Environment Committee on Feb. 25th, 2016

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

Those are the two broad ones.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

That you're focused on.

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

Again, based on the blue-sky conversation we had before, with something around conservation efforts and migratory birds, we could even slip in a little marine there if you were really excited about it.

The first one would be climate in general, with the solution piece being baked right in and asking what Canada's efforts are right now on clean tech, what we need, and where the opportunities lie.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Gerretsen.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I think clean tech is the way to go. I think it's the future. I would agree with everything that Mr. Fast said.

My only question is with respect to trying to visualize how it unfolds in this committee. If the solutions we come up with—assuming that they are solutions—are that we need to invest in clean technology, we need to provide incentives for clean technology, and we need to do A, B and C, is that really within the mandate of the Minister of the Environment or is that more in innovation and industry?

If we were to recommend to deploy funds for those purposes, does the Minister of the Environment have the directive? By default, I'd just assume that it's more in line with innovation and technology. Minister Bains is who I'm thinking of, but I can't remember his exact title off the top of my head, so I—

Pardon me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

No, it's okay. I was just going to say that it's industry, innovation, and technology, or something like that.

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

That's my only concern, so maybe the idea is that it starts here and then gets passed over to another committee. I'd like to understand that a bit more if Mr. Fast can build on it.

The other thing is that Mr. Cullen talked about changing that curve and starting to see that curve move in a downward direction. I think—and this is what I'm happy to see in Mr. Amos' motion—the third point, my read of it, and my feeding into that third point is about giving the environmental commissioner more teeth in ensuring that what she reports on happens. It's more than just giving an audit of a department and saying that you've failed in this area and you need to fix it. It's going back later and figuring out if they've corrected it. If they haven't then it's about having the proper resources to enforce that they do things right. That in my opinion is taking climate change seriously and putting the teeth into the legislation.

I think that is critical of all six topics. If we're looking at these six or seven different topics, to me, that is probably the most important one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay.

Mr. Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I'm interested in clean tech. I would love to dive into it. I think it's probably one of the more interesting conversations to be had anywhere in Canada.

My starting point is that I'm interested and I've articulated this preference. I want to behave as a legislator and I'm hoping the committee will behave as a group of legislators.

It's my understanding that, coming out of the first ministers' meeting that is approaching, there will be an entire intergovernmental process involving clean tech, and I expect there is going to be some extremely interesting developments coming out of that. I think if we were going to discuss clean tech we would be well advised to wait for what happens there and to evaluate whether what comes out of that is worth our going into it.

If the federal government, the 10 provinces, and the three territories are going to put their best experts on this issue, then we might be engaging in a topic that we find interesting and pertinent. I find it interesting and pertinent, but ultimately we're the weaker entity to engage in that conversation. That would be my first thought.

To build on what Mr. Gerretsen was saying, we also have the committee on innovation, as well as natural resources. It's my understanding they're discussing this issue of clean tech, and there may be motions brought in those committee contexts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I have Mr. Cullen and then Mr. Bossio.

I have the mandate letter in front of me, and I want to read it because I think it might help in the discussion.

As Minister of Environment and Climate Change, your overarching goal will be to take the lead in implementing the government’s plan for a clean environment and a sustainable economy. Your key priority will be to ensure that our government provides national leadership to reduce emissions, combat climate change and price carbon. I expect you to help restore Canada’s reputation for environmental stewardship.

He then says, “In particular”, and right at the beginning he does talk about the partnership with provinces and territories to develop a plan to combat climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, consistent with our international obligations and our commitment to sustainable economic growth.

What I'm hearing is that there is a direction, and there is work going on within the minister's office that is connecting with the provinces and territories. It may help inform how we could assist, but it is premature right now because these things are just starting up.

Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.

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

I totally disagree, and here's why. The role of the committee is as an independent arm from the government. The mandate letter is an important and useful tool for the direction the government takes. The provincial and territorial meetings that are going to go on will not produce technical results for seven, eight, or nine months.

In terms of the expectations of the process that we're engaging in now and that the government's going into in Vancouver, you have to look at what the role of the committee is. It is not some adjunct of government or of the minister's office. This is an independent body that is meant to provide leadership. The idea that the minister's mandate letter says such and such, or that the government is engaged in conversations with the territories and the provinces, is all excellent and important and relevant to the committee. But it is not directional to this committee.

The purpose of this committee is to provide leadership on topics that Canadians are interested in. The government is going forth and having conversations, and we encourage those conversations, but the independence of this committee is paramount. Leadership is required of this committee, and in the past it has played this role. It has acted as a tent peg for the government's actions. Whether it was Liberal or Conservative, that didn't matter. This committee in the past has maintained a fierce independence over what it does.

