Opening Statement before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
2024 Reports 1 to 5 of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
2 May 2024
Jerry V. DeMarco
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Mr. Chair, I am pleased to be here today to discuss our 5 performance audit reports, which were tabled in the House of Commons on Tuesday. I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered today on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people, a place that is home to many other First Nations, Inuit, and Métis, whose contributions I also recognize and value. I am accompanied by Kimberly Leach, Markirit Armutlu, Nicholas Swales, Susan Gomez, and Mathieu Lequain, the principals who were responsible for the audits.
Our first report is on the zero plastic waste initiative. We found that the federal government did not know whether its reduction activities would eliminate all plastic waste by 2030.
Although the initiative refers to “zero” plastic waste, its targets refer only to reducing plastic waste and are not measuring against the end goal of zero plastic waste. It is an important distinction that needs to be reflected in the initiative’s reporting so that Canadians and parliamentarians can see how much progress is being made toward eliminating plastic waste.
On the positive side, we found that waste-reduction activities under the initiative were achieving good results and were strongly aligned with Canada’s priorities. For instance, Fisheries and Oceans Canada funded 67 projects that were removing abandoned, lost, and discarded fishing gear from the water.
However, organizations lacked information to show to what extent their efforts were contributing to the Canada‑wide goal. For example, there is a 3‑year delay in Statistics Canada’s data on plastic waste released into the environment.
Successfully reducing plastic pollution requires the collaboration of the federal government with many others, including provinces, territories, municipalities, and the private sector. With so many partners in play, robust tracking systems are critically important.
Our next audit examined contaminated sites in northern Canada, which continue to carry significant health, environmental, and financial risks. We found that Transport Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada—which manage many of these sites—complied with the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan. However, this was not enough to meet the objectives of reducing the health, environmental, and financial risks associated with these sites.
The Canada-wide financial liability for known federal contaminated sites has increased from $2.9 billion to $10.1 billion since the launch of the action plan in 2005. While only 11% of sites are in the North, over 60% of Canada’s total estimated financial liability is linked to the remediation of northern sites. This is an enormous financial burden on taxpayers and represents a failure to properly implement the “polluter pays” principle, as many private sector sites had to be taken over by the federal government.
After 20 years, much work is still needed to reduce the financial liability related to contaminated sites and to lower environmental and human health risks for current and future generations. As well, the government needs to take urgent action to advance socio-economic benefits, including employment opportunities, and to support reconciliation with Indigenous peoples whose lands are often affected by contaminated sites.
I’m going to turn now to the last 3 reports, which focus on measures to fight climate change. Our recent reports have looked at the 2 largest-emitting sectors, and this year, we looked at other large sources of emissions, namely construction materials, manufacturing, and agriculture. In all these audits, we found slow progress and a shortage of long‑term approaches to cut emissions. This does not diminish the potential of these spending measures to help Canada reach a net‑zero future, if they are designed and implemented in a more effective manner.
Our audit of greening construction materials in public infrastructure found that the shift to low‑carbon construction materials had been too slow given the urgency of the climate change crisis.
Though the federal government first expressed in 2006 its desire to move markets toward goods and services that carry a lower carbon footprint, it took more than 10 years for it to consider the use of low-carbon construction materials, and it was only in late 2022 that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat established the Standard on Embodied Carbon in Construction. As of now, the standard applies only to ready‑mix concrete.
We also found that Public Services and Procurement Canada had not finished incorporating the requirements of the standard into its infrastructure procurement process. Meanwhile, Infrastructure Canada has incorporated considerations related to reducing the carbon content of construction materials into its funding programs only in a limited way. This is important because emissions from construction and construction materials account for 11% of Canada’s total emissions.
This slow pace of change is concerning because steel production typically emits high amounts of greenhouse gases and is widely used in major construction projects. To increase Canada’s chances of meeting its 2030 and 2050 climate commitments, the federal government needs to more actively promote the use of low‑carbon construction materials in public infrastructure.
Our next audit focused on the Net Zero Accelerator initiative, which aims to lower greenhouse gas emissions by incentivizing Canadian industries to decarbonize their operations.
We found that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada had failed to attract the country’s largest industrial emitters. Out of 55 large-emitting companies, only 15 applied for funding under the initiative. Of these, only 2 signed a contribution agreement. The lengthy and complex application process that takes on average 407 hours to complete has likely not helped the department’s efforts to attract more applicants.
We also found that the department did not always know the amount of emission reductions that most companies participating in the initiative would achieve, or whether the funding provided will result in reduced emissions.
Surprisingly, there is no overarching industrial decarbonization policy to provide Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada with a clear picture of which industries are most in need of funds to reduce emissions. I am concerned about what the department plans to do to address the significant gaps uncovered in our audit given the vague responses it provided to our recommendations.
Our last audit looked at agriculture and climate change mitigation. We found that Agriculture and Agri‑Food Canada had not developed a strategy for how the agriculture sector would contribute to Canada’s 2030 and 2050 climate goals, despite a strategy being first called for in 2020.
In 2021, the department launched 3 key programs aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, delays in funding approvals resulted in recipients missing a growing season. The department has so far achieved less than 2% of its 2030 overall greenhouse gas reduction target. Agriculture and Agri‑Food Canada will need to ensure that all expected reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for 2030 take place in the 6 growing seasons that remain.
We also found that Agriculture and Agri‑Food Canada had yet to define performance targets for 2 of the 3 programs, making it difficult to assess progress. Agriculture and Agri‑Food Canada’s contributions to reduce emissions are integral to the fight against climate change, which is why setting targets and tracking results are so important.
Despite the limited results reported to date, all these climate initiatives have the potential, if improved, to help meet the 2050 net‑zero goal and effect meaningful change for current and future generations. Given the ongoing climate crisis and the federal government’s repeated struggles to achieve real emission reductions, a strategic, coherent, results-oriented approach is essential if Canada is to play its part in the global fight against climate change.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you.