THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 10, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 7:04 p.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: I would like to ask senators to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback. Please make sure that your earpiece is away from the microphone at all times. Do not touch your microphone. Activation and deactivation will be managed by the console operator. Finally, please avoid handling your earpiece while your microphone is on. Earpieces should either remain on the ear or be placed on the designated sticker at each seat. Thank you all for your co‑operation.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
I’m Joan Kingston. I’m a senator from New Brunswick and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
I would like the other senators to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
[English]
Senator D. M. Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Fridhandler: Daryl Fridhandler, Alberta.
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez, Quebec.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Good evening. I would like to welcome everyone here today as well as those listening online or on sencanada.ca.
Today, pursuant to the order of reference received from the Senate on September 25, 2025, during the first hour, we will continue our study on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada. Unfortunately, we do not have a lot of that hour left, but we have 45 minutes now to pose questions to you. During the second hour, we will study the draft 2026-2029 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy.
For the panel on our study on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada, we welcome, from Environment Canada, Tara Shannon, Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Wildlife Service; and Aura Pantieras, Director General, Wildlife Assessment and Information, Canadian Wildlife Service.
You will have five minutes each to make your remarks and then we will move on to some questions from the senators.
Ms. Shannon, you have the floor.
Tara L. Shannon, Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Thank you. Honourable senators, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe People.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to speak about federal support for the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC, and its role under the Species at Risk Act.
COSEWIC plays a unique and essential role in Canada’s species-at-risk framework. It is an independent, arm’s-length advisory body to the Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature. Its mandate is to assess wildlife species that may be at risk and recommend species status based on the best available information.
Under the act, COSEWIC must review the classification of each species at risk at least once every 10 years. For decades, COSEWIC has provided rigorous, transparent and science-based assessments of over 1,100 species in Canada. Its work draws on the best available scientific data, community knowledge and Indigenous traditional knowledge. Canadians and governments rely on these independent assessments as the foundation of the Species at Risk Act cycle.
As set out in the act, Environment and Climate Change Canada provides administrative coordination support to COSEWIC, including organizing meetings, managing documentation and facilitating internal and external communications and public assessment reports. This support enables Environment and Climate Change Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Parks Canada Agency to carry out their responsibilities under the act while respecting COSEWIC’s scientific independence.
The scope of COSEWIC’s work is vast. Canada is home to more than 80,000 wildlife species. New pressures on ecosystems, combined with a complex and evolving biodiversity crisis, have contributed to a growing number of species requiring assessment.
The 2024 audit by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development noted challenges in meeting legislated 10-year timelines for these reviews. As a result, there is now a growing number of species awaiting a first-time assessment and assessed species whose mandatory 10-year review of classification is overdue.
In response, the department is working collaboratively and respectfully with COSEWIC to advance process improvements that increase efficiency.
A key priority has been addressing the backlog of classification reviews and focusing capacity on first-time assessments of new species.
Improvements include COSEWIC’s new approach to streamline classification reviews, which it adopted this year. This approach will help COSEWIC focus capacity on new assessments and on species requiring urgent reassessment, rather than on species whose status is unlikely to change.
The department is working collaboratively with COSEWIC to set annual targets for species assessments and reviews of classifications. Together, we are determining the support, process changes and operational guidance needed to meet forthcoming annual assessment targets. In the future, any efficiencies resulting from the new review of the classification process will be reflected in annual targets. Environment and Climate Change Canada anticipates that, as part of process improvements, starting in spring 2027, COSEWIC will begin to complete additional reviews of classification annually, estimated to be at least 30.
COSEWIC’s credibility rests on its independence and scientific rigour. Respecting that independence, the department will continue to support the committee’s efforts to streamline processes and strengthen its capacity to deliver timely, high‑quality advice.
Honourable senators, COSEWIC remains essential to Canada’s species-at-risk cycle. We look forward to continuing our collaboration to ensure that its work can inform effective, practical action to conserve Canada’s biodiversity.
Thank you. We would be pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for being here. The report by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development concluded that your department did not provide the necessary support to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, to carry out the required assessments and reassessments.
What concrete measures does your department intend to take to address the funding shortfall — for that is what this is about — and to reduce the backlog that is contributing to delays in the assessments of certain species?
[English]
Ms. Shannon: There are a number of ways in which we support the committee. The budget for COSEWIC has been relatively stable over the last number of years. We work with the chair of the committee each year with respect to the budget that we have. In addition to the budget that we provide to the committee, there are at least 12 FTEs within my branch that support the committee directly.
In terms of increases to the COSEWIC budget, which I think is the question, there is nothing planned at the moment. That being said, we will continue to work with the chair of the COSEWIC committee to establish priorities as well as to identify ways in which we can introduce some efficiencies.
For example, one of the key pressures on a budget is actually travel. We have been working significantly with the committee over the last number of years to find ways in which we can streamline some of those pressures. Through the pandemic, for example, when there was a move necessary to hybrid meetings, we have been able to use some of the best practices from that to bring into how we’re organizing the work.
