Environment Committee on May 17th, 2021

[Dr. Claudel Pétrin-Desrosiers]

There are three. I will go through them quickly.

The first is to set an objective and to report on the progress made by 2025. This is because 2030 is much too late to decide on an action plan. We have to see the progress that has been made much earlier, and 2025 is a good target.

The second suggestion is that the advisory body as such be made up of independent scientists. This would ideally include health experts, because of all the evidence showing the links between health and climate. That committee must have the resources it needs to really do its analysis work and to be accountable to Parliament and Canadians as a whole.

Finally, the bill must be genuinely aligned with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Dr. Pétrin-Desrosiers.

As I listen to you and Dr. Howard, I was wondering whether there would be doctors on the committee.

My next question goes to Mr. Gage.

I will not be commenting on heads of hair, Mr. Gage, but you were very harsh in your assessment of Bill C-12. Do you believe that the environment commissioner has a role? In my opinion, it's more a cosmetic role than anything else.

Do you believe that the bill should provide for some collaboration between the commissioner and the advisory body?

If so, can you give us an idea of what that collaboration could be?

[Andrew Gage]

I understand you to be asking whether the advisory body really should have legal status, which I think it absolutely should. It should have a clearer role in actually doing some of that evaluation of government progress on the bill, as is the case in the U.K. act.

The commissioner's role, as written, is on auditing essentially the implementation of the plan. Taken broadly, that's probably helpful, but the key question is not just “Are we implementing what we said we'd do?”, but “Are we achieving the results that are necessary to get where we need to go?” The commissioner could have an expanded role to do that, but we certainly have been pressing for the advisory body to play that role.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Bachrach, you have the floor for two and a half.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gage and Mr. Andrews, I wonder if you could share your perspective on the discussion around the need for a 2025 milestone as part of Bill C-12.

[Alan Andrews]

Andrew, maybe I'll go first and hand it over to you.

A 2025 target would undoubtedly improve the bill and provide that more immediate accountability checkpoint. However, again I'd bring it back to the need for detail in plans, because if you think about it, the real key accountability checkpoint in the next few years will be that first plan prepared pursuant to the bill. It's absolutely critical that this plan charts a credible path to the steep emissions cuts we need to see by 2030, and to do that it needs to contain some of the detail that I've spoken about.

[Andrew Gage]

To add to that, it needs to also include very clear information on how we will make the cuts in the next five years, before the 2025 target.

I don't think there's any doubt that we would prefer to see a 2025 target, but we also think if the government is resisting that, clearly it can be achieved through the types of details in the plans and clear accountability reporting at an early date.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Under Bill C-12 as it's currently written, if the government is not on track to achieve its milestones and we understand that prior to hitting the milestone because of the reporting measures, does the bill currently require the minister to take corrective measures that get the government back on track towards meeting that target?

[Alan Andrews]

This is one of the features of the bill that perhaps hasn't received as much attention as it should. It's actually quite a positive provision and would require this kind of advanced warning mechanism. If we see that there is a risk and a target's going to be missed, there's a requirement on the minister to take that corrective action.

Unfortunately, as drafted, the provision is a little weak, but again, with some very simple amendments, that language can be strengthened so there's a clearer and firmer obligation on the minister to come forward with those corrective measures.

[Andrew Gage]

One concern related to that is that the progress reports currently happen only once during each plan's mandate and just before the end of the mandate, so it doesn't provide as much time to correct the course.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Albas, you have five minutes.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for making time for committee, and I appreciate your expertise and your sharing it with us and all Canadians.

First of all, I'd like to start with the Cattlemen's Association.

I've read a book called The Tyranny of Metrics. Sometimes, if you only focus on certain numbers, you get certain results, but you're blind to other things. One thing you mentioned in the grasslands video was the importance of natural sequestration.

As the targets in the bill, specifically the net-zero target, referred to anthropogenic emissions and reductions, there doesn't seem to be any mechanism for collecting and reporting on non-anthropogenic emissions and sequestration. Would adding that to the report so that Canadians can see the entire emissions picture be something that we, as a committee, should consider in C-12?

