Environment Committee on April 14th, 2016

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Other people have suggested that.

I'm going back to the act itself. If you look at section 6 and 7, section 6 essentially establishes this committee of the PCO, which is intended to be the overseer of the implementation and development of the strategy. So we have a portion of this vested in PCO anyway.

I believe the evidence so far before committee is that in fact there hasn't been a lot of that oversight of development and implementation in the past. Then in section 7, of course, we have the establishment of an office within the Department of Environment and Climate Change to develop and maintain systems and procedures to monitor progress on implementation. You have responsibility within the minister's office. You have responsibility within the Privy Council Office. If we've already housed primary responsibility within the PCO, why are we still talking about moving this into a central agency when that actually exists under legislation already, Mr. Linklater?

[Les Linklater]

I said earlier that the committee that's referenced in section 6, in effect, would be the cabinet committee on environment, climate change, and energy. In terms of policy proposals coming forward from that committee for full cabinet ratification, the policy deliberations would happen there.

With respect to section 7 and the establishment of the office, which other witnesses have commented on, saying that the office should not be located at Environment but at another central agency, the view would be that given the progress that's been made to date, while not perfect, trying to dial that back and start over with a new creation within a central agency is going to have repercussions in terms of maintaining momentum to move forward.

I think that as we look at a number of cross-cutting files—I've mentioned infrastructure—an argument could be made that central oversight of infrastructure, given the scope of that program, would require central agency oversight. However, there is a Department of Infrastructure that is charged to work horizontally, again, to be able to move forward to advance the government's priorities.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

As a representative of PCO, do you have a view on whether the sustainable development assessment process should actually be enshrined in legislation or remain a cabinet directive?

[Les Linklater]

I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both constructs. From the perspective of accountability, as was mentioned by one of the other witnesses, legislation provides a certain sanction, if you will, in terms of compliance. On the other hand, by maintaining something in policy, you maintain flexibility to be able to adapt to conditions or to make changes much more quickly than, as you are aware, can be accomplished through the legislative process.

My view is that the tools we have are not being used to full effect. There is, as I said, a role for the Privy Council Office to redouble efforts on that front. My view is that maintaining policy flexibility will be important to move this out and to add momentum to the file.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Okay.

Mr. Boyd, I've gone through your recommendations, and you know, some of them we will support as we discuss this in the drafting of a report. However, you've also suggested that there be a right enshrined in legislation to live in a healthy environment. You and I both know what happens when you actually enshrine a right in legislation. You take responsibility from government. It now becomes the role of the courts to interpret and of course over time expand the scope of that right to where we may not imagine right now it could land. It will generate very significant litigation. I think one of your solutions to the problem of a lack of enforcement is to allow the courts to enforce sustainable development obligations that a government takes upon itself, and that this is the expectation Canadians have.

Just as a shot across the bow, not only for you but for this committee, if in fact a proposal comes forward to this committee that a right to a healthy environment be enshrined in legislation, we will vigorously oppose that. It's not because we're not in favour of sustainable development and a healthy environment and a healthy economy. It's just that what you're doing is taking responsibility for something that rightfully rests with government and transferring it to the courts for them to interpret and expand the scope of rights. To me, that would be of great concern. As our colleagues at this table consider this, I would hope that as we have our discussions going forward, it will lead to the right decision on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you for that warning.

We are over our time there. I have one last speaker.

Mr. Cullen, you have three minutes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Boyd expressed a concern over something very basic. How much greenhouse gas emissions are coming from the federal government right now? How do we know if we're doing well if we don't know where we're at?

Can you help him out, Mr. Linklater?

[Les Linklater]

I'm certainly happy to go back to client departments to determine what information is available and to have it provided to the committee.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

You can provide that to the committee so that we can just get a sense of what the emissions have been for the federal government. I'm sure the number exists. We know what it is for industry. We keep those records in StatsCan. We just don't have that publicly available for the government itself.