I would probably leave it there for the moment. I’m not sure if my colleague Aura would like to add anything to that. I don’t want to take more of your time because I know it is limited.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Obviously, virtual meetings are good, but they have to go and see the animals. There are costs, and it seems that the budget is not being indexed. So they have problems doing their job. They are volunteers. That’s why we were really touched because they are not being paid. They have stipends, but they are volunteers, and they lack the money to do their job correctly. That’s what they came to say to us.
Ms. Shannon: I will start and perhaps pass it to my colleague. Indeed, they are volunteers. A lot of the expenditures for the committee are, in fact, contracts to support the scientific assessments. Those contracts and the contracting requirements are actually provided to us by the committee itself. Again, there we work collaboratively with the chair to identify how best to advance contracts to support the committee’s work.
As for the stipends — the honoraria — they are in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines. I don’t have data on the increases over the years, but I can say that they are in alignment with the Treasury Board guidelines. I will ask if there is anything else you would like to add.
Aura Pantieras, Director General, Wildlife Assessment and Information, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Indeed, COSEWIC has 117 volunteers. They are members of universities, academia and well-respected and knowledgeable scientists who contribute their time to support species-at-risk activities.
Indeed, we pay for travel for their meetings. COSEWIC has 10 subcommittee meetings of experts that assess different taxa, and all of those volunteers are supported by paying for travel expenditures as well as the honorarium.
When you look at the approximately $1.5 million invested in the COSEWIC committee, the majority of the budget is assigned to independent scientific reports, which are crucial and critical inputs for COSEWIC. In collaboration with the COSEWIC chair, every year, we set the targets and divide the existing budget to support those inputs from scientific assessments that the COSEWIC committee requires to complete their reviews and assessments. Subsequently, we pay for the honorarium and travel. I hope that helps.
Senator Galvez: Thank you for being here and answering our questions. I want to also come to the money and the funding issue but from a different angle. It is a fact that our economy depends on nature. It is a fact that we rely on natural resources. For example, my colleagues here in Alberta rely on oil and gas for their economy, just as Quebec relies on the ecological services of the mighty river to produce the hydro. Without biodiversity in Quebec, there is no maple industry and no maple syrup economy.
Biodiversity is important. Based on your current assessment, what does the status of species at risk tell us about the overall health and trajectory of Canada’s ecosystem? What is the foreseeable economic impact if these trends of disappearance continue, particularly in sectors that depend on ecosystem services such as forestry, fisheries, agriculture and tourism?
Ms. Shannon: That’s a very meaningful and detailed question. I would say a few things.
I believe, senator, you are aware of our commitments in Montreal under the Global Biodiversity Framework. Target 4 of that framework includes a commitment by all parties to halt and reverse the biodiversity loss linked to species. That is our commitment.
It is also true that, as a result of a number of pressures on species, we continue to see species declines, not just in Canada, but globally.
I referred in my opening remarks to the Species at Risk Act, or SARA, cycle. The COSEWIC assessment is one part of the cycle; it begins the process of listing and getting then, after listing, to recovery strategies.
To your question, in the work that we do at the Wildlife Service, where we can have some of the most impact is on the definition of our recovery strategies and identification of the kinds of activities that we need to support in order to improve the outcome of species.
Yes, you are absolutely correct that nature is part of the economy. Nature provides significant ecosystem services across the country.
Again, I will go back to the Global Biodiversity Framework. There is a commitment in that framework to also think about how we are capturing the value of nature in decisions. These are fundamental and difficult questions. We are working in close collaboration with all of our partners to try to answer these and make progress on them.
We recently submitted to the Convention on Biological Diversity our seventh national report that spoke to progress, linked back to all of the targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework.
There we are saying we are making progress, sometimes at an insufficient rate. On species and addressing the loss of biodiversity with respect to species, it is an ongoing challenge that requires us to bring as much innovation to the question as we can.
Senator Galvez: I will ask my question in a different way.
We know that you are underfunded because you are seen as an expense and cost.
Is there anybody in your department that is trying to say, if we lose these species, this fraction, the whole family of species, it is going to cost us this much?
Ms. Shannon: We don’t have assessments like that linked to each species.
What I can say is that we have identified priority species. We have six priority species. Those species are indicators of ecosystem health. Various caribou are actually three of our priority species.
I flag the work that we do there because we are trying with provincial and territorial partners and Indigenous communities to collectively identify actions to improve the outcome of those species.
When we’re talking about priority species and the role that they play in broader ecosystems, I know it is one species, but if we can improve outcomes for those species, then we are making a contribution to the broader ecosystem, which includes many other species.