[Fawn Jackson]

We would absolutely support holistic policy analysis with full data, because when you get really tunnel focused in one direction, you can lose the forest for the trees—or perhaps the grass for the grasslands is a better example here. We think that it's very important .

I would also like to say that I think all of agriculture offers really amazing nature-based solutions, so whether you're looking at crops or livestock, I think that the sector should really be looked at as a key sector for both economic growth and the environmental outcomes that we're looking for.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

COP 26 is going to be focusing largely on nature-based climate solutions.

Mr. Gage, from West Coast Environmental Law, do you agree that there should be something in C-12 that has reporting on the non-anthropogenic emissions and sequestration in Canada so that the public at large has a better picture?

[Andrew Gage]

Certainly, sequestration is hugely important, obviously, and carbon sinks are absolutely critical. I think that, if that's something the committee wants to add to the bill, that could potentially make sense.

I would caution against rolling it into the existing planning and reporting structures without careful consideration, simply because right now the structure of the bill is that it sets a target. It plans to achieve that target and implements measures to do that, and it reports on that. It would be a significant restructure. I think it would make more sense to have a separate requirement for a report on carbon sinks, rather than trying to roll it into that process, but in principle it seems like a good idea.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you for that.

Under another area, under subclause 15(2) of the bill, the minister can include other information when he's giving these reports. He mentioned in his own testimony today that Canada is not a unitary state, and obviously provinces and territories should be respected.

I find that interesting because he doesn't find time to talk to them about tripling his carbon tax, but then suddenly says that it's good to have collaboration. I think collaboration should be from the start.

Do you think that adding a provision in the bill so that there is a summary of provincial efforts on achieving our net zero or our Paris national objectives.... What do you think about including a provincial summary of actions?

[Andrew Gage]

One of our recommendations is that a summary of the provincial actions the government is relying on to achieve the milestone target be included in the plans, along with the modelling associated with that. An assessment report would presumably also—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I would like to ask the Cattlemen's Association.... I believe most of your members are provincially regulated. In my province, for example, most of them are grazing on Crown lands.

[Fawn Jackson]

Coordination across the provinces with the federal government, whether it's through this, offset protocols or I suppose any other initiative on climate change, is going to be extremely important to making sure we get that right. If it's too confusing, that's when we run into not being able to achieve the goals we want to achieve.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

A lot of people ask me about the state of Canada's electrical grid because, and I think this is partly due to Madame Pauzé's motion and subsequent study on electric vehicles, many people want to know where all of our power will be coming from.

Mr. Gage, recognizing that this is under provincial regulation, do you believe that perhaps there should also be something summarizing the state of Canada's electrical grid? I still think giving a summary on the state of our electrical grid would be important, as we see transportation electrification being a principal focus for many of the actions of the government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Very briefly, please.

[Andrew Gage]

Of course, the federal government plays a role in interprovincial grid aspects, and it may well be something that the government might choose to include in its plans during the reporting on the strategies it's using.

There's a lot we would like to see in the plan. I'm not sure whether that reaches the level of something we would totally require to be included, but I'm not opposed to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks very much.

Last but not least, we'll go to Ms. Saks.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses who've joined us today. It's been a very fulsome conversation.

I'd like to touch a little on my colleague Mr. Albas's comments about the provincial and federal relationship. I'm an apples-to-apples kind of gal. The U.K. has been bandied about a lot, whether it's hitting the mark on the model there or not, but the U.K. is largely a unitary state. It doesn't have a constitutional framework like we do with sections 91 and 92 of the 1867 act. Does the U.K. have to work with other levels of government the way we do in terms of our federal-provincial relationship?

We'll start there. Mr. Andrews or Mr. Gage could answer.

[Alan Andrews]

As the resident Brit—and being half Scottish—I should probably take a first crack at that.

Obviously, yes, Britain doesn't have quite the complex federal system that Canada has, but it's not exactly simple, constitutionally, as you might have gathered from watching the news in recent years. Environmental issues are a devolved issue. The U.K. government has to negotiate and co-operate with the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

There are other examples of more complex constitutional arrangements that have effective climate legislation. Germany is another example of a federal system—