Evidence of meeting #34 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was transition.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:55 p.m.
The Clerk
They were all sent to the analysts for consideration for the panels.
2:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Of course I didn't see it, but I sent in a list of witnesses, and none of them is on the panel. I'll leave it to another time. I don't want to take precious time.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The committee decided on nine hours of witness hearings. Obviously the committee can always change its mind. If somebody has a motion, it will be up to them to present it. For now I think we'll have to proceed.
I guess we go straight to questions at this point, and that will leave a bit longer for the second panel, because we will have six witnesses now.
We start with Ms. McLeod. Is that correct?
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses.
Hopefully we will get a chance to hear from Mr. Heaps in the next panel, although it will then cut our opportunity for questioning a bit shorter.
I'm going to start with Mr. Wright.
I have spent the last five years on the indigenous affairs committee. I have spent very little time on this committee, but what is quite stunning to me is, first of all, that the officials indicated that there had been no dialogue with indigenous peoples in Canada prior to the tabling of this piece of legislation. If you look at the UN declaration, which the government says is a very important piece of legislation that it is moving forward, article 19 talks about the need to have those sorts of dialogues on issues that are important to indigenous peoples.
Does it surprise you that there was no formal consultation or conversation with Environment Canada? Is it appropriate, given the fact that the current government has said there's no relationship more important and that they're moving the UN declaration through? To me it talks symbolism, but it doesn't talk reality in terms of things that make a difference.
3 p.m.
Prof. David V. Wright
This is not an aspect that I anticipated speaking about today, but I welcome the question.
To be completely candid, I have not been tracking that aspect of the bill's development. I do recall the minister mentioning discussions with some of the representative indigenous bodies and organizations on Monday, to some degree, but I haven't been following that, so I can't say.
From a legal perspective, the case law is somewhat uneven, but it is relatively clear on the point that there's no duty to consult in the formulation of legislation. We're probably not in the realm of being offside of the law. However, as you say, commitments to implement the UN declaration go beyond what the current law requires in Canada. It's evolving and becoming law.
I would expect that as the bill's development and refinement move forward, and particularly as plans are then issued under the law, if it becomes law, there would be robust collaboration, co-operation and consultation with indigenous communities and representative indigenous organizations.
3 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
One of the areas we've had a lot of conversation about over our time here and with the witnesses we've had is the advisory committee. The net-zero advisory body has already been struck, but even today we're hearing some different perspectives in terms of whether it should it be a scientific body or a representative body.
It was unfortunate that the government did not wait to hear from the experts on what that should look like; it has just proceeded. As I have said, there are some very important people there who are very well thought of throughout Canada, but is it the right mix for what we need to move forward? Going to the indigenous piece, yes, some representation has been chosen, but there's nothing that compels the government to do so.
Do you have any comments on that general issue and indigenous people's participation in this kind of net-zero advisory group panel?
3 p.m.
Prof. David V. Wright
Yes. I have a couple of things.
I guess you have to start somewhere when it comes to putting together the institutional supports that this regime requires. It's not all that surprising that the minister put together this group, apparently on a volunteer basis, from what I understand, on Monday. If the bill becomes law, one would probably expect a more robust process and probably revisions to the terms of reference, and perhaps within that, some kind of competency matrix to make sure it does have the right makeup. Hopefully that will be based on some of the helpful input this committee has been receiving about the importance of diverse expert individuals and roles.
One option on that front, though, would be to look at some of the new provisions in the federal Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, which explicitly require a minimum of one indigenous person to serve on different advisory and expert bodies. That could be detailed at the statutory level, or it could be detailed at the below-statute level, in terms of reference or a similar instrument. That may be a recommendation this committee wants to consider. It may be a level of detail deeper than this statute goes, but it could be achieved, again, at the statute level or at the guidance and terms of reference level.
3 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Is there still some time, Mr. Chair? I know that yesterday I kept going when I shouldn't have.
3 p.m.
Liberal
3 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
My statement is that I am surprised at the distinct lack of any kind of formal process within Environment Canada for that indigenous inclusion, given its priority regarding relationships and the UN declaration.
3 p.m.
Liberal
3 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the witnesses.
Mr. Wright, I'd like to continue with you.
There are a few areas I'm concerned with as I'm reading the legislation. One in particular is the constitutional relationship we have with the provinces and territories. You mentioned in your testimony the balance between setting legislation that has achievable targets and not imposing targets directly on the provinces and territories in terms of numbers.
Could you expand on that a bit? You mentioned that you could add a bit of detail there.
3:05 p.m.
Prof. David V. Wright
Sure. At a general level, of course, there are jurisdictional constraints flowing from the Constitution with respect to how far the federal government can go. It has only so many constitutionally based levers to pull, and the present government has been using almost all levers available.
That does not get the country all the way to achieving the emissions reductions required. It will go a significant way, but not all the way, so there is no option other than to co-operate with provinces, and across provinces and territories.
The specific change I'd suggest to the bill is moving the permissive portion of subclause 10(3) up to the mandatory portion of subclause 10(1). To get away from the numbers and technical—
3:05 p.m.