I don’t have data on the intrinsic value of caribou. There are people in Canada who do that work. There are many academics who are undertaking that kind of assessment. Where those assessments exist, we certainly do look at them and take that into consideration when we are identifying actions with our partners. We don’t do that work specifically ourselves.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Thank you to the guests. You mentioned six endemic species that represent an ecological system; could you name the other five? These aren’t really questions, but I would need to know.
[English]
Ms. Shannon: There are three different species of caribou: the boreal and woodland caribou. I am sorry, I forget the other caribou.
The western chorus frog, the southern Alberta — it is a bird. I’m forgetting the name now. I can provide that to you.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Very well. Now, I’ll move on to my questions. I wasn’t here at the last committee meeting with the COSEWIC representatives, but if I understand correctly, you carry out an assessment every 10 years. How do you determine which priorities you or COSEWIC will set for future studies? Over the past 10 years, I imagine that species have become extinct, are endangered or are critically endangered. What is the process?
Ms. Shannon: I will now hand over to my colleague Aura, but before I do so, it is important to point out that we do not set COSEWIC’s priorities. It is the chair of that committee who does so in collaboration with the members —
[English]
— with our input, but we don’t make that decision.
Ms. Pantieras: As mentioned, COSEWIC has had a backlog of over 400 species that have not been reviewed every 10 years, as is the obligation under the Species at Risk Act, or SARA, section 24.
In the estimates that were done a couple of years ago, we estimated that the backlog would increase to approximately 580 species by 2030. That brought the COSEWIC committee and us in the last two years to explore ways in which the committee could take a very robust and defensible, scientific assessment, yet prioritize those species that are likely to be extirpated or extinct, and have imminent risk.
Part of the criterion that is used on an annual basis for COSEWIC includes any imminent risk or population declines of those species that are likely to be extirpated or extinct in the future. By doing so, we are prioritizing, with COSEWIC, in the setting of those annual targets those species that are most at risk.
We can also speak about some of the process improvements that the COSEWIC committee has put in place that we think will be foundational to help achieve an increased number of reviews of classification completed every 10 years, taking us to a place where we anticipate that the backlog will be addressed by 2035.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: In this regard, is Canada’s international reputation not affected by the very fact that there is a risk that a further 480 species will not be assessed and may be at risk or face extinction?
[English]
Ms. Shannon: This is an issue that is faced by the other 191 parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity who also signed onto, amongst all the targets, target 4 with respect to species at risk. The decline of biodiversity and species has been happening over many decades.
In terms of reputational risk, which I think is the question, we, in Canada, have a very robust Species at Risk Act, and we have an independent, scientific body that informs that act, which isn’t the case necessarily for all other countries.
From a reputational risk, my assumption, based on my experience at international meetings, is that we’re seen as having legislation, which not all countries do, and it’s robust legislation. We focus on its implementation. We report on its implementation, including where there is not progress.
If I may, it was the sage-grouse. Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to our witnesses for your work and for being with us. I want to go back and just probe a little bit more on the area that Senator Miville-Dechêne was asking you about because we heard a lot from COSEWIC, and I’m sure you were prepared because you heard what we heard.
You spoke already a lot about efficiencies, trying to find those efficiencies and new processes. All of those things are absolutely essential and are one way of getting at the concerns. I guess you will see some of the impacts of that in time, which is something you would look forward to. Even with that, though, we were hearing from the COSEWIC representatives before us that they just did not have the confidence that they could provide the good science with the resources that were there. They would be as aware as you are of what these efficiencies are and the processes, et cetera. They were telling us the resources to do their job are not sufficient. It’s hard, therefore, to stand by the standard of work. I asked them a question about whether there was a risk of losing some of the scientists who are devoting their time and effort to this. They said there was a risk.
Could you speak a little bit more about that? I ask because I don’t want to lose that essence of what was brought to us, and I want to give you a chance to speak a little bit further, over and above this conversation, about efficiencies, which was important for us to hear.
Ms. Shannon: I would say a couple things. We work very collaboratively, as I said, with the chair, in particular, of COSEWIC.
On the question of the rigour and robustness of their science, I have never had a question about that. If you think about all of the recommendations for listing that they have made to ministers over the years, under SARA, if we had an issue with the science and questioned where their recommendations were landing, there is a process under SARA where we can refer it to them. Out of the 1,100 assessments they’ve done, we’ve only done that 22 times over the course of the act, which is now in its twenty-third year.
To me, that is one measure of how robust and rigorous their science is, and I think that goes back to the independence of the committee. I spoke about the contracting. We pay for the contracts, but we aren’t controlling whom a contract is with.
The complexity of what scientists are dealing with Species at Risk issues are being asked to do over the years has increased over time as the pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity have increased. You will see that, sometimes, in the length of the reports that COSEWIC submits to a minister. They used to be a lot shorter. They’re now quite a bit longer. The length of some of those reports speaks to the attention and detail that they’re assigning to the task at hand. I’m not sure if that is helpful, but that is my perspective from my interactions with the committee over the last few years.