We are informed by outside forces. We are informed by what the minister's mandate may be and by what comes out of Vancouver. But to say that, on the one hand, this is an interesting topic to all of us and to the Canadians we represent, while saying that, on the other hand, there's this other conversation we don't want to jump in front of, is absolutely the wrong way to approach this matter. If this is something that is important, then the role we get to play can actually be helpful. It can be quite influential on other conversations that are going on.

If we think it's important, if we think this is worthwhile, if we think we can get something out of it, then we ought to sally forth. If the provinces and the territories are meeting with the federal government, good for them. But what I hear from my constituents, what I hear from the people engaged in environmental issues, is that they want more activity on this. They want to see leadership and there's not anyone around this table who can disagree.

I've seen too many processes in the federal government in which you could knit a lot of sweaters waiting for results. I have great hope for the minister. I hope that all of her conversations are productive and come out with meaningful timelines, but we're 120 days into this mandate and we don't even have a sense of when Canada will have a new target, not even a deadline on the mechanisms or the plan to follow. It might happen six or eight months down the road.

This committee is a free actor in this. This is the opportunity for all of us to engage in things we care about deeply, things that are going to be helpful to Canadians. We are informed by other matters. The mandate letter that you just read part of, the minister's plans, the Prime Minister's meetings—those are all great. But we should be very cognizant on both sides of the table about how instructional these matters are, because they're not. They're absolutely not.

Our role and the fierceness with which we take on these issues will after four years determine whether people judge us to have been effective or not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay. Thank you very much.

Mr. Bossio.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I agree with what you're saying, but I look at it from a different angle. Yes, I'd love to look at the technology and I'd love to look at climate change. You know how driven I am as an environmentalist to try to deal with these issues. At the same time, I want to make sure that what we accomplish here is carried out with the independence we're supposed to have. That's why we spent the time that we did working with Mr. Amos to try to put forward an ambitious agenda for this committee that is not going to be duplicitous.

We identified areas that Mr. Fast, Mr. Eglinski, and Mr. Shields brought up around water, migratory birds, and conservation. There are issues that you brought up on climate change and we wondered about the best way to address these issues. But climate change legislation will likely be referred to committee, so why would we go down that path right now when it may come back to us later on?

There is an order we need to take in order to try to accomplish and maximize the energy and the efforts of this committee. I think the three motions Mr. Amos has put forward address some key areas that are very important to Canadians and that exercise the independence of this committee, while eliminating the duplication that would result from going after climate change or technology, since there could be other ministries and other committees that would be going after the technology, the clean-tech area.

I'd like to see us focus on areas in which we can have an impact. These are areas that the government and the ministries, the departments, are definitely looking at, but that we can drive forward because it's not as front of mind. It is extremely important to Canadians that we deal with these pressing issues.

CEPA is something that hasn't been reviewed in a decade. The wildlife areas, the national parks, these are areas that are in desperate need of having assessments and amendments. It is the same with the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

Once again, if we are not going to lead on sustainability as a government, then how do we expect others to follow the path of trying to establish sustainability within our society? It starts with us. We have an opportunity to lead and to drive that forward for the rest of Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bossio.

We have Mr. Eglinski, Mr. Amos, and Mr. Aldag next.

Mr. Eglinski.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have to follow along with Mr. Cullen. I believe it's very important, and some of his statements in his motion, “national and regional trends and projects”, “carbon pricing methodologies” that are out there....

You're saying your government wants to look at all of these different things. I think you're focusing more on the CETA, and those are projects I don't think we can get done in this sitting.

I think we can help tremendously through the government of the day by meeting with the different groups that are doing the best practices out there. Whether it's in park conservation, whether it's in the oil and gas sector, what are some of the practices that are happening where they're already making great carbon footprints out there? What is happening out there? We don't know exactly what everybody's doing, and I think this is a golden opportunity.

In some of the recommendations made—your number one, Mr. Amos, and Mr. Cullen's, and Mr. Fast's—and looking at some of this technology, we might be running down the wrong path not knowing that a lot of that good stuff is already being done in very simple terms. Maybe we have failed as a government to not recognize some of those great greenhouse gas initiatives that have been done by different organizations.

We should be looking at them and helping to make sure that this information is fed to your government, which is going to be making the regulations to bring our greenhouse gases down and make us a leader in the world. We already know we're leaders in the world. I think we do a damn good job in this country, and industry does a damn good job.

I blame industry, and I'll tell this to their faces every time I meet them. They have not done a good enough job to tell the public what they do. I think it's part of our responsibility. As this committee, we have some great ideas here to bring forward and to take a look and see where we can take some of that technology, that knowledge and expertise out there, and come up with a report to show the government, “Hey, these are some of the things, and maybe you don't want to waste all your time because we're doing really well here. We can use this to benefit and to show the world that we're leaders in these areas.”

