THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 9, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 8 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to energy, the environment, natural resources and climate change.
Senator Joan Kingston (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Joan Kingston, and I’m the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. I will ask all the senators to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Good morning. Josée Verner from Quebec. I am the committee’s deputy chair.
Senator Youance: Good morning. Suze Youance from Quebec.
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Arnot: David Arnot, Saskatchewan.
Senator Lewis: Todd Lewis, Saskatchewan.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
[English]
Senator Fridhandler: Daryl Fridhandler, Alberta.
The Chair: Thank you. Because we have a lot of people in the room who aren’t always here, I’d like to have you make sure you keep your earpieces away from the microphones at all times. Don’t touch the microphones. Activation and deactivation will be managed by the console operator. Please avoid handling your earpiece while the microphone is on. The earpieces remain on the ear or are placed on the designated sticker at the seat to protect our interpreters.
I would like to welcome everybody here today. There are people listening online, as well. Today, pursuant to the general order of reference received from the Senate on September 25, we are hearing from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Mr. Jerry V. DeMarco. Welcome, Mr. DeMarco.
We appreciate your taking the time out of your busy schedule to discuss your 2024-25 reports, with a particular focus on Report 4: Lessons Learned from Canada’s Record on Sustainable Development, from spring 2025; Report 8: Departmental Progress in Implementing Sustainable Development Strategies—Clean Energy, from fall 2024; and Report 6: The Canadian Criticial Minerals Strategy, from fall 2024.
I would also like to welcome the staff accompanying you today from the Office of the Auditor General, and maybe they could introduce themselves.
Jessica Johnston, Director, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Jessica Johnston.
Francis Michaud, Director, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Francis Michaud.
The Chair: For the committee, on the revised schedule, there is a list of other people here to help us with our understanding today. There are staff from Environment and Climate Change Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Statistics Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, and Indigenous Services Canada. They will be helping with some of the questions that you may have.
Right now, I’d like to turn to Mr. DeMarco for his opening statement.
Jerry V. DeMarco, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity to discuss our 2024 reports on The Canadian Criticial Mineral Strategy and on Departmental Progress in Implementing Sustainable Development Strategies—Clean Energy, as well as our 2025 report on Lessons Learned from Canada’s Record on Sustainable Development.
I would like to acknowledge that this hearing is taking place on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
I am accompanied today by Jessica Johnston and Francis Michaud, the directors who were responsible for the 2024 reports.
I will begin with our audit on Natural Resources Canada’s Critical Minerals Strategy. The federal government allotted $3.8 billion over eight 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 two of the strategy’s objectives: environmental protection and advancing reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. We found that the department 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, water quality, biodiversity and Indigenous communities.
Moving forward, Natural Resources Canada will have to fully assess risks and impacts of the strategy to help maximize 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. Effective risk management is also essential to help with the acceptance of new mining projects and to avoid possible delays and financial liabilities resulting from contaminated sites.
In our annual report Departmental Progress in Implementing Sustainable Development Strategies—Clean Energy, we assessed the progress made by four departments in meeting two energy targets: generating 90% of Canada’s electricity from clean sources and reducing annual energy consumption by 600 petajoules. The four departments were Natural Resources Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, and Indigenous Services Canada.
[Translation]
We found that results were limited, progress was slow, and most of the information reported by departments did not clearly show how the results directly contributed to federal targets. As a result, the federal government did not have a clear picture of its progress toward clean energy and energy efficiency targets.
At the time of our audit, more than 82% of electricity generated in Canada came from non-emitting renewable sources, while the 2030 target is 90%. This gap is significant, and the gap relative to the energy efficiency target is even wider.
Producing more clean energy and improving energy efficiency is essential for Canada to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support the transition to a low-carbon economy. By redoubling its efforts to meet these two targets by 2030, Canada would show leadership in the global fight against climate change.
Finally, the 2025 Lessons Learned Report, which is not an audit, looks back over 30 years of federal government action on sustainable development and presents six lessons to help Canada achieve better results. Each lesson concludes with fundamental questions for parliamentarians to consider.
Implementing sustainable development is a major challenge in Canada. Despite national and international targets, Canada has made the least progress among G7 countries in achieving the UN’s sustainable development goals.
This report highlights the need for a more integrated approach to sustainable development that takes into account social, economic and environmental factors in decision-making, policies and programs. Among other lessons, the report mentions the importance for Canada to strengthen its leadership at the national level, have a longer-term approach that promotes intergenerational equity and foster greater collaboration, particularly with Indigenous governments and peoples.
Madam Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. We will be happy to answer any questions committee members may have. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. DeMarco.
[English]
We’ll open the floor to questions from the committee.
I’d like to remind you that even though Mr. DeMarco has talked about three particular reports, the people who have come here today from the other departments are here to answer any questions that you might have about other reports that haven’t been discussed.
Senator Arnot: Mr. DeMarco, your audit shows 82.49% clean electricity and a 7.51 point gap to the 2030 target of 90%. What are the top federal levers that, if properly implemented and measured with the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy, or FSDS, consistent indicators, would close most of that gap, and how soon would we see measurable movement?
Mr. DeMarco: Thank you for the question. The gap, for those who are interested, is illustrated in Exhibit 8.2 of that report. I should note, if Mr. Michaud would permit it, the gap is actually larger now because we’re testifying about a report from last year. Mr. Michaud, if you could just let the committee know what the current situation is on the gap.
Mr. Michaud: As per the latest data, it is now, in 2024, under 80% of clean energy produced, so it is decreasing. The department, at the time of our audit, didn’t expect to meet the target by 2030. Unless the regulation on coal was implemented, they didn’t expect that at the time of our audit.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, but in terms of a remedy in addressing the issues, what are the top federal levers that could be implemented so that we would see a closing of the gap, and how soon could that measurement occur?
Mr. DeMarco: To address the question about the levers that the federal government has — and implicit in your question is a recognition that this is a matter of shared jurisdiction in terms of emissions from the electricity sector — one lever is working with the provinces and territories in a collaborative manner in an attempt to close that gap. In the absence of full cooperation, the main lever that the federal government has is regulation, and typically those would be regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Senator Arnot: Just one quick follow-up: What reaction have you got from the departments that you measured? How are they responding to your report?
Mr. DeMarco: In this case, our recommendation to the four departments was agreed to, and that’s found in the appendix to the report. Mr. Michaud can add to this in a second. Beyond the responses, there are also action plans from the departments. It’s fortunate that the committee has invited the departments here so you can pose questions directly to them about the status of their action plans.
Mr. Michaud has something to add as well.
Mr. Michaud: Yes, I would refer you to paragraph 8.18 of our report about closing the gap by 2030:
. . . Natural Resources Canada anticipates that progress towards the clean power generation target . . . will accelerate over the coming years as a result of federal regulations, including the Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal-fired Generation of Electricity Regulations. . . .
At the time of our audit, what they told us was the implementation of these regulations would accelerate the transition to renewable and non-emitting electricity generation sources, so this was the main tool that they told us they had to close this gap.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Hello. Thank you very much for being here this morning to answer our questions.
[English]
I will have more technical questions later on, but I want to start with this two-part question.
From your four reports, it is evident that we are very much behind our peers. Canada is the only one in the G7 which is very far from the sustainable coal targets, from the greenhouse gas emissions reduction, et cetera, et cetera, and you have given these reports to the government, but we are not progressing.