Senator Coyle: They weren’t telling us that what they were producing was not up to standard. Their concern was that they couldn’t keep those standards going with the resources that they’re currently operating with. That was my understanding of what they were talking about.
Ms. Shannon: I don’t think I can speak directly to that concern because I have not had a direct conversation with the committee on that specific question. But I would say that we are always open to having that conversation with the chair.
I’m proud of many things the wildlife service does, and one of those things is actually the respectful relationship with the committee and their respect for its independence. I just want to underline, from my perspective, the collaboration that we have with the chair of the committee. That’s something that we pay a lot of attention to. So there are these concerns; we will discuss that with them.
Senator Coyle: Were you not aware of those concerns that were very clearly articulated to us?
Ms. Pantieras: We are concerned. We have seen these incredibly competent and experienced experts in their own field — members of COSEWIC for years — struggling with how to balance the robust scientific assessments and yet their own processes that have been expanding.
Certainly, we’re reflecting on, for example, best practices by the IUCN that assess at least two orders of magnitude globally of a species, and yet, in their processes, they limit the reports to 20‑page documents. In Canada, we have over 80-page document reports that require peer reviews, that require translation to meet both official language obligations and so on. The extensive review of those documents can take between three and four different drafts and iterations; whereas the IUCN does one set of reviews and it completes that.
We’re certainly together with the committee exploring that balance between robust and authoritative scientific assessments on the status of a species and the workload, given that the existing resources are remaining at the baseline in the last few years. I think we have endeavoured to keep and protect those resources assigned in the operating budget for COSEWIC, despite reductions within our own budgets. That reflects the level of importance that the department is assigning to these activities. But, certainly, we have reached a moment of unsustainability with those processes that are just not commensurate with the level of capacity that exists within the committee.
The Chair: I would just like to remind the committee that the commissioner of sustainable development will be coming as well, and he’s going to be talking about the three topics that we’ve been talking about over the last bit. So if senators have further questions, there is one more person to ask.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, witnesses, for coming and helping us on this. I have a couple of questions, and one is about the time lag of assessments. I know Senator Aucoin mentioned 10 years between assessments or reviews.
Given that things can happen quickly in the environment and the ecosystem, do you think that’s a long time lag? Related to that, you mentioned a moment ago, in response to another senator, something that will happen in 2036 or 2038, and it just seems to me that if there is a “species at risk” or indications that it may be at risk — or wherever it falls on that continuum — that more rapid action could or should be considered.
Ms. Shannon: Regarding the tenures, that’s the review of classification.
Given the state of biodiversity, globally, over a 10-year period, the improvement in species’ outcomes is something that we will see less than maintenance of status. From that perspective and a time lag, I couldn’t say if five years would be better. There are provisions under the Species at Risk Act for an emergency listing of a species, so if something is so dire that a species must be listed to obtain protections, there are provisions under the act to enable that.
I go back to the prioritization of species assessments and focusing on species that are indicators of ecosystem health. With limited or finite resources — and I think resources will always be finite — it’s important to identify those opportunities where an assessment of a species can have a large impact on ecosystem outcomes.
I’ll leave it there.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thanks.
Does the section you’re with make recommendations on things that can be mitigated to protect or make healthier the species that might be listed? I will have a follow-up question to that.
Ms. Shannon: Yes, in the context of the SARA cycle, after a listing decision. I referred earlier to recovery strategies. Recovery strategies are an opportunity to identify the actions that are needed to improve the outcome of a species.
Outside of the legislated framework of SARA, we engage in a number of collaborative actions. We have nature agreements, for example, with a number of jurisdictions. British Columbia was one of the largest nature agreements, and it’s tripartite with the province and the First Nations Leadership Council. It is an opportunity, through that agreement, to identify priorities for conservation, including for species, and to develop a collaborative list of actions.
We have section 11 agreements, and that is under section 11 of the Species at Risk Act. Again, we have them with most jurisdictions on caribou. Again, they are to identify actions necessary to improve outcomes for those species.
In terms of the improvement of biodiversity, it’s important to have a balance between your statutory and regulatory approaches. In addition to that, it is important to identify the opportunities for collaboration. The species at risk are a shared jurisdiction, so we cannot make significant improvements in the outcomes for species without collaboration with our provincial-territorial colleagues.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thanks.
My last question is in reference to the ecosystem approach. Of course, it’s hard to look at one species and say, “This is the thing we’re going to do,” and not have consideration for that approach to the ecosystem.
How is that taken into account when looking at a particular species? Only one can be listed when you’re dealing with it. How is the ecosystem approach addressed in that circumstance?
Ms. Shannon: That is a very good question.
