is now pushing that target 10 years away. It’s making it harder. So the new target is around 530 megatonnes. As you say, we’re up to 720 megatonnes, and 25 years ago we started at 600 megatonnes. So our emissions have been going up, the targets have been fluctuating, but the next target for 2030 is quite low. So it’s a harder target to meet.
Senator Doyle: Because it’s quite low, we might be able to meet it. Is that what you’re saying?
Ms. Gelfand: I’m not saying that. I’m saying we haven’t met a target yet.
My second point is we have produced several plans in the past. You know how very specific auditors are. You can say we’ve had anywhere from 5 up to 11 different plans over these 25 years to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. They’ve been going up, not down, and none of those plans have really been properly implemented.
Now we have a new plan, but it is simply a new plan, and we haven’t seen it put into action. Kim will argue there’s probably been one other plan. There have been two plans, this one and maybe one other one that you would consider to be good plans. The reason this one is a good plan is that we have the provinces and territories engaged, except Manitoba and Saskatchewan. But it’s the first time that the federal government has the provinces engaged and agreeing and working together.
They’ve done a lot of work in this area. They’ve developed roles and responsibilities. They have a charter. They’re about as organized as they can get in terms of their planning. Now what we have to do is see them actually implement it.
To be fair to them, they released the plan in December 2016, so it hasn’t even been a year. We will audit them again on the implementation of this pan-Canadian framework, but at this point I can’t give you any sense of optimism or pessimism. I can simply tell you our emissions are going up, have gone up, and we haven’t hit any targets. We’ve had many plans before. We have a new plan.
Senator Ogilvie: I would like to hear — maybe the rest of the committee would like to hear — when you come up with numbers like Canada’s emissions are so many hundred million tonnes or whatever. This is a vast country, the second-largest land mass of any country in the world. How is that measured, and what sort of confidence should we have in knowing how much carbon is put into the atmosphere across this vast country?
Ms. Gelfand: That’s quite a technical question. The best people to answer that would be Environment and Climate Change Canada. They are the ones who have the scientists who put together that emission information. I know that in the past Kim has looked at the issue of emissions and whether or not to have confidence. My recollection is that we should have pretty good confidence in the numbers. Are the numbers 100 per cent perfect? You’d have to ask the scientists at Environment and Climate Change Canada.
Senator Ogilvie: They can’t possibly be 100 per cent correct because there’s no way on earth that you can cover this entire country and have measured the amount of carbon dioxide emitting from everything on this vast surface. So I would think that one of the things an Auditor General would want to know is the basis for the estimates on which we’re going to base very important future conclusions and the accuracy of those numbers. They have simply got to be an estimate in some form. So the question then becomes how confident are we on the basis of the estimates that are being made.
Ms. Gelfand: Let me ask Kim. Andrew, I don’t know if you want to say something.
Kimberley Leach, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Thanks for the question.
Environment and Climate Change Canada is responsible for estimating emissions in Canada. They do so in accordance with guidelines that are set out by the intergovernmental panel on climate change, which is hundreds of scientists and experts who come together and they set out the rules for doing this. They’ve been doing that since 1992.
IPCC have grown their expertise over the years. The report Environment and Climate Change Canada issues each year in April is the National Inventory Report that measures emissions. The latest National Inventory Report measures emissions up until 2015. We’ve looked at that in the past, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, and we have looked at the methods they use and looked at a bit of benchmarking to see how that compares with what’s been done internationally. We have had some pretty good results on that.
You’re absolutely right. It’s emission factors, it’s assumptions, and it is modelling. Nobody is going around with a monitor at everybody’s tailpipe. It’s all modelling and it is numbers and assumptions. However, these assumptions are very credible, I would say, throughout the world.
Senator Ogilvie: Thank you very much.
I’m not going to push you any further. As a scientist, I know that models are subject to considerable interpretation. The fact they’ve been used over a long period of time gives me no confidence whatsoever, although I do assume we are using models that are the same as other countries and therefore comparative figures may be quite reasonable. Thank you very much.
Senator Oh: Thank you, commissioner.
My question for you is this: I’m particularly interested in the useful lessons offered by international approaches to climate change in your report. What are the concrete actions taken by the international society that are the most useful for Canada, if Canada will consider blue sky, clean air and everything? We are behind. We keep pushing forward. What about the rest of the world and the rest of the country? What is happening?
