Environment Committee on May 17th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you again.

We now have Mr. Moffet, Mr. Millar and Mr. Nevison. They are with us for a half-hour, for one round of questioning. Then we'll have a quick break to bring in the next panel, and we'll have 90 minutes, which, with witness statements, will give us two rounds.

Is it Mr. Albas who's kicking off this round?

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

I believe so, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead. You have five minutes.

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

Thank you. I may be splitting my time with MP McLeod or MP May, if I have some time left.

First of all, thank you to our witnesses for the work they do for the people of Canada.

The minister described the advisory committee in Bill C-12 in many different ways. One way he referred to it was as a ministerial panel.

It's my assumption that this ministerial panel is a separate body from what is proposed in Bill C-12, because they are being compensated from the department itself and not from the legislative authority in this bill. Is that the case?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that for Mr. Moffet?

[Douglas Nevison, Assistant Deputy Minister, Climate Change Branch, Department of the Environment]

Mr. Chair, I can take that question.

Thank you very much for the question, Member.

Currently, coming back to one of the questions that you posed to the minister, there's no funding for the net-zero advisory body in the main estimates for 2021-22. The funding was approved in the budget, but it is now going through the Treasury Board process. As a result, it will show up in future estimates.

In terms of the body itself, it is a voluntary group at this point in time, serving, as you said, at pleasure, on appointment by the minister. With the coming into force of Bill C-12, whenever that happens, the proposal would be that this would become a Governor in Council appointed body.

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

What does your department call this group right now, formally? What's its official name?

[Douglas Nevison]

We refer to it as the net-zero advisory body.

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

Okay, because the minister announced this in the House of Commons as being the advisory committee. Why are they two different things?

[Douglas Nevison]

We have a term of reference on the ECCC, Environment and Climate Change Canada, website, and it refers to the net-zero advisory body.

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

Okay. Could you please send us that? That would be most helpful to our work.

I'm interested in it, because the minister seems to have said that this advisory committee that Bill C-12 would create is the exact same thing as what he referred to as his ministerial panel.

Anyway, I'm shocked by that because when you make a statement in the House in regard to this, you would imagine that the government wouldn't be saying it's one thing when it's really another.

Could either you or Mr. Moffet please tell us about my question in regard to the workforce, workers' compensation, and the eligibility for this ministerial panel?

[Douglas Nevison]

Once the panel is stood up under a Governor in Council appointment, the employees will be deemed employees in the federal public administration, so they will be subject to other requirements under that particular stipulation.

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

All right. Thank you.

I'd like to pass the remainder of my time to MP May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you so much, Dan.

I want to ask these questions to John Moffet. There were a couple of points in the minister's testimony to us that reflected inconsistencies between—and I don't know that he's aware they're inconsistencies—what we agreed to do in Paris, and what he thinks we've agreed to do. I want to put them to you.

One is that we know from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change October 2018 special report on 1.5°C, that it is not true to say that if we get to net zero by 2050 we have held to 1.5°C. There's only one pathway that the IPCC identified that holds to 1.5°C, and it requires most of the heavy lifting to be done before 2030. Therefore, I also find it worrying that the minister and many Liberal MPs persistently say in the House that there's nothing that we agreed to in Paris that required that we work in five-year increments starting in 2025.

There is indeed in the Paris Agreement the commitment to 2023 being the first global stock-taking, and paragraph 24 of the COP 21 decision document said that Canada should have improved its target in 2020, and every five years thereafter.

How is it that the department has advised the minister that Bill C-12, with a first milestone year in 2030, is not completely inconsistent with what we agreed to do in Paris?

[John Moffet, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment]

We didn't advise the minister in the way you just described, so we're aware and I can assure you that the minister is aware, first of all, that the Paris Agreement contains commitments for parties to strengthen their NDCs over time, starting in the 2020s. The minister is also aware that there is not just one goal that needs to be achieved in order to achieve the desired outcome of avoiding a temperature increase greater than 1.5°C. He's fully aware of that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

My time is up. I'll just say that I cited the specific section, John. You know that it is specifically 2020, not in the 2020s, but I think I've run out of time and probably the chair's patience.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Not patience, but yes, you've run out of time.

Mr. Longfield will be splitting with Mr. Saini again, I believe.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

No, Mr. Bittle is up now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, Mr. Bittle, go ahead.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I appreciate that. Perhaps Mr. Longfield gave it to Mr. Saini, who is now giving it to me, so I'm happy to take the floor and make it as complicated as possible for you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that your patience wasn't completely undone and that there is some left over, but we know that you, as our caucus chair, have ample patience dealing with us and we appreciate it.

To the officials, to help us grasp the current environmental government accountability with regard to climate, could you explain, please, what climate reporting obligations currently exist at the federal level and give us a glimpse of the incoming reports?

[John Moffet]

Probably the easiest way to do that would be to reiterate the minister's commitment to share with the committee a table we've developed that identifies all of the reporting obligations that Canada has as a party to the UNFCCC. We provide regular reports to the UNFCCC both about past emissions performance and future projections disaggregated across the various sources that are specified under the UNFCCC.

We will be supplementing those obligations that already exist and that are already undertaken with obligations to set a target, to develop a plan, to issue progress reports and to issue assessment reports, and then, in addition to that work on the part of the government, to retain and respond to ongoing advice from the advisory committee and to have the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development conduct regular reviews of each period.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I think there is a point of order .

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Whenever Mr. Moffet speaks, the interpreter has difficulty hearing what he says.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

All right.

The microphone may be too close to his mouth.

Mr. Moffet, do you have a microphone?

[John Moffet]

I do. I was tested beforehand, but I'm happy to make adjustments if—