First, SARA provides for a species-by-species assessment. With our provincial-territorial colleagues, in 2018, we came to an agreement on what is called the Pan-Canadian Approach to Transforming Species at Risk Conservation in Canada. The focus of that is on ecosystem action. Accepting that the Species at Risk Act is species by species, what can we do together to focus on ecosystem outcomes? That goes back to the collaborative conservation activities I was just referring to: nature agreements; section 11 agreements under the Species at Risk Act; Indigenous protected and conserved areas; the Indigenous Guardians program, which I haven’t spoken to here; et cetera. Those are the kinds of measures that we can undertake to focus more on an ecosystem-based approach.
The Chair: Thank you both very much for being here. It’s clear that you want to work collaboratively with the scientists with whom we spoke, so thank you for that. They appreciate your work, as well. It’s always a question of resources, and they made some very good points on their own behalf. Thank you so much.
I would now like to welcome Vincent Klassen, the Director General, Sustainability Policy, Programs, Operations and Regional Affairs Branch; and Emmanuel Mongin, Director, Sustainable Development Policy, Programs, Operations and Regional Affairs Branch.
Welcome to you both. Thank you very much. Mr. Klassen, you can begin and then, to follow, we will have questions from the senators.
[Translation]
Vincent Klassen, Director General, Sustainability Policy, Programs, Operations and Regional Affairs Branch (Environment and Climate Change Canada): Honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to discuss the draft Federal Sustainable Development Strategy for 2026 to 2029.
I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people, especially given the importance of Indigenous issues to our mandate; this is very important to us.
The strategy provides a legislated, whole-of-government framework that brings together key federal actions to advance sustainable development in Canada.
It is guided by the Federal Sustainable Development Act, which requires the government to table a new strategy in Parliament every three years. The act also requires that it include time-bound and measurable targets, and that it reflect contributions from federal organizations subject to the act — in this case, 59.
Together, these elements provide a transparent view of federal priorities and coordinated actions to support sustainable development and improve the quality of life of Canadians. The draft strategy brings together 17 goals and 27 targets, as well as the implementation strategies that support their achievement.
These goals reflect the interconnected environmental, economic and social dimensions of sustainable development. They are organized across three broad themes: building an inclusive and resilient society, driving clean growth, and protecting our environment and well-being.
Taken together, they frame the federal policies and programs that contribute to a sustainable future for Canadians; from supporting communities, fostering inclusion and strengthening economic resilience, to protecting nature and addressing climate change.
The FSDS aligns with Canada’s international commitments, including the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
[English]
An important feature of the act is the emphasis on transparency and accountability. The strategy reflects this in all of its aspects. Each goal is supported by measurable targets and indicators. Federal organizations then translate these commitments into action once the strategy is adopted through their own departmental sustainable development strategies, and these outline how their policies and programs contribute to the goals and targets set out in the federal sustainable development strategy, or FSDS.
Progress is tracked through regular reporting to Parliament, including a comprehensive progress report every three years covering all of those targets. As you may know, the progress report on the 2022-26 strategy was tabled in December 2025.
The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development audits the strategy, progress reports and departmental strategies to support accountability, as you know.
The act also requires a 120-day public consultation on the draft before it is finalized and tabled in Parliament.
During this time, we seek the views of parliamentarians of the Sustainable Development Advisory Council appointed by the minister, Indigenous partners, provinces and territories and the general public, and we receive a wide range of views. These are considered by federal organizations and our office to inform the final strategy, as well as future departmental sustainable development strategies, which, as I mentioned, implement its framework.
Honourable senators, sustainable development is a vast concept. It touches all aspects of daily life, from clean air and water to resilient communities and, increasingly today, a competitive economy. As the act states, it is also an evolving concept. This will be Canada’s sixth strategy since the act was first adopted. Each of those strategies has evolved to build on the last and reflect the context and the issues of the day.
The FSDS does not capture everything the government does for sustainable development. It would be very long if that were the case. Rather, it brings together the most important targets in a way that reflects the priorities of the government and the concerns of Canadians.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear, and we are happy to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. We will now go to the senators.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Good evening, and welcome to our witnesses.
The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has concluded that Canada is not on track and is unlikely to meet the energy efficiency target of 600 petajoules by 2030 unless it takes more proactive measures. How do you respond to that? What proactive measures will you take to get back on track?
Mr. Klassen: Thank you for your question. I should first explain that our role does not always allow us to answer questions in detail regarding each of the strategic targets. Therefore, the energy efficiency target is a target championed by the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, who could provide a more detailed response regarding his ability to achieve this objective.
I know that, in the progress report we tabled in December, we explained why this is not exactly the result we had hoped for. Unfortunately, I will have to refer to the report that was tabled in December, which explains in more detail why this particular target is not progressing as we would like.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Of course, you don’t know all this off by heart; is that what you’re telling me?
Mr. Klassen: That’s right.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: That is quite understandable. Could this have anything to do with the fact that we have changed the targets for electric vehicles? What might be the major trend preventing us from achieving our energy efficiency target as planned?
Mr. Klassen: I would say that, in terms of how we organize our strategy and our overall response to these two targets, they both relate to energy efficiency — that is, overall energy consumption and the progress we are making.