Prof. David V. Wright
—it's basically making the information on the contributions of provinces and territories to emissions reductions a mandatory part of the plans required under clause 10. You could leave the rest permissive under subclause 10(3), although there is sensitive territory to cover there with respect to indigenous governments as well.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Great, thank you. That's very helpful. I see exactly what you're talking about there, and that will be helpful as we do clause-by-clause. That's why I said “refer to sections” beforehand, because we will be doing that in our next meetings.
Also, with regard to the advisory board, I've been involved with not-for-profits—I've helped set up boards—and conflict of interest is always a concern. Sometimes you write into the bylaws that you have to leave your business at the door, but even then, if you're representing your business on a board, you have to be very careful about conflict of interest and management of that.
On the composition of the “advisory body”, as it's being called in the legislation, how could you see us drawing from the skill sets that we need to draw from, particularly, let's say, on interprovincial relations with the federal government, but also as businesses?
We've had some lobbying organizations say, “Include me on the panel. I want to be on the panel.” How would we manage the conflicts?
3:05 p.m.
Prof. David V. Wright
It's easier said than done and the devil is always in the detail, to offer a few platitudes.
One option is to, first of all, make it explicit, so that there's legislative intent signalling that conflict of interest is a live issue that will be safeguarded against. Again, there is helpful language on that front in the recently amended Canadian Energy Regulator Act. Then it would be a matter of systems and practices to safeguard against that.
Disclosure can go a long way. As long as actual or perceived conflicts are disclosed and everyone consents to that—and that's sort of the price of admission, in this expert's view—then all can be above board and well.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Right. It's always the disclosure piece. I've had to do that many times myself.
When it comes to the Auditor General's office and the role of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, I also sit on the public accounts committee. Our clerk serves that committee too. We look at the action items coming from the audits as a very key part of the information we work with. The action items are in an early report that comes to Parliament, because that office reports to Parliament, not to government.
There is a governance piece there that I'd like to make sure we highlight in the legislation of the key role that audit team provides, including identifying action items when you're not meeting targets that you've been given through legislation.
3:10 p.m.
Prof. David V. Wright
The way this would likely work in the offices of the environment commissioner—and I'm speaking from my present vantage point, not my previous vantage point—is that these would likely be performance audits, so value-for-money audits, non-financial audits. Within that area of the commissioner's work, there are, as you say, recommendations issued.
The way to perhaps modify Bill C-12 to ensure you get the meaningful recommendations you're looking for—assuming everybody wants this to be as strong on the transparency and accountability front as possible—would mean including language closer to that in Bill C-215, proposed on February 24 by the Bloc Québécois, which tied it to actually achieving the emission reduction targets. The present language in clause 24 is relatively loose, and so there is some text to revisit and pluck, perhaps, from Bill C-215.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Well, the government has invested in that office to get some specialists in environmental audits, so that piece would be done. It's just the accountability and transparency that you're saying we need to strengthen.
Thank you. That's very helpful.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Longfield.
Will Ms. Michaud or Ms. Pauzé be speaking?
3:10 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chair, I'll take the floor.
First, I want to thank the witnesses for joining us this afternoon.
I'll turn to you first, Ms. Le Quéré.
You chair the High Council on Climate in France, you're a member of the Climate Change Committee in the United Kingdom and you've written IPCC reports. In my opinion, you're certainly one of the experts whom we should consult and listen to.
I've had the pleasure of hearing from you many times over the past few months. You also came to speak to us last March about the possibility of making the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development an independent officer of Parliament.
There doesn't seem to be any interest in this right now. My question is along these lines. The role of the commissioner is to look back and the role of the expert panel is to look forward. Ms. Le Quéré, what dangers do you foresee if the committee established in Bill C-12 remains as it stands and the commissioner doesn't change status to have the required independence? To what extent would progress be compromised?
3:10 p.m.
Professor, Climate Change Science, University of East Anglia, As an Individual
Thank you for your question, Ms. Pauzé.
In the bill, the monitoring of the measures implemented is quite weak. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development is responsible for this monitoring. The commissioner is asked to submit reports fairly infrequently, meaning every five years. There isn't any real reason to wait that long to follow up on the legislation, policies and measures in place so that adjustments can be made quite quickly.
Making the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development an independent officer of Parliament could give the commissioner more independence. He could, for example, choose his own technical team and organize his work more independently and thereby pay more attention to results than to expenses.
3:10 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Okay.
You were on a panel with Lord Deben, the chair of the United Kingdom Climate Change Committee. You also talked about cross-cutting issues and climate issues.
You spoke about the possibility of the advisory committee reporting to the commissioner, rather than the minister. Do you think that this would help to gradually introduce an approach that runs all government decisions through an analysis grid to meet environmental goals?
3:10 p.m.
Professor, Climate Change Science, University of East Anglia, As an Individual
Yes, absolutely.
In my opinion, the current design of the legislation makes the advisory group too close to the minister, and the independence isn't quite visible enough. It must be at arm's length. The distance isn't very visible. As a result, the advisory group is too close to the government and too far from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, who monitors policy.
These two positions, the one that looks back and the one that looks forward, should be brought together. In addition, they would need to be supported by a very strong analytical technical team that could analyze the reasons for past shortcomings in order to make projections and support the advisory committee. That way, past reports and future recommendations would play a much stronger role.