THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 28, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference 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: Good morning, everyone. Nice to see you all.
I would begin by acknowledging that our work in Ottawa takes place on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg. The Algonquin have lived on this land since time immemorial. We are grateful to have the opportunity to be present in this territory.
My name is 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 now like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Josée Verner from Quebec. I am the vice‑chair of this committee.
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Fridhandler: Daryl Fridhandler, Alberta.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
Senator Lewis: Todd Lewis, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
I would like to welcome everyone here with us today, as well as those listening to us online at sencanada.ca.
Today, pursuant to the order of reference received from the Senate on September 25, 2025, we are hearing from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Mr. Jerry V. DeMarco, and his staff.
Welcome, Commissioner DeMarco. We appreciate you taking the time for us. I would like to welcome the staff accompanying you from the Office of the Auditor General, Susie Fortier, Principal, Audrey Garneau, Director, and Marie-Pierre Grondin, Principal. From Public Safety Canada, Kenza El Bied, Director General, Emergency Management and Programs Branch. From Environment and Climate Change Canada, Doris Fortin, Director General, Meteorological Service of Canada; and we have online virtually, Jean-François Bibeault, Acting Director General, Environmental Research and Modelling. Finally, from Natural Resources Canada, Hieu Vu, Director General, Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Observation.
Commissioner DeMarco, I am told that you and Ms. Fortier will share the opening remarks. Thank you, and please begin with your remarks.
[Translation]
Jerry V. DeMarco, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Good morning.
[English]
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today to discuss our report on flood hazard mapping, which was tabled earlier this month. I would also like to begin by acknowledging that we are on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
As you mentioned, with me today are Susie Fortier and Audrey Garneau, who were responsible for this audit on flood hazard mapping, as well as Marie-Pierre Grondin, who was responsible for recent audits on climate adaptation.
I’ll now turn it over to Ms. Fortier to summarize the results from our flood hazard mapping report. Thank you.
Susie Fortier, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: This report is part of a new series of audits examining how the federal government is responding to climate change and implementing Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy. As climate risks increase, governments need reliable information to help communities prepare and adapt.
[Translation]
Our audit focused on flood hazard mapping, which is increasingly important as flooding events become more frequent and severe across Canada. Flood hazard maps help residents, developers, infrastructure planners and governments understand where flooding could occur and how serious the risks could be.
As climate conditions change, we can no longer rely only on present-day data to prepare for floods. We must plan for future climate scenarios, including changing precipitation patterns. This is especially timely given the significant flooding experienced in many regions across Canada this spring.
[English]
We found that Natural Resources Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, and Public Safety Canada were slow to produce and share the maps needed to protect communities and support climate change adaptation.
Public Safety Canada was supposed to deliver a portal that would inform the general public about flood risks in 2025. When our report was tabled earlier this month, the key feature of Canada’s Flood Risk Finder — allowing users to find specific flood risk information for their locations — was not yet active.
We also found that the portal did not integrate climate change considerations or allow information to be easily updated as conditions change. This means that information in the portal will not reflect changes to flood risks over time.
[Translation]
For higher-resolution maps meant for regulatory use, we found that Natural Resources Canada did not ensure that mapping efforts prioritized higher-risk areas.
Fewer than half of the mapping projects under way covered areas listed as higher risk in a 2022 initial analysis. The department had not updated its initial prioritization list.
[English]
We also found that many maps remained incomplete and that much of the existing mapping information was difficult to use in practice.
The department was also not on track to make all maps currently in production publicly available by the target year of 2028.
[Translation]
Natural Resources Canada used unclear definitions of what it was trying to achieve, making it difficult to demonstrate accountability. In our view, this limited the department’s ability to meaningfully report on the program’s success. This echoed a finding from our 2025 audit report on Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy, where we also noted weaknesses in the strategy’s framework for monitoring and evaluation.
Overall, we issued five recommendations to improve transparency, better incorporate climate change considerations and strengthen accountability. All three departments agreed with our recommendations.
[English]
Climate change projections and easily accessible flood maps are needed to reliably inform long-term planning decisions, such as where to build homes or develop infrastructure. Canadians face escalating risks and higher disaster recovery costs in the absence of up-to-date information.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, this concludes our opening remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
We will begin with questioning from the senators.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Thank you to your entire team for being here this morning.
Mr. DeMarco, in your report, you indicated that only four provinces followed a detailed checklist to review flood mapping projects funded by Natural Resources Canada to ensure alignment with federal requirements. You found that the established process was not consistently applied in the other six provinces.
For information, can you tell us which four provinces aligned with federal requirements and whether Quebec is one of them?
Mr. DeMarco: Thank you for the question.
Ms. Fortier, do we have that information today?
Ms. Fortier: I think so.
Initially, Quebec was not among the provinces that had aligned with the federal requirements. I would point out that according to the report, the department reviews maps created by the provinces.
However, once the gaps in the review process referred to in the report were identified, in November 2025, the department carried out a detailed review of projects in all the provinces. However, there was no strategy for Quebec, among others.
Senator Verner: Have you been able to get accurate figures from the department since corrective action was taken?
Ms. Fortier: Yes. Since corrective action was taken in November, all the mapping products reviewed have been validated in a consistent and detailed manner in accordance with all the requirements.
Senator Verner: Thank you very much.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Good morning, everyone, and thank you for being here.
I’m a little stunned to see that due to review mistakes made in 2022, half of the maps of high-risk areas have not been created four years later. That means there was an underlying problem.
Can we get a picture of what the Department of Natural Resources is doing to ensure this cannot happen in the future? Has the work been outsourced? What is the series of events that account for such a huge mistake?
