Environment Committee on March 8th, 2021

[Paul Fauteux]

I'm happy to have a first crack at that.

As Madame Le Quéré indicated, there is a great challenge ahead of Canada to basically reverse the current trend from emissions increase to emissions decrease. In that context, I think the contribution that could be made by an independent officer of Parliament who had a budget and ability to hire expert advice would be invaluable.

The constraints that are sadly imposed on the Auditor General are imposed as well on the commissioner. The Auditor General does not have a budget that allows her to do her work. Leaving the commissioner for the environment under the Auditor General ensures that the current insufficiency of resources that applies generally to the Auditor General continues to apply to the commissioner for the environment.

With the inability to hire sufficient staff, with the inability to carry out the appropriate audits and verifications, let alone the inability to make any policy recommendations on a go-forward basis, the commissioner is really not contributing much in terms of helping Canada in its challenge of meeting its international commitments to greenhouse gas emission reductions.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

I would love to hear from the other two witnesses. Is the adding of more staff essentially a solution, in your mind?

[Paul Fauteux]

Well, it's really part of the solution. First and foremost is independence: taking the commissioner for the environment out of the Auditor General's office, giving him autonomy, giving him the same kind of reporting relationship that the Auditor General has towards Parliament; that the Commissioner of Official Languages has towards Parliament; that the commissioner for public service integrity has. All of the other officers of Parliament report directly to Parliament. They have their own budgets, they have their own ability to hire staff, and they are thus better equipped to contribute to Parliament's work.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madame Le Quéré.

[Prof. Corinne Le Quéré]

It all hinges on the power that you want to give—and the protected power you want to give—to these people who protect the environment. At the moment, they don't have that power. It's really clear.

To meet climate objectives, Canadians have to invest tens of billions of dollars each year for the next 30 years. This is public and private investment. It's a huge challenge; it's a huge opportunity. It has to come with a governance that makes sense, given the challenge that is in front of us.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Lindgren, I don't know whether you want to weigh in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Do so very briefly, Mr. Lindgren.

You have about 30 seconds.

[Richard Lindgren]

Thank you.

While I would agree with everything my fellow panellists just said, I think it's borne out by the track record here in Ontario. The reason the environmental commissioner was so successful here is that he had an independent mandate, he could set his own priorities, he had his own budget, he could hire his own staff. That's why he garnered so much public support as he conducted himself under the EBR over the years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

I'd like to build on Mr. Albas' points, as well as Madame Pauzé's, concerning the independence and objectivity that comes with the Office of the Auditor General.

I'm vice-chair of the public accounts committee and have had many interactions with the Office of the Auditor General as well as with the commissioner of sustainability. In both cases, they're the scorekeepers. They're really almost divorced from policy but are asking what the result of the policy is. It's to keep those functions separated.

Mr. Lindgren, I think you were heading down the road of having some type of advisory body or some group that actually looks at the policy, vis-à-vis having those with the measuring sticks say whether policy is effective or not.

Could you comment on external bodies, such as the Impact Assessment Agency or others, that could advise government on policy and on having measurements come through the Office of the Auditor General?

[Richard Lindgren]

I think if you're referring to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, that's an implementation body that's independent but confined to the Impact Assessment Act implementation.

I'm not sure you get much policy analysis or review from that body.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

No, excuse me, I was saying like the Impact Assessment Agency, which is an independent organization.

[Richard Lindgren]

I had occasion to read the committee's transcripts from its November meeting in which the former interim environmental commissioner testified that really this was a policy decision back in 1995 to make the federal commissioner only an auditor, and subordinate to the Auditor General.

I would just simply say we've seen it run its course and maybe it's time to revisit that policy decision some 25 years later. Some things have worked but some things need to be improved, and as I say, based on the Ontario environmental commissioner experience, there is a role for policy advocacy that should be housed within an independent environmental commissioner at the federal level.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

When I was reading your testimony, I was thinking.... I'm from Ontario, and I actually knew both of the previous commissioners, in fact one of them ran against me in Guelph for a federal seat.

They did get into policy a lot, and I think to their detriment, when the provincial government really thought they were being addressed by them in terms of policy versus finding other ways to manage policy.

The danger of getting into politics is that one of the things as we're looking forward is 2050 goals, 2030 goals. We have to get through the changes in the political cycle through some type of an independent oversight, and I think that's what we're discussing today.

We will hear from the new commissioner and we will hear from the Auditor General. Both of them have said in the other committee that they like the structure, they like the way that they can work with the provinces and territories.

Maybe I could pivot onto provinces and territories with Mr. Fauteux on the New Zealand example, and whether there's some types of jurisdictional questions we have that they don't have.

[Paul Fauteux]

New Zealand is not a federal state as is Canada, but the mandate of the New Zealand Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, as I said, is very broad and it addresses local as well as central government. It makes recommendations to the Government of New Zealand but also to local councils, to private enterprise, to community associations, to Maori organizations, to the indigenous people of New Zealand.

They don't have federal-provincial dynamics but they nonetheless do have different orders of government and different groups in society to which the commissioner can provide advice—

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Have you looked at advisory councils—sorry to interrupt but I only have 30 seconds left—that include indigenous and include territories, as we would in Canada?

[Paul Fauteux]

I haven't looked at it specifically, but I do believe that the commissioner for the environment could in his, hopefully newly expanded role, do the kind of outreach that Madame Le Quéré was highlighting the importance of, which would include stakeholders across Canadian society. In other words, you wouldn't just be talking to Parliament, you'd be talking to Canadian society including—

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

And Canada is a very complex place as we all know.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

My question is for Ms. Le Quéré, Mr. Fauteux or Mr. Lindgren.

Earlier, Ms. Le Quéré painted a rather bleak picture of the situation. If Canada was to change nothing and maintain the status quo, what would happen to its image internationally?

[Prof. Corinne Le Quéré]

It is pretty clear that, by maintaining the current structure, Canada is not likely to achieve its 2030 objective. It already does not have a good reputation in terms of climate, so I don't think things will improve if it does nothing or does too little.

Bill C-12 is a good step, but it is not strong enough to overcome the challenges. This opportunity to strengthen the structure should be seized or at the very least considered seriously.

[Paul Fauteux]

I fully agree with Ms. Le Quéré, but allow me to add something. Of course, the decision to either keep the commissioner within the Office of the Auditor General or make him an officer of Parliament is not the most important element that will influence Canada's image internationally. What is important in this respect is to know whether or not we will achieve our targets. In fact, there is tremendous uncertainty regarding our ability to reach our current objective for 2030. As for the target planned for 2050, let's not even talk about it. So it is in the broader context of urgency of taking action for the climate that we should consider the place of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development within the organization.

I will use this opportunity to make a suggestion. As Mr. Lindgren was saying, things have been this way for 27 years, and it is not working very well. This could be an opportunity to give the commissioner a new title, as was done for the minister and the department six years ago. In other words, he could become the commissioner of the environment and climate change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Pauzé, you have 15 seconds left for a comment.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Perhaps Mr. Lindgren would like to add something.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Lindgren, be very quick, please.