Environment Committee on April 12th, 2016

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

Maybe I'll transfer this question over to Mr. Bachmann for a moment. The current commissioner's role, at least as envisaged, is looking backwards, as being able to audit the performance. This has been a struggle because oftentimes we have not had the data for the commissioner to even understand whether the performance has been achieved.

Mr. Bachmann, to you in Germany, with the quite dramatic changes Canada would have to make to its energy profile and the amount of greenhouse gases that are emitted to achieve even the old government standards—never mind the new 1.5-degree Celsius post-industrial standard—do you imagine these strategies and the mechanisms we are talking about...? You talked about coming together, being public, and admitting to what the government has and hasn't done.

You can hear my skepticism—or “concern” I suppose is a better word—as to whether these are the vehicles that are going to be sufficiently strong, just on the issue of climate change. I know sustainability has a much broader reach, but just on climate.

Is what we are talking about sufficiently strong, in your view, or does there have to be an enhancement even further still?

[Prof. Günther Bachmann]

I had some part in the decision that was then well known as the German Energiewende, or energy transition. From that time, in 2011, I have to say that of course we have to use the command and control system, the role of the state, and the role of audiences. People then ask, “What comes down on me? What risk do I bear?”

It is better to add another angle to this. The other angle would be on chances and options, not on costs and risks. Then people would ask you, “What's in it for me? What is my take in the bigger picture?” That is how the German energy transition works. What's in it for me? How do I get people encouraged and open up choices for them?

This is my answer to you. I think the commissioner should be in the most independent role that you can assign to this position.

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

Thank you.

[Prof. Günther Bachmann]

It's not only about a watchdog; it's about presenting choice and coaching people into a new role.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

We've actually given you six minutes for your questions, so we doubled up your time and I'm giving that extra three minutes to the two other parties to have a go at the last question before we have to close today, unfortunately. It's been a brilliant session.

Mr. Fast, you have three minutes.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you. I'd like to address my question to Mr. Gunton.

You've been very clear about wanting to have the inclusion, in the legislation or perhaps in the strategy, of stringent, mandated, and measurable targets. First of all, are you looking at including those in the legislation, baking them into the legislation itself, or doing it through regulation or through policy and strategy?

[Dr. Thomas Gunton]

What we recommended was actually doing it as regulations. There are provisions in the act now to set regulations, so you can actually do that in regulations as opposed to legislation.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'm assuming you're talking about these kinds of targets right across the range of economic, environmental, and social indicators.

[Dr. Thomas Gunton]

Yes, that's correct. The integration of them all.

I would just point out a caution. If it takes a long time to set sound reasonable targets, and it's not something that could be done overnight. You pick the areas of highest priority first.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'm glad you mention that because as I start thinking about your suggestion to include these in regulations under the Federal Sustainable Development Act, the challenge is that just looking at economic you'd be looking at things such as job creation, GDP growth, youth unemployment, income equality, seniors outcomes, and it goes on.

Then we're talking about the environmental element, which would include greenhouse gas emissions, air pollutants, other toxins into the environment. We'd be talking about conservation targets, ocean health, species at risk. Then you get to the social element of it and you're talking about things like first nations poverty, immigrant integration, education, and health outcomes.

We're talking about a comprehensive and significant set of targets that would have to be established. I guess my concern is to do it under the Federal Sustainable Development Act may actually be the inappropriate form in which to do it. Those targets should be set in individual departments that are implicated by the broader elements addressed in the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

Your comments, please....

[Dr. Thomas Gunton]

I don't disagree.

The Federal Sustainable Development Act is usually thought of as setting environmental targets, but you need targets across these other areas. They may be better set in different places. When you look at our federal sustainable development strategy now, the proposed one, there is an attempt to set targets for a number of different dimensions, but there are no quantitative measurable targets except for one or two items in that plan.

If you don't know clearly what it is that you are trying to achieve, then you're never going to achieve it, and you're never going to know whether you're on the right course.