Mr. DeMarco: I can answer first and officials from the department can jump in if need be.
We have the same concern and that is what our recommendation number 39 is all about. We recommend that Natural Resources Canada should work collaboratively with provinces and territories to update its list of higher-risk areas and monitor coverage of those areas to inform funding decisions. To date, approximately half of mapping projects, or 49%, cover areas identified as higher risk in 2022. We would like to see an updated list of prioritization areas. That’s critical to provide value for money.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Maybe we should invite a spokesperson from Natural Resources Canada to speak to that.
My understanding of what you have said is that the work may have been done in silos and there may have been insufficient consultation. Can you tell us what happened, because that mistake had an impact on the lack of updated maps?
Hieu Vu, Director General, Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Observation: Thank you for the question.
[English]
In 2022, the federal government started with a preliminary analysis of where the risk areas would be. This was based on the data and information that was available within the federal family.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Did you consult the province?
Mr. Vu: Yes, we did. The latest flood mapping program was from 2024 to 2028, so this was done before the audit. The program itself was a shared federal-province-territorial collaboration where the federal government provided 50% of the cost and the provinces provided 50% of the cost. For the territories, it was 75-25.
The 2022 analysis was federal. Then, as we created collaborations and agreements with the provinces, they brought their data and information in, and that led to the agreed-upon areas to map. It’s important for us to consider all the provincial-territorial data. They have the jurisdiction as well as expertise and data that needed to be incorporated and added into the 2022 analysis.
For every map that was created, the provinces and territories, as partial funders, would identify priority areas for them. Given their jurisdiction, we thought it important for us to factor in where they thought it was critical to map and not just use a preliminary list based on federal data.
Having said that, we are continuing to work with the provinces and territories based on the commissioner’s recommendation and are taking steps to update our 2022 list.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m just trying to understand. Did the province not give you the updated data? Did you not get it from them? Why is there this gap?
Mr. Vu: The latest program started in 2024. Our initial analysis was done in 2022. When we started the collaboration with the provinces in 2024, we created new agreements. During the time we were creating the agreements, the provinces provided more information about the areas they wanted mapped, so it was a timing issue.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: So the whole system was not quick enough to take into account the new reality?
Mr. Vu: It was a preliminary list in 2022, and then in 2024, when we started creating the agreements with the provinces, we quickly incorporated their perspectives, data and information and identified exactly where they wanted mapped. Every province and territory would identify exactly where they wanted mapped, and they would say those are high-risk areas.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Let me stop giving you a hard time.
Thank you.
[English]
Senator Lewis: As we speak about data sets and the sharing of data between provinces and the federal government, it seems that AI should play an important role, especially with respect to costs, timing and the ability to quickly identify the changing landscape we’re seeing.
Is AI being used? Is data being shared between provincial and federal governments, federal departments and even the private forecasting industry? Is that work being done? Frankly, I can’t believe that we’re talking about 2022.
Mr. Vu: Yes, there is work being done on AI. Within Natural Resources Canada, we have an initiative called GeoAI where we are using the latest technology possible to analyze the data. We also have an initiative, the Canadian Council on Geomatics, which is an FPT collaboration. We have recently come out with a collaborative geospatial strategy for Canada, and it’s all about sharing data.
The reality is that different provinces and territories have different levels of capacity and capability. This council is a way for us to share expertise and data across various jurisdictions.
Senator Lewis: It’s frustrating when you see Environment and Climate Change Canada changing their radar system — for instance, going more toward AI, where the radar is in real time and they are going more to an AI forecasting model. It seems like this mapping is far behind current technology. This is crying out for the use of the large capacity of AI and what can be done there.
Did the audit show that there has been a change toward more AI usage in the mapping of flood zones?
Mr. DeMarco: It’s best for the department to explain the increased use of AI, with respect to flood zones in particular.
Mr. Vu: We do flood mapping for two purposes. One is for emergency management purposes. We provide provinces and territories with emergency maps. We are able to get that in near real time. That’s a snapshot of exactly what is happening to provide to first responders so they can respond to whatever situation is on the ground. In that instance, we are able to get information much more quickly.
In the case of the flood hazard maps, these are regulatory-quality maps where we are trying to look at where the risks will be in the future. It’s not just about creating a picture of the map; it’s about incorporating data from Environment Canada about climate change and what the provinces and municipalities are doing in terms of where they want to develop.
That takes much longer. We need to meet all the requirements of provincial and territorial regulations. It’s not just a matter of taking a snapshot of the landscape; it’s about incorporating all this different risk information.
Senator Lewis: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much to all our witnesses for the work you do every day.
One of the key recommendations of your report is that Natural Resources Canada should work collaboratively with provinces and territories to update its list of higher-risk areas. I hosted an event on Tuesday with the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation about flooding and wildfires — with a lot on flooding. One of their recommendations was to establish a national adaptation office to improve coordination across orders of government to address these extreme weather events.
What is your take on that recommendation?
Mr. DeMarco: With respect to the recommendation, certainly the audit from last year on the National Adaptation Strategy — which looked at the broader issue and more than just flooding, the subject of today’s hearing — found significant gaps. It’s up to government to choose, in terms of policy choices, whether to have a centre or something like that, but there is no doubt a need for more coordinated action.
As you will recall from our recent appearance here on sustainable development, collaboration across all sectors and with all actors is crucial to meet any of the sustainable development challenges, whether it’s climate change, flooding or biodiversity conservation. It would be up to the government to decide whether to accept that particular recommendation.
Perhaps my colleague from Natural Resources Canada would have something to say about that.
