Environment Committee on Oct. 31st, 2017

[Julie Gelfand]

That's right.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Do I have a minute?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Yes.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

When Mike was finishing up, he ran out of time.

One of your recommendations was that we separate federal measures and provincial measures, and then the time ran out. Do you want to elaborate a little on that?

[Julie Gelfand]

Some of the experts we've spoken to talk about the idea of overlapping efforts. Quebec is doing something, and Ontario is doing something, and the feds are doing something, and what happens if all these policies sort of cross each other or mix up or even go counter to each other?

We're recommending that the government work as hard as it possibly can to try to distinguish between what's going to happen based on federal activity and what's going to happen based on provincial activity, recognizing that this is pretty difficult to do. I'm sure the department will tell you that. This is not easy stuff, but just because it's not easy doesn't mean that we don't do it.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I don't normally ask questions, but I'm very confused on something. This data, you just said, hearkens back to 2015.

[Julie Gelfand]

That is the emissions data.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay. It's not the data that gives the performance of the departments.

[Julie Gelfand]

No. I'm talking about greenhouse emissions data that hearkens back. It lags.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I wanted to know what period the data on the departments was from.

[Julie Gelfand]

It is 2015 projections.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Hang on; I'm not talking about the emissions data. You were talking about the five departments out of—

[Julie Gelfand]

Okay, that's recent. With regard to the five departments out of 19 and whether they have looked at their climate change risks, that's extremely recent data. The only thing I'm saying dates back to 2015 is the data on how much greenhouse gas emissions we are emitting as a country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you for that. I was confused.

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Commissioner, for participating this morning, and thank you to the team accompanying you.

Before joining the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I was on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and I still come to the same conclusion. I have already made comments about the Auditor General and you, as commissioner, reporting to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and, of course, overall, all of the recommendations you're suggesting are welcomed by the department, which says that it will comply and take the necessary action.

What happens next? The unfortunate thing right now with our management is that there is no adequate follow-up to force departments to comply with the recommendations. In your opening remarks, you said that five of the 19 departments complied and did the right things to achieve the objective, but that it was on their own initiative. It isn't normal that, in 2017, we are still relying on the intention of individuals. I think the government must have the tools it needs to move the issue forward. I find it unfortunate and, I'm saying it again today and I probably haven't finished saying it—I'll probably be labelled as a parliamentarian who wants that things are done well and that the taxpayers' dollars are sell spent—complying with recommendations should not be based on the intentions of individuals.

Then, we see that the objectives that Environment and Climate Change Canada have set are unattainable. You mentioned at the start of your remarks that the department “already estimates that even if all the greenhouse gas reduction measures outlined in the pan-Canadian framework are implemented in a timely manner, emissions will go down [we don't know to what level], but more action will be needed to meet the 2030 target”. Is this all smoke and mirrors? Is it to respond to public opinion and silence it for a little bit or to ease the pressure? Can we be a little more serious in this process?

I'd like you to give us some advice. As parliamentarians, what should we do to remain realistic? Let's stop dreaming; we have to be realistic. Do we have the right targets? Is it responsible to say that we are going to attain such an objective when we don't? It's okay not to attain it, but let's be honest.

Can you tell us what steps we should take to make sure we are a little more serious?

[Julie Gelfand]

I'll try to answer both questions.

It's the job of parliamentarians to follow up. Public accounts require all departments to produce an action plan one year after they have been subject to a report. This committee did the same thing by following up on the work. At the Office of the Auditor General, we also conduct follow-up audits, including one focused on reducing greenhouse gases. We need to do another follow-up on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

You're right to say that follow-up isn't done systematically. It's both our job and the job of parliamentarians to do follow-up and ask that the departments be accountable for their implementation of the recommendations.

The 2030 target was established by the government already. In its pan-Canadian plan, Environment Canada said that emissions would go down, but there is still a deficiency. There will have to be more action in this area if all the measures are taken within the prescribed time frame.

Regardless, it's the department that should answer your question.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Commissioner.

You also said that, in 2011, the government at the time had developed a federal strategic framework but that, unfortunately, the department hadn't necessarily applied it.

Is this framework still relevant? Could it be reactivated?

[Julie Gelfand]

Yes, the framework is still relevant; it's the last one that was developed. During our audit, it was put on the website so that all the departments were aware that such a framework existed. In short, there is a framework, and it's up to date.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

So it could be reactivated and put back on track. Could it not?

[Julie Gelfand]

You are going to see the recommendations that we made to all the departments; I think you'll hear about it. They all said they would follow our recommendations.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you.

I am pleased to hear you say that the three funds put in place in the past are working well overall and that the approval process has been rigorous and objective. This means that what has been done in the past isn't necessarily negative.

Madam Commissioner, I have a semantic question.

Paragraph 1.55 of report 1 contains the following recommendation: “Environment and Climate Change Canada should report publicly and in a timely manner on the results of implementing regulations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions”. Then comes the department's response, which obviously starts off with “Agreed [as I just told you]. Environment and Climate Change Canada will build on its current regulatory reporting practices to provide the public with timely information ...”.

Perhaps the department didn't understand the meaning of the word “timely”. It isn't the information that's timely; it's the time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Godin, I know you are trying—

[A voice]

Let him go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I can't let him go, unfortunately. I needed to cut you off. We've gone over time, and I apologize for that.

It has been, as always, a pleasure. We very much respect and admire the work that you do. Your reports were very helpful.