Ms. Gelfand: Canada is not meeting its targets, and other countries are meeting their targets. Our emissions continue to go up, but we do know, based on the reporting into the United Nations, that other countries are meeting their targets and some of them are surpassing their targets so right now we’re not in good company. Other countries are doing better, but not all of them. Our focus is always on Canada and what Canada has to do. My remit is essentially Canada.
Senator Oh: What about the question I asked you about the international approach and the concrete action taken by international societies that are most useful to Canada?
Ms. Gelfand: What we looked at was risk assessment, and in our adaptation chapter we were looking at what other countries were doing in adaptation. For example, what we found was that in the U.K., Finland and Germany — those were some of the countries — they had adaptation to climate change actually in legislation. It was a law that you actually had to figure out all your risks related to climate change, or it was a law that you had to implement an action plan related to these risks.
So there are other countries that are ahead of us in assessing climate change risks, prioritizing them, coming up with an adaptation plan and then publicly reporting on that. That’s where it’s at internationally, where right now in Canada it’s a policy framework. Environment and Climate Change Canada produced it but produced no tools for the department to proceed, so they didn’t all do them. In fact, we found only 5 out of 19 departments actually did a good risk assessment on climate change adaptation. Meanwhile, in other countries, it’s actually in law. They must identify their impacts and risks, prioritize them, come up with a plan to adapt and then they must report to the public.
Senator Oh: In Canada, we don’t do much manufacturing. We have a population of only 36 million and not much manufacturing. We got rid of all the coal-fired power stations and yet we’re still way behind.
Ms. Gelfand: I can’t explain why. What I can tell you is there’s no law that requires the Government of Canada to have a view of its climate change risks. In our report we talk about $66 billion of assets and at a very high level, the Government of Canada is not aware of the risks to those assets. It’s not aware of the risks to program delivery.
We know that we’re living with climate change impacts already. Storms are getting worse, we’re having flooding events, wildfires are getting worse and oceans are rising. Those impacts are happening, and the government, at the highest level, doesn’t have a view the way other governments in other countries have a view of what the risks are to our assets and program delivery.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Welcome, Madam Commissioner. You mentioned that Environment and Climate Change Canada has not moved to implement a plan for the strategic adaptation framework that was developed in 2011. Do they have a plan to monitor the provinces and territories that are now part of the pan-Canadian framework in order to meet the 2030 targets?
Ms. Gelfand: We have not yet done that audit. To answer your question, I can tell you that they are doing much better work with the provinces and territories. They are doing much better work with other federal departments to try to reach the new targets, but, as we have not yet audited the implementation of the Pan-Canadian Framework, I cannot tell you exactly what point they have reached. We can tell you that there is a new plan. It is better than other plans because the provinces and territories are part of it. They have established roles and responsibilities within the federal government. They have a chart of the responsibilities. So the planning is being done much better than in the past, but we have not yet audited the implementation.
Senator Dagenais: My first question is more general. Given the current government’s known commitments in the fight against climate change, can you tell us whether the measures in place make for attainable targets with the financial resources and structures we are familiar with? I see that you are smiling. I gather you already have an answer.
Ms. Gelfand: Environment and Climate Change Canada has already publicly stated that, even if they implemented everything in the Pan-Canadian Framework, there would still be a gap. It is going to need more than what the plan includes.
Senator Dagenais: Are you going to be issuing a report later saying that the targets have been missed?
Ms. Gelfand: We have to give them a little time to put the plan into operation. Let us give them one, two or three years. Then we will conduct an audit into the implementation of the Pan-Canadian Framework, including the price on carbon that is part of that plan, and we will study all the measures. There will certainly be an audit on the implementation of the plan.
Senator Dagenais: Let us consider the hypothesis that some countries will meet their targets and that Canada will not be able to. Is that because the targets were not attainable or because the governments have not done enough to meet them?
Ms. Gelfand: The answer is in the second part of your question. They have developed plans, but they have never really implemented them. Some measures were put into effect. Then they were withdrawn. So the plans that have been developed have not been implemented, and that has been going on for 25 years.
Senator Dagenais: That is a very good answer, Ms. Gelfand. Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Woo: Thank you, commissioner. I’m trying to understand what exactly you are auditing. You talk a lot about whether departments have put in place plans consistent with the framework that’s been developed federally, and then whether they follow through on their plans. Do you, in fact, audit what’s in the plan in the sense of whether those are efficacious measures? Do you know what I’m trying to get at here? A department could have a plan and it could be following the plan, but it could be a lousy plan and it could be doing nothing. So how do you get at the question of whether a plan is actually working?