I don’t have the start date to hand, but, over a 30-year period, we are looking to reduce a certain amount — my colleague can check the precise target to clarify this for you. Energy efficiency and the target for electric vehicles are two very distinct targets, one being the acceleration of the uptake of electric vehicles. In the 2022–26 strategy, we had both a target for electric vehicles and a target for the number of charging stations to be installed.
In the situation report, we had reported progress; in fact, we were on track. Energy efficiency is another dimension and, as I recall, there were issues with the data we had. We were not confident that we would achieve this target. The Department of Energy and Natural Resources, which is responsible for this target, studied the commissioner’s report very carefully and adjusted —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Does this have anything to do with oil consumption, which is still very high?
Mr. Klassen: Energy efficiency refers to efficiency measures in buildings, for example; these are therefore two very different areas.
As for electric vehicles, we are really talking about the uptake of vehicles, specifically the proportion of electric vehicles in new deliveries.
I will ask my colleague to provide further details on the two specific targets to explain what is included in the current strategy. If I have understood your question correctly, you are referring to progress in the latest strategy that relates to certain targets and which falls short of our aspirations.
Emmanuel Mongin, Director, Sustainable Development Policy, Programs, Operations and Regional Affairs Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada: With regard to the energy efficiency target, the report on the previous strategy shows that progress has been made, but that the pace needs to be stepped up. As for the target, in this draft strategy — I have it here in English —
[English]
— Canada saves the equivalent of the annual energy use of more than 12 million homes nationwide through energy efficiency improvements. The starting date is 2022 of 744 petajoules. That’s what we have as a target, and we have four organizations that are agreeing to have specific actions and show in their —
[Translation]
In the ministerial sustainable development strategy they are due to publish in a year’s time, these organizations will need to demonstrate how they will support this target and enable Canada to achieve it.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Galvez: Most of the time, when we discuss sustainable development, I find that we are working in silos, and that reflects on the performance of Canada.
We have Environment and Climate Change Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada and Statistics Canada. Each one of you is reporting things.
It is interesting because I sit on the National Finance Committee, where we also hear about that with other indicators, so we have a multitude of indicators, but it does not tell us exactly where we are.
In general, we have the impression that we may be above the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, countries and above the majority of countries, but when we compare with our peers — the G7 — we are very low. We are not where we want to be.
Specifically my question is this: I am interested in a sustainable economy based on sustainable development, but our Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, just told us that this budget is not sustainable at all.
Is it because these institutions — Environment and Climate Change Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada — are working separately? But we have things like the network of institutions and leaders for future generations. They are supposed to give us the projection into the future. And we have the Quality of Life Framework for Canada. I was in a conference, and I heard someone say that it is the best in the world.
What is missing? I am sorry, but I need to understand things from the basics, and then I can construct my blocks. I’m lost from the beginning.
Mr. Klassen: Thank you for the question. It is a big question.
I would say the Quality of Life Framework, Employment and Social Development Canada, or ESDC, and the Canadian Indicator Framework, which go together, and our framework are — and I know that the CSD has commented on this several times. Those are three different frameworks that address some similar issues that are quality of life or sustainability issues.
We each have our mandates. We have a mandate from the act. Our act is a legislated framework that is quite distinct from the Quality of Life Framework and the Sustainable Development Goals framework, the SDC Framework, because it requires us to set targets to report, and it requires all of the organizations subject to the act to file their own reports. It is much more of a transparency and accountability mechanism than, for example, the Sustainable Development Goals framework, the Canadian Indicator Framework or the Quality of Life Framework.
In many respects, we do aim for a similar purpose, which is to bring sustainable development and a more integrated, evidence-based approach to policy making. Those are things that we share, but we have distinctive and distinct mandates.
What I can say is that we work very hard with our colleagues who lead the Quality of Life Framework and the 2030 Agenda framework to ensure that these frameworks are aligned and that they draw on the same data.
To give you an example, when our team set out to draft this draft strategy, we looked very carefully at the Canadian Indicator Framework and the Quality of Life Framework, asking how we might bring these things together and how we might take those indicators and use them to inform the strategy.
There is great effort between our teams to coordinate that work to ensure that it is aligned and not at cross purposes. I would say that the issue of silos, yes, ministers have their specific accountabilities, and the federal system is organized by ministerial accountabilities, but our role as an office is — that is written into the purpose of our act — to promote the coordination of sustainable development activities across these federal organizations, and we do that with very structured and robust governance and regular meetings of senior officials.
We do everything we can to have that integrated approach that breaks those silos.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much to our witnesses for being with us and for the work that you do. It is complex.
Actually, my first speech in the Senate over eight years ago now was about the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals. It wasn’t getting into the nitty-gritty — I can assure you of that.
I’m interested in the nitty-gritty, though, and I’m just trying to understand it. The strategy that is out there right now being shopped around and receiving input is a very interesting one. I am looking here to try to understand it.