My first question is this: Which areas are easy, or are the low-hanging fruit, where this committee can push so that we can progress as fast as possible?
The other point that I want to make is that in any of your reports, you don’t study the impact of all of these gaps on our economy. I think that if people knew how all of these gaps were impacting our everyday life — inflation, affordability, competitiveness — there would be more pressure. Could you comment on that? Thank you.
Mr. DeMarco: Thank you for the question relating primarily to our Lessons Learned report on sustainable development, but as you indicate, our body of work looked at as a whole does show a troubling trend within Canada in terms of lack of progress or, in the case of sustainable development, some progress but slower than our peers in the G7. On climate change, we’ve been the worst amongst the G7 countries in terms of reducing emissions since 1990.
On sustainable development, at least the curve is going the right way. We have been making incremental progress, but as you see from Exhibit 4.7, we’ve been making progress at a much slower rate than the others, so our comparative standing on the indicators of sustainable development has dropped relative to Germany, France, the U.K., Japan and Italy.
What can this committee do? Well, like our office, we are part of the accountability chain in terms of government accountability. We issue our reports, usually about specific programs, like critical minerals or clean energy programs, but from time to time we do these synthesis reports like Lessons Learned, and this committee can choose to study them and have public hearings and, importantly, issue reports and make its own recommendations to government as to how it can improve its performance.
In many cases, there are specific items that need to be done to improve a program, but there are these larger issues that have surfaced more clearly in two Lessons Learned reports — in 2021 on climate change and this year on sustainable development — about the government’s challenges in taking a long-term approach that integrates, as you indicate, the economy, the social and the environmental aspects. That’s really the basis of sustainable development. The lack of a long-term approach, the lack of leadership on certain issues, the scattered approach where horizontal issues such as environment, sustainable development and reconciliation are not well addressed by the siloed approach in government — these are some of the themes that come up in our Lessons Learned report.
To the extent that this committee can try to tackle some of those larger structural issues while at the same time paying attention to specific areas of improvement in particular programs, I think, that will increase accountability and the chances that Canada will tackle some of these underlying problems that manifest themselves in various missed targets.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I’m going to talk about critical minerals. Environmental impacts have not necessarily been studied as much as they should have been in order to fully understand them, especially if we want to start favourably developing the critical minerals that are needed.
I have two questions on this. First, what could be done to properly carry out this study in order to determine the impact on Canada and on climate change of increased exploration and the opening of more mines to extract these critical minerals? Second, what impact will this have on Indigenous peoples?
Mr. DeMarco: This is a theme of our report on critical minerals, our other reports on oceans from June of this year, and our report on habitats for species at risk. In November, we will have two more reports on protected areas.
When we look at all these reports, including the one on critical minerals, we see that we need a better database to be more confident that the decisions being made are the right ones. With a comprehensive database showing us where the important areas are for Indigenous peoples, carbon storage and biodiversity, we could make and even speed up the decisions made for Canada. When there are gaps in information, decisions may be made that at first appear to be the right ones, but that turn out to have unintended negative effects. I think accelerating the completion of the database would be the priority.
Senator Aucoin: In that regard, it seems that coordination between the provinces and the federal government is not clear. Is there anything we could do to improve the mandate so that it is clearer and so that we can achieve the objectives, as you just mentioned, in data collection and finally be able to make decisions that are based more on current events and facts?
Mr. DeMarco: Since much of Canada’s land is managed by the provinces and territories or is privately owned, the federal government does not have all the tools for the planning I am talking about now. Work needs to be done with the provinces and territories. Since Canada is willing to use those funds, such as the critical minerals fund, it can use this as part of the equation with the provinces. We have talked about subsidizing this project or the collection of this data, but we want to achieve this with biodiversity, carbon storage and the collaboration of Indigenous people. We need cooperation with both levels of government, because in a federal state like Canada, it is impossible to do this solely at the federal level or at the level of the provincial, territorial and Indigenous communities.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for these reports and for the great work that your office does. It’s extremely important for Canada.
When I read through the reports, I had this sort of a niggly feeling of unease — bear with me because the material here is above my pay grade because I’m a physician, so I don’t understand a lot of these things — because I kept reading about things that hadn’t been done. Where I come from, if you haven’t done the thing, the people die.
I want to thank the Library of Parliament. They helped me crystallize my unease, and The Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy audit report identifies gaps in the government’s governance, risk management and performance tracking. With the Canadian net-zero emissions, we are far from reaching our goals, and the departments have been slow to implement recommendations from past audits.
In the development, progress and implementation of sustainable development strategies, a number of reporting improvements — reporting improvements, basic operational stuff — are needed.
In supporting species at risk, it has now been 30 years to complete the assessments. Some people in this room weren’t born yet.
When I look at the totality of these things, I begin to wonder why it is that so many — to me, anyway — basic operational deficiencies have not been corrected. And, in my simple way, I was wondering where the responsibility for ensuring proper operational activities lies.
Mr. DeMarco: There is a lot there, and I’ll try to answer it in a couple of different ways that may work well in terms of your background.
With respect to these issues, sometimes people think of environmental issues as something out there that would be nice if we did well on them, but it’s not critical. But people do die as a result of severe weather that has become more frequent and more intense because of climate change — the heat dome in British Columbia and the wildfires taking the lives of citizens and first responders.
We have gotten to the point — and it is frustrating that we have — where there is a similarity now between working on environment and sustainable development and working on health, because the consequences have become that severe, and that’s just for humankind, obviously.
On their biodiversity reports, the consequences are equally severe for the loss of wildlife and potential extinction of entire species. The stakes have become high because of the lack of countries around the world, including Canada — their inability to actually meet the commitments set out in various agreements over the years, like the Climate Change Convention or the Convention on Biodiversity or the Sustainable Development Goals.
Within our area of work in the Auditor General’s office, we tried to assess performance, demonstrate if there is a gap between actual results and what they’re seeking to achieve and make recommendations to close that gap. But as you know, especially on the climate file, we have been making similar recommendations now for many commissioners — a generation of commissioners — since the position was created in the 1990s, and yet Canada still lags.
The fact that Canada lags, though, shows that other countries in the G7 have done better, so that means that we could do better as well. We’re not doomed to be last in the G7 on cutting emissions. We’re not doomed to be last in terms of improving our standing on sustainable development.
One of the reasons we have done these two Lessons Learned reports, this year on sustainable development and in 2021 on climate change, is to try to surface some of these underlying issues, which don’t necessarily get uncovered in each individual audit of a program. But when we see the lack of success on horizontal initiatives, the lack of a long-term perspective in protecting the rights and interests of future generations, the lack of coordination amongst federal departments and as between orders of government within a federal state, these are all problems that the Government of Canada has not been very successful at addressing. I would say those would be some of most important underlying problems.
Tying it back again to another health analogy, in terms of doing no harm, my answer to your colleague was about getting better information to make better decisions. That would be to try to prevent issues that we’ve talked about in previous hearings before this committee, like the Giant Mine in Yellowknife in terms of the legacy of pollution. If you do a better job of gathering information and planning, then you’ll more likely result in decisions that are good both in the short term and in the long term.
Senator Kutcher: May I have another question?
