Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to be here today to speak about the five performance audit reports that were tabled in the House of Commons on Tuesday.
I'd like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered here on the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people. This territory is also home to numerous other first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples whom I also acknowledge and whose contributions I appreciate.
Also with me here today are Ms. Kimberley Leach, Ms. Markirit Armutlu, and Ms. Susan Gomez, as well as Mr. Nicholas Swales and Mr. Mathieu Lequain, all of whom are principals who conduct audit assignments.
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 towards eliminating plastic waste.
The good news is that we found that the waste reduction activities under this initiative have been achieving positive results and are in close alignment with Canada's priorities. For example, Fisheries and Oceans Canada funded 67 projects to remove abandoned, lost or discarded gear. However, the organizations did not have the information required to demonstrate how their efforts contributed to achieving the Canada-wide objective. For example, there was a three-year delay in publishing Statistics Canada data on plastic waste in the environment. To reduce plastic pollution, the federal government must work together with many parties, including the provinces, the territories, the municipalities and the private sector. With so many partners, it's particularly important to have strict tracking systems.
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 remains to be done to reduce the costs of dealing with contaminated sites and mitigating environmental and human health risks in the interests of current and future generations. The government needs to urgently introduce measures to foster socio-economic benefits, including job opportunities, and to support reconciliation with indigenous peoples, whose lands have often been affected by contaminated sites.
I will now move on to the remaining three reports on measures to combat climate change.
Our recent reports examined the two largest emission sectors. This year, we looked at other major sources of emissions, which are building materials, manufacturing industries and agriculture. In all of these audits, we found that progress was slow, and that there were no long-term approaches to reduce emissions. This finding does not, however, affect the potential of these measures to help Canada become carbon neutral, provided that they are designed and implemented more effectively.
Our audit of the greening of building materials in public infrastructures revealed that the transition to low-carbon building materials was too slow given the urgency of the climate change crisis.
Though the federal government first expressed in 2006 its desire to move markets towards 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.
The next audit was of the net zero accelerator initiative, whose objective is to reduce greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions by providing incentives for Canadian industries to decarbonize their activities.
We found that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada had been unsuccessful in attracting the country's largest industrial emitters. Of the 55 companies that generated the most emissions, only 15 submitted a funding application under the initiative and only two signed a contribution agreement. The lengthy and complex application process, which required an average of 407 hours to complete, was no doubt one of the reasons why the department did not attract more applicants. We also found that the department did not always know to what extent GHG emissions had been reduced by those companies that took part in the initiative, or whether the funding provided would lead to 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 three 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 six growing seasons that remain.
We also found that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada had not yet established performance targets for two of the three programs, making it difficult to assess progress. The department's contribution to reduced GHG emissions is indispensable in the battle against climate change, hence the importance of setting goals and monitoring results.
Despite the limited results reported thus far, all of these climate initiatives could, if they were improved, contribute to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 and making key changes 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'd be pleased to answer any questions that the committee may have.
Thank you