For instance, on page 24, I am looking at a target, which is something you are looking to achieve. In 2.1.2, the target says:
Canada’s environmental and clean technology sector accounts for 3% of national gross domestic product.
So that is something we are aiming for. But then it says that the starting point was 3% in 2023. Am I to believe that we are not looking to grow this, or am I reading this incorrectly?
Mr. Klassen: I believe you may be reading that correctly.
Mr. Mongin: If you look at the starting point and the target, you will notice that, in some cases, there are no changes.
Senator Coyle: This is our environmental, clean technology sector.
Mr. Mongin: It is a discussion we have with a different department and that department is responsible for a specific target. We look at the data with them. We look at what is possible to do, and we look at the policy coverage, and so on. In some cases, it has been decided that to stay where we are, given the current state of things, will be good enough.
Senator Coyle: Does this take into account Canada’s Climate Competitiveness Strategy? It just is not adding up for me.
Mr. Klassen: I understand. Just to reinforce what Emanuel is saying, the way we coordinate the strategy is —
Senator Coyle: I know you are not the author of it.
Mr. Klassen: We bring these baskets together on the most important social, economic and environmental targets that we want to bring together for the strategy. Then we consult the policy leads. We don’t have, for example, the authority on either the climate target or this clean technology target.
I have another example here of a target that is a stable target, which is that financially healthy farms in Canada remain above 90%. It is already 92%. That’s not ambitious, but it is the target that the department, on behalf of the minister responsible, has agreed to set for that area. So we don’t have that policy authority. Our job is to bring together the most important policy areas and to work with the departments to encourage them to set what they consider to be the most reasonably ambitious target, and that is the policy judgment of the department that they make on behalf of the minister.
Sometimes they are aspirational, and they are a stretch. I won’t identify targets that are more ambitious than others, but, yes, that target is, I would say, to maintain the stability of that sector. That is essentially the prerogative of the minister to set that target, and there are officials that advise them on their behalf.
I would say that part of this consultation process also is to seek feedback on these targets, so sometimes we receive feedback on the level of ambition of targets. Perhaps the most famous target is the climate target, where there are very different views on what the level of ambition should be. I take that point, but I think it is important to note that the policy leadership rests with the minister responsible and whose officials we consult in the development of the strategy.
Senator Fridhandler: I am interested in what might be happening in your consultation process with the background of a new government that has some different views on the importance of the balance between the environment and the economy. The decline in interest in ESG, corporately, not only in Canada but perhaps globally, and in fact, more particularly even, the collapse or closing of the Net Zero Banking Alliance that our present Prime Minister headed before he became the prime minister. There has been a big shift. How has that impacted the people that are responding to their consultation? Are you getting corporate engagement, or are you getting environmental proponents only? Who is playing in your consultation? How is this affecting what you are hearing?
Mr. Klassen: The first point is that we were drafting this just as the Climate Competitiveness Strategy was being developed and published, so it does reflect it in many ways, but the final strategy will probably reflect it more. The Climate Competitiveness Strategy does not change the targets that the Government of Canada has set in the international system. The targets are the same as they were in the last strategy. The emphasis is different. The Climate Competitiveness Strategy emphasizes the tax credits, the regulatory system, and sustainable finance, as you know. Again, that’s not my policy expertise, but this does reflect that at the state of writing, and it will reflect it even more when it is final.
We already have 1,000 people engaged in our meetings. We have a lot of social media interactions. We have had, I believe, 6,000 people downloading our strategy and taking a look. Folks have until May 12 to respond. It is early to tell, but I think we are receiving feedback from business organizations, and even if there is a debate around ESG, I would say that people see parallels between this and ESG, and the fact that our stakeholders, government stakeholders, and also corporate stakeholders, still want to know how organizations, public and private, are addressing these issues.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thanks for coming in. I want to talk about the targets that will likely not be achieved, according to the commissioner. What are the greatest frustrations that you have, that they will not be achieved? Is it money? Is it policy changes? Is it factors outside Canada’s control? Is it predatory practices from neighbouring countries that diminish our EV effort? What are the things that frustrate you most?
Mr. Klassen: All of the above. We carry this on behalf of ministers, and obviously, it is a very dynamic situation. The climate target is probably a very good example of how the domestic policy context is influenced by these international factors.
I would say that the tension we have with the federal strategy is that it is a federal strategy, which means that it is focused on federal actions to meet targets that do go beyond the things that the federal government can control, whether it is the climate strategy, the climate target, the protected areas target or energy efficiency. Those results all depend on the actions of provinces, territories, municipalities and businesses.
