Environment Committee on March 8th, 2021

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Okay—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Or did somebody say something? Was it Madame Le Quéré?

[Prof. Corinne Le Quéré]

Yes, I would just say some things that are missing include expertise and capacity to hire your own staff, the people you need to do your job, and there is no conflict in doing policy and also doing an examination of what's happening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I now give the floor to Ms. Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I would like to thank our guests, as well.

I also want to point out that the briefing notes prepared by the Library of Parliament researchers are very clear and provide a lot of information.

As we have seen, several discussions were held on the commissioner's powers and mandate from the position's creation, in 1993, to the events that occurred in 2007, which Mr. Fauteux reminded us of. Given the environmental issues that have been growing steadily for 20 years, I think it is fair to say that the commissioner should be able to act independently and objectively, in keeping with his role of environmental steward. Perhaps we should do away with the strict logic of auditing.

Ms. Le Quéré spoke at length about what happened in England and in France, which was very interesting. That said, I will seek Mr. Fauteux's opinion.

In your view, what should be the mandate of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development once he has become a high official of the Canadian Parliament?

[Paul Fauteux]

Thank you for the question, Ms. Pauzé.

The mandate should be very broad, given how much catching up Canada has to do after decades of climate inaction.

By the way, the first international climate conference was held in Toronto in 1988. So the Government of Canada should have taken action a long time ago. I think this inaction is a reason to give the commissioner a strengthened mandate.

I brought up the example of New Zealand. New Zealand's commissioner of the environment has a very broad mandate, and I recommend an equally broad mandate for our commissioner. That mandate includes the following elements: investigating any issue that could have or has had a negative impact on the environment; assessing the capacity, the performance and the effectiveness of the government's environmental management system; and providing advice and information that will help people maintain or improve the quality of the environment.

Under such a mandate, the Canadian commissioner could provide his advice on bills and recommend legislative amendments, as his New Zealand counterpart has been doing for a very long time.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I will stop you here, Mr. Fauteux, as I have only six minutes and would like to put a question to Ms. Le Quéré now.

We always say that a commissioner has a stewardship role. In this context, Ms. Le Quéré, I would like you to tell us about the principles of the commissioner's independence and objectivity and explain how they could be reconciled with his role of steward of the environment.

[Prof. Corinne Le Quéré]

The important thing is that recommendations be realistic and based on evidence, scientific or other. In my experience, it is also important to have an engagement with the stakeholders—the public and businesses—that will implement environmental protection measures.

When we say that independence is protected, that does not mean not talking to anyone. On the contrary, it means listening to all the stakeholders and, by then drawing on clear evidence, making recommendations that separate constraints from choices. At that point, it is up to the political decision maker to decide, but while taking into account the constraints that protect the environment and the objectives.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have about a minute left.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Very well.

I will come back to Mr. Fauteux.

The auditor general says there is a boundary between management and policy. However, that boundary seems rather porous to me, as the Auditor General Act leaves it to his discretion to determine where the boundary is.

Based on your observations and your knowledge, Mr. Fauteux, is that prerogative of the auditor general not exercised to the detriment of the commissioner's current independence, if there is such independence, of course?

[Paul Fauteux]

I will not comment on the way the auditor general does his job, especially in the exercise of his role of the commissioner's supervisor. I will rather say that experience shows that the commissioner would be much more effective and would contribute much better to that climate governance described by Professor Le Quéré if he was removed from the Office of the Auditor General and thereby freed from the constraints specific to auditing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I apologize, Ms. Pauzé, I misled you; you have another minute left.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I have another minute left? So I will continue.

I am coming back to Ms. Le Quéré.

In your document, you insist on climate action governance, which is necessary for Canada and which must inevitably be strengthened. We know that a legislative measure on the climate will be studied—Bill C-12.

Could you talk to us about the importance of having an independent commissioner of the environment? How will Canada benefit from reviewing the commissioner's role and powers through a bill such as the one on climate?

[Prof. Corinne Le Quéré]

When it comes to the auditing and monitoring of public policy, it is really important for the individual to have a direct and clear voice in Parliament. In addition, the government must have the obligation to respond to any recommendations or observations.

What is more, the commissioner should have a very broad independence enabling him to manage his own team, as well as his agenda. That would enable him to issue more specific, more useful and more orderly recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Collins, go ahead.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much.