Mr. Vu: For the adaptation strategy, I defer to colleagues in Environment and Climate Change Canada. However, for the flooding area, we work closely with provinces, territories and the private sector. For flood mapping, different provinces and territories manage it slightly differently. Some have the private sector do it; some have conservation authorities do it; some have municipalities do it; and some do it on their own.
We have been closely collaborating with them. We have over 260 agreements with all the provinces and territories. I have the breakdown by jurisdiction if that’s desired. We are sitting down with each one of them and hashing out agreements and ensuring that each jurisdiction is putting their best foot forward so that we can determine the best course of action moving forward.
I will reiterate that provinces and territories have jurisdiction. The federal government is bringing the funding, our expertise and our data, and we are supporting every province and territory to the extent possible in the flood mapping space.
Mr. DeMarco: If I could add, with respect to the adaptation strategy, Exhibit 1.6 from our report last year on the National Adaptation Strategy pointed out that, of the three main elements envisioned by the National Adaptation Strategy — that is, the Government of Canada itself has an action plan, and that is in place, although there are gaps with it — there are two other key elements to the vision of the National Adaptation Strategy: first, the Indigenous climate leadership agenda; and second, to your point, federal, provincial and territorial bilateral action plans. We found that both of those elements were still missing as of the time of our audit. Greater collaboration with the provinces, territories and Indigenous communities would be crucial for implementing the National Adaptation Strategy.
Senator Coyle: It’s aligned with your recommendation that comes from this study. I’m always trying to connect the dots. This is one study, but it connects to so many other things.
You probably know that we lost four lives in Nova Scotia — I’m from Nova Scotia — in a severe flash-flooding situation. We shouldn’t be losing any lives in Canada, and this flood mapping is a key part of that, as are early warning systems and the whole gamut that this is an important part of.
At the event we had on Tuesday, we know that flooded basements are the biggest cost for families, averaging $56,000, and 1.5 million homes are now uninsurable in Canada because of these kinds of risks. Some Quebec mortgage providers will not renew mortgages in flood-prone areas — and on and on.
We know that $9.2 billion in insurance losses in 2024 were related to catastrophic events, flooding being the largest, even more so than fires.
If the government were to ensure the ongoing reliability of flood hazard maps and federal guidelines along with those to support climate change adaptation, have you done — or do you know anybody who has done — any costing forecasting on how much money it could save Canadians?
I know there is mention of a fear about the reduction in the value of homes if it’s revealed that there is actually flood risk. I understand that, but it’s costing so much for Canadians. Has there been any research on that? I know it’s slightly tangential here, but this is flood risk mapping and about costs to Canadians.
Mr. DeMarco: With respect to flood risk and mapping specifically, I’m not aware of a detailed calculation of the cost benefit, but we do include in our adaptation report information from Environment and Climate Change Canada. These are not audited numbers but their estimate, and it works out almost exactly — an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure — that $1 invested in adaptation can yield $12 to $15 in terms of long-term benefits. However, that’s at a very general level.
With respect to floods specifically, I’m not sure if there is anything that Natural Resources Canada or Environment Canada has to say about that.
Mr. Vu: I’m not aware of any studies of that nature.
Senator Coyle: It’s a pretty significant factor: the cost to Canada and the cost to Canadians as individuals. It would be interesting. I don’t know whether that is the sort of thing that your office would take up, Mr. DeMarco.
Mr. DeMarco: Implicit in our main finding that progress has been too slow is the idea that the faster we do this, the more we’ll save in the long run.
Senator Coyle: Exactly.
Mr. DeMarco: Regardless of whether detailed calculation is needed to make that case, I don’t think anyone really disagrees with that premise. If the departments do that sort of analysis and bring forward specific details as to the savings, that might help the conversation.
However, in this particular case, we haven’t encountered any dispute or debate over the fact that investing in this now is worth it in the long run, and that fits with the idea of long-term planning.
Some of the challenges that are present in collaborating with the provinces and territories have been addressed by the department, but I would certainly like to see, and the recommendations are in that vein, an acceleration of efforts because the faster we complete this, the better for the current situation, and for future homeowners as well.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Thank you very much, Mr. DeMarco and your official representatives who are here today to answer our questions.
[English]
Yesterday, I sat for three hours at the Banking Committee and two hours at the National Finance Committee to talk about how Canada is moving ahead with major housing investments because we are in a housing affordability crisis. We are creating new infrastructure because it seems that we have several institutions but they don’t do the job. Therefore, we are creating a new one.
We were talking about buildings. However, during those five hours, we didn’t talk about climate change, flooding and the need to better construct this new housing.
You are very clear that we’re behind with this mapping, and there are so many complex issues. I can tell you that, where I live, they gave us just the mapping of our own lot. I live on the shore of the St. Lawrence River. Some of my neighbours have retention walls and others don’t, but they don’t think that the fact that they are in between houses that don’t have any retention walls will impact them. This has an impact every year.
If government continues to approve these incredible amounts of funding for housing and infrastructure before the flood hazard information and the climate information is collected and made available to municipalities and people, what is the danger? What are the impacts and long-term consequences on public safety, disaster recovery costs — which my colleagues have talked about — insurance, liability and the confidence we have in the federal government to protect Canadian citizens?
Mr. DeMarco: Thank you for the question.
I’d like to draw your attention to paragraph 7 of the report, because, as we were doing this audit, we talked about the changing government environment of the audit, along with the changing climate, of course. We said that Budget 2025:
. . . announced 5-year funding of $25 billion in housing and $115 billion in infrastructure. These financial commitments highlight the need for evidence-based climate change information to effectively adapt and guide informed land-use planning and infrastructure development.