I’ll give you a simple example that we are discussing here: the carbon tax. The carbon tax is part of the plan. I know it hasn’t been implemented yet, it’s still being worked out and so on. In your audits, do you take a view on whether the carbon tax would be effective in approaching the targets that we set, or do you simply say, “There is a plan and they’re doing it, so okay, A-plus?”
Ms. Gelfand: It depends on the audit. There are certain audits where we look at whether the plan is effective. It’s one of the “Es” that we talk about in audit: economy, effectiveness, efficiency and environment. Effectiveness of plans is absolutely something that we can audit and look at. But we don’t do that every single time.
In the case of the Pan-Canadian Framework, we did not actually audit that plan yet. That will come once we have given it a bit of time.
In the case of what we did on adaptation, we looked at whether or not the departments had followed the adaptation framework that called for a complete assessment of risks across their entire mandate and all the delivery of their programs. So five departments looked at climate change and said, “How does it affect everything, our assets, our mandate, the delivery of everything we do?” They looked at it from the entire box of their ministry.
Then we have three departments, including Agriculture, National Defence and a third one. They said, “Yes, climate change is a risk. It will affect this part of our mandate, so we might do something about it.” But that didn’t get a passing grade from us because they did not look at everything. The adaptation framework, that document, says that each department is supposed to look at the entirety of its mandate, the delivery of its services and what the impact of climate change is on all of that. So because they didn’t do that, they didn’t pass.
So the answer to your question is yes, sometimes we do look at effectiveness. In this case we looked at risk assessment, and essentially we were making a call on whether or not the risk assessment work they did was good or not. Does that help?
Senator Woo: Yes, that’s very helpful.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: I have gone through your report. Well done! It is very easy to read and understand.
I gather from your presentation that plans actually exist. They have been developed, but they have not been implemented. I also gather that Canada does not assess its risks very well, and does not meet its targets. However, you mentioned that, for a number of years, there has been success in engaging the provincial and territorial governments in the process of establishing and implementing measures to reduce greenhouse gases.
Here is my question: what is the indicator of success, in your opinion? How will we succeed in developing plans that will allow us to meet our targets? Is it a process requiring participation on the part of provincial governments? Is it stronger regulations? Is it legislation? I would like to hear your opinion about it.
Ms. Gelfand: Unfortunately, that is a political question. I cannot give you my opinion about it. However, I can tell you that the government has indicated that it wants to do something and I will do an audit to see whether they have achieved the goal.
However, we have given our opinion on the new Pan-Canadian Framework, by stating that involving the provinces was a good thing. The entire community has to be called on if we are to reach our targets in reducing greenhouse gases. Everyone has a role to play and a responsibility to shoulder. The government cannot do it all alone. Working with the provinces was a good decision, in our opinion.
If the government decides that it wants legislation in order to reach the target, it can make that decision. It is really up to the government to implement plans. As I said, even if everything in the Pan-Canadian Framework were implemented, there would still be some way to go, and other measures would be required.
The question you are asking me really is a political one; as an auditor, I cannot answer it. That is the job of those in Parliament.
Senator Gagné: I understand. Let me try and ask the question another way. Did I understand correctly that countries with legislation have greater success meeting their targets by implementing integrated plans?
Ms. Gelfand: Not really, I would say, no. What I was talking about in terms of other countries, is the adaptation to the changes in the climate. The countries I was talking about have legislation on adaptation. The legislation requires them to know the risks, develop plans, implement them, and be accountable to the public. Those countries are more prepared to adapt to the impacts.
Senator Gagné: Could that be in Canada’s interests too?
Ms. Gelfand: Parliamentarians will have to decide that.
Senator Petitclerc: A number of my questions have been answered.
You mentioned that those plans are either inadequate or badly implemented. What comes up a lot is that the provinces are more involved now.
There cannot be just one factor that means that results have not been obtained. I am curious to know about the other factors, or the weaknesses you have found that mean a lack of success. Where does this 2030 objective come from? It is very ambitious and seems a little unrealistic. How do we explain all this?
Ms. Gelfand: It is very difficult for me to tell you why the federal government is not implementing a plan it developed in order to achieve an objective. That is not a question I can answer. It develops plans one after another, and we do not see them being applied. I cannot say why it is like that. That would be a question for the minister, or for the appropriate department. I do not know where the obstacle is.