Just to start I want to thank all three witnesses. From what I heard in your comments so far, when it comes to this debate between purely auditing and a more expanded mandate that would review the merits of government policy, all three of you seem to be very much on the side that this role needs to be broadened. One of the pieces brought up by our Conservative colleagues, and potentially a concern from our Liberal colleague as well, was just about whether or not this is justifiable within the framework of our Canadian democracy.

Now, it's the duty of the language commissioner to protect the language rights of Canadians. We already have these kinds of structures and independent officers who are doing more this reviewing of the merits of the government policy work. One of the pieces is around looking backwards. That's the auditing function. The other is looking forward.

I was wondering if we could start with Mr. Lindgren talking a little bit about that function of looking forward.

[Richard Lindgren]

I think that was one of the major strengths of the environmental commissioner here in Ontario. Again, you're not just looking backwards or retrospectively. You're trying to identify where we need to go. For example, in 2009, the environmental commissioner was given the additional duty, by the legislature, to review and report upon energy conservation, climate change, mitigation, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, etc. Armed with that new mandate, I think the environmental commissioner did a great job in identifying the types of policies, programs, etc., that need to be in place if we're serious about addressing, mitigating or adapting to climate change. That's a good, positive example of where putting that kind of mandate into law really resulted in some excellent work on behalf of the environmental commissioner, in terms of bringing not only the government, but also the public along in terms of the things that need to be done.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Fauteux, could you either expand on that or talk a bit more about how the work the commissioner would differ if they were to become this independent officer of Parliament?

[Paul Fauteux]

I might point again to the example of New Zealand, which I think has a lot of interesting lessons for Canada. Madam Pauzé referred to Bill C-12, which would be Canada's first climate law. New Zealand has had such a law in place for a number of years. It was initially recommended by their commissioner for the environment. I think that's an excellent example of proactive policy advice. This was not policy-making, obviously. This was from the point of view of an independent officer of Parliament, with his own dedicated budget, with his own ability to set his agenda and hire expert staff and make expert recommendations. Certainly, New Zealand parliamentarians seemed to think this was very valuable input to their debates in the adoption of that law.

More recently, the commissioner for the environment in New Zealand has recommended amendments to the law. It's been in place for a number of years, and therefore there has been some experience gained. He has evaluated the experience gained in the first few years of implementation and made recommendations accordingly. I think the parliamentary debate is all the richer for it.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much.

Madame Le Quéré, we've heard that there was a specialized group, called the commissioner's group, that supported the work of the environment commissioner. We've heard concerns about the resources that group had and that it had effectively been disbanded. You spoke a little bit about the real importance of [Technical difficulty—Editor] people with specific expertise integral to the commissioner's work.

I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit more about that and if you've heard anything about the Canadian context and the lack of resources and skilled folks.

[Prof. Corinne Le Quéré]

Yes, indeed, resources and experts are critical. If you want to guarantee that your climate objectives are met, you need to do a trajectory scenario or at least an assessment of what the options are. For this, you need people who know what they're doing in terms of their resources. I mean, the U.K. Climate Change Committee has 24 full-time staff who do that. That's a substantial team. These are people who have been selected specially for doing this task. It is their main job.

Yes, to my understanding, the office of the commissioner now does not have nearly that amount of people, and the expertise is not specific to what is required for examining the environment.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much.

Mr. Lindgren or Mr. Fauteux, this is the same kind of question. Would you agree that in assessing environmental risk and doing this kind of more expanded mandate we need a unique blend of scientific, technological and economic policy expertise? To your knowledge, does the current office have that expertise and the specialized skill sets to do this work?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're out of time. Perhaps Mr. Fauteux or Mr. Lindgren would like to answer that at some other opportunity.

Mr. Jeneroux, you have five minutes.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To the witnesses, thank you for being here.

Before I get to my questions, I want to address a comment that was made by Ms. Saks. She said she's certainly not a Conservative.

I welcome you to consider it at any point in time, Ms. Saks. We're a friendly bunch over here. Don't write it off so early into your parliamentary career.

To the witnesses, help me out here a little bit. I've been listening along and trying to see the worthiness of expanding this role.

Mr. Fauteux, I heard you say, well, New Zealand's done it. There's the ability to hire staff, evaluate efficiency, give advice on bills and amendments, and make more specific recommendations.

Following up on some of Ms. Collins's comments, looking into the future, I guess, how would an expanded environment commissioner role, under under Bill C-12, make a difference in terms of the role that exists today?