The Chair: In the second round.
Senator Lewis: Thank you for your presentation.
On the 80%, the fact that the gap is widening, what is driving that? Is that because new sources coming online are not sustainable? Is it because we’re using more energy? Is there sustainable stuff that is falling off-line? What is driving that gap increase?
Mr. DeMarco: Mr. Michaud can give you some insight into that, but recalling what the chair said, we do have a number of departments here and able to answer questions. Let us start with that, and then if you would like to hear from Natural Resources Canada, for example, or Environment and Climate Change Canada, you can. It is probably best to hear directly from the departments.
However, for example, there have been new fossil-fuel plants coming online in Ontario. You’ve probably heard about that. That is one part of it. Perhaps the department can come in and fill in the gaps more.
The Chair: Please go ahead.
André Bernier, Director General, Electricity Resources Branch, Natural Resources Canada: Thank you for the question.
The main driver over the last few years has been drought conditions that have affected British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec. We have seen hydroelectricity production drop quite a bit; the reservoirs are lower. In that sense, it is a transitory effect. That said, it’s also a sign of a changing climate, so we can expect more fluctuations like that in the future.
A secondary but still important factor is that the nuclear fleet in Ontario is undergoing refurbishment right now, so some of that capacity is offline. However, over the coming years, we expect that to be online again, and you will see the percentage rise again.
Senator Lewis: That is an example of some of the things we hear, but those are sustainable practices that will come back online. Hopefully, we’ll see improvement there.
When it comes to sustainable practices, has any work been done, especially on the critical minerals file, where we are in a state of trade disruption now between our jurisdiction and many others? In Canada, we have critical minerals in the ground that are available to us or could be available to us, and we need more critical minerals for batteries, for wind turbines, et cetera. Has there been any work comparing the sustainable development of those critical minerals in Canada compared to sources like China that have no sustainability plans at all but we are continuing to use their critical minerals as a source, and the impacts on the overall environment due to that?
Mr. DeMarco: I’ll handle that one to start, but if there is anyone from the departments who wishes to add, they may come forward.
You’re correct in saying there is a need for those minerals, which is why they’re called “critical minerals,” to advance not only typical uses but also the transition to a net-zero economy via solar panels, wind turbines and so on.
The idea is not to make it a win-lose. If you are going to extract such minerals at an increased rate to serve those and other needs, the idea behind our report is to look before you leap, choose the best sites that are going to minimize impacts on Indigenous Peoples, biodiversity and carbon sequestration rather than going with a haste-makes-waste approach that might have long-term impacts that are maybe unforeseen at the time.
We say this from the point of view of having audited other programs, such as the billions of dollars being used to clean up northern contaminated sites. So we know that if these things are not done in a diligent and forward-looking way, then short-term profits end up saddling Canadian taxpayers with long-term liabilities, in the billions of dollars in the case of some of the mines in the North. The idea is to try to avoid that by taking a more forward-looking approach based on, as I said to one of your colleagues, a better information base as to where to properly site such facilities.
It isn’t a necessity to make the same mistakes of the past. We can learn from those and avoid issues like the Giant Mine and so on.
The Deputy Chair: Someone else has joined the witness table. Please introduce yourself.
Andrew Ghattas, Senior Director, Critical Minerals Centre of Excellence, Natural Resources Canada: Hello, I’m the Senior Director of the Critical Minerals Centre of Excellence; we developed the Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy. Thank you for the question.
Just to add, we do look at Canada’s standing and practices in terms of critical mineral mining development relative to international jurisdictions. One of the rationales behind the strategy in the first place was to differentiate Canada’s practices from those of other countries that might not have the same environmental or labour standards in place, which is where we’re actually a global leader in many respects.
Recognizing the supply that is required to meet demand for clean technologies in critical minerals, we want to avoid a race to the bottom in terms of more resource exploitation. We want to ensure it’s done sustainably. That is one of the key principles and is part of the vision with respect to the Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy.
To take just one commodity — because they are all different — if you look at nickel, Canada is one of the lowest greenhouse gas-emitting miners of nickel. When compared to Indonesia, for example, which uses coal-fired plants and is extracting in sensitive biodiverse environments, it is quite stark in terms of Canada’s practices and activities relative to other global players.
There is definitely more we can do in this space, but we are a global leader in many respects in terms of sustainable mining development with respect to our industry and the practices that it employs.
Senator Lewis: I would say that messaging is important, and Canada can lead the race to the top, not the race to the bottom. We have made mistakes that have been recognized here, but in some of these other jurisdictions, there is a very limited chance of improvement in terms of any of their sustainability goals; in many cases, those don’t even exist. Canada could be and will be a leader in this technology, as you said.
The Chair: Maybe we’ll save that discussion for the second round.
Senator Fridhandler: Mr. DeMarco, I first want to say that I thank you and your colleagues for all your great work. I always look forward to your appearances before this committee.
Let me ask you about what I might call the recent change of government from the Trudeau leadership to the Carney leadership. Others typically look in the rear-view mirror in terms of their review of things, so if you could take out your crystal ball — which you have done a bit already, and I appreciate that — do you have any observations or concerns on significant pivots relative to matters you have addressed in your reports?
Mr. DeMarco: Yes.
We’re always interested in feedback from the committee and from other committees and individual parliamentarians as to what issues we should look at, but looking forward, we’re going to likely see an acceleration in certain types of developments — not just critical minerals but other things as well — so we’ll be keeping an eye on that.
When we did the Critical Minerals Strategy audit last year, we didn’t know Bill C-5 would be coming or that there would be this new emphasis, but the importance of that audit has increased since then, because there is a recognition that Canada wants to be a leader in sustainably and responsibly sourced minerals, for example. What does it need to actually do that as opposed to just doing better than another country that has no standards or low standards? We don’t want to just do well; we want to do the best we can, keeping in mind even the title of the Natural Resources Canada department in terms of the Critical Minerals Centre of Excellence.
If we’re going to accelerate development of projects that increase our sovereignty, our resilience and so on, we should also accelerate the collection of information that allows those decisions to be more sound. There’s no reason to say that we just have to make decisions based on whatever information we have available. We could accelerate the collection of information on peatlands, high-biodiversity areas, important areas for Indigenous Peoples in terms of their practices and culture and so on.
Why not have a better information base and not only make better decisions but also, most importantly, get significant buy-in from the affected communities, as opposed to fear and opposition, which often happens when local communities don’t feel decisions are being made with an adequate information base?
In order for all these national projects to be accelerated, there needs to be some social licence from those affected. Having a better information base and a consultation process that allows those voices to be heard will be good investments in the short term for the long-term sustainability of the projects and their acceptance.
Senator Fridhandler: You did allude to what my follow-up question was going to be, which is in relation to Bill C-5 and the concerns about what you observed of the framework of that bill and any announcements you have seen relative to the setting up of that office. Do you have any further comments on Bill C-5 and what we can expect?
Mr. DeMarco: I don’t know how it will run and if they will use all of the discretion available to bypass certain pieces of legislation listed in the bill, which is now legislation. It’s hard to say exactly what will happen. But I would go back to my answer about sustainable development: If we take a long-term view that truly integrates the environment and the social and economic aspects, then we should be choosing projects that will further all of those things, as opposed to creating trade-offs between them. And the longer-term the view that one takes regarding sustainability and sustainable development, the more likely it is that the social, economic and environmental objectives coalesce and you get a win-win-win situation rather than short-term gains and long-term pains, which is often the case with decisions made in haste.
