Evidence of meeting #29 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was statistics.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Normand Radford
James Mitchell  Founding Partner, Sussex Circle Inc.
Karen Wilson  Assistant Chief Statistician, National Accounts and Analytical Studies Field, Statistics Canada
Robert Smith  Director, Environment Accounts and Statistics Division, Statistics Canada
James Meadowcroft  Research Chair in Governance for Sustainable Development, Carleton University, As an Individual

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC

Mr. Mitchell, do you agree with that?

5:10 p.m.

Founding Partner, Sussex Circle Inc.

James Mitchell

I agree with Mr. Meadowcroft when he says that this is too complex a question for one to be able to answer directly.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC

A country's development is based on energy. And I would like to talk about other forms of energy. I went to the Gaspé Region, where people are up in arms about windmill farms. But nuclear fission will not be available for 20 years.

What kind of energy should our government be moving towards?

5:10 p.m.

Research Chair in Governance for Sustainable Development, Carleton University, As an Individual

Dr. James Meadowcroft

There are several parts to an energy policy. It is important that the energy be cheap and safe. In my opinion, the primary challenge is climate change. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the major challenge over the next 20 years.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC

Yes, but what about energy?

5:10 p.m.

Research Chair in Governance for Sustainable Development, Carleton University, As an Individual

Dr. James Meadowcroft

It is impossible to say whether it should be nuclear energy or biofuels. A number of different energy sources are needed and they will need to be developed in order to meet the needs of society, but at the same time, greenhouse gas emissions have to be reduced.

There is an important role for biofuels, as long as they are second generation, meaning that they are produced from cellulose, as opposed to food or some other material. That is a whole other subject. However, I do agree that there needs to be more discussion of this.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Thank you, Mr. Harvey. Your time is up.

Mr. Regan.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to say that I am pleased to see that our English-speaking witnesses are so articulate in French.

I feel like trying to do the same.

5:10 p.m.

Voices

Ah, ah!

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

No, it's just too painful.

Mr. Chairman, through you, Mr. Meadowcroft talked about the need for fundamental change in the relationship between people and the environment. I don't have the exact words here, but he talked about the fact that we need an industrial transformation to reduce our emissions by 80% to 90%.

Mr. Mitchell, do you agree that this is needed? And if so, we're talking really about a fundamental change. I guess the question is this: without the kind of structure that is suggested by this bill, within cabinet, without the kind of structural change that happened when the Treasury Board was created, for example, how else do we get there? I mean, you say this is a fundamental change; it certainly is, but isn't there a need for fundamental change in relation to how this matter is dealt with?

5:10 p.m.

Founding Partner, Sussex Circle Inc.

James Mitchell

Mr. Chair, Mr. Regan, I agree with Mr. Meadowcroft that there is a need for fundamental change. I don't have his expertise to tell you that it should be an 80% or 90% reduction--I wouldn't venture that before the committee--but I agree that fundamental change is required. I think that's above all, as I said, first and foremost a public and political challenge to get Canadians to realize that those fundamental changes are required. That's where I would start.

Would a bill like this help with that? Well, I think it's pushing on the wrong end of the stick, if I may say, or pushing on string rather than pulling forward. I think job one is for the Government of Canada--whether it's the Conservative government of today, another government tomorrow, or whatever, it doesn't matter--to get Canadians to understand the need for those decisions. How you take the decisions will then actually be relatively easier. I don't think you're going to get the government to the point of accepting that by imposing on them a particular set of mechanisms for that.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

But if Canadians are telling parliamentarians that they do want to see change, and if parliamentarians, through Parliament, feel that they want to cause government to do this, what kind of structure can Parliament put in place that will achieve that?

5:15 p.m.

Founding Partner, Sussex Circle Inc.

James Mitchell

Well, again, I'm going to revert to my experience inside the government and say that I don't really think it's useful....

You're a former minister, Mr. Regan--

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

I haven't forgotten.

5:15 p.m.

Founding Partner, Sussex Circle Inc.

James Mitchell

--so I have no lessons to teach you. But I don't think it's useful for Parliament to tell the government precisely how it needs to take the kinds of decisions that you expect of it in order to--

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Let me ask you a different question. If you were advising a Prime Minister on what structure he should put in place in and around his cabinet, what would it be in relation to this issue?

5:15 p.m.

Founding Partner, Sussex Circle Inc.

James Mitchell

That is an excellent question.

I would actually not have a separate committee for sustainable development, because those issues you are talking about in the bill and that we've been talking about today are so fundamental and so integrated that I'd want to see them considered in something like a priorities and planning committee or an executive committee of cabinet, something like that. The most senior, central, general decision-making body of cabinet is where I would put those issues and those decisions.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

How does Parliament create greater accountability to Parliament in relation to the work of that kind of body?

5:15 p.m.

Founding Partner, Sussex Circle Inc.

James Mitchell

If I may say so, I don't think you want accountability in relation to the work of that kind of body. You want the government, represented by the PM and his colleagues on the front benches, accounting to you for what they've done, either against the promises they have made or the obligations that are in the law. So you need the right set of obligations in the law and you need to prompt them to make the right sorts of promises; then I would say you would hold them to account for that.