Essentially, that paragraph is a caution to look before you leap. Not only are there costs to homeowners, costs in lives lost and in property damage, there is also this: If we invest money in new infrastructure and housing before we have good-quality regulatory maps that factor in our changing climate, then there is the risk to taxpayers that infrastructure will be damaged in the future, and there is a risk to those buying new housing that what may be the most important financial decision of their lives will be affected.
So, it is critically important to have this information as soon as possible so that informed decisions can take place.
Senator Galvez: I have a question for Natural Resources Canada about the data.
This issue on the data has been on the table for years. I remember asking former minister Guilbeault a question about how to collect the data. Are we using drones or satellites? Are we giving contracts for using satellites from the U.S.? He said that we were going to have our own satellites at some point, and he talked about something like 20 satellites to collect data.
But, at the municipal level, I can tell you that the way municipalities update their things is by asking individual citizens to update themselves. We have landscapers and surveyors coming in at our expense to update the maps the municipalities have, and then they take that data.
Another time I asked the same question, I was told that the data is there but the Minister of Natural Resources doesn’t have the ability to digest it all.
Today, what is the reason we are not putting out the data?
Mr. Vu: Let me give you an update on the maps that we’ve created.
To date, we’ve created over 450 maps, and that has a span that impacts over 516 communities. By the end of the program in 2028, we anticipate having over 1,000 maps that will cover over 1,100 communities.
In our 2025 survey with the provinces and territories, we heard them say that more has been completed in the past 5 years under this program than in the past 35 years of mapping.
So, in terms of data collection, we have satellite data we use. We also use technology such as radar that uses drones. Because they are regulatory-quality maps, we need a certain amount of precision. Some satellites just won’t give you that precision, so we use lidar and drones to get better precision data. Each jurisdiction does it slightly different, as I mentioned earlier. Some delegate it to municipalities. Some provinces do it themselves, and some provinces go to the private sector.
We bring all the data that we have available — all the technology we have available — but, at the end of the day, the provinces and territories are the jurisdictions responsible for this.
With the collaboration we’ve had, we’ve been able to provide a significant amount of data.
In the national elevation data that we have, which is a key part of the flood maps, through the flood mapping program, we were able to provide over half a million square kilometres of data, which brought that up to 2 million square kilometres of data. That covers about 95% of the population, but that’s the elevation data. While it’s an important criterion and factor, we have to combine it with a number of other pieces of data to provide the regulatory-quality maps needed by municipalities, land-use planners and engineers.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today to answer our questions. What is happening is critical.
I have a few questions.
Do you have a way of ensuring that the maps that are being created are distributed and accessible to the public to make use of them? They should be, particularly for insurance companies, construction businesses, individuals and home owners. I know that this is a provincial jurisdiction. However, you have programs, you share data and the federal government contributes a certain amount of money. We can argue about quality depending on the territories later. However, can you tell us whether these maps in their current state are available to the general public throughout the provinces and territories?
Mr. Vu: Thank you for the question.
[English]
I’m happy to report that there is a requirement for all maps that are created under the program to be publicly released. We work with the provinces and territories, and, as they are created, we publish them through the Canada Flood Map Inventory. We took the commissioner’s recommendation seriously regarding trying to make that inventory more user-friendly. Again, the provinces and territories published that information on their own websites, but we think it is important to have a national inventory because water does flow across borders. We are trying to balance the respect for jurisdictional responsibility, so our inventory connects with the provinces’ and territories’ data but then provides that national view.
Every map that is being created is going to be published and is now available, so the 450 maps that have been created thus far are currently available in the Canada Flood Map Inventory. By the end of the program, over 1,000 maps will be created and will be made available.
The challenge, though, is that the maps we’re creating are of engineer-level quality, so they’re designed for a specific user and a specific purpose. They may be a bit more difficult for the average Canadian to use, but they are available. The elevation data that covers 95% of the population is available. We make all our data open and available. The maps that we have created are open and available also.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Thank you. It’s good to know that people can go to an engineer.
Did you follow international standards when these maps were created? Did you leverage international practices to ensure that the maps actually reflect our local needs and to make use of best practices?
[English]
Mr. Vu: At the federal government, we created guidelines on mapping. We considered international best practices, but more importantly, we incorporated the requirements of every province and territory because each of them had regulatory requirements that we had to comply with. We appreciated the commissioner’s recommendation on technical requirements and how to improve on that.
I’ll refer the committee to page 10, paragraph 26, where the commissioner highlighted that we were able to close some gaps that they identified.
. . . Natural Resources Canada enhanced the approach to review the alignment with technical mapping requirements, which addressed the gaps that we had noted. . . .
It is a complex environment where there are international needs as well as federal, provincial and territorial standards. We did what we could to harmonize those as much as possible.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I’ll pick up from where Senator Coyle left off for my final question.
The notes state that the federal government spent $250 million annually post-flood. That was during the period when all the maps available now, which you’ve alluded to today, had not been created.
I’m not sure whether you answered Senator Coyle’s question. Have you now assessed the post-flood or post-disaster costing after the maps were created and updated? Has that been assessed?
[English]
Mr. Vu: No. I’m not aware of any costing assessment for before or after the flood mapping. I know there are studies out there that estimate a return on investment for mitigation measures of anywhere from $3 to $12 for every $1 invested, but that is the assessment of the analysis.
