Forests and Climate Change; Emission Reductions Through Greenhouse Gas Regulations—Environment and Climate Change Canada

Opening Statement before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Forests and Climate Change

(Report 1—2023 Reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development)

Emission Reductions Through Greenhouse Gas Regulations—Environment and Climate Change Canada

(Report 5—2023 Reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development)

13 June 2023

Jerry V. DeMarco
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to discuss our reports on forests and climate change and on emission reductions through greenhouse gas regulations. Our reports were tabled in the House of Commons on April 20th. I would like to acknowledge that this hearing is taking place on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. Joining me today are Kimberley Leach and Isabelle Marsolais, who were responsible for these 2 audits.

The 5 reports I presented to Parliament in April, including the 2 that we are discussing today, show that climate change and biodiversity are intrinsically linked. These 2 crises need to be addressed together through decisive and concerted actions.

I will start with our audit report on forests and climate change. The federal government launched the 2 Billion Trees Program, which aims to counter climate change, enhance biodiversity, and support human well-being. We found that given the number of trees planted so far, this program is unlikely to succeed unless significant changes are made.

Although Natural Resources Canada nearly met its goal to plant 30 million trees in 2021, it fell well short of its 2022 goal of 60 million trees. Delays in signing agreements with planting partners have significantly challenged the department’s ability to plant the number of trees it had planned for 2022 and these delays will spill over to affect subsequent years, which have much more ambitious goals.

Since our audit, we understand that some progress has been made in signing additional agreements, but work remains to get the program on track to reach 2 billion trees planted by 2031. Even if that goal is achieved, the program’s initial targets for carbon sequestration by 2030 and 2050 will not be met.

In addition, we found that the program missed opportunities to enhance biodiversity and habitat-related benefits over the long term. Natural Resources Canada disagreed with our recommendation to provide additional incentives for habitat restoration, as it believes that doing so could reduce available funding to meet the number of trees planted and climate mitigation objectives. However, habitat restoration is part of the solution to the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss.

We also found that Natural Resources Canada, working with Environment and Climate Change Canada, did not provide a clear and complete picture of how Canada’s forests affect greenhouse gas emissions. For example, emission estimates varied significantly in reports over the years because of recalculations prompted by data updates. This changed whether forests were reported as a net source of emissions rather than capturing emissions, making it extremely difficult to make informed decisions.

I must stress how important it is that we do not give up on solutions such as the 2 Billion Trees Program and that, instead, we change course to successfully implement these initiatives.

I will turn now to our audit report on emission reductions through greenhouse gas regulations. This audit examined whether the regulations achieved their targets and contributed to Canada’s long-term climate change mitigation goals.

Environment and Climate Change Canada did not know the extent to which the greenhouse gas regulations we examined contributed to meeting Canada’s overall emission reduction target. This was because the department’s approach to measuring emissions did not attribute results to specific regulations, recognizing that it is challenging to do so because of interactions among policy measures.

When we looked at individual regulations, we found mixed results. The regulations aimed at reducing emissions from power generation achieved their performance targets, but some of the regulations that aimed to reduce emissions from vehicles did not. The department was also very slow to develop new regulations, such as those for clean fuels.

Regulations are an important element of achieving Canada’s overall emission reduction target. However, without comprehensive impact information, the federal government does not know whether it is using the right tools to sufficiently reduce emissions to meet this target.

In conclusion, the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss are chronic, insidious, and too often ignored because their gravity becomes most apparent over the long term. Government should better use the policy tools it has to protect wildlife, restore habitats, reduce greenhouse gases, and prepare for climate change.

Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you.