I actually don't think it's useful or productive for Parliament to say, here's how we want you to run your kitchen, and we're going to hold you to account for having run the kitchen in this precise way or that. You want to look at what's coming out of the kitchen. What are you getting by way of policy and program commitments, spending, and fundamental changes?

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Isn't it true that Parliament can hold the President of the Treasury Board accountable for decisions of that board? Isn't that a valuable process?

5:15 p.m.

Founding Partner, Sussex Circle Inc.

James Mitchell

Certainly the President of the Treasury Board has responsibilities under the law as the chair of that statutory committee. I'm not sure if I've ever seen that. You normally hold either ministers accountable for the spending that has been made by their departments or the PM accountable for what the government as a whole is doing. It's something like that.

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

Go ahead, Mr. Petit.

April 30th, 2008 / 5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to all our witnesses.

My question is addressed to Mr. Mitchell. You raised a matter of interest to me. We have a bill before us. I believe you had an opportunity to examine the bill before coming here. I would like to refer you to subclause 5(2). Because I am a lawyer, I am a member of the Justice Committee, but since it is not meeting currently, I am available to deal with the environment. I would like to read you that clause, just to be sure that we all understand each other:

(2) The Government of Canada therefore adopts the following goals for Canada with respect to sustainable development:

Here I would like to jump to subparagraph (ii), which reads as follows:

(ii) by making efficient and effective use of energy and resources,

That is a provincial responsibility. Then, in subparagraph (iii), it says:

(iii) modifying production and consumption patterns to mimic nature's closed loop cycles, thus dramatically reducing waste and pollution,

Part of that is within the purview of the provinces.

In subparagraph (v), it reads:

(v) exercising good water stewardship [...]

I am referring here to the province of Quebec.

[...] by protecting and restoring the quantity and quality of fresh water in Canadian ecosystems;

That is a provincial responsibility.

Further on, in subclause (c), it reads:

(c) Canadian agriculture should provide nutritious and healthy foods, while safeguarding the land, water and biodiversities;

As far as I know, that is a matter that falls within the purview of the provinces. According to the civil law, the province owns the land, the mines and the water.

Then, in subclause (d), it talks about protecting ecosystems and, in the last line, it refers to “parks and wilderness areas;”.

Are we talking about federal parks there, or provincial parks? I live right next to a provincial park. What does this refer to? Do you see what I'm getting at? My question will come later, as a way of guiding you.

Then, in subclause (e), it says:

(e) Canadian cities should become vibrant, clean [...]

As far as I know, that is a municipal responsibility. Municipal bylaws are not in our area of jurisdiction.

My question for you is a simple one. If we pass a law—you beat me to the punch when you used this term, but I think you correctly read my thoughts—there is a legislative obligation. That means that if I dictate a law on sustainable development, if I start playing around with the water, we will begin to have problems in Quebec. If I start to play around with the forest, I will have problems in Lac Saint-Jean. If I start to play around with the mines, I will have problems in just about every province of the country. So, if I draft a piece of legislation, I am forcing someone to do something. Some provinces will cooperate, but others will dig in their heels because they see it as the government interfering in provincial areas of jurisdiction. The provinces will react very badly to that kind of situation, because they each have their own issues, either because of oil or water. A province does not like the federal government telling it that 194 of its lakes are polluted with blue algae, and then giving it money along with instructions about what to do. We also know that money is transferred to the provinces, but they do what they want with that money afterwards.

So, what should we do with this bill, which seems to be well written, but directly interferes in areas of provincial jurisdiction?

I would draw your attention to the items listed in Column 2 of Schedule 1. It talks about improving environmental efficiency. It talks about water consumption—that is a provincial responsibility. It talks about materials consumption—whatever that is—and energy consumption—once again, this is a provincial responsibility.

These are major issues. We are opening up a can of worms with this. In a way, this almost looks like a Soviet-style plan.

You made an important point earlier. You seem to agree…We all agree that the environment needs to be protected, but we don't want to create a worse problem than the one that already exists. We have ten provinces, three territories, and they all have their specific areas of jurisdiction.

Try and imagine what it was like when the First Nations negotiated the James Bay Agreement. Have you ever seen First Nations people negotiate? Well, I can tell you that's a lot harder than you may think. You will see what they say about it here; they will pay no attention to it. That is why I am interested in hearing your opinion. Ultimately, if we pass this, we have to expect that problems will arise sooner or later.

5:20 p.m.

Founding Partner, Sussex Circle Inc.

James Mitchell

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am not a lawyer, nor am I a constitutional lawyer. I cannot give you my professional opinion on the constitutionality of those clauses of the bill.

When I read it, I saw it as an expression of the intentions of the federal Parliament, the Parliament of Canada, in a specific area—the environment—which is an area of shared jurisdiction with the provinces. I didn't see any legal obligations for the provinces in there, nor did I see the bill as interfering in areas of jurisdiction that are clearly theirs under the Constitution. As far as I'm concerned, it is more an expression of the will of the federal Parliament in an area of shared jurisdiction with the provinces. However, there are lawyers at the table here; you are probably a lawyer yourself. I, however, am not.

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

You drew my attention to…