To answer your second question, the targets are determined by the government. At international meetings, before the United Nations, the government sets targets by saying, “Here is what Canada will contribute.” It is true that the next objective, the Paris objective, is to reach a target of 523 megatonnes by 2030. We are almost 200,000 megatonnes off, which is a lot. The Pan-Canadian Framework gets to around 30,000 or 40,000 megatonnes, but everything has to be implemented in the specified time, and everything has to be in place and the budgets committed so that the target can be achieved. Do we have the political will we need? Those are questions that I cannot answer.
Senator Pratte: I am trying to match the discussion as much as possible with our mandate, which is to study the impact of climate change on the agriculture and forestry sectors. I wonder what you have found about Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. My question kind of follows on from Senator Woo’s. I am trying to understand the significance of what you have found for the agriculture sector in Canada. My question may sound a bit dumb, but what exactly does this change? As I read about what you found, it is not as if the department was not aware of the extent of climate change. It seems to be quite aware, because it has identified a number of risks. It may not be as complete as you want. I am trying to understand what exactly your criticism of them is, and what changes in terms of the agricultural sector and climate change.
Ms. Gelfand: As for the second part, it is difficult for me to answer that. We looked to see whether department’s had followed the policy and the strategic framework. The strategic framework says that each department must determine all the risks associated with climate change that relate to their mandate and to the delivery of their programs. Five departments did the risk assessment well. Three did so in an acceptable way, including Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. However, since they did not follow the strategic framework, they did not consider the impact of the changes in the climate on their programs overall. That is why they are in the column that shows those that did not pass the test.
Senator Pratte: They did not do it systematically enough?
Ms. Gelfand: They did not do it for all their programs. They said they know that climate change will have a significant impact here and that they will do something about it. That’s sort of like the Department of National Defence saying that there would be a problem in the north and that it will have to find a solution. However, they did not look at all their equipment, all their bases and the entire infrastructure to determine the risks that climate change poses to all their programs, not just a program here and there.
Senator Pratte: As I understand it, they are committed to doing so, in response to your report.
Ms. Gelfand: Yes.
[English]
Senator Doyle: Looking at the economic impact, which was the fourth “E” you talked about, if our agricultural industry does meet its GHG targets, will there be a price to pay in terms of lower production or higher production costs?
Second, have you studied what a massive reforestation program might do for sequestering carbon? Would it help us meet our overall GHG targets?
Ms. Gelfand: The first question I can’t actually answer. That is not something we looked at so I can’t tell you what that will be. That is not something we audited.
Second, how forestry and land use is calculated at the United Nations level, and therefore at the Canadian level, is of great debate. How do you measure the stock of carbon captured by trees? What happens if those trees get cut down or burn? The sink versus carbon emission of forests is a technical issue. We have asked Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada how they are dealing with that. We found that they are looking into that, but they are still in development of how they will deal with the Canadian forest sector on that issue. At this point, we didn’t say anything other than they are looking at it.
Obviously, trees capture carbon, but they don’t last forever. They do fall down, they die, they regenerate, or they burn, or we put them into buildings. We use them for structures. So the whole issue of forests is a very technically complex issue. If you had difficulty with my presentation, I have difficulty with the land use and forestry stuff. It is really technical.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Our committee has just returned from a fact-finding mission in Nova Scotia on the effects of climate change on the agriculture and forestry sectors.
During our public hearings and during our field visits, a number of witnesses told us that there was not enough research and investment in new technologies to provide them with the necessary data.
Do you believe that departments have invested enough in research and new technologies to help them assess the risks associated with this whole issue of climate change?
Ms. Gelfand: We have not conducted an audit on that, but we can talk about it. Natural Resources Canada has developed an adaptation platform. They meet every two years, I believe, bringing all the scientists together to talk about adaptation to climate change. It depends on the departments too. For example, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has developed around 30 tools, a number of research projects for their sector, dealing with adaptation to climate change. So it depends on the department and the sector.
Transport Canada has done a lot of research on the impact of climate change on the rail industry and the marine industry. If your officials tell you that people in agriculture have not done enough work, I think it’s because they have not really looked at all the impacts of climate change on all their programs, because Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s mandate also focuses on science. So I think the information is complementary.
In terms of new technologies, our audit focused on new clean energy technologies. We have not really looked at all the new technologies that the federal government is trying to promote.
However, from the three funds we examined, two of which are managed by Natural Resources Canada and one by Sustainable Development Technology Canada, we found that they are very well managed. We can track the projects. They are working on good projects. They stick to the budgets. As auditors, considering everything we review, we cannot often say that the work is done properly. It’s not 100 per cent perfect, but it’s close. I like to say it because it feels good.
I trust — and Canadians should too — that money spent on developing new technologies in the three funds we looked at is well used.
