Bill C-57 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act

This enactment amends the Federal Sustainable Development Act to make decision making related to sustainable development more transparent and subject to accountability to Parliament.

Federal Sustainable Development Act

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member just said that the government has done a fantastic job on the issue, but I beg to differ. The commissioner's report actually states:

The findings presented in our fall 2017 reports show that in two important areas—reducing greenhouse gases and adapting to the impacts of climate change—the federal government has yet to do much of the hard work that is required to bring about this fundamental shift. For example, instead of developing a detailed action plan to reach the 2020 target for reducing emissions, the government changed its focus to the 2030 target. In addition, the government did not pursue a number of greenhouse gas regulations, thereby losing opportunities to achieve real reductions in emissions.

I could go on, but these are just some of the highlights that the commissioner pointed out around the lack of action from the government.

We have Bill C-57, where the government says it will take a whole-of-government approach but does not. In fact, it does not engage all of the central government agencies in the development and implementation of the federal sustainable development strategy.

How can the government think that this is going to address the issues at hand, especially in light of the commissioner's reports?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the commissioner of the environment does on her audits. It provides great information for our government to be able to move forward and address the concerns that have been raised.

As I noted, Bill C-57 takes the work of the committee that I was part of and incorporates needed changes into legislation. It will set the framework for our government to move forward. It is very much setting a leadership position for our government. I remain very proud of this legislation and the changes we will see.

I would also like to comment that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has on notice, a potential study that we will be discussing in the near future on climate change. Given the great relationship we have had with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, I believe we will be able to come up with wonderful recommendations for her consideration. That will also help move our government's agenda forward.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member has spent many years in the federal civil service. I am wondering whether he can tell us what that experience brings to the table in terms of this new legislation, and how it might affect the civil service.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, flowing from the Federal Sustainable Development Act are the sustainable development strategies that each department needs to do. As the minister noted in her comments this morning, the scope of the departments covered by that is being expanded under these changes. It is a way of helping departments focus on how they will contribute to sustainable development. This is a great way of encouraging a greater number of government organizations to contribute to sustainability in our country.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to have an opportunity to address my hon. colleagues in support of this new legislation.

I would like to speak to the principles of sustainable development in Bill C-57 and how these would help to advance the government's commitment to a clean environment and a strong economy.

Guelph has a long history of enacting sustainable development policies. Personally, I worked for five years on the mayor's task force for sustainability and have since focused my goals in the House around the triple bottom-line approach in balancing economic, environmental, and social development. Guelph is a living monument to our government's mantra that we cannot separate success in the environment and success in the economy. They are, in fact, one and the same. Guelph is known for its economic success, including low unemployment and a rapid growth in our economy. In fact, Guelph is one of the fastest-growing economies in Canada, but it is also one of the most environmentally conscious. We have the highest rates of waste diversion from landfills, at 68%. We have the lowest water consumption per capita, with a goal of reaching Norway's level. As we grow our population by 50%, we are looking to reduce our electrical consumption by the same amount so that we do not require more power for the 50% more people coming in.

Another key objective of Bill C-57 is poverty reduction. Guelph is actively working to eliminate poverty, with a focus on homelessness and mental health. Currently, the Guelph and Wellington task force for poverty elimination is a shining example of our community's dedication to eliminate poverty in our community. Its three-year strategic plan, from 2014 to 2017, addresses issues like food and income security, housing, and dental health. These social objectives are essential to sustainable development, as was acknowledged by the UN in the early 1980s. It all connects.

Let me continue with some global history. In 1983, the United Nations General Assembly established the World Commission on Environment and Development. It was chaired by Norwegian Prime Minister Brundtland, and in 1987 the Brundtland commission published its report, “Our Common Future”, known as the Brundtland report. That report put sustainable development squarely on the global agenda. In its own words, “Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” That is often referred to as the standard definition of sustainable development. Indeed, that is how sustainable development is defined in our current Federal Sustainable Development Act.

The Brundtland report paved the way for an unprecedented 1992 United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro, better known as The Earth Summit. I want to make a special point of noting that it was a very great, distinguished Canada who helped to organize that event, the late Maurice Strong. The Earth Summit brought together more countries and heads of state than any previous event. It also established enduring and lasting mechanisms for international co-operation, following through on Gro Harlem Brundtland's vision of a sustainable future. Among these important agreements were the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biodiversity, and the development of the Commission on Sustainable Development. Canada was there. We supported the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.