In the context of Bill C-5, I would hope an integrated view is taken that looks at the environment, the economy and social aspects together — which is the core of sustainable development — and a long-term view is taken so that we aren’t just mortgaging the future for the next generation and the generations that follow in order for us to make decisions today that might appear to be profitable or favourable in the short term. That longer-term, intergenerational view would be another aspect I would hope to see if Canada is really going to embrace sustainability and sustainable development rather than just talk about it.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I’d like to thank the witnesses for being here.
My question has to do with the graph on page 18 of report 8. It compares NRCan’s efforts to increase energy efficiency. I’ll use buildings as an example. The target of 8.7 petajoules has been achieved, whereas the 2030 target is 132.6. Do you think these goals can be achieved? What could we put in place to achieve them? You made various recommendations. Has the government changed its approach since this report was tabled, especially with the creation of Canada Houses? Are there any elements that will enable us to meet these targets or come close to them?
Mr. DeMarco: On the question about new initiatives, I would ask the department official to join us.
With respect to our report, Mr. Michaud can speak in more detail about the exhibit you’re referring to.
Mr. Michaud: Yes. Thank you.
Exhibit 8.7 shows the actions taken by NRCan to achieve the target of 600 petajoules of energy saved by 2030. Four key measures were outlined in their departmental plan. At the time of our audit, the department confirmed to us that it was unlikely that the total target would be achieved by 2030. The latest data show an improvement in results, but they are still below the projections provided by the department during our audit. Therefore, based on the results currently available, the target is not expected to be achieved by 2030.
I’ll pass the baton to the department to answer the question about the measures to be taken to rectify the situation.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome. Please state your name and department.
[Translation]
Frank Des Rosiers, Assistant Deputy Minister, Energy Efficiency and Technology Sector, Natural Resources Canada: Good morning. My name is Frank Des Rosiers. I am Assistant Deputy Minister at Natural Resources Canada, and I am responsible for energy efficiency and energy technology issues.
Thank you very much for that question. I would like to point out that the office’s analysis period is relatively short, just three years. If the analysis period is extended to 20 years, for example, from 2000 to 2021, the reductions in energy efficiency are quite significant, around 890 petajoules. When compared to the 600 petajoules mentioned in the target, we can see that considerable progress has been made. I would like to break that down into three areas. The first one you mentioned, residential buildings, has seen a 35% improvement in energy efficiency; in the commercial sector, the improvement is 10%; and in the industrial sector, the improvement is 6%. When you hear these figures, it kind of makes your head spin. So to put it into perspective, 100 petajoules is the energy consumed by one million homes. If you do the math, if you multiply that by eight or nine, it’s still a considerable reduction.
I would be pleased to comment further on federal initiatives, if necessary.
Senator Youance: Thank you.
I have a follow-up question. In your recommendations, you ask the government to ensure that the department use the same progress indicators established for the targets in the federal strategy or equivalent indicators. Have departments been using the same indicators as your recommendations since the report was published? Finally, in relation to that, how did you choose the four departments out of the 27?
Mr. Michaud: As for the departments, it was the departments that had established departmental actions to contribute to achieving the two clean energy targets in the federal strategy.
It should be noted that the target of 600 petajoules in the 2019-22 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy at the time of our audit is a government policy. It is therefore a target. These targets are part of the federal strategy, so we chose those four entities that had contributed to the targets.
Since then, new departmental plans have been drawn up by the entities to contribute to the new federal strategy for 2022-26. We will be doing an audit in the spring on the quality review of these departmental strategies to determine whether they provide quality information on results to be achieved and on transparency.
Thank you.
Senator Youance: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: We will start the second round.
Senator Galvez: I said I was going to move into more technical questions in relation to the reports we are studying, so the Departmental Progress in Implementing Sustainable Development Strategies—Clean Energy and The Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy. I’m an engineer, so I always look for solutions. I say there are no problems; there are just solutions that haven’t been found yet.
When we extract and export raw materials — natural resources — it is a little bit like stealing from future generations. We don’t add value when we export raw materials. For example, I understand that we need to do development projects, but I think that instead of exporting more raw materials, we should be transforming these materials here, which will increase innovation and economic growth.
When I look into Bill C-5, which my colleague brought up, we’re talking about pipelines instead of talking about refineries. We sell petroleum at a discount price, and then it’s transformed elsewhere, and it comes back and is sold to us at extremely high prices. It has been a long time that we should have had refineries here, but we don’t. I’m scared that the same thing will happen with critical minerals.
I’ve been in the remediation engineering field. I know about the Giant Mine and about Faro Mine and about Great Bear Lake, which cost billions of dollars to restore.
With the critical minerals, now it’s grams that we take from tonnes of material that we extract. Shouldn’t we again think of transforming these materials so the value grows and we develop other things, because we have several problems to solve at the same time?
Mr. DeMarco: Thank you for the question, and I would point you to Exhibits 6.1 and 6.2 of our critical minerals report, because the government itself recognizes that. We have, in Exhibit 6.1, the value chain, so you can add value at the exploration phase, and you can add value at the extraction phase. Then, if you’re shipping it overseas, the other places where value is being added are other countries and so on. But if you do keep some of those steps at home, then you can add value at intermediate processing and refining, at manufacturing and assembly and the end use of the products — all the way through the value chain. Commodity prices, labour prices and a lot of different markets come into play in determining the spatial distribution of those different elements of the value chain.
In many cases in Canada, whether it’s non-renewable resources like minerals or renewable resources like forestry, we have a history of doing some added value here at home and also a history of exporting that and having the value added elsewhere to the benefit of the recipient country and, perhaps, in some instances, having the goods then come back in manufactured form here. It’s a complex equation for each commodity as to where the value will be added, based on the factors that I just mentioned.
But in today’s discourse around sovereignty, self-sufficiency, energy security and so on, you now have a different element of value that has to be considered, which is whether Canada will be more secure by having these elements at home, as opposed to relying on the assumption that things will be able to flow around the world in the way that they have been in the past. Will there be carbon border adjustments? Will there be tariffs? All of these things can change the equation and make something that is profitable suddenly unprofitable.
I think that we will see in Canada, given the current situation, more of an attention to the things that you’ve talked about, which is looking for opportunities to add value here, on home soil, as opposed to exporting our resources and having that happen elsewhere. I can’t predict what will happen, but there is certainly more of an appetite for that now than there ever has been in my career.
Senator Kutcher: Mr. DeMarco, I want to thank you for putting your previous answer to me in a way that I could understand. I just want to make an observation that 20 years ago we weren’t having those discussions, and now, in the health field, we realize that we’re way behind having them. And the “way behind” theme keeps coming up over and over again.
You said that the Auditor General’s reports have been made for years and years, yet the progress has not kept up with where the recommendations have gone. I’m trying to understand why all those really good recommendations that your office has made have not been acted on in a way that would have avoided putting us in this situation that we’re in now. I’m trying to understand why that would be, because if I go back to my profession, if we make a recommendation in a death review, it’s done the next day.