Senator Fridhandler: This is an interesting discussion about risks associated with flooding. While I understand that individual homeowners or municipal planning agencies would have very big concerns, I’m guessing, from a strictly financial perspective, the biggest players concerned about risk in flood mitigation are banks and insurance companies. I’m wondering, first, what kind of interface you have with them relative to what’s going on here. And, second, are they ahead of you, or are they being more conservative because they don’t understand the risks and they’re impacting the country negatively because they don’t have this information?
Mr. Vu: I would defer to my colleagues from Public Safety Canada, who are more engaged on the insurance side.
Kenza El Bied, Director General, Emergency Management and Programs Branch, Public Safety Canada: Good morning. Thank you for your question. Public Safety’s responsibility has been mandated to advance the flood insurance program, and we are developing options. We work closely with the insurance industry, but I would not say that they are ahead of us. Public Safety is leading flood insurance and is responsible for the Flood Risk Finder, as has been indicated in this report, but we’re working together and we are developing the policy options for flood insurance.
Senator Fridhandler: These two industry players are huge in risk assessment and in actuarial studies. Are they banging on your door to say they need more from you as well? We’re acknowledging that residents need more, but they’re paying higher insurance costs because they’re going to err on the side of higher-risk premiums. They’re not going to fund mortgages because we don’t have certainty relative to risk. We’ll never have certainty, but being behind on this is probably a very big net detriment to homeowners, to industry broadly in this country and to the financial industry as well.
Mr. DeMarco: Bringing 100% certainty to this is not possible, but better-quality decision making is certainly possible. The sooner the mapping is done in a way that incorporates climate change, the more informed individual homebuyers will be. The same is true for the bank providing a mortgage and the home insurer. All of them would like to know what they’re getting into in that financial transaction. For the homeowner, it could be the most important financial transaction of their entire lives. Then, when you aggregate that across the many mortgages and insurance policies, it’s a huge issue for the industry as well.
This is a file where everyone will benefit with accelerated action. On the plus side, the federal government is not obligated to do all of this work. Land-use planning is largely a provincial, territorial and municipal endeavour, so it is good that the federal government has stepped up to the plate to accelerate efforts that weren’t going fast enough in other orders of government, but our audit attempts to provide recommendations to get more bang for the buck and faster results out of it. I’m pleased that all three departments have accepted our recommendations. Now it remains to be seen whether that will be put to good effect.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: In your report, you stated that Public Safety Canada and Natural Resources Canada made limited actionable flood hazard information publicly available. What probability of risk do the frameworks represent? Do the frameworks show flooding based on the likelihood of a specific occurrence? What is the rate of return? Do the frameworks available in the various territories or provinces in the information you collected reflect the same degree of risk across Canada?
Ms. Fortier: Thank you for that question.
Our report refers to two separate issues, including regulatory-quality maps with several climate change scenarios. Each map contains several probabilities depending on federal and provincial requirements. There might be a slight variation, but there are several scenarios, including standard scenarios. The public awareness portal shows that these scenarios were not taken into consideration.
We have mentioned that although the information had been prepared, at the time of the audit, the information was neither public nor complete. The inventory we spoke about earlier was available and many projects were under way, but the information was not in the inventory, or the portal was not available at the time of the audit. That was the essence of our finding.
Senator Youance: To what extent do the existing frameworks help to illustrate the actual ecological risk that we are currently facing?
Ms. Fortier: Thank you for the question.
It is adequate for regulatory-quality maps with the existing guidelines and the checklist to review responses to the actions, because the very technical information is available. We found that information for the public is not available on the portal.
Senator Youance: That means that an engineer who wishes to carry out an analysis to start a project has that information, but the public does not?
Ms. Fortier: The information will be found eventually, provided it is in the inventory. We found that it is very hard to look up and locate information. Information on a number of projects was not available at the time of our audit.
Senator Youance: Thank you.
Let me put on my engineer’s hat. Soil quality is a crucial element in assessing hydrological risk. Is there any information that would allow us to overlay flood risk and soil type, such as geotechnics, and so forth?
Mr. Vu: Yes. Thank you for the question.
[English]
Within Natural Resources Canada, we have a number of science and research monitors of the maps. We have environmental indicators that track the use of vegetation, soil moisture, surface water levels and hydrological models. We have science that looks at terrain stability, like permafrost and things of that nature, and terrestrial water storage as well.
Groundwater assessment is something that the Geological Survey of Canada does, and that looks at the ability of the soil to slow-release water.
All of that science is used and integrated into our flood risk analysis.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have been listening to all of you keenly. I tried to get a better understanding of what transpired.
Mr. DeMarco, I would like to hear your assessment of the delays in publishing the necessary information. In your opinion, is the problem caused by the fact that the three departments you audited work in silos? Are too many departments involved, making it hard for information to circulate? Is it an issue with our beloved federalism, which means that requests for information are made to provinces, and the provinces take two years to provide us with that information? I know you requested corrective action. Was the work done by public servants or was it outsourced? How many employees are assigned to mapping in the three departments?
Mr. DeMarco: I’ll start, and then Ms. Fortier and officials from Natural Resources Canada can jump in.
In exhibit 3 of our report, we found that several mapping projects were not actionable because of their limited availability. Is it a question of silos among the three departments? For this finding, the answer is no. Provinces and territories mostly use federal funding to create these maps. According to the agreements with the federal government, provinces and territories are responsible for publishing these projects.
The federal government has the funds, and it allocates funding to provinces. It can encourage the provinces to work collaboratively to publish the information. However, the portal is not the site where the information will be published along with the regulatory maps. Provinces need to accelerate their efforts to ensure that Canadians and engineers can use the new maps and make more efficient decisions using that information.
Ms. Fortier: Thank you for the question.