So yes, set your priorities. You can't do it all at once, but we need to really get under way setting some clear measurable outcomes for the short, medium, and long term to figure out what it is that we want to do and by when we're going to do it.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

The last questioner is Mr. Bossio.

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

Thank you. I'd like to go back to Günther.

You never had a chance to actually answer my question earlier and Nathan Cullen had proposed a part of it as well. In Germany, what are you doing now that is equivalent to the environment commissioner, what is that role, and what level of enforcement does that role have within the German system?

[Prof. Günther Bachmann]

We have as close as could be, the German parliamentary advisory group on sustainable development. They have an ombudsman or commissioner role in parliament. They are a watchdog of government and they are agenda-setting within parliament. We do not have a commissioner.

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

What about from an enforcement standpoint of that group?

[Prof. Günther Bachmann]

They have no enforcement. Enforcement is with the government, and then within the government you only have the steering function of the PMO and the chairing of the federal minister of this group of state secretaries.

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

Okay, thank you.

To lead on to that, I visited Germany. It's a beautiful country. It's also a very complex country of different regions, east and west Germany, so there's a different cultural heritage more recently, and a lot of complexities exist within that society. Yet you have also been able to take those complexities and develop these goals, these targets, and to implement them and execute them. I know many of our colleagues here have said it's so complex.

Where do we start? How do we establish these goals in different regions and in different ministries? Would you not agree that you have so far been successful in developing this, and it's really a case of just getting on with it and doing it?

[Prof. Günther Bachmann]

Yes, I could only agree with this. I think we did a job here that helps Germany. It provides prosperity and wealth options for German society, and that is what really sells. When we started this in 2001, politicians from all parties said they didn't like the idea of quantified targets and timetables. That would imprison them, and they do not like to have their hands bound. We have to overcome this argument by good practice and by taking the first step. It's all about doing it instead of reasoning about complexity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much. It has been an excellent session, and there's never enough time to delve into something as broad and as important as this in just the two hours that we get to do it with you. We really appreciate the time that you've taken to share your experiences with us and to help us see the path forward as we struggle with this act and how we may make it work. I don't want to go through all the important things that you've said, but there's a tremendous amount here for us to digest and consider.

As I always say to all of our witnesses, you heard the line of questioning. We would love to have a copy of your deposition. We would love to have anything more that you think we should know, based on the line of questioning. There were a lot of great answers there. If we can have those put down, and if as you put them down you think of something else, share it with us. We are very interested in what you have to tell us about this subject.

Thanks again for sharing your time and for being here with us today.

Before the committee closes, we have one more point of action, but I do want to let the rest of you go. We're just going to do very quick committee business.

Mr. Amos, go ahead.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to bring forward a notice of motion because I noted, as we all did, that the House of Commons passed an order on March 22, which designated the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, our committee, as a committee for the purposes of the section 343(1) review for CEPA. I wanted to make sure that our review, which we initiated on our own, and the review that has been referred to us by the environment minister, be brought together. The motion I would propose would read as follows, and I can send it around after, if that's convenient.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Just read it, and then send it to the clerk. She'll make sure that we get it on the record for consideration on Thursday.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

That's perfect.

What I propose is:

Pursuant to the order passed by the House of Commons on March 22, 2016 which designated the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (the Committee) as the committee for the purposes of section 343(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA, 1999), that pursuant to section 343(2) of CEPA, 1999, the Committee immediately undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of CEPA, 1999 and submit a report and recommendations within the authorized timeline and that all testimony, reports, recommendations, or any such document received pursuant to the study of CEPA, 1999 initiated by the Committee under Standing Order 108(2) be deemed to have been received as part of the statutory review.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much for tabling that. We'll get it to the clerk and get that out to everybody for discussion on Thursday in our committee business section.

That's the end of today's session. For those of us who are on the subcommittee, we'll be starting that shortly.

The meeting is adjourned.