For example, your office noticed gaps in governance, risk management and performance tracking in the audit of the Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy. That is pretty basic operational stuff, and those identified gaps were in your fall 2024 report. That was a year ago.
I wonder, have there been changes in governance, risk management and performance tracking as a result of the report you published, or has that not happened yet?
Mr. DeMarco: We haven’t done a follow-up yet, but the department is probably best positioned to indicate what progress it has made in implementing the recommendations. I’m going to invite our friend from Critical Minerals at Natural Resources Canada to come back up and talk about that.
Mr. Ghattas: Thank you for the question, senator.
We do agree with the recommendations to improve on the governance, the risk management as well as the performance indicators, and we are making progress towards improving upon those.
Just on the governance side, for example, we had an existing governance committee in place that has representation from a variety of different departments. We’re ensuring that environment and sustainability-related risks are discussed in that particular forum, and so that’s central to its activities.
We’re also reassessing the performance indicators, particularly as it relates to greenhouse gas emissions, to ensure we have a stronger performance measurement framework as well as the data sets underlying that to support our reporting on those results.
In the terms of risks, as the strategy was developed, it is obviously very broad-based in terms of its focus, covering the entire country. There are high-level risks identified in the strategy, but as we move into more project-oriented development, we will also be identifying more project-specific risks that we can roll up and articulate a better story about how we are managing and mitigating those as well.
All of the recommendations are being actioned as we speak.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much, Mr. Ghattas. I’m pleased to see that they are being actioned.
When will you be at a point where you’re comfortable that what is needing to be done is being done consistently?
Mr. Ghattas: For example, on the performance results, we’ll have new ones in place by the next performance cycle, so in 2026.
The governance-related recommendations in terms of ensuring the environment-related considerations are factored in the governance discussions; that’s already being adopted and actioned. The committee meets on a quarterly basis at senior levels with a variety of different departments.
We are also working with other departments, including Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, on other related aspects as well, and those are already in train. We should have, in a year’s time, additional results to speak to.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for that. It is very much appreciated.
Just as a note to committee members, it may be interesting for us to study some departments in depth to actually see, for the recommendations that have been made, how quickly they come forward. And for those departments where recommendations have been made that are not coming forward quickly, what are the barriers that we need to address as a country? Because Canadians are expecting this to be done not 16 or 20 years later but in an expeditious fashion. Thank you.
Senator Lewis: A lot of this is about forecasting in 2030 and so on. That is four more winters away. It’s a pretty short timeline to get to some of these goals, but there seem to be some emerging technologies that could really change the outlook on this over the long term, such as a memorandum of understanding between New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Ontario on nuclear power and its development, and emerging opportunities in the AI field.
For their big projects, AI needs water and energy. In a jurisdiction like Saskatchewan, they’re even talking about not small nuclear reactors but one large reactor being able to supply some of these new projects. Are you doing any forecasting on that and how we’re going to transition?
In Saskatchewan, regarding the bridge in between where we are now and nuclear power, I think the Government of Saskatchewan has decided to refire up coal plants or to continue to use coal because they don’t see any other way. The renewables — on the ground and in practical sense — aren’t going to be enough to supply our baseload. With that in mind, are you doing any forecasting on what the nuclear plants will mean to some of this information you are looking at?
Mr. DeMarco: Regarding the division of responsibilities in looking at how Canada will perform in terms of renewable energy or reducing emissions and so on, our job is mainly to look at what has been committed to and how they’re performing, and then to analyze whether there is a gap and come up with solutions in the form of recommendations.
Forecasting and recommending the adoption of new policies and new technologies in the emissions area would be something that the Net-Zero Advisory Body would advise the Government of Canada on, rather than our office. We’re not here to make that sort of policy proposal. When it becomes concrete, such as an initiative or a strategy, then it lends itself to audit, and we can do that.
I’ll use an example that this committee in its previous form was quite familiar with, which was the Hydrogen Strategy, another form of emerging technology. We looked at the quality of their assumptions and forecasts and called into question some of those. We don’t do the first-instance assumptions and forecasts, but if those are part of a government initiative that we’re auditing, then we can look at it.
On the nuclear side, if there is a new initiative, a new strategy that’s based on a certain percentage of reductions coming from small modular reactors or new plants and so on, then that would be the type of thing that we might be able to audit in the future.
Senator Lewis: To touch on the second part of my question, there has been no work done on fossil fuel sources, such as the difference between a coal-fired plant and a natural gas power plant. Has there been any work done comparing those two?
Mr. DeMarco: There has been work done by the departments on the relative footprints of them, and in our climate work, we’ve examined the quality of the assumptions and the modelling about that. But the first-instance work has to be done by the departments, and we respect the difference between the original work and then the audit work, which is where we come in.
Senator Lewis: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I would like to come back to report 4. Parliamentarians are asked so many good questions that I would have liked to ask you, particularly with regard to establishing a central body to ensure that a strategic and coordinated approach is effective in advancing sustainable development initiatives in Canada, as well as the interests of future generations.
What do you recommend we, as parliamentarians, do to ensure that these questions are put to the government?
Mr. DeMarco: Thank you for the question.
To use one of your examples, if we look at lesson 2: an integrated approach to sustainable development planning, exhibit 4.9 shows us that we have three different plans that are not coordinated in Canada: the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy 2022–2026, Moving Forward Together: Canada’s 2030 Agenda National Strategy, 2021, and the Quality of Life Framework for Canada, 2021. Your committee and others can ask central agencies and departments what they think about centralizing and coordinating these efforts so that we can have an integrated approach to sustainable development. Why do we have different plans? There are historical reasons for that. However, do we need to perpetuate this? The committee may recommend a more integrated approach with one central agency or department providing better governance. These are questions you can ask both the departments that manage these programs and the central agencies that have a role to play in horizontal initiatives such as these.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you, Mr. DeMarco, for all the information you’ve provided. All the work that’s been done is very interesting.
You mentioned a centralized approach to management. Does this approach involve integrating all the people working in this field, along with all the resources and departments? Could it also be used for climate change?
It seems to me that we aren’t achieving our climate change objectives. We could work more closely together and bring all parties together to achieve the same objective. As parliamentarians, could we encourage the government to do more in this area by trying to bring everyone together towards the same leading-edge objective? Because right now everyone has the same goal, but everyone is working in isolation. It’s not as integrated as it should be.
Mr. DeMarco: That is a possibility. Centralizing management is no guarantee of success. However, with initiatives such as the climate change you’re talking about, we can only note 30 years of successive failures, despite all the existing targets and plans. A non-horizontal, siloed approach with non-central departments that have shared responsibility but lack the power to make the necessary changes is not the optimal approach. We need to ask ourselves whether we are going to continue with this model or change course and integrate an aspect of centralization at the federal government level. We cannot centralize everything, because this is a shared jurisdiction with the provinces and territories. There will always be a need for collaboration, even if the federal government decides to adopt a more centralized model.
Whether the model is centralized or not, there needs to be a willingness to achieve results. This is lacking in Canada. For 30 years, the federal government has been content with ambitious targets and plans, but it has failed to deliver results, yet this is what matters to Canadians: concrete results to protect the planet for future generations.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: Mr. DeMarco, you voiced exactly what I was thinking. Thank you for doing that. I don’t know if there is a telepathic communication, but you said — and I’m paraphrasing broadly because I wasn’t writing fast enough, and I’m in the strange position when I can’t even read my own writing — for 30 years, it doesn’t matter what stripe of government has been in power, but we have consistently shown an inability to meet the goals, more or less.