We always try to go to the underlying causes when we make recommendations. It’s not always easy. In paragraph 32, our recommendation is on collaboration with provinces and territories to have results in a timely manner. It was the best possible approach to identify the best way to address the issue.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Collaboration is a fairly vague term. That means there is no collaboration. Are provinces dragging their feet?
Ms. Fortier: That means that they have to work collaboratively to deliver results and to make information available in a timely manner. The departments are on the ground, and they have more information to guide actions toward production and increased performance.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Mr. Vu, what is the size of the workforce? How many public servants or external businesses are engaged in this regulatory mapping work?
[English]
Mr. Vu: The flood mapping program is a collaboration with the provinces and territories, so the majority of the work is a collaboration with them. The majority of the funding, actually, goes to the provinces and territories, and then each jurisdiction will manage it slightly differently. Some will outsource it to the private sector, some will do it in-house and some will have municipalities or conservation areas do it.
Natural Resources Canada does have a small number of experts within our organization, but with the flood mapping itself, a lot of that is sent to the provinces and territories.
Just to be clear, there are different needs from Canadians. The average homeowner will have a different need than a land-use plan. Public Safety Canada is responsible for the information for all Canadians. At Natural Resources Canada, we are providing regulatory-quality maps for municipalities, provinces and others.
Through our program, as I said, we have created maps that support over 450 communities already, and those are made public through our inventory. By the end of the program, we will have over 1,100 maps available, so we are making those available.
As I mentioned, creating these flood maps can be complicated and can take some time. We appreciated that the commissioner did the audit early so that we could incorporate their comments before the program ends, but the program is still ongoing.
Early in the program, we needed time to collaborate with the provinces, determine where the risk areas are and get their data. Then we had to go collect the data, and sometimes you’re flying drones over land, so it takes time to collect that data. Once we had that data, we started producing and pumping it out, and that’s what you’re seeing. That’s why there are over 450 maps now. That’s why we’re going to have over 1,100 maps by the end of the program.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I don’t want to downplay the work. I’m just trying to look at what could potentially be modified.
I have a couple of questions. How many public servants are working on this program? You spoke about a funding envelope for the provinces. How much is the budget?
[English]
Mr. Vu: I can come back with the exact number of public servants at the federal level, but I don’t have that information off the top of my head.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: The budget?
Mr. Vu: The budget for the flood mapping program was $190 million. To date, we’ve spent $111 million. The majority of that money goes to the provinces and territories.
Senator Lewis: To some of the conversation around the impact on consumers, if you’re in a home where you can’t be insured anymore because you’re on a flood plain, and if you don’t have a map backing it out of the one of the 400 communities currently being mapped or in the 1,100 to come, all you’re doing is counting on the insurance company and their word. That has a huge impact and speaks to the urgency of getting this done as soon as possible.
In that vein, you talk about an elevation map that was created. The cost of lidar has diminished so much over the past 10 years. Has the federal government ever looked at lidar in that same area and shared that information with everybody in Canada? Has that ever been considered to see what that cost would be? It’s significantly less than it used to be.
Mr. Vu: We do publish all of our lidar data publicly. It is currently available through our geo.ca inventory. We have over 2 million square kilometres of elevation data that is published. That covers about 95% of the population.
Senator Lewis: That has all been measured via lidar? There is a big difference between elevation and lidar.
Mr. Vu: No. Through the Flood Hazard Identification and Mapping Program, or FHIMP, we have made public 500,000 square kilometres of lidar data.
Senator Lewis: Has that been continued or expanded?
Mr. Vu: We are continuing, under this program, until 2028. After 2028, that program ends.
Senator Lewis: How much of the area of 95% of the population will be fully measured via lidar by that point?
Mr. Vu: That is information I don’t have.
Senator Lewis: Can you get back to the committee about that? Because the lidar is incredibly important. That’s the gold standard for this drainage. As I say, the cost of it has diminished over 95% over the past 10 years.
Senator Galvez: Commissioner DeMarco and Mr. Vu, what we are talking about today is data on the elevation and the flood plains where flooding is coming.
Could you explain how this is not yet related to climate change models? It is very different today to take a series of pictures — which is what we are doing, taking a lot of pictures — but not accounting for the projections of sea level rise due to the warming of the planet.
My worry is that we’re very far behind. Elsewhere in the world — I work in Boston — there are maps where they say 0.001-degree-plus will lead to this much flooding, 0.002 will lead to this much flooding and so on. If you go to Singapore, it’s like that. Every major city tells you what will happen and how it’s evolving regarding planetary warming.
Canada has the longest coastline in the world, and we don’t have that yet. I was in Alaska, I was in the Arctic, and permafrost is melting and communities are moved to the shore to show sovereignty and then brought inland because of erosion and sea level rise. When will we have the real maps that will show us the effects in Montreal, as we know for New York, Boston and Singapore? When will we know this?
Mr. DeMarco: I can start, and then perhaps my colleague from Natural Resources Canada can continue on.
We’re looking at two types of projects in this report. Regulatory maps can incorporate some available climate change data. There are different degrees of certainty, perhaps more certainty around pluvial and less so around fluvial, coastal and ice dams and so on. However, certainly measures can be made to incorporate that into regulatory maps and also to have scenarios within that. That’s very important for long-term planning of infrastructure and housing development.
The portal is meant to be accessible to all Canadians, whether they are homeowners or prospective homeowners. The major finding in our report was that the portal is not yet running and is still greyed out as of yesterday, when we checked again in terms of entering your postal code and finding the map. It is still not functional. But we have seen a prototype, and it doesn’t have the capability of incorporating climate change data and is not easily updated.