I feel that is where our mandate is going. I like Mr. Amos' number one there, and I like the other two. I think that we need to study those areas, but if we want to try to change one of the acts, I don't think we have enough time now to honestly get that done. Maybe for next year when we all come back and we start into a new term on it. But I think it's very crucial right now that we give you more tools and knowledge in which to come up with the good regulations that are going to show that Canada is leading in greenhouse gas.

Thank you.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Can I correct one word that I said?

I didn't mean “duplicitous”; I meant “duplicative”.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We get it it. It's okay. It's in the Hansard, yes.

I just want to be mindful that we're 21 minutes in and we do have quite a bit more. This is very important, but we do have some of those other elements that we want to get into.

Mr. Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I want to directly address Mr. Cullen's plea for us not to be directed by the ministry. There's nothing that could be further from the case.

Our motion proposes issues that are not in the mandate letter, specifically, with the exception of aspects around recovery strategies and species at risk. We listened to each other last week and we heard Mr. Eglinski and Mr. Fast speak about priorities around air and water, speak of priorities, and presented notices of motions on migratory birds, wetlands....Conservation is clearly a priority on your end.

We were really listening. That's my honestly held belief that we were really listening. I seek to behave in a manner, or I wish upon this committee that we behave in a legislative manner. I don't deny the importance of engaging in a conversation of clean tech; I just think that we have to be strategic about when and how we do that, so this is a prioritization exercise that we're going through.

I don't think that we're acceding to some ministerial demand here. We're saying there is a process that's going to happen. It's going to be expert-driven and it's going to be reflective of the entirety of Canada. Let's let that process take its course, and if and when they come up with material that we can benefit from to determine how we could build on that, then we're doing much more strategic work. By contrast, the three aspects that are presented in this motion go to distinct legislative opportunities that we have.

With respect, Mr. Eglinski, I disagree that we don't have time to do them. We have 14 more meetings between now and June. We wouldn't get through all of this, but what I was trying to do with this was encapsulate a series of interests that were shared by all, that reflect Canadians' interests, to address Mr. Cullen's earlier point around what Canadians want us to address.

At the same time we would want to ensure our independence because manifestly addressing the lack of legislative review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the cornerstone of environmental protection laws federally in Canada, and engaging in a review and reporting back to Parliament on that review, is not only squarely in line with Canadians' interests in maintaining clean air and water, but is a top priority, along with climate change.

That is something that isn't being touted by our government as their top agenda item. We would be moving in our own independent direction. I absolutely agree with Mr. Cullen that we need to be mindful of leadership of past committees. I think of people like Charles Caccia, Clifford Lincoln, Karen Kraft Sloan, and we could name others from other parties, tremendous leaders who demonstrated an independence.

This motion seeks to demonstrate an awareness of what all committee members are interested in, while at the same time being independent of what the government is seeking to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We're now at 25 minutes and I'm trying to see if I can be helpful here. At this point we're not trying to eliminate anybody's good thoughts. What's coming forward in terms of clean tech is a valid thing and of interest. There's no reason why we can't have it as a consideration for our prioritization. Then it's a matter of discussing how we're going to prioritize these and when we're going to do them.

I'm not sure we have to fight it out and say we're not going to have it. What I might be hearing around the table is that there is understanding that this is of relevance, and it's really going to come down to where we prioritize it and try to get it done. I just wanted to try to add that to the conversation.

Mr. Aldag.

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

I have two quick points.

First, I think that at one point I had thrown out a quick calculation of 14 sessions. Today, one of my staff sent me a note saying that they've recalculated. We would actually have 22 sessions between now and the end of June, so there's a bit more time. If we're talking about what we can actually accomplish, that would be the number of meetings we would have. Being new to committees I don't know what is realistic to accomplish, but it looks like we would have 22 sessions.

I don't know if the analysts have come up with that. Do you have a different number?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Yes. It's less than that. It's about 14.

Remember, we'll have budgets and we'll have the minister coming in before us. It starts eating into some of that time. Just keep that in mind.

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

Okay, so there are a number of weeks. How much can we actually accomplish?

Second, I'm not going to tell you how to chair, but I was feeling a bit anxious that we were talking about the clean energy piece and I was hoping we would be able to do a bit of an explanation of the three components, just to give us the information and the thinking behind his motion.

I also wanted to hear from Mr. Fast on the other one we hadn't discussed, the wetlands migratory birds piece, within this first hour that we've set aside, so that when we get into the next one, setting priorities, we've actually set the stage for that discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

That's why I tried to say what I did, which is that I think we can move the discussion along and not just get stuck on this issue. We do have 14 sessions, and that includes the minister coming to see us and the budget.

[A voice]

It's seventeen.