We have championed sustainable development since then. Following the Rio summit, in 1995, Canada became one of the first countries in the world to create a commissioner for sustainable development. Since 1997, government departments have been required to produce sustainable development strategies in compliance with the 1995 amendments to the Auditor General Act. In 2008, under the leadership of the Hon. John Godfrey, his private member's bill, Bill C-474, passed and became law as the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

The act provides the legal framework for developing and implementing a federal sustainable development strategy every three years. It also requires 26 departments and agencies to prepare their own sustainable development strategies that comply and contribute to the overall federal strategy.

The year 2015 was a watershed year. In September, Canada was among 193 countries to adopt the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. The 2030 agenda sets out a global framework of action over the next decade and a half for people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnership; to eradicate poverty; and to leave no one behind. The 17 sustainable development goals and 169 associated targets build on the previous millennium development goals. They are universally applicable and fully integrate the social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.

In December 2015, Canada was among the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which adopted the historic Paris Agreement.

The Federal Sustainable Development Act is part of the legacy that began with the Brundtland report and earth summit and is still relevant today as we advance the government's commitment to a clean environment and a strong economy. It provides the framework to develop and implement the federal sustainable development strategy, the complete guide to the Government of Canada's environmental sustainability priorities.

The most recent strategy, for the period 2016-19, was tabled in the House on October 6, 2016. It sets out 13 long-term, aspirational goals. In response to a recommendation of the standing committee, the strategy's goals are a Canadian reflection of the United Nations' sustainable development goals, with a focus on their environmental dimensions.

Today I would like to take a few minutes to tell my colleagues about the principles we are proposing in Bill C-57, principles this government believes will strengthen the Federal Sustainable Development Act. I also want to acknowledge the important work of our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, who, in their June 2016 report, highlighted the importance of modernizing our sustainable development principles.

Bill C-57 proposes to include the following principles: intergenerational equity, polluter pays, internalization of costs, openness and transparency, involving indigenous peoples' collaboration, and results and delivery.

The principle of intergenerational equity is the essence of sustainable development. It is the recognition that the decisions we make are not just about today and about us but also about the future and those who will be here after us. The Brundtland report set out the following principle on intergenerational equity: “States shall conserve and use the environment and natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations.”

It was also recommended in the standing committee's June 2016 report that the principle of polluter pays be adopted, that we look at a new way of thinking, and that sustainable economic growth take into account the damages imposed on the environment.

Polluter pays means that those who generate pollution should bear the cost of having created pollution. Internalization of costs means that goods and services should reflect all the costs they generate for society, from their design to their consumption to their final disposal. The principles of openness and transparency are also intertwined with the purpose of the Federal Sustainable Development Act, ensuring that decision-making related to sustainable development is more transparent and is subject to accountability to Parliament.

That is why Bill C-57 proposes a principle on involving all peoples and being transparent to all peoples. I also note that the government's commitment is supported by provisions in the act to ensure and expand aboriginal representation on the Sustainable Development Advisory Council.

Finally, the principles we set out in Bill C-57 reaffirm that we are up to the challenge. Canada, like Guelph, is ready to seize the opportunities before us and to be bold. Sustainable development means growing a diversified, low-carbon economy while reducing emissions, generating good jobs for Canadians, and having a society we can all be proud of.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government enacted the Federal Sustainable Development Act in 2008 as the result of a Liberal member's private bill, and we invested in clean technology. The Conservative government reduced greenhouse gases in transportation and coal-fired electricity. These were meaningful, realistic reductions to protect the environment and work with the economy.

This week, the Auditor General reported that the Liberal government has failed dismally. How does the member think Bill C-57 would improve the Liberal government's dismal record to date?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoy having the hon. member on the industry committee. He has been contributing there, as he is today in the House.

When we had our debates during the campaign, I remember that there was always a part when the Conservative candidate mentioned its great environmental record, and that is when the crowd groaned. I have to introduce that and imagine the crowd groaning today. The greenhouse gas reductions happened during the worst economic time Canada had seen since the Great Depression. It may have had something to do with consumption dropping with the economy, which is more to the point.

