Evidence of meeting #8 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was strategy.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Every proposal for which there could be important environmental effects, either negative or positive, does.
12:25 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
That's right. There's a little bit more.
12:25 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
—or positive—
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
—or positive environmental impacts.... So there has to be an assessment done within the department itself—
12:25 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
That's correct.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
—to determine whether that standard has been met, and anything above that standard is going to have to go through the review. Are you saying that the departments have actually been doing that review of the standard to make sure every policy is identified either way?
12:25 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
I have the two people who know this, and they would say no, they are not even doing that.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Because that's the real question for me. Who actually makes that assessment of whether we should even apply this review to any particular policy?
12:25 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
What we're finding is they're not applying it at all.
12:25 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Five cases out of 1,700.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Somebody is following the rules.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Can you give me that answer? I'm assuming that I'm running out of time.
12:25 p.m.
James McKenzie Principal, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
I think you've touched on a very important point: what is that standard of significant environmental effects, and is that being consistently considered across departments? That's something that would be a useful question and clarification. I think it would help in terms of making sure the SEA process is not trying to cover everything, that in fact only the key ones go forward and go through a more detailed, thorough SEA.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
March 22nd, 2016 / 12:25 p.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
What an honour to participate in this discussion. We have committed civil servants. We have the current commissioner and a former commissioner. It's really appreciated. I wish more Canadians were paying attention. I hope we can find a way to draw attention to this discussion.
I appreciate comments that have been made more broadly about the sustainable development goals of this legislation. Clearly we are engaging in a review of this legislation. I think one of the biggest challenges related to the legislation is the fact that it is focused so broadly on sustainable development. Where we start getting closer to being capable of measuring specific achievements by our government.... If we get to climate change, then we actually start getting somewhere specific.
I recognize that the goals of this legislation, as articulated in section 5, enable that focus. In my line of questioning, I would invite our witnesses to focus specifically on the climate change aspect of this. I'm not focused on the broader sustainable development right now. I'd like to focus on the climate aspect.
The purpose of the legislation is to make decision-making more transparent and accountable to Parliament. That means accountability to Canadians. Right now Canadians expect a whole-of-government approach. They don't know how to do it. They want government to achieve it. It's our role here to review the legislation as well as the strategy, based on the strategies that have emerged, to evaluate whether we are engaging in the processes that are going to achieve the kind of accountability and transparency that the legislation demands.
Canadians want to trust us, but I actually believe that right now they don't. I fundamentally believe that Canadians right now don't trust that any level of government, let alone the federal government, is actually engaging in concrete efforts to measure what sustainability and specifically climate outcomes the governments are achieving.
Number one, I'd like to invite any organization in this country but specifically IISD.... I would love if that message could be spread further through social media and other mechanisms. I would love to invite organizations to specifically suggest how the federal government could change its approach to a whole-of-government mentality around measurability of emissions and emissions reductions. We could have the same discussion around adaptation as well. We could have the same discussion around clean technologies and innovation, but specifically, I want to focus on emissions reductions.
My first question would go to Mr. Vaughan, since he has the benefit of having been in this position before. Perhaps the commissioner could follow.
What specifically needs to change within the Federal Sustainable Development Act, or if not the act, then within how government operates, to achieve measurability? I mean beyond sort of putting this in the centre of government. I note that section 15 of the act enables cabinet regulations. Do we lack the powers to compel?
Section 15 of the Federal Sustainable Development Act enables, broadly, regulations for the purpose of achieving any of the goals of the act. Cabinet can do whatever it wants, effectively, to achieve sustainable development as identified in the goals. Is there anything that could be added to the legal architecture and the regulatory architecture that would better enable measurable targets?
After you've had a chance, I want to return to Mrs. Brand, since she's involved specifically in the production of these strategies. Is there something that would better enable interdepartmental collaboration, so that you'd have some measurable goals and targets that could then be reported on?
I'll go first to Mr. Vaughan.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, International Institute for Sustainable Development
Just very briefly then, on whether the government has the powers.... You've more experienced people around this table. From my perspective, the government has the tools now, looking at it from the government right to regulate and Ottawa's exclusive jurisdiction on international matters, on interprovincial, federal-provincial, with territories. I think there are lots of ways of demonstrating and putting in action those powers. One is green government operations. I think this is hugely important for the reasons that you've remarked on. People who are working with building codes now, companies that are buying fleets, people who are looking at how to install solar and geothermal, and others will be looking to examples and performance data from the federal government on making those investments and showing the leadership. So is it going to cost? Yes. Is there a payback? Yes. Brussels has actually now changed the way they're doing public procurement in order to have a more flexible payback, as well as actually getting new de-risking instruments that will bring in investors from the private sector to make these joint investments. I think there's plenty of stuff around innovation on this.
The more specific issue...and I think Mr. Godfrey could speak to this as well. When you look at coming out of Paris, I think you're right that the public has turned off now, saying we'll never get there. But the monitoring, reporting, and verification system coming out of Paris has to be worked out now, urgently.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Thank you very much, and I'm really sorry to cut that short. We probably will have an opportunity for a second round of questioning, but let's finish this round and see where we are.
Mr. Shields.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I appreciate the presentations. I really do. One of the things I did look through...and when you mention small things, sometimes small things jump out at you and you want to ask about small things, and I appreciate the large conversation. But I think it comes to monitoring. I see a goal in here for marine ecosystems. We're at 1.3% protected. In 2017 we'll be at 5%, and by 2020 we'll be at 10%. It will be interesting to see what we get when you evaluate those large goals.
I saw the thing on agriculture, the concern about fertilizing. Well, it's a very technical industry these days, and they go by right rate, right time, right source, and right place to fertilize. The agriculture industry is a lot farther ahead than maybe this report thinks they are, and I hope they pay attention to that.
When you talked about the first nations, the water, you talked about how the federal role is only for guidance and monitoring. If we had that in the municipal world with our water system we'd be in large trouble. You have to go farther than guiding and monitoring when you talk about water. We have to have certified people who are trained 24-7.
So I don't think it goes where it needs to go. I think I've mentioned this before. If you're going to have treatable water—we all have to be the same in this country—then you have to have certified people 24-7. The federal role has to be more than just monitoring and guiding. It won't work. That's something I'll look forward to when you do your evaluation.
When you mention building codes—I've brought this up before, and brought it up with you—you're absolutely right. Municipalities are out there trying to figure out the building codes; the builders are trying to figure them out. We need some federal leadership or it's not going to get done. It needs it. They're looking for it. And we need to provide that leadership.
I quit.