So, there is a policy decision there that policy will only focus on the narrow purview of what — federal buildings, for example — are reflected in the strategy. The policy approach has been to set targets that reflect the contributions of all of these levels of government and all of these different factors. That’s sort of the nature of the beast. Yes, it is a frustration. But I think the purpose of the act — and it is written right into one of the principles, which is a principle of continuous improvement — is that we set targets and assess our performance transparently. We explain the reasons why we’re not on track, and we did that very thoroughly in the progress report that was tabled. We learned from that when we developed a new strategy. That’s what we’re doing now. We’re learning from this, and we recognize that we cannot control all the factors that influence the outcome.
Senator D. M. Wells: Are the targets based on measurements from a base, or are they based on an outcome?
Mr. Klassen: They should be based on an outcome. They should reflect an outcome. In fact, many of these targets reflect a dialogue over a period of 15 years with the commissioner and the commissioner’s office, encouraging us to set outcome-based targets and not outputs. It is easier said than done. Some of them are more output-oriented than others. But the ambition is that they reflect the outcomes that people can relate to, such as protected areas and surface areas, which are our key targets for biodiversity. It is not the only one, but that’s something people can relate to, and it is an outcome.
An outcome is also the number of species at risk that are on a positive track. That is what we aim for, but we can only set targets in areas where we have measurable data. That’s our challenge. We are working from the data that we have. We can only set targets where we have the data we can measure.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thanks.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: To follow on from Senator D. M. Wells, you replied that the government will set targets based on the reports. I am paraphrasing you. However, on February 13, 2026, the Order Amending the Schedule to the Federal Sustainable Development Act was adopted. At least forty organizations were excluded from the reporting requirement, including the Canadian Grain Commission, the Canadian Transportation Agency, the Canadian Agricultural Products Council and the Northern Pipeline Agency. The latter is of particular concern to me, in that it seems to me to be a particularly important body for which there should be a related report. Do you have any comments?
Mr. Klassen: That is an excellent question and a very important development. The original act covered around 40 organizations subject to the act. When the act was amended in 2019, they extended this to all federal organizations in a schedule to the Financial Administration Act. The latest strategy for 2022–26 was the first to apply to around 100 organizations.
It was both an impressive expansion and a commendable initiative, but after implementing this strategy across around a hundred organizations, it became clear that many of these organizations were tiny. Even the one you mentioned, the Northern Pipeline Authority, has three employees, I believe; they have no day-to-day operational activities.
There was the organization responsible for organizing the leaders’ debates. There were tiny organizations.
The Canadian Grain Commission is a relatively large organization that plays a primarily regulatory role. We prepared an analysis grid to assess the organizations’ capacity to make a real contribution to the strategy so that we could target our efforts.
The same applies to the commissioner reviewing the report, and with regard to our office’s capacity to handle the volumes and to supervise the work of these organizations or advise them; we felt that it was too much and that the added value of these micro-organizations was not worth the effort.
During the consultation, it was the cabinet committee and the ministers who made the decision, but we believe — the ministers believe — that focusing efforts on 59 organizations rather than around a hundred, where the purpose of the work is somewhat lost — accurately reflects the legislator’s intention to broaden the scope, since the law was amended in 2019.
That was Treasury Board’s assessment of the matter, and our view is that this focuses efforts on the organizations most relevant to these issues.
Senator Aucoin: Is there a plan to review this list periodically? If so, when?
Mr. Klassen: There are no plans to review it at present, as this decision has only just been taken.
Indeed, the structure of the federal government is changing. With each term of office, we may have new organizations or existing ones. As the principle of the law dictates, there will also be continuous improvement.
We assess matters based on our experience and the commissioner’s comments. For the time being, there is no intention to review the list, but it could happen, yes.
[English]
The Chair: We have a few minutes for Senator Galvez, if she would like to finish.
Senator Galvez: Yes.
It is very evident that there are some overlap and redundancies. It is a complex situation. Probably, with it, comes a lack of performance. What can this committee do in order to improve the situation, especially with respect? I ask because when you say that we are trying to align, I interpret “align” more as “overlap” and “repeat.” What can this committee do to help you?
Mr. Klassen: This doesn’t directly answer the question, but, first, we welcome views on the structure of the strategy. That’s not the immediate question you are asking; the actual question you are asking is perhaps beyond my mandate.
We execute the mandate we have under the act that assigns the ECCC minister the establishment of our office to develop this strategy. Cabinet gave a mandate to the ESDC minister to develop the sustainable development goal, agenda or strategy, and the quality-of-life strategy resides with the Treasury Board president.
I struggle to answer the question as to what this committee can do. I can really only give you the facts of my mandate. I have my mandate at Environment and Climate Change Canada, and I work very closely and collaboratively with my colleagues in those two other organizations who have complementary mandates. This committee may have views on those mandates and how they work together. We do coordinate very closely and avoid, as much as possible, overlap of our work.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
The Chair: We probably don’t have too much more time, so thank you so much for being here with us. The commissioner will be coming, so we can follow up with him, as well. I know things changed this evening in terms of our timing because of the Senate. Thank you for your patience and for being here with us.
(The committee adjourned.)