Those of us who are parliamentarians, elected or appointed, and those people who do the incredibly important and hard work within the bureaucracy, we’re united in a single goal, which is to improve the lives of Canadians. They expect us, whether we’re bureaucrats or parliamentarians, to be working toward that goal. But what I’m hearing — and correct me if I’m wrong — is that somewhere along the way we have lost accountability and responsibility for meeting those goals, because 30 years of not meeting them is an accountability and responsibility challenge.
From your perspective, are there ways that we can rethink how we’re working? Are there frameworks or structures or things that need to be put into place to ensure that we do have accountability and responsibility?
Mr. DeMarco: Thank you for the question. As far as I can see, there is no telepathic option on here; there’s just “Floor,” “French” and “English,” so I didn’t know the question was coming, but I’m happy to answer it anyway. And if there is that option, perhaps for next hearing I can be told so I may be prepared for every question that may come up. I certainly enjoy coming before the committee because we are able to talk about some of the bigger-picture questions like this that arise.
In answering your question, I would go back to our Lessons Learned report from 2021, so not the sustainable development one that we just issued, but the one from 2021 that was specifically about climate change. First of all, we pointed out in that report, on the cover, that we are going in the wrong direction. We’ve been trying to get emissions to go down, and they have been going up since 1990. They have been down marginally since 2005, so a little bit of recent improvement, but not much.
We have a lesson in there that climate targets have not been backed by strong plans or actions. It is almost too self-evident to put it as a lesson, but that’s really what happened in Canada. There has been a lot of effort put into adopting, usually at the international scale, an ambitious target of some sort, whether in Copenhagen or Paris or Kyoto, but not much after-delivery service in terms of actually obtaining the results. We’re the only G7 country where emissions have gone up from 1990 to now.
We know it can be done in other countries, including other countries that do extract a lot of fossil carbon. Some of the others in the G7 do as well. It’s possible. Somewhere along the line, from Canada was being a leader in the late 1980s and early 1990s in promoting the concept of sustainable development at the Rio conference, pushing other industrialized nations to sign the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Climate Change Convention, the leadership in adopting has proven to be easier to achieve than the leadership in delivery. There is so much to that question that it is hard to answer it in this setting, but that is the basis for our two Lessons Learned reports; it is to try to uncover some of these underlying problems that have resulted in Canada going from what was thought to be a climate leader or an environmental leader several decades ago to being, in practice, on the ground, a poor performer. If it has become accepted in government that as long as we have a commitment and a plan, that’s enough and the results are secondary, then that to me is unacceptable.
Senator Galvez: Thank you so much for that. One thing that we haven’t spoken about is the competition for other resources. For example, in the Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy, I understand there is a competition, and we have to go and try to extract these minerals, but the amount of water required for a few grams is putting stress on other industries and sectors, notably the agricultural sector. For example, in the Prairies you are talking about droughts. It’s a vicious circle. There is less water in the clouds because there is less water in the ground. And there is less water in the ground because everybody is using a lot of water.
I agree that we have to use — and it’s in all the strategies — an integrated approach, a holistic approach, a horizontal approach, a whole-of-government approach, but it is not happening.
The Library of Parliament put this idea to us: Can a Senate committee submit an environmental petition?
In the House of Commons, you have Environment and Natural Resources, two separate committees. Here, we are supposed to study the three together: environment, natural resources and energy. Would you agree with me that it is a good idea to explore this possibility of submitting a petition to the government about making sure that this approach — holistic, life-cycle, horizontal, whole-of-government approach, as my colleague said — is followed, because we all have to go together instead of walking all in our own line?
Mr. DeMarco: That’s definitely a question I didn’t foresee, but I’ll give you some thoughts. First of all, we have made some progress over the years in mainstreaming environment and sustainable development across government departments. The fact that there are so many here is testament to that. It’s not just Environment and Climate Change Canada that comes to talk about environmental issues. Under the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy, dozens and dozens, approaching 100, are supposed to have a role in implementing sustainable development. As I mentioned just a few minutes ago, the results are not yet there on some key issues such as climate change.
Can a committee submit a petition? I’m not sure exactly what type of petition you’re talking about, but I will speak about the petitions process that the Office of the Auditor General of Canada manages. There is an environmental petition provision in the Auditor General Act where any Canadian individual — it doesn’t have to be an old-style petition where you have a bunch of names — can submit a petition under the act. It comes to us, and then we send it to all implicated ministers. Each of those ministers implicated in the questions raised in the petition is required, within a set time period in the act, to respond. It’s not just a letter from a minister that might say, “Thank you for the letter”; they actually have to respond to the matters raised.
We issue one report each fall to Parliament that summarizes the 10 to 20 petitions a year that typically come in from across Canada. It is an increased level of accountability that’s unique to this piece of legislation. That petition process is out there for any Canadian to use. I’m not sure if a committee has standing to do that, but it is something you can ask your counsel about. Certainly individual people can submit a petition.
They have two benefits. One is that the petitioner receives a response, and if the responses are inadequate, they can submit a second petition saying, “I would like more information.” Second, we also monitor those and report those. They are an indicator of what issues may be important to Canadians. We factor that into the many different factors at play in selecting audit topics for future years.
I would recommend that you let others know about that petition process. It is a way to get answers directly from the implicated ministers under the legislation.
Senator Lewis: What strikes me about all of this is it’s all about balance. It’s such a big system and everything is so tied together. It makes me think a little bit about land use and so on, especially regarding renewable energy. Typically, they host these projects on farmland. When we started this, nobody thought that we were ever going to run out of farmland, whereas now, in jurisdictions like Ontario, it’s a big issue. If we were clear-cutting thousands of acres of forests to put up solar panel farms, people wouldn’t be very happy, but people don’t get upset when we take 4,000 acres of good agricultural land — non-renewable land — out of production. Has there been any work done on the long-term impacts of using farmland to host these projects and having that land taken out of production and the overall impact on our economy?
Mr. DeMarco: At the federal level, I’m not aware of that sort of analysis. In my previous work as an adjudicator of environmental disputes between local communities, regulators and proponents, I saw that happen over and over again where there were concerns about the loss of prime agricultural land, loss of indigenous species’ habitats and loss of forests for new projects, whether renewable or non-renewable, whatever the project was, residential or commercial, all sorts of land use changes. Your question raises the point that there are trade-offs in most things.
One of the things that Canada has failed to get a handle on in the climate file is that it can’t just assert that it is a climate leader and say that it will achieve an objective without making hard decisions that will actually achieve it, and if it shies away from those hard decisions, then the target doesn’t get met, and that is what happens. It is a difficult nut to crack, but tying it back to a theme from the beginning of this conversation with the committee today, the better our information base is on quality agricultural land, peatlands for sequestering carbon, biodiversity, Indigenous communities and so on, the more likely it is that the trade-offs are going to be still there but minimized, and you’ll be closer to a win-win.