We are looking at how we enact legislation and how we work with our partners in the provinces and municipalities to drive our plan forward and get real results. It is early in the game, but we know we are going to get there.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the work that has been done by the standing committee the member referenced in his speech, I am wondering if the member is at all concerned, because Bill C-57's amendments do not completely meet the recommendations of the committee. As a matter of fact, the government put forward some recommendations that were not raised at the committee, which is a concern. I am wondering in particular if the member would like to expand on why it might be that the committee was not asked to weigh in and make recommendations when we are looking at the legal framework for a federal sustainable development strategy.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have not been involved with the committee directly, but the work of committees comes from the committee to the government. The government looks at the priorities of the whole of government, and works with the recommendations from committees to engage the whole of government. Sometimes all the recommendations are taken. Sometimes not all the recommendations are taken, based on how they fit in with the whole-of-government approach.

I might also say that it is early in the game. We have taken the most important priorities from the committee to move forward and work with our provincial and municipal counterparts to engage and get the goals we want to achieve.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as someone who sits on the environment and sustainable development committee, I can say how pleased I am with the government's response. Many of our recommendations made it into the legislation, and many of the ones that are not directly in the legislation will be actioned through other means, so I think the government has responded very appropriately.

How does the member feel his community will benefit from Bill C-57 and the legislation that is going forward?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a tough question, and I really appreciate the member for Cloverdale—Langley City for challenging me on that. As I mentioned, our community has a sustainable development plan already. Now we are moving into the action items that will align with the federal plan and then will bring the province on board so that all three orders of government will work together to achieve Canada's goals together.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act. The bill was partly inspired by a 2016 report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, which I belonged to at the time of the report's release. I am pleased to have this opportunity to offer further input on this matter.

The Conservatives have long supported sustainable development strategies. Indeed, we supported the Federal Sustainable Development Act in 2008. It makes sense that economic, social and environmental priorities be advanced through an integrated whole-of-government approach. We cannot advance one of these priorities while ignoring the others. Canadians expect that parliamentarians consider all three priorities when designing policy and legislation. The public needs to be confident that policy has been thoroughly thought out on all three fronts.

Unfortunately, this Liberal government has made little progress in implementing sustainable development strategies, as the 2017 fall reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development made all too clear. I am sure we can all agree that the commissioner is incredibly competent and thorough, and her findings should carry great weight.

The importance of sustainable development is something on which all parties agree, and the government simply needs to make real progress on this file. Given that action is clearly needed, I am pleased the bill takes steps to meet the expectations of Canadians by amending the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

The bill takes a number of noteworthy steps toward improving government transparency and accountability. It greatly expands the number of government agencies and departments subject to the federal sustainable development strategy, from 26 to 90 departments. If we are launching a whole-of-government approach, expanding the number of departments subject to the strategy obviously makes sense.

It would also mandate that departments adhere to a reporting and progress schedule. This is a fundamentally sound practice. It would ensure we would have a means through which to assess what action departments were taking to meet their objectives. By assessing this action on a whole-of-government basis, we will get a better sense of whether targets are being met in a meaningful way. In the past, we have had issues with non-compliance. By empowering the Treasury Board to establish policies or issue directives to ensure compliance with the new reporting requirements, government accountability will hopefully be improved.

With that said, I do have some concerns with regard to how the departments and agencies prepare and report their sustainable development strategies. As I said, reporting on progress makes sense.

We heard from witnesses in committee that Germany had achieved success with an annual reporting requirement. Reporting on progress ensures that if a strategy is not working, there is an opportunity to make revisions to get back on track. However, it is also important that departments and agencies not be subjected to onerous requirements and red tape. The requirements should not merely add red tape to an already enormous and complex bureaucratic organization.

A key benefit of adopting a whole-of-government approach is efficiency and the elimination of waste. The specific reporting requirements should be carefully crafted so as to avoid bogging down the departments in more red tape. If government departments and agencies are allocating time and resources to preparing reports instead of actually taking action on sustainable development, then the bill will not have its desired effects. It simply will be a big waste of time. A firm sense of what the considerable reporting requirements in the bill will actually accomplish is also very important. Reporting can be an effective strategy to improve accountability, but only if it is well implemented. I hope the government will continue to carefully review the successes and failures of other jurisdictions as the bill's legislative processes unfolds.

Some of the jurisdictions we heard about took years to get this right. The government needs to be very careful and think this through. If it does not, the bill will serve as nothing more than a just another cautionary tale for other jurisdictions on what not to do.

With regard to how the departments prepare their sustainable development strategies, it is important that they not do so in a silo. Of course, the unique mandate of each respective department will mean that their strategies vary. I am not saying that we can develop a government-wide, one-size-fits-all plan, however, 90 departments and agencies will now be subject to the strategy. It would be hugely wasteful for departments to be individually developing strategies that overlap. Duplication simply must be avoided for this whole-of-government approach to actually improve efficiency.

