Environment Committee on April 14th, 2016

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

Then my question is that if this is true, the OECD and other groups that we belong to have long recommended that subsidies to the oil sector be removed from federal budgets. This new Canadian government has agreed to that. They agreed to it in the last election. How could it possibly pass through an environmental assessment lens while at the same time as that budget was being drafted the Prime Minister was in Paris making very ambitious targets and commitments to the world?

[Richard Botham]

I think your question really pertains to the second element, which is government decisions and government policy. That's not something I can comment on.

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

Sure.

So 45 people have gone to this training out of about 1,000 people at the department?

[Richard Botham]

As I mentioned, 45 people received training last year. There are about 500 analysts within the department. We provide the training on an annual basis. As I mentioned, every new analyst to the Department of Finance, for which we hire about 30 or 35 every year, receives training when they enter the department as well.

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

Dr. Boyd, on this question of changing this culture, this question of incorporating these things more deeply into the practice, not just simply the words of government, one idea that has been floated.... There are two ideas I'll ask you about. One, as you have said, is to strengthen the commissioner's hand. But you've also put forward a forward-looking role, which is not comfortable for most auditors. They like to look back, not present forward ideas.

The second question I have for you, and I'll end on this, is should there be some notion of consequence? When the Department of Finance went after the deficit in the nineties, they had targets, they had goals, they had measures that they brought forward, and lo and behold, they achieved many of those aims. When it comes to the environment, everything gets into the vague, into the nondescript.

Do we need to be more specific? Does there need to be consequences to both the civil service and the ministers responsible, and should the commissioner have a forward-looking role?

[Dr. David Boyd]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Yes, I would say that the European Union has a law that requires strategic environmental assessment. They have a high degree of compliance with that law because it's a legal obligation. There are consequences that flow if the obligation is not fulfilled.

I think it's probably best if we keep the commissioner's role as an auditor, as a watchdog, separate from the role of an advocate for future generations. I think auditors enjoy a great degree of credibility because of the nature of the work they do. I think expecting the commissioner to perform both an audit and an advocate role would be undermining to both. That's why I've encouraged the committee to consider the creation of an advocate for future generations, who would do such things as I've outlined in my submission, looking to the future.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you both very much.

Mr. Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you to all three of the witnesses.

We greatly appreciate your expertise on a subject that is very important to our government and to all Canadians.

We want to see a sustainable future. I know it's really this committee's responsibility to report back to our government to provide suggestions, and the suggestions you have been making so far have been very helpful.

Dr. Boyd, you suggest several principles in your submission and each of them may merit unpacking. I wonder if you could expand a bit on some of them and how you think they could beneficially impact federal government policies, programs, etc. What do you think the net result would be, and do you foresee any problems with the incorporation of such principles across the board by the federal government?

[Dr. David Boyd]

Thank you.

These principles are found widely in sustainable development legislation both at the provincial level here in Canada, and in international sustainable development laws. Take the first one, the polluter-pays principle. We hear a lot of talk in Canada about the polluter-pays principle, yet when we look at international comparisons we find that Canada uses pollution taxes to a much lesser degree than any other western industrialized country. Including this principle in the Federal Sustainable Development Act would send a clear signal to all departments and agencies, including Finance and Treasury Board, that their policies, plans, and actions, including the budget, should apply the polluter-pays principle.

A second principle from my list is the principle of environmental justice. This is a principle that means that the adverse effects of environmental harms and the benefits of environmental amenities should be equitably or fairly shared among Canadians. That's not the situation we have in Canada today. For example, we know that one in four poor Canadians lives within a kilometre of a major source of industrial air pollution. That's not the case for wealthier Canadians. We know the wealthier neighbourhoods in our cities have greater access to public parks and green spaces. Putting the principle of environmental justice into the act would send a signal that we need to start taking this into consideration in our laws, policies, plans, and programs.

The idea behind incorporating all these principles into the act is that they provide a framework and guidance for departments and agencies that don't currently exist, and the absence of those principles is resulting in poor performance and poor strategies as we see with the draft 2016-19 sustainable development strategy.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Dr. Boyd.

I have a follow-up question around the issue of goals. In the context of suggested goals you don't mention the idea that the Government of Canada as an entity ought to establish emissions reduction goals for the operations of government, etc. I will follow up on this question by asking Messrs. Linklater and Botham what is being done in that regard. Is that an appropriate goal, or would it more appropriately fit in a section around targets? If you have comments on that I would be appreciative.