When you speak of balance, I would reiterate my point that the longer-term view one takes, the more likely it is that the social, economic and environmental objectives will coalesce. The shorter the horizon, the more likely one sees greater trade-offs. Someone might profit a lot from it in the early stages and leave a legacy like the Giant Mine, with billions of dollars of taxpayer monies to pay for later. It seems a little academic or abstract — Lesson 6 in our Lessons Learned from Canada’s Record on Sustainable Development report and Lesson 8 in our climate change report about the long-term view — but really that is at the core of sustainability. That’s why we think about children’s education and their health and so on. We’re taking that long-term view.
Can government take that long-term view? It’s sometimes difficult with the pressures that exist, but if they don’t, we will be mortgaging the future for future generations.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I would like to come back to the criteria used to select the organizations you evaluated. For example, the Department of National Defence had no planned action, so it was not analyzed. I am referring to an article in Le Devoir that asked whether the military complex is participating in the war effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Could your department still make recommendations regarding departments that have no planned action but have a very negative impact on greenhouse gas emissions?
Mr. Michaud: The approach to the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy is voluntary. Departments establish departmental actions in their plans on a voluntary basis. They are the ones who establish these actions to help achieve the targets. For example, if I look at the new 2022-26 strategy, there are 50 targets in that strategy. Entities establish actions according to their role and responsibility.
The approach we have taken for our audits is to start with established departmental actions, of course, to look at the results achieved and to verify whether the information on the results is relevant and provides transparency on investments and the achievement of departmental and federal targets.
Senator Youance: Thank you. Perhaps we will add that to the petition.
Mr. DeMarco: I would like to add something about this type of report on the progress made by the department with respect to the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy. This report is being published because of a provision in the Auditor General Act that states that we need to evaluate the progress of the actions taken by departments that have chosen to submit an action. In our other audits, we don’t have to respect jurisdictional boundaries. We can look at a topic such as forests and climate change even if there is no program as such. This is a difference between this tool, which is limited by the content of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy and departmental strategies, and other audits, where we have more discretion with regard to the scope of the analysis.
[English]
Senator Galvez: This summer, I was in Geneva to talk about disaster risk reduction. I also was in Denver, Colorado, to talk about the benefits of regeneration and restoration of degraded lands. All of these actions reduce greenhouse gases and help us attain sustainable goals.
Interestingly, the dominant subjects at these two international meetings were Canadian wildfires and smoke. I was really worried, and everybody was pointing and saying, “You’re Canadian.” We know that wildfire smoke impacts respiratory health, neurological health and mental health, especially in vulnerable populations. We have to do something about this. It’s very important, but the issue at this conference was that wildfire smoke is not counted in greenhouse gas emissions. It’s a matter of time before somebody says wildfire smoke will have to count as a greenhouse gas emission. Of course, we are already here, and we are going to jump like that at that point.
What really worries me more is the threat I heard Americans saying they’re going to send an invoice to Canada because it has increased the cost of health care. What is your opinion about that?
Mr. DeMarco: It’s a field that is evolving quickly in terms of liability for climate-related harm. The International Court of Justice just issued an opinion on that, and there have been other leading cases such as the Urgenda Foundation case in the Netherlands about climate liability. I can’t foresee exactly how far it will go and whether Canada as a country will be proportionately liable for sea-level rise in low-lying countries or for smoke travelling from Canada to the United States —
Senator Galvez: Sorry. The International Court of Justice gave an advisory recently, and I forgot to mention that in my question. You are aware, I’m sure.
Mr. DeMarco: That’s what I just mentioned in my answer. That case and the one from the Netherlands were the two I was talking about.
Just like it was hard to foresee in the 1960s or 1970s how cigarette liability litigation would evolve — and it evolved quite far, as it turned out — whether climate litigation will be focused mainly on governments or fossil fuel companies, it is hard to say.
Regarding the accounting, global temperature rise is affected by the actual concentration of greenhouse gas emissions, amongst other factors — or greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. So whether it’s from a smokestack, a tailpipe or a burning forest, it still counts in terms of the actual impacts. Whether it counts under the Paris Agreement in terms of domestic emissions is a different matter. But we need to be factoring in what the reality is, not just the accounting of that reality. And there are reasons for the accounting rules under the Paris Agreement so that there’s no double counting between exporting states and importing states.
But we have concerns that if Canada does not get a handle on both the mitigation side of the equation and the adaptation side as well, then it is a scary future for people not only in this country but in others in terms of impact on health and quality of life, the economy and water users, all of the things we’ve talked about today. So it is deeply concerning to me that Canada and other countries are not doing enough to meet their targets, because it’s not just the target that’s important; it is the ultimate impact on the people and planet in terms of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations in the atmosphere.
My hope is that by surfacing these issues in our Lessons Learned report we can call attention to it. But ultimately it is up to governments, the private sector and individuals to do what’s needed to actually turn the ship around to have a more sustainable future, and that’s turning out to be a very difficult manœuvre. And with each day that passes that we don’t do it, the harder it will be, and the more we’ll have to adapt to more extreme weather. So it’s worth doing in the long run; whether humanity will muster the resources and the will to actually do it is really the question.
Senator Arnot: I’d like to talk about the whole-of-government coherence report. You highlight three uncoordinated federal frameworks: FSDS, the 2030 Agenda National Strategy and the Quality of Life Framework. What is the minimum viable integration that Parliament should insist on for the 2026 budget for seeking common goals, indicators and single annual results report?
Mr. DeMarco: With the current focus on efficiencies and expenditure reductions and so on, although it wasn’t the intent of Lesson 2 of this report, it may be the best time to consider rationalizing different frameworks, different departments in charge of them.
It’s a policy decision of the government to make, but this committee can obviously make a recommendation. And one of the things that could be considered is that Canada, on sustainable development, is a leader in one respect at least, and that is having a legislative framework for it. There is the Federal Sustainable Development Act and a requirement for a federal strategy and departmental strategies, so the framework is there.
For one reason or another, three different frameworks have emerged, one under the legislation and then two others that don’t have a legislative basis for them, which are the Quality of Life one and the Agenda 2030 one.
I don’t know why that proliferation of strategies was created, but it would be open to this committee to hear testimony and recommend why they could be harmonized, not only for the reasons we are talking about here in terms of effective implementation, but also in terms of any financial efficiencies that might accrue.
Senator Arnot: Canada ranked twenty-fifth on the 2024 sustainable goals index, which has improved the least among the G7 countries since 2000. Which three federal bottlenecks most explain Canada’s underperformance, and how should Parliament sequence reforms to change that trend by 2027?
Mr. DeMarco: Well, we have six lessons, so if I were to summarize it into three, I don’t know which ones I would delete, but maybe we can merge two for one.
Senator Arnot: That’s right.
Mr. DeMarco: Well, let me start with one that is quite important that we haven’t talked about yet today, because I don’t want to just repeat myself from earlier.
The Federal Sustainable Development Strategy, even though the last word in the phrase is “strategy,” to me, is not actually a strategy. It doesn’t do what a typical strategy does in terms of identifying the goals that we want to achieve — for example, the climate goal under the strategy — and then finding out what is necessary to achieve it. More likely, as what typically is done under the strategy, there is almost like a call for proposals or a call for input from departments. And the strategy is simply an amalgam of activities and proposals from departments, but there’s no identification or no central authority that says, “Okay, I’ve looked at those that were submitted, and those aren’t going to get us to the target. We’re going to have to adopt extra measure Y or extra measure Z to do that.” That is not happening in this sort of bottom-up approach to a strategy.