To that end, it is vital that departments communicate with one another as they prepare their respective strategies. Along with the top-down direction from the centre, this strategy needs horizontal, government-wide coordination. A broad template strategy would be a common sense way of doing this. That way, it can be tweaked by each department to accommodate their specific needs, but would avoid departments wasting time and resources preparing plans in individual silos. The minister should provide clear leadership in developing the government-wide framework. Sorrily, according to commissioner's audit, this is missing.

Overall, a whole-of-government approach to sustainable development principles is an important means of protecting the social, economic, and environmental well-being of Canadians. However, it must not be allowed to degenerate into a costly bureaucratic nightmare.

I also have some misgivings about the remuneration of the Sustainable Development Advisory Council. Compensating out-of-pocket expenses is one thing, but our committee's unanimous report did not call for the advisory council to receive the compensation now being proposed. I am not sure what the Liberals' basis for introducing remuneration is. It was not in our report, because we felt it should not happen. Our committee conducted a thorough study on this matter. As I noted, we heard about the failures in many other jurisdictions. I hope the government has good reason for deviating from the findings on this point.

This is an important file on which all parties want action. At its best, the bill could offer an efficient, cost effective way of reaching sustainable development objectives. Introducing remuneration for advisory council members may do the opposite as far as cost-effectiveness. Further, it is important that Canadians can have confidence that the advisory council is offering the minister independent and objective advice. This is crucial. It cannot become tied to any minister or department. Its independence needs to be beyond question. The council members should not be remunerated.

Our committee's report also emphasized the importance of engaging the Canadian public on sustainable development. As one witness put it, “You'll not regulate yourself into sustainable development. Sustainable development is more than just regulation. ”Many Canadians are already taking incredible action. My motion, Motion No. 108, aims to recognize farmers and ranchers as stewards of the environment and conservationists. They are doing their part to develop their land and produce our food sustainably. Beyond the provisions outlined in the bill, the government should remember that it is everyday Canadians who are making a huge difference. They should be encouraged to do so. Open, informative dialogue about sustainable development is very necessary.

While I intend to support the bill, I hope the government will take action to address the concerns I have raised today. The stakes are too high on this file to continue to make no progress. Canadians expect a federal sustainability development strategy that works.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to express my frustration not only with the bill, but with this debate today. We are in an urgent climate crisis. I live in a province that has lost 5% of our annual allowable cut of forest to forest fires this summer. We have seen extreme weather events. We have seen floods. We have seen the report from the Commissioner on Environment and Sustainable Development, which said that the government had absolutely failed to address the crisis of climate change.

Of course I am in favour of sustainable development, but what I am really in favour of is the House of Commons getting down to work on the things we need to meet that climate crisis. Where is the plan to shift away from fossil fuels and to project the jobs of those workers who will have to transition to new work?

Where is the plan to shift transportation over to electricity from fossil fuels? I am in a privileged position. I gave up my gas car nearly five years ago. The technology is there. We can do this.

Where is the plan to shift to geothermal for space heating? The technology is there, and it uses some of the same skills used in the oil industry.

Where is the plan to start making the transitions we need? I have not heard a thing from the Conservatives or the Liberals about the real actions we need to meet the climate crisis we face in our country.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a plan, and the commissioner recognized that. The commissioner said that it was the implementation of that plan that needed to be done.

Therefore, there is a plan, but it would involve all 90 departments, government as a whole. If the government implements the plan, we will see action. However, that is where it has to move, and it has not happened so far. Now we need to see if the government will do that.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, having heard the previous comment and response, I guess the plan would be $180 billion-plus in infrastructure investment, including support for the largest conversion from diesel rail to electric rail in the world going on right now in Ontario, and support for a massive investment in public transit. As well, we have the ocean protection plan. We have made significant investments to ensure the environmental standards for resource development are sustainable, but are also positive for the environment. We have had comprehensive and profound engagement with indigenous communities right across the country as we roll that out. We have signed on to the Paris accord and the movement toward greenhouse gas reduction.

As we do all of this, as we steward the economy and allow it to grow and create record growth, with the lowering of unemployment right across the country, as we grow the economy and have an impact on the new technology, the new systems, and the new infrastructure required to meet the new century's challenges, is that not exactly why the party opposite is supporting this bill?