[Les Linklater]

As I said, I'm happy to go back and work with departments to provide the committee with whatever information is available.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm sure that will make Mr. Boyd and me and others very happy. I think you closed the argument for me about whether this thing about environmental assessment should be enshrined in law or kept as a cabinet directive. If the performance rate to this point is 0.3%, I'll be voting for this to get into law.

Mr. Boyd, I have a question for you about where this thing should sit. The environment ministry has often been described as the “Ministry of Well Intentions”, and if you want the thing to get done, it has to go into Finance, into these stronger, more muscular ministries of government. Is that still your view after the evidence you've heard today, or is moving it around just going to cause disruption?

[Dr. David Boyd]

No, it's clear that the current system is not working. That's why I and other witnesses have put forward the recommendation that we do what the OECD has said is an international best practice and resituate responsibility. It could be joint responsibility, so that we have the best of Environment and Climate Change Canada but also the muscle, as you say, of one or more of the central agencies. That's fundamentally important going forward.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Finally, to Mr. Fast's point, if it weren't for Canadians pursuing some of these issues through the courts, I'm not sure what the federal government would be doing at all when it comes to environment.

Did you want to make a comment to his concerns about the environmental bill of rights, which I believe the Union of BC Municipalities has asked to be enshrined into B.C. law? That radical group has come out again.

[Dr. David Boyd]

Look, the right to a healthy environment is recognized in law in 150 countries around the world. It's in the constitutions of more than 100 countries around the world. It's in the law of Ontario, Quebec, and the three northern territories. It hasn't had any of those adverse consequences that Mr. Fast suggests.

It is a fundamental human right that we ought to recognize. Governments have nothing to fear. If they respect the rights of their citizens, there's nothing to go to court about.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thanks very much to all of you for being with us today and sharing your wisdom. There's a lot we have to consider as we're moving forward. I'm trying to get to that now, so I'm going to say thank you and let you go, and we're going to get to committee business. We won't break because we don't have time.

Thank you very much, everybody. We appreciate it. We're sorry to have to cut you off. There's just so much to get into, but thanks.

For our committee business, we have quite a few things to do. We'll just hand stuff out and give you a few minutes, and then we'll get going.

Okay? Sorry, guys, but I know there's very little time, and some people have to run right out, so could we have everybody back at the table? Thank you.

After the meeting on Tuesday, we had a subcommittee meeting to try to hash out how we were going to proceed with our committee business over the next couple of months to get to the summer.

Just to let you know what we're trying to do right now, there was also a motion tabled on CEPA. I don't know if Will is going to be moving anything today or not, but I know that he might do that. I also had an email from Mr. Fast asking us to consider having some other people come forward in front of this committee for consideration of and more discussion on the strategy. That's also something I'd like to discuss.

As well, we have a press release, and we have main estimates to cover for our budget. Plus, if we have time, we want to talk about the Startup Canada event on May 5 and who might like to attend.

I will get started with the adoption of the subcommittee report. You now have it in front of you. Obviously, with the suggestion from Mr. Fast that we might want more witnesses and with the comments that have already been made around the table that you might like more time to consider those directions to staff for the report, we might not even be able to stick to the schedule that on Tuesday we thought we could do.

I'll open this up for discussion on what's in front of you in terms of the work of the committee for the next couple of months. Does anybody want to talk to it?

Mr. Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Are we doing scheduling now or can I move my motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You can move your motion at any time that you want to move your motion, and then we'll have to vote on it.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I just fear that the scheduling conversation may take us a while, if history is any guide. I'd like to get this out of the way. The notice has been tabled, so I'd like to move that to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Do we need it read? Does everybody need it read out?

[An hon. member]

I'd like it read out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We're going to pass it around. I'll give you just a couple of minutes to quickly digest it.

Okay. You've all had a chance to digest it. It really is something that we're already doing. We've already started it, so I don't think it's contentious, but who would like to talk to it?

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes, I have a question. It reads “immediately undertake”. We have a calendar that we're going through. What is different?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We've already started it.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I know. I'm just asking. Do we “immediately undertake” and move everything out of the way? It can be interpreted in a couple of different ways.