I cannot fully answer your question because we have not conducted an audit, but I find it quite complementary.
The Chair: I have a few questions for you, Ms. Gelfand. I do trust you as an auditor, but that is not the case for all government auditors.
We are now studying the impact of the carbon tax on agriculture. The farmers who come to give testimony almost all come to the same conclusion as Senator Tardif. I listened to your answer carefully, and it’s quite right.
Farmers themselves do research. I’m going to give you an example. As you may know, there is almost no plowing anymore in Canada because it produces carbon emissions. This comes from university research.
Canadian universities do a lot of research in agriculture. Actually, we receive the results of that research on a regular basis. Researchers have good news for farmers. Farmers are hungry for new methods, but those have to be shared with them because, while they are planting their potatoes, they do not have the time to think about a technology for the next 25 years. They need someone to show them those new technologies.
If you had specific recommendations on the impact of the carbon tax on farmers, what would they be? You could forward them to the clerk. It is important to find out what you think so that we can compare the testimony we hear and the research being done.
Ms. Gelfand: Unfortunately, we have not done an audit on the price of carbon and how it will be applied in Canada. The announcement was made as part of the Pan-Canadian Framework. It has not been implemented so far. For the time being, we cannot indicate the impact of the price on carbon.
The Chair: We agree that no one can set the price right now. What will be the impact of carbon research on agriculture? What can farmers do to emit less carbon in the next few years? Do you have an idea? Can you provide us with some recommendations? Our committee is really eager to hear your recommendations.
Ms. Gelfand: I would encourage you to invite Environment and Climate Change Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada researchers to answer your questions. They will be the ones setting the price on carbon. So, they are probably the ones who have the analyses about the impacts on the different sectors. Unfortunately, I do not have that information.
The Chair: They are on the list of future witnesses. I hope they will not answer by saying: you should have asked Ms. Gelfand that question.
A carbon tax is all well and good. The European community has one. What is being done with the money? Nobody can give us an account, and we end up with bridges, roads, schools, libraries. That does not change anything for carbon. Right now in Canada, Quebec invests in research to reduce carbon emissions. Ontario is doing the same thing. British Columbia has a major project to change theirs. This is not the case everywhere.
When I look at Europe, I look at the Paris Agreement and I say bravo. You must have visited Paris. You walk 10 minutes down the street and get intoxicated from carbon emissions. Nothing has changed in Brussels or anywhere else. Lofty principles are all well and good. Farmers are the first to say that they are willing to make an effort, but they want to know how to go about it. It will be people like you who can guide them. Our report will tell farmers: here is the situation and the solutions for a profitable agriculture that emits less carbon.
Senator Dagenais: Do you think departments are wasting money on unnecessary measures?
Ms. Gelfand: That’s a very broad question. It’s really not a question I can answer. It is too broad.
Senator Dagenais: You can send it to me in writing at a later time.
Ms. Gelfand: I do not think we have looked into that issue. We looked at whether we could meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets, whether the adaptation policy framework has been implemented, whether good investments have been made in new clean energy technologies Yes, I can say that good investments are being made with those funds. Your question is too vague. I cannot answer it.
Senator Gagné: I am aware that the Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Ferguson, also conducts audits on climate and environmental change. I remember reading an article or a little report summary revealing that we did not necessarily have access to the information and all the financial data to be able to know whether the money was invested in the right place.
What is its role, what is your role and how do you work together?
Ms. Gelfand: You are talking about a very specific audit on fossil fuel subsidies. This audit started with us. Mr. Ferguson and I decided that he would be tabling it this time because they had problems with access to the information. Since the Department of Finance did not want to give us access to the information, it’s a much broader issue than the environment and even the topic. It is an access issue that is essential for all auditors general around the world. In principle, they must always have access to information. But we did not obtain the information for one of my audits. It’s beyond my control; it affects our office and the auditors general in Canada and elsewhere. So Mr. Ferguson tabled it. Usually, when it comes to the environment and sustainable development, I always table them. All audits in those areas are the commissioner’s responsibility.
Now you have heard about the 2030 agenda with the 17 universal goals. I am the sustainable development commissioner and those sustainable development goals will have an impact on the entire office. Mr. Ferguson will probably also conduct audits in the area of sustainable development. In fact, he has probably done so already.
Does that answer your question?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
The Chair: Ms. Gelfand, thank you to you and your partners. You were able to see how interested senators are in this area. Our committee will continue to ensure you have a presence in the government. Farmers are eager to get information on how to improve their production.
Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)