We have made that recommendation because of that large gap in the portal’s capability, and I understand Public Safety, in response to our recommendation, is working on an improved model to be used in a future portal. They would be best positioned to address that with respect to the portal.
With respect to regulatory maps and how they incorporate climate change to date, I think Natural Resources Canada can probably elaborate on that.
Mr. Vu: Thank you for the question. ECCC is responsible for climate change forecasting, and we closely partner with them and the provinces and territories. Their modelling is used and integrated into our technical guidelines on how to do flood mapping. The climate change analysis is integrated, so as we create these flood maps, it does integrate the best available advice and technical guidance from ECCC into the regulatory-quality maps.
I’ll defer to Public Safety on the risk finder. However, I did want to take this time to just go back to the lidar. The 2 million square kilometres covering 95% of the population is all lidar data.
On the question about the number of public servants, this year, it is 22. Next year, it is 12 because of declining program funding. As of 2028, the program ends. For questions on the portal itself, I’ll refer you to Public Safety.
Senator Galvez: Earlier this year I was in Singapore, where I learned that Singapore uses climate and environmental data from the Canadian Arctic because it suits what they are observing as sea level rise for the city of Singapore. I want to understand how a country that is so far away uses our data and is capable of doing these maps — I saw them, with very nice animations — and we are not capable of doing that.
Mr. Vu: Our regulatory maps do incorporate all the climate change analysis that is provided by ECCC. I think there is a difference between the regulatory-quality maps and the risk portal that the commissioner was referring to earlier.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
Ms. El Bied: Regarding the portal, as the commissioner indicated, the portal is still grey, but we are working closely with provinces and territories to have them to opt in. The portal is ready. The baseline version is there, but we are working closely with provinces and territories to have their buy-in and opt-in to post the information and make that available for all Canadians.
The finder will be helpful for Canadians because the flood risk information will be indicated as low, moderate or high, and it’s really meant to address all the questions for Canadians and the public. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Since I am a senator from Quebec, I’ll ask a question about Quebec.
My understanding is that at the beginning, you told my colleague that Quebec was not a part of — was not included in — the study or that it had received funding, but . . . . Perhaps I misunderstood. Can you tell me whether Quebec is included in this study and the output from the maps? Have you published more or fewer maps in Quebec? How would you describe the situation in the province and its mapping? The province has a lot of water around and within it and it is at risk.
[English]
Mr. Vu: We are collaborating very closely with Quebec, and $39.2 million went to Quebec. To date, we have spent $17 million. We have eight agreed-upon projects, and they are contributing 50%. Federally, it is 50%, and Quebec is 50%. Quebec is one of the jurisdictions that does a lot of the flood mapping themselves. We are providing them as much support as they need and the data that we have. We anticipate that by the end of the program we’ll have approximately 298 flood maps available for Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thus, things are going fairly well with Quebec. What will happen when your program ends in two years? Will the maps no longer be updated? Do you manage the map publication program at the federal level?
[English]
Mr. Vu: No, the jurisdictions for mapping are still provinces and territories. Quebec is making investments in this area. With this funding, we have been able to produce more maps than previously. In our 2025 survey with provinces and territories, we heard that whenever there is a gap in federal funding, very little mapping occurs. About half the provinces and territories said they were uncertain whether they could continue mapping if this funding ended.
The other half said they would continue but at a reduced pace.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: All right. I have a better understanding now.
Can you tell us which provinces or territories have the biggest challenges when it comes to mapping for engineers?
[English]
Mr. Vu: I’m not sure. I think each jurisdiction will be slightly different. A province like Quebec has a lot of expertise, skills and capabilities, so it’s a funding issue. For other jurisdictions, perhaps in the territories, it’s about getting the expertise and skill sets, so it’s not necessarily a technological gap. It’s a funding gap, expertise or capability, depending on the jurisdiction.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator Aucoin: Paragraph 5 of your report states that 83% of people live in urban areas. These areas are located in partially at-risk zones.
I’d like to get back to the first question I asked during the first hour. A look at the first paragraph shows a steep rise in the cost of the government’s post-flood relief between 1971 and 2025. I’m not sure whether my question falls within your purview. We create maps with data, but is there any indication that provinces and territories use them to take mitigation measures and reduce costs — for provinces, territories and individuals — bearing in mind that the federal government may have to pick up the tab? Are there any discussions on that subject?
[English]
Mr. Vu: Thank you for the question. Yes, you’re correct that the flood map information is the first step. The next step is for municipalities and jurisdictions to take mitigation measures. The National Adaptation Strategy does have different mechanisms to support different organizations across Canada in taking mitigation measures. I’m not the lead on the National Adaptation Strategy. I would have to defer that to ECCC.
You are correct that what we want to see are these flood maps being used. We are publishing them. We are pushing them out. We are making them available. The next step would be to see those maps being used and mitigation measures being made in municipalities and for homeowners.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: As Senator Galvez said earlier, many cities around the world have up-to-date maps, and people can use these maps.
Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Lewis: In the program, is there any ranking of risk? It makes me think of areas like the lower mainland in British Columbia. It’s a very complex problem with flooding that has already happened more than once. As recently as last year, they had another situation. It also involves international borders and those kinds of things.
In the program, is there recognition of some of the really high‑risk areas?
Mr. Vu: As the commissioner pointed out, we did a risk analysis in 2022 that tried to identify the higher-risk areas. That was a preliminary risk analysis. As we worked more closely with each jurisdiction, they brought their views, their data and their expertise in. That changed the areas that we identified as high‑risk.