[Dr. David Boyd]

I think it's important to distinguish between the broad sustainable development objectives that Canada has as a country. For example, Canada wants to and aspires to become a low-carbon economy. That's a broad objective, and then the targets are the kinds of specific numerically measurable things that you're talking about. What is the target for the Government of Canada's own greenhouse gas emissions? What is the current level? What is the short-term target, the medium target, and the long-term target?

I can tell you another hat I've worn as co-chair of the City of Vancouver's greenest city plan, and this setting of short-, medium-, and long-term targets has been absolutely vital to the City of Vancouver's success in becoming one of the greenest cities in the world. In terms of climate change we had two specific targets. One for the city as a whole, and one for the city's own operations. We had both short-, medium-, and long-term targets with respect to both of them, and those targets and the public nature of those targets have driven progress so that Vancouver now has the lowest emissions of any city in North America.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Dr. Boyd.

I would turn to Mr. Linklater or Mr. Botham, whoever you feel best can appropriately answer the question.

First, does the Government of Canada have targets related to its internal operations for reductions of carbon emissions?

Second, what progress has been made with regard to the efforts to reduce fossil fuel subsidies or fiscal policies in that direction?

[Les Linklater]

I can lead off with the first part of the question.

As the committee is well aware, Public Services and Procurement Canada does have the greening government operations directorate, which is a resource that all government departments can turn to for help developing their own sustainable development plans, which would include moving toward lower levels of carbon emissions.

I would add that, in addition to that resource and tool, individual departments are taking on their responsibilities to implement initiatives to lower their greenhouse gas emissions. I don't have the figures in front of me in terms of federal benchmarking.

That said, I think an interesting additional tool will be the work that comes out of the federal-provincial-territorial process in support of the Paris climate change target and the action plan that will result. A key element there for federal leadership will be further investments in green government operations, moving toward as low a level of emissions as possible. At the same time, through the government's infrastructure funding that has been announced through budget 2016, particularly in terms of the initial phase around retrofits for housing and that sort of thing, we must consider how we can incorporate the green lens into the funding agreements with the provinces, territories, and municipalities, to ensure the retrofits and other expenditures are bringing greenhouse gas emissions down.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay, I have to stop that round of questioning.

I'm mindful that there is a lot of information to be shared here. We're also looking to do our drafting instructions later today. We were putting half an hour aside for that, but it might take longer. I just want to be sure. We could start a full second round, or if you want, we could just have one more round of six minutes for each different party. Are you thinking there's more value in keeping this questioning going and digging into more details? It's really up to you. I'm just trying to be mindful of how much we're trying to get in today.

Go ahead, Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair for the opportunity to comment on that.

Having heard the additional testimony today, each of us wants to get together as parties and talk about the recommendations going forward and how the report will be drafted. We're not comfortable with providing instructions to our drafters today in any event. I would prefer to carry on with the witnesses we have. This information is very helpful to us, and I'm sure for the whole committee.

I believe the proposal to do the drafting today, or at least to provide some information to staff to do that is premature.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm getting a sense that around the table that's the feeling. At our subcommittee meeting I was very concerned that we weren't giving ourselves enough time to do what we needed to do, so we may need to shuffle our schedule again for the meeting, because we will need to have another meeting now and we've taken away that opportunity.

Mr. Gerretsen. I don't want to take too long for the discussion, quickly, please.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I concur with Mr. Fast's comments, but if possible, when you do allocate the time for the drafting, I think you should give us a little more than half an hour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I would have liked to have given a whole session, and there was push-back at the time. People didn't want to spend time on it. I tried to accommodate that, but I think we're beginning to realize that maybe we need it.

Mr. Cullen, are you in agreement?

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

Typically, drafting hasn't taken full sessions, but it's the committee's will.... We have built-in buffer sessions for exactly that purpose in early June, I believe, so I don't think there's a lot of adjustment to the calendar proposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We can talk about that later in committee business.

Go ahead, Mr. Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I don't know how the drafting instructions typically work, but it would be very helpful if each of the different parties were to share in writing what they were thinking in advance so we could all consider it as a group, without having to be slowed down by a purely oral discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I don't want to get into the details of the drafting instructions. We're going to do that later. I just wanted to make sure we had consensus around the table to continue a full round of questioning. We'll get on with that. I'm sorry to have interrupted. I just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page as to how we're doing this.

Mr. Cullen.

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

Madam Chair, while we're at this I want to get our sequence right, picking up from what Mr. Amos said. Typically, what happens in every committee I've ever seen is that all the groups submit something, and then the analysts compile and put together what eventually looks like our report. The committee's time is typically best spent not writing each sentence, but rather looking over what the analysts provide us with. That's the substantial meeting. They have the larger picture and lay out what this report could look like. At that point, we intervene.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We'll have a little discussion about how we do our drafting—