And we’ve seen it in other instances as well, other types of strategies at the federal level, where the strategy is more of a compendium of existing actions and programs, but it is not a clear pathway to get from A to B with an identification of what is actually needed to get from A to B. And that is a really big problem. Ignoring the proliferation of platforms, none of them are actually a clear pathway with a gap analysis involving what is needed in addition to what’s already happening.
And I don’t know why that is the case. It is a factor of the decentralized approach, but it could be filled by a central agency saying, “Okay, we are first going to find out what’s happening, then we’re going to identify what else is needed, and the strategy will reflect that.”
Senator Arnot: I really like your suggestion. I think it’s very rational to have a stronger central agency.
Should Parliament legislate a statutory planning and reporting duty on Privy Council and Finance to deliver an integrated sustainable development plan? If so, what safeguards ensure departments would actually comply?
Mr. DeMarco: You’re getting into a potential bill to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act, and that’s not my area of work at the Auditor General’s office.
Senator Arnot: It’s national and we should look at it.
Mr. DeMarco: It’s something for you to consider. That’s why in our Lessons Learned we simply raise questions for parliamentarians to consider, and you can then go beyond the mandate that our office has and go into that. In fact, that is your home turf as parliamentarians.
I’m shying away from proposing specific policy changes because that’s not my role, but certainly it’s something that the committee can consider and individual parliamentarians and, obviously, the Senate and the House.
But to address your question more directly, there could be an opportunity to revisit pieces of legislation that have been in place for quite some time, whether it’s the Species as Risk Act or the Federal Sustainable Development Act, things that we’ve looked at that aren’t functioning very well in practice, and recommend improvements that will increase accountability. But accountability isn’t enough. We may need to go to the next step of there being consequences for non-compliance and non-achievement of objectives, given Canada’s poor track record.
Senator Arnot: Thank you for encouraging us to look into this further.
Here’s my last question. What one change in Treasury Board expenditure management would most improve the line of sight from appropriation to national outcomes by the next Main Estimates cycle?
Mr. DeMarco: That’s another question that would invite me to go into the realm of policy choices. I’ll respectfully decline to get into that. Those are questions that, if you were to study this further, would be legitimate questions for Treasury Board officials and the other central agencies as well.
For the issues that are primarily horizontal, like the ones that permeate environment and sustainable development in my area of work, or reconciliation for that matter, which is another example, they do beg the question of whether Canada is doing enough to work across silos. Are the pre-existing silos the proper ones anymore? Other countries now have sustainable development or sustainability departments. These are bigger questions than our office can tackle, but they are appropriate questions for this committee to consider.
The Chair: I have a question for clarification, while the other committee members think about whether they have some questions that haven’t been fully answered for them.
In one of the earlier questions, you talked about other countries that were faring better than Canada in terms of meeting their sustainability goals, and most of them are. You didn’t mention the United States, yet in Exhibit 4.7 of your Lessons Learned, the index score of the United States is quite a bit below Canada, which is the next one. Why was that not mentioned when you were talking about sustainability goals? Is there a reason? Are there mixed pieces of the index that we’re doing worse on than the United States, for instance?
Mr. DeMarco: In answering the question, I was pointing to ones that have, on Exhibit 4.7, passed us by or increased their rate of achievement faster than Canada. That is why I was speaking about those countries. But certainly on Exhibit 4.7, you can see that Canada started out back in 2000 quite a bit ahead of the United States on the Sustainable Development Goal indicators and remains quite a bit ahead of the U.S.
My point was that now Canada is only ahead of the U.S.; all of the other ones have gone above us. If you look on the right side of the graph, Germany, France, Japan, Italy and the U.K. are all ahead of Canada. Should we be complacent and satisfied that at least we’re better than the United States? That is a question for every individual to consider. I would go back to one of the questions posed earlier, which is let’s try to be a leader as opposed to just not last.
The Chair: Adding to something that Senator Galvez said, we do share a continent. Does that impact our ability to meet our sustainability goals as well?
Mr. DeMarco: There would be an impact for certain goals. We don’t get into this in detail, but as sustainable development is a global challenge, it doesn’t only look at impacts within a territory. There are spillover effects too, which is what I think you’re getting at.
For example, if you’re looking at the health indicator, the amount of forest fire smoke going from Canada to the United States affects their health indicator, but it’s not necessarily something they can have direct control over. There would be other examples like that in terms of transboundary impacts.
Biodiversity is another one. Many of our species that are migratory are only spending a third to a half of the year in Canada. We rely on their habitats’ being protected in the United States or Latin America for them to survive. There are tie-ins like that. But many of the indicators can be, if not 100% controlled, significantly controlled by domestic policy choices and expenditure choices. Health, education, these sorts of things are largely determined by how much a country invests in those things and chooses to prioritize them.
So to answer your question, there are interrelations in the fact that we share air, water and a climate with other countries. That’s not an excuse to become complacent, and it is not an excuse to ignore the many levers that we do have that can be implemented at the domestic level.
The Chair: Do any of the other committee members have follow-up questions for which I have not given them enough time?
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Thank you, Mr. DeMarco. I mentioned to you before the meeting started that I intended to ask you a question about Bill C-5, which was passed in June. My colleague has already raised the issue with you, but I would like to know if there is anything else you could share with committee members following the answer you already gave my colleague on this matter.
Mr. DeMarco: Yes. Like you, we are interested in and concerned about what will happen with the implementation of Bill C-5, so we will have to analyze that and determine whether it is something that should be audited in the coming years.
As I mentioned earlier, several of our reports focus in part on improving our database to facilitate decision-making. This applies not only to critical minerals, but also to our report on integrated oceans management, the identification and protection of habitats for species at risk, and in November there will be reports on protected areas. We will therefore see whether the acceleration of project approvals will comply with environmental and Indigenous peoples’ standards, or whether there will be problems in that regard. However, we will have to decide whether there will be an audit. Then we will see the first steps in implementing this legislation. It has only been in force for a few months, so it’s a little too early to be certain that an audit will be conducted.
Senator Verner: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Galvez: I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. You have been incredible. Please keep doing what you’re doing, and please recommend to us and be bold with us because sometimes we have ideas, and sometimes we are a little bit confused.
I repeat, this is a committee that is supposed to study the three issues horizontally, and we have to get to the point of breaking the silos and studying these issues horizontally.
Mr. DeMarco: Thank you for having us. I appreciate us being invited whenever we’re of use to your deliberations. We’re here to serve the needs of parliamentarians.
I see in your recent report on hydrogen that you’re drawing a lot on our work in that regard. Whether it’s climate, sustainable development, biodiversity or any other subject, we’re happy to appear on subjects we’ve issued reports on.
We have a brand new report on adaptation that may be of interest, given the forest fires in Canada and the health impacts associated with that. We’ll have a new batch in early November. We hope to be able to come and brief you about those at the earliest opportunity. We are always happy to be invited, and it is a pleasure helping you carry out your important work as a committee.
The Chair: I would like to add my thanks to all of you. The people who didn’t get a chance to speak to us directly, we really appreciate your presence because it means that wherever the conversation goes, we have everyone in the room here to help us. We appreciate your spending your time with us this morning.
(The committee adjourned.)