So every area we mapped was an agreed-upon area with the provinces and territories saying that was an important area for them to map. Given that they have jurisdiction, we thought it was important not to force provinces and territories to comply with our preliminary 2022 risk analysis but to use their expertise, their jurisdiction and their data to identify the highest-risk areas for them.
Senator Lewis: Thank you.
The Chair: My question is for Public Safety primarily. What I’m thinking about follows Senator Lewis’s question, actually. I live in an area that is very close to a known flood plain, the Saint John River, particularly below the Mactaquac Dam and all of the things that it feeds, including Kennebecasis, Nashwaak and Grand Lake. I experienced the first flood of major proportions when I was a teenager and have seen several since. Something that always strikes me whenever it happens is that we don’t seem to know far enough ahead for people to take enough precaution or to believe that they may have to evacuate or whatever. I have friends who sandbag if they have enough time and that kind of thing.
Over the past 10 years or so, have you developed tools that you can share with the provinces that help in predicting ahead of time how bad the spring is going to be, how high the water will rise in those areas, for instance, along the Wolastoq River and its tributaries and what it feeds? Are there better ways for the public to prepare for what will happen? We don’t know which spring, but it does happen. It would be great if we were using new technology to prepare better and to have better predictability.
Ms. El Bied: Thank you for your question. Every year, Public Safety does a risk assessment for floods and wildfires. As soon as we have that, we share that information with provinces and territories. We share that with NGOs. We share that with the private sector. We make that information available.
Just recently, in April, my minister had a ministerial federal-provincial-territorial call where she shared this information with them. Following that, we shared with Indigenous organizations, showing them the risk assessment for floods. We do the same for wildfires.
Just internally, at my level and above, we have a regular conversation with provinces and territories to see how we can help each other and get ready to respond to any upcoming flood or wildfire season.
The Chair: Would you say that the predictability of the actual levels of flooding and so on are better than they were 10 years ago?
Ms. El Bied: I would say we are making improvements every year, so the answer would be yes. ECCC do a lot of work with us on that information. So this information is collected collectively with some key departments. We work very closely with ECCC and NRCan on that front.
The Chair: What types of information have improved? We talked about drones here today. What are you using to estimate the snow melt and all these different things that happen along that stretch of river that I’m thinking of?
Ms. El Bied: Today, science has been improved. The science that we have today is different than it has been in the past 10 years. But I think I can defer this question to my colleague at ECCC. She is better positioned to respond to how ECCC collect this data.
Doris Fortin, Director General, Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Thank you very much for the question. At ECCC, we collect information about atmospheric conditions as well as river levels and flows, snowpack and things like this. All these are fed into models that allow us to predict future conditions for weather in the near term as well as the medium and longer term.
Basically, we run models continuously. These models are improved as well on a continuous basis so that we get better at predicting specific conditions at higher resolutions and in specific areas. That information is what feeds into the risk assessment that my colleague was just mentioning.
You asked for specific improvements. I think one of the members earlier talked about the integration of AI into one of our models recently. What we could predict maybe five or six days ahead we’ll now be able to predict four days ahead. We have gained up to a day in terms of our ability to predict some conditions.
There are still challenges. Precipitation can be difficult to predict. There is active research in that area.
The Chair: Okay. So New Brunswick would be working with you on their particular areas that they know are at flood risk and we just don’t know which year?
Ms. Fortin: Exactly. So the National Hydrometric Program is delivered in partnership with all provinces and territories, including New Brunswick. That’s the program I mentioned that is responsible for collecting and sharing information about river water levels and flows. Also, there are other conditions that are measured on the territory, and we share data as much as possible.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there other questions, colleagues?
Senator Galvez: With respect to the integration and collection of the data, it’s very interesting when you talk to insurers. In Chatham rules meetings, we learned that they are doing and developing their own models because they are already adjusting how much they charge their clients depending on this zone.
Is there any communication or exchange? I know in their parameters, they integrate other things besides the climate; they integrate economic, social and zoning aspects in order to determine whether clients will be able to pay the new primes.
But are there any exchanges you have learned about on this? They are hearing engineers now. This is relatively new, but they are hiring people for these models.
Ms. Fortin: Thank you for the question.
You’re quite right that insurance companies and many other companies are now running their own models and hiring specialized personnel to do this modelling because it has an important impact on their business line.
Sharing happens up to a certain level. As I mentioned, there is quite a bit of science behind the development of different models, and to the extent that the science is published and shared in an open space, there is definitely communication from that perspective. However, private companies often also have propriety parts of their models, which they do not share.
There is an exchange, and there are things out there in the public. I can give some examples. A big tech company in the U.S. recently developed entirely AI models that can predict weather conditions, for example, in some situations — some elements of the weather conditions. Some of them are actually wide open. The model I was talking about earlier that we just put into operation at ECCC — we started from the model that Google developed. It was very limited, so we started from that and built on to make it our own.
There is sharing to that extent, but some of the things are not shared, obviously.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
Mr. DeMarco: I don’t have a question for me, but if I did, I’m sure it would be easy to answer.
I wanted to thank the committee. We’ve been appearing before the committee regularly of late, and I read with interest the letters that the committee recently transmitted on sustainable development and species assessment and reassessment. I wanted to thank you for following up on the work because we’re all in this together in terms of the accountability ecosystem. Thank you for providing those letters and drawing on our work for the work you do.
The Chair: On behalf of all of us, thanks to you and your team. Thank you for convening all the other departments that you collaborate with to help move these things forward and give Canadians what they need from the work you do, which is varied